Latest S&P Numbers: Surprise! They Ain't Good

Where is THE WHAT to cut and paste an article...

Its a buyers market right now it may be close to the bottom but may have more to go but when NYC is negotiable its usually a buy...

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 9:29 AM

Whoo-hoo! Am eagerly waiting the day that I'll be able to buy a $200K two-bed in Park Slope.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 9:43 AM

Get ready THE WHAT is waiting to buy a brownstone in Cobble Hill for $350k...

PIPE DREAMS...

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 9:48 AM

This is BS, price drops in the New York "Metro" ie places like Newark, does not mean anything as to Manhattan and Brookyn Prime where price gains remain strong. Sorry folks.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 10:07 AM

New York Metro is Westchester, Suffolk County, Half of New Jersey, Staten Island. All of those places people bought more house than they could afford when the rules were normal. Anyone there with money is moving out and moving to the city anyway.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 10:11 AM

". . . Brookyn Prime where price gains remain strong. Sorry folks."

This is nonsense. There have not been strong price gains in Brooklyn over the past year. In fact, in most cases there have been no price gains. If you bought a brownstone in 6/07 and tried to sell it in 6/08, you would not be turning a profit on that transaction.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 10:15 AM

CalculatedRisk has an interesting post on these numbers, including a chart showing that in the NY Metro area, the ratio of median price to median income doubled during the bubble. http://calculatedrisk.blogspot.com/

It is not possible for housing sales prices to rise faster than incomes and faster than rents for long. Sooner or later, the number of people who can/will afford them drops, while developers keep building more.

Nor is it possible for prime Bklyn prices to go up while its direct competitors go down. At some point, enough people will balk at paying a sufficiently excessive premium for the delights of badly renovated nineteenth century buildings and even more badly designed 21st century condos and decide, instead, to cope with the downsides of having to own a car.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 10:17 AM

Case-Shiller is by far the best source for understanding what is really going on with the housing market, because it looks at actual resales of the same property. Unfortunately, it is only suggestive for NYC because: 1. It only looks at single family houses and so misses most of the housing stock here. 2. The NY metro area is defined too broadly, so it misses any micro trends.

So if you think that condos and brownstones can have a radically different trajectory than single family houses, ignore Case-Shiller. Similarly, if you think that BK can go up while the metro area goes down, ignore Case-Shiller. Otherwise, take it as rough guidance.

NY metro area: Fairfield CT, New Haven CT, Bergen NJ, Essex NJ, Hudson NJ, Hunterdon NJ,
Mercer NJ, Middlesex NJ, Monmouth NJ,
Morris NJ, Ocean NJ, Passaic NJ, Somerset
NJ, Sussex NJ, Union NJ, Warren NJ,
Bronx NY, Dutchess NY, Kings NY,
Nassau NY, New York NY, Orange NY,
Putnam NY, Queens NY, Richmond NY,
Rockland NY, Suffolk NY, Westchester
NY, Pike PA
Source: from http://www2.standardandpoors.com/spf/pdf/index/SP_CS_Home_Price_Indices_Methodology_Web.pdf

This is weighted by value, so the outlying areas don't affect it as much as the more expensive closer in ones.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 10:32 AM

At least the What cuts and pastes from reputable sources and actually has some backing from economists for what he says.

You guys all just make these guesses that houses in your "prime" neighborhood could never depreciate because you just got a new Thai restaurant down the street.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 10:40 AM

The Pad Thai Index sounds like a reliable indicator to me. Better than anything the Wall Street clowns have formulated in the past decade.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 10:46 AM

9:29 = 9:48

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 10:57 AM

10:40,
Silly but funny.

By extension: I cook Thai food (I have a birth right to it) so I guess our house will never depreciate.

Actually, am thinking of selling out of our Prime FG into a supposedly, maybe less desirable but primely located PH house ("newer" house with later 19th century details--not my taste--and yucky replacement windows, slightly narrower house).

Can PH people comment on the life there? How is it around Vanderbilt.

Anyone who knows both FG and PH well, do you think I will miss the village-y feeling of FG?

Is PH near enough to transportation and BAM?

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 11:03 AM

For elite NY, median income is irrelevant. More important is how the elite is doing. Merrill Lynch's World Wealth Report out today reports that people with liquid assets over $1m are doing pretty well: they increased in number by 6% (3% in the US to 3.3m) and their average wealth increased by 7% (3.5% in the US).

Unfortunately for Brooklyn, inequality is just as bad among the rich as among the rest of us. The extra-extra rich (liquid assets over $30m, about 41,000 Americans) took the bulk of this gain, just as the rich took the bulk of the nation's gain. And the extra-extra rich aren't moving en masse to PS yet.

http://www.ml.com/media/100472.pdf

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 11:06 AM

Read this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/25/business/25exurbs.html?hp

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 11:19 AM

"At least the What cuts and pastes from reputable sources and actually has some backing from economists for what he says. "

Put 100 economist in a room and you will get 100 different opinions.

Anyone can cut and paste economist backed opinions. Wasn't David Lereah an economist? What was the title of his last 3 books?

I hope you understand my point.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 11:25 AM

"This is BS, price drops in the New York "Metro" ie places like Newark, does not mean anything as to Manhattan and Brookyn Prime where price gains remain strong. Sorry folks."

But if you go to the S&P website, take their numbers for NY Metro, throw them in a spreadsheet, take % differences on the way up (since the 1990's), you'll see that it correlates to the Manhattan/Brooklyn market to a "T". The index went up 200% from the last bottom just like Brooklyn and Manhattan. Why would it be irrelevant on the way down?

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 11:30 AM

The median price for a house can grow faster than meidan income when you are in a period of falling interest rates as happened over the past 10 years. i.e. If you're paying 6% on a 120,000 loan it costs less than paying 8% on a 100,000 loan. The question is, is the era of declining interest rates over? Right now, my bet would be yes.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 11:32 AM

If you read the article at 11:19 you will see why this will not pertain to Manhattan and prime Brooklyn.

In case you missed it gas has doubled in 3 years (will probably double again in the next 5-7) and the suburbs are over.

I don't know ANYONE who actually wants to move to the suburbs now. They move there because it's cheaper. Know what that means...? It means the suburbs are turning into the ghettos and the cities are being revived and becoming the jewels again as they were when this country was first built.

It makes sense economically. It makes sense socially and it makes sense environmentally.

The only reason it wouldn't make sense is for those who are so unable to evolve with the changing face of our planet that they simply MUST have their McMansion in the burbs.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 11:36 AM

"The question is, is the era of declining interest rates over? Right now, my bet would be yes."

Not only is that era over, a new era is born: Rising Rates. Peep the minutes of today's Fed meeting. Inflation is on their minds.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 11:38 AM

I think Park Slope and FG have gone up a good deal more than 200% since 1990. More like 3x and 5x respectively.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 11:42 AM

11:36 -- if gas doubles, a Orange NJ commuter might pay an extra 2k / year to live there. That isn't going to convince anyone to spend an extra $1m to buy in Park Slope. Especially since the difference in car insurance rates and parking is far more than that anyway.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 11:46 AM

"Case-Shiller is by far the best source for understanding what is really going on with the housing market, because it looks at actual resales of the same property."

But they only look at houses that were bought and sold within a two-year period! We call those flips. Flips are not making profits anymore, any 'tard knows that. We don't need Case-Shiller to tell us that, jeepers.

Show me a profit on a Brooklyn brownstone somebody owns for 5 to 10 years. That's what tells me what I need to know about my investment. Not what somebody can make owning the house for 2 years. Please. Duh.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 11:46 AM

Hmph. For me, most of what made Brooklyn more attractive than NJ was that it was more economically diverse and cheaper, so I had more freedom for interesting things and neighbors available to do them with me. Not so true anymore.

You give up a lot of freedom to take on a $2m mortgage to buy in PS when you could get a nicer house for half the price in West Orange without all your new neighbors working for hedge funds.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 11:50 AM

The urbanization argument is classic bubble hype. Code for "New Paradigm". During the tech boom it was the "New Economy". We bought into it and look what happened.

There is some truth to it but when used to justify record price movements caused by nothing more than cheap easy credit, it's overdone. Where was this urbanization argument when home prices took off?

Oil is also in bubble mode and will soon crash. Even if I'm wrong and there is some truth to the oil supply argument, alternative fuels will eventually make suburban living affordable again.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 11:52 AM

"But they only look at houses that were bought and sold within a two-year period!"
That is false. They match sales with "any
previous sale for the same home".

Are you deliberately slandering them or just repeating some nonsense you heard without checking it? http://www2.standardandpoors.com/spf/pdf/index/SP_CS_Home_Price_Indices_Methodology_Web.pdf

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 11:55 AM

"But they only look at houses that were bought and sold within a two-year period!"

No. They look at repeat sales. There's no time limit.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 11:57 AM

Actually, urbanization was the core dynamic behind the improvements in Bklyn long BEFORE the bubble.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 11:58 AM

Anyone who moves to this city because it's cheaper needs a course in remedial math.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 12:01 PM

"Actually, urbanization was the core dynamic behind the improvements in Bklyn long BEFORE the bubble."

Significant, noticeable improvements did not come before the bubble. It took easy money, I mean DEBT, and THAT was the ticket for these wild price increases, not urbanization.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 12:05 PM

"11:36 -- if gas doubles, a Orange NJ commuter might pay an extra 2k / year to live there. That isn't going to convince anyone to spend an extra $1m to buy in Park Slope. Especially since the difference in car insurance rates and parking is far more than that anyway."

You aren't very smart. NO ONE in Orange doesn't have TWO cars, so that's $4,000 more a year to START. That is a huge increase in only 2 years.

Then you are forgetting heating bills. My sister pays $500 a month to heat her suburban home. And it's not very big.

That's compared to my $30 a month con ed bill.

There is a lot that goes into it. Some people don't want to move to the suburbs because they are social wastelands.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 12:05 PM

"Show me a profit on a Brooklyn brownstone somebody owns for 5 to 10 years."

1996 - Bought brownstone for 769K.

2008 - Sold Brownstone for 2.9 million

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 12:07 PM

To the person claiming that the urbanization of Brooklyn and other U.S. cities directly correlates to the housing bubble, I can only say that you are REEEEAALLLY ignorant.

Brooklyn has been rapidly gentrifying since the 1970s. The bulk of it happened in the 90's. By 2000, most of Brownstone Brooklyn was 1000 times better than it was 10 years before.

You have NO clue. You've lived here what, 5 days?

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 12:10 PM

"Some people don't want to move to the suburbs because they are social wastelands."
Moving to the city because you like it better makes sense.

Moving because it'll save you money only makes sense if it will save you money.

No way that savings on heat or gas can cover the current price differences.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 12:11 PM

1900 -- bought for 100k
1940 -- sold for 50k
1996- bought for 769k
2007 - sold for 2.9m
2009 - bought for 1.5m

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 12:13 PM

And don't forget:
1987 - Bought for 800k (Park block, PS)
1996 - Sold for 800k (Park block, PS)

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 12:26 PM

"1987 - Bought for 800k"

Well since I bought a brownstone on a Park Slope park block in this exact year I can tell you that you are far from correct on pricing. I bought mine for 445K in 1987.

But who cares about facts, right?

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 12:45 PM

Moving to the suburbs also means giving up an extra couple hours a day to sitting in a car, which for me, anyway is a no go.

Time with my family is way more important than a cheaper house in West Orange.

My kids prefer the city too since we've tried both. They can walk and see all their friends.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 12:55 PM

12:55...most kids I know who grew up in the city (or a city) are happier than those who grew up in the burbs. It would make a good thesis topic...

I grew up in a "nice" suburb and I would never subject anyone to that. Especially not my kids. It's a very lonely existence and very selfish on the part of parents.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 1:04 PM

1.04 - I think you've got the selfish part the wrong way around.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 1:13 PM

No, I don't think I do, 1:13. I hear parents ALL THE TIME say they are moving to the suburbs for the kids.

How about asking some of these kids how they like it. I am surrounded by people who grew up in the suburbs and you know why we all came to NYC? Because they sucked!

I'm not saying kids should make decisions with regard to housing, but then don't suggest that the reason you are moving there is FOR them. If playing by themselves in the backyard, having to grow up with little social interaction and not seeing anything other than white faces is for them, then you belong in the suburbs.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 1:27 PM

I think you need to get out to the NJ and NY suburbs in 2008. Plenty of Asian non-white faces.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 1:45 PM

1:27pm you are lost.

I grew up in the suburbs and would not change that for anything.I have been living in the city for 4 years and love it but how can you say its better to raise kids in the city than the burbs???

First of all its safer for the kids in the burbs they have more space to play (backyard with pool and friends and so on)...Basketball in front of the house and so on...I love the city but when I have a kid and he or she is old enough to play and be outside its time to be in the burbs...

You are a selfish loser that is way to into yourself...I love these people that live in park slope that have to bring their kids to every restaurant and so on its just embarassing...Oh and btw the schools suck in all of NYC except for a few or if you want to pay $35k for you kid to go to 1st grade...

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 1:47 PM

why do you have to drive to live in the suburbs? haven't you people heard of the train? yikes.
this urbanization broker shill posts the same crap on every discussion about brooklyn pricing. he is trying really hard to believe his own bs.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 1:51 PM

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- The price of retail gasoline could fall by half, to around $2 a gallon, within 30 days of passage of a law to limit speculation in energy-futures markets, four energy analysts told Congress on Monday.

Testifying to the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Michael Masters of Masters Capital Management said that the price of oil would quickly drop closer to its marginal cost of around $65 to $75 a barrel, about half the current $135.

Fadel Gheit of Oppenheimer & Co., Edward Krapels of Energy Security Analysis and Roger Diwan of PFC Energy Consultants agreed with Masters' assessment at a hearing on proposed legislation to limit speculation in futures markets.

Krapels said that it wouldn't even take 30 days to drive prices lower, as fund managers quickly liquidated their positions in futures markets.

"Record oil prices are inflated by speculation and not justified by market fundamentals," according to Gheit. "Based on supply and demand fundamentals, crude-oil prices should not be above $60 per barrel."

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 2:08 PM

Notice, the sentence...oil prices COULD fall to half.

The more PROBABLE answer will be that they double again in 5 years.

We should Europe and the rest of the free world be paying 8-9 bucks a gallon while the U.S. pays 2 dollars?

Have any of you ever left Brooklyn before?

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 2:15 PM

1:27 - Way to paint with a broad brush. I've known some pretty miserable people who grew up here in the city and I know some suburban kids (in the Midwest, not in the Northeast) that love their hometown. Those same kids come here to visit and they are completely astounded at the lack of space, the crowds, the noise, and the filth. "How do you live here?" they ask.

It cuts both ways. Every cross-section of the population has both happy people and miserable malcontents.

I posit the unhappy people you know would be unhappy, no matter where they grew up, and that it's in their DNA. But I'm in the "nature over nuture" camp.

Generalizations rarely help legitimize an argument, if ever at all.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 2:17 PM

"The more PROBABLE answer will be that they double again in 5 years."

Because your crystal ball is more accurate?

You go Ms. Kreskin!

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 2:19 PM

2:08 -- that makes no sense. How could speculation in the futures market affect the price of oil? Futures traders don't take possession of the oil, so how do they affect supply or demand?

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 2:24 PM

"How could speculation in the futures market affect the price of oil?"

Not the sharpest knife in the drawer, are ya?

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 2:34 PM

In May, 2008, Arjun N. Murti and other Goldman Sachs analysts issued a research report predicting oil prices are likely to rise to between $150 to $200/bbl in the next six to 24 months

Near-term peak oil proponent Matthew Simmons predicts a rise to $300 a barrel or higher by 2013 as sweet crude petroleum becomes more scarce and major producers begin failing to meet demand.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 2:37 PM

$300 dollars a barrel in 2013 means approximately $9.00 a gallon for U.S. drivers.

Enjoy it suburbanites!!!!

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 2:38 PM

9 dollars a gallon for a family with 2 cars will mean they will be spending approximately $16,000 per year in gas for the two cars driven at the average number of miles per year.

16K times 30 years (think mortgage) is $480,000.

I think I'd rather spend that on a house in a city, myself. To each his/her own though.

At least I can see, touch, live in, enjoy memories with the 480k and not spew it into the atmosphere to kill our planet.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 2:42 PM

I don't know real estate very well, but one thing I do know is oil, and the truth obviously lies between many of the extremes here.

$9/gallon, $300/barrel? Not anytime soon - sorry. Oil speculation does affect the price of oil, but it doesn't affect hald of its current price. Oil has strong support at $80-100 a barrel, and ending oil speculation could have the opposite effect of rising prices. Further, the world's supply of sweet crude (aka the "good stuff") is smaller. There is plenty of oil out there, but the best kind is harder to get to. Further, much of the price of gas you see at the pump is a result of refining costs. As the supply of the best crude gets less, refining gets more expensive, and the US hasn't added significant refining capabilities in more than 30 years because there's no incentive to do so (and GW Bush has opposed any significant effort to increase the refining). As a result, instead of refining oil into gasoline in the US,US companies often have to outsource refining (and then ship it back in here), which is frankly absurd.

I think the best way to restrict speculation is to not allow anyone to trade on futures unless you actually have the ability to accept physical delivery in some capacity. This would force people to take the time to construct partnerships, leading to less volatility. If we cut off speculation, though, the result will be that the speculators go elsewhere (Dubai markets anyone?)

We will never again see $1/gallon, but we won't be seeing $9/gallon. The best plan is to restrict oil speculation slightly here, add refining capacity and start realistically investing in alternative energy sources.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 2:50 PM

Please spare us your saintlihood 2.42. I'm sure your regular air travel and Ipe decking don't figure in your calculations. Co2 emissions and ozone depletion caused by passenger jets and forest destruction make car emissions look puny. Get the facts before you try to get beatified.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 2:51 PM

2:42 - the areas where people are driving "avg miles" are not like the nyc area. no trains, no subways. in "avg. america", even if you live downtown, you WILL have to drive somewhere (e.g. mall of america or wal-mart). with our excellent commuter train system here, your argument is worthless. i could live in CT and drive less than some people living in park slope do. if YOU would rather live in "a city" where you can save $480k by driving less, knock yourself out. i hear they have pretty cheap condos in downtown minneapolis or columbus. enjoy.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 2:52 PM

the columbus symphony orchestra just went bankrupt.

a sign of what's happening with other B level cities in general.

so sad.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 2:54 PM

Guest 1:47,

There's different angles for looking at the safety of your children. I also grew up in the suburbs (Westchester). I have two kids (ages 14 and 12) and have raised them in the City. There are some things that our less safe about the City but things that are more safe than the suburbs. For example, I know I sweat bricks about my 14 year old taking the subway. On the other hand, I remember all the drunk driving that teenagers did in the subrubs when I was growing up there. Realistically speaking, my guess is that kids have at least as high a chance of geting hurt in the suburbs because of car accidents etc. than they do in the City because of something like crime.

I think your recollection of the suburbs might be dated too. I know when I was growing up every kid got around by riding their bicycle and the town facilities (ballfeilds etc) were busy with pick-up games. I don't see that when I go back now. Kids are chauffered around by their parents and most of the play is structured + organized. On a summer day, it seems like more kids are inside playing on their computer + watching TV than there are outside playing.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 2:55 PM

I live in New Jersey and I drive about 12,000 miles per year...just under the 15,000 a year average. My wife does the same. You do know that sitting in traffic for an hour at the Lincoln Tunnel or Garden State Parkway pollutes more than driving on an open highway, right?

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 2:56 PM

Goldman Sachs stands to make a TON of money if their analysts are right.

The same way they made a killing dumping Mortgage Backed Securities.

Don't be duped.

Again.

Bubble, bubble, (t)oil and trouble...

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 2:57 PM

Everyone in the suburbs smokes crystal meth

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 2:59 PM

2:54 - The entire city of New York nearly went bankrupt once, as you may or may not recall.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 2:59 PM

2:55, as someone who is now raising their kids in the suburbs, what you say is 100% true. My kids sit around the house more than I'd like and I fear they are not very happy.

My husband and I talk almost nightly about the bad move we made moving from Park Slope out here to Teaneck in 1998. We hate it, but now can't afford to come back. Had we stayed, not only would the kids be happier, but we'd probably have more friends and social activities (not to mention would have made a killing on a house, had we bought one). We left right before the gettin' was good. Sigh.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 2:59 PM

2:56 -

That's why they should quadruple (octuple?) the price of the Lincoln Tunnel during rush hour.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 3:01 PM

2.42 - near 25% of emissions are caused by energy production for non-LEED housing. Like your brownstone. Congratulations.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 3:02 PM

2:59 = 2:56 = 2:42 = broker shill scared sh!tless

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 3:06 PM

Two years ago I hired a consultant to retrofit our brownstone to be as eco-friendly as it can be. Solar panels on the roof, low flow faucets, the whole bit.

Got anything else for me?

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 3:06 PM

"Everyone in the suburbs smokes crystal meth"

And Brooklyn real estate brokers smoke crack.

I call it even.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 3:07 PM

"as it can be"

Never will be as energy efficient as a new home. So start the self-flagellation.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 3:08 PM

Brooklyn real estate brokers live in the suburbs.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 3:09 PM

3:06 (#2) = bitter biff

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 3:10 PM

Everyone in the burbs is obese.

Gross.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 3:12 PM

Hey I grow my own veggies and have chickens. What about you 3.06? Or are you killing the planet with your sushi-eating-sea-destructing convenience-selfishness? Perhaps you levitate your eggs and eggplants from NJ to PS thereby avoiding diesel truck particulate emissions?

Get back to polishing your halo.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 3:14 PM

biff is fighting with himself again!

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 3:15 PM

I live in a city, don't own a car and have done as much as I can to update my brownstone to be eco friendly. The rest, I will have to live with for now.

I can almost guarantee that my footprint on the earth is smaller than yours. By the way you speak, just the hot air alone from your empty words is more destructive to the earth.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 3:20 PM

i drive a hummer to work in midtown, even though it would take me less time to take the subway. i run my AC all day long with my windows open. i eat whale and baby seal once a week and use old school aeresol hairspray (the kind that damages the ozone). in the winter, i burn low quality coal to stay warm (again, with the windows wide open).

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 3:24 PM

3.20 - the rest you'll "have to live with."

Well thats nice of you to forgive yourself, but make sure you aren't so easy on the suburbanites you contemptuously condemn.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 3:25 PM

Brownstones are relatively heat efficient anyway, due to the party walls.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 3:28 PM

Why shouldn't people who own 2 or 3 cars and own 5000 square foot homes in outlying areas be held accountable for doing more than some people to harm the earth, which we all share, 3:25?

I don't understand that position.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 3:30 PM

3:30:

Because some people on this blog think that no one should be held accountable for anything. They are the closeted Republicans of NYC. They come out on this blog and terrorize people like you who are trying to make a difference by trying to make you feel guilty for it.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 3:31 PM

""How could speculation in the futures market affect the price of oil?"

Not the sharpest knife in the drawer, are ya?"

Guess not.

I don't understand how buying and selling paper -- a theoretical right to future delivery that will be settled in cash without any oil actually changing hands -- affects the price of the real thing. Usually derivatives derive their price from the underlying asset, not the other way around.

So explain it to me. And to Krugman too; I'm just parroting him.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 3:33 PM

3.31 - or are we talking about the holier-than-thous who only know half the story and therefore find it easy to criticize others?

The owners on here with Ipe decking (certified sustainable of course!!!, bollox certification thats what that is), air travel vacations, inefficient brownstones, imported-delicacy consumption.

Puhlleaze. Its all very well to do your bit, but to criticize others without even being aware of your own sins...

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 3:39 PM

Puhlleaze. Its all very well to do your bit, but to criticize others without even being aware of your own sins...

I've lived in the burbs for many years. I know the pros and cons of each. I can't believe that you are even trying to argue the point for suburban living over urban living, when it comes down to environmental issues. Do you not believe global warming is happening either?

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 3:45 PM

Suburbanite here.

I think PS is one of the most gorgeous neighborhoods I have ever seen. But there are a few problems. 1) You have to be wealthy to buy a house. 2) Even if you are wealthy you typically buy a 2-family house. I would NEVER want to deal with a tenant. 3) No parking. Sure it's a great walk around neighborhood. But the freedom to get into my car that is parked in my driveway is something I would not want to give up. 4) Private schools - most people cannot pay the big mortgage and $27,000 per kid for private schools. 5) Public schools - my cousin lives in PPS. Because her children have different needs and abilities, she is going to end up using four different elementary schools, middle schools and high schools. What a hassle. In the 'burbs you use one school. 6) The commute. 30 minutes and a guaranteed seat on Metro North beats the subway from PS any day.

Again, this is not a criticism of PS or any Brownstone Brooklyn neighborhood. But they're not for everyone.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 3:47 PM

The best thing you could do for the planet is shoot yourself in the head.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 3:47 PM

Yea, thats right, because i've pointed out all your potential environmentally-damaging behaviors after you condemned people living in the suburbs for destroying the planet, that means i deny global warming. I also deny the pope is catholic and that the sky is blue.

If you think that urban living per se makes your environmental impact smaller than that of a suburbanite, then you are ignorant. A green dilettante.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 3:50 PM

Just to chip in, there are a number of fallacies in the urban vs suburban fantasy of green living. Localized car pollution in highly arborealized areas is reduced and dissipated to the atmosphere to a lesser extent that city vehicular traffic is in tree-free areas. In addition, the concentrated massive pollutant amounts in cities where paving has completely disrupted huge swathes of runoff areas are problems not encountered in the suburbs. Complex additive heating effects from city conglomerations of lights, AC and other heating systems have different atmospheric effects to individual houses.

The urban vs suburban equation is not as simplistic as some on here (in their self-justifying sanctimony) would have you believe.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 3:58 PM

One family living in a 2 million dollar brooklyn row house? Thats not green.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 4:00 PM

I know very few people who live in an entire Brownstone themselves, 4:00. I'd say that's 10%. The rest are 2-10 family houses.

Where in the suburbs is that the case?

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 4:04 PM

4.04 - you mean legally or illegally?
illegally, many places.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 4:06 PM

Hey suburbanite at 3:47...

Question for you...You love Westchester so much that you spend your days reading and posting 500 word diatribes on Brownstoner about how awesome the suburbs are??

BTW, one of the main reasons I hear about people moving to Park Slope are for the excellent public school options. I don't have kids or live in that hood, but we here in Brownstone Brooklyn hear about it quite a lot.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 4:11 PM

I mean legally, 4:06. I live in a 10 unit co-op brownstone and the majority on my street are split up into 10 units or so. Maybe 5 on the entire block are single family, but even those have renters on the Garden level.

You ever been to Brownstone Brooklyn?

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 4:12 PM

"You ever been to Brownstone Brooklyn?"
"Do you not believe global warming is happening either?"

Did you go to the Staten Island Mall Upstairs School of Rhetoric?

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 4:17 PM

Wouldn't know. I don't hang out in Staten Island. Or at malls.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 4:20 PM

4.12 - so you know that brownstones are horribly energy-inefficient, and that there are huge multistorey condos in the city which are far more energy efficient. But your green-contribution is just right eh?You'll condem those perceivedly less-green than you, but ignore those greener than you in their higher density housing. So you'll excuse yourself basically.

Like the George Carlin quip, have you ever noticed that everyone driving slower than you is an idiot and everyone driving faster than you is a maniac.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 4:22 PM

4.17 - comment of the day.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 4:22 PM

Oh and I didn't write the "question" about global warming.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 4:22 PM

keep up the good work nancy drew, i mean 4:17.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 4:23 PM

"4.17 - comment of the day."

The comment of the day was posted an hour ago. Keep up Corky.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 4:24 PM

4.11 - "excellent" public schools is relative. These aren't Scarsdale-excellent. They are Brooklyn-excellent.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 4:24 PM

Surbanite 3:47,

I'm an urbanite rasing kids in the City who took it on the chin for private school tuition (paid 21 years worth of private shcool tuition over the past 11 years.

Now that the kids are done with private school, I don't pay anything for school anymore. That's no the case in the suburbs where that tax bill (the suburban equivalent of school tuition)has to get paid every year - for ever.

Also, I've found that kids who've gone off to college like to visting during vacations + summer because they and their friends enjoy being in the City. When the kids graduate, if they want to live/work in the City, we have an apartment to rent/give them.

pros and cons to all

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 4:25 PM

"You'll condem those perceivedly less-green than you, but ignore those greener than you in their higher density housing. So you'll excuse yourself basically."

Wow, spell much?

Anyway, my husband and I have 5 children together and we adopted 3 more over the years. So we needed the space of a brownstone. So yes, I feel that I am doing my best under the circumstances. We simply do not have 30 million for a spread in a condo.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 4:26 PM

Scarsdale is where over the hill cheerleading captains go to die.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 4:27 PM

Spell often, you mean.

So now, I see, you're a PS stroller mom.

Your green knowledge is based on a dabble in the NY Times science section and a stint at the food co-op?

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 4:29 PM

4.25 - no tax bill in the city? Do you mean you're a renter?

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 4:31 PM

The received wisdom of the brownstone set is all that more sad considering they see themselves as informed.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 4:32 PM

3:47 - look up the word diatribe. That was not a diatribe. I like Brownstone Brooklyn (you idiot).

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 4:34 PM

I like the idea of Americans seeing themselves as green. What a side-splitter!

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 4:35 PM

4:29, considering that I am now in my 60's, all my children are mostly grown (2 live with us) and I have 13 grandchildren, I would no longer consider myself a "ps stroller mom" as you say.

I have heard nothing about your efforts to be "green" so I see no reason to continue to justify mine.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 4:39 PM

4.39 - overpopulation - the world's major enviromental problem.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 4:41 PM

The most recent study of carbon footprints found that LA has a lower per person carbon footprint than NY (metro area). Two factors dominate: 1. density -- apparently LA is denser than NY, despite what you'd imagine, and commutes are shorter. 2. Heat. LA uses more a/c but not enough to make up for those mild winters. Nothing else matters much.

As between Westchester and PS, the carbon calculation is pretty simple: heat is going to be less in a smaller space and with fewer exterior walls. And most PSers use their cars less. Of course, if you vacation in Italy or drive to Montauk every weekend, or compare a 5000 ft brownstone to an insulated 1000 ft condo, that'll change things. So will new construction, including renovations; even green construction is far more carbon intensive than just living with the old stuff until it wears out.

Transporting food is trivial by comparison (transport is only a small part of the food's carbon footprint anyway; most of it is the fertilizer).

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 4:43 PM

That halo hovering over park slope is looking beaten up.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 4:44 PM

Perhaps you should throw yourself off a bridge 4:41. That would be one less right there. As for the woman who's adopted 3 kids in addition to her own, that is impressive and nice to hear about.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 4:45 PM

The halo hovering around PS is in your head, 4:44.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 4:46 PM

4.45. "Perhaps you should throw yourself off a bridge 4:41. "

Well argued. Same S.I. school I'll hazard?

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 4:55 PM

The tree costs of building brownstones (wood as structural materials and as involved in obtaining other materials), or any other old house was very large and we are still feeling the effects. In addition, over the lifetime of the house, the brownstone will be releasing far more heat into the atmosphere and taking more energy to keep it going.

Its just like my old polluting jalopy. We have em cos we love em. Trying to justify them on a green basis is hogwash.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 4:59 PM

yeah, cause they don't use wood anymore for houses.

they are made of styrofoam and twigs.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 5:03 PM

My condo hasn't got any wood in it. And no styrofoam either.

btw: twigs = wood.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 5:09 PM

"My condo hasn't got any wood in it"

Must be in Williamsburg, then.

Sorry...

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 5:11 PM

It is, N7 and Bedford.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 5:16 PM

"N7 and Bedford"

The 7th ring of hell...

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 5:21 PM

Does get busy.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 5:23 PM

what a bunch of pansies. this green competition is exactly where they want you. consuming the next luxury good at even fatter margins. the whole global warming issue is just bad science. not saying the earth isn't getting warmer, just that the human contribution to it is debatable. plus, who cares if the planet gets warmer? there are actually studies suggesting that the benefits (like more sustainable food) more than compensate for the negatives (like no polar bears). i guess these people are the six figure "creatives" that are supposedly buying up park slope these days. long on theory, but short on actual knowledge or critical skills. you should have taken the B.S. track science courses in college, it would really benefit you today. btw, if you make arguments for conservation instead of carbon footprint, you will sound a lot smarter.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 5:26 PM

Sounds like the only thing some of you are conserving, is sex.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 5:33 PM

Rents for Manhattan apartments remained generally flat in June compared to last year, according to a monthly survey by the brokerage Real Estate Group of New York.

Prices for one-bedrooms in non-doorman buildings dropped the most, by 4 percent to $2,859, while studios in non-doorman buildings rose by 2.1 percent to $2,190. Two-bedroom prices fell by 1.8 percent to $4,069.

In doorman buildings, studios showed a .2 percent drop to $2,642; one-bedroom increased 1 percent to $3,786; and two-bedrooms fell by 1.1 percent to $5,700.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 5:39 PM

Holy mother effer! Those are rents these days???!!

No way, no how!

No WONDER so many people have been buying over the years!

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 6:00 PM

the 10 dollar bottle green diswashing liquid we buy. Sucks! the dishes are not squeeky clean like Palmolive and it's not good on my nails.

I miss the good ol days.

"Mage they're soaking in it!"

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 6:41 PM

Seeing as this thread has turned to issues "green", I felt I had to chime in:

Let's get away from using the term "Global Warming". It sounds too benign. Yes, the planet is warming but a better way to frame it is "Adverse Climate Instability". Yes, the "warming" IS leading to some fearsome climate changes: methane release and a mess in the Arctic, change in North Atlantic salinity which may leave the region in a mini-Ice Age, retreat of glaciers up their valleys, less snow pack leading to prolonged droughts downriver come summer, rising ocean levels, more powerful storm systems…

The rise in temperature is one thing, but for humans the adverse weather will probably cause the most problems over the next decades. This year already has been a looloo. And the last years of increased hurricane damage, tornado frequency/damage, massive floods, droughts, brush and forest fires...well, we're in the beginnings of a bad period and will most likely not get any better: wind and flooding damage in suburbs, cities, and the countryside...crop damage or failure...massive and expensive damage into the billions...population displacement and trauma.

Living in Brooklyn, we *do* have a large impact on the environment but per capita, we do use less fuel for transportation compared to the average US resident. And…even though lots of suburbanites could grow a lot of food, they’re buying the same kind of trucked in food that we in Brooklyn buy.

Some of my thoughts on how we could reduce our footprint…though the march of Climate Change is upon us:

A) Reduce your energy and resource usage all around:
a. Switch out to energy-efficient appliances (fridge esp.'ly) and all types of HVAC equipment (from the home furnace to the large-scale air-conditioning systems on big buildings).
b. Turn down the thermostat during the heating season if you can; turn off fans in empty rooms in summer since they do not cool the room running on their own…the motors add heat to the room while there is no cooling effect if nobody is there to feel it.
c. Turn out unnecessary lights when you’re not using rooms (motion detectors can benefit white collar businesses and institutions). Plug into powerstrips such things as computers and monitors, TVs and other “ghost load” culprits (most electronic devices…things with transformers and LED standby lights)
d. If it’s brown, flush it down. If it’s yellow, let it mellow.
e. Reduce water usage through reduced flow, a change in habits and effort at awareness to document if your efforts work. Common advice: don’t run the water the whole time you brush your teeth, take short showers, wash dishes in a basin, stack them soapy and then rinse them together in a basin of fresh water. [If you had to cart all your water, you would learn FAST to be VERY efficient in your usage, but we’re not at that stage right yet…]
f. Try other ways of cooking: Kuhn-Rikon makes insulated cookware (bring the food up to cooking temperature, then turn off the heat source…food continues to cook for a long time) and pressure cookers. Common advice: heating a conventional or convection oven and putting in a large amount of food to cook will be more efficient than cooking a small amount of food in the same oven or a large amount in a microwave oven.
g. Switch to one of the electric suppliers that produce electricity from wind. It will channel money to additional wind turbine installations.

B)INSULATE (insulation, weather-stripping, caulking, address window issues possibly installing storm windows which can be put in without any landmarking issues…greenroofs are very insulative but not too common yet) and think about ways to make use of your home's passive solar gain through windows on heating days...cover windows to cut out sun and reflected heat in summer or to keep out cold in winter.

C)Alternate energy and greening, some of which is within reach now or with a change in mindset:
a. Install solar PV (grid tie-in) and hot water panels on your roof
b. Install a green roof (insulate and water management, reduces heat island effect and may extend the life of your roofing membrane.
c. Grow as much food as possible: roof, backyard, balcony, window sill, community garden, grow grapes up a sunny wall…and yes, you can even have chickens and other fowl in NYC legally….if you can hack it…
d. Compost: backyard or community garden. Some farmers’ markets now have dropoff points for your local community gardens. A success has been the composting effort at the Fort Greene green market on Saturdays.
e. Buy or exchange with others “gently” used items: clothes, furniture, house and kitchen wares.
f. Being done but not too common: rooftop beehives. It’ll cost you about $300 for a hive set up and bee suit…kind of steep for most people; and about $700 for an extractor—you can do without by hand but an extractor is efficient and keeps the cells of the comb intact so bees can fill them without having to rebuild the wax cells from scratch. Buy an extractor together with neighbors or others who want to do the bee thing on their roofs or in backyards too.)
g. And even rarer right at this time but possible:
i. Build and use a masonry stove which can also provide hot water for washing and heating
ii. Composting toilet: example is the Clivus Multrum
iii. Ground-source heat pump for heating (and if really necessary, cooling) which may be efficient if done right
iv. Bring the cohousing idea into your neighborhood. Can you coordinate the backyard space of a number of houses in a row? There are resources to help you do this. It’s kind of like coop-izing the yards. There can be one consolidated play area for the kids for many houses while more space can be set aside to raising fruit and vegetables during the growing season.

Best,
FGG

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 7:16 PM

"When the kids graduate, if they want to live/work in the City, we have an apartment to rent/give them."

That's why we feel leaving Brooklyn would be a bad choice in the long run (besides the high property taxes for eternity thing). Kids have to do unpaid internships while in college and often don't get paid anything their first year out of college either -- what are they also going to pay NYC rent then? Don't think so. Having to live in your old bedroom isn't as uncool or depressing when your parents have a house in NYC.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 7:18 PM

"Composting toilet"

I dont get it. are you saying remove the water and store the turd?

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 8:31 PM

The futures market is a zero sum game so when someone is settling their position for cash prior to delivery there is a buyer on the other side. The buyer may be another speculator or a hedger (someone whose business relies on the underlying commodity and they are trying to apply certainty to their futures costs. The trades made throughout the day establish the price and the exchange posts the last price based on the day's activity. So if the momentum is that buying is more than selling (due to pure speculation or business driven notion that the commodity will go up in price), the price will naturally rise. This is the REAL price.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 10:11 PM

Yes, a composting toilet often avoids using any water--be it "grey water" which is water recouped from sinks, tubs, showers and often used for flushing toilet waste, or, as we rather absurdly use precious "drinking water". Toilets can use rainwater or course, but you need a large cistern capacity (and frankly, ample rain) and the room to make this happen for an average family of 4 in the US with 1.6 gpf toilets. Better to collect rainwater and to filter it for drinking if water is scarce (CA and AZ...and some would argue that all drinking quality water is scarce!). Best not to flush it away.

Drinking-quality water should be used for cooking, drinking and washing.

Certain brands of composting toilets can create a high grade liquid fertilzier and basically a compost that is safe to use on gardens. The bigger the receptacle, the longer it processes and the safer it is. The Clivus company's systems are about human height so could sit in a basement. The pipe used to vent the thing can be snaked up to the roof just like a dry stack or vent is for water fixtures.

In a new home designed to accommodate one where commode placement can be planned out from the get-go and chases can be created, multiple commodes can be attached to the Clivus Multrum, say, having two bathrooms/WCs next to each other or a bathroom on floor 1 and another on floor 2 positioned so the commode empties correctly.

Clivus now has a foam assisted commode that allows for a smaller waste pipe and a more distant offset from. It uses 3 ounces of water and a drop of liquid soap per "flush".

http://www.clivusmultrum.com/products.shtml

I have seen this type of composting toilet installed and functioning perfectly for years.

There can be a big cost savings for houses that would otherwise require a ceptic system which can cause landscaping issues, lots of town regulation and busybodiness, maintenance costs by the company that comes to pull the muck out of them, increased water bills or if one has a pump pulling well water up, a MUCH higher electricity usage (be it grid electricity , generator--i.e. noise, fuel expense and pollution--or from one's own PV or wind--i.e you spend more on sizing your system up to handle the heavier electricity need.)

There are a lot of infrastructure costs we take for granted using drinking water for our flushing. NYC spends a fortune on providing our toilets with fresh, drinkable water. You can cut your water use in half by having a Clivus and these can mean pretty big savings in some places.

And yes, I know it sounds like this all applies to homes in the Stix (over the River Stix) but this is technology that can be used right here in NYC. Granted, there are composting toilets available that would entirely fit in the bathroom but they are not as efficient as the large version like the Clivus that sits in the room below the bathrooms.

BTW, 8:31, thank you for your question since it shows you persevered and read through my list. Bravo!

FGG

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 11:42 PM

"I don't understand how buying and selling paper -- a theoretical right to future delivery that will be settled in cash without any oil actually changing hands -- affects the price of the real thing. Usually derivatives derive their price from the underlying asset, not the other way around."

Commodities are different from other kinds of paper in this regard, because if the future price rises above the cost of interim storage, an arbitrageur can make a risk-free profit by buying the underlying asset, selling the future, and storing until delivery date. That means that the future prices are more tightly coupled to the spot price than is the case for other asset classes. For more information, read the wikipedia page on contango.

Incidentally, a corrollary is that if oil inventories stay low, it's more likely that fundamentals rather than speculation is driving a rising price.

Posted by: guest at June 26, 2008 12:22 AM

"$300 dollars a barrel in 2013 means approximately $9.00 a gallon for U.S. drivers.

Enjoy it suburbanites!!!!"

___________________________

$5.00 to take the train 4 stops from Brooklyn to Manhattan...

Enjoy it yuppie!!!!

Posted by: guest at June 26, 2008 9:27 AM

9:27 wrote -

$5.00 to take the train 4 stops from Brooklyn to Manhattan...

Enjoy it yuppie!!!!

Actually, I work for the MTA. It'll probably be highter for fares - $7.00 - $8.00 a ride EACH way. We're already doing projections and it doesn't look good.

This whole mentallity of City vs, Suburbia is silly. We will all get the shaft in terms of paying way more for our daily commutes. Supply and Demand. Cars use gasoline. Trains use electricity. NY is one of the worse states which generate their own power and provide it to its residents. And it's going to get a lot worse once they close the nuclear power plant down and price of energy continues to rise.

Posted by: guest at June 26, 2008 9:53 AM

i think the best thing you all should do for the planet is to have yourselves rendered incapable of breeding.

Posted by: guest at June 26, 2008 10:37 AM

I'm a 15-year Brooklynite about to move to the burbs. The main reason (far greater than any other reason) is the schools. I just have no faith in the long-term quality of schools in NYC, while I feel much more confident in the continued quality of the schools in the town I am moving to. And paying $27K in after tax dollars for private school plus the cost of NYC income tax makes the economics of the burbs a much better deal.

That said, I am sad to leave. I love Brooklyn and know that my kids will be poorer for the move in some ways. But everyone must weigh the tradeoffs in their own mind and make the choice that seems best for them and their family.

There is no point in being sanctimonious.

Posted by: guest at June 26, 2008 10:44 AM

""I don't understand how buying and selling paper -- a theoretical right to future delivery that will be settled in cash without any oil actually changing hands -- affects the price of the real thing. Usually derivatives derive their price from the underlying asset, not the other way around."

"Commodities are different from other kinds of paper in this regard, because if the future price rises above the cost of interim storage, an arbitrageur can make a risk-free profit by buying the underlying asset, selling the future, and storing until delivery date. That means that the future prices are more tightly coupled to the spot price than is the case for other asset classes. For more information, read the wikipedia page on contango.

"Incidentally, a corrollary is that if oil inventories stay low, it's more likely that fundamentals rather than speculation is driving a rising price."

This all makes sense, but then if speculation is driving price there should be some stored food or oil inventories, just as there were in several of the famous famines, or like the electricity shutdowns in California.

Krugman says there aren't any signs of this inventory buildup. Is it possible to hide it??

Posted by: guest at June 26, 2008 11:52 AM

Where are you going, guest @ 10:44? We are also considering a move (well, we are actually agonizing over it) to the 'burbs and have been checking out towns along the Hudson and Harlem train lines. So far, Bronxville seems to be a winner.

Good luck with your move. Life is compromise, right? I think it was Darwin who said that it's not the strongest that survive, but those most adaptable to change.

Posted by: guest at June 26, 2008 1:36 PM

11:19am from June 25 - we've **seen** that article - you keep posting it over and over again about how the suburbs are dying, everyone wants to live in urban areas because of gas etc. But simply posting that article over and over again is not going to prop up the sagging NY real estate market. True, these stats may not zero in on places like prime Bklyn but even here there are numerous price cuts starting to happen. I'm in the market for a townhouse (having sold our apt a few months ago, pre-Bear Sterns) and brokers are clamoring to have us make offers, even low ones, on properties they are selling that are either not moving, or taking cuts. This trend will probably continue moving downwards for the next year or so. We're taking our time, but will jump in at the right place at the right price - things are still overpriced but at least sellers seem to be getting more negotiable, perhaps because they realize it's not going to get any better any time soon, and could very well get worse so may as well take the significant profits now (which they are sure to make if they bought anytime before last few years)...

Posted by: guest at June 27, 2008 1:37 PM