« Open Thread Building Collapse at 217 Court Street »
May 7, 2009
Pam Liebman: Brooklyn Doing Better Than the Rest
Consoling words from Corcoran CEO Pam Liebman at the Brooklyn Real Estate Roundtable on Tuesday: "Brooklyn on a performance basis is holding up better than any of our other markets. Price and volume drops have been less than Manhattan...Brooklyn caters more to value buyers...It's not a second choice anymore." Another gem from the same session: "Anything marketed on bells and whistles is not doing well."
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/9640
Comments
SEE, I TOLD YOU SO. Brooklyn townhouses will not suffer the same fate as the rest of the country and the condo market.
Discuss...
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at May 7, 2009 9:34 AM
except that kinda sorta have, no? there's pricedrops galore on everything these days.
*rob*
Posted by: PitbullNYC at May 7, 2009 9:37 AM
DIBS, I would respond that they will suffer the same fate, just to a lesser degree.
I am increasingly surprised by how much differences there is between what is going on in Manhattan and what is going on in Brooklyn. I have been predicting this for some time now (pat on the back) but I didn't think it would be this stark. Not to say Brooklyn prices aren't coming down more of course, and not to say I'm not going to keep sitting on the sidelines for a while...
Posted by: lechacal at May 7, 2009 9:37 AM
DIBS, I would respond that they will suffer the same fate, just to a lesser degree.
I am increasingly surprised by how much of a difference there is between what is going on in Manhattan and what is going on in Brooklyn. I have been predicting this for some time now (pat on the back) but I didn't think it would be this stark. Not to say Brooklyn prices aren't coming down more of course, and not to say I'm not going to keep sitting on the sidelines for a while...
Posted by: lechacal at May 7, 2009 9:38 AM
Mr B and others: Good article on page C-1 of the WSJ today. Really drives home the pressure on the Manhattan market right now (nominally on condos, but the hip bone is connected to the leg bone etc).
Posted by: lechacal at May 7, 2009 9:40 AM
As for Manhattan, Trump soho is still asking $3K a square foot. Brooklyn never got that high. Less to fall? Hope so.
Posted by: DeLepp at May 7, 2009 9:44 AM
Yes, they are coming down, but to a lesser degree, a much lesser degree. Apples-Oranges.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at May 7, 2009 9:49 AM
Brooklyn overall is a much different market than Manhattan. Fewer condos and coops, more single family homes (Victorians, traditional, new constructions, etc), brownstones, etc.
I see Brooklyn as a much more diversified market and that will help it fall less. The bubble made everything inflate. $3k sqf? Nuts. Brooklyn never achieved that lunacy, so while I do think there will be a leveling off of prices, price drops in the 20% range from 12 months ago, and listings sitting on the market longer, overall I think the diversity of the Brooklyn housing market will keep it from sliding as dramatically as Manhattan, or the rest of the country for that matter.
Posted by: christopher at May 7, 2009 9:59 AM
I stand by my prediction that there will be a meaningful increase in supply in Brooklyn in the near term and that will be accompanied by further deterioration in prices. I will not buy until I see this happen.
The supply in Manhattan is starting to get pretty impressive. There is just a ton of supply in the $3mm plus range right now. Remember all those foreign buyers who were going to keep the market up forever? They turned into foreign sellers. And wall street.... we all know what happened.
But Manhattan is an island! There is limited supply! It costs too much to build! It's special and prices will only ever go up! Buy now or be priced out forever! To every broker and mouth-breathing bubble cheerleader who has ever given me these arguments, you can all kiss my ass. Line forms to the left.
The landing in Brooklyn will be softer. But at the end of the day I think that is actually good for people like me who will be buying in the next couple of years. It makes my purchase less risky as compared to someone who is buying on the dip in Manhattan.
Posted by: lechacal at May 7, 2009 10:01 AM
what is apples-oranges about comparing manhattan and brooklyn prices?! seems pretty apple-apple or orange-orange to me.
*rob*
Posted by: PitbullNYC at May 7, 2009 10:02 AM
Yep, once again the fox reports that the henhouse is secure.
And am I the only one finds the following pr=hrase to be self-contradicting?: "Brooklyn caters more to value buyers...It's not a second choice anymore."
Posted by: SnarkSlope at May 7, 2009 10:04 AM
Rob: Differences include the following:
1. Many more owners in Manhattan are either speculators or bought as a second (or third, or whatev) home. This introduces a lot of risk in a downturn. Owners who are not residents have a greater incentive to take whatever price they get and run. Owners who are residents *may* be able to just keep living there and paying the mortgage.
2. A much bigger percentage owners in Manhattan come from the financial services industry (or used to).
3. Much bigger supply of new condos coming on the market. According to today's WSJ there are 4500 new condo units expected to hit the market in Manhattan this year. That is a huge number. There is also a big overhang in the Brooklyn condo market, but nothing even close to this (even adjusting for size of the market).
That being said, the markets are connected and weakness in Manhattan will affect Brooklyn. But I think the amount of decline will just be much bigger in Manhattan than in Brooklyn. I think the next couple of years are going to be crushingly bad in the Manhattan market. In Brooklyn prices will keep drifting down for a while but nothing like Manhattan.
Posted by: lechacal at May 7, 2009 10:10 AM
As goes Manhattan, so follows Brooklyn. It's really that simple. There will be no soft landing.
Posted by: SnarkSlope at May 7, 2009 10:14 AM
What lechacal said, not what SnarkSlope said.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at May 7, 2009 10:20 AM
This really makes the case that all the slashing of prices that occurs here in the House and Apt of the day threads are really based on bitterness and not reality. Over and over again I see appraisals that are stupidly low. It's as if the commenters here try to pull the market in Brooklyn down for sport.
Posted by: dt at May 7, 2009 10:22 AM
"SEE, I TOLD YOU SO. Brooklyn townhouses will not suffer the same fate as the rest of the country and the condo market. Discuss..."
Sigh. See the current edition your favorite feature, Last Week's Biggest Sales:
"We're pretty sure this is the first time in the year+ we've been doing the biggest sales roundup that any of the properties are below the million mark."
Even your bizarroworld math isn't holding up.
Posted by: Smudge at May 7, 2009 10:24 AM
What Smudge said, not what DIBS said.
Posted by: SnarkSlope at May 7, 2009 10:27 AM
Different quality, different neighborhoods, different streets, different prices, smudge. You better learn that before you go out looking.
You too, snark. :)
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at May 7, 2009 10:30 AM
Huh? All this time you've been absurdly claiming that Last Week's Biggest Sales is an indicator of how the overall market is just fine, and now all of a sudden it's "different quality, different neighborhoods, different streets, different price."
So what completely bogus superfunhappymetric have you replaced it with gonig forward?
Posted by: Smudge at May 7, 2009 10:43 AM
i dont get the Manhattan is an island argument that they cant build anymore. brookly and queens are technically an island too if you look at a map.
*rob*
Posted by: PitbullNYC at May 7, 2009 10:46 AM
You heard it here first:
Go short Manhattan and long Westchester.
Posted by: lechacal at May 7, 2009 10:46 AM
Lot of x factors. At what discount to Brooklyn do you start eyeing the UWS? Would a crime spike hit Manhattan or Brooklyn harder? What are credit and job conditions going to look like going forward? Is there a foreclosure/distressed sale wave in the near future? I vastly prefer Brooklyn to Manhattan --would never move back in fact --but even in the face of that preference one needs a down payment, credit and a job to buy a house.
Posted by: Whuh at May 7, 2009 10:47 AM
Isn't the answer really somewhere in the middle of the two schools of thought. Yes the Brooklyn townhouse market will continue to drop. No it won't drop as severe as the Manhattan co-op market. Yes Brooklyn is it's own entity with unique attributes, separate from Manhattan. But yes the proximity of Manhattan inherently affects prices in Brooklyn.
Posted by: swade at May 7, 2009 10:48 AM
I find it amusing to talk about the Brooklyn market as if it were decoupled from the rest of the country - and more importantly - Manhattan.
As we have seen in the greater economy at large, the notions of decoupling are absolute fantasies.
Posted by: SnarkSlope at May 7, 2009 10:50 AM
lats Weeks Biggest Sales were fine... they weren't properties that warranted gfoing for iver $1MM, that's all. Pretty simple.
Yes, inventory and sales numbers are down. Nothing's going for half of last years comps though, thats just ridiculous.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at May 7, 2009 11:00 AM
"Consoling words from Corcoran CEO Pam Liebman at the Brooklyn Real Estate Roundtable on Tuesday"
Brownstoner is getting absurd! Jesus Christ!! Now I know the Mutant Asset Bubble is on short time. Someone needs to ask this cunt (yes cunt) "When was the last time you did a deal"??
II hope you dumbasses look toward Downtown Brooklyn and see all of the construction (or destruction) going on! When those Condo are finished they will compete for renters and drive down prices in Brooklyn. You will not get the "income" you was hoping for.
If you brought at Mutant Asset Bubble prices you are so screwed beyond belief!
"Price and volume drops have been less than Manhattan...Brooklyn caters more to value buyers...It's not a second choice anymore."
Brownstoner has a Property Shark Account and you can see the Year over Year changes in volume! Real Estate volume has fallen of a cliff and it will not come back. Demand is crippled by Buyers are not interested in Real Estate anymore and unable to obtain financing. Continue the lies like the Banks Stress Test Results...
The What
Someday this war is gonna end...
Posted by: Return of The What at May 7, 2009 11:02 AM
Think there is definitely a structural change in pricing of some parts of Brooklyn relative to Manhattan. Question is where the borders of that area lie.
Why long Westchester lechacal?
Never saw the attraction of southern Westchester - high prices, high taxes, not that attractive. Northern Westchester is beautiful but far.
Posted by: etson at May 7, 2009 11:15 AM
Long westchester for the following reasons. This is about Manhattan vs. Westchester. Forget about brooklyn for now.
The rise of Manhattan real estate is closely tied to how comfortable middle class families are with living there. Living in Manhattan, you are pooling your tax dollars and sharing your fate with a huge number of people. And as long as the tide is rising and the streets are clean and safe and there is good subway service and you can send your kids to public school, a middle class life in Manhattan can be more rewarding and exciting than one in the suburbs. But when the tide goes out and that huge collective starts coming apart, suddenly it doesn't make so much sense to have your fate tied to so many things that are beyond your control. When crime is up and schools are on the decline and services are deteriorating, suddenly it makes sense for middle class people to buy into a smaller collective. Suddenly it sounds so much better to share the tax burden and pay for public school and police services only with other people who have middle class jobs and pay their taxes. Suddenly the boredom of suburban life sounds better than reading about murders on your block.
Thus long westchester and short manhattan.
Posted by: lechacal at May 7, 2009 11:37 AM
Etson - drive around Larchmont Manor (the area between the Boston Post Road and Long Island Sound). It cannot get any nicer. Train is 30 minutes to Grand Central.
And people have not forgotten $4.50 gas and $5.00 heating oil. The big house in the Northern Westchester boonies is dead, dead, dead.
Posted by: Suburbandude at May 7, 2009 11:40 AM
The price of gas is not particularly relevant to someone who commutes to work by metro north.
And heating oil costs the same in larchmont manor as it does in northern westchester.
Posted by: lechacal at May 7, 2009 11:45 AM
Lechacal - houses tend to be much larger in the northern suburbs. Until recently developers were popping up 5,000-square-foot monsters that have now lost a ton of their value. They are just flat-out stupidly too big for a family of four that rarely entertains, and too expensive to heat, maintain and furnish. Most houses in Larchmont Manor are less than 3,000 square feet. And its only one mile or less to the train station, the grocery store, restaurants and your kid's friend's house, not ten miles. You only need one car, and you don't need an SUV to get around in the winter.
Posted by: Suburbandude at May 7, 2009 12:00 PM
I have family in Pelham Manor. It's not for me, but it's very nice as far as suburbs go.
Posted by: SnarkSlope at May 7, 2009 12:02 PM
I'm with Smudge and Snarkslope and ROTW -- awestruck by the persistence of denial among posters here. It is completely nonsensical to assert that the Brooklyn real estate market is somehow going to have a "soft landing" while Manhattan craters. Just stop for one second and think about that claim. Amazing!
Posted by: southbrooklyn at May 7, 2009 12:10 PM
Agree with Swade. Brooklyn won't be (and hasn't been) immune, and it will be in some kind of lockstep with Manhattan.
However, the degree of decline will depend on property type, nabe, and most of all, how the stock market does for the second half of 2009.
Posted by: FatLenny at May 7, 2009 12:38 PM
We all agree prices are going down in Brooklyn and I think we all agree they will continue to do so for some period of time. I think the disagreement is only about how much more prices will go down. Some of the more dire predictions seem to be intended to have a psychological effect (as if what you say here has any effect whatsoever on the market) rather than reflecting an objective analysis. I think I offer the latter.
As I have said many times, the market just doesn't care what any of us on this board have to say, so there really isn't much sense in doing a hard sell on your point of view. The market is going where it is going and time will be an impartial judge.
Posted by: lechacal at May 7, 2009 12:41 PM
Lechacal, I agree with you on approach, but want to point out that the lunacy that struck Manhattan prices *did* strike prime Brooklyn, which in many instances tripled in 10 years or less. By that metric, I think brownstone Brooklyn might be *more* vulnerable to big price drops, not less (and thus counter to the "prime will hold" argument). That is, there may be other parts of Brooklyn where value seekers were looking, but prime Brooklyn was not such a great value in the last few years. I don't buy the argument that it changed so much and that's what what justified huge price increases - I've lived here a long time now and it simply did NOT change that much in the last 10 years - better yes, but not 3x the price better. The prices way overshot the mark on the way up, and I would not be surprised for them to overshoot on the way down either, but we are no way near a bottom (prices have barely begun their decline given stubborn persistence of seller denial).
Posted by: Miss Muffett at May 7, 2009 1:47 PM
Brooklyn was ridiculously underpriced in the 1990s and into early 2000s.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at May 7, 2009 1:56 PM
DIBS - please don't pull out that old saw about how Bklyn was way undervalued. I'm as big a Bklyn cheerleader as anyone but paying close to $1mil for a house (about going rate for nice 4-story 20' brownstone circa 1999-2001) is a hell of a lot of money in most parts of the country/world, so I'd hardly call that underpriced. For those houses to fetch $1.5 mil today would also be a healthy sum, not some pittance (I'm not unrealistically holding out for a $500K bstone). The "undervalued" real estate was a classic excuse during the bubble, not just in NYC but in other markets which then tanked.
Posted by: Miss Muffett at May 7, 2009 2:09 PM
Brooklyn is not like "most parts of the country/world." Its part of New York City, capital of the world, MM. Brownstones are not and will not tank. Shall I repeat that???
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at May 7, 2009 2:14 PM
. "Brooklyn was ridiculously underpriced in the 1990s and into early 2000s."
Weakest. Argument. Ever.
Posted by: SnarkSlope at May 7, 2009 2:20 PM
Woops - meant to qualify the $1mil price tag from a few years ago as being in prime Brooklyn (things were obviously cheaper in fringe areas, but still plenty expensive relative to other places - which I know is normal for a city like NYC, but already factored into prices here!). And yes, taking "consolation" from Corcoran is pretty rich...
Posted by: Miss Muffett at May 7, 2009 2:21 PM
When I talk about other markets tanking, I'm talking other big cities i.e. London. NYC is not immune, and the "uniqueness" of the city has been priced in for a long time. DIBS, your argument doesn't fly, period.
Posted by: Miss Muffett at May 7, 2009 2:22 PM
Sorry, one more thing DIBS - if the reason that Brooklyn brownstone market will not tank is that we're part of NYC, "capital of the world" then why is Manhattan tanking? Manhattan surely in your book must be THE capital of the world (and not just "part of"). And don't tell me it's just glut of new Manhattan construction - Manhattan is hurting all around, as will Brooklyn.
Back to work now and sorry for multiple posts but this level of denial and reliance on old-hat excuses to justify insanity leaves me flabbergasted.
Posted by: Miss Muffett at May 7, 2009 2:28 PM
"Brooklyn Doing Better Than the Rest"
Snap shot if even true (I mean really true - and what does she mean by Brooklyn? All of Brooklyn?).
"Brooklyn caters more to value buyers..."
ROTFLMMFAO! The value is now in Manhattan.
"It's not a second choice anymore."
Manhattan is now an extension of Brooklyn?! ROTFLMMFAO! Denial is amazing.
"Anything marketed on bells and whistles is not doing well"
bells and whistles = crown mouldings and wainscotting (no matter the condition). Brownstones are done. Let alone co-ops and condos.
***Bid half off peak comps***
Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at May 7, 2009 2:37 PM
The condo market IS tanking. There are too many of them and many are poorly constructed including most of the newer Brooklyn ones. If you can remember, I speak only of the Brooklyn rowhouse market. There are differences that even you must admit to.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at May 7, 2009 2:38 PM
"Remember all those foreign buyers who were going to keep the market up forever? They turned into foreign sellers."
ROTFLMMFAO!
"The landing in Brooklyn will be softer...It makes my purchase less risky as compared to someone who is buying on the dip in Manhattan."
This is where we part, lechacal. Manhattan will never in your lifetime come after Brooklyn (as in softest landing). I'm talking brown-sign UWS, UES and below. It's superiority WAS priced in, IS priced in and will STILL be priced in after RE becomes "a bad investment". Be very careful with your expectations! I personally don't prefer Manhattan (subconsciously, I probably would if I could afford it) but as a market, it will always reign supreme over Brooklyn for as long as it matters.
***Bid half off peak comps***
Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at May 7, 2009 2:55 PM
"Brooklyn was ridiculously underpriced in the 1990s and into early 2000s."
Actually, I think DIBS has a point here for some neighborhoods. If you look at Manhattan, how many neighborhoods are really that much more desirable now than they were in, say, 2001? There's not much argument for the level of appreciation other than bubble mania. But neighborhoods like Cobble Hill and Carroll Gardens in particular are much more desirable now. Local retail and services cater to a different demographic. Whether that's a good thing or not is a different discussion; the point is that people with money to spend see more value there now than they did in 2001. In that sense, I think they will have a softer landing.
Posted by: Smudge at May 7, 2009 3:22 PM
I don't get my comfort from Corcoran. In fact, I would prefer to look at the actual sales that are being published in various publications and websites to get my sense of where the Brooklyn market is. The reality is that the prices of brownstones have not collapsed -- new condos are a different story. Athough the boom boom times are over, assuming that employment does not continue to erode, I think we can assume that the low rates and all the stimulus sweeteners have put the breaks on the decline. This is true everywhere, so I do not see Brooklyn as entering into some kind of isolated collapse. I bought my brownstone as my own housing solution with the tenants as part of the equation. The last year has been humbling to say the least, but the flip side of the coin is that I am sick of the Chicken Littles.
Posted by: donatella at May 7, 2009 3:56 PM
Stubborn sellers, that's a good one. By the same logic I could say that prices aren't rebounding yet because of stubborn buyers. Or that Microsoft stock isn't going up enough because of stubborn investors.
MM, you are endlessly quotable for specious logic.
Posted by: FatLenny at May 7, 2009 4:08 PM
Well FatLenny, quote the real estate experts in the papers too for "specious logic" - these are not my opinions alone, but approaching conventional wisdom.
Posted by: Miss Muffett at May 7, 2009 4:20 PM
Who are these wonderful RE experts and what data are they using for their analyses? I'd be curious to see their formula for stubbornness.
Posted by: FatLenny at May 7, 2009 4:32 PM
Lenny - read the papers much?
Posted by: Miss Muffett at May 7, 2009 5:19 PM
Every day. Send me the link about the stubbornness coefficient.
Posted by: FatLenny at May 7, 2009 9:53 PM
Is dibs the biggest idiot on this blog? Without a doubt. His comments and actions speak for itself. This idiot has the riskiest asset in all of Brooklyn and hes still oblivious. Oh wait, I forget hes the "Money Manager" LOL.
Posted by: cornerbodega at May 8, 2009 6:42 AM

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