« Today on the Brownstoner Backpages Closing Bell: Energy Crisis to Be Solved by Brooklyn »

September 30, 2008

Quote of the Day

quotation-icon.jpgThe places that will suffer most in real estate losses are the suburbs where the hedge fund managers and all those guys who made all their money off this crisis they created, paid many millions of dollars for huge houses they can only sell to the similarly very rich. There was a recent article in the NY Times about that, if anybody saw it. I'd rather be in my little Brooklyn neighborhood that's still affordable to those from many OTHER industries, than sitting in a huge house in one of these suburbs, knowing my former Wall Street neighbors are all going bankrupt and their houses will sit unsold and unuccupied for possibly years.

— by traditionalmod in A Letter From The Inside




Posted by Brownstoner at 3:28 PM | Comments (27)
Categories: QOTD

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/6485

Comments

I try to console myself with the fact that there's not a lot of big wall street money in places like Fort Greene and Clinton Hill but everything's so interconnected I'm not sure it will matter.

Posted by: This Aint No Disco at September 30, 2008 3:54 PM

Soo... a $2 million brownstone is an affordable fallback property now? YIKES! No wonder why we're in financial la la land.

Posted by: tybur6 at September 30, 2008 3:59 PM

Compared to Greenwich, CT, absolutely!!!!

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at September 30, 2008 4:04 PM

This is so untrue. House prices in the nice burbs have not shot up in value overnight like they have in many formerly sketchy precincts of Brooklyn. Suburban houses in the nicer towns may end up retainng more of their valuation because their values were not hyper-inflated to begin with. I think the suburbs are, unfortunately for us, in a better position to weather the storm. And the high-up executives are never the ones to suffer too much from these setbacks anyway, the axe falls on middle mangement and support.

Posted by: Inigo at September 30, 2008 4:07 PM

Somebody on a thread yesterday said the same thing that was said in today's quote of the day. Anyway, rich Wall Street types purchased goods and services from people who work in many other industries like the arts, high end home goods, etc... If they can no longer do so, it will affect the artists in Fort Greene, caterers in Williamburgh and everyone else.

Posted by: Just Wondering at September 30, 2008 4:08 PM

DIBS I get your point but $2million is still considered a rich house even in Greenwich CT. Remember that a lot mid-level wall street guys also live in the "mid-range" Greenwich neighborhoods of Cos Cob & Old Greenwich with great homes but not @ the super rich levels of the excesses you see in the media... again a $2 million pad in Greenwich is top tier material.. just not top 1%.

Posted by: pierre de taille at September 30, 2008 4:56 PM

Pierre de taille, I beg to differ, based on recent personal experience. My partner, who works in the financial secter, has been working in Greenwich for some time, and we decided the commute was just too rough from our home in Brooklyn. Not that we particularly wanted to live in Greenwich, but I was still flabbergasted by the $2 million dollar price tags on what were basically glorified high ranches. There were a few interesting houses around that price point, but they were in highly undesirable locations (main roads, merritt pkwy, etc). I know people with nice, although not knock-your-socks off houses in Greenwich which are in the 3.5 million dollar range. It's true that things are sitting on the market, but people are not giving homes away by any stretch of the imagination. "Nice" but not over the top homes in Cos Cob and OG are still way upwards of the 2 million mark.

In the end, we were forced to look 35 minutes drive north of Greenwich to find something we like that was similar in price to our Brooklyn home.

Posted by: Architerrorist at September 30, 2008 5:07 PM

My family sold a nice Victorian in Larchmont back around 1979 and got around 70K for it. I'll bet that house costs $2-$3 million now, so I'm not buying the prices didn't shoot up in the burbs arguement.

Also, I'd say the suburbs have remained generally the same over that time period. They were nice then and are nice now. Many parts of Brookly (Williamsburg, Red Hook and my very own Boerum Hill for example) are much better than they were back then. At least part of the price runup in Brooklyn is due to that.

Posted by: Boerum Hill at September 30, 2008 5:13 PM

Architerrorist:

Why not Stamford?

Posted by: Polemicist at September 30, 2008 5:22 PM

Polemicist -

Schools. Period.

We have multiple children.

Posted by: Architerrorist at September 30, 2008 5:30 PM

So, you really think Stamford schools are inferior in comparison with Brooklyn?

Posted by: Polemicist at September 30, 2008 5:43 PM

With the schools my children currently attend - yes. There are some excellent public schools in Brooklyn. But you have to be play the game.

Posted by: Architerrorist at September 30, 2008 6:03 PM

Also, you have to hope your children test into the better schools.

Suburban communities don't have these loop holes, as far as I can tell. Kids don't apply to MS and HS based on test scores. Great scores on the ELA are not going to help them in the suburbs if the school district stinks.

Posted by: Architerrorist at September 30, 2008 6:07 PM

I'm not saying Stamford is worse than Brooklyn, not necessarily. I don't know. I know this - for the hefty suburban taxes I'd be paying, the schools better be fantastic.

Posted by: Architerrorist at September 30, 2008 6:38 PM

Boy there are some major snobs on this blog, I must confess, when I say "nicer suburbs" I don't mean just Greenwich, Connecticut. Honestly, that's like saying "nice art" and assuming I am talking about a Rembrandt. I don't even think about Greenwich. that's la-la rich-peopleville. I wouldn't want to live there. But there are other places around, you know. The choice is not between Clinton Hill, Brooklyn, and Greenwich, Connecticut. Go to Long island, go to Jersey, non-gold coast Westchester, there are plenty of lovely affordable leafy towns with excellent schools, honestly.....
Greenwich!
puleese!

Posted by: Inigo at September 30, 2008 6:46 PM

I've compared to some degree. the suburbs strike me as very expensive unless you have multiple children.

transportation costs are the killer b/c everyone "needs" a car.

Posted by: slick at September 30, 2008 7:05 PM

slick, if owning a car is too much of a strain on your finances than I think you cannot afford a house anywhere.
Honestly slick, people on welfare own cars, y'know?

Posted by: Inigo at September 30, 2008 7:13 PM

Actually, wer are going to non-gold coast Westchester. We looked all over. House prices and taxes were both high, pretty much everywhere. Remember, my husband is commuting to Greenwich, not NYC, and the whole point of moving is to cut down his commute. Jersey and the Island were not choices for us.

CT and Westchester are expensive, not two ways about it, but once you get about 35-40 minutes away from Greenwich, you find some house prices that are consistent with what our house in Brooklyn is worth. We alreay have the two cars (which we can justify), and enough kids to run up a private school bill well over $100K per year for many years to come (if we had chosen to send them to private school)... We may actually do better in the 'burbs, or more acurately, semi-rural northern Westchester. A big change for this city girl, but more appealing than hardcore burbs like Rye and Scarsdale. However, I have to say, I am a big fan of Pelham/Pelham Manor... even with the sky high taxes. That would have been my second choice.

Posted by: Architerrorist at September 30, 2008 7:15 PM

Connecticut is a really depressed market right now once you get away from the nearby suburbs. Even there, who knows?
You can buy a fabulous house in that state for a relative song.
Pelham manor is also really nice. If you like the schools there -why not? Think of the r.e. taxes as "tuition" -and your city psyche may be happier.
Of course, once you leave the city and stop paying the city income tax you are already way ahead, and if you leave the state of NY, even for another high-tax state, you will not believe the difference. And car insurance is, I kid you not, maybe a quarter of what it is in Brooklyn (I have lived here and there) so you will have a lot of savings to offset the r.e. taxes -and those taxes go directly to your community and local schools!

Posted by: Inigo at September 30, 2008 7:32 PM

"I am a big fan of Pelham/Pelham Manor..."

I've got in-laws that moved there from Brooklyn. It's not for me, but it's very nice as suburbs go.

Posted by: SnarkSlope at September 30, 2008 8:43 PM

Agreed. I think Pelham Manor is one of the more palatable suburbs for city lovers who are forced for whatever reason (and there are a few) to consider the suburbs. It feels a little like a 1920s Ditmas Park, with higher taxes and excellent schools.

Posted by: Architerrorist at September 30, 2008 9:14 PM

Don't overlook Purchase, Harrison, and Rye. They have absolutely gorgeous architecture, speedy trains to GCT, and public schools that make the city's private schools look like poor relations.
For real value look at New Jersey, don't go to the richie-rich towns like Alpine, but check out Westwood and Haworth. I mean these are gorgeous towns with big houses that you can buy for the same price as a rowhouse in Bed Stuy -but without the tenant in the basement!
Why young people are paying these weird prices to live in bad areas of brooklyn astounds me. I moved to brooklyn Heights years ago, and believe me, I often think I should have spent my money in Bergen County or Rockland, some of those towns are so beautiful...and the people are not all stuck up and holier-than-thou.


Posted by: Inigo at September 30, 2008 9:32 PM

Whatever. the economy is still strong. Everyone will be fine. Buy some stocks while they're on sale if you're smart. In 10 weeks you libs will be scratching your heads again wondering why the world didn't end for the 879,075th time like you predicted.

Posted by: Billiamsburg at September 30, 2008 10:48 PM

Well of course the economy is strong. Where do you think we live? Argentina? Get off your duffs and buy a beautiful house in NY, NJ, or Conn. Buy a nice car too. Don't let your pants' zipper nip you like the goo-goo's hope.

Posted by: Inigo at September 30, 2008 11:35 PM

It's been my experience that people in New Jersey are the most uncivilized, obnoxious, and depraved people in the United States. Every time I step foot in that state I feel a sense of relief once I return to Brooklyn and a desire to take a shower.

Hell, I can barely stand riding my bike near Penn Station during rush hour - dodging the New Jersey filth is just too much for me.

Posted by: Polemicist at October 1, 2008 12:13 AM

i just find it so funny to read comments from people on this site bashing the wall street "fat cats" as the cause of this current crisis. Did they play a big part? You bet. But this housing bubble and "mortgage at all costs" mentality was fed by all the clowns out there crowing about how real estate is the safest investment and the only way to grow wealth is through your home. Idiots.

Posted by: martis at October 1, 2008 8:57 AM

FYI, just to clarify, when I was talking about the fat cat Wall Street neighborhoods in the suburbs in this quote yesterday, I was talking about places with houses that cost $3 million on the low end, and well above that for big houses and properties.

$1-2 million for a house in Brooklyn is still a lot of money of course, but that's a price range other industries can afford without massive Wall Street bonuses like those other guys were getting.

Posted by: traditionalmod at October 1, 2008 10:53 AM

Post a comment

Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.

Latest Restaurant Additions