with respect to all the doom and gloom about the rentals/condos going up, do folks ever take into account the demographic shifts that occur over time? nyc isn't exactly buffalo or rochester. albeit with less intensity i do believe people are still moving here.

there was a time when The What was a classic hip-hop joint. now it just makes me want to stop reading this blog.

Posted by: friend_or_foe at May 21, 2009 3:29 PM in response to 80 Dekalb Tops Out

looks pretty good.

let 'er rip haters.

Posted by: friend_or_foe at February 19, 2009 11:15 AM in response to Toren All Glassed Over

Nemo Tiles.
Pretty wide selection of ceramics and natural stone at descent prices.
Just bought a gang of tile from them, including penny tile. Bob in the Manhattan showroom is really helpful.

Sounds like you need to come up with a budget # for the reno and then work backwards. Do as much on your own as you can. Saves dough. Good luck

Posted by: friend_or_foe at February 12, 2009 3:15 PM in response to Planning for a Bathroom Reno

i believe zinka is correct. this is going to be a park.
i'm wondering if the citypoint project is going to get off the ground. anybody know?

Posted by: friend_or_foe at January 9, 2009 10:27 AM in response to City Spends Almost $40 Million on Two Downtown Lots

how does a supermarket king get a construction loan in this environment?

catsimatidis is the man!
all hail gristedes.

Posted by: friend_or_foe at December 17, 2008 12:22 PM in response to Residential Construction Financing Hard to Come By

anybody know what this building will look like?

Posted by: friend_or_foe at December 1, 2008 10:53 AM in response to Development Watch: Avalon Rising on Myrtle

i'm hoping that they just decided to spend less money on the rendering cause i ain't feeling this look. anybody seen what avalon's building is going to look like?

Posted by: friend_or_foe at November 24, 2008 12:14 PM in response to 111 Lawrence Revealed

non-profit groups like PACC tend to get some preference in terms of applying for competitive subsidy awards. but the city will entertain pretty much anybody who walks through the door and says they want to develop affordable stuff.

the profit margins aren't there and there's more bureaucracy involved in affordable dev and so you don't get the Trumps of the world rushing to do it.

non-profits like PACC however are specifically created to do community development and so they really have no alternative. whatever profit they do make on an affordable development usually goes right back into some other part of the group, like overhead or other offices within the group.

Posted by: friend_or_foe at September 26, 2008 3:40 PM in response to PACC Spins Out Another Affordable Housing Project

just thought i would make one point of correction to LilBitofLuck's post.

any resale profits are not paid to the developer but rather to the City. you should feel comfortable that you're not getting screwed tyburg6.

billions of federal tax levy for a never-ending war in iraq that probably shouldn't have been fought in the first place. that's where you're getting screwed my friend-not by affordable housing.

Posted by: friend_or_foe at September 26, 2008 2:41 PM in response to PACC Spins Out Another Affordable Housing Project

yeah i'm not sure i understand what's meant by segregation through amenities in toren. isn't there a 6th floor roof deck, pool, gym, etc. that's open to all the residents? how does not having a deck on the roof segregate? ostensibly if you value a view on the 30th floor, you'll pay the price differential between the same type of apt on the 10th floor and the 30th, no? but can you really call that segregation?

Posted by: friend_or_foe at August 27, 2008 2:30 PM in response to Closing Bell: Top of the Toren

junkman. avalon bay's job is a rental w/ like 600 apts. they don't build condos. that only leaves oro, citypoint, and catsimatidis' jobs as for-sale in the immediate vicinity. heaven only knows what's going on with oro (forget about oro II). but citypoint is at least 2 years from being finished. and given that the cat man isn't a real estate guy who knows when his job will actually get built.

Posted by: friend_or_foe at August 27, 2008 9:43 AM in response to Closing Bell: Top of the Toren

prove to me it's not 50% sold or close to it.

actually better yet, walk me through the logic that tells you that an apt in contract is not sold. if someone has put a deposit down on an apt, i guess since it's not "sold" the developer can go and sell that apt to someone else. hell why not go into contract like 20 phuckin' times on the same apt. you can 'cause it ain't sold right?

Posted by: friend_or_foe at August 26, 2008 4:37 PM in response to Closing Bell: Top of the Toren

BrooklynLove, what would Ol' Dirty say about Atlantic Yards?

Posted by: friend_or_foe at August 22, 2008 3:07 PM in response to Brooklyn Paper: Taxpayers Paying Up for Downtown Rental

i second P heights. they definitely make more dough by participating in the 80/20 program. i'm talking about a project's cash flow. they have to otherwise they wouldn't deal with HDC and HFA. in the old 421-a program, if they just built the project without the affordable they would get a 15 yr abatement. with the affordable they get 25 yr. that's extra dough in their pocket for another 10 yrs. that was the icing on the cake.

but we'll see how it plays out now that the 421-a is totally different. everybody is going to be looking at doing 80/20's and unfortunately despite the passage of the latest federal housing bill, there's not that much of the bonds to go around.

Posted by: friend_or_foe at August 21, 2008 4:50 PM in response to Brooklyn Paper: Taxpayers Paying Up for Downtown Rental

let's see if we can make this simpler. the blanket statement that the taxpayers are footing the bill to FCR is a bit misleading. if FCR built this project with a conventional construction and permanent loan the interest rate would be say 7%. ( i know they're not that high but bear with me). in this scenario FCR wouldn't provide 20% low-income units because it wouldn't make sense for them nor would it be required.

now if they build it with 80/20 tax exempt bonds, the interest rate on the bonds is something like 4% (for argument's sake again). yet the requirement is to provide 20% low-income units. the incentive here for FCR is the spread on the interest rates. despite the loss of rental income on the low-income units relative to the market units, the savings on the interest (bonds vs conventional) on an annual basis makes it a better deal from a net cash flow perspective (i.e FCR walks away with more dough).

now to the taxpayer's. like was stated previously these are govt bonds which are issued by the state. the folks who purchase these bonds are exempt from paying income taxes on the interest earned. so yes this is foregone revenue by the govt that you could argue is lost. but that assumes that you see the collection of taxes as kind of zero sum game. but my main point is that the notion that dollars that come out of our paychecks are going directly to FCR for this project and others like it is incorrect. you need carrots like the interest savings in order to compel companies like FCR to build the low-income housing. otherwise they just wouldn't.

Posted by: friend_or_foe at August 21, 2008 3:09 PM in response to Brooklyn Paper: Taxpayers Paying Up for Downtown Rental