« Tuesday Events Brooklyn, Queens Jonesing Hardest on Foreclosure Front »
September 18, 2007
Risky Business in Some Brooklyn Nabes?
This week New York magazine looks into its real estate crystal ball and sees all sorts of doom 'n' gloom on the horizon for Bed-Stuy, Bushwick and, to a lesser extent, Williamsburg and Greenpoint. Of all the neighborhoods profiled in the mag's Neighborhood Watch feature, in fact, Bed-Stuy and Bushwick are pegged the riskiest. (They receive a collective risk rating of 9 out of a possible 10.) According to the article, since the two areas are subprime hotbeds, there's a good chance inventory is going to be flooding their markets--an assessment that jibes with the downturn in sales Bed-Stuy recently posted. In Williamsburg and Greenpoint, meanwhile, the supply of new construction may be outstripping demand. One local broker says Burg prices have sunk by about 10 percent lately. The article also makes the case that properties in Greenpoint, and areas of Williamsburg not within a stone's throw of the Bedford L, are going to be less of a hot ticket as "creative types" find exotic mortgages harder to come by. These factors combine for a risk score of 7. (The rating for "established brownstone Brooklyn" is, unsurprisingly, a much rosier 2.5, based on the fact that areas like Brooklyn Heights and Park Slope attract affluent, stable buyers.) While Bed-Stuy and Bushwick are undoubtedly feeling more subprime fallout than other neighborhoods, it seems a little premature to predict that demand and prices in Williamsburg are about to take a serious nosedive. You agree with the pessimistic prognostications?
Neighborhood Watch [New York]
Big Slowdown Seen in Brooklyn's Poorest Zones [Brownstoner]
Photo of Bed-Stuy houses by GKJarvis.
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/2267
Comments
This again? And based on a "report" by New York magazine??
If they don't even acknowledge that there are wildly different things going on within the vast neighborhood of Bed-Stuy, I don't see why we should give it much credence.
Posted by: guest at September 18, 2007 9:16 AM
Creative financing is DEAD! Interest-only ARMS, 80/20 financing and other toxic mortgage products are no longer available. The days of easy lending are over and this will affect ALL neighborhoods.
ItsAWrap
Posted by: guest at September 18, 2007 9:16 AM
The New York article was utterly facile. Not only did it ignore vast stretches of the city's real estate market, it relied on a handful of statistics to make sweeping generalizations about the neighborhoods it did address. This may sell magazines, and may fuel all sorts of rhetoric about evidence for and against a housing bubble, but at the end of the day it has very little to do with hard fact or real journalism.
Posted by: guest at September 18, 2007 9:25 AM
At least in some of these nabes, the downturn probably has more to do with AY than with the subprime situation.
Posted by: guest at September 18, 2007 9:27 AM
This area is so large that you might as well as all off all of Brooklyn should be scared. Bedford Stuyvesant is already the large neighborhood in New York City and to add Buswick you are talking about most of Northern Brooklyn. Where in Bedford Stuyvesant is this downturn last I checked streets such as Jefferson, Hancock, Halsey, MacDonough Stuyvesant even Greene Ave the real estate was just fine...
Posted by: guest at September 18, 2007 9:45 AM
Didn't New York magazine just call Bed Stuy a "hipster haven" or something to that effect just a few weeks ago?
And we're talking about the same magazine that published the article "The Tipping of Jefferson Ave", right?
http://nymag.com/nymetro/realestate/neighborhoods/features/11775/
Besides, when I was shopping for a house last year it was the condo developers who were promoting "creative" financing so all the broker artist hipsters can pay $750K to live in a manhattan sized shoebox across the street from Diner.
NY Mag is scurrilous and will do anything to sell more magazines.
Maybe the Developer's Group is an advertiser?
Posted by: guest at September 18, 2007 9:50 AM
From a housing standpoint, I'm 100% happy with my decision to live in Bed Stuy. From an investment standpoint: what's life without alittle risk?
Posted by: guest at September 18, 2007 9:55 AM
I still can't believe NY Mag has the "Market Place Adult" section of the classifieds six pages after multi-million dollar real estate listings in the print edition...what is this the Village Voice?
Posted by: guest at September 18, 2007 9:56 AM
Could NY Mag be more wishy washy? Didn't they just say a week or 2 ago that the hipsters were movin in to the Stuy (an article posted on this site with many comments if i recall) and hail the beauty and wonder of Jefferson just earlier this summer? New York Mag-make up your mind---is Bed stuy the coolest hood in brooklyn with the best inventory of brownstones or a sub prime lender death trap? Has the guy that wrote the article ever strolled through Bed Stuy on a sunday?
Or looked at the demo for recent sales? I am not "a last resort" person and my friends (who are scourering the hood looking for a home) and neighbors aren't either--They are folks looking to buy themselves a little piece of history, get themselves a little more space, and aren't into the dubious new construction that is going on all over the city. They are people who have been renting in Manhattan at 3000-3500 a month or living in a crampped co-Op in park slope and are turned off by its upper west side-ification.
And do they really think that the folks buying "have, in short, stretched themselves to their absolute limits"? If they have they probably have not done very much research. The majority of my neighbors have been here for years---most of them are small time real estate moguls--the other portion are teachers, lawyers, and doctors. 50% of the brownstones on my street are undergoing renovation and restoration. And a good number of these folks have actually paid off their mortgages (like the guy we bought our place from) so much for the foreclosure. Of course, Bed Stuy is a big place and what is true on one street is not necessarily thecase on another. In addition, I am the first to say that corcoran's monthly escaltion of pricing these houses is outrageous---you can't go from 700K to 1.3 in one year--you can't sell one floor of a brownstone as a condo with an asking price of 450 in Bed stuy ---at least not before NY MAG hails the virtues of a flourishing restaurant row as The Foodie destination.
Posted by: HomeSweetstuy at September 18, 2007 10:00 AM
Kill the messenger, not the message.
That seems to be the theme of the day.
Posted by: guest at September 18, 2007 10:00 AM
Fa-Fa-Fooey!!
Posted by: guest at September 18, 2007 10:01 AM
Not that I fully agree with the article, but for those of us living in Williamsburg its plain to see the rampant over building taking place.
Between the huge complexes on the waterfront, the numerous developments around the park and the continued conversion/demo of industrial buildings, its pretty clear that in the short term, supply is going to out strip demand.
But does that translate to long term risk? Doubtful - Williamsburg is gentrified neighborhood with efficient (albeit crowded) subway access to Manhattan. Its likely that any investment in this area will pay off in the long term.
Posted by: guest at September 18, 2007 10:06 AM
In actuality, the article is not without some merit. Although it overgenralizes, it sticks to the last up 1st down school of thought but yet makes distinctions based on other criteria
Posted by: guest at September 18, 2007 10:09 AM
The article didn't surprise me-- and regarding Williamsburg in particular, that neighborhood apppeals to such a sliver of a fraction of New Yorkers, I can definitely see it becoming oversaturated with condos that no one wants...in addition, those condos stand in stark contrast to what the neighborhood seems to represent.
Posted by: guest at September 18, 2007 10:10 AM
You know who really fueled this sub prime business, it's not the couple making a combine 60k and wanting to buy a 400K house, it's the greedy over 100K brownstone lover wanting a million dollar home....
Posted by: guest at September 18, 2007 10:16 AM
I just brought in Stuyvesant Heights and most homes on my block are paid for many have been paid off years ago. Only about 6 houses have mortgages. Many people who have been in the 11216 zip have no dealing with the bank when it comes to there homes. I think NYmag needs to get its facts together...
Posted by: guest at September 18, 2007 10:27 AM
Actually, it's the bankers themselves that created this mess. Homes are NOT priced based upon cash value - ie like produce is at the grocery store. They are priced almost ECLUSIVELY on the monthly mortgage payment and the percentage of the income necessary to make those payments.
If you look back in time, you'd find that historically - people always spend 25-40% of their net income on housing. The only issue now is that with lower interest rates, you can have a more expensive home using the same income ratios. With non-traditional loans like interest only loans, which were popular in the 1920s, you can have an even higher price.
This has result in banks making a lot of money, and putting a lot of cash in the hands of sellers which then gets injected into the economy. This is why the government hasn't complained - this was necessary to avert economic collapse after the last asset bubble of the dot com era.
Posted by: guest at September 18, 2007 10:32 AM
This has nothing to do with the subprime crisis. It's all about Atlantic Yards.
ATLANTIC
YARDS
EFFECT
You'll see interest in these parts of Brooklyn continue to dwindle and values will continue to drop.
Posted by: guest at September 18, 2007 10:41 AM
It seems to me that NY Magazine's analysis of "risk factors" actually might make some sense for those who look at real estate as a SHORT TERM investment. For the rest of us, who actually LIVE in our houses [and who had the minimum of sense needed to not take out a mortgage on which they couldn't make the payments], this means relatively little.
Posted by: Bob Marvin at September 18, 2007 10:57 AM
10:27 fortunately you don't have to worry because you live in Stuyvesant Heights. It's those poor folks in Bed Stuy that need to be concerned...
Posted by: guest at September 18, 2007 10:58 AM
Yes, I agree with them. And I think Clinton Hill is in the Bed-Stuy category and not the BRooklyn Heights category
Posted by: guest at September 18, 2007 10:59 AM
We know BedStuyers....we hear it from you every time someone mentioned your neighbrohood.
It's perfect, it's Sesame Street, there's no crime and everyone owns their own homes. We get it.
Oh and btw, those said hipsters profiled in the mag a few weeks ago were NOT buying homes.
They were renting. And they won't be for long if crime goes up or rents are cheaper in other hoods like williamsburg or bushwick.
Posted by: guest at September 18, 2007 11:00 AM
The recent uptick in crime in both Bed Stuy and Clinton Hill are ruffling more than a few feathers, from what I've heard from friends living there...
Posted by: guest at September 18, 2007 11:02 AM
We can only hope that New York Magazine is right about G'point, as we like it the way it is. Keeps all those obnoxious hipster editors in their hovels in the East Village.
Posted by: guest at September 18, 2007 11:12 AM
As 9:25 and HomeSweetStuy have so eloquently said - Bulldinky! New York Magazine needs to stick to stories about 30 somethings who can't find dates on the Upper East Side, and hedge funders who can't manage to live comfortably on a million dollars per annum. I find their research to be limited in scope outside of their usual territory of Manhattan below 96th Street. When they do go to Bklyn, especially black and Latino Bklyn, they act like they've been parachuted into the Lost World, and they get all gosh,golly wide eyed and/or stupid.
The previous article they did on Jefferson Ave at least had some important facts that have an import to today's situation - many of the homeowners in BS have been there for generations, and are mortgage free. Not only mortgage free, but, as HSS said, mini-mogels. My old neighbors on Jefferson Ave not this block) consisted of at least 6 or 8 homeowners who owned at least 3 to 6 other houses besides the one they lived in. While the rest of the world was staying clear of BS, they were buying multiple homes for family and income. This is an old tradition in BS, and many of those people who are consistantly overlooked as all being poor, uneducated and stupid, are in fact doing quite well, thank you very much.
That's not to say that parts of BS and Bushwick aren't feeling the crunch. But as many people have said, BS is enormous, and can't be analysed as a monolithic whole. I have no problem predicting that most of BS, expecially along the Fulton St. corridor, Stuy Hts, and near Clinton Hill, will continue to show strong growth. There will not be many foreclosures there. If there is any downturn in sales, it's more because too many houses are "aggressively priced", translate - too expensive.
Posted by: Montrose Morris at September 18, 2007 11:16 AM
Throwing around the word "hipster" just has to stop. It covers every 20 something that doesn't work in finance or isn't a doctor without differentiating what people do for a living. So, please enough.
Regarding who is purchasing condos in Williamsburg, my experience as a condo owner in one of the bigger projects is that it is mostly 30 something couples or older. Of the 20 somethings, they tend to be more serious biz types who have high incomes for their age not "hipsters". Also, there are many many families buying in Williamsburg, and besides the many in my own complex, I meet tons more at the playgrounds who have bought a condo.
My prediction is that Williamsburg will be able to sell every new unit with no problem over the next 3 years for several reasons:
1) very little housing stock to purchase in the other gentrified neighborhoods until AY gets finished.
2) better location/faster commute especially for people who work in midtown
3) many people prefer new developments with great amenities over prewar that would need a lot of work (relevant if you don't have tons of money)
4) some people feel that the vibe / neighborhood restaurants, shops, etc.. just suits them better. my upstairs neighbor works as a graphic designer but is also represented by a local gallery for his paintings. my other neighbor is an attorney, but is also in a band that plays in the area. etc...
5) there are no ghettos/projects except for the really far south end of Williamsburg. the poorer, hispanic area is getting gentrified, and in general, Williamsburg is way safer and cleaner than some of the marginal areas in other parts of Brooklyn. alot of people are not interested in being pioneers. i did it about 7-8 years ago in Prospect Heights and the constant hassle was certainly not worth it and nothing I'd like to repeat.
6) the big news in this city for years is that families are staying in NYC, and they need somewhere to live, and these people want to OWN, not rent. alot of people just assume that they'll get married, have a kid and buy a house. emotionally, alot of people want to own rather than rent.
Posted by: guest at September 18, 2007 11:19 AM
THE HIPSTER DEBATE:
This is the same store as the hippes in the 60's and 70's. It was those people that first came and pioneered Park Slope and other neighborhoods in Manhattan and Brooklyn.
They made the neighborhoods that we all know and love LIVABLE for the rest of us today. Certainly wasn't the bankers, lawyers, etc.
"Hipsters" are doing the same thing now, first with Williamsburg, then Bushwick, etc etc etc.
Without this group of pioneering (granted in many cases, forced pioneering because of money) many of you would never be living in the neighborhoods you now live in.
Give a little credit where credit is due.
And I also hate the word hipster. It's asinine.
Posted by: guest at September 18, 2007 11:32 AM
Amen 11:32 AM!
Posted by: bren at September 18, 2007 11:39 AM
bren:
11:32 here. i always appreciate your posts in general. i've noticed you always have some great comments.
thanks.
Posted by: guest at September 18, 2007 11:48 AM
The golden rule of real estate = last up, first down. It's not personal.
Posted by: guest at September 18, 2007 11:54 AM
Montrose Morris, what you describe about Bed-Stuy is so true... I have multiple neighbors on my block that are middle class people who bought a house in Bed-Stuy in the 80s. And then they bought a second one, and a third one... They are teachers, bus drivers, etc, and today they are doing very well, they have a great place to live and a significant rental income. Those people are also the ones that have been a involved for a long time in the community board and block associations, and made Bed-Stuy a better place to live.
Posted by: guest at September 18, 2007 12:06 PM
On the north side of Lincoln, you're most likely to be knifed or stabbed. On the south side of Lincoln, your more likely to be shot.
Posted by: guest at September 18, 2007 12:07 PM
"You agree with the pessimistic prognostications?"
Yup. But not the optimistic ones. They say Park Slope is hedged by a mixed demographic (bankers, teachers, writers). That just seems like a contradiction to me. A mixed demographic would suggest diverse socio-economic conditions where many homeowners/renters(to support these high rents) might survive a recession and many might not. It was the teachers and writers that made the slope popular. But it was the bankers that bankrolled the appreciation. Take the banker's bonuses/jobs away and the the teachers/writers are supposed to support these gastrinomical home prices?
They go on to say that...
"The locals are also stable in another way: Though plenty of residents cashed out during the recent run-up, many more have been here a while, which means not everyone bought at the top."
They may not have bought at the top, but did they cash-out-refi at the top? Did they get caught up in the wealth effect?
Then...
"In other Brooklyn hot spots, Gallant says, quite a few recent buyers could soon “wake up and say, What was I thinking?” "
I'm betting that the category of recent buyers who ask themselves that question will span all nabes, even Brooklyn Heights.
I give Park Slope a "5" at best.
Posted by: guest at September 18, 2007 12:07 PM
I agree with you, 11:32. I only wish the word "pioneer" could disappear from the vocabulary.
It strongly implies that either they bravely went where no one had gone before, ala Star Trek, or that they plonked themselves down amidst native peoples, and took over, ala the history of this country.
Hmmm, might not be such a bad word after all. But it does suggest that those who were there before them don't matter, nor do their culture and traditions, and that is just too condescending and wrong.
Posted by: Montrose Morris at September 18, 2007 12:09 PM
As I'm looking to buy something in Greenpoint (after renting for 13 years), I'm really getting a kick out of this article.
/ G train FTW!
// Which message board is this again?
Posted by: deadnancy at September 18, 2007 12:13 PM
"Where in Bedford Stuyvesant is this downturn last I checked streets such as Jefferson, Hancock, Halsey, MacDonough Stuyvesant even Greene Ave the real estate was just fine..."
C'mon 9:45. We're talking about what's going to happen not what's already happened. Hence the risk ratings. In 2001 you would have said the same thing about speculated appreciation, "last time I checked, Bed Stuy still sucks...".
Posted by: guest at September 18, 2007 12:13 PM
"...what's life without alittle risk?"
Fabulous. But we're talking about a lot of risk.
Posted by: guest at September 18, 2007 12:18 PM
But most people, even on this board, buy a house 70% as a home - a place to put down roots, and raise a family, or be comfortable in your own space. 30% of thinking may be towards resale in the long distant future. It's not like trading Yahoo stock. If you are flipping houses, or looking to move up and out in a couple of years, then maybe you will be disappointed in your investment, because that's all it is. But if you are buying a home, where you expect to live for a very long time, chances are you're not obsessively checking the market at every opportunity, and will weather out any small ups and downs.
Posted by: Montrose Morris at September 18, 2007 12:21 PM
12:06....While what you say is I'm sure true, you are not looking outside the box very well.
Many people in Bed Stuy might own multiple properties and own their homes outright, but MANY MANY people in Bed Stuy do not. They are the majority. Bed Stuy still has a median income hovering around 20K per year so please do not delude yourself into thinking that everyone around you is as well off as you are.
Posted by: guest at September 18, 2007 12:24 PM
test the what
Posted by: guest at September 18, 2007 12:24 PM
In Bed Stuy, it's so different from area to area within the large neighborhood to make a sweeping judgement of any kind about it. But so is Sunset Park and South Slope! Those neighborhoods exhibit this quality so dramatically. And yet everyone says it's okay to make the sweeping statement those areas are a fabulous place to live. Even if one street is skanky in South Slope, and the very next one can be lined with houses and be lovely. In Sunset Park, one block can have tenement apartment buildings and dudes hanging out front blasting music all hours of the day and night (I've seen it) and another block can be nice and quiet. But we never hear that portrayed honestly here. No, I don't live in Bed Stuy. I'm PLG's LM. As for our own neighborhood, there seem to be too many longtime homeowners (20 or more years, both white and black) for foreclosures to occur, so far. One thing to consider about Bed Stuy, or in any of the old-timer's neighborhoods there's a danger of descendents inheriting a house and take out big subprime loans in order to get quick cash. That might even be what happened in Bed Stuy, more than it being newer homeowners not making their mortgage payments. If that's the case, it shouldn't mean people won't keep buying houses in Bed Stuy.
Posted by: guest at September 18, 2007 12:26 PM
"In other Brooklyn hot spots, Gallant says, quite a few recent buyers could soon “wake up and say, What was I thinking?” "
These are the people who never should have bought homes in the first place, so they should get out of the market, in my opinion.
I think this is a ridiculous statement. I love Brooklyn and I love my home. If you tell me that tomorrow my place is worth 10% less than it was today, I absolutely would not care. This is my home.
Posted by: guest at September 18, 2007 12:26 PM
"For the rest of us, who actually LIVE in our houses [and who had the minimum of sense needed to not take out a mortgage on which they couldn't make the payments], this means relatively little."
Yup. Divorce, job loss and relocation are highly unlikely.
Posted by: guest at September 18, 2007 12:28 PM
I agree that it's unfair to call hipsters "pioneers" because it completely glazes over existing residents. Unless you want to sound like a conquering people, 'pioneer' probably isn't the right choice of words.
There are like a gazillion new units being constructed in Williamsburg, it is crazy! People actually think that all of these units are going to be sold? The only way prices won't continue to go down in Wburg condos is if more than a few of them switch to rentals...
Posted by: guest at September 18, 2007 12:29 PM
"Give me control of a Nation's money and I care not who makes the laws." - Mayer Amschel Bauer (Rothschild)
Good day to the clueless. I will let this statement sum up my feelings.
"Creative financing is DEAD! Interest-only ARMS, 80/20 financing and other toxic mortgage products are no longer available. The days of easy lending are over and this will affect ALL neighborhoods."
Amen Amen.
The What.
BTW The Fed meets today, hold on to you houses....
Posted by: guest at September 18, 2007 12:31 PM
Well it will be interesting to watch what happens. I think that Clinton Hill has topped off and is already in its price reductions. Recently there has been a lot of open houses, one being a block away from our place with a big price cut. I think the Clinton Hill Coops are going to see a major correction, as they are way too much for their worth at this point. The good brownstones should hold their value, but these are few and far between.
Between the Atlantic Yards development and the local schools I just can't see any further increase.
Posted by: gwbrubaker at September 18, 2007 12:32 PM
Ok, I take back "Pioneer"
Not sure the best word to describe it, but you all get my point.
How about...they aided in the rebirth of some once neglected neighborhoods...?
Posted by: guest at September 18, 2007 12:33 PM
Just an observation:
There's a real difference in Bed Stuy between the houses that are falling into foreclosure and those which aren't.
Foreclosure houses (in any neighborhood) are generally in extremely poor repair due to the insovency of the owners, whereas those who can afford their homes (many in Bed Stuy own them outright or are paying a miniscule mortgage) generally are taking good care of the houses.
So if you're able to afford your house, don't worry. Prices in Bed Stuy are NOT going to drop as low as they were 5-10 years ago, so relax.
Besides, NY Mag isn't exactly an authority on this sort of thing (they are NOTORIOUSLY behind the curve). Gotta wonder if the editors there live in Brooklyn Heights, Park Slope, Upper East, etc.
Kinda makes ya think, huh?
Posted by: guest at September 18, 2007 12:34 PM
i'm getting so sick and tired of people pitting neighborhoods against one another on this site. if bed stuy sucks, then why are so many people i know buying or looking to buy around here, western bed stuy (bedford/nostrand g area)? i'll tell you why...LONG TERM. our block has improved radically in the last year, and once atlantic yards goes up....forgetaboutit!!!!!!! ny magazine is a joke, written by 20something writers who have no idea...
Posted by: guest at September 18, 2007 12:34 PM
"The recent uptick in crime in both Bed Stuy and Clinton Hill are ruffling more than a few feathers, from what I've heard from friends living there..."
Yup. Million plus dollar homes and 'ghetto birds' just don't go together. I didn't hear the shots but I live right around the corner and was disturbed by the NYPD chopper hovering around my head.
Posted by: guest at September 18, 2007 12:35 PM
who cares about the word "pioneering"
the gentrification of williamsburg started with artists anyway, not hipsters.
anyway, anyone who thinks that in there will be a condo glut, is just simply wrong. NYC has a housing shortage and as stated above, many families are not leaving the city to go to the suburbs.
if prices fall or some condos go rental, it will be a short term - 2 years? - problem.
NYC needs housing....
Posted by: guest at September 18, 2007 12:37 PM
12:06 here... Of course there are a lot of poor people in Bed-Stuy, and yes I believe they represent the majority. But what many people don't realize is that there is also a solid core of long term middle class residents (at least in my area, Stuy-Heights and around) that have always provided stability to the area, even in the worst days of the 80s. Many people on this board describe Bed-Stuy as a clash between a poor uneducated black majority, and a small minority of wealthy and educated white new residents. That is an oversimplification, Bed-Stuy is more diverse than than, in terms of socioeconomic and ethnic groups.
Posted by: guest at September 18, 2007 12:37 PM
the hipster "pioneer" would apply to people who moved into places such as soho, tribeca and areas which had little population and are now expensive as a mofo.
Posted by: guest at September 18, 2007 12:42 PM
"The golden rule of real estate = last up, first down. It's not personal."
Yessir. And I love how that also means 'NOT last down'. So the converse is true, 'first up, last down' (inevitably). It's not just a boom. It's a boomerang.
Posted by: guest at September 18, 2007 12:43 PM
You're more likely to get knifed or stabbed on the north side of Lincoln, whereas you're more likely to be shot on the south side.
Posted by: guest at September 18, 2007 12:44 PM
the term artist and hipster are competely the same thing to 99% of the population.
Posted by: guest at September 18, 2007 12:46 PM
Brooklyn is home to so many terrific neighborhoods... it's silly to pit one against the other... we're all neighbors, and our differeing neighborhoods compliment
one another.
Right now everyone's getting nervous about all the racket on the news etc... calm down.
cycles... get used to it... that's life.
If you love your home, and you haven't purchased "over your head" that's what matters.
Every neighborhood gets rocked in the rough times, but the rough times pass.
Calm down kids.
Posted by: bren at September 18, 2007 12:47 PM
NY Mag is usually the first to make fun or write trashy articles about Park Slope, so no, I don't particularly think it's skewed as much as it could be.
The fact is that Park Slope IS still doing fine. Maybe it won't be tomorrow, but today it is. Open houses this weekend were packed, there is very little on the market still and nice homes sell in a month.
I understand not liking some residents of a particular neighborhood, but I don't understand the venom that some people shed at the mere mention of certain neighborhoods.
Posted by: guest at September 18, 2007 12:47 PM
Thank you 12:37! Bed-Stuy is not so easily defined as most poeple outside the area would suggest.
NY Mag's comments make no sense. They say Bed-Stuy is risky, but then comment that the bargains will be even bigger if/when prices drop. If that is true, others will swoop right in and buy the housing stock and prices will rise again, negating the price drop.
In general, this article only holds water if you treat homeownership as a game and not a long-term investment. If you are in it for the "thrill of the flip," you must think Alan Greenspan still works for the Fed.
Posted by: guest at September 18, 2007 12:48 PM
I really think part of the problem lies in the fact that a lot of the same people that are now choosing to stay in New York instead of leave for the subrubs are a unique group of people that could do either and seem wishy-washy.
It's the younger creative types, that for the most part want to make New York their home for the long run.
Then there are the 30 and 40 something couples with and without kids that could stay, or they could go.
This makes the real estate balance tricky because these suburban types that are now putting down roots in an urban area are the ones that seem to think of their homes as money making machines, instead of as homes for their families.
It's disturbing to me, as someone who has little interest in living anyplace other than New York. I've been to many many cities, and I love this place.
I'm rambling, but does anyone see what I'm trying to say...?
The reduction in crime and the increased living standards in New York have lured and entire set of non city people that happen to like the amenities that this city now has to offer. It's a whole new phenomenon.
Urbanism is the way of the future, but we are just now seeing it start to play out....
Posted by: guest at September 18, 2007 12:54 PM
What up 'The What' @ 12:31! They don't know about the Rothschild's. You're my hero.
Posted by: guest at September 18, 2007 12:59 PM
The "flipper" way of buying a home became widespread only very recently. Before it died after the bubble ended. Yet magazines keep reporting on real estate like the only home buyers in the world are flippers. Bizarre.
Renovations alone are so expensive in NYC, that unless you are a contractor and can do the renos yourself, it's not even possible to do a quick "flip" in a normal market, post-bubble. Time to return to normal reporting on normal markets, all you real estate journalists.
Posted by: guest at September 18, 2007 1:02 PM
I don't buy the argument that most Brooklyn homeowners haven't speculated and just wanted a place to live. You sign for a mortgage of $500K to $3M without remotely thinking about the near prospect of reselling for a profit? C'mon.
How does renting out units in you building to supplement income make you any different than an investor renting out condos?
Posted by: guest at September 18, 2007 1:07 PM
Of course people were and are speculating, 1:07. Nothing wrong with that. But they're not always thinking of "flipping" which is selling in 2 years or less.
I was speculating on my last house. But I lived in it 8 years, not 8 months, and sold it for 3 times what I paid for it. Yes that was speculative. But it was not a "flip".
Posted by: guest at September 18, 2007 1:27 PM
If u live in PS or BH or CH, sleep soundly and don't worry at all about the housing market over the next, say 3-5 years or more. If you live in PH, FG, CH, PLG, BS or one of those...better say a little prayer.
Posted by: guest at September 18, 2007 8:26 PM
What about CG? Sleep or pray? WB? GQ? WTF?
Posted by: guest at September 18, 2007 8:35 PM
CG=probably fine. GQ=fucked in the ass. WTF is WB
Posted by: guest at September 18, 2007 8:57 PM
CG= probably fine? ummm hello If Carroll Gardens goes down the whole brooklyn will go the area has been solid ever since the area was established . No crime and everything you want = solid. I wish i could live there. You fools
Posted by: guest at September 18, 2007 10:46 PM
"No crime and everything you want"...like the mob controlling every other block? Like the BQE? Like the Gowanus canal? Like no park? CG is ok, but not THAT great.
CG also has kind of dodgy southern area...esp toward 9th street and Hamilton and the BQE...I wonder how (relatively) that area will do in a downturn...
Posted by: guest at September 18, 2007 11:13 PM
most people i know in carroll gardens hang out mostly in park slope on 5th avenue.
Posted by: guest at September 19, 2007 12:28 PM
Marty Markowitz is a fucking meshug putz
Posted by: guest at September 19, 2007 8:50 PM
Every poster on this site is a moron. Yes, even me you moron!
Posted by: guest at September 27, 2007 12:19 PM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.