Park Slope Versus The Burbs
New York has a reputation for being an expensive town, which of course it is. But the high housing prices and rents don’t tell the whole story. You see, New Yorkers don’t necessarily need cars. And our property taxes are pretty low. Which is why a Times story this weekend comparing the cost of living…
New York has a reputation for being an expensive town, which of course it is. But the high housing prices and rents don’t tell the whole story. You see, New Yorkers don’t necessarily need cars. And our property taxes are pretty low. Which is why a Times story this weekend comparing the cost of living in Park Slope versus Orange, NJ found that a family of four with a household income of $170,000 could actually live more inexpensively in Brooklyn than Jersey. In fact, monthly expenses were $1,285 cheaper in the County of Kings. “Specifically, each month, the suburban family needs to lay out about $5,668 to run their home and commute to work in Manhattan, compared with $3,852 for the urban family,” said The Times. “That includes most relatively static expenses — from the mortgage, property taxes and homeowner’s insurance, to transportation, utility bills and, for the house, landscaping. ” The major caveat: If you want to send your kids to private school, fuhgettaboutit. You’re better off moving to the burbs.
High-Rise, or House With Yard? [NY Times]
Photo by Betty Blade
By 11217 on July 6, 2010 11:55 AM
“McMansions and SUV’s and buying all Chinese made goods from Walmart isn’t sustainable.”
This is a stereotype of suburban life, and like all stereotypes it’s a blanket statement that may or may not apply to a particular case, especially this one.
The original article is about South Orange. I would say that this is one of the few suburban towns I could happily live in. If I were within walking distance of both the train station and surrounding commercial area, and also South Mountain Reservation, that could make for a very nice lifestyle.
Case Shiller doesn’t count co-ops or condos.
Or about 90% of the housing in NYC.
How is that relevant?
“Orange is NOTHING like Park Slope. Living a suburban lifestyle is the easy way out, in my opinion. Most people don’t necessarily love it, but they want easy. The reason NYC has energy is because people here don’t want easy…they want to struggle and better themselves.
You aren’t going to better yourself driving to Walmart, making dinner in a microwave and retiring to the television at 8:00 for reruns of the Bachelorette.”
Typical superiority complex of the recent NYC arrivals thinking that they are “living the dream” and that everyone else must be miserable because they are not.
“Case-Schiller is actually not very relevant to NYC-Brooklyn at all. None of the data has been representative of the housing market here.”
Simply incorrect.
*NYXR up +200% trough to peak
*Brooklyn brownstones, condos and coops up +200% trough to peak
C-S can’t get anymore representative than that. NYC-Brooklyn prices are not in a vacuum.
***Bid half off peak comps***
fsrq — You’re making huge assumptions here… you’re assuming there can only be one major business center. Yes, having a business center and making it accessible IS the right thing to do. However, we are at the FAR END of your economies of scale chart. The WRONG end. Manhattan cannot continue to be the only business center for New York City. It is simply untenable as populations grow (and sea levels rise… as a side note).
Atlanta is a failure as a city. Was just there a few weeks ago and I find nothing redeeming about that place.
tybur6 – the problem with your 10:43 point (i.e. that many people do not travel by mass transit – some people live in exurbs and commute to Manhattan) is that you make your argument in a vacuum….the issue is COMPARED to what (or where)
You started your rant by saying that Manhattan was contributing to an unhealthy environment and communities because it centralizes employment and that we’d be better off if everyone worked in their own community.
The reality is that this is mostly a WRONG conclusion (environmentally anyway)
In NYC we are talking about probably 13-15M people who live in the city and near ‘burbs (and other near in urban locations) – it is simply impractical if not impossible to have that many peoples employment all be within walking distance; nor could you practically make ‘local’ commuting via mass transit economical (or environmental) – having a central business district allows for mass transit to have economies of scale; which makes it practical, affordable and thereby environmentally sound. It isnt necessary for EVERYONE to take mass transit for our current macro development scheme to be the most environmentally conscious (although you could raise the $ for not taking mass transit to reflect the true social costs); essentially there is no western city where everyone takes mass transit; but there are many western cities that due to their post-automobile development where taking mass transit is impossible and even if people ‘technically’ live closer to their work, the environmental cost of getting there is much much higher (been to Atlanta lately?)
“I wonder what happened to the expression “Live and let live”? Why do some folks in Brownstone Brooklyn have a need to have their lifestyle choice externally ratified as superior?”
I don’t think that’s it. I think it’s that we’ve recently come to the conclusion (well most of us anyway) that living in urban centers is the wave of the future (check out India, China, Brazil for evidence) and that to sustain the planet for future generations, McMansions and SUV’s and buying all Chinese made goods from Walmart isn’t sustainable.
I think it’s funny that all my suburban (Republican) friends were shouting in February on facebook that global warming didn’t exist because they had so much snow this year.
Now their holes are shut as we’ve experienced one of the hottest springs on record.
Corrected:
Why am I not surprised to see privileged suburbanites who have moved to Brooklyn taking the positions thay are taking without any sense of irony?