@11217: I nominate you for quote of the day:

"Making fun of renters is SO 2007."

Posted by: parkedslope at November 16, 2009 3:14 PM in response to Co-op of the Day: 130 8th Avenue, #7C

@11217: I totally agree. The UWS was a cool neighborhood in the 80s. Today? Schlockville - most restaurants are merely Applebees in basic black sheeps-clothing... And if you think Park Slope stroller mommies [and their kids] are annoying, you ain't seen NOTHING until you've visited the UWS on a weekend afternoon!
@Maly & Co.: throwing out a random price is utterly useless as a means of comparison - what's the sq ftge of a unit in this price range on the UWS? Is it pre- or post-war? Full service? Elevator? Renovated? Views? Floor? Neighborhood & Neighbors? Transport access? I'm sure a parking space isn't even in the picture...
Spare us the worthless comments that bespeak the presence of - yes - a bitter renter!!!

Posted by: parkedslope at November 16, 2009 1:34 PM in response to Co-op of the Day: 130 8th Avenue, #7C

For all the carping about closing times, how come nobody has given this place kudos for actually being open in the morning - in stark opposition to the previous tenants, the utterly insane Scandinavian Grace Kafe (a coffee shop that didn't open until 11am) !!!!
And please, Butterfly: 'eco-fascist?' Get a life...

Posted by: parkedslope at November 6, 2009 4:39 PM in response to StreetLevel: Cafe DuCharme Opens on President

I think low-600s will do it - though I've been warned that banks can be reluctant to give mortgages on 5th-floor-and-higher walkups [I'm in a 4th floor walkup, so that was a concern for me too!].
W/D in the unit does mitigate the walkup issue, though... and @Maly: top floors do go for less unless they have roof rights, which this unit apparently does not.
At the end of the day, however, the Heights still commands a premium over other Brooklyn 'hoods & the maintenance seems to be in-line with the footage [which I also suspect is below 900 ft2]. The location will likely cinch the deal.

Posted by: parkedslope at November 4, 2009 1:50 PM in response to Co-op of the Day: 32 Willow Place, #9

hate to get my snark on, but he only 'artists' who'll be paying $1650-3000/mo are the ones whose biggest talent is for picking daddy's pockets each month for the rent - and let's not forget the cost of 'artists' supplies!'

Posted by: parkedslope at September 11, 2009 12:02 PM in response to Castle Braid: Mayer Schwartz's Art Utopia?

PC Richards has consistently done right by me on a gas range/oven & a stackable washer/dryer combo [the whirlpool narrow model works great & I don't see any advantage to the bosch model].

Posted by: parkedslope at August 5, 2009 6:31 PM in response to Washer/Dryer Installation

I looked at some units here back in 2006. My favorite moment was viewing one of the apartments - 3rd or 4th floor - facing the BQE & asking if I could open the window. You should have seen the owners' faces drop [it was a FSBO]!! Even though it was early on a Saturday morning, the minute I cracked the window, the apartment was filled with the ROAR of the highway! I actually like the hood, but the noise [and one presumes fumes] from the BQE are a total deal-breaker for any unit that faces it. Even on the side of the roof deck that faces the freeway, the noise is awful!

Posted by: parkedslope at July 28, 2009 5:28 PM in response to Condo of the Day: 1 Tiffany Place, #5C

I got rid of the security bars on my fire escape-facing window & had Lucky Window build a heavy duty window frame with security wire mesh between 2 plates of glass. They were great to work with & although it was expensive, it seems to be the best compromise between looks and security.

Posted by: parkedslope at July 21, 2009 7:09 PM in response to Security Bar Alternatives?

Actually, the marketers of the building should sell the McD's as an amenity: just as residents of Park Avenue's Mayfair get to enjoy having Restaurant Daniel on their ground floor, the Elan offers the same sort of exclusive haute cuisine experience just steps from your front door....

Posted by: parkedslope at July 17, 2009 11:51 AM in response to The Elan Goes Partially Rental

One last plug for walk-ups: in a co-op or condo, you usually get to park the stroller under the ground floor stairs. As for lugging groceries, kids, etc., you do multiple trips. Problem solved!
I wouldn't trade my top floor light, quiet, air & roof-deck for anything [except, maybe, a nice backyard]!

Posted by: parkedslope at June 10, 2009 3:32 PM in response to Condos of the Day: 707 Carroll Street

I find it amazing that anyone in their right mind would undertake a renno in a building like this & preserve this absolutely horrible railroad layout!
I live nearby in a very similar building but with a 100% different floorplan - just as traditionalmod described - LR/DR/KIT on one end & 2 BR's [each w/2 windows] & 1 1/2 baths [plus laundry] down a long, narrow back hallway. It rocks!
Honestly, the crapola kitchen is the least of your worries...
I also doubt the advertised top-floor unit has 'private' roof rights - wouldn't they be shared with the other top floor apartment? And notice that 'roof rights' doesn't mean there's actually a roof deck or even stair access to the roof. Many of these buildings only have hatch & ladder access - a big expense to convert into proper roof access.
Finally, there's one thing I'll say in-defense of this place: sam, why the hate for walk-ups? My building has 2 kids in upper-floor apts & it's not a problem! Maybe you need to get a little exercise... and walking-up stairs is a great way to start!

Posted by: parkedslope at June 10, 2009 1:43 PM in response to Condos of the Day: 707 Carroll Street

Bob - yes: the co-op should accept the consequences of everything that's been done up-to-now and agree to spread the cost of any existing damage to the roof to all the current shareholders.
What I'm suggesting is that once the new buyer gets things in-writing and the co-op legally acknowledges problems with the existing deck, when the roof eventually has to be repaired, they all need a game plan for what to do at that point.
A lot of co-ops are very loose about these things, but personally, I wouldn't buy into a building that's so careless - the very existence of this deck is a big red flag... what's worse, a future buyer could move-in and cause unforeseen trouble for everyone down the road.
Roof decks are great, and I'm being Mr Doom-and-Gloom, but having had ceiling leaks in other apartments & having shopped-around specifically for a place with a roof deck myself, I can tell you that it's best to be careful about what you buy into.
Anyway, good luck Bivouac - and I hope you wind-up in a great place!

Posted by: parkedslope at June 5, 2009 7:27 PM in response to Roof Deck Not Up To Code

Bob - the typical arrangement is that the person with roof rights is responsible for any damage caused to the communal property [the roof itself] due to private use of the roof.
Again, I'd warn anyone against placing a deck directly on the roof membrane: it's a 'pay now or pay later' situation.
The best short-term solution that I could see is having Bivouac get a written agreement from the co-op board that when the time comes to maintain/replace the roof, the old deck will be removed & replaced by a properly sized & engineered one built on joists attached to the roof's parapet walls [i.e. suspended off the rubber roof surface]. Of course, the removal and new construction would be at the owner's expense - but at least that would spare you from being responsible for paying for all the inevitable problems caused by a leaky roof!

Posted by: parkedslope at June 5, 2009 6:27 PM in response to Roof Deck Not Up To Code

I believe mscrochety means 'fireproof material...' That basically boils-down to steel - though I've heard Trex is fireproof too. Anyone know about whether it's up to NYC code?
As for the 20% rule when building with 'non-fireproof' material, I've often heard the same but have never actually seen it verified.
What bivouac needs to do, first-off, is have a lawyer confirm that the co-op offering plan allocates the roof rights to their unit [which ought to be reflected in a bigger # of shares than other units - and a higher maintenance charge]. If the roof rights are part of the deal, then it's really up to the buyer & seller to come to an agreement: if the buyer is paranoid about the legality of the deck [which sounds both illegal & bad for the integrity of the roof - heavy, wooden decks sitting on the roof membrane are a recipe for disaster], then they should make removal of the deck a condition in the sale & have the roof itself inspected. The other option is to be cool & enjoy the fresh air!
Brokestone makes a good & scary point too, though a 'no trespassing' sign ought to give the deck-owner some level of protection from injury claims caused by illegal use of the deck.

Posted by: parkedslope at June 5, 2009 1:55 PM in response to Roof Deck Not Up To Code

bxgirl - it would be great if you could post that info. i'm really interested in doing a story about urban archaeology across the US.
thanks!

Posted by: parkedslope at April 16, 2009 2:40 PM in response to Inside the Red Hook Grain Terminal

Benson -per the IMF, the current severe slow-down in Europe is largely due to their exposure to US financial markets:

http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSWAT00928920080409
["The International Monetary Fund slashed its economic growth forecast for Europe on Wednesday, warning that its financial markets were exposed to the troubled U.S. housing sector and credit conditions were tightening."]

As for their 'decades' of lagging behind us, I suggest you read this very insightful analysis by Ron Rifkin:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,366944,00.html
["If you measure the economy by GDP, you could say, the US is doing well. But remember, the EU's GDP exceeded ours in 2003. So if the European Union is moribund and falling apart, if it's a museum filled with pampered workers, an aging population and inflexible labor, then how come its GDP exceeded our 50 states in 2003? Yes, they have a bigger population, but they also have a sizable GDP."]

The argument that Europe is some sort of socialist backwater is baloney. I don't know why you're quoting Chirac - the current President of France is being called 'Sarko the American' precisely because of his desire to change labor conditions in-favor of industry.

Likewise, the UK is certainly part of Europe - not only geographically but politically. They may not be part of the Eurozone, but the UK's governing style & business models are much more akin to Germany & France than the US. Nice try, but no cigar!

I can't speak to Milanese subway ridership, but I can vouch that the trains in London, Paris & Berlin are packed during rush-hour!

As for innovative European businesses, think about Vivendi buying Universal, pharmaceutical giants like Bayer [yes, as in Bayer aspirin!] which has its hands in everything from pills to plastics, BMW [or, do you prefer Chrysler?], etc etc etc! And while the French failed to capitalize on their Minitel internet predecessor, they didn't have our dot.com bubble either.

And speaking of failed US automakers, what do you make of Sweden refusing to take-over Saab after GM essentially ruined that emblematic mark?

Posted by: parkedslope at April 8, 2009 6:46 PM in response to Futuristic Enclosure Thingy Proposed for the BQE

Some of the comments on Europe are so way-off-the-mark, I don't know where to begin...

Listen, Sam: you are dead wrong, saying Europeans are just as car-centric as we are. Since you admit to having never been in the poor suburbs of Paris ['les banlieues'], I'll go ahead and educate you: the people there are mostly POOR. Owning/driving a car anywhere in Europe - and especially in Paris - is EXPENSIVE. The result is the people on the outskirts are highly dependent on public transport - one of the many reasons why they feel cut-off from the more prosperous parts of the city.

As for Western Europe in-general, they tax the hell out of gasoline. The result is they drive smaller cars, drive newer [more efficient/less polluting] cars & mostly they drive a lot, lot less than we do! They generally have excellent public transportation - clean, prompt, relatively cheap - which means car ownership is strictly a luxury in most big Euro cities. Kind of like NYC...

Finally, Snark, you are correct: the European social safety net is making this whole disaster a lot less painful for many of them.

But Benson, it's incorrect to say that European economies have been in the doldrums for decades. As Snark pointed-out, they have traded boom-and-bust for slow-and-steady. The fact that a 'slow growth' economy is anathema to most Americans says a lot about the brainwashing that's been going-on by Wall Street, the financial media, GOP, etc.

And Benson, please spare us the examples of a tiny, tiny handful of entrepeneurs who came to America and made it big. First off, most continental Europeans who are hyper-ambitious go to the UK, NOT the US. Secondly, why don't you take the time to list all the European millionaires who made it big while staying in their home country? I'll give you a head-start [and he's a billionaire]: Richard Branson.

Posted by: parkedslope at April 8, 2009 1:54 PM in response to Futuristic Enclosure Thingy Proposed for the BQE

Yes, ROTW - and unemployment in NYC is now over 10%! Sorry to say, you are only helping make my point: productivity gains do not necessarily equate with a healthy economy. Nor do those gains always equate with a lousy economy either...
I know mixing apples-and-oranges is a popular strategy of yours, and again, I was simply saying that BHO was 100% wrong in his assertion that 'our productivity sucks.'
But I'll take your bait anyway: as for unemployment #'s, there is a real danger that eventually, too many people will lose their jobs and productivity will take a hit because demand will plummet. You may remember about 7 years ago when Greenspan was actually complaining that unemployment was too low - which meant workers had too much bargaining power & that was hurting - you guessed it - productivity.
The jury's out on just how NYC's current high unemployment will affect the housing market: I'd like to see some demographic break-down of the numbers - what kinds of jobs [white collar, skilled blue collar or unskilled labor] are being lost - because that will determine how much rents vs sales prices will fall.
And to the vulture buyers out there, I say: beware. Prices may come down, but easy-money mortgages are already hard to come-by; inflation may kick-in & that could actually buoy prices while diminishing the value of your savings; and there may be more owners out there than you think who have stable jobs, fixed mortgages & actually bought within their means.
But when all is said-and-done, may I remind you all that the report says foreclosures were DOWN in Brooklyn? And the map shows all but 2 foreclosures happening east of Flatbush - excluding most of the 'Brownstone Brooklyn' neighborhoods.

Posted by: parkedslope at April 3, 2009 2:47 PM in response to Brooklyn Foreclosures Drop Dramatically in First Quarter

BHO - please, stop with the BS!

US worker productivity is, in-fact, at an all-time-high. Econ 101: productivity is measured in output-per-worker. The sad [to many of us] legacy of 3 decades of automation, IT, lay-offs & outsourcing is that it takes fewer workers to create more goods & services.

Even in this crunch, productivity keeps going up:

The U.S. Labor Department announced that U.S. worker productivity increased at a 3.2% annualized rate in Q4 2008 and at a 2.8% rate for all of 2008; the full-year rate was the nation's largest productivity increase since 2003. Each was better than Wall Street's consensus estimates of roughly 1.1% and 2.0%, respectively, according to a Bloomberg News survey.
[source: http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/02/06/ray-of-light-u-s-corporate-worker-productivity-continues-to-r/]

I'm not really sure why I'm bothering to post this, as the bear/moron/ROTW crowd only seem to see what they want to see, believe what they want to believe... that's why an article about dropping foreclosure rates is interpreted as BAD news & further validation of their twisted world view.

Enjoy!

Posted by: parkedslope at April 3, 2009 1:16 PM in response to Brooklyn Foreclosures Drop Dramatically in First Quarter

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

Posted by: parkedslope at April 2, 2009 10:56 AM in response to Manhattan Market Frozen

re: Obama fried chicken -
Having grown up in Washington, DC, I often lament the loss of the late, great LBJ Cafe - a subterranean soul food cafeteria not far from Capitol Hill. It was a wonderful little place that catered to the tastes of the [mainly] African-American civil service employees who worked in the neighborhood - ribs, fried chicken, greens, etc.
Just as the Reagan Revolution helped wipe-away the last remnants of LBJ's Great Society, so gentrification took its toll on the LBJ Cafe... by the early 90s it was gone.
I once asked the owner about the origin of the name; she replied that it was a tribute to the Civil Rights President - and a catchy name that rhymed!
So is naming a chicken shack 'Obama' a tribute or just a crass cashing-in? Most likely, a little bit of both.

Posted by: parkedslope at April 1, 2009 4:52 PM in response to Wednesday Food & Drink Round-Up

'stay dogs' are dogs that listen to you when you say 'stay!'
and then you hump them...

Posted by: parkedslope at March 24, 2009 4:52 PM in response to Last Week's Biggest Sales

Quiz time, kiddies!

Who is the author of the following statement:

"On [sic] universal truth is MATH! Math does not lie and it's very very straight forward."

a) John Nash (schizophrenic subject of 'A Beautiful Mind')

b) the What

The Answer, tomorrow!

Posted by: parkedslope at March 24, 2009 4:03 PM in response to Last Week's Biggest Sales

What - in all seriousness, what does all this mean? How does mortgage lending up = $4 gas = China cutting off US investment?
And why would China sabotage its biggest market & the place it's been investing in for a decade?

Posted by: parkedslope at March 24, 2009 3:40 PM in response to Last Week's Biggest Sales

Miss Muffett & Mopar: where are these properties that have suddenly lost tons & tons of value? I have an especially hard time believing: "Prices in NYC have already dropped 40 percent and are dropping further."
I just did a refi on a PS coop & the appraisal came-in $110K OVER my fall 2006 purchase price.
Please, oh please, tell me you're not basing this simply on the asking/sale price differences that are reported here...
I hate to pick a team to side with, but the bulls are certainly throwing around a lot less BS than the bears.

Posted by: parkedslope at March 24, 2009 2:33 PM in response to Last Week's Biggest Sales

This is simply untrue:
Mopar: "Before the October meltdown it was completely standard to sign a contract with no mortgage contingency. It may not have been reasonable, but no seller would allow one."
As a buyer/seller in 2006, I can assure you there were contingencies in both contracts.
And yes, daveinbedstuy, mortgage commitment letters don't last indefinitely.
And northsloperenter, I concede that 'atypical' buyers play a part in driving-up prices during a bubble. But I think that only explains the spike in condo prices - where financial shennanigans were allowed/encouraged. It doesn't explain the rise in co-op prices where you couldn't get past a board with the type of financing the Phams attempted. I suppose a rising tide lifts all boats, but the % of condos in NYC remains quite small relative to co-ops.
I also disagree with your assessment that this story will somehow convince prospective buyers to avoid this developer & this bank: your 'average (relatively naive)' buyer wouldn't even be aware of this incident...
And a well-informed buyer would never have entered-into this contract in the first place.

Posted by: parkedslope at March 23, 2009 2:46 PM in response to That's Me In The Corner, Losing My Deposit

To those who try to sell this story as a parable of the real estate market collapse, I say: not so fast.
These people brought this on themselves. Plain & simple.
To put down that much cash, that far-away from the actual closing & to have left themselves no margin of error was plain dumb - bubble or not.
Also, I seriously doubt they had consulted a lawyer before signing the no-contingency contract. Even at the bubble's peak, there were plenty of contingency deals being signed - and any decent attorney would have advised them to walk away from this lousy deal.
So, no sympathy here for these would-be buyers - or for those who want to portray their behavior as somehow 'typical' of people who bought during the bubble.
And please, save the bank & developer criticism for cases where they genuinely acted unethically/illegally. They only took what their contract entitled them to take from a family that willfully over-reached.

Posted by: parkedslope at March 23, 2009 1:09 PM in response to That's Me In The Corner, Losing My Deposit

Top floor & park exposures are a huge bonus for this place. The maint is very low for an elevator building & having seen units here, the building is very well maintained & classy.
Price is steep for a 1BR - even in PS, but this place has a layout that would easily fit a couple & even a newborn for a short while...
It all comes-down to whether you think the current market will hold value or take an accelerating plunge. Considering the lack of prewar inventory on the market, it's hard to say!

Posted by: parkedslope at March 19, 2009 12:50 PM in response to Co-op of the Day: 135 Prospect Park SW, #F12

Sparafucile - I think 'killer location,' in this case, means: halfway between 5th & 7th Ave restaurants, stores, etc.; 5-7 mins walk to B,Q,R [one stop from D,N] & 10 mins to F; PS321 school district [tho not relevant to this place, most likely]; and <10 minute walk to Prospect Park; clean, quiet, safe street with no noisy/smelly/dirty commercial businesses sharing the backyard core between Carrol & President...
'nuff said?

Posted by: parkedslope at March 18, 2009 2:02 PM in response to Co-op of the Day: 692 President Street

I looked at an identical unit in the building next door, circa 2002 - believe they were asking $250K-or-so. Needed kitchen & bath renno and was lacking a 'real' roofdeck too.
The only major downside, then as now, is that roof access is via a hatch & ladder - not ideal for cocktail parties...
Otherwise, this is a great space for a young couple - the duplex does increase the sense of privacy despite the low square footage. And the main floor has very high ceilings. That, plus the southern exposure make this a very cheery place.
And yes, President is one of the best blocks in PS.
As usual, the broker should have been more explicit about all this!
$500K may be too much to swallow in the current climate - but there's not much else on the market in the totally prime PS core right now. Personally, I can't stand the 4th Ave/South Slope new condos & think they'll be a wretched investment for years to-come. So I'd definitely sacrifice the space/mod cons of a new condo for a reliable Center Slope co-op like this.

Posted by: parkedslope at March 18, 2009 1:56 PM in response to Co-op of the Day: 692 President Street

Denton & 11217 - I believe the PS321 zone extends only as far south as 3rd Street [with some jerrymandering - such as the inclusion of the Novo, for some bizarre reason]. Perhaps it's changed since you lived there, Denton?

Posted by: parkedslope at March 3, 2009 5:18 PM in response to Co-op of the Day: 344 6th Avenue, #2

I12 - good points, well taken.
However, I think the growth of the suburbs long pre-dates the 70s: it started in-earnest with the GI Bill which made suburban development & home-ownership so cheap, people were nuts not to dive right in...
Now that suburban life requires so much more of our land, fuel & time [all of which seem to be in dwindling supply], it has become a less-and-less attractive option.
And if you look back to the bad-old-days, don't forget that NYC's social problems started before its economic troubles: it was the white flight & deferred-maintenance of the 60's that lead to the city's problems in the 70's.
What's more, the national mood in the early 70's was highly reactionary - just think of Nixon's 'Silent Majority' & the Republican Party's racist 'Southern Strategy.' In the popular imagination, NYC was a place filled with black junkies & pimps, Puerto Rican gangs, gays, Jews & 'limousine liberals.' That image made it quite comfortable for Ford to tell us to 'drop dead!'
I don't think I have to remind you that times have changed just a bit since then...
Still, the one thing that hasn't changed in all that time is people's desire to make money [aka, greed]. I don't think that the investor class is by any means dead & that it's only a matter of time before the money starts flowing.

Posted by: parkedslope at February 19, 2009 4:19 PM in response to How the Financial Crisis May Not Be So Bad for New York

'a title shot?'
try a tetanus shot...

Posted by: parkedslope at February 19, 2009 3:47 PM in response to How the Financial Crisis May Not Be So Bad for New York

Nice one, What: too bad you didn't read the next sentence:
"we are not immune: a sinking tide lowers all boats...."
At the risk of igniting another of your Kaczynski-like rages, I have to ask: why do you even bother?
What makes you so lonely & desperate for attention? Sure, living under the stairs in your mother's decrepit house in Lodi isn't the surest way to attract girls [and you may want to do something about the skinsuit and the army of pet rats]. But have you considered washing your hair, brushing your teeth & getting a little sunshine once-in-a-while? Or does mother punish little boys who go out in public? That's assuming mother isn't a mummified corpse who shares your bed...
Did you actually read this far? Wow, I'm impressed! Thanks for your valuable time!
I feel validated, thanks to the What!

Posted by: parkedslope at February 19, 2009 3:21 PM in response to How the Financial Crisis May Not Be So Bad for New York

Sometimes I feel like my head is going to explode reading these comments!
People, let's get a few things straight:
-New York is different than Orlando, Miami, Tampa, Las Vegas, Phoenix, Orange County, et al. They are classic speculator/developer-specials: build it & they will come... the sheer cost-of-entry & prevalence of co-op housing has made NYC much less vulnerable to the problems other cities are experiencing. Also, our economy is surprisingly diverse, so the cratering on Wall Street is not a de facto death sentence for our housing market. And let's not forget that those states which lack an income tax are in even worse trouble financially than us. Take the time & read George Packer's excellent piece in the New Yorker:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/02/09/090209fa_fact_packer
-That said, we are not immune: a sinking tide lowers all boats. NYC may have a sounder housing market & be 'greener' than most sprawling cities, but people who want to move here will have even less money to spend now that their property is worth so much less than before. That will eventually put a real downward pressure on our market. This also applies to the foreign buyers who've supported the high-end condo market in Manhattan.
-So yes, we are in the calm before the storm - the lag before the drop.
-Still, those who've been waiting on the sidelines, hoping to buy, have now seen their stock portfolios devalued & the era of easy money loans pass them by. So it's unlikely they're going to be a factor in any recovery or are going to get their hoped-for day in the sun.
-Which leaves the recovery mainly in the hands of us current owners: if we can avoid panic/pressure selling, if we can continue to pay our mortgages & taxes. I think this spells tougher times in established 'hoods & de-gentrification in the fringes, new condos converted into dorm-like rental hives, and an end to most all new development. But it is absurd to indulge in fantasies of 1970's-like decay in the city. Again, it's apples-and-oranges... the social & economic pictures then-and-now are radically different.
-From here-on-out, our focus should be on how to manage the biggest opportunity that the slow-down offers: Federal money on-tap for infrastructure improvements. It's up to us all to put real & immediate pressure on our elected officials to make lasting improvements to the city, so that when the turnaround comes, we'll be proud of what we accomplished.
I think that's what 'The Atlantic' article missed - the thing that attracts me to NYC most of all: the resilience of its people. Something we like to call 'attitude.' You can't keep a good man down - or a great city.

Posted by: parkedslope at February 19, 2009 2:25 PM in response to How the Financial Crisis May Not Be So Bad for New York

Let's face it: comparing Brownstone Brooklyn to Houston is inane. Houston is the Enron of urban centers... rather than comparing apples-to-oranges, this is a case of apples-to-road kill armadillos.
As a Texas-ex I can assure you that Houston is indeed a soulless hellscape which would be utterly uninhabitable if not for the interstate highway system & the injection of massive amounts of air conditioning - two things destined to go the way of the dodo bird in the near-future.
Houston may have a few pedestrian enclaves, but it's mainly the kind of place where entire neighborhoods are built without sidewalks. And as for public transportation, it's strictly for the hired help. Just like Atlanta, Houston has a totally non-sustainable city plan: a weak center core enveloped by a web of exurban sprawl. This design is flawed & cannot be fixed.
And let's not forget that the current plunge in oil prices has dealt a major blow to Houston's biggest industry - one reason that it's a famous boom-and-bust city.
But putting all this aside, why am I wasting time commenting on this? You couldn't pay me to live in Houston or most other cities, which is EXACTLY why I live in NYC!

Posted by: parkedslope at February 6, 2009 2:16 PM in response to It's Tough Out There for a Middle-Class New Yorker

Back when I was shopping for a new Park Slope pad [2005], I thought I wanted a condo: modern layouts & the ability to rent it out. But I couldn't find one in the location I wanted [north/center Slope, close to the Park], so I bit the bullet and bought a co-op.
And am I glad that I did!
I was careful to study the board & its history just as much as I studied the apartment itself. It's easy to figure out what kind of board you're dealing with by studying the minutes of its meetings & by having them answer to a set of questions. If you don't like how they respond, don't buy-in, no matter how great the apartment might be!
A well-run co-op protects your investment far better than a condo, requiring owners to have adequate finances, even allowing all owners to have a voice in issues that may superficially appear to be private but actually impact everyone in the building - like renovations that violate fire codes & cause permanent noise problems between neighbors.
That may sound intrusive to some of you, but for anyone who's serious about making an apartment your home, it's invaluable.

Posted by: parkedslope at February 5, 2009 1:12 PM in response to Issue for our Co-op Board

wine lover - lay off the sauce!
Exactly where can I find such a reasonably-priced awesome new condo? Upper Gowanus? House-of-Detention Heights?

Posted by: parkedslope at February 4, 2009 2:29 PM in response to Co-op of the Day: 719 Carroll Street, #1L

I know this location & layout well: both are outstanding for singles, couples & families with one [maybe two] small kids.
The fretwork room divider & backyard are killer too.

Posted by: parkedslope at February 4, 2009 1:30 PM in response to Co-op of the Day: 719 Carroll Street, #1L

Mopar - thanks for the clarification.

What again distorts the situation in NYC is the ability to pass-along a rent controlled lease from one family member to the next - period.

This has created a privileged class of renters. I'm not sure how anyone can actually defend such a system.

Posted by: parkedslope at February 3, 2009 6:25 PM in response to Quote of the Day

Mopar - could you provide some actual stats on the % of rent controlled housing in SF vs NYC?
Also, SF and NYC comparisons are mainly apples vs oranges - just for starters: the actual city of SF is much, much smaller in population than NYC [you'd have to include much of the Peninsula & Oakland to make a decent comparison]; rental housing stock in SF is of a completely different origin and quality [mostly better, imho] than NYC.

CWB - trotting out the old 'all landlords are rich' myth isn't helping anyone. Again, please provide some hard facts on this. When I was renting [WV, LES, UES, Park Slope], all of my landlords were small-timers. Some were well-off, but none of them were the type of 'rich' folk Robin Hood would want to rob.

Personally, I think rent control/stabilization should be phased-out starting now, ending completely in 10 years. Let your decrepit granny pass-away in-peace, but I don't understand why we allow these apartments to be passed-along to subsequent generations.

And in my 100% anecdotal experience, rent-controlled apartments have been 100% sh*t-holes. There is absolutely zero motivation for a landlord to do anything but let them rot. This often creates plumbing, electrical, noise, etc problems for all the neighboring apartments, thus lowering their value too!

Posted by: parkedslope at February 3, 2009 4:47 PM in response to Quote of the Day

Is that really a 3rd 'bedroom' on the top floor??
How wide do you think it is: 5 feet?

Posted by: parkedslope at February 3, 2009 3:00 PM in response to Development Watch: Fabled Minerva 'Coming Soon'!

To the What & other professional pessimists: your pose [and I do mean pose] of impartiality doesn't hold up too well when you tout one article while dismissing another. And in neither case do you bring any facts/insight about the sources, quality of reporting, etc. of any of the material you cut & paste.

Posted by: parkedslope at February 3, 2009 2:51 PM in response to Last Week's Biggest Sales

My experience with brokers in Brooklyn has been uniformly negative [Corchoran]. I ended up doing all the work in terms of staging, photography, and coming-up with the terms of the listing.
What's worse, all of the brokers I've used responded by bumps-in-the-road by insisting I shave off a few thousand here, a few thousand there... in other words, they had no interest in delivering the highest price - only the sale [their % of those few thousand is so low as to be irrelevant to them - even though it was very costly to me]. And to make matters worse, one of the reasons I had to drop my price by $5K was because the broker had made an inaccurate statement in the listing without consulting me [the said we had dedicated storage space in the basement rather than shared space].
If you can create a good ad, do good staging, set a realistic price, and do some very basic due-diligence on prospective buyers, your real estate lawyer will do all the rest. In fact, that's the real nut of my argument: a good real estate lawyer is far more valuable and important than any broker.
So I say go for it! And yes, if it doesn't work out, you can always go pick up a broker - and make sure to interview plenty & negotiate their fee!

Posted by: parkedslope at January 21, 2009 12:24 PM in response to Tips on FSBO?

Best of all, with the reopening of the neighboring House of Detention, all she has to do is step outside the front door & meet all sorts of new friends!
As they say, 'location, location, location.'

Posted by: parkedslope at January 5, 2009 12:48 PM in response to Who Needs Brownstones When You've Got The Smith!

I just have to ask Mr B to stop drinking the real estate agent koolaid/smoking their wacky weed & recognize that this is, indeed, a one bedroom.
No window = no way.
Your resolution for 2009: stop parroting broker-speak [aka 'lies'].
I have visited other lofts with just this sort of office space, and yes, it works great as an office. But unless you're a vampire, the crypt-feel is overwhelming for a bedroom.

Posted by: parkedslope at December 29, 2008 4:57 PM in response to Condo of the Day: 30 Main Street

kdabrowski - I think you're neglecting to factor-in the mortgage interest deduction.
I'd say that if done properly, the math would actually favor ownership - or at least be a wash.
And that's leaving out the intangible preference many of us have for owning...
As for the question of building equity, you're also leaving out the fact that a mortgage payment includes pay-down towards principle - i.e. equity.
Not to whip out the 'bitter renter' tag, but I've noticed lately that many, many, many posters are making these sort of fundamental omissions. Wonder if this is yet another poorly-reasoned attempt at 'proving' that renting is better than owning...

Posted by: parkedslope at December 18, 2008 3:01 PM in response to Co-op of the Day: 515 East 7th Street

Financeguy @ 3:51pm - first off, sorry to have gone all ad-hominem on you before...
but I still hold that your argument has some gaping holes - namely, that ownership costs are 2x rents in prime neighborhoods. As I wrote earlier, they're not for me - and I made my purchase in late 2006. Factoring-in taxes, etc., I'm still close to 1:1.
And while you try to dismiss capital gains taxes, I was very p.o.'d when I had to sell some stock that I'd held for 10+ years. Likewise, I was quite pleased to have my home sale profits arrive tax-free!
As for the growing boundaries of PS, BH, DUMBO, etc - please, that is a recurrent joke on this site. Only fools think that 23rd Street at 3rd Avenue is 'prime Park Slope.'
And with the bubble now bursting, those fringe locations will surely seem all the more fringe-y.

Posted by: parkedslope at December 12, 2008 6:16 PM in response to Home Ownership Bad for Your Health