Rich people who don't deserve their money

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Varitek

Blue Crack Addict
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
16,861
Location
on borderland we run
I have bolded all the parts that made me puke for your skimming pleasure.

Second Homes Within the City Sprout Uptown and Downtown

BY AMANDA GORDON - Staff Reporter of the Sun
August 2, 2007
URL: http://www.nysun.com/article/59646

Robert Cochran, 57, and his wife, Suzanne, 58, have lived in their five-bedroom apartment at 1000 Park Ave. for 17 years. It's where they've raised three children and it is full of memories — and room for their children's friends to crash when they have summer internships.

This summer, as has been their custom for six years, the family spends weekends in Wainscott, N.Y.

The routine is about to change. Yesterday, Mrs. Cochran was back in the city scouting out fabrics at Donghia for a third home: a 5,200-square-foot loft at 145 Hudson St. in TriBeCa, which they purchased six months ago.

The wealthy have always been something of a rare breed in the city, but there's a new, even rarer breed emerging: couples who live in elite neighborhoods uptown and are establishing second homes for retreat and fabulousness in the bohemian, chic, and fashionable neighborhoods downtown. Factors driving the trend include the improving quality of real estate downtown, the increasing amount of money couples are earning that must be invested in diverse assets, and the increasing complexity of New Yorkers' lives. My note: hmm, wonder why their lives are so complex...on top of daily decisions including which 5 star restaurant to eat at, which vintage wine to order, and which $600 designer dress to wear, they now have to decide which Manhattan apartment to sleep in.

"I do hear about this," a vice president at Brown Harris Stevens, Paddington Zwigard, said. "The people doing this are older couples who don't necessarily want to give up their places uptown. But they want a place downtown because there's a fun vibe."

One advantage over a home in the Hamptons or Aspen, Colo.: a shorter commute. Mrs. Cochran does it by foot and subway, taking the no. 4 train to City Hall from 86th Street and walking west. She said it takes her about 30 minutes.

The Cochrans plan to use their loft to throw parties and display the kind of big pieces of contemporary art that until now they've held off purchasing because their residences weren't suited to it. So far they're acquired a light piece by Leo Villareal and a family portrait in chocolate syrup by Vik Muniz. Let the jokes begin. There's some pretty good ones up on Gawker where I got the link from. This part confused my body, i didn't know whether to puke or laugh.

"It's a complete extravagance. But it's also an investment," Mrs. Cochran said. "My son Robby said, ‘Look, if you have the money, why not put it into something you can see and use?' I said, ‘You are so right.'"

The idea to become second-home owners in their own city came to the Cochrans after going to a holiday party last December at an artist's home on Lexington and 19th Street.

"We were the only Upper East Side people there," Mrs. Cochran recalled from the living room of her uptown home. "It was all these artists and it was so cool. Bob said, ‘We should think of getting a place downtown.'"

Mrs. Cochran, who describes herself as a real estate junkie, started looking January 5 and closed on the first place she saw.

Mr. Cochran is chief executive of Financial Security Assurance Holdings Ltd. and Mrs. Cochran is a stay-at-home mother and fund-raiser for such institutions as the Central Park Conservancy and the Whitney Museum of Art. She does have concerns about the new housing arrangement. "I can see it being a confusion of where your stuff is and what are you doing. Ultimately, having two places in Manhattan is insanity," she said. Again with those curiously complex lives of the rich and spoiled...

Nevertheless, they are designing and building their new place as if they are going to live there. The theme of the apartment is industrial, inspired by the building's past life as a paper plant. "It's going to be a totally different look from our uptown apartment. It's going to be machine age, industrial, and modern, but not glitzy or slick. We don't want any slickness," she said.

Their Park Avenue apartment has a very compartmentalized floor plan, with views of buildings across the street. Their new place has an open plan with wide banks of windows providing sweeping views of the Hudson River and the cityscape.

Facing south will be a pool table, a piano, a living room, and a dining room, divided by large columns. The floors will be concrete with hardwood accents.

The kitchen will be enclosed, as will Mr. Cochran's office, the master bedroom, the exercise room, the guest bedroom, and the media room. Stephen Wang is the architect and Tim McDonald the designer, with construction slated to be complete by Thanksgiving.

The Cochrans can't see giving up their uptown home at the moment. Their plan is to keep that place for at least another five years, which is when their youngest son, Robby, entering his senior year at the Trinity School, would be finishing college. "We're not sure if we're downtown people," Mrs. Cochran said. I wish I could audition every new neighborhood I might want to live in by buying property there.

The children are excited about the place. Their daughter Lauren, who just started her first job after college, wants to have her 22nd birthday party there. Why the hell did she bother to get a job?

As for parental entertaining: The Cochrans already threw a "party in the raw" on May 18, to show off the space before construction. Mrs. Cochran plans to host a Christmas party there and a party for the Playground Partners, a group of the Central Park Conservancy.

At their May 18 party, the Cochrans got to see the space at night for the first time. b]"It was magical. [It's like you're in a city on a cloud."[/b]

The interior designer Thad Hayes said one of the projects that gave him the most fun of his career was the one-bedroom apartment on the top floor of a pre-war building in the West Village he designed for long-time clients who still live primarily at their East End Avenue home. He completed the project in June.

The apartment is tiny but has charming details: a terrace and a fireplace. His assignment: to design a getaway just for the two of them, a serene retreat, not to be visited by children, guests, or pets.

Their daughter is a regular at Beatrice Inn these days, but she doesn't get to stay there," Mr. Hayes said.

"They're just so busy. They have people all around them uptown," Mr. Hayes said. "This is a place they can go to and be like normal people. It is forced relaxation for them." Right, that's exactly how all us normal po' folks live.

So far, the couple has spent only one evening in the apartment. They went out to a play uptown then hopped a cab downtown for dinner at Pastis. In the morning they went out for breakfast at a café.

When Mr. Hayes called his client to see how the evening went, he learned of a slight wrinkle in the couple's fun. The low-to-the-ground 1950s bed he had selected caused some pain. "I called my client that day, and she said she'd almost broken her back making the bed. Uptown, someone makes the bed for her." I don't even have anything snarky to say to this. I'm speechless.

Examples of the two-homes-on-one-island trend are still few and far between. Some uptown residents establish a toehold downtown by having offices there. The fund-raiser turned fashion designer Lisa Perry initially rented her loft in SoHo as an artist's studio and place to show art and have parties.

An executive vice president at Prudential Douglas Elliman, Leonard Steinberg, conjectured that most people doing this kind of thing want to keep it under wraps.

"I'd imagine their plan for usage would involve something they want to keep quiet," Mr. Steinberg said.

He has had "absolutely no one who has ever bought a downtown pad for the fun of it," he said. But having sold apartments downtown to dozens of clients who were moving from uptown, he said he understands the appeal.

"They don't want to be dressing in cashmere sweater sets in the lobby and be coiffed all the time, they want a laid back attitude," Mr. Steinberg said.

The creative director of Domino, Sara Costello, who lives in the West Village, said, "The idea of buying a second home in downtown New York City is unconventional, certainly, but if you are made of cash, then why not? However, I might suggest springing for a weekend at any hotel downtown in lieu of a down payment." While she doesn't dismiss the trend completely, she did note, "If you are inclined to think downtown Manhattan is some kind of vacation, you probably need to get out of the city."

The only sane part of the article is the very last quote.
 
Somehow I can't see this type of behaviour being chastised too much on this forum. :shrug:
 
Honestly I don't see the problem...if they wanna spend their money to buy two places then so be it :shrug: I do think it's a little strange to have two places in the same city, but whatever. What's wrong with it?

And maybe she [the daughter Lauren] got a job because she wants to have her own life and not be dependent on her family's wealth? Just a thought.
 
No, I'm not really knocking on the daughter, I understand wanting to do something with your life.

And I understand that real estate and maybe art (though probably not chocolate syrup paintings) is a good investment.

But it's just so ridiculously extravagant as to be beyond the realm of my imagination. Second homes are one thing if they are in a location that is either very geographically different than the primary home/a good vacation spot, or if they are in a place the owner often travels to for work. But 60 blocks south of your other residence? It's just ridiculous.
 
I sort of have to agree. Man, if you bust your ass, and can afford a 2nd home, then you should do it...I'd do it if I could, I'd LOVE some sort of weekend lake house or something akin to that. But, yeah, to buy a 2nd home in fucking Manhattan seems a bit ridiculous. But, it also seems relatively harmless, so I'm not gonna lose any sleep over it.
 
I don't really see the big deal. It's their money, let them do what they want with it.
 
I don't care if they have 2 or 22 houses in Manhattan. But that the woman nearly threw out her back making the bed - bitch, please.
 
Got Philk? said:
For me, it's just jealousy...I just don't think a teacher's salary is gonna get me 2 houses. :hmm:

Oh yeah, there's a good deal of jealousy on my part too, non profit work isn't exactly lucrative.

As with anitram, it was the bed making that got to me most. The rest of it was kind of amusing sociologically, again partially because that will never be my world. The chocolate syrup painting is still making me giggle, though. A loft that size in that neighborhood must have cost upwards of 2 million dollars and they hung up a chocolate syrup portrait that seems like something a park artist would hassle you into posing for.....
 
Varitek said:


I can't tell if you're mocking me...

I am NOT mocking you. :hug: I really do agree. The only reason I didn't say more is because I feel so strongly about this subject, and they do make me SO sick that I was afraid I'd go into a long rant that might get me jumped on and I didn't really feel like dealing with it. But I'm serious, they do make me sick. The whole idea of one couple having that much money to waste while others starve or can't pay their light bill makes me hate the world. See, I told you I'd go into a rant.
 
what the hell are they supposed to do? go around handing out 100 dollar bills like snickers bars on the corner?

the whole "rich people are so stuck up with all their extravagent cars, jets, mansions, hoes, pimps, designer clothing, beach houses, mountain houses" notion is kind of silly.

it's their hard earned (or their parents) hard earned money for the most part.

If you had 100 million dollars or some extraordinary amount of money, are you telling me you would really live like an average joe, and pay OTHER peoples (strangers, whom you know nothing of their personal or moral character about) electric bill? car bill? insurance bill?

just because they are rich doesn't leave them in poor moral standing because they buy extra, albeit expensive, goods. it's their money. and who is to say that they don't donate money to charity or church?
 
Butterscotch said:

and then when you give one to somebody who is 100% underserving of it; is a crack dealer who supplies drugs to children in the streets or alcohol in the streets and give your last 100 dollars to a prostitute or somebody when you have the next person in line deserving but you're out; how does that make said person that's left out feel? how do you feel knowing your money went to places where it doesn't belong? how do you know if your 100 dollars went towards drugs or electricity? sure you can pay the bill for the poor person, but how do you know what the person will do with the money they save instead of paying the bill? you don't.

you can give away your money to a morally decrepid character if thats what you choose and if thats what you think is right, instead of rewarding yourself, your friends, your family for a lifelong achievement to obtain said money and donate quietly to charities.
 
Mountain Dew Ma -- you are being every bit as judgemental as Varitek and Butterscotch. :shrug:
 
im not being judgemental. im not saying the poor are drug dealers. im not saying the wealthy are or aren't.

i am saying that if you go around on a street corner giving out 100 dollar bills that you DONT know where that money goes and what it goes towards.

how is that being judgemental?
 
Mountain Dew Ma said:


you can give away your money to a morally decrepid character if thats what you choose and if thats what you think is right, instead of rewarding yourself, your friends, your family for a lifelong achievement to obtain said money and donate quietly to charities.

i agree with this...i mean there is absolutely nothing wrong with giving money to someone on the street who needs it. that is a good thing. But I don't think you should have to do that if you're rich. I think standing on the street corner handing out hundreds is a little ostentatious, frankly. "Oh I'm so rich I can just throw my money at you all!!"

Mainly though I think it's people's own business what they do with their money. I know if I were rich I'd be taking care of myself, family, and friends first. Does that make me selfish? Too bad.
 
no there isn't anything WRONG with giving away your money to people needing on the street.

isn't it more constructive to give the money to homeless shelters though, places where you can have the really needy people go and rehab themselves? get themselves in shape? get them off the streets? it's a less direct way of doing things but it makes much more fiscal and logical sense to do that than to merely throw money in peoples faces as you alluded to.

i just dont see the sense in giving away 100's or paying somebody's bills for them. it's great if you want to, but you're not doing anything extremely beneficial or motivational to the person. you're doing the opposite of motivating.

i know if people wanted to pay my car bill, my phone bill, etc., then i'd say hey ok now i don't need to work as hard! you might not say that, but i'm sure a good bit of people would.

is that what you want?
 
Mountain Dew Ma said:
no there isn't anything WRONG with giving away your money to people needing on the street.

isn't it more constructive to give the money to homeless shelters though, places where you can have the really needy people go and rehab themselves? get themselves in shape? get them off the streets? it's a less direct way of doing things but it makes much more fiscal and logical sense to do that than to merely throw money in peoples faces as you alluded to.


word on this brah
 
Mountain Dew Ma said:


and then when you give one to somebody who is 100% underserving of it; is a crack dealer who supplies drugs to children in the streets or alcohol in the streets and give your last 100 dollars to a prostitute or somebody when you have the next person in line deserving but you're out; how does that make said person that's left out feel? how do you feel knowing your money went to places where it doesn't belong? how do you know if your 100 dollars went towards drugs or electricity? sure you can pay the bill for the poor person, but how do you know what the person will do with the money they save instead of paying the bill? you don't.


I was saying that is something I would do, not that it would be the only way I'd use the money, of course I'd help friends family and charity. And how do you know that if you give the money to a charity that pays someone's light bill that they might use their light bill money to buy drugs? IMO someone buying drugs is a waste of money but so is throwing it away on extravagance that isn't needed.

you can give away your money to a morally decrepid character if thats what

So you're saying these people don't deserve any money because you don't like what they do with it? Isn't that the same thing I'm saying about the rich? Well plenty of millionaires are 'morally decrepit characters' too.

See, this is why I hesistated to answer this thread, I knew this would happen and I don't want to get in the middle of something messy. But I felt like I had to back up Varitek, a poster I very much agreed with and didn't like seeing them bashed.
 
You are every bit as morally decrepit as those fabulously rich characters being complaining about in this thread. People in third world countries could live on your spare change on a daily basis. Every time you buy Starbucks coffee you could be feeding a whole family for a week. The internet that you are paying for right now? The computer you are using? All as superfluous as having a second Manhattan home, in my opinion. After all, you can live without the internet just fine.

I hate seeing people come down on the rich simply because they are rich. You know that if you ever came across extra money, even a little bit of it, those dollar signs light up in your eyes and you can buy that CD you've wanted, or a paid interference subscription, or anything that is just as superfluous as a second Manhattan home.
The amount is not what is at issue here. Compared to a Colombian farmer, you are a millionaire and yet you have done nothing to help them.
 
Butterscotch said:


I was saying that is something I would do, not that it would be the only way I'd use the money, of course I'd help friends family and charity. And how do you know that if you give the money to a charity that pays someone's light bill that they might use their light bill money to buy drugs? IMO someone buying drugs is a waste of money but so is throwing it away on extravagance that isn't needed.



So you're saying these people don't deserve any money because you don't like what they do with it? Isn't that the same thing I'm saying about the rich? Well plenty of millionaires are 'morally decrepit characters' too.

See, this is why I hesistated to answer this thread, I knew this would happen and I don't want to get in the middle of something messy. But I felt like I had to back up Varitek, a poster I very much agreed with and didn't like seeing them bashed.

"they don't deserve any money"

tell me, lets say for the sake of argument that i'm making a million dollars a year after working my ass off in college, grad school, med school or whatever. what have they done to deserve my money?

so you admit that you might just fund drug money as well. how is that helping anything? I just dont see the point in helping vices and not helping people get their act together and get off the street. as i said, if you are going to pay my light bill, my insurance bill, my car bill, i am going to go into work and say hey robin - can you scale down my schedule a bit? I dont need to work as many hours anymore.

what is the point in that? where is the benefit?

what pla said is also 100% correct.
 
I don't criticize someone who has money for spending it however they choose. It may very well be extravagant, but who am I to say? I don't have the kind of money. I have no idea what I would really do with it if I did.

What does get me is when people with money feel the need to look down on everyone. You know, the ones who clearly think they are better because of it. Just because someone isn't loaded doesn't mean they don't work hard.
 
PlaTheGreat said:
You are every bit as morally decrepit as those fabulously rich characters being complaining about in this thread. People in third world countries could live on your spare change on a daily basis. Every time you buy Starbucks coffee you could be feeding a whole family for a week. The internet that you are paying for right now? The computer you are using? All as superfluous as having a second Manhattan home, in my opinion. After all, you can live without the internet just fine.

I hate seeing people come down on the rich simply because they are rich. You know that if you ever came across extra money, even a little bit of it, those dollar signs light up in your eyes and you can buy that CD you've wanted, or a paid interference subscription, or anything that is just as superfluous as a second Manhattan home.
The amount is not what is at issue here. Compared to a Colombian farmer, you are a millionaire and yet you have done nothing to help them.
I love you :heart:
 
Back
Top Bottom