What keeps business/people in the NYC area?

that is a brilliant argument...nyc may be a magnet for young people but for business that has a choice it doesn't work.

I think that NYC will continue to be a place where a business, particularly financial, might want to have a flagship office. But it will be much, much smaller and leaner. And it won't be the choice for many going forward at all. And then, when things become very cheap again, it might. But who knows. NYC has emerged from the ashes before, but history tells us that Chicago at one point in time was poised to be the pre-eminent US city. Shit happens, things change.

In the financial arena, there is something to be said for having the ability to pull resources together in a conference room 24/7 if need be....witness the events leading up to the sale of Merrill Lynch and bankruptcy of Lehman weekend of Sept 2008....everybody was just a limo ride or walk away.
Not that you can't do most of your day to day stuff from three time zones away....but still.

Why was London the center of the financial world for hundreds and hundreds of years?

"witness the events leading up to the sale of Merrill Lynch and bankruptcy of Lehman weekend of Sept 2008....everybody was just a limo ride or walk away."

Not exactly. Bank of America, which bought Merrill, is in North Carolina. And Barclays, which bought most of Lehman's US assets, is based in Europe. Hardly a limo ride away, unless the limo flies.

Mr P....I was referring to the ease with which such huge transactions were accomplished thanks to the presence in NYC of the requisite attorneys, accountants, printers, PR companies, caterers, Federal Reserve Board members, financial advisors, etc....

And Barclays didn't actually buy the Lehman assets until after the bankruptcy filing took place if memory serves....looked but passed....which is one reason Lehman filed. Maybe if they had been based in NYC things would have turned out differently.....

I think you get my point....pulling off all of the above from North Carolina, Greenwich, Santa Monica or Hong Kong would have been more difficult....not impossible perhaps....but less convenient.

mjs, my wife was saying the same thing after her 'it's prestigous to make it NYC' arguement. Talent pool is also very large in this area with college grads flocking to the City upon graduation.

reddog, but college grads aren't flocking to this city right now. only 20-30% of college grads have jobs, anywhere. law firms, advertisement cos, financial industries, etc. nobody is hiring college grads, or above.

The talent pool has more to do with the higher end folks than the recent college grads. There are network effects that encourage big law and finance to congregate in NYC -- it's easier to recruit a fixed income team to your bank if the players all live in the same town. (interestingly, the hottest finance market in the US right now is Chicago b/c of the CBOT and CME). Believe me, trying to relo people to Charlotte or Chicago is not easy.

However, most of the big banks and trying out "near-shore" solutions -- JPMorgan uses Houston, Goldman has a major presence in Salt Lake City, Morgan Stanley has a significant operation in Montreal, and Credit Suisse has big office in Raleigh, NC. And as Mr. P points out, we "lost" 2 of our major investment banks to out of state players.

Now, I doubt that the major traders and the people who directly support them will be moved out of NYC anytime soon (for the reason listed above). And I don't think the near shoring trend will continue to cut too deeply into NYC as we see wage costs as being more or less equal in the US (while it may cost more to live in NYC, we're not seeing companies pay any more $$$ to NYC employees than employees elsewhere).

Yes, but cut off the lower end and you eliminate growth. The top end is doing so-so, but the prospects for upward mobility among the others is generally not good to horrible. The real estate market in manhattan is highly dependent upon the mid-level buyer, and to a lesser extent the low-level buyer.

I see the world of law, which historically has only been slightly less remunerative than banking. RE prices are still WAY out of line with incomes, and becoming more so monthly.

People have been saying the same thing about NYC for decades. Chicago can never replace NYC as the premier U.S. international city, if even because of location. NYC has the infrastructure, worker base, talent pool, location, etc. to continue to be a premier city for business that other cities don't have to the same extent.

Look up "economies of scope." Once you read about that get back to us. TOP could be asked of Silicon Valley, Hollywood, or any number of other places as well.

Why would anyone want to live in Houston/Memphis/Atlanta/[insert mediocre cesspool]?

I'm content paying high taxes since it's New York. I've lived in one of those low-class cities and it was a disaster..... I actually missed my exorbitant taxes.

I don't know if this is related but

Most attractive destinations for international wealthy to reside. New York is the only American city to make the list.

1. Switzerland.
2. London
3. Singapore
4. New York City
5. Hong Kong

http://www.scorpiopartnership.com/pdf/scorpio-pr_hnwdestinationsindex_may2009.pdf

money attracts money. talent pool larger in new york. new york is prestigious and desirable.

Just wish the weather were nicer....

reddog,
Your father is right. It's no longer as necessary for businesses to be in New York City as it once was in the past. Technological changes make the difference today, just as it made the difference 200 years ago. The biggest factor in making New York the predominant city in the country was the building of the Erie Canal. Goods could come from Europe through New York and were distributed to the Midwest via the Canal and Great Lakes rather than the more expensive rail. The Canal is the reason why New York prospered and left behind Philadelphia and Baltimore, which were then NYC's principal commerce rivals. As New York became the commerce center of the nation, it was necessary for businesses in many sectors to centralized here. Without faxes, e-mails and cheap telecommunications services, companies needed to be here just to communicate and do business efficiently. It may seem ancient now, but as recently as 25 years ago, your typical businessman or lawyer did not even do his own typing. Information that is routinely conveyed in emails today required either phone conversations, personal meetings, or a secretary to type up a memorandum to be distributed by hand. Large documents were much more labor intensive to produce and distribute.

New York was late to recognize the importance of and attract late 20th century tech related businesses that transformed not just the economy, but our entire culture from the 1980s. While people in New York may believe the very best and brightest are always going to make New York their first choice, I don't think that's true anymore. The "best and brightest" recently attracted to Wall Street came because it was the financial center where one could get rich, not because it was an innovation center where new commercial product was being invented. As a result, over the past 20 years New York became more like a European financial center providing capital for creative entrepreneurial people located elsewhere, rather than being a center of technological innovation itself. Now don't get me wrong. I believe New York will always attract top drawer talent and the city has a wonderful way of reinventing itself every 30 years or so to adjust to the times. However, places like the Silicon Valley or Seattle now attract talent that is just as bright, pursuing endeavors that are just as prominent as their East Coast peers (and often moreso), making as much money, and living a very high quality of life. And for the record...I'm a native New Yorker.

The biggest thing that New York has going for it is the high density of its population. You can cram a lot of talent into a small space here and get an incredibly diverse and dynamic array of cultural and creative output, all readily accessible to individuals and to companies. The very industries that would move elsewhere for costs are often the ones dependent upon keeping up with those cultural shifts, which is going to make it hard for them to stay away from the city. Everything back office will go, sure, but that was already the case. And if Bloomie can actually attract more of the tech industries to the city as he has repeatedly said he wants to do, then I don't worry about the future of the city, I worry about updating my tech skills.

bloomberg will have to come up with a l0t of money and assorted goodies to get any tech companies into nyc. its one thing for financial services to be able to recruit workers with 100K plus salaries but tech and other start-ups are based on low initial costs. nyc without a six figure salary and/or mommy/daddy is not a lot of fun. add in some kids and its downright awful.

Ah, but if - and I am only speculating here - if real estate costs come down to be more in line with incomes, then the other advantages the city has will become even more valuable. And Bloomie is no stranger to handouts and goodies to businesses. Plus we have a lot of universities that could support tech research, and I hear rumblings about investing more heavily in those programs - what if we turned some of the CUNY schools into major research facilities? I guess my point is that the demographic trend is toward more population density, not less, and I don't think that any city in the country manages that better than New York. It's not everything, but it is a huge point in the city's favor.

Why are you trying to convince your dad...is he buying YOU the apartment?

LICC is right - people have said the same thing about NYC for decades.

lowery, today's NYC is not 1989's NYC.

evnyc, not saying that what you envision is impossible, but i don't know how probable. change takes money, and we're going to be quite a bit short for awhile. in the longer term, it is quite possible that good can come from the carnage.

the ties between NYC and DC are significant and powerful. who knows what NY might accomplish? or not?

What keeps them in NYC? Because NYC is where professionals want to live.
Business Week:

"This survey on America's favorite and least favorite cities to work and live was completed mostly during the summer by about 2,500 employees and entrepreneurs across the country. The respondents were asked about 40 large cities. The questions asked were "Imagine you were offered your dream job that required you to relocate. Which region in the following list would you be most likely to choose? … and which city region … would you be least likely to choose?" The survey-takers were asked to choose the top three attributes for each city. The best and worst cities were then ranked based on the total number of first-, second-, and third-choice votes as a percentage of total votes. The median household income for each city is a 2007 U.S. Census estimate. The median home value for the third quarter and annual price change are estimates from Zillow.com."

1. New York City
2. San Diego
3. San Francisco
4. Las Vegas
5. Los Angeles
6. Seattle
7. Denver
8. Phoenix
9. Chicago
10. Boston

.....and then New York makes it at the the top of the worst list because of high costs. Funny.

Seattle and Silicon Valley...... *yawn*

AR, I don't know either. But I wouldn't bet against the city, given long-term demographic trends and present management. We're in a bit of a hole and it may get worse before it gets better, but that's happened before and the city always comes back. I'm endlessly amazed that this city's capacity for self-reinvention, no matter how many warts and bumps go with that process.

aboutready - "today's NYC is not 1989's NYC."

I'm thinking of the mobility of the Internet age in relation to the question why should a business locate in NYC. Is this different in 2009 than it was in, say, 2001? Some people speculated within the last decade that industries who might ordinarily have been concentrated in Manhattan would decentralize, not just because of the high cost of doing business here, but because of telecommuting, videoconferencing, Internet, mobility, etc.

In that sense, this prediction is an old one, and it is not just about high rents, crime, housing stock. A bigger worry to me is a non-NYC issue - what is the USA's economy based on now, after outsoucing manufacturing? Are we going to service the finance and legal and advertising needs of the world with our law firms, ad agencies and financial services firms?

Videoconferencing technology still has a ton of problems. It just isn't there yet, and a lot of the promised decentralizing of business hasn't actually happened. Plus, people keep moving to cities; the internet has, if anything, increased that trend, because that's where the jobs are.

What is the US economy based on now? Beats me. I can't figure out what it's been based on for the past twenty years, other than speculative fictions. If that's the case and we can keep the story spinning, I'm just going to look like a crank if I decide not to play along. That part I can't really comment on.

there is tremendous opportunity for the US to become producers again. i mentioned this on another thread. but the question is whether or not we'll grasp it or let it pass. the reduction in the number of positions in the highly-paid service areas, if continued, would promote more people entering areas that have been shunned for higher pay.

i doubt that new industry would be tempted to locate here. there seem to be better options. evnyc is correct that long-term it certainly seems as though urbanization will be necessary, but i don't necessarily agree that it will be NYC that benefits. i think smaller cities with universities will become magnets for the young over the next few years, but it is too early to tell whether that will have any long-term impact on how and where emerging industries form.

"Is this different in 2009 than it was in, say, 2001? "

2009 IS different than 2001. New York had always touted itself as a place where you get the quality of services that were difficult to beat elsewhere, and that may be true at the very high end. If you're doing a billion dollar IPO or engaged in a major litigation, then you may need the services of the New York financial services firm and law partners.

However, the difference over the past decade (or two) is that the playing has leveled off for all but the top end services. If the bang for the buck has diminished on national media buys in the past decade, and a company is going to put more focus on a web based advertising campaign, why do they need a big time New York advertising agency? Why do you need 1st and 2nd year associates at New York law firms producing basic legal documents you can get much cheaper elsewhere in the U.S., or even drafted by an experienced Indian attorney trained under common law system ? If you need to raise money for a high tech start up, why deal with New York bankers rather than a West Coast VC company that employs people more knowledgeable about technology sectors ?

asking people about their dream job and its location has nothing to do with the reality of business conditions today everyone is looking for the best price value/combination with a renewed emphasis on price. nyc is many things but it has been been the home of low cost producers. as more and more formally high end business services are viewed as commodities, nyc's ability to compete is going to be severely compromised.

nyc has arguably been the greatest beneficiary per capita of the recent boom--does it not follow that the bust will take a similar sized bite in the same place?

Rhino, He isn't buying it for me, just very pessimistic on NYC in the future. A lot of what makes NYC bad for business is quantifiable (high COL, high taxes) but it seems like a lot of what keeps NYC a top city are things you can't easily quantify (people wanting to be here). We're going to buy either way (sometime next year).

The questions asked were "Imagine you were offered your dream job

Two key words, imagine and dream.

Start with fantasy as a premise, get fantasy as an answer.

reddog: how many people want to be here if they either can't get a job or can't get a job to cover the lifestyle? still doens't seem to be reasons cited here other than the magic and the history. i am not suggesting that manhattan will disappear; there will still be jobs but many less. seems to be a rough combination for the value of real estate.

AR, small college towns tend to be one-trick ponies: they have lots of smart young people doing lots of interesting things, but once they graduate, those young people gravitate toward places where there are jobs (New York), higher perceived quality of life (Portland, OR - no jobs, but youngsters go there anyway), or culture (New York). Eventually, getting a job that includes health insurance and steady enough pay to make rent becomes a necessity for all but the most determined hipsters, and you can't get that slogging away at a cafe and taking time off to sleep on couches while touring with your band or what have you.

I'd be interested in hearing what you think we could start producing. I am unconvinced that forcing an entire workforce into white-collar and service professions is really the best course for any society, so I would certainly like to see it happen.

CC, I don't think it's X in, X out. New York has momentum. Whether or not that gets derailed is up for debate, but I don't agree that it's a foregone outcome.

"nyc has arguably been the greatest beneficiary per capita of the recent boom--does it not follow that the bust will take a similar sized bite in the same place?"

The government is waging a war on people earning over $250k. Taxes are being raised at federal, state and local level. Banking hiring is down 70%. We are just at the beginning of a long and painful process of price discovery. We're discovering the price at which the professionals of other industries can replace the demand hole left in the finance industry. The idea that this correction in Manhattan is drawing to a close is insanity.

it would seem that the evidence is that it hasn't even begun.

Well you can't really say it hasn't begun with prices down 30%. If your meaning is 2004 pricing that the 30% down approximates is ridiculous in and of itself, given where rents and incomes are...I'd agree.

But the Prez sayz I shouldn't hold my breath for much lower prices. Maybe there are a lot of industries that I haven't heard of where thousands of professionals earn the big incomes it takes to buy $2mm+ apartments...with a bunch of entry level types also ready to step in and sop up one beds for $800-900k+.

precisely...plus i'm talking about public, main stream media embracing the new reality without all the green shoot crap.

Green shoots or none... I think the connection people are trying to make between the national economy, the S&P and the Manhattan coop and condo market is really moronic. Oh my 401k clawed back 1/3rd of its loss...I guess the bank is going to lend me $1.5mm now to buy an apartment and clearly my bonus is going to be huge at year end.

and even if by some miracle it were...would you want to toss it away on an apartment?

"The idea that this correction in Manhattan is drawing to a close is insanity."

Rhino, I'm not arguing any such thing. My thinking of late has been that if one cannot even reasonably consider alternative viewpoints, one is probably wrong. Just as many, many people swore that real estate never goes down, there are people on this board who would argue that New York is finished, over, done for. The truth is probably a little more complex. I do think the correction has begun, and I think the million-dollar question is, how bad does it get? And when it comes to that, I guess I'm more optimistic about the long-term than some. Which is funny since I'm not generally an optimist at all. I don't hear the tolling of New York's death knell, although what form the future will take is completely open for debate.

I'm a big believer in momentum. I watched prices move up for 4 years longer than seems imaginable. I'm clearly not going to dive in after nine months. That said, the marginal buyers are all that matter, not me. To me, it seems obvious that many of the eligible apartment renter just shot their wad in this "flurry" of activity everyone is so excited about. Lets see who's behind them this summer, fall and winter. Good luck sellers.

Evnyc, what does saying prices have a long way to fall have to do with calling New York a dead city. This is what optimists seem to be resorting to these days. You prop up an argument we bears are NOT making, and then you shoot at it. I am a huge optimist on NYC....at a much lower price! This is not a joke. I don't think people outside of finance really understand how leverage drove borrowing and incomes...and now its gone. To boot, whomever is still knocking down dough, (1) they probably already own, (2) they are probably too smart to catch a knife if they don't and (3) every dollar they make over $250k has a bullseye on it from state, local and federal level.

Hell, I am resigned that I may earn less in the future then I did in the past. I am not sure I ever want to own in Manhattan...simply because I am not sure I want to lock into a private school tuition - even 10 years from now when my daughter would presumably graduate out of PS 6.

Okay, after a lot of thinking, Reddog, I think I have an answer for your dad. I doubt it'll convince him, but here it is:

"With business becoming more mobile, why will businesses elect to stay in this area with such a high cost of business?"

Because most businesses still need to be where people are if they want to make money. And there are a TON of people are in New York City. They'll outsource everything they can, but at the end of the day they will need to maintain a presence here. In New York you make your business presence felt globally; that's a lot harder to do from Techcenter City in BFE USA, because no one really cares what people are doing there. And it'll only be good for the city if the business base diversifies.

3 reasons why NYC or any other world-class city will never fade...
~In the next 20-30 years most of the world's population will live in cities or their extensions.
~Large cities are social magnets for people living in close proximity learning, competing and thriving together
~There are some real smart people in educational institutions, government and business working on redefining NYC of the future as we discuss

reddog - I think it has to do with:
1. Access to capital. 1/3 of all bank deposits are in NYC bank accounts. If you want to fund a business by raising capital NYC is the place to be. It's much easier to raise $100MM to run a fund, a graphic design business, a dot.com etc if your offices are set up in NYC.
2. To a lesser extent access to the best retail, museums, and restaurants. Having lived in NYC and other US cities I'm constantly amazed at how much better these things are in NYC. The idea of eating in Miami, Charlotte, Denver etc restaurants for a long period of time is nauseating.

Rhino, I was responding to your and cc's argument that the correction in manhattan was over. I don't believe that, not by a long shot, and given that the discussion is about the long-term prospects of New York I think my response was quite appropriate. I think lower real estate prices would be a huge boon to the city in the long term, and I do think that will happen. So if Reddog's father thinks New York is a bad bet in the long term, it is fair to take issue with that point.

reddog:
oops I meant to add #3. Colleges and Universities. NYU is the most applied to college in the country and Columbia is expanding, FIT, Baruch, Hunter, City College, etc are all here and expanding. As kids come to these schools they fall in love with the city-lifestyle and the great networks for great jobs help them find a way to afford it.

I take issue with 'long term buying'. If the correction isn't over, then you shouldn't buy - long or short term. The way they seem to be framing their decision seems silly to me. The valuations aren't low enough to make long term buying wise. Valuations...not long term musings about socioeconomics. Save that shit for the dinner table. Reddog's father is setting up to be the sucker.

"with a bunch of entry level types also ready to step in and sop up one beds for $800-900k+."

What the hell are you talking about? Unless your referring to the Plaza or 15 CPW, 1 bedrooms hardly ever sell for $800-900k. If your going to debate me, then use REAL prices, not those that are a figure of your imagination.

Stop right there. I am not going to debate you. I have given up debating with people like you. I am talking about one bed condos.

Well, this discussion has taken a turn for the surreal, so I'm checking out. Jazzman, excellent points!

there are plenty of 1 bedroom condos for well under the prices you quoted. In the $800-900k range, those condos tned to have better views and sometimes 1.5 bathrooms instead of the typical 1 bathroom.

And if you have no intention of buying in Manhattan and previosuly expressed an interest in moving to CT< why are you here?

You're kicking me out? I think you're high on your name. Considering CT is not the same as saying I have no intention of buying in Manhattan. Now go along and fuck yourself.

You just said that you don't want to "lock in" private school tuition. And if your considering CT, then you clearly have no interest in buying in Manhattan, unless your goign to buy in both places, which I doubt.

I am not interested in talking with you.

"I am not sure I ever want to own in Manhattan...simply because I am not sure I want to lock into a private school tuition - even 10 years from now when my daughter would presumably graduate out of PS 6."

You jsut wrote this 18 minutes ago. Did you already forget it?

why? You don't want to talk to me because I pointed out the BS in your comments? Why don't you post on a CT forum?

What part of 'not sure' confuses you - you piece of shit?

you need to self censor yourself....you are an embarrassment and a detriment to everyone else on these boards. please stop posting. you are driving everyone away. i don't know if you're 12 years old or 14 but please stop your nonsense. enough already. find somewhere else to express your foolishness.

screw you columbia dump. I can post wherever I damn please!

and you must be a horrible father Rhino. I mean it's father day, and the best thing you can do now is hide behind your keyboard and curse at people. You must be one good for nothing father if your wife did not take you out to a restaurant.

one more time nicely...stop. please

Administrator, why is it such a technical mystery to figure out how to stop forwarding email from people you have indicated that you would like to ignore?

I'm not going anywhere.

Aside from the bitching going on, I'd like to hear why people themselves are here. I'm here for the $. Being a stockbroker in this city is like sleepwalking. Money is everywhere, and it's as easy as could be if you know what you're doing. If I spoke chinese, Hong Kong and Singapore on that list above would appeal to me greatly. Oh well....

how much of your business would you lose if you relocated? i assume most of the action is on the phone.

evnyc, a young woman is housesitting for me as i trot off to europe. she has a degree in design from the top school in design, just graduated. she is moving to paris later this summer, said there is zero opportunity here, few of her classmates are coming here, and she has family she could live with if she were truly committed to NYC. said totally different than the past few years. very few are hiring here in any area, and to the extent that they are doing so, they are hiring far fewer. this may correct, or it may not. we may have very high unemployment rates for two or three years. that could drastically change perceptions of the attractiveness of NYC, even if housing does correct.

alpie, you're just nasty. and now, i'm just about packed and off i go.

Europe sounds wonderful--enjoy yourself aboutready! I'll miss your posts.

AR, have a ball! I was serious about the champagne - drink some for me! And as to your housesitter, well, I moved here in 2002 (awful time for job searching) and landed in a job against the odds, which wound up being a very different career than anything I'd envisioned. Things suck now, but she's here and if she sticks it out I'm sure she'll be all right. All my best to her in her search.

There are some tremendous points made here that make me feel better about NYC. I just used a lot of these points on my pops and he came out a lot more optimistic. Again, he's not buying the apartment and his opinion is just another one in a million. His 'approval' has more to do with family politics then anything else. Thanks to all for making my life a little easier and engaging in a fun little debate that does tie into NYC RE.

reddog, really? you read all of this and came out feeling high and mighty on NYC? interesting.

reddog - one more - we have a growing immigrant (read illegal immigrant) population. And as the rest of the world's economy continues to do worse than ours more foreigners (both the educated and uneducated) will come here looking for work or government handouts (like free medical care for all illegal immigrants in NYC) as the case might be.

Not high and mighty, just that there are reasons to be optimistic in general. Current conditions aside, there is still a lot of good happening in and around New York City. The title question was posed to be by my father and I didn't have any other response other then 'Well, it's New York freakin City, dad'.

i think if you read this thread from beginning to end and came out optimistic, you must have been optimistic to begin with.

It sounds like the kind of optimism that comes with a trust fund. I don't know how else to read family politics.

I think NYC is great, .....but not so great that I would pay bubble prices for a condo / coop.

...."because its NEW YORK CITY" is really not a compelling counter in my opinion.

C'mon Dad, pleeeeeeese.

...."because its NEW YORK CITY" is really not a compelling counter in my opinion.

Then move to Jersey.

Zero financial assistance is coming from him! I shouldn't respond to the personal parts of this post, but that one rubs me the wrong way. Just wanted to see what people here thought.

From him...does that mean the source of funds is earned income or from your mother's side...or his father?

actually it's the casino i`m robbing next week. Ocean's 11 has given me some motivation to get up and do something with my life

Daddy wouldn't approve.

you kidding me? i`m Bobby Caldwell's kid

The_President
...."because its NEW YORK CITY" is really not a compelling counter in my opinion.

Then move to Jersey.

What a well thought out analysis! Its brilliant! Such an elegant solution should be reserved for client analysis for compensation instead of given away for free on these boards!

Kidding asisde, I won't rule out moving to NJ someday / I'll also just throw out this idea: RENT in NYC instead of buying a piece of NYC RE whose prices are not justified by fundamentals other than "because its NEW YORK CITY"

Also - HAPPY FATHERS DAY EVERYONE (BULLS AND BEARS ALIKE)!

CC,
While I am on the phone most of the day, meeting new $ is easiest here. Your goal is to make more $ than you did a year ago. It's not uncommon to make 30% more year over year.

"The idea that this correction in Manhattan is drawing to a close is insanity."

I don't think that idea is widespread.

HDLC, I have thought for 20 years that there's no reason to pay the fees of a 2nd year NYC law firm associate when people can do it anywhere. Likewise the other examples you stated. I guess what you're saying is that the economic collapse is going to cause everyone to re-examine, and maybe finally the decentralization away from Manhattan in law, finance, advertising, etc. will finally happen. But I am not convinced. I remember when Silicon Valley seemed to be the place to be and go. Then software companies and dotcoms relocated to Manhattan.

> People have been saying the same thing about NYC for decades.

Just because they've been saying it for a while doesn't mean its not true.

> ...."because its NEW YORK CITY" is really not a compelling counter in my opinion.
> Then move to Jersey.

- The President

Apparently, that didn't work out too well for alpine... he's as bitter as anyone.

> "The idea that this correction in Manhattan is drawing to a close is insanity."
> I don't think that idea is widespread.

I agree. Remember that there were so many people who didn't know this was coming, and don't read Miller Samuel reports, and don't go on the boards..... some of them are just getting the news about the crash. With all the lags, to think that suddenly the entire city knows its over... hell, you're talking about folks who didn't know it started until very recently.

Yes. My friend who is a Queens native and one-time Manhattan owner said to me on Facebook the other day that it didn't seem to her much had changed. The idea it had dropped 25-30% was new to her.

Lag/intertia is a double-edged sword. The same factors that allowed things to rise even as finance and the rest of the world was cratering are what will keep things in the toilet for a while even when it gets sunnier outside. And, of course, its still not going to be sunny for a while.

Anybody ever hear of Richard Florida? He has written books that address the topic at hand.

"Aside from the bitching going on, I'd like to hear why people themselves are here."

I moved here when I was in my mid-20s for two reasons: 1) Career (there are no television networks in any other city in the United States), and 2) I'd wanted to live in New York City all my life.

There was a great article about a year ago in The New Yorker about this very question, and the conclusion it drew was thus: New York has, and always will be, a magnet for the best, the brightest, and the most talented people in their respective fields. Why? Because the cream of the crop likes to be with the rest of the cream of the crop -- constantly challenging, evolving, and re-inventing themselves. That requires the diversity and pure energy that only New York can offer.

A perfect example of this is CNN. Ted Turner tried to buck the industry and create a non-union television network down in the right-to-work state of Georgia. To a degree, he was successful -- but because CNN was headquartered in Atlanta, it never really attracted the kind of talent pool of writers, editors, producers, artists, and on-air talent that could possibly compete with the Big Three in New York. Oh yes, they were successful at attracting just *enough* talent -- but most of those people used CNN only as a stepping stone to get to the "real" networks in New York. And now, despite being as technologically advanced and "mobile" as we've ever been, CNN has slowly been forced to increase its New York presence from a humble bureau to a full-fledged operation (Time Warner Center) because they found that you can't compete with the big boys unless you have superior talent -- and that superior talent wasn't interested in relocating to Atlanta.

so....according to matt...ted turner didn't make a fortune with CNN and the rest of his cable empire when he sold it to time warner? and cnn's lack of ability to compete with the broadcast networks was because it was in Atlanta not because it was a cable channel?

p.s. tell us matt the great what you think the future holds for network tv?

CC, I never said CNN's location in Atlanta was the ONLY reason why it couldn't compete with the Big Three broadcast networks. I was merely pointing out one of the fundamental problems it had (of which I have first-hand knowledge) in terms of human talent.

As for the future of network television, I'm not sure. It largely depends on whether the people at the top will wise up and start treating viewers like smart consumers rather than brain-dead commodities. Time and again we have proven that just because all the networks are providing only celebrity- and reality-based fluff doesn't necessarily mean that this is what the viewing public actually WANTS. Witness the runaway success of such shows as "The Sopranos", "Sex and the City", "Six Feet Under", "Big Love", "Weeds", "CSI", "Grey's Anatomy", etc. A sizable chunk of the viewership craves a well-conceived and well-written STORY. They always have.

I do, however, think that the television industry just bought itself at least another 5- to 10-year reprieve over online media, thanks to HDTV. It's difficult enough now to get enough bandwidth to download full-length programming, and HD requires even more bandwidth. And since we now have an American public used to large screen televisions, it will be quite awhile before the Internet can even begin to compete with traditional broadcast and cable television.

It would be nice to have data on the valuation spreads between Manhattan and other major US cities. Even if NYC remains the center of the universe, is it increasingly so? I have a hunch that the relationship between NYC prices and say Boston or Chicago remains way wide. I know my folks sold a house in the Westchester burbs a year ago for roughly 20% more than what it might have been worth in the late 1990s. Cheerleading for New York doesn't make it worth any asking price.

"Cheerleading for New York doesn't make it worth any asking price."

But the fundamental rules of supply and demand will continue to keep New York housing prices higher than less-desirable cities like Boston and Chicago.