Luxury Rentals Abound
Developers of new rental buildings aren’t as squeezed as those who are trying to pawn off new condos, but they are still struggling. The New York Times reported over the weekend that among the 7,000 new rentals citywide, Brooklyn will see 3,500 new luxury units (including some that opened in late 2009). According to the…
Developers of new rental buildings aren’t as squeezed as those who are trying to pawn off new condos, but they are still struggling. The New York Times reported over the weekend that among the 7,000 new rentals citywide, Brooklyn will see 3,500 new luxury units (including some that opened in late 2009). According to the Times, rents in the city are down about 25 percent from the market’s height in 2008 and the vacancy rate is almost two percent, compared to one percent in 2006 and 2007. Given the glut of rentals, developers in Downtown Brooklyn and Williamsburg continue to court would-be luxury tenants with free rent, gym memberships and iPods, among other perks.
Buildings mentioned: Avalon Fort Greene, the 600-plus unit building along the Flatbush corridor; 60 Monitor, the 60-unit project in Williamsburg; 184 Kent, which began as a condo; 80 Dekalb, Forest City Ratner’s 36-story tower; Brooklyn Gold, the 512-unit condo-turned-rental; and Brooklyner, the looming 51-story building built by the Clarett Group. Avalon and Brooklyn Gold have experienced delayed move-in dates, but you knew about Gold already. And what happened to the strong starts?
Pole, what does public policy have to do with the rise & fall of property prices????
And which public policy are you specifically referrring to????
someone email me when these luxury bldgs offer 3 bdrm units for $2600/month
antidope, gov’t intervention will NOT be inflationary until the debt deflation is over.
and yes, i think the argument is that rates are low because of intervention. it certainly MAY be a good thing that they are intervening since they are likely preventing a further crash in the near term. probably making for a slower price decline. but likely a similar % decline in the longer term. all in my very very humble opinion, of course
hannible:
Well, unfortunately, you’re wrong. A simple way to understand why you are wrong is to consider how the factors you describe apply to the entirety of the United States. Apartments are very cheap all over the country, ESPECIALLY in Florida.
Clearly, New York City public policy is a major factor – what else makes it so special?
The problem was never the rates, it was the lowered credit quality standards that were being accepted.
what is artificial about the actual, current long-term interest rate??? econ101: this rate not set by govt. econ 102: this rate is set by supply and demand and is one of the deeper markets in the world (ie, difficult to manipulate (except by the Chinese? maybe the US and Chinese govt are working in cahoots!!)).
may not last, but it’s not artificial. and if your argument is the govt is intervening in the market for mortgages, well yes and thank goodness. also, check your notebook as i am quite certain you were also saying the massive govt intervention would be inflationary. that still shows no imminent sign of arrival.
where’s the beef?
nicely said, tyburg.
Well, DIBS, I don’t agree with Hannible entirely… but the fact that mortgage rates are even lower now than the really low levels of 2006-2008 actually supports his thesis. There is an economic collapse, but you want to maintain high-volume selling of the real estate boom… What do you do? You try to create an artificial incentive by dropping the interest rates even lower! So folks can still justify spending crazy amounts of money on a house.
hannible, mortgage rates are lower NOW than they were in 2006-2008.
What rate do you want to see in place??? Your argument is ridiculous.