Downtown Boosters Wary of Credit Crunch, 421-a Revamp

they will become defacto affordable housing for the middle-upper middle class due to market timing

no social/urban engineering by politicians needed

free market rules

Posted by: guest at November 15, 2007 9:39 AM

Huh? People haven't paid 30-40 percent of income on housing for decades, if ever. Was more like 20 percent for as long as anyone's been tracking the numbers.

Posted by: guest at November 15, 2007 9:42 AM

I agree with Polemicist on most points except this: historically, people paid a lower percentage of income on housing. Clothing and food used to be more expensive compared to today...though who knows, with the price of food rising...

FG/TGL

Posted by: guest at November 15, 2007 9:48 AM

nationally maybe but not in NYC

Posted by: guest at November 15, 2007 9:49 AM

I think Polemicist is wrong about the "good old days" when, apparently, everybody had houses or 3 bedroom apartments. I think s/he is simply wrong on the facts -- we do not live in apartments that are smaller than and inferior to what people were living in a century ago.

I don't have the time to look up the stats that prove this, but plenty of anecdotal evidence springs to mind.

The co-op building where I live was built by and for working class Scandinavians in 1927. The apartments all have 3 or 4 rooms (including the kitchen), and were all occupied by families.

My mother grew up in Brooklyn in the 30s and 40s in a 4 room apartment in Flatbush (which, of course, was considered a big step. There were five people in her family. This, of course, was a big step up from the conditions her father grew up under in the 10s and 20s. His family of seven lived on the small apartment in a Lower East tenement. Legend has it that there was no room for a bed for the last baby; she slept in the bottom drawer of a dresser.

Posted by: guest at November 15, 2007 10:05 AM

in general, lower and lower-middle class folk historically lived in smaller and pooer quality homes than they do today

on the other hand, upper-middle and upper class seem to be living in smaller spaces than they predecesors, with the exception of the super wealthy who still can buy what they wish

Posted by: guest at November 15, 2007 10:17 AM

Thank you 10:05 for pointing out that, yes, people were crammed into living situations even more crowded than what most New Yorkers will now put up with. Yes, there are many apartments and houses that are extremely crowded with, usually, recent immigrants living one on top of another but household size is generally much smaller than it was in 1900. Many of us (of a certain age) have grandparents who lived in a NYC of tenements and crowded housing, large families with many children.

Growing up in the 40's and 50's friends of mine from “respectable, working class backgrounds” grew up in families with two parents, six children, three bedrooms and 1 bathroom. This is still going on, of course, but there is a plethora of couples and singles with their own households as well as many seniors living alone in one-bedroom apartments.

The main subdividing Polemicist may be referring to happened during the 30's when many of the larger luxury buildings that had duplex and triplex apartments were cut up into smaller apartments; and, the ongoing cutting up of townhouses into multifamily buildings (though, frankly, many townhouses had over the years any combination of multiple adult children and their spouses and families sharing a house, were often intergenerational, or served as rooming houses). Of course, there is also an argument that many multi-family townhouses have been consolidated into one- and two-family buildings these last years…often for a family with many fewer children (and no elders or other family relations in the household) than the original occupants of these townhouses in the 19th century.

FG/TGL

Posted by: guest at November 15, 2007 10:36 AM

The more residents, the more retail can profit. people will move in regardless of mortgage rates, because rentals will be a substantial portion --this will make the area more attractive and values will go up. a critical mass of projects has already been committed to -- this process is underway.

Posted by: guest at November 15, 2007 10:44 AM

"The reality is residual [residential?]housing in Brooklyn largely dates from a time when the Borough had fewer than a million inhabitants." As with past, evidence-free Polemical posts, I don't think so.

The population of Kings County in 1890 was 838,547 and grew to 1,166,582 ten years later. Brooklyn's population then grew by 230 percent in the first 40 years of the 20th century. Although 42.7 percent of the borough's housing was built before 1940 (the earliest cut-off), I doubt that it "largely dates from a time when the Borough had fewer than a million inhabitants," or approximately 110 years ago.

Posted by: guest at November 15, 2007 10:58 AM

I would venture that even Ken Fisher would agree with alot of what Polemicist said BUT I think the point is timing.
Why unravel the existing system at the exact moment that the market is already putting tremendous pressure.
Of course this is typical of Government; it is too slow to effectively meddle in the marketplace - by the time a consensus is developed the conditions that fostered that consensuses are in the process of changing.

The appropriate thing to do here is to phase in the changes over time as oppossed to all or once by a particular date - for exampe instead of requiring the foundation to be poured to qualify under the old 421a - redefine the grandfather to allow for a approved plan to stop the clock.

While its nice to believe that pounding the housing market will only hurt developers, the reality is a panic hurts everyone - just ask the people living in Florida.

Posted by: guest at November 15, 2007 11:19 AM

The contraction of the money supply will worsen. After lowering rates as low as they can go (close to zero like Japan), the Feds will realize that it no longer spurs growth (stagflation). They will then raise rates sharply to curb inflation. Many projects will go unfinished. We'll go through a severe recession/depression (maybe five or more years). Property values will plummet -25 to -50 percent. Late next decade or the one after that, some new economic phenomenon (like alternative fuels) will get peddled by Wall Street and VC firms. Then we'll pick up where we left off with respect to development.

Things will get better but not before they get worse. That's what happened in the 80's. A lot of projects were cancelled or postponed until recently.

Posted by: guest at November 15, 2007 11:24 AM

I hold Ken Fisher in relatively high esteem as far as current and former council members go. But let's not for a moment forget that Ken is now in the business of helping his clients make as much money as possible. Of course he opposes the sunset on the 421-a real estate tax abatement.

Posted by: guest at November 15, 2007 12:01 PM

Correct, 12:01. He is doing his clients' bidding, hopefully his words do not spark an irrational panic.

Posted by: guest at November 15, 2007 12:04 PM

Thank you 11:24 and all you people with some figures that contradict Polemicist.
FG/TGL

Posted by: guest at November 15, 2007 12:05 PM

CREDIT DETERIORATION AND OVERDEVELOPMENT UNLEASH VAMPIRES ON DOWNTOWN BRROKLYN

Nov. 15, 2007

The unfolding events in credit markets and the building of a number of residential luxury developments under way in Downtown Brooklyn have resulted in a sudden and sharp increase in vampires in the vicinity, a source close to the mayor's office confirmed.

"There appear to be packs of pale-skinned, black-robe clothed figures out in the streets of Brooklyn," said deputy housing commissioner Lucy Westerna. "They pose a serious threat to the public," Westerna went on to say.

Several confirmed reports of street-level attacks in the downtown vacinity have been reported over the last several days.

According to police sources, in one report witnesses say downtown resident Mina Murray, 31 and a mortgage broker, was attacked by three male caucasians wearing black robes while walking her dog near the corner of South Elliot Street and De Kalb Avenue in the Fort Greene section. A prelimiary medical report suggested that her body was completely void of blood.

Witnesses to the attack said the three robed figures retreated into a well-appointed brownstone near to the crime scene.

Experts believe the sudden influx of vampires may be related to the credit crunch. "Few people realize, blood-sucking undead are residing throughout brownstone Brooklyn, in many cases without the knowledge of the residents or owners," said noted vampire hunter Jonathan Harker.

Harker went on to say, "recent shifts in credit market conditions may have resulted in a kind of wake-up call to members of the undead community. An unsettling of ground conditions due to heavy building of luxury residential buildings has also contributed to the disturbance in the sleeping habits of vampires residing in the borough."

Harker admonished residents throughout Downtown Brooklyn and surrounding neighborhoods to take precautions, including stocking up on garlic and keeping silver daggars and mirrors handy.

Posted by: guest at November 15, 2007 12:16 PM

'stoner -- please make 12:16 a recurring feature on the home page. gold.

Posted by: guest at November 15, 2007 12:20 PM

@12:16
Lame.

Posted by: guest at November 15, 2007 12:51 PM

The Fed is going to lower rates towards zero like Japan? A severe recession of 5 years or more? LOL...utter BS

Posted by: guest at November 15, 2007 1:08 PM

Polemical one, I got my numbers from the Department of City Planning. Very queer that your 2006 US Census statistics show 51% of Brooklyn housing built before 1940 but DCP's 2000 figures put the number at 47%, but there you have it. Even so, your original statement that "housing in Brooklyn largely dates from a time when the Borough had fewer than a million inhabitants" states that most of the borough's housing dates from the turn of the last century. We can't check that against the census, but I sure do doubt it.

And, if you're going "to put things in perspective," I find it methodologically unsound to point to a single factor -- meddlesome programs like Public Housing, mortgage deductions, 421(a) abatements -- and draw conclusions.

Posted by: guest at November 15, 2007 4:09 PM

Polemicist

"If we are just going to pull numbers out of our ass, rather than my general comments, at least let it be known that in fact the majority of housing units in Brookly date from before 1940. What is worse is nearly 80% of the housing units were built prior to 1960"

Which ass are you pulling numbers out of? Looking at population numbers for Brooklyn (which comes from the Census Bureau's ass) we
have not gotten back to 1960 levels.
1930 - 2,560,400
1940 - 2,698,300
1950 - 2,738,200
1960 - 2,627,000
1970 - 2,602,000
1980 - 2,310,000
1990 - 2,300,700
2000 - 2,465,326

Based on the population decline, we should have stopped building in 1960 as there would have been no need for housing. The new construction since then allowed a smaller population to have more housing. There was supposed to be a slow down in new construction as population growth wouldn't drive it. I don't understand what your perspective is when fewer people have more housing choices available.

Posted by: guest at November 15, 2007 4:38 PM

The Polemical one is the very picture of methodologically unsound.

Thanks to 4:38 for the census numbers!

Posted by: guest at November 15, 2007 5:14 PM

Ooo...that Polemicist macho man is getting us all excited!!! Hasn't done it for me this way in weeks!!!

(Oh…and BTW, I'll have what she's having...)

But seriously Folks,

Yes, Polemicist makes some good points…I guess...unfortunately a bit toward the rah-rah build-build-build pole. Kind of explains the "guy-thingishness" of his posts. Too many vulgarities as well...but whatever.

Listen, I've lived in cities that have very old housing stock. So, what’s the big ordeal that we have older housing in Brooklyn. What? Are we going around peeling lead paint off walls as snacks? Are these houses all that ugly? Well…some are, okay…but many aren’t. I’m sorry but I don’t think hi-rises that you seem to fancy so much (or at least excuse) help foster a sense of community or will eventually be that easily maintainable/sustainable. As you and I have argued before, more-or-less, the real “footprint” for a hi-rise dweller may end up just as large as that of a dweller of a lower-density urban neighborhood.

And on the subject of older housing stock:
One apartment building I lived in in a world capital was built right around the same time as our current house (in Brooklyn): the mid-1800's. I consider kind of old (sloping floors…you name it!). And, I have also lived in housing that was/still is centuries old (and on a boat...but that's another story). That "world capital" remains much as it was at the close of the 1870’s with some corridors of additions afterward. Sure, depressingly large numbers of buildings (some of historical and architectural significance) were still ripped out to make way for (usually) low-scale “mod” apartment buildings up through, shockingly, the 80’s, but basically the building stock is “old”. In fact, over the last 20 or so years there has been a real push to restore buildings from the 17th and 18th centuries, buildings that had become warehouses and workshops.

The city is highly urban-planned and has a LOT of government intervention and voilà, it has done rather well.

BTW, Mr. Polemicist, what do you think of Mitchell-Lama? I’m almost afraid to ask!!!

Most sincerely,
FG/LaGrandeDameDeLaGrammaire

Posted by: guest at November 15, 2007 8:04 PM

Okay, I'm pedantic and you overly generalize. Is there a middle ground? I bet you think you're already there.

Posted by: guest at November 15, 2007 8:06 PM

Worried owners think wishfully. Non-worried owners think rationally.

Posted by: guest at November 16, 2007 7:32 AM