« Evaluating the Mayor's Development Legacy East River State Park Makeover »

October 29, 2009

Brownstoner 2009 Survey Results

We've owed you some results since we ran our latest reader survey a couple of weeks ago. Basically, there was very little difference between the results of the recent survey and the one we conducted back in 2007, but it's still fun to look at.
- 45% have been reading since before 2007
- 80% check the site at least once a day
- 45% check the site several times a day or more
- Male/female split was exactly 50/50
- 46% are in their 30s, 25% are in their 40s
- More than 95% have a college degree or higher
- Bankers and lawyers were the two highest-represented professions
- More than 60% work in Manhattan
- 70% make at least $100,000 per year
- 90% live in Brooklyn, 4% in Manhattan
- 20% of Brooklyn dwellers in Park Slope
- 59% own their own place: 53% houses, 26% co-ops, 21% condos
- 50% of renters planning to buy within next two years
- 74% of owners have fixed rate mortgages, 11% have none at all
- 30% think the Brooklyn market has already bottomed
- 50% think the market will bottom at some point in the next year
- Park Slope most favored nabe for investment over next 3-5 years
- 58% of home owners spend at least $2,500 a year on upkeep
- 49% would be willing to pay a premium for LEED certified construction
- 53% of readers have used the Forum in the past year to find a contractor
- 55% own a car
- 55% are childless, 22% have just one child, 23% have two or more
- 59% of readers with school-age children send them to public school
- 74% go out to dinner at least 3 times a month
- 35% order take-out at least 10 times a month
- 50% have used the Restaurants section to find a restaurant
- 72% have a Facebook account, 24% have a Twitter account

We'll drop some more detailed graphics on you over the coming weeks.

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/12053

Comments

Surprised at the high number of childless folks.

Posted by: wasder at October 29, 2009 10:08 AM

- Bankers and lawyers were the two highest-represented professions
- 70% make at least $100,000 per year
- 55% own a car

VOM

Posted by: dirty_hipster at October 29, 2009 10:10 AM

Can you run a regression to determine the correlation between someone who has no college degree, orders takeout more than 10 times a month, and eats out 3+ times a month to the likelihood of real estate ownership? (or for that matter being single?)

Posted by: BSD at October 29, 2009 10:10 AM

quote:
58% of home owners spend at least $2,500 a year on upkeep

LOL i totally read "upkeep" as makeup for some reason. Must be cuz of halloween.

*rob*

Posted by: Butterfly at October 29, 2009 10:26 AM

Interestingly, half of those with no college degrees make $100K or more and 62% own. And 43% of them are 40 or older. The sample size is only 35 though.

Posted by: brownstoner at October 29, 2009 10:28 AM

"Interestingly, half of those with no college degrees make $100K or more and 62% own. And 43% of them are 40 or older. The sample size is only 35 though."

How old are they though?

Posted by: dirty_hipster at October 29, 2009 10:30 AM

nevermind - i read only half of it. duh

Posted by: dirty_hipster at October 29, 2009 10:31 AM

this whole thing would have seriously gotten a D- in a quantitative analysis or statistics class.. fun read tho!

*rob*

Posted by: Butterfly at October 29, 2009 10:32 AM

DH -
FWIW, I am a lawyer who makes under 100K and does not own a car. Not everything is at it appears.

Posted by: WTbound at October 29, 2009 10:33 AM

"DH -
FWIW, I am a lawyer who makes under 100K and does not own a car. Not everything is at it appears."

I know, I know - i'm not too far removed from those groups either, not all bankers and lawyers are rich, and 100k a year isn't even particularly rich anywho - it just proves my hypothesis that the only people who can afford to buy in Brooklyn nowadays are bankers and lawyers.

Posted by: dirty_hipster at October 29, 2009 10:38 AM

Bankers and lawyers combined made up less than a quarter of respondents though...

Posted by: brownstoner at October 29, 2009 10:43 AM

"Bankers and lawyers combined made up less than a quarter of respondents though..."

Were the other 75% those omnipresent "creative professionals" I keep hearing about.

Some really interesting stats though -

- 59% of readers with school-age children send them to public school

I'd be curious to see the neigborhood breakdown of this one.

Posted by: dirty_hipster at October 29, 2009 10:46 AM

count me among the lawyers making less than $100k (i work for a non-profit), and my car is '95 Oldsmobile Royale. actually don't count me, i didn't do the survey. what's the percentage of readers that didn't particpate in the survey?

Posted by: blowfish at October 29, 2009 10:51 AM

how many respondents?

Posted by: vanessa at October 29, 2009 10:52 AM

DH: i'd be curious as well. my kid is likely public-school bound, but honestly, i'm going to whatever i can to avoid the school i'm actually zoned for...i just may not have any other option

Posted by: blowfish at October 29, 2009 10:53 AM

Is owning a car indicative of socio-economic status in New York?
Several of my richest NY friends don't own cars. Several of my poorest NY friends do.

Posted by: the chicken at October 29, 2009 10:58 AM

Pretty pie chart- but hey- I'm one of those creative professionals. I live for ooooh shiny!

Posted by: bxgrl at October 29, 2009 10:58 AM

I live in that big gray neighborhood "Other," and my kids go to public school. I'm not a banker or lawyer, but my wife does own a car.

With a sample size of only 35, can you market the site's demographics to advertisers who want to reach all these childless people who eat out a lot and have huge piles of disposable income?

Posted by: Sparafucile at October 29, 2009 11:00 AM

"Is owning a car indicative of socio-economic status in New York?
Several of my richest NY friends don't own cars. Several of my poorest NY friends do."

I'm one datapoint only, but my car ownership is driven by where I geographically work, not wealth.

Posted by: BSD at October 29, 2009 11:03 AM

I love this stuff...so interesting.

No matter how much money I made, I'd NEVER own a car.

First thing I'd do if I made a shit-ton would be to hire a driver, though.

Have to wonder why 55% of people have stopped reading the site since 2007 though. Might be something to look into...

Posted by: 11217 at October 29, 2009 11:06 AM

Would like to point out that on survey Brownstoner asked for household income....but in results is stating certain % of 'you' make over certain amount.
As with lots of surveys and stat /results....many things get implied that aren't true....People are infering that income stat figure as individual income not household income which was the orig question.

Posted by: Petebklyn at October 29, 2009 11:07 AM

"Have to wonder why 55% of people have stopped reading the site since 2007 though. Might be something to look into..."

55% could have started reading after 07 - didn't read that stat the same way you did.

Posted by: dirty_hipster at October 29, 2009 11:09 AM

Nice chunk of the pool outside the brownstone belt. Pent up demand?

***Bill Thompson for Mayor (TUESDAY!!!)***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at October 29, 2009 11:10 AM

846 respondents

Posted by: brownstoner at October 29, 2009 11:11 AM

You're right, DH. After I said it I realized that I might have read that stat the wrong way...

Posted by: 11217 at October 29, 2009 11:11 AM

Also, the survey ran one day only.

Posted by: infinitejester at October 29, 2009 11:11 AM

quote:
Is owning a car indicative of socio-economic status in New York?

oh hells no. just take a look at the ginourmously filled parking lots in some of the projects in nyc and youll get your answer.

*rob*

Posted by: Butterfly at October 29, 2009 11:12 AM

"846 respondents"

Pretty impressive.

Posted by: wasder at October 29, 2009 11:12 AM

"Nice chunk of the pool outside the brownstone belt. Pent up demand?"

I'm guessing some of that "other" is Prospect Lefferts Garden, which is in the Brownstone Belt. Probably a sizable amount in Ditmas Park, Dumbo and Kensington areas too...

Posted by: 11217 at October 29, 2009 11:13 AM

"Interestingly, half of those with no college degrees make $100K or more and 62% own. And 43% of them are 40 or older. The sample size is only 35 though."--
exactly what I meant Brownstoner...orig question was for household income not individual.

Posted by: Petebklyn at October 29, 2009 11:14 AM

"Nice chunk of the pool outside the brownstone belt. Pent up demand?"

Might also be a lot of north brooklynites scared to admit it

Posted by: dirty_hipster at October 29, 2009 11:16 AM

- 46% are in their 30s, 25% are in their 40s
"846 respondents"

haven't seen an American Apparel ad in a while - coincidence? hehehe

Posted by: dirty_hipster at October 29, 2009 11:17 AM

Park Slope favorite investment area? Huh, doesn't seem like there is as much upside investment-wise in PS as say in Bed Stuy or Crown Heights.

Posted by: wasder at October 29, 2009 11:18 AM

Agreed 11217. I'd love to see that "other" broken out by nabe.

Posted by: italiana71 at October 29, 2009 11:18 AM

"55% are childless"

Wow, people here must be spending too much time surfing streeteasy and not enough on streetsleezy. I mean come on, stop reading Montrose Morris and get it on people. Start breeding!

Posted by: Brooklynnative at October 29, 2009 11:19 AM

I'm totally getting a neighborhoodie printed up with "OTHER" on it. That's a lot easier to fit than "Prospect Lefferts Gardens".

Posted by: Frederick Law Homestead at October 29, 2009 11:20 AM

DH said... "it just proves my hypothesis that the only people who can afford to buy in Brooklyn nowadays are bankers and lawyers."

This is totally true. We have to remember that a lot of the folks that currently own do so because they bought a while back -- including buying their INITIAL property a while back (10 or 15 year ago at least). i.e., before NYC went fucking nuts.

The only folks that can actually afford to buy anything now have to be making FAR more than $100k. The market is just destroying any chance of folks that are "scrimping and saving" for years and years -- the price increases are just going to outstrip anything these well-intentioned folks are trying to do. Save $10k a year (which in itself is amazing to me, but folks can do it)... get a nice war chest of $100k in 10 years, but lo and behold, the cost of entry in 10 years if $150k. It's really just absurd.

As I've said before, this ain't sustainable and all of these houses for $2-3 million are gonna hit a HARD ceiling in the near future... 10-ish years. There just won't be any more people "trading up" or tapping into a big hunk of inheritance or making $500,000 a year.

Posted by: tybur6 at October 29, 2009 11:24 AM

quote:
Wow, people here must be spending too much time surfing streeteasy and not enough on streetsleezy. I mean come on, stop reading Montrose Morris and get it on people. Start breeding!

GUH-ROSS. no thank you, very much. what is with some of you nazi-ish pro baby people? gack. there are more of us childless people than ones with children. DEAL WITH IT! and with Swing Flu on the rise, our numbers are likely to increase. (hmm my last remark may have been a little tasteless, but yours was too tell people to breed!)

*rob*

Posted by: Butterfly at October 29, 2009 11:24 AM

as far as children question...Open to interpretation...
Question was how many children do you have and followed up by school question. Some folks with grown children may have said 0 and some may have said whatever (whether you consider offspring children or not when the are adult age).
So some may have bred long time ago and answered 0 or not.

Posted by: Petebklyn at October 29, 2009 11:32 AM

The survey to me pointed up an issue of strategic planning - where does Mr. B want this blog to go? How does he envision it growing, changing, gaining influence, expanding?

I was reading a review of a book about someone renovating a Harlem townhouse, and wondered if there is anything comparable to this site for the Manhattanite. Is a "global" Brownstoner.com 10 years away? Or at least a city-wide focused one?

At osme point it will grow, or I'll move on and stop reading, or the subject matter will change or I'll lose interest in the subject matter. I immediately thought of all these things when I saw that survey up.

Posted by: infinitejester at October 29, 2009 11:33 AM

"Wow, people here must be spending too much time surfing streeteasy and not enough on streetsleezy. I mean come on, stop reading Montrose Morris and get it on people. Start breeding!"

I've been accused of many things, but being birth control has never been one of them, until now. Something else to add to my list of accomplishments - Montrose Morris, the Deterrent!

Posted by: Montrose Morris at October 29, 2009 11:39 AM

Curious as to the number of respondants who work as chimney sweeps. (sorry - had a dream about them last night)

Posted by: dirty_hipster at October 29, 2009 11:43 AM

"So some may have bred long time ago and answered 0 or not."

This strikes me as a strange and unlikely response.

Posted by: wasder at October 29, 2009 11:43 AM

Funny thing...I mostly looked at sex as recreation. It's just now I'm deciding to begin to breed...or at least try to.

...and yes I'm a *gulp* wall streeter, and a homeowner. Maybe a trait of the profession?

btw, I didn't fill out the survey.

Posted by: moreteasir at October 29, 2009 11:44 AM

I don't know where I was when the survey happened...I guess I was in Turkey.

One more for Park Slope resident and thinking it's the better investment 3-5 years out! :))

Posted by: 11217 at October 29, 2009 11:46 AM

American Apparel shafted us.

Posted by: brownstoner at October 29, 2009 11:47 AM

American Apparel shafted us.

Posted by: brownstoner at October 29, 2009 11:47 AM

Not shocked Mr B - I deal with them at work and lets just say its not easy.

Posted by: dirty_hipster at October 29, 2009 11:48 AM

Wasder,
because of follow up question regarding schools and other question asking about household...some could easily answer the question about having children as having children living with them. And my guess that is what Brownstoner probably wanted to know - who has children for advertising reasons not if someone had a 50 year old offspring.

And 3rd thing with any survey....what % answer truthfully even if anonymous.

Posted by: Petebklyn at October 29, 2009 11:55 AM

did no one get me joke or i am just not funny?

what percentage of readers didn't respond the survey? Anyone?

and on that note, i must return to work...

Posted by: blowfish at October 29, 2009 12:06 PM

Considering the number of us childless 'Stoners, I'm surprised at how every single COTD or HOTD talks about how the place is/is not suited for families. Very few of us ever point out that not everyone is looking for a place to stash wee ones, yet according to the survey, we are the majority. I wonder just how many of us are not only childless, but also single with zero interest in a place with more than 1-2 bedrooms and 1-1.5 baths.

Posted by: InsertSnappyNameHere at October 29, 2009 12:09 PM

Blowfish - I'd think it'd be fairly easy to get a reasonable estimate of non-responders: unique hits counted vs. responses.

Posted by: Arkady at October 29, 2009 12:11 PM

"Very few of us ever point out that not everyone is looking for a place to stash wee ones"

The breeders get upset when you suggest not everyone wants to have a bunch of mini-me's running around in a 2 family in the slope.

Posted by: dirty_hipster at October 29, 2009 12:15 PM

You mean AA ran ads and didn't pay you? Ooooooh. Hm.....

Posted by: mopar at October 29, 2009 12:16 PM

But only 35 respondents to the whole survey? That's not useful.

Posted by: mopar at October 29, 2009 12:17 PM

People just want to have kids, it's an inevitable march.

Posted by: infinitejester at October 29, 2009 12:17 PM

" wonder just how many of us are not only childless, but also single with zero interest in a place with more than 1-2 bedrooms and 1-1.5 baths."

This would be me.

I have NO interest in having anything larger than a 1 bedroom apartment. I prefer small, well designed spaces and don't want kids.

Posted by: 11217 at October 29, 2009 12:18 PM

Mopar:

846 respondents

Posted by: brownstoner at October 29, 2009 11:11 AM

Posted by: wasder at October 29, 2009 12:19 PM

> American Apparel shafted us.

I'm sorry to hear that, but oh so glad their skanky ads are gone.

Posted by: DitmasSnark at October 29, 2009 12:23 PM

Me too 11217. My dream home is a frame house with 2 bedrooms and 1.5 baths. Nothing more. Anything else is wasted square footage that I'd be paying to heat and cool. If I wanted to burn money, I'd just build a bonfire.

Posted by: InsertSnappyNameHere at October 29, 2009 12:24 PM

> People just want to have kids, it's an inevitable march.

Like death?

Posted by: DitmasSnark at October 29, 2009 12:24 PM

"A late long march into spring
I sit and watch those children."

~"The Wrong Child", R.E.M.

Posted by: infinitejester at October 29, 2009 12:27 PM

"We have to remember that a lot of the folks that currently own do so because they bought a while back -- including buying their INITIAL property a while back (10 or 15 year ago at least). i.e., before NYC went fucking nuts."

That's how the Ponzi Scheme works, tybur6. "Newer investors" paying "older investors" in pyramid fashion. There where multiple iterations of "newer" and "older" with the trade-ups and refi's. But we're now running out of "new investors" (tighter lending and unemployment). The scheme is mathematically destined to collapse and that is exactly what is happening in slow motion.

***Bill Thompson for Mayor (TUESDAY!!!)***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at October 29, 2009 12:35 PM

I was thinking lemmings, ditmas :)

Posted by: bxgrl at October 29, 2009 12:35 PM

And 55% no longer read brownstoner post 2007? How did they know about the survey?

Posted by: bxgrl at October 29, 2009 12:44 PM

quote:
American Apparel shafted us.

you might wanna get a checkup from the doctor! also i've noticed the word breeder is thrown around very casually. i wonder if i was one would i find that term offensive? is it as offensive as the F----- word? personally i dont find offense to it, but it does irk some i guess.

*rob*

Posted by: Butterfly at October 29, 2009 12:53 PM

snappy -- there are many more floor plans that work well for childless people than for people with children. I can't tell you how many "2 bedroom" apartments I've seen which are great for a couple that want more space but worthless for a couple with a kid.

Also, a lot of us prospective buyers have kids and want a place not only for a toddler but where we can one day envision sharing the space with a 16 year old. I think that because of the real estate downturn, a lot of people have realized the "starter home" idea is very risky and couples really don't want to buy a place they need to sell in 3-4 years.

You are free to point out that you don't have kids every time someone with kids criticizes a property for not having a family friendly layout, but, it would begin to seem a little odd if you did it every time...

Posted by: northsloperenter at October 29, 2009 12:54 PM

"also i've noticed the word breeder is thrown around very casually. i wonder if i was one would i find that term offensive?"

It doesn't offend me, but it lowers my opinion of the person using it (unless it clearly a joke).

Posted by: northsloperenter at October 29, 2009 12:59 PM

NSR, my only point was that, considering the number of childless 'Stoners, it seemed odd to me that 'family friendly' seems to be the biggest concern in the COTD and HOTD threads. I know that there are plenty of couples with/wanting kids looking for places to buy. And by the same token, there are plenty of us without kids and with no intention of having them who are looking into the market as well. Why would it be odd to point out not needing space for kids if it's not odd for those with kids to point out whether or not a place is family friendly? Seems equal to me.

Posted by: InsertSnappyNameHere at October 29, 2009 1:04 PM

The funny thing on here is the bathroom requirements. I grew up with 6 siblings, me, and two parents. We had 7 or 8 bedrooms and 2-1/2 bathrooms -- one of which was en suite. We had lots of people over for holidays and such. This was *completely* adequate.

I really still can't get why de rigueur (or at least the expressed "need") seems to be 1-1/2 full baths per bedroom...

Weird right? Or was I just grow up in some "austere" lifestyle in my 8 bedroom house?

Posted by: tybur6 at October 29, 2009 1:06 PM

"It doesn't offend me, but it lowers my opinion of the person using it (unless it clearly a joke)."

Sorry - thought breeder was an accurate word for one that has or is breeding.

was gonna use "crotchfruit producer" but decided against it as I wouldn't want anyone to have a lower opinion of me than they already do.

Guess that backfired.

Posted by: dirty_hipster at October 29, 2009 1:06 PM

> a lot of people have realized the "starter home" idea is very risky

An excellent point.

Posted by: DitmasSnark at October 29, 2009 1:07 PM

I'm not so sure people have now all the sudden realized that the starter home idea is so risky as much as they have pared back their expectations and realized that it is, in fact possible to raise one child in less than 3000 sf.

Lots of people seem to be finding a school they like, a neighborhood they like and working with perhaps a smaller apartment than they might have in 2006.

I find this good in many ways. I know Mother Earth will thank us later.

Posted by: 11217 at October 29, 2009 1:12 PM

My kids are in high school and middle school, and there definitely won't be any more. Since my brood is complete, does that make me a bred?

Posted by: Sparafucile at October 29, 2009 1:19 PM

This blog isn't written for our own personal amusement, if there are 800+ people responding to a one-day survey we should remember there are people watching - people who are not like us and don't really care how colorful or amusing we are.

Like it or not, the majority opinion is what needs to be marketed towards. That will always be families with children.

Posted by: infinitejester at October 29, 2009 1:25 PM

"Why would it be odd to point out not needing space for kids"

Because pointing out that a property does not offer something you do not need is odd.

For example:

"I love the HOTD, especially because the layout wouldn't work for a family and I don't have any kids."

"The 2 bedroom coop on Remsen St. is really nice. Especially how the 2nd bedroom is off the living room and really small, because that wouldn't work for someone with kids, which I fortunately don't have."

"Oh, I love the layout on this place. Especially how it would so totally not work for a family but works for people like me with no kids!"

Odd...

Posted by: northsloperenter at October 29, 2009 1:29 PM

Like it or not, the majority opinion is what needs to be marketed towards. That will always be families with children.

- 55% are childless, 22% have just one child, 23% have two or more

Jester - that was the point of Snappy's original comment - families with children are not the majority.

Posted by: dirty_hipster at October 29, 2009 1:32 PM

"Sorry - thought breeder was an accurate word "

No you didn't. You thought it was a fun pejorative to use.

Posted by: northsloperenter at October 29, 2009 1:38 PM

quote:
I know Mother Earth will thank us later.

mother earth could not care any less! all of brooklyn and nyc itself and every city, the whole country even can be as green as the jolly green giant, it aint gonna make one dent in how the ecology of the Earth works. people are such sheep and so deluded into the fad of the week (the eco fascists now).

*rob*

Posted by: Butterfly at October 29, 2009 1:38 PM

Check, dh. I only half-read it. Just trying to roll back the child abuse.

Posted by: infinitejester at October 29, 2009 1:43 PM

I would suspect that of the childless readers, many aspire toward families+kids, for the same reason that the almost 40% of readers who rent are reading a site so focused on home ownership - they aspire toward owning.

Posted by: NorthHeights at October 29, 2009 1:44 PM

Surprised Ditmas Park, Victorian Flatbush, or whatever you want to call it these days, didn't merit it's own slice of the pie.

Posted by: Architerrorist at October 29, 2009 1:45 PM

tyburg - you grew up rich and entitled to most of us. I don't understand that bathroom obsession people have these days either.

Posted by: Petebklyn at October 29, 2009 1:47 PM

"No you didn't. You thought it was a fun pejorative to use."

Wow - families are SOOOOO oppressed.

how about the fact that anything posted on this blog that has to do with people under the age of 35 is 99.9% likely to get the "hipster douchebag" perjorative.

You can borrow my step stool to get off your high horse if you'd like - i don't mind.

Posted by: dirty_hipster at October 29, 2009 1:52 PM

Oh, hell, my point has been missed completely. Nevermind!

Posted by: InsertSnappyNameHere at October 29, 2009 1:52 PM

I guess victorian flatbush is "other"?

Posted by: guywithahouse at October 29, 2009 1:52 PM

That's what I thought too Pete -- 2-1/2 bathrooms seemed very comfortable for 9 people living in a house. But now the 'bathroom obsession' seems to say 2-1/2 baths would barely serve a couple with a toddler. It's crazy.

I wish my parents were still well off and I was going to be at the receiving end of a nice "entitlement" when they... you know. But there's not a whole lot of surplus in a social security check and a decimated retirement fund!

Posted by: tybur6 at October 29, 2009 1:54 PM

> it aint gonna make one dent in how the ecology of the Earth works

Hmmmmm, who to believe? Thousands of scientists? Or *rob*?

I must retreat to my Cubicle of Solitude to ponder this.

Posted by: DitmasSnark at October 29, 2009 1:56 PM

I got your point Snappy and agree with it.

Some people with kids on this site (and in life) think the world revolves around them. We've just been given info today that shows they are the minority of people who read this blog, and some can't seem to accept that fact. The rest of us MUST want to have kids too!

The fact remains...single people outnumber the people with kids here, so the endless schools debate or 2nd bedroom debate or whatever isn't really as important (according to the stats) as some comments might have you believe sometimes...

Posted by: 11217 at October 29, 2009 1:57 PM

DH, you need to change the ID if you want to shake the hipster douchebag image cause not everyone has oppty to meet you to decipher otherwise

Posted by: more4less at October 29, 2009 1:59 PM

> Surprised Ditmas Park...didn't merit it's own slice of the pie.

One of my Manhattan-residing colleagues is apartment hunting. The other day he asked me where I lived, and when I told him Ditmas Park, he responded, "I don't know where that is."

I replied, "Excellent."

Posted by: DitmasSnark at October 29, 2009 2:00 PM

11217, thank you. It's nice to see someone got it.

Posted by: InsertSnappyNameHere at October 29, 2009 2:01 PM

quote:
single people outnumber the people with kids here, so the endless schools debate or 2nd bedroom debate or whatever isn't really as important

well, the school issue is relevant to single people, even ones who want no kids like us. personally i dont like my income taxes going to public city schools so i enjoy reading stories about school budget cuts and schools closing and stuff. if parents want to raise kids in nyc they should pony up ALL the money themselves and send them to private schools.

*rob*

Posted by: Butterfly at October 29, 2009 2:02 PM

quote:
DH, you need to change the ID if you want to shake the hipster douchebag image cause not everyone has oppty to meet you to decipher otherwise

sadly, he may have one of the most accurate screennames on this site

*rob*

Posted by: Butterfly at October 29, 2009 2:04 PM

Rob! DH is neither dirty nor a hipster. He is however a bomb-ass drinking partner!

Posted by: InsertSnappyNameHere at October 29, 2009 2:05 PM

haha rob - i'll remember that next time you get drunk and find myself pondering whether to make sure you get home safely ;)

M4L - names don't matter and this choice was a joke as ageism and classism have been running rampant on this site since day one

even if my handle was 11211 - and u knew i was 25 and rented how would you picture me? probably as a dirty hipster

Posted by: dirty_hipster at October 29, 2009 2:09 PM

i forgot what we were arguing about

shifting gears...

- 46% are in their 30s, 25% are in their 40s
- 72% have a Facebook account, 24% have a Twitter account

why are so many old farts on facebook nowadays?? ;)

Posted by: dirty_hipster at October 29, 2009 2:12 PM

without meeting you, that description would land you in creative artist, trust fund baby, or hipster - I'm going with the oft referenced labels for youngins in W'burg

Posted by: more4less at October 29, 2009 2:16 PM

quote:
why are so many old farts on facebook nowadays?? ;)

supposedly to keep "tabs" and spy on their younger fruitfarts.

*rob*

Posted by: Butterfly at October 29, 2009 2:16 PM

My point is a one-day survey and a 55-45 split isn't exactly iron proof. To use the die-hard PLUSAs as a benchmark of the appeal of this blog is very misleading.

Posted by: infinitejester at October 29, 2009 2:24 PM

Jester, first of all the survey was up for two days. Second, I'm only talking about the folks who comment in the threads and therefore use the site regularly. If that means PLUSAs, then that's just what it is like it or not. And I never spoke to the "appeal of the blog." Just about who is commenting and what the comments say vs. the statistics Mr. B. gave us.

Posted by: InsertSnappyNameHere at October 29, 2009 2:26 PM

"how about the fact that anything posted on this blog that has to do with people under the age of 35 is 99.9% likely to get the "hipster douchebag" perjorative."

"hipster douchebag" lowers my opinion of people too.

Reductionist labels are innately dehumanizing, even if the person using it didn't "mean it" that way.

I was a childless new yorker for over 70% of my adult life, and a single, childless new yorker for over 45% of my adult life. I've been a parent for less than 10% of my adult life.

But, yah, I'm a "breeder". Every bit as much as some guy who knocks up a prostitute or some dead beat dirtball dad or most of the rats crawling around the subway system.

Posted by: northsloperenter at October 29, 2009 2:30 PM

Fair enough NSR - sorry you found what i said offensive

last i have to say on the kids issue

http://bk.ly/TJ

interesting data

Posted by: dirty_hipster at October 29, 2009 2:37 PM

Snappy and 11217 -- you've overstated your case.

Even if you want to assume that over 90% of the childless people wish to remain that way, it is still a nearly even split between people who are or want to be parents and people who are not and do not want to be parents.

Comments about "family friendly" this and that do not come close to 50% of comments on this site.

Furthermore, I think the demographic of property buyers of 2 bedroom and larger condos, coops, and brownstones is strongly skewed toward married couples with children and therefore would be very relevant to real estate pricing.

Posted by: northsloperenter at October 29, 2009 2:38 PM

Snappy, not sure why you're getting offended as I'm not talking about you and instead talking about the unseen readers here.

Posted by: infinitejester at October 29, 2009 2:47 PM

well, this site needs to narrow or expand. Brownstoner was started to talk about purchasing and renovating, etc.. brownstones. Most buying brownstones do so to fit growing families. Hence, when evaluating brownstones or townhouses, it's an assumption to think they are for families.
Regardless of who reads this, a family sized home or apartment will always be very valuable.

the question is, who wants to read this for information, and is it now information about all of gentrified Brooklyn? or still, brownstone focused?

clearly people are on this for entertainment, and aren't owners or in the market. i don't know what that means, but those people are in the survey.

Posted by: wine lover at October 29, 2009 2:51 PM

""Interestingly, half of those with no college degrees make $100K or more and 62% own. And 43% of them are 40 or older. The sample size is only 35 though."

How old are they though?"

As one of this small sample that's all of the above, I'm 55.

It may be that it takes those without degrees longer to catch up than than those with. Altho not true in my case. Also a degree (outside of the professions like law or medicine) matters less and less the older you get, where experience and contacts count for more.

Posted by: denton at October 29, 2009 2:53 PM

Jester, I'm not offended, simply trying to make my point clear, which is still being missed. I give up.

Posted by: InsertSnappyNameHere at October 29, 2009 2:53 PM

snappy, I get your point too! There's something for everyone out there...

Posted by: denton at October 29, 2009 2:55 PM

Maybe in that survey, there should have been a question:
If you are childless, do you plan on having any children in:
a) 1 year
b) 2 years
c) 5 years
d) never

Posted by: Tara in the Slope at October 29, 2009 3:06 PM

Well I'm not really trying to understand your point. Like I said I only half-read your post.

Posted by: infinitejester at October 29, 2009 3:09 PM

"personally i dont like my income taxes going to public city schools so i enjoy reading stories about school budget cuts and schools closing and stuff. if parents want to raise kids in nyc they should pony up ALL the money themselves and send them to private schools."

Rob, pls pull out your W2 from last year and share with us exactly how much NYC tax you actually paid. Then determine how much of that pittance that you are so aggrieved about was wasted on schools.

I doubt if it was enough to pay for a weekend's worth of forties.

Posted by: denton at October 29, 2009 3:16 PM

I always cringe when Rob gets pwned about not paying taxes :-\

Posted by: dirty_hipster at October 29, 2009 3:20 PM

Actually - not FILING taxes - doubt he owes anything

Posted by: dirty_hipster at October 29, 2009 3:20 PM

"why are so many old farts on facebook nowadays" -
why is it people get upset over 'breeder' term (even tho came from Rob) - but nobody gets upset to call a mature person an old fart?? (and I wouldn't be caught dead with a Facebook account or Twitter).

Posted by: Petebklyn at October 29, 2009 3:26 PM

hey Denton, i dont know if you read in the ot a while back, but somehow, i have a clean slate now with the nys department of tax. i called to see how long i needed to send in the forms for 2004 and 2003 and they said i owed nothing and my record clean. so they must have just wiped it clean? i dont know, i called three more times to make sure and each time they told me the same thing. and the thing is i DID pay taxes you dummie! if i had filed those two years for state i would have gotten something BACK! so the govt made over on ME technically!. jeez.

*rob*

Posted by: Butterfly at October 29, 2009 3:33 PM

"why is it people get upset over 'breeder' term (even tho came from Rob) - but nobody gets upset to call a mature person an old fart?? (and I wouldn't be caught dead with a Facebook account or Twitter)."

You just proved my point about over-sensitivity of parents

Posted by: dirty_hipster at October 29, 2009 3:34 PM

"Rob, pls pull out your W2 from last year and share with us exactly how much NYC tax you actually paid. Then determine how much of that pittance that you are so aggrieved about was wasted on schools."

Actually, schools are largely funded by state aid to localities, so by paying his state taxes, Rob is subsidizing breeders in Schenectady and Larchmont, as well as in Brooklyn. And we thank him.

Posted by: Sparafucile at October 29, 2009 3:45 PM

Where did the number of "35" respondents come from?

And I agree with Pete that household income is quite different than individual income. Given that there are many on this site who are part of a couple, $100 is not as impressive (2 people making $50K) as making over 100K single-handedly.

Not very surprising results, but mildly interesting...

Posted by: Miss Muffett at October 29, 2009 3:55 PM

Also, perhaps its too be expected that if PS is the hood Bstone readers live in more than any other one hood, it's also singled out for investment? Is PS just overly full of people obsessed with real estate?

Posted by: Miss Muffett at October 29, 2009 3:57 PM

Miss M, I googled Brownstoner recently and was pleasantly surprised to see this description:

"Writing about an unhealthy obsession with historic Brooklyn brownstones and the neighborhoods and lifestyles they define."

I wish that was somewhere prominent as I feel it captures the charm of this blog rather nicely.

Posted by: infinitejester at October 29, 2009 4:02 PM

"...an unhealthy obsession with historic Brooklyn brownstones and the neighborhoods and lifestyles they define."

That's a way better catchphrase than "Brooklyn Inside and Out"

Posted by: Sparafucile at October 29, 2009 4:06 PM

And it would totally fit across the banner.

Posted by: infinitejester at October 29, 2009 4:11 PM

Yes, I'm just wondering what it says about a neighborhood (PS) that is full of people with an unhealthy obsession with real estate? This is as much a critique of myself by the way....

Posted by: Miss Muffett at October 29, 2009 4:15 PM

im obssessed with real estate and architecture. and i wound up living in park slope. im totally ghetto and stuff and didnt actively seek out to move there, it just sorta happened. wwwwwwwiiiieerd right?

*rob*

Posted by: Butterfly at October 29, 2009 4:25 PM

"and the thing is i DID pay taxes you dummie!"

Rob, pls read my post, not those that commented on it. I said to look at your NYC taxes from last year. I didn't say anything about your old filing problem.

Posted by: denton at October 29, 2009 4:27 PM

MM, the 35 respondents are only as follows. 35 represents the numbers of stoners with no college.

Interestingly, half of those with no college degrees make $100K or more and 62% own. And 43% of them are 40 or older. The sample size is only 35 though.

Posted by: brownstoner at October 29, 2009 10:28 AM

Posted by: denton at October 29, 2009 4:30 PM

Denton,
that is exactly what Brownstoner wrote(about 100k+)..but I claimed it was misrepresenting the actual survey.....And I'm surprised he hasn't retracted yet....BEcause survey asked for Household income and he has in error interpreted as individual income.

MM,
Park Slope comes in farther ahead of other Brownstoner 'hoods because larger geographic area and more people. I would think Boerum Hill, CarGard, Boerum Hill added together (and in my opinion really 1 neighborhood anyway) total population and area may approach that of PSlope

Posted by: Petebklyn at October 29, 2009 4:45 PM

Park Slope, Brooklyn Heights, and Bed Stuy are among those neighborhoods blessed with particularly beautiful architecture, so it stands to reason that people who care about their surroundings might live there. Park Slope was also settled by the original brownstoners and became very expensive. That could breed an obsession about real estate -- the "it's lovely and you can't have it" kind of obsession that I am very familiar with, having grown up with my nose pressed against the glass of million-dollar homes like the little match girl.

Posted by: mopar at October 29, 2009 5:12 PM

It surprises me that Park Slope is most favored for investment in near term. It won't go down as much as some areas, but much of the potential is already tapped out.

I'll let you in on a secret: Buy in Bushwick. It is very rapidly turning into Williamsburg. Oops, my apologies to those who already live there and wish it weren't. I am talking to people who want to buy houses to live in, NOT developers. No one wants your tacky condos.

Posted by: mopar at October 29, 2009 5:15 PM

"It surprises me that Park Slope is most favored for investment in near term. It won't go down as much as some areas, but much of the potential is already tapped out."

Share your surprise, mopar. A good investment entails getting in on the ground floor, not when it's fully priced. Personally I think SS/GH/WT are better investments, meaning long-term capital appreciation potential. And I think a number of recent sales at levels that have surprised many bear this out.

Posted by: denton at October 29, 2009 5:41 PM

Re: Park Slope is most favored for investment in near term. There is a selection bias here. If Park Slope is most represented in the survey then it makes sense that owners there would wish to think that their investment is the best compared to others. It would be interesting to see how many people thought that their neighborhood was the best investment vs. people that thought another neighborhood is a better investment.

Posted by: lincolnlimestone at October 29, 2009 5:55 PM

I think Prospect Heights and Boreum Hill are excellent investments (even though both are quite expensive).

Also Gowanus has a ton of potential in my mind...

Downtown Brooklyn is probably a pretty good mid term investment as well. Once those buildings fill up (which they eventually will) the demand for new retail, restaurants and everything else will follow and create a much more thriving downtown core. In my opinion.

Posted by: 11217 at October 29, 2009 6:00 PM

I live in Clinton Hill but picked Bed Stuy as the neighb with greatest investment upside.

Posted by: wasder at October 29, 2009 6:12 PM

RE: Ditmas Park - you would be surprised how many people in Westchester read the NYT real estate section and New York Magazine. I'm always ready to draw a map when people ask me where I've come from - and I never have to! They say, oh the place with all those big Victorians...

Posted by: Architerrorist at October 30, 2009 9:16 AM

« Evaluating the Mayor's Development Legacy East River State Park Makeover »

October 29, 2009

Brownstoner 2009 Survey Results

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions