« Today on the Forum Closing Bell: Let Freedom Ring (in Beer Bottles) »
November 4, 2008
Quote of the Day
unless the city's economy completely falls apart in a way that's vastly disproportional to the rest of the country, you won't see prices tank in "central" brooklyn as they have nationally. these neighborhoods improved in a sustainable way through renovations, through new businesses, through improved schools, and, yes, through quality new construction - all of which forces have less to do with speculation and a lot more to do with professionals and other middle- and upper-middle class people wanting to stay in the city and wanting to invest in their neighborhoods. unless things get really bad, i don't see those people changing course drastically. especially now - most can't afford to. yes, prices will continue to drop, until credit loosens up again and prices have come more in line with incomes and rentals. but expecting prices to return to pre-2000 prices, when brooklyn was a very different place, is evidence perhaps of having partaken of the smoke of ye olde crack pipe.
by i disagree in Last Week's Biggest Sales
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/7016
Comments
Well said my friend ! Finally somebody who understands real estate. Bravo ;)
Posted by: brownie77 at November 4, 2008 3:29 PM
It's called Tinkernomics.
Everybody keeps clapping or Tinkerbell dies.
Posted by: SnarkSlope at November 4, 2008 3:47 PM
Maybe; or maybe your logic is almost completely circular. The improvements in Brooklyn resulted from a massive, quasi-coordinated Ponzi scheme --mortgage brokers made ludicrous loans; Wall Street packaged and re-sold them; bankers pocketed massive bonuses; bankers bid up Manhattan real estate, sending "middle class" professionals to the boroughs; where they applied for...ludicrous loans, and off we went. It's unclear how hard the unwind is going to be. It certainly doesn't look to be fast.
Prediction: nominal prices sag but never collapse. Real prices go down considerably over time. (Bernanke is clearly going to reflate at all costs.)
Oh, also, the "illiquid market" meme --really, makes no sense, if the demand side weakens to the degree that it appears to be weakening.
Posted by: Whuh at November 4, 2008 3:52 PM
How has Brooklyn changed so drastically since 2000?
Except for the rash of highrise condos, it seems pretty much the same to me.
Posted by: sam at November 4, 2008 3:54 PM
"How has Brooklyn changed so drastically since 2000?
Except for the rash of highrise condos, it seems pretty much the same to me."
Higher rents
Higher sale prices
More restaurants, retail and amenities
Less crime
Cleaner streets
Improved schools
Blogs
A Flea Market
More beards
More white people
Less Brooklyn accents
Posted by: Prodigal_Son at November 4, 2008 4:00 PM
more white people???
pretty funny,
well, I guess in some areas.
Posted by: sam at November 4, 2008 4:09 PM
"more white people???
pretty funny,
well, I guess in some areas."
Since 2000, yes.
In Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, Bed Stuy, Crown Heights, Red Hook, PLG.
Posted by: Prodigal_Son at November 4, 2008 4:13 PM
Some of that is true, but some is just bs spread by the media and other brooklyn-boosters. Schools for one have not improved at all since 2000. Test scores have increased, but most schools have gotten worse. It has also gotten much harder to get your kid into a decent district if you don't live in one (which might be for the best).
More generally, I'd agree that some Brownstone Brooklyn areas have changed a lot. But some really haven't changed much since 2000. A friend of mine who used to live in PLG but moved out in 2002 recently visited and was shocked that the the neighborhood hadn't changed at all except for one or two stores that he noticed. I'd bet the same could be said for many other areas too.
Posted by: shillstoner at November 4, 2008 4:24 PM
You know, it isn't right to say that Brooklyn is somehow better because there are more white people. There are more educated and sophisticated people of all races. Isn't that a fairer statement?
Posted by: sam at November 4, 2008 4:26 PM
Sam, where did anyone say brooklyn having more white people makes brooklyn better?
Posted by: dittoburg at November 4, 2008 4:32 PM
Eh, this quote is really wrong. "Prime" Brooklyn will go down only a little, if at all, just like the San Francisco Bay Area during the 1989 and dot-com crashes. "Marginal" Brooklyn has already dropped 40 percent in the last two weeks (compared with prices in 2007). It's frightening. And there are only more pre-foreclosures and boarded-up buildings to come. It looks like Florida, Modesto, Arizona out there. Rest of Brooklyn would have to end up somewhere in the middle, I would think.
Posted by: mopar at November 4, 2008 4:35 PM
hahahahahaha. I like this quote.
Posted by: KHuebbe at November 4, 2008 4:38 PM
Garbage
Of
The
Day
Posted by: DOW8000SP800 at November 4, 2008 4:40 PM
whuh - where's the evidence that brooklyn's UMC and MC owners were direct victims of bad loans? sure, they paid higher prices but most people i know are mortgaged within their means.
the bankers and other financial professionals also fixed up homes and their rentals, helped get trees planted and medians created, started tremendously popular flea markets, helped improve schools, etc. (mopar, i agree with you on "marginal" brooklyn. i'm talking "prime +" brooklyn, which would include south slope, clinton hill, prospect heights, windsor terrace, parts of williamsburg, gowanus and red hook, maybe some others i'm less familiar with)
some of this investment is absolutely illiquid to the investor. and if you don't believe any of this adds real value to the buyer, how do you think desirable neighborhoods get created in the first place? obviously, it's not entirely short commute times or hell's kitchen would be as sought-after as CPW.
what i'm saying boils down to: (1) i don't think flight is going to be as extreme as some seem to be predicting; and (2) given that and the fact that a decent portion of price increases are due to real value rather than speculation, i don't think the brooklyn market is in for as significant as a drop as the rest of the country.
but who knows, i might be wrong. and if i am, i'll be the first person in line for a fully-loaded $300K 2-BR doorman condo in tribeca.
Posted by: i disagree at November 4, 2008 4:40 PM
What a load of crap. This is based on what analysis?
Whuh at 3:52 has it right.
No one knows how far prices will fall but to argue that "Central Brooklyn," whatever that means, is somehow immune is not rational. If 160,000 people in the in NYC lose their jobs next year (as the NYC Comptroller projects) owners will NEED to sell. And there will be no (or very few buyers, and still no liquidity). Also, numerous units in the "quality new construction" you cite are owned by speculators and investors who will run for the hills if they cant recoup their costs.
Its true that prices should hold better in more established neighborhood like Park Slope, Cobble Hill, etc. than in fringe neighborhoods, but prices will fall everywhere.
Posted by: very bored at work at November 4, 2008 4:48 PM
I have to agree with the other posters that Brooklyn really hasn't changed that drastically since 2000. There have been changes sure, but for the most part the nice areas are still nice and the decrpit areas are still decrepit. The Fulton mall is still in its 1968 time warp.
Posted by: sam at November 4, 2008 4:52 PM
i'm not arguing that brooklyn is immune and that prices won't fall. reread the comment, please. if you can agree that prices should hold better in "more established neighborhoods" than in "fringe" neighborhoods, you agree with me.
Posted by: i disagree at November 4, 2008 5:00 PM
Looking around my neighborhood, I wonder quite a bit about the families who've chosen Brooklyn as a way to stay in NYC. Maybe you can raise one kid in a condo or apartment if you're ready to do a lot of accompanying that kid as they grow and want to see friends and play outside, but two? And I'm seeing more and more families of four, pregnant women with toddlers, etc. Granted, I'm just one person, but I know 3 couples who had to give up the ghost once they got to two kids in an apartment. One moved to Hudson Valley, two to New Jersey, all are blissful at having a yard.
Posted by: lucille at November 4, 2008 5:40 PM
"Maybe; or maybe your logic is almost completely circular. The improvements in Brooklyn resulted from a massive, quasi-coordinated Ponzi scheme"
Brooklyn's improvement started in the 1960's and 70's, then really took off in the early 90's.
Are you suggesting the Ponzi Scheme began in 1965?
Posted by: 11217 at November 4, 2008 5:45 PM
Here is the NUMBER ONE reason why Brooklyn has improved since 2000 (along with increased crime reduction)
"Brooklyn is becoming educated even faster (than Manhattan). Since 2000, the number of college graduates there has risen by about 80,000, or 24 percent, while residents without a high-school diploma have declined by about 110,000, a 24 percent decline."
The full article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/16/nyregion/16degrees.html
And Lucille,
One would think that if we are going to enter a serious economic recession for many years, people won't be having 4 kids. It's very rare, and the trend is more towards smaller families.
Posted by: 11217 at November 4, 2008 5:51 PM
I've lived in Boerum Hill since 1994, and the neighborhood has changed hugely. Whether or not you think it has "improved," it definitely has the amenities that weathier people like, which were mostly absent when I moved here. Houses are more likely to be single or two-family (than the rooming houses of yore) and to have been extensively (and expensively) renovated. All of this is evidence that the gentrification is here to stay.
Posted by: Brooklyn Chicken at November 4, 2008 5:55 PM
If you don't think Brooklyn has changed much since 2000, you clearly haven't lived here long enough.
One prime example (in a neighborhood which has been great for a while now) is to have walked down 5th Avenue in Park SLope in 2000 and to now walk down this street.
It's like night and day, the change...
Posted by: 11217 at November 4, 2008 6:00 PM
The more educated tend to have smaller familes too...
Posted by: dittoburg at November 4, 2008 6:05 PM
dittoburg - actually, in my observation, the new status symbol is 3 to 4 children. the very rich are popping them out like crazy.
Posted by: gkw at November 4, 2008 6:14 PM
Indeed, the difference on 5th ave between 2000 and 2008 is amazing.
It does make we wonder though, if it changed so quickly, can it roll back quickly as well?
What if stores and restaurants start to close because of the decreased business due to the recession, or an inability to secure funding to run day-to-day operations?
What if landlords, having tasted higher rents, refuse to lower them to allow lower end businesses to rent space?
Could it - for a time - get *worse* than it was in 2000?
Posted by: SnarkSlope at November 4, 2008 6:47 PM
Pretty much the exact same argument could have been made in 1989 (and in fact was). For those old enough to remember, the city was a completely different place in 89 compared to a few years earlier. As a result of the huge bull market neighborhoods had been completely transformed. No person not from the hood would ever walk around in alphabet city before about 83. By 89 I was going out in the East Village all the time. I remember walking around in Soho in the early 80s and it was still very much a ghost town - by 89 it had become filled with quality galleries and great restaurants. There were streets in the 70s that the police would not venture to visit. NYC still had a ways to go, but the city had been vastly improved by 89 in many ways - renovations, quality new buildings, schools were getting better, etc., etc. Guess what people, real estate finally started going down around 2 years after the 87 crash which was really a 1 day event that shook the city and drastically reduced real estate prices. The crash was a fluke caused by computer design to short the market if it started falling and it just snowballed.
What we are going through now is so much more significant. A drastic economic dislocation the likes of which we haven't seen in many decades and you think Brownstone Brooklyn won't get hit and hit hard?
Posted by: Brooklynnative at November 4, 2008 7:00 PM
Brooklyn is STRONG but suffering as the rest of the country. The credit freeze will impact short-term. Consider getting back to the market in 9 months, by then prices will drop enough to enable new investors to make money in the long term.
Posted by: bk8 at November 4, 2008 7:02 PM
The biggest change in brooklyn since 2000, and this is what the brokers love, is that it has gotten progressively less affordable to the average new Yorker. Is that a good thing? Yes, if you work for Corcoran, but otherwise it's not so good. And ultimately it will retard and undermine the real gains that have been so long in the making.
Posted by: sam at November 4, 2008 7:55 PM
The parts of Brooklyn that will remain stable are the ones zoned for good schools. The reason real estate isn't dropping that much is because the public schools in these areas are unbelievable. In parts of Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens and Park Slope there are tons of parent-involved schools with dedicated teachers and outstanding programs. Those who can't afford private schools and want to live in the city will still flock to these neighborhoods. Families of four will squeeze into two bedroom co-ops and sacrifice space for these schools.
Schooling plays a key role. Even prices in the N. Slope are much lower than Center Slope because PS 282 is not as good as PS 321. The same goes for parts of Carroll Gardens that are zoned for PS 32 not PS 58 or PS 29. Also in our public school, half of my children's class are folks that moved from Manhattan for the good schooling and a bit more space.
That said, the middle schools still aren't all that good, so I do see people moving when kids are a bit older. I have a children in public school and applying to middle school is a huge deal. Many folks with kids in younger grades often reference that they might consider moving when their older child is in 5th grade. Of course if people stick around the middle school landscape might change drastically in the next few years.
Posted by: brooklyn44 at November 4, 2008 8:27 PM
I have to question why a rational family would squeeze themselves into a small apartment in say, Park Slope, when they could otherwise live in a much roomier house in the burbs with excellent public schools. Are these people doing their kids an injustice making them live like old-time urban huddled masses? At what point does wanting to live in the city become stupid?
Posted by: sam at November 4, 2008 8:42 PM
i agree that brooklyn has improved dramatically. i've seen it personally in several hoods I've lived in. both with retail and crime statistics, and definitely with schools.
there are many good schools that will be perceived as "better" when higher income, better educated families send their kids there. we are zoned for 17, and i went on the tour yesterday, and all the people their were of this ilk. so, here's my anecdote for the day. a well regarded school (from an academic standpoint) which will soon be flooded with well dressed kiddies in the playground as the majority of new buildings including the waterfront big buildings are zoned for 17 in williamsburg, there are 4 kids from our building alone going there starting next year. also, the zoned middle school is very good too. prices will eventually rise along with this increased perceived value. nyc low real estate taxes - especially if you have an abatement as many do in williamsburg - ends up being cheaper and easier than living in the suburbs if you send your kids to local schools.
anyway, many do have stable incomes and are in for the long haul.
Posted by: wine lover at November 4, 2008 10:11 PM
I totally agree with you wine lover. We bring our kids up in Brooklyn because we like the community and aren't isolated in our backyards/homes all day. I couldn't imagine driving everywhere and not having a sidewalk. Also I grew up in the city and also couldn't imagine having to take a commuter train like LIRR and Metro North to work and to be forced to live by a train schedule. I jump on the subway for work and am a quick ride to our neighborhood if there are any issues at school like having to come home for a sick child, etc.
I will admit that when we had our second child we looked at houses in the suburbs but the taxes in most commutable neighborhoods run about $12,000 for a 600k house and heating averages at least $500 a month in the winter and when you add in two cars and two commuter rail passes, it's no bargain. Also home repair is quite costly, boilers break, roofs need to be repaired, septic tanks go and that adds up. We might have the occasional assessment for our building, but we share it amongst all the owners. This is the reason families of four squeeze into an apartment. Also we don't need a yard, we have Prospect and Central Park and are always doing stuff in the city like seeing plays at the New Victory, going to museums, etc. I love that when we are bored, we walk to the transit museum and check out the old trains or walk across the Brooklyn Bridge. I don't want to have my kids stuck in a suburb sitting in a basement or playroom playing XBox all day. I love that it takes ten hours to walk down our block because my kids keep running into their friends (of course that's also a bit annoying at times).
Posted by: brooklyn44 at November 4, 2008 11:03 PM
Interesting comments here.
By family of four, I actually meant two parents, two kids. Anyone who has four kids in 2008 is out of their minds. Ha.
I think the ability and temperament to raise a family in the big city exists, but is not common. My fiance is born-and-raised, but at the end of the day, not many people are, and it takes a special type to do it. As one of my recently-moved friends put it, Try and put you and your spouse in a two-bedroom apartment in a nasty winter month with two healthy boys, aged 4 and 6, and see who comes out alive.
What I've found interesting is what looks to me to be a huge post-9/11 baby boom combined with a booming economy and lower crime. These things have created sort of a perfect storm of people becoming "urban families." Will this trifecta continue? Well, one third of it just took a beating. How will the rest fare?
I'm not saying people are going to lose their shirts in their home values (especially if they bought their homes to live in and not flip). I'm just saying that the fabric of the city is going to be changing, no doubt, and that's got to change the picture for home values.
Posted by: lucille at November 5, 2008 2:01 PM

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