The site immediately across the street (ie: to the right of the main photo here) is a vacant lot that could be a community garden. There's tons of weeds and tall grass in there - just trim it and voila!

Posted by: bjw2103 at October 5, 2009 4:27 PM in response to Development Watch: 227 Grand Street

"99% of people in billyburg won't be there if they could afford a place in the city."

loty, I've heard this before. I have yet to see any real evidence of it. There's much more perceived (and actual) value in the neighborhood than its proximity to 14th St. The problem is, too many people see Manhattan as this stand-alone, universally awesome thing, when the fact of the matter is, it's composed of many, many neighborhoods, some of which are great, some of which are ok, and some of which are terrible (and this is all subject to taste of course). The same is true of Brooklyn. And for living purposes, I prefer Williamsburg (and several other Brooklyn areas) over the vast majority of Manhattan. And there are plenty of others who have had the same thought process instead of just getting stuck at the pretty-dumb "Manhattan = good, Brooklyn = less good" line of reasoning.

Posted by: bjw2103 at October 1, 2009 12:11 PM in response to Condo of the Day: 125 North 10th Street, #NPHD

"If I won the powerball, I wouldn't move back to Manhattan.
I kinda hate Manhattan actually."

Definitely - it would have to a pretty special opportunity in a pretty special neighborhood for me to really go for it. I did love my time on Elizabeth St, but I'd take Williamsburg, Cobble Hill, Fort Greene, Boerum Hill, and the Slope over most of Manhattan, no question.

Posted by: bjw2103 at September 30, 2009 5:14 PM in response to Condo of the Day: 125 North 10th Street, #NPHD

molehill, Domino was projected as 2,200 units total. As you said, it's not getting built.

Posted by: bjw2103 at September 30, 2009 5:10 PM in response to Development Watch: 170 North 5th Street

"5000, 8000, 10,000, 3,000....
The point is NO NEED to buy NOW at these prices in Williamsburg.
They will be coming down.
Significantly. No matter how you want to slice it."

Definitely, but having at least a semi-accurate picture of the inventory situation is helpful in determining what the pricing might adjust to. And your picture is a comically gross exaggeration, so it's important to clarify. As molehill says (and I've said in the past), the aptsandlofts guy's number is pretty suspect.

Posted by: bjw2103 at September 30, 2009 5:08 PM in response to Development Watch: 170 North 5th Street

"Ok, so when we factor in the 2766 for 2010, we are up to 8346.

Still not including shadow inventory."

You do realize that all those numbers you're counting for 09 and 10 ARE shadow inventory, right? Right?

Posted by: bjw2103 at September 30, 2009 4:53 PM in response to Development Watch: 170 North 5th Street

"9300 in from UrbanDigs.com"

So doesn't include shadow inventory or anything. Not really apples-to-apples, huh? If you want a comparable number for Williamsburg (using the same methodology as Urbandigs), the inventory is 585. 585! As in 5.85% of what you're telling us.

"I know it's crazy, but all you have to do is walk around the neighborhood."

I live in the neighborhood and I've done a pretty rigorous tally of what's out there and what's to come. That's why I can only shake my head at the number you're using. Even the Metropolitan theater condos you referenced have what, 6 units?

"Let's not fight about this...none of us have actual numbers to back up either of our assertions here unfortunately. You seem to be saying the Williamsburg real estate market is strong (along with Wine lover) and I'm saying I don't think that is accurate."

I do have actual numbers and I've posted them before. But yes, I definitely agree that the real estate market is not strong and that wine lover is a bit overexuberant, to put it mildly, though I don't have a problem with him/her.

"but I live in williamsburg and have for 12+ years and walk around a ton. if you add up the total number of units in all the little developments that have been built or are being built, including everything that's sold over the last few years, you might get 3500 units."

Bingo - totally agree.

"Why are there so many idiots on brownstoner?"

There are some, but 11217 is not one of them - he gets a little trigger happy with the inventory numbers sometimes and likes to bag on Williamsburg a bit, but he's cool by me.

Posted by: bjw2103 at September 30, 2009 4:41 PM in response to Development Watch: 170 North 5th Street

11217, you're making a mess! Seriously, 10,000 condos coming to the market in Williamsburg? That is quite the tale. I'll be surprised if we get 2,500 in the next year or so. And the inventory for Manhattan is 9,300? Is that including shadow inventory there? Where are you getting these numbers?

Posted by: bjw2103 at September 30, 2009 3:42 PM in response to Development Watch: 170 North 5th Street

"10,000 condos on or to hit the market was last we heard. These places aren't lowering prices as much as they should because they will lose their shirt and have to hand over to the bank if they do. Just sit and wait if you want to live in Williamsburg."

Oh come one 11217, we've had this discussion before, except last time it was 5,000 condos (which includes stuff that was build and sold in the last few years as well). Hyperbole is not your friend! I do agree with being patient though - no reason ever to rush with the purchase of a home.

Posted by: bjw2103 at September 30, 2009 3:23 PM in response to Development Watch: 170 North 5th Street

Wasn't this supposed to be a rental from the get-go though? It's massive (look at how far back down North 12th it goes - the photo barely does it justice), so this will definitely add a lot of inventory. I assume ground floor will be retail? Suddenly, there will be a lot of that in this corner, with the retail at 44 Berry, not to mention recent opening of Brooklyn Bowl and Berry Park.

Posted by: bjw2103 at September 16, 2009 5:33 PM in response to Development Watch: 34 Berry Unveiled

I like Kings too, but for emergencies, this'll be a much shorter walk for a whole lot of people (especially once these towers fill up). It'll hopefully keep prices somewhat in check too. Much needed, in my opinion.

Posted by: bjw2103 at September 14, 2009 3:25 PM in response to Streetlevel: Kent Ave. Duane Reade Opening Saturday

Was wondering what was going on here. I assume these are to be rentals? Big wins here - less of a massive pit in the ground (this is an entire block we're talking about here - a real estate black hole if there ever was one), contextual height (we'll see about the looks), and more centrally-located rental stock. Anyone know what the updated plans for the rest of the block are?

Posted by: bjw2103 at September 1, 2009 3:37 PM in response to Development Watch: 143 North 3rd

"It sure isn't best for those who live work ,and play on wythe."

I live just off Wythe, yet I disagree. Unless you're convinced they'll fail miserably at diverting the trucks properly (and frankly, once the drivers figure it out, they'll avoid Wythe and all the stop-signs and pedestrians as much as possible), I see this as a win. Agreed there should be (and apparently will be) stop signs at Kent and North 5th and North 7th (and one or two others as well perhaps), but I don't see any compelling reason to keep Kent the way it had been. It most definitely was an ersatz highway.

Posted by: bjw2103 at August 25, 2009 4:30 PM in response to Kent Traffic Shifts to Wythe

zinka's right - not sure what people are complaining about. Kent was essentially a highway, and this will make it safer. DOT will be pressured into putting up better signage and trucks will eventually be detoured properly - what, you expected things would be running 100% smoothly instantly? Let's be real here.

Posted by: bjw2103 at August 25, 2009 12:44 PM in response to Kent Traffic Shifts to Wythe

dittoburg, snark notwithstanding, the whole point is to get the trucks off Kent altogether unless they're making local deliveries. Otherwise, if they have to travel southbound, have them go up Kent to Franklin, turn on Greenpoint, and connect to McGuinness there. No levitation required. And yes, they should add lights or stop signs along Kent as well, but I think this is a good first step. Check this out: http://www.brooklyn11211.com/archive/2009/06/better-kent.html

Posted by: bjw2103 at August 17, 2009 4:35 PM in response to Kent Ave Goes One-Way Today

dittoburg, it's not really the one-way change that will slow people down. The parking on both sides will take care of that: it'll stop looking like a highway, and look much more like Wythe currently does. Drivers will have to be more cautious out of necessity.

The truck traffic argument is pretty silly - except for local deliveries, why can't they be diverted to McGuinness and the BQE?

Posted by: bjw2103 at August 17, 2009 3:33 PM in response to Kent Ave Goes One-Way Today

therealfly, I think you're missing the forest for the trees here, as Stroller Mom alluded to. Kent is going to be a major residential and commercial throughfare in Williamsburg in the next 3-5 years simply due to the number of people who will be living in those waterfront towers. People FLY down Kent (I am a moderately fast driver and yet I've been honked at and illegally passed by insane drivers on Kent, who apparently thought 60 was the appropriate speed); it needs to be made safer for everyone. This is a good move.

Posted by: bjw2103 at August 17, 2009 1:13 PM in response to Kent Ave Goes One-Way Today

11217, you've warmed the cockles of my heart (and I apologize if I got aggressive myself). Which is much more than I can say for the dbag who shamelessly reprints my Brownstoner posts on Streeteasy to try and pick fights over the internet. BTW, I know this isn't the place for it, but as a local, what are your 2-3 fave bars in Park Slope? I feel I need to indulge in the bar scene a bit more over there.

Posted by: bjw2103 at August 12, 2009 2:23 PM in response to Fear (of Condos) and Self-Loathing in Williamsburg

11217, no worries. You're spot on in that last post. Unfortunately, developers almost never cater to lower incomes; the system in place gives them little incentive to. And you're right, the changes in Williamsburg have come about much faster than in Park Slope, but for one, I'm looking forward to things slowing down and a more "organic" growth taking shape as we struggle with this economy.

The brownstone vs poorly built condo argument I get, but I think this meme gets WAY out of whack sometimes - not every new building is just "drywall." It takes a little research to properly discern, and I can't tell you the number of times people just glance at the exterior and pass judgment on the quality of construction. It's hilarious.

For the record, I don't find you to be judgy - I think it's great you have your convictions and are willing to share them here. I'm enjoying this thread much more than our discussion on inventory, I must say!

Posted by: bjw2103 at August 12, 2009 2:07 PM in response to Fear (of Condos) and Self-Loathing in Williamsburg

11217, I totally get why people don't like the neighborhood - it's by no means the prettiest, draws a bit of a dbag nightlife crowd on weekends, is not super-convenient to midtown, etc. I do disagree when you say that it feels like it's there for the sole purpose of "raping people of money." Are prices really that much higher than in Park Slope for everything? Why do you care about the fashion shows, the trendiness factor in restaurants, etc.? Only insecure people worry about that stuff, even if it is going on around them. I laugh at these things and move on, because behind them there's actually a lot to love in the neighborhood. I say this while loving a whole lot of other neighborhoods as well (Prospect Heights and Park Slope included).

As for the old timers vs new, you're right, but I feel the disdain is more towards those who come to the neighborhood to drink and frolic in McCarren, while showing little respect for their surroundings. Actual residents are naturally more understanding and respectful.

Posted by: bjw2103 at August 12, 2009 1:44 PM in response to Fear (of Condos) and Self-Loathing in Williamsburg

11217, really, you don't like Williamsburg? Seriously though, I'm with you on the lack of trees, but you're dead wrong about the park and sense of community. McCarren is not Central or Prospect, but it's a pretty great park, and I assure you it's real. When they finish the waterfront stuff (beyond the park that's already there, which is also not merely a figment of anyone's imagination), we'll have something only a few neighborhoods have in this city - a great riverside park. I also don't know how you can gauge "sense of community" as an outsider, but I'd like to hear why you think this. I think a lot of the younger college-age kids attach some kind of "coolness" to living here, but the vast majority of adults I know here are way past that. I don't know too many who stick around if they hate it either.

Posted by: bjw2103 at August 12, 2009 1:10 PM in response to Fear (of Condos) and Self-Loathing in Williamsburg

rob, are you sure? Have you ever heard of this "Meatpacking District" or "Murray Hill" or "The Lower East Side"?

Posted by: bjw2103 at August 12, 2009 1:02 PM in response to Fear (of Condos) and Self-Loathing in Williamsburg

"ones a phoney and one aint!"

Yeah, but one's a dbag all the time, and the other is at least ashamed to be one.

Posted by: bjw2103 at August 12, 2009 12:57 PM in response to Fear (of Condos) and Self-Loathing in Williamsburg

"Some of my most fun time spent in this city has been the times I've spent little to no money at all."

Definitely - it's what sets this city apart. There are countless free shows, concerts, parks, museums, not to mention cheap (but still good!) food. You really don't need to spend a whole lot to get by, and pretty well at that, beyond housing costs.

Posted by: bjw2103 at August 12, 2009 12:10 PM in response to Fear (of Condos) and Self-Loathing in Williamsburg

"My point, which may seem strange, is that $170K or whatever isn't actually enough to pay for a 2-bedroom condo, especially considering you can rent the same space for half the cash."

That is entirely dependent on what kind of deal you get and how much cash you're putting down.

Posted by: bjw2103 at August 12, 2009 11:06 AM in response to Fear (of Condos) and Self-Loathing in Williamsburg

$1500 for a studio seems fine, as long as the building ends up being decent. Went with a friend to see a pretty crappy ground floor studio (more of a faux 1BR actually) on the same block a few months ago - went for ~$1150 I think, so I think they can get away with a couple hundred more for a much nice place. dirty_hipster any particular reason you like this location? It's a bit of a walk to everything (except the Marcy stop), no?

Posted by: bjw2103 at August 11, 2009 4:23 PM in response to Development Watch: 120 South 8th Street Almost Ready

11217, look, I don't get into ad-hominem bs usually, if you insist on thinking I'm a broker, you should probably seek a little medical attention. I'm not - get over it.

And yes, there's quite a difference between 1400 units and 2800 - I've always been cognizant about the large amount of inventory in the neighborhood, but it never ceases to amaze me how carelessly people start repeating gross exaggerations as fact. I read the Crain's piece (thanks for assuming I didn't) and saw they quoted the same report you cited last time.

(I can't believe I'm arguing with a paranoid Sloper).

Posted by: bjw2103 at August 10, 2009 5:10 PM in response to Condo of the Day: 1 Northside Piers, #15D

"The "facts" are provided above in that this apartment is going to sell for less than what it was bought for.

And that's without the 1400 or 2800 additional units."

Yeah, as you yourself put it, that has NOTHING to do with what the inventory is/will be. And of course, you are the one who started posting about shadow inventory in the first place, on a thread that really didn't address that at all. Furthermore, you're very confused as to what a fact is. I totally agree that the unit is/was overpriced, but the actual resale hasn't happened yet.

Posted by: bjw2103 at August 10, 2009 4:50 PM in response to Condo of the Day: 1 Northside Piers, #15D

It's actually a fairly quick exercise. Adding numbers up doesn't take a lot of time (who knew?), especially when the information is easily accessible on public websites. But hey, if you're completely paranoid and want to go ad-hominem to prove whatever point it is you think you have, go nuts. Notice you still haven't provided any actual facts - solid effort.

Posted by: bjw2103 at August 10, 2009 3:58 PM in response to Condo of the Day: 1 Northside Piers, #15D

"I believe it's closer to 2800.
I think you are a broker trying to prop up the neighborhood, bjw2103.
You are counting just the most well known places. Go walk around and you'll find another 50 buildings here and there on every side street with a tons of empty units."

First, believe what you want, but I've actually presented some facts up there. Until you come up with anything better, you're somehow corroborating 2800 just from "walking around"?

Second, this "you must be a broker" paranoid bs is hilarious. Just because I post to debunk some highly dubious "stats" I work in the industry? No, sorry. Are you a Park Slope broker trying to scare people away from Williamsburg? See how ridiculous that sounds? Enough.

Third, I don't think my list just counts "well-known places." I did specify that anyone should feel free to add if I missed anything, so please, go ahead. You really disqualify yourself from reasonable conversation when you use blatant hyperbole so often.

"I think it's absurd how you don't comment on anything else, but these threads about Williamsburg saying the same thing over and over.
And I believe you do the same thing on streeteasy, if I'm not mistaken.
Wouldn't your time be better spend actually trying to sell units, than count them?"

I think it's absurd that you care so much about where I post. I live in Williamsburg and care about the neighborhood; sorry if my comments offend you, but I'll post to threads I'm interested in. Get over yourself.

Posted by: bjw2103 at August 10, 2009 3:40 PM in response to Condo of the Day: 1 Northside Piers, #15D

infinitejester, it's a ton, obviously, but compare to what Crain's is "reporting" (especially when the 2,800 is supposedly new listings, which would be on top of what's already out there, which makes up much of what I counted). It's clear there's a lot of bad info out there.

Posted by: bjw2103 at August 10, 2009 2:52 PM in response to Condo of the Day: 1 Northside Piers, #15D

Quick tally of northside condos that are currently available, or in a state of completion that should put them on the market in the next year or so (I'm sure I've missed a smaller development here and there, feel free to add):

1 Northside Piers = ~50 units left
2 Northside Piers = 270 (don't think anything's in contract)
The Edge = ~475 (tough to know exactly, given limited info)
125 N10th = ~45
20 Bayard = 21
268 Wythe = 12
Warehouse 11 = ~100 (??), unclear what will happen
80 Met = ~70
Ikon = ~12
101 N5th = 7
Rialto = 11 left
129 Met = ~10 left
111 Kent = 63
14 Hope = 20
Aurora = 2
Aqua = 3
229 North 8 = ~50
90 North 5 = ~8
North 8 = 3
Sevenberry = 4
Mill Building = 3
218 N8th = 3
136 Met = 9
349 Met = 21 (??)

Total comes to 1,272; let's say 1,400 to be generous. Now that's quite a lot, but where are these 1,400 additional units coming from?

Posted by: bjw2103 at August 10, 2009 2:40 PM in response to Condo of the Day: 1 Northside Piers, #15D

11217, those 2,750 additional units are from that same inexplicable "report" cited in the NY Mag piece from last month. I would love to see how they arrived at that number, because frankly it doesn't make any sense unless they're counting Domino. Which isn't happening anytime soon of course, if ever.

Posted by: bjw2103 at August 10, 2009 12:53 PM in response to Condo of the Day: 1 Northside Piers, #15D

babygreene, the low-rise buildings you see in the foreground are where the affordable housing units are. I don't know much about them either, but I believe it's all lottery-based. Retail spots haven't been taken at the Edge as far as I know, but 2 spots at NSP are, just next door (Duane Reade and Mole, offshoot of the EV Mex restaurant).

Posted by: bjw2103 at August 7, 2009 12:24 PM in response to Taking the Edge Off of the Edge? Nope, It Turns Out

It is a bit amusing that all this hubbub is over nothing in the end. Looks like Levine and Douglaston are sticking to their guns for the time being. Not surprised.

Posted by: bjw2103 at August 6, 2009 4:06 PM in response to Taking the Edge Off of the Edge? Nope, It Turns Out

11217, I can definitely agree with that. Look, anyway you slice it, 1,300+ units is still an a$$load of inventory, and will take several years to clear. I don't think people realize just how massive 5,000 would be - the vast majority of these buildings are low-rise, despite all the attention the waterfront towers get. In the end though, let's just all hope this works out to the benefit of the neighborhood and we can all have a few Zywiecs in McCarren.

Posted by: bjw2103 at July 28, 2009 9:42 AM in response to Checking In On 268 Wythe Avenue

"In what interest would it be to a broker to announce that there's over 5000 units of inventory about to come online?
If anything that gives him MORE credibility because he's owning up to reality.
Unlike a certain someone else we are getting to know."

You'll have to ask him - my point was it's silly to presume to completely understand a broker's motivations. If a broker corroborated the numbers I came up with, you'd be bashing that in no time, but suddenly one puts out a massive and "sexier" number (that we don't even really understand) and you're buying hook, line, and sinker? I don't get it. And where am I not "owning up to reality"? You seem to enjoy painting the picture you have in your mind as that, but others see things differently and don't need to blatantly exaggerate to make our points. If you doubt my numbers so much, please feel free to poke holes - that's what the forum is for after all, no? No need to get so snarky.

Posted by: bjw2103 at July 27, 2009 6:27 PM in response to Checking In On 268 Wythe Avenue

dirty_hipster, totally agree. Too many people assume you like the neighborhood only because you bought there and never consider that maybe it was the other way around. I do agree that in the vast majority of cases, prices are too high. I'm not sure it'll get down to $500/sqft (though hard thing to generalize given that there is some difference in product across the board), but things should clear much faster as we get to $625-$650.

Posted by: bjw2103 at July 27, 2009 5:31 PM in response to Checking In On 268 Wythe Avenue

"But as a residential neighborhood, it's toast for at least 5-7 years and quite possibly longer."

11217, what does this even mean? Seriously. Do you think people are going to bolt en masse? Heavy industry will be moving back in and they'll undo the zoning changes? It's not the end of the world - people will be ok.

"Having paid the prices people paid in the last few years to sit next to empty and rotting buildings"

Look, I know it's a fashionable thing to say, but you make it sound like a warzone. Some spots are indeed bad, others are fine. Let's not get carried away.

"Again...I trust someone's numbers who actually DID a study on it, not some anonymous person on a blog who says he's not a broker, but "already done his own tally""

Hey, if you want the details, they're here (same screenname): http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/3022-80-metropolitan?page=2
But again, I'd like to know the details behind this broker's study (and NOW people believe brokers? Smacks of selective hearing to me). What exactly is being counted?

Posted by: bjw2103 at July 27, 2009 5:26 PM in response to Checking In On 268 Wythe Avenue

11217,

Do we really have to break out the "you're a broker" trope every time? I'm not, I can assure you. I live in the neighborhood and am fairly involved in the "changes" going on. Are there abandoned sites? Of course! Are there completed buildings with people living in them? Also! I'm all for getting the truth out there, but I see A LOT of unbalanced perspective and neighborhood flame wars (for instance, given your posting history, you seem to have an issue with the neighborhood). You say this is going to be Miami, but if you've actually seen the number of high-rise condo towers in Williamsburg, you'd realize you can count them on one hand. Miami? Not so much. As for the inventory, I have done my own tally. You tell me where he got 2,800 each time because it's completely dumbfounding math from what I'm seeing. Maybe he means there have been 2,800 units built so far (meaning a large chunk of that is already occupied), but otherwise I think it's off.

Posted by: bjw2103 at July 27, 2009 3:55 PM in response to Checking In On 268 Wythe Avenue

Oh come on guys, Brownstoner is supposed to be a step up from Curbed. I can't speak to the accusations of "racism" here, but that doesn't really have anything to do with this, does it?

A quick look at what's being said here:

* People aren't buying in Williamsburg: no doubt sales have slowed from peak big time, but this is an exaggeration. ~60 sales in the neighborhood in the past 60 days - that's actually fairly healthy, even given the supply issues here.

* 5,000 units on the market (soon): this is a pretty gross exaggeration, as it includes A LOT of stuff that is nowhere near being built as well as stuff that may not ever be built (including 2,200 units at Domino, and over 1,000 other units for a third NSP tower, and one or two more Edge towers). That's just not realistic. By my calcs, we're looking at probably a little over double what Streeteasy is saying now (1,200-1,500) - still a lot, but let's not go nuts here.

Posted by: bjw2103 at July 27, 2009 2:28 PM in response to Checking In On 268 Wythe Avenue

Yes, Return of the What, one restaurant not getting along with its landlord means the end of gentrification! Also, if I pee on your doorstep, the property value instantly halves! Be on the lookout - you never know when I have to go.

Posted by: bjw2103 at July 24, 2009 3:52 PM in response to Original Bonita to Close

"Wonder why they never got approved for a liquor license."

Proximity to a church, no?

Posted by: bjw2103 at July 24, 2009 12:47 PM in response to Original Bonita to Close

Bonita doesn't "suck" - some of us actually enjoy it. I hope it lands somewhere else nearby and can keep the same general vibe. My guess is on Berry or Wythe somewhere. Cheaper rent, and with all the stuff that's moved (or moving) there of late, there's more foot traffic than before.

Posted by: bjw2103 at July 24, 2009 11:30 AM in response to Original Bonita to Close

lechacal, as someone who loves the neighborhood, I've always been really wary of the waterfront towers, partly because I don't like high-rises, and partly because there's just so much gdamn risk, and that's the real issue here, I think. To address your "on the market" questions - it just seems to me they pumped so much into the marketing that it wouldn't be a particularly beneficial move to pull out of the market now (compare with 111 Kent across the street - no listings out there anymore as far as I can tell). Second, if they really are getting a contract or two signed every week, well at least that's something. At that rate, they actually won't do that badly, though I'm a little suspicious about the accuracy of his statement, to be fair.

Posted by: bjw2103 at July 20, 2009 1:49 PM in response to Jeff Levine: 'Cockeyed Optimist'

lechacal, you're missing the point. You can't increase foot traffic at a construction site. Despite your "sunset" analogy, I've encountered far too many people who certainly do think they can talk the market in either direction. You're saying that you would be very public about major price cuts at this stage in the game if you were Levine, but to me that just sounds like someone who can only benefit from that kind of action. You have to understand Levine's position as well, and he has enough experience that I wouldn't just dismiss his strategy so casually, even if I ultimately don't have as much faith in it as he has.

Posted by: bjw2103 at July 20, 2009 1:31 PM in response to Jeff Levine: 'Cockeyed Optimist'

"So you are completely wrong on all fronts. He should announce now, and he absolutely should announce in an interview with the NYT."

Chill out. I'm not saying his strategy will certainly pay off in the end - frankly, neither you nor I have any idea. It's very clear that they're waiting out this economy as long as possible. Construction still has a ways to go, and recognizing that people just don't buy sight-unseen anymore, they feel much less pressure to pre-sell. They'll sit tight until the building's in move-in condition, and then if the market's still as bad (and my bet is yes, though Levine's seems to be that it'll be less bad at least), THEN they make the move. That's when their competition for sales really starts. For all the hubbub about Northside Piers making significant cuts in pricing, all of it was done in the first tower. Notice that their strategy on the obviously pricier second tower is exactly the same as the Edge's.

"You want every last reader of the NYT real estate section to know about your price cuts."

Really? You don't think you're just projecting a little wishful thinking here? Come on.

Posted by: bjw2103 at July 20, 2009 12:50 PM in response to Jeff Levine: 'Cockeyed Optimist'