Rich people in NYC are different than rich people anywhere else

The Times "trend" pieces involving Manhattan are always pretty unique to Manhattan, but there have been some doozies lately.

They buy weekend homes in a different neighborhood:

They own a 6,500 square foot duplex penthouse, but buy an additional unit in the same building to, "get away" or to write, or paint:

And, they convert a former 200 bed nursing home into a 10 unit condo, featuring "mansions":

 

A 1,000-square-foot loft just so he can dabble at writing a book!?!

Man, I thought my 10x12 workshop in the backyard was extravagant when we built it.

 

Yeah, and he already has a 6,500 square foot duplex.

 

I can't remember who wrote it but a post on Gawker a while back summed it up perfectly. With a lot of their lifestyle coverage, the Times aims for two audiences. The first is the hyper-rich. And the second who love to be enraged by articles directed towards the hyper-rich (but with their tone implying that pretty much anyone can afford a pied-a-terre in Tribeca.)

 

AKA The thread in which YF and the 'tart attempt role reversal


It's their money. They're not hurting anybody by doing this. Why shouldn't they buy more apartments?

 

See, I'm not offended. I kind of think it's awesome really.

I just think it's funny how the Times writes about it like it's the most normal thing in the world.

 

Why do they have to make up excuses like art studios and such when it's clear as day that the real reason is so both sides can fuck outside the marriage more easily?

 

I'm not sure that's what's going on here:

 

Oh no. That lady gets it on the regular. She's been fucked blind, that's why she needs the glasses.

Those folks are the inspiration for the movie "Unfaithful."

 

If the writers and editors found these things normal, they wouldn't write about them.