« Thursday Links Open Thread »

April 2, 2009

Manhattan Market Frozen

The news from across the East River ain't good: Prices and sales volume are both down, and it's taking a lot longer for apartments to sell; inventory is up 34 percent over last year. That's the bottom line of the First Quarter Report from Douglas Elliman and Halstead released this morning. The number of co-op and condo closings fell 58 percent year-over-year and prices dropped 11 percent. (Co-op prices fared worse than condos, though that was likely skewed by fewer eight-figure co-op deals; in fact, the number of $10 million deals fell 87 percent.) “Consumer confidence is the killer,” said Dottie Herman, president of the Prudential Douglas Elliman brokerage firm. “People are scared. They have never seen anything like this.” Corcoran head Pam Liebman predicted that prices will fall further as sales volume picks up, which is good—it's the only way for the market to find its bottom. How do you think the Brooklyn market is faring compared to this?
Apartments Sell for Less if They Are Sold at All [NY Times]
Crisis Hits Home: Manhattan Massacre [NY Post]
Photo by Rob Young

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/9107

Comments

where Manhattan leads, Brooklyn will follow.

Any credit for Team Bear please?

Posted by: the chicken at April 2, 2009 9:09 AM

On another note, yesterday's release of 9.9 MM Seasonally Adjusted Annual Rate of auto purchases was well above expectations and is a highly correlated leading indicator to home sales.

I will try and publish the graphical correlation in the Forum.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at April 2, 2009 9:18 AM

NYC is decoupled from the national market. National sales will rise (perhaps in correlation to auto sales) well before NYC sales recover.

Posted by: lechacal at April 2, 2009 9:25 AM

lechacal, you and I both know that any change in sentiment among the economists as to when GDP will recover will be based on the broader, national numbers. For once, NYC doesn't actually matter. That's whats driving the stock market.

And interest rates will be up today, folks.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at April 2, 2009 9:29 AM

In the next 10 years you will see NYC on top as Global warming food shortages and high gas prices push people out of the Suburbs and into this great city.

Posted by: sebb at April 2, 2009 9:34 AM

I am keeping track of several very attractive offerings near my home. Nothing is moving. People come to the open houses, but they are not buying. Springtime should usher in a little more optimism on the part of buyers and perhaps more realistic expectations from sellers.

Posted by: sam at April 2, 2009 9:35 AM

"it's the only way for the market to find its bottom." That just sounds dirty to me today for some reason.

Posted by: tybur6 at April 2, 2009 9:35 AM

DIBS, previous comparisons don't necessarily hold true in this economy. Besides the slashing of prices of autos is far steeper than the moderate decreases in housing prices in many areas.

Posted by: Iknow at April 2, 2009 9:37 AM

It's an eveyday activity for some of us tybur6

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at April 2, 2009 9:37 AM

Umm... Sebb, why is it exactly that NYC will be so attractive? Currently, it requires 3 times the income as compared to these soon to be abandoned suburbs to have a similar quality of life.

I'm not going to disagree that folks will finally submit to living with "density," but NYC is not the top of the list. More likely, smaller cities will become bigger... and will probably become quite nice due to the influx of people, cash, etc. They have the flexibility for major infrastructure revisions. (Think Portland, OR or even Buffalo) Add a few million people to NYC and it's going to just become *more* of the same... and cost more and the quality of life will decrease.

Posted by: tybur6 at April 2, 2009 9:41 AM

sebb: As always, you are right. You should pick up a few condos to juice your returns over the next 10 years. Don't worry about paying 2007 prices. You should spend less time sharing your secret and more time using it to make yourself money!

Posted by: lechacal at April 2, 2009 9:41 AM

Iknow...all its going to take to instill confidence, get the stock market up another 1,000 points and essentially cause people to pull the trigger on buying a place will be one or two key economists calling for an earlier than expected positive GDP number. That's all I'm saying.

If Nouriel Roubini would say something positive every Asshat with a Schwab account will pour into the market.

The stock market has already begun to discount the turn in the economy. It is THE leading indicator.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at April 2, 2009 9:42 AM

I'm not sure that global warming will do NYC any favors, sebb. Setting aside how much of the city's land would be under water, it won't take much of a sea level rise to make our sewage treatment plants inoperable. Then we'll literally be up shit creek.

Posted by: Sparafucile at April 2, 2009 9:43 AM

Still waiting to see 1200.00 a monthe rent for a 1 bedroom in Carroll Gardens,Park Slope and Brooklyn Hieghts. I love the fact that in the CNN report on the housing bust in Manhatten they ask the Cocorean group for their opinion.

Posted by: hannible at April 2, 2009 9:48 AM

"The stock market has already begun to discount the turn in the economy. It is THE leading indicator.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at April 2, 2009 9:42 AM"

So why were you bullish on house prices when INDU went from 14,000 to 6,500? Your Japanese experience should tell you otherwise.

Posted by: the chicken at April 2, 2009 9:49 AM

chicken...my position all along was not that house prices were going to go up or even remain flat. My only position was that Brooklyn brownstones would not come off in price as much as 1. Any other part of the country and 2. NYC coops and condos. I'm still believing in a 10-15% or so reduction in brownstone prices from the top, which I believe was essentially 4Q2007.

I hope that clarifies my position on Team Bull.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at April 2, 2009 9:56 AM

It's a bit lame only to discuss percentage declines or "avergae price for a co-op" in articles like this. Where is the data on the current nominal value of a 3-bedroom apartment, 2-bedroom, etc.?

My opinion: when/if lots of nice Manhattan 3-bedroom apartments are under a million or rents for less than ~$3,000/month, that's when the Brooklyn Brownstone market will be in big trouble.

Posted by: Mr Joist at April 2, 2009 9:58 AM

Being that I am by nature a contrarian, I take the opposite view of most academic environmentalists and believe that it is just as likely that dense cities like NY will be the least sustainable while sprawling cities will be more so. Cars are getting very clean and very efficient. The MTA on the other hand is a stone age relic that seems to be on the verge of extinction. As tolls to bridges and tunels keep going up, everything will become more and more expensive. I don't see why crowded cities like ours will necessarily fare better than the suburbs in crisis times.

Posted by: sam at April 2, 2009 10:00 AM

sam...my biggest fear in life is a DUI ticket or hitting a deer at night after coming home from dinner. I will remain within walking distance or cab/car service from bars & restaurants the rest of my life. Can't do that in the suburbs.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at April 2, 2009 10:14 AM

The most interesting quote from the Times article for me:

"He said a more significant figure was the sale price of existing co-op and condominium apartments, which was down 20.9 percent, to $732,000, since the first quarter of last year."

Posted by: greenwood at April 2, 2009 10:14 AM

" 'Consumer confidence is the killer' "

No. The fundamentals (the mathematically inevitible collapse of a Ponzi/Madoff economy) are the "killer". But it's a natural correction neccessary for a recovery. Gotta die before you resurrect.

"How do you think the Brooklyn market is faring compared to this?"

Far worse. Brooklyn is an extension of Manhattan, not the other way around.

***Bid half off peak comps***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at April 2, 2009 10:15 AM

"stock market is a leading indicator"
"every asshat with a schawb accounct", Daveinbedstuy
You ever think maybe you are the asshat with a Schwab account? If you think the stock market is important I hope you did not pay for a private college. Got Bonds?

Posted by: brickoven at April 2, 2009 10:20 AM

lechacal: I don't like condo fees.

For those of you who think the suburbs are better and safer than NYC clearly have never lived there before. The Police depts around this country are years behind the NYPD. They have no clue on how to Police, they drive around in vehicles all day responding to 911 calls, without any knowledge on how to prevent and stop crimes.

Posted by: sebb at April 2, 2009 10:21 AM

I think you are right, sam. But not just "crisis times." Smaller cities will be FAR more livable... and those smaller and medium cities (say 75,000-200,000 people) will be the ones that grow and have public services and infrastructure to support the increase. The MTA can't build tunnels, street cars or buses quickly enough in this *packed* city to deal with an increase.

And this is all separate from the doomsday scenarios... you should listen to a presentation by the PLANYC/GREENYC folks to be scared to death. A relatively small hurricane that made it's way into the little corner where manhattan sits... huge destruction in the form of crazy floods filling tunnels overwhelming pumping and destroying transportation, communications, and electrical infrastructure.

Posted by: tybur6 at April 2, 2009 10:23 AM

brickoven...you are such a fool, such a fool. Even the What understands that bonds, in particular treasuries, are the biggest bubble right now. You hold them at your peril. You've been warned.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at April 2, 2009 10:25 AM

To reiterate... it's not the suburbs or rural areas that will grow. There will definitely be a trend towards density over the next decade. But it will NOT be in New York City. Sure, NYC's population will grow, but other cities will grow much much faster.

Posted by: tybur6 at April 2, 2009 10:28 AM

tybur6...serious questions...which ones do you think will grow faster and why??

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at April 2, 2009 10:34 AM

When house prices were ludicrously high (okay, even ludicrously higher than they are now), it was a Bad Thing because ordinary working folks were priced out of the housing market. Now that prices have become Somewhat Less Ludicrous, the wailing intensifies. Why can't everyone just cheer up and applaud all the new Affordable Housing?

Posted by: Brenda from Flatbush at April 2, 2009 10:43 AM

Daveinbed, treasuries are trading at a premium for good reason. I was talking about corporate bonds though. You keep buying youre little stocks and thinking the bottom is in. There is no bubble in the bond market, in fact it is priced as if the S and P will trade much lower soon. Brooklyn prices are in real trouble. Who is going to move into all the new buildings in Williamsburg and DT? As people lose tenants in there brownstones and go into foreclosure as there ARMs explode who will live in the Brownstones? My guess is that the only area in Brooklyn that is safe is Brooklyn heights. Are you an owner? what year did you buy?

Posted by: brickoven at April 2, 2009 10:44 AM

I think cities that have thought about the future will grown first... like Portland, OR. They made a great investment in the TriMet system that is ready to grow, including (probably most importantly) created a inter-municipality structure that will make future growth and expansion easy -- unlike the dysfunctional agencies we have around here (MTA, PortAuthority, etc.)

And because it's already happening, cities that used to be bigger and were really great in the past will grow again. These are places that used to be manufacturing-based, but have experienced major decline... Buffalo, Worcester, Providence, and cities in Pennsylvania. These cities have the "bones" and history to make it work.

Posted by: tybur6 at April 2, 2009 10:49 AM

"chicken...my position all along was not that house prices were going to go up or even remain flat. My only position was that Brooklyn brownstones would not come off in price as much as 1. Any other part of the country and 2. NYC coops and condos. I'm still believing in a 10-15% or so reduction in brownstone prices from the top, which I believe was essentially 4Q2007.

I hope that clarifies my position on Team Bull.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at April 2, 2009 9:56 AM"

That's fine and a position that I believe you have mentioned before. My post was in response to your point towards the top of the thread, specifically;
"The stock market has already begun to discount the turn in the economy. It is THE leading indicator."

It is true that the market does move ahead of the economy but it can also represent a false dawn - something we have seen several times in Japan.

Yes, yesterday's SAAR number was better than expected - a lot to do with expectations having been so brow-beaten up to that point - but let's call a spade a spade. 9.9m is still plumbing the depths last seen in the early 80's. Given the recent incentives available, a small bounce is pretty pathetic in the context of the economy.

Notwithstanding that the seasonal adjustment formula is a suspect one, we also do not have any indication of the product mix. ie unit sales may have doubled in reaction to prices halving but it doesn't mean it was a good result.

Posted by: the chicken at April 2, 2009 10:50 AM

brickoven: I am short Brooklyn real estate (sold in '07 and now rent) and long the S&P. S&P may go down near term and I have no idea how much, but I will keep buying on a regular schedule for the duration. I expect to do very well in equities over the coming years.

A bubble is developing in most "inflation havens" that retail investors have access to. Gold is becoming bubblicious. Grandmas in the midwest responding to ads on TV that scare them about a level of inflation that may or may not ever arrive and convince them to buy gold? That investment has pretty much jumped the shark.

Posted by: lechacal at April 2, 2009 10:50 AM

Tyburg:

Since you brought up Portland (my favorite U.S. city outside NYC) I wanted to show you this article which was in the Times last week. I believe you are correct in the sense that smaller U.S. cities will *probably* start to thrive in the coming years, but I also firmly believe that NYC will continue to lead the pack. The density of intellectual minds here is what makes NYC so special and attractive to many.

Here's a highlight of the article and the full article...notice how unemployment in Portland has absolutely SPIRALLED in the last year...going from 4.8% in 2007 to 9.8% now...it's going to take a MUCH longer time for these smaller cities to regain jobs than it will take for NYC to do so:

****
Portland, a metropolitan area of 2.2 million people, affords an ideal window onto the spiral of fear and diminished expectations assailing the economy. The area has long attracted investment and talented minds with its curbs on urban sprawl, thriving culinary scene and life in proximity to the Pacific Coast and the snow-capped peaks of the Cascades. In good times, Portland tends to grow vigorously, elevated by companies like the computer chip maker Intel — which employs 15,000 people in the area — and the athletic clothing giant Nike.

But in recent months, Portland has devolved into a symbol of much that is wrong. Housing prices have fallen more than 14 percent since May 2007, according to the S.& P./Case-Shiller index. Foreclosures more than tripled last year, according to RealtyTrac. The unemployment rate for the metro area surged from 4.8 percent at the end of 2007 to 9.8 percent in January 2009, according to the Labor Department.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/27/business/economy/27portland.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=portland%202009&st=cse

Posted by: 11217 at April 2, 2009 10:51 AM

Are you buying corporate bond funds or are you picking and choosing and running an undeversified portfolio. The runup in corporate bond prices as the appetitie for risk increased is largely over. With any increase in risk appetite and with interest rates on the rise overall, equities will beat bonds. And Emerging Markets will be the best. That's just the way it works.

My LTV is 45%. The house will be paid off in 15 years at the latest. There's no sense in paying off a 5-6% fixed rate mortgage.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at April 2, 2009 10:53 AM

11217 -- NYC went from 4.1% to 8.1% in the same period... and a lot of these were finance jobs, that I don't think are coming back to NYC necessarily. This was experienced after 9/11 too... a lot of firms found homes elsewhere. Of course, maintained a *presence* in NYC, but the bulk of their operations went to smaller cities.

Posted by: tybur6 at April 2, 2009 10:54 AM

sam & turbur6: I think you guys are way-off the mark with your pro-suburb/pro-medium size city predictions...
Energy efficient cars are only efficient in-terms of mileage: they still create huge amounts of pollution & consume huge amounts of energy when you factor-in their production, the amount of raw land converted to highways, streets, parking lots & ever-wider-sprawling McMansion communities. They are at best a stop-gap to get us off the totally unsustainable, post-WWII GI Bill-funded suburban development pattern - which, not coincidentally, is at the core of the current housing collapse.
And just think for, oh, say 30 seconds about your boosterism of Portland, or better yet, Buffalo: if you start pumping people into medium-size cities, what do you get? Big cities - except they are big cities without the big city infrastructure & social/political networks already in-place. Perhaps you think the federal bailout money could be better spent building a from-scratch light rail system in Buffalo rather than repairing parts of the NYC subway?
I cold go on, but the bottom-line is that unless you are predicting a Mad Max-style social breakdown, dense cities like NYC are the most sustainable models for future growth.

Posted by: parkedslope at April 2, 2009 10:56 AM

tybur6...I think those cities are all good choices. I know that Worcester has pulled itself up from the dregs, Providence has gentrified as well. Unfortunately most of this has occurred because of the nationwide murant asset bubble.

As you may or may not know, I am long Philly and Bucks County property. Philly, due to its proximity to NYC, will continue to see an influx of people. Its just sad that the goverment there is so poor and the crime continues to be a drag for anyplace outside of Center City.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at April 2, 2009 10:58 AM

sam:"I take the opposite view of most academic environmentalists and believe that it is just as likely that dense cities like NY will be the least sustainable while sprawling cities will be more so. Cars are getting very clean and very efficient. The MTA on the other hand is a stone age relic that seems to be on the verge of extinction"

Completely untrue. Car-oriented systems can never compete with NYC; cars are nowhere near clean enough, and electric cars just push off the pollution to central plants. The energy usage of NYC on a per capita basis is much smaller than suburbs, because of large buildings and attached residences (not to mention less land use). Subway and bus transit is much more efficient, don't conflate the incompetence of the MTA with the actual transportation.

Posted by: cmu at April 2, 2009 10:59 AM

Tyburg:

I think that as NYC becomes more affordable, a lot of companies who thought they couldn't afford to be here, might take a 2nd look. I think the same is true for people. I thought of moving to Portland 2 years ago when prices here were outrageous...I went and met a ton of people who had relocated from NYC to there. I hear some talking about maybe moving back now that NYC is becoming more affordable again, as I'm also hearing from a few people who left for the burbs because they found NYC too expensive.

I don't know...obviously this is all anecdotal, but my zest for moving to Portland has waned after going back again 2 months ago. It's lost a little bit of it's shine for me, because everyone I talked to said they wanted to move to Brooklyn. I had to rethink things, and thought that maybe it was a "grass looks greener" type of thing for me. Maybe one day I'll move there, but I'm in no hurry anymore.

Even the guy who started Stumptown coffee up and left Portland where he started his business and moved to Carroll Gardens.

Posted by: 11217 at April 2, 2009 11:04 AM

DIBS - I agree, a lot of the growth these cities have been experiencing is due to the bubble... BUT they are still far more attractive options than NYC for folks looking at the "transition" from suburban/rural life to one of more density. And it's the bubble that has given these cities a little kick in the arse -- sure, they'll slip backwards a bit, but not back to they're low point.

NYC doesn't have a lot of ways to "expand" infrastructure-wise before major quality of life issues start to manifest. These smaller cities can... and will. Some will "fail" and others will bloom. NYC will simply become painfully out-of-reach for most people to even contemplate... and "just working in NYC" and living elsewhere will become increasingly less and less attractive when other options start to appear. Why live an hour+ one-way commute form manhattan in Somewhereville, NJ when I can get a similar job in Providence and either walk or take a bus 15 mins to work...

Posted by: tybur6 at April 2, 2009 11:10 AM

11217 - i hear ya... but I think NYC is not affordable in the long-term. It's not sustainable. In global economic terms, the wages required to live in NYC are absurd. Yeah, cost of living is high and the wages are *relatively* high -- though not in-line with the C o' L.

How is a company supposed to compete when a middle manager in NYC must be paid $90k or more, when the same job in Houston or Philadelphia or Seattle is $50-60k ??!

Also, I really don't see companies moving to NYC in droves. Commercial real estate in Manhattan is still $50-90 /sq ft. It's half that or less is soooo many other cities. You really NEED to be in NYC to pay those rates... and I don't see this "need" being justified for a lot of companies.

Posted by: tybur6 at April 2, 2009 11:17 AM

You've brought up Providence a couple times now...Michigan and Rhode Island are one and two in the nation for the highest unemployment rates in the country...both are now over 10%. And they say that's not even close to the actual numbers, because those are just the people actually looking for work...

What jobs exactly do you see Providence luring back...? I'm genuinely curious, because in my mind, if Boston and NYC become more affordable, most companies would try to establish a presence there...not in Providence. I see New Haven poised to attract more people than Providence (and I do really like Providence a lot, but it's certainly not NYC).

http://www.projo.com/news/content/RI_JOBS_01-23-09_RJD28BC_v185.4280185.html

Posted by: 11217 at April 2, 2009 11:18 AM

"but I think NYC is not affordable in the long-term"

I don't know...it seems as though we are headed in the direction of becoming more affordable, at least.

The things is...us brownstoner readers are in a bubble. It would be like us starting a blog in LA that makes up the Santa Monica, Westwood, West Hollywood area and then saying nothing is affordable anymore, when there is a WHOLE city around us with areas that are affordable.

Leave the brownstone belt and Brooklyn is actually quite affordable. As is Queens, the Bronx, and parts of Staten Island and New Jersey.

We are in one of the most desirable areas of the city, so of course it's expensive. Maybe it wasn't like that 30 years ago and some old timers can't believe that this part of Brooklyn is "cool" now, but it is. It's a fact. Brooklyn has become a "brand" and that brand basically refers to Williamsburg/Greenpoint and Brownstone Brooklyn.

Posted by: 11217 at April 2, 2009 11:23 AM

11217-- It's all about the long-term. "but it's certainly not NYC" is one of the things that makes NYC ridiculously expensive. Folks start to believe the hype and think that the experience they might have elsewhere is somehow inferior. There's no reason an arts scene, culinary scene, sense of community etc. can't emerge somewhere else... equal to or superior to NYC (if you are prepared to admit it).

Sure, Providence has issues -- but a lot of the unemployment problems in R.I. are because the state as a whole is in the middle of a transition... like Michigan.

Both are/were heavy in manufacturing or various types.... this will shift. Blue collar jobs will remain (and probably grow), but a different sort. States and cities that have already gotten through a lot of the "transition pains" appear a lot more stable these days.

Posted by: tybur6 at April 2, 2009 11:26 AM

11217 -- You're missing the point when you mention Queens, Staten Island and New Jersey. Sure they are *less expensive* but I wouldn't say affordable.... and you've changed the game. You're now looking at a place to live as a place to sleep and you work in Manhattan... an hour + commute away.

What if I actually want a certain quality of life where the arts, cuisine, culture, AND work are actually accessible to me? I either have to make ridiculously high, unsustainable wages and live in the "most desirable" areas... or I choose a city that is smaller in scale. And the inverse, businesses will locate where they will be able to attract a workforce with these "perks." The ability to attract a workforce is invaluable! NYC currently has that ability... but *retention* becomes an issue. "They're paying me $60k!! and I get to live in NYC!" That's all great... until you find yourself living in outer-Queens commuting 3 hrs a day on a packed subway and can't afford the culture and art the city has to offer.

My prediction is that the smaller-scale city is what will take hold. (in the 10+ year range... not in the rollercoaster peaks and crashes we've been experiencing over the last few years)

Posted by: tybur6 at April 2, 2009 11:36 AM

11217 Brooklyn will go back to wat it was 30 years ago and may old timers like me will love it. You can continue going to get your free breakfest at Ikea and 99. cent Starbucks

Posted by: hannible at April 2, 2009 11:39 AM

I agree to an extent, Tyburg, but for me the comment about "but it's not NYC" does indeed apply. I've been to every state in the U.S., and I would not want to live anywhere but here and possibly Portland one day. Otherwise, I'd leave the U.S.

Part of that is because I genuinely love and appreciate NYC, it's energy and it's diversity, but a larger part is that for what I do for work, this is the best (and basically only) place to be.

There are a lot of people who work in creative industries who really need to be in New York. These creative fields are going to be expanding as financial services contract I think.

I appreciate your optimism about Michigan being in transition, but I don't think I can be quite so optimistic. Michigan has been on a decline for 50 years, with no end in sight. The current administration is going to be pumping the majority of dollars into cities in the next 4-8 years, and NYC is going to be on the receiving end of a lot of the investment, I believe. While some cities like Portland, Providence, Baltimore, etc will most certainly rebound and show strength in the future...places like Cleveland, Detroit, Cincinnati, are on a very fast downward trajectory.

I'm nervous about the huge boomtowns in the Southwest too...Phoenix, Las Vegas etc...I don't know what's in store for them. As someone who has lived in one of those cities, I can say for certain that if I never set foot in Phoenix again, it would be too soon.

Posted by: 11217 at April 2, 2009 11:41 AM

"11217 Brooklyn will go back to wat it was 30 years ago and may old timers like me will love it. You can continue going to get your free breakfest at Ikea and 99. cent Starbucks"

I don't know what I'm even responding, but I absolutely despise both Starbucks and Ikea. I don't shop at either. I do 99% of my shopping at local mom and pop and 2nd hand/vintage/thrift stores all over Brooklyn. It's a very rare occassion that I feel the need to shop at a large scale retailer.

Just like I don't pretend to know you, how about you not make assumptions about people/things you don't know anything about. I chalk your statement about wanting Brooklyn to be what it was 30 years ago to ignorance. Nothing more, nothing less. People who can't accept change are not people I wish to engage too much time with.

Posted by: 11217 at April 2, 2009 11:44 AM

Hiya Dumbasses! So this means we are finally waking up???

The funny is Brooklyn housing market is in big trouble! People will move back to Manhattan this summer as rents and prices fall. Part of "Brownstone Brooklyn" is going to get smashed! You can rent a 2 Bedroom in Tribecca for under 3200 a month (with one month of free rent) and be at work (if you still have a job) in under 5 minutes. The novelty of Brooklyn is wearing off, the retards are running out of pixie dust and sometime this fall the walls of Jericho will fall down...

The What (Obama Skittle stimulus plan)

Someday this war is gonna end...

Posted by: Return of The What at April 2, 2009 11:49 AM

11217-- You're right about the creative industries to some extent. Many of these firms "need" to be in NYC... and this need outweighs the negatives. This isn't the case for many/most other endeavors.

And I would suggest that this isn't even the case for the creative industries... let's take Advertising. Is there a *need* to be on Madison Avenue anymore?? Or can the firm simply maintain a "presence" in New York to be accessible to their clients... but have the bulk of the operation in Aspen or Chicago or North Adams? And given the competitive environment, will these firms be able to demand the rates adequate enough to maintain "NYC Wages"?? Or would a 20-40% discount on the payroll outweigh having a Manhattan or Brooklyn address?

Posted by: tybur6 at April 2, 2009 11:51 AM

That's fine for the renters What but you can't buy a brownstone in Manhattan for anywhere near the price of Brooklyn, even BH.

I'm going to paint my door a rainbow of Skittles colors before my block gets landmarked.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at April 2, 2009 11:55 AM

I totally get and hear what you are saying Tyburg. And it's part of the reason why I seriously thought about moving to Portland.

In the end though...I decided that a small space in a more prime neighborhood was the right solution for me. I don't need a lot of space, and really enjoy living in a neighborhood and city where so many things are right out my doorstep.

Simplifying my life 2 years ago has increased my quality of life tremendously. I have taken quite keenly to living in a small apartment, and the idea of a house and car in Portland is no longer so attractive to me as it once was.

I get that not everyone wants that though...

Posted by: 11217 at April 2, 2009 11:55 AM

Hey What...i found Eubie Blakes address. right across the street from Solomon's Porch. I found a copy of a letter to him online and I'm going to give it to the Porch.

Thanks

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at April 2, 2009 11:56 AM

11217 -- that's the thing... "I don't need a lot of space, and really enjoy living in a neighborhood and city where so many things are right out my doorstep."

The smaller cities are becoming or are going to become this too! You don't need to live in the suburban parts of Portland -- you can live in the Pearl District (which is quite expensive... but still less so than Brooklyn) and have doorstep access to the whole city and your local neighborhood. The big difference is that NYC has lots and lots of these neighborhood "units" while a smaller city would have just a few. Work, live all in the same spot.

No need for a car, but it would be much easier to have one in another city... if only for weekend getaways (and it wouldn't cost $12 just to get out of the city limits like it does here!!)

Posted by: tybur6 at April 2, 2009 12:03 PM

"Hey What...i found Eubie Blakes address. right across the street from Solomon's Porch. I found a copy of a letter to him online and I'm going to give it to the Porch."

I'm willing to bet you did not know who Eubie Black was before yesterday!

The What

Someday this war is gonna end...

Posted by: Return of The What at April 2, 2009 12:05 PM

You're right Tyburg. The 3 or 4 times I've been to Portland, I stayed right in the Pearl District, and actually went to go look at quite a number of lofts for sale there to get an idea of what I could afford. I really do love the Pearl District...there are so many amazing neighborhood in Portland actually.

As I mentioned though...this last time around...I was carrying around this Brooklyn bag and bartenders, waiters, randoms on the street would stop me and start up a conversation because of that bag. Their love of Brooklyn was palpable. It obviously has to do with the circles I run in...musicians, artists, etc...they all hear about Brooklyn as the be all end all in many respects. I got a lot of advice about Portland, and the people there really do seem to like it, but the most popular phrase I got with reference to my love of Portland was "wanna trade places?"

For better or for worse, I came back to NYC realizing what a great thing I've got going here.

Posted by: 11217 at April 2, 2009 12:12 PM

I would mostly agree with 11217...

Although, I would add the following: it's easy to try and analyze and compare to death things like city amenities/arts/attractions, prime locations, aspects of cost living, etc...but the fact is, cities are never directly comparable in that sense - sure, it might cost me more to live my life in Brooklyn than it would in Portland (which is an amazing city in its own right), but for me the history, people, architecture and general atmosphere of NY trump most other monetary considerations (and I make a very modest salary, believe me). Not saying NYC is the be-all-end-all, but it's simply the place I want to be.

So, all I'm really saying is that you can't always graft a price or practical justification onto why you choose to live in a certain place...sometimes it's just home.

Posted by: collin85 at April 2, 2009 12:19 PM

I'm not that stupid of an Asshat, What.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at April 2, 2009 12:21 PM

tybur6 - Just wanted to say that I'm loving your commentary today. I think you're spot on, and the real growth will be in the smaller cities. They are more affordable points of entry with blanker infrastructure slates upon which to improve.

Posted by: SnarkSlope at April 2, 2009 12:51 PM

tybur6 - it seems in your daily posts like you really don't have a great deal of affection for NYC, (at least the high cost of living here), and you're obviously skeptical about the long term viability of NYC. Just curious, are you living in the city and if so, why?

Posted by: squaredrive at April 2, 2009 12:56 PM

Phoenix is the Kidnapping capital of the USA. It's also very affordable you guys should move there it's sunny.

Posted by: sebb at April 2, 2009 1:02 PM

Re: Portland. I have friends there who say that it is fantastic, in many of the ways you all say--but also that it's full of white-collar transplants (from CA, etc.) working in low-level retail jobs because there just isn't the commercial infrastructure to support them.

Portland may be "cheaper" if you have a job, but you can't just assume that someone could transport their NYC job and salary there, nor find the equivalent.

Posted by: basementalist at April 2, 2009 1:27 PM

Most people aren't quite so flexible about just picking up and moving to a new city in a different part of the country. If you're young, single and looking for a job, maybe. If you're half of a couple and both of you work, or if you've got kids in school, it becomes another story altogether. People don't want to pick up and leave their extended family and friends behind.

That said, of course smaller cities will continue to grow at a faster rate. The population of Portland has grown more than 100% since I was born. In the same timeline (1970 to 2009), New York has barely grown 1%. New York has a finite island-based land mass and has had an official housing shortage since 1974.

Yes, real estate prices are going to drop. But New York always bounces back eventually.

Posted by: Kris at April 2, 2009 1:44 PM

Squaredrive, I absolutely do live here... in Ditmas Park, or Beverley Square West or Victorian Flatbush or SoChuch.

I indeed have a fondness for NYC, well, actually Brooklyn to be precise. If the Met and MOMA weren't in Manhattan, I'd have very little inclination to go to that island.

My problem is that the cost of living challenges my fondness EVERYDAY. I make a decent wage -- quite a healthy sum in most other places -- but I find myself struggling in this city, living paycheck-to-paycheck. Oh, by the way, I have one of those jobs that can't be outsourced and moved to another city... me or someone like me *must* work here in Brooklyn, but soon the person with my job will have to commute over an hour from New Jersey or Central Queens or Ozone Park. Does that seem right?

I'm a renter... I don't have the financial cushion (say, $100k) needed to own. BUT, the real estate market directly affects me! Every house that sells for $1.6 million instead of $560k (as it did 5 yeas ago) means the 1-bedroom apartment in the basement is now rented for $2700 to a lawyer or banker with gobs of ridiculous cash instead of $1400 to a person like me... oh, and I end up renting an apartment that should be available to a secretary or shop worker... they simply don't get an apartment. They commute 3 hrs a day to earn $28k a year... basically our table scraps.

And all of the culture and art and cuisine... I love it. Do you know the effort and planning it takes in order to enjoy this stuff once in a great while? I don't have an extra $300 for a broadway ticket, or $60 for a Mets crap seat, or $50 /person for a meal.... because this city drains me. Thus my waning fondness. I have friends here and a job I enjoy -- if either of those factors were to worsen... I'm not sure what would keep me here honestly.

(p.s. If I made $150k... guess what, I would probably be SOOOOO effing fond of this city it would hurt.)

Posted by: tybur6 at April 2, 2009 1:49 PM

Thank you SnarkSlope...

Posted by: tybur6 at April 2, 2009 2:00 PM

1) all those arguments of not needing to be in NYC (or any city) started at least a generation ago. Yet over the past couple of decades there has been a greater trend to the larger cities of the coasts and away from those smaller cities you people think are the new wave. Portland is one a a handful of places that seems to appeal to an affluent artsier demographic yet population growth of that county is small and future projections (by their own estimates) are not significant(at least compared to 'growth' areas).

2) It does not cost me $12 to get out of this city - just drive up the FDR and over the GW and cost nothing.

3) I do not pay $300 for broadway tix. I use TDF and spend about $35.

4) There are plenty of coops in middle class neighborhoods that are so unaffordable. But I really middle(where people that earn middle for metro area) - not upper middle,etc.
Most people in this city are renters. No way is 'mean income' peeople going to be able a house.

Posted by: Petebklyn at April 2, 2009 2:13 PM

yikes< i meant plenty that are affordable...flatbush, jackson hts, astoria, etc.

Posted by: Petebklyn at April 2, 2009 2:18 PM

I have to say Tyburg...I really have appreciated your comments today...I feel like I understand where you are coming from a lot better.

I agree with Pete too...I go to Broadway shows on occasion...I never spend more than 40 bucks...I go to restaurants I've wanted to go to during Brooklyn or NYC restaurant week for 23 bucks for 3 courses, I get drunk before I go out, and I've taken to cooking.

It takes some creativity, but it sounds like that's in your bones, so use some of that to figure out a way to enjoy yourself on a budget, is my only advice.

So many of the great things in life are free anyway...I have more fun on a sunny day with friends in Prospect Park than I do eating out at Nobu when it all comes down to it.

Posted by: 11217 at April 2, 2009 2:19 PM

"It does not cost me $12 to get out of this city - just drive up the FDR and over the GW and cost nothing."

And how much does it cost to come home?

Posted by: tybur6 at April 2, 2009 2:22 PM

Absolutely 11217 -- couldn't agree more. I enjoy myself. I just through those things out there to suggest the many many many ways this city drains you. I love the park -- and I also hope to find a good $200 bicycle to replace my current one -- and I cook and so on...

But it does beg the question... Why NYC? Most of the loving life, do it for free type things have nothing to do with New York or Brooklyn. Again, I'm fond of NYC for many reasons... I just find my fondness challenged.

Posted by: tybur6 at April 2, 2009 2:27 PM

I hear tyburg's point. I've lived in this city for 25 years and love it greatly, but could see the temptation of living elsewhere. In fact, I would seriously consider a move to a more affordable city like Portland, Boston, Berkeley etc. (where friends of mine live in areas of the city comparable to Bklyn but pay much less for housing) were it not for my husband who is a real die-hard NYC fan. Because I love this city, it's not a point of tension in our marriage, but what can be frustrating is the cost of living.

I work for a culture nonprofit and my husband for a small company so our incomes are modest. We had the good luck to have some start-up capital for our first home purchase which we leveraged into more and that's what allows us to consider buying a home now, though the property we're seeking would be considered modest in size in any other part of the country, and yet still costs a fortune - in part this is because we are attached to our prime location since our kid is in school there but also our community including childcare help. I know there are all kinds of ways to be raise kids in this city and make things work on a modest salary, but even with the major advantage we have (in terms of the past good luck in real estate), we do find it a struggle, between needing 2 full-time incomes, negotiating public school, childcare, commutes, etc. And for sure, the biggest ticket item hanging over our heads right now - and hence my obsession with real estate - is the price/location of our next home, since it ties into every other aspect of our lives - where we send our kids to school, our childcare options, travel time to work/school, how much income we need and hence how much time we have to spend with our families etc.

There are many times when I wish for a simper life, where we could buy, as many friends of ours did, a $400-600K home in a lovely college town or even in the Boston/Berkeley/Portland area. At that price (our budget here is over $1million), we could have cash to spare and consequently could feel less harried all the time, on the nonstop treadmill to work, work, work to bring home the donuts. Frankly, because of this treadmill, and our need to watch our money very carefully, we wind up not fully taking advantage as much as we'd like of this city's cultural offerings (though we try when we can).

The one silver lining of this economic downturn is that we truly hope for ourselves, and many other people we know, this city does become a lot more affordable. I don't think we're anywhere close to that yet, but we are certainly heading in that direction.

Posted by: Miss Muffett at April 2, 2009 2:33 PM

I'm pretty sure we're in the same boat, Tyburg. What I make here is considered peanuts, but in any other city, I'd be upper middle class as a single person. I don't know...there's something about NYC that keeps me here. I'm a naturally curious person by nature, and this city keeps me on my toes in a way that I feel as though I might end up stagnating in another city where things are a little "easier."

It's indescribable really...it reminds me of an asinine quote from Brokeback Mountain "I just can't quit you"

Although if Jake Gyllenhall ever offered, I'd leave for wherever he wanted to go in a heartbeat.

Posted by: 11217 at April 2, 2009 2:35 PM

Miss Muffett: You sound a little depressed. I hope you are okay?

Posted by: sebb at April 2, 2009 2:36 PM

Just to give you an idea folks...Portland ain't cheap either...

Here's a REALLY nice looking 2 bedroom/2 bath 2300 sf home in Portland for 1 million bucks...

http://www.trulia.com/property/1032473722-836-SW-Curry-St-Portland-OR-97239

As you get farther away from downtown Portland, it gets cheaper, but if you want a home with an urban feel similar to that in Brooklyn, it's not THAT much less expensive considering we are talking about Portland, Oregon and New York City here...

Posted by: 11217 at April 2, 2009 2:40 PM

Miss Muffett: Your concerns closely track with the concerns of my wife and I so I can totally relate to where you are at. As you know I made a different choice than you in opting to buy at this dicy time in the market but most of the other things you describe there could easily have been written by me...

Posted by: wasder at April 2, 2009 2:41 PM

11217... I'm the same for his sister. I keep trying to stalk her in park slope and hoping to be the homewrecker in that scenario, but I still haven't seen her. Plus, Maggie Gyllenhall already has a brownstone! So I'd be all set. :-)

By the way, I'm very proud of how effectively I hijacked this thread today. I'm giving myself a pat on the back.

Posted by: tybur6 at April 2, 2009 2:42 PM

Tyburg,

I know her exact address...

I've seen her at least 5 or 6 times in the neighborhood in the past 2 years...most recently at the GAP Greenmarket with her husband and kid. I find her to be one of the most underrated actresses out there.

I don't think we hijacked...I think we had a great conversation, actually.

Posted by: 11217 at April 2, 2009 2:46 PM

Wow Sebb, I can't tell if you're being facetious. I'm not depressed at all, but I'm just expressing the weariness that I think most working parents in this city often feel (unless they are perhaps lucky enough to have enough money to pay people to take care of the endless things that need doing). That said, I fully realize how lucky I am in so many ways, so I'm not complaining or in any self-pitying. I'm just pointing out that, as great as this city is, I can see pretty easily how people might choose to live somewhere that is, frankly, easier in many ways. It's not the choice we are making, and I hope, as my kids get older, that we can indeed do more and more of the cultural stuff that makes this city so great. But I really could see being happy in another city, and think that NYC is just one choice among many for lots of people out there, and often not the first choice (largely due to the cost of living).

Posted by: Miss Muffett at April 2, 2009 2:51 PM

"And interest rates will be up today, folks"

DIBS, you were saying...? ;-)

**
Mortgage Rates at Record Low for 2nd Week

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Rates on 30-year mortgages fell to the lowest level on record for the second consecutive week after the Federal Reserve launched a new effort to assist the staggering U.S. housing market.

Mortgage finance giant Freddie Mac said Thursday that average rates on 30-year fixed-rate mortgages dropped to 4.78 percent this week, from 4.85 percent last week.

It was the lowest in the history of Freddie Mac's survey, which dates back to 1971. Rates are down by more than a full percentage point from a year ago.

Posted by: 11217 at April 2, 2009 3:41 PM

tyburg - coming back to city I cross Hudson further north and toll is $1 or $2. Then come down Taconic - and can use 3rd avenue bridge to FDR and so toll really is not anything.

Although what you make here might be considered upper middle somewhere else....big ??? is if could you make that sum somewhere else. And if lost that job somewhere else is there another company that would hire you in same city.
And don't underestimate costs in other places. Middle income earners there don't have an easy time of it. Usually means 2 autos(and insurance),,and then another once kid reaches 16. House repairs, heating(or cooling), RE taxes not as cheap as you think.
I'm not one to think NYC is the only place to live. In fact I find it annoying when someone says that. One should be able to adapt and enjoy whatever place ends up.
For me, just 26 months to retirement, I could easily choose to live somewhere else but probably won't. Friends are here, things are familiar here, relatives are just upstate.
(plus other 1/2 still working although could get job anywhere anytime).

Posted by: Petebklyn at April 2, 2009 3:46 PM

point of that last was doesn't really matter to me if real estate prices here go down a little, quite a bit, or even up.

Posted by: Petebklyn at April 2, 2009 3:48 PM

Re: interest rates - when they rise, won't that further depress housing prices?

Posted by: Miss Muffett at April 2, 2009 3:48 PM

11217...they are today..across the entire Treasury yield curve from 3 year to 30 year. They will start trending up on a consistent basis. This is what I'm referring to as the rate rise that will push fence sitters off of the fence to buying, the spectre of rising rates. Mortgage rates themselves still have a bit to fall but the underlying Treasury securities are starting to sell off and will continue to do so as long as you see a stronger stock market. Mortgage rates are a little stickier to rise and fall than the day=to-day movements of the Treasuries.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at April 2, 2009 3:50 PM

Totally agree again, Pete.

I could not find a job like the one I have now in another city making the same money. Not even close, I don't think. And you are correct about the whole car issue and the expenses that come with that. $81 (soon to be $103?!) vs. probably $400 or 500 a month for a car payment plus insurance per month.

Those things add up.

Posted by: 11217 at April 2, 2009 3:53 PM

I lived in Seattle for a few years and did the whole driving thing... and I am very happy I don't have to do that anymore. BUT, I still keep a car. It's just too useful -- but I don't have payments and it's an old dependable car with low insurance and the associated expenses are low given how much I drive it.

That's the situation I would want when/if and wherever I were to move. And that's why I think, to go back to the earlier line of thinking, the smaller cities will be the ones to grow. You have this option... Seattle is a great example of how urban planning and infrastructure development failed. it's actually a very difficult city to live in without regular use of a car!

And Pete, I agree with you to some extent... obviously you need to live in a place where your skill set will be in demand. But this is obviously part of growth in the smaller cities. The successful ones will have diversity in their career opportunities.

Posted by: tybur6 at April 2, 2009 4:03 PM

"I'm just pointing out that, as great as this city is, I can see pretty easily how people might choose to live somewhere that is, frankly, easier in many ways."

Um, this is not a new phenomenon, guys. Are you familiar with the expression "If you can make it here, you can make it anywhere"? I know NYC has gotten more expensive and exclusive in the last few years, but it's almost always been a tough place to succeed!

Posted by: East New York at April 2, 2009 4:06 PM

These little town blues.....

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at April 2, 2009 4:08 PM

East NY - As a 25+ yr resident of this city, indeed I was referring to the fact that the city of late has indeed become much more expensive and exclusive (though perhaps that trend will now reverse big time), and when you have kids, you feel it that much more. Did Frank Sinatra raise his kids here?

Posted by: Miss Muffett at April 2, 2009 4:28 PM

Miss M-
If I can ask, what district are you in? I am still trying to research schools along with my home search, and all I ever hear time and again are the same few Brooklyn schools mentioned in PS and BH, both completely out of my budget.

I've since started looking at coops and condos in Ditmas Park and Midwood, further from the city and a longer commute but larger spaces for a family in seemingly decent school areas.

I'd like to buy before my son starts preschool in 2 years, but a recent perusal of the NYT showed me several 2 bedroom apts w/ dishwasher and laundry in buildings on the UWS for under $2000/mo. (I currently pay more for a dark walkup in a run down building near the AY footprint) I wonder, if come June when my lease is up if I'll be leaving Brooklyn after all these years for Manhattan. If Brooklyn rental prices don't fall in the better school district areas, I'm definitely considering it rather than moving farther out and having a longer commute.

Seems totally weird that prices in Manhattan are becoming more reasonable faster than Brooklyn, but that's what I'm seeing lately.

Posted by: ennuiater at April 2, 2009 4:33 PM

I'm in District 15, and have gotten very attached to our neighborhood since my son already started school there. The hood has gotten very expensive but moving further out is hard due to childcare, friends, commute etc. But if I were starting all over again I might have done things differently. And, the good news is, prices are definitely coming down so we do think we'll be able to buy something in the next few years within our budget, in our neighborhood.

Posted by: Miss Muffett at April 2, 2009 4:46 PM

Ho hum, Manhattan is down 11 percent, Brooklyn is down 8 percent. What's the big deal?

Isn't this what we were all expecting? Or rather, somewhat less than we were all expecting?

Posted by: mopar at April 2, 2009 4:49 PM

"Seems totally weird that prices in Manhattan are becoming more reasonable faster than Brooklyn, but that's what I'm seeing lately."

I believe it...Brooklyn is "cool" and "hip" these days and many younger people who move to the city see Manhattan as too expensive and too commercial and bypass it for Brooklyn. Brooklyn has become a brand all its own and I only see that trend continuing for the foreseeable future as more and more musicians, dance companies, not for profits and cultural attractions make the move from Manhattan to Brooklyn, along with the people who work at these places. NYC is the culture capital of the U.S. and the center of gravity seems to be shifting from Manhattan to Brooklyn in that regard...

With that being said, I'm SHOCKED that you can find a decent 2 bedroom on the UWS for under $2000 a month. I left the UWS two years ago and was renting a 1 bedroom for just under that price. And it certainly didn't have a washer/dryer or dishwasher.

Posted by: 11217 at April 2, 2009 4:52 PM

seeing ads for UWS 2 bedroom with dishwasher and laundry in bldg is not same as they exist. Real estate ads are notorious for b.s. Some ads may call 158st UWS and 2 bedrooms may be 400 sq ft.
When you actually see one and they offer you a lease...sign it and send us pics of the place .

Posted by: Petebklyn at April 2, 2009 5:03 PM

Ha! Yes Pete.

My co-worker just rented a STUDIO on 95th Street for $1895 a month (last week) so I'd really love to see these 2000 a month 2 bedrooms also!!

Posted by: 11217 at April 2, 2009 5:18 PM

I can't speak for the UWS, but I have a co-worker who recently rented a 1BR in the low 60s at Lex for $1650.

Posted by: SnarkSlope at April 2, 2009 5:23 PM

Miss Muffett: Berkeley more affordable? Where in Berkeley are you finding houses for $400-600K? Because I'll sell my house and buy one of them for cash today!

Posted by: basementalist at April 2, 2009 5:27 PM

This thread was fun to read.

Posted by: infinitejester at April 2, 2009 5:28 PM

Thanks MM! I appreciate the info.

Pete, I haven't gone looking yet cause my lease isn't up for a bit but here's one of the listings I saw this weekend:

http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/rental/472116-condo-469-columbus-ave-upper-west-side-new-york

Might be a fake, might be legit? If I was in the market to move this month, I'd be calling to see the place. If it's still around in June I'll check it out for you. :)

Posted by: ennuiater at April 2, 2009 5:29 PM

While I don't think that's a terrible deal at all given the location (82nd and Columbus is very nice!) the key word in that listing is "converted 2 bedroom" meaning it used to be a 1 bedroom and they converted it to 2.

If you look at the photos, the place is clearly tiny. I'd say 600-700 sf tops.

Still though... a better deal than my co-workers studio...that's for sure!!! Although her place is in a luxury doorman kinda place, and this listing looks like a walk up "townhouse" as it says...

Posted by: 11217 at April 2, 2009 5:35 PM

"Did Frank Sinatra raise his kids here?"

I don't know - but I do know that like a lot of people he went through some difficult times, some in NYC! I doubt he would have spent his time complaining about how bad things are, though. I raised a kid as a single parent here, paying marke-rate rent, all through the late 1980s and 1990s. It was tough. Were things as bad as they are today? Nope, I gues not by some measures. But it was never easy. You have to be tough to make it here. Maybe some of you aren't equipped to go the distance.

Posted by: East New York at April 2, 2009 5:39 PM

Posted by: SnarkSlope at April 2, 2009 6:16 PM

Ennulator, the ad says the apt has three rooms. Usually the kitchen counts as a room. So if true, it's a two bedroom with no living room. Or you could call it a one bedroom.

Posted by: mopar at April 2, 2009 6:43 PM

Mopar-

I did notice that. My current "2 bedroom" apt at $2100 in bklyn is actually a 1 bed conversion also. My family already lives in a small space. If we can get an equal space for less money, why wouldn't we do it?

That was just one example, there were many others on Street Easy and the NYT when I searched under the $2000 price point.

It will be very interesting to monitor the rent situation and see where prices are come closer to peak renting season. I can't decide what would be better- more space or a small apt in a better school district for my son. Choices, choices.

Either way paying less in rent would be fantastic, as it means more money saved towards our goal of buying in 2 years.

Posted by: ennuiater at April 2, 2009 9:36 PM

"us brownstoner readers are in a bubble. It would be like us starting a blog in LA that makes up the Santa Monica, Westwood, West Hollywood area and then saying nothing is affordable anymore, when there is a WHOLE city around us with areas that are affordable...We are in one of the most desirable areas of the city, so of course it's expensive. Maybe it wasn't like that 30 years ago and some old timers can't believe that this part of Brooklyn is "cool" now, but it is. It's a fact. Brooklyn has become a "brand" and that brand basically refers to Williamsburg/Greenpoint and Brownstone Brooklyn."

So true, so true. Very well put, 11217.

Posted by: mopar at April 2, 2009 11:59 PM

You know what is even better than Portland/Berkeley/Boston and totally underrated? The Raleigh Durham area in North Carolina, specifically Durham and Carrboro. The former has a bunch of lofts and is having a culinary revolution. The latter is a small town next to Chapel Hill where life revolves around the food coop and its front lawn. Everyone has a PhD and it's liberal without being annoying. It also smells great.

Posted by: mopar at April 3, 2009 12:11 AM

I moved from the "triangle" 2 years ago. Its a great area and Raleigh's growth is insane. Chapel Hill and Carrboro have a great community and pretty much everything you need in an area small enough to bike around in. If you live in the downtown area you can easily walk to grocery stores, bars, restaurants and several music venues.

Posted by: Santa at April 3, 2009 1:20 PM

Oh, Santa, cool! I think I want to move there. Except my job is here. My boyfriend moved from there a year ago. I miss Locopops.

Posted by: mopar at April 4, 2009 10:58 AM

when I moved, locopops was only located at that shitty little place in durham but apparently they're everywhere now which is great. Theres a store somewhere around coney island that sells similar mexican popslices. I need to find it.

i think about moving back sometimes but I think my next move will be to charleston. The houses are cheap and need fixing down there.

Posted by: Santa at April 4, 2009 11:40 PM

« Thursday Links Open Thread »

April 2, 2009

Manhattan Market Frozen

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions