Mixed Results on Recent Rental Market

"I'm guessing rents will have to drop a bit from here on out"

why?

No significant drop in unemployment; no significant increases in incomes. Those are the principal factors, I'd say. What do you think?

Wouldn't that imply prices should hold steady?

I think the recovery of the rental market has been greatly exaggerated. I'm seeing lots of places going at 2009 rents, sometimes lower. For example, this guy just hit my email today:

http://streeteasy.com/nyc/rental/706574-condo-272-west-107th-street-manhattan-valley-new-york
07/22/2008 Previously Listed by Halstead Property at $6,600.
08/16/2008 Halstead Property Listing rented.
06/30/2009 Previously Listed by Halstead Property at $6,600.
07/12/2009 Halstead Property Listing is no longer available.
10/29/2010 Listed by Halstead Property at $6,750.
11/24/2010 Price decreased by 4% to $6,500.
01/05/2011 Price decreased by 5% to $6,200.
01/11/2011 Listing is no longer available.

The $6600 in 2009 vs. $6200 in 2010/2011 last-asks probably understates the difference because the latter likely involved a more eager owner willing to hit a lower bid. Perhaps the 2009 rent was high/lucky: there was no 2008->2009 drop, although this may have reflected the fact that the 2008 rent was low because of dueling rental listings with only 2 floors away. Other post-Lehman comps in the line one end-of-2008 that went for $6200 after a couple of months (so perhaps some negotiability) and one in early 2009 that went very quickly for $5800 (so probably no/little negotiability).

All-in-all, a pretty mixed set of results.

bjw.. fkign have an opinion you stay at home dork.

You put a posting to say how your billyburg "special" purchase will be above water post this bubble BC YOU SEE RENTS INCREASING but THEN put in "caveats?"

FLMAOzzzzz... the first group to get it in the shorts are ninnies that bought on the fringes outside of manhattan. Brooklyn, LIC, Queens, Bronx, Edgewater, etc etc etc.... when 5th ave 88th street classic 6 are going for 2005 prices with still room for negotiations => WTF do you think happens to shitty Billyburg? Think, think.....

T-Rex had bad breath.

whoa, better back up

1+1= 2

Another source here showing Manhattan rents up mid- to high-single digits YoY, depending on # of bedrooms. The quality of the data is up for debate, of course.

http://www.tregny.com/manhattan_rental_market_report

inonada, I tend to agree (hence the title of my thread).

w67thst, you huge ninny, learn to read. I've said I've seen rents increase in my neighborhood. I have (and continue to) expected them to at least level off, if not drop a bit. In this (different) thread, I just put up some data from a report - the caveats are important, don't you think? Now piss off back to greyed-out-ville.

how the fk do you read these reports with your head stuck in the sand... amazing skill sets, really

I also think there's been a compression. By this, I mean that the lower the price the higher the strength, and the higher the price the lower the strength. At some price points, starting at somewhere in the $10-15K level and on upwards, it isn't even really a question of "flat" vs. "slightly up", but rather "flat" vs. "slightly down" since 2009.

For example, take this place:

http://streeteasy.com/nyc/rental/691993-rental-39-lispenard-street-tribeca-new-york
05/21/2008 Previously Listed by Prudential Elliman at $22,000.
09/17/2008 Prudential Elliman Listing rented. Last priced at $19,995.
09/14/2010 Listed by Prudential Elliman at $18,500.
11/03/2010 Price decreased by 11% to $16,500.
01/06/2011 Price decreased by 9% to $15,000.

On the market for 4 months, now at a price that is 25% below its last-ask from mid-2008.

Here's my guess as to what is going on. The weakness in employment and incomes is causing people to compress down on lower-end units, putting strength on the low-end and weakness on the high-end. Although I do not know of people who have downgraded their apartments, I certainly know of people who considered it and/or kept it open as a possibility, and I certainly know of people who delayed upgrading because of uncertainty about future employment uncertainty ("If I lose my job, I don't want to be stuck at that high a rent for the remainder of the year.").

inonada, not to discount them, but $22k apartments (or $15k) are outside the purview of most people, and I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that we've seen similarly large fluctuations in the very high-end sales market. Rents are tougher to pin down since they're not recorded anywhere (and asking rents can often be just as aspirational as asking sales prices, so "discounts" are sometimes deceptive - which brokers like to take advantage of, of course). But yeah, the listing history you posted is fairly telling about the very likely weakness on the high-end. Like you, I know people who have delayed upgrading (many indefinitely), though no one has effectively downgraded. Most people don't move all that often though, so that could be a delay on their part as well.

I've just moved to a one bedroom in a very nice area, and was able to negotiate a 15% decrease from their asking rent (which wasn't high to begin with).

Bargains are out there, if you're willing to look and not afraid to negotiate.

inonada:

I agree with your assessment of relative strength at different price points. As an aside, what do you make of this one? Same line high-end condo units, 1 floor apart.

http://streeteasy.com/nyc/rental/657857-condo-1-morton-square-west-village-new-york

http://streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/416022-condo-1-morton-sq-west-village-new-york

seg, that's a great find. Looks like monthlies would be about equal on the purchase vs rent. Transaction charges should be factored in, but this looks like a rare case of somewhat low monthlies on a condo paired with a relatively low sales price.

I think individual anecdotes are useless, and I am surprised people are trying to negate the obvious meta-data. Rents are up YOY, effective, nominal, whatever. Get over it.

i think the citihabitats report is useless, and i'm surprised people are using it to support any position.

Seg,

I think that's a nutty rent to be paying for something like that. For that kind of money in the Village, I'd rather be in the Meier buildings -- much nicer building, much nicer neighborhood, etc.:

http://streeteasy.com/nyc/rental/711562-condo-173-perry-street-west-village-new-york
http://streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/505993-condo-173-perry-street-west-village-new-york

I don't even consider this to be all that good a rental price, as evidenced by the 2 months its been sitting on the market (only $500 above its 2009 last-ask, mind you). When the ask drops to $15K and you go in there and bid $12.5K and seal the deal at $13K, it might get interesting.

I do think rent vs. buy tips less towards renting than buying in the West Village, so there is a bit of that, but Morton Square listing is well beyond that norm. Did someone actually pay that kind of money to rent that place? Maybe. These people, however, are rarely committed renters. More often than not, it is someone who is renovating, or else just moved to the city and will find a decent place next year or else will be buying. Committed renters who find their well-priced apartment tend to stay where they are. The last renter here left after a year.

All that being said, if you as a renter don't have the ability to find things better than $2.5M apartments for $15K, you should definitely be buying. Similarly, if you as an investor think you can continually rent your $2.5M for $15K, it's a solid investment IMO. I just question that proposition in a market where $15K tends to be $5M apts on average, and in rare cases as high as $7-8M.

inonada, all good points - it does seem like an outlier, and definitely an exception to what I've seen on the rental market. If they're getting ~14k/month, they're doing one hell of a marketing job.

ar, I wouldn't say it's "useless." Is it to be taken as solid fact and generally applied to all rentals in Manhattan? No. But, it's not completely unworthy of discussion either, IMHO.

bjw - what is it about Citi Habitats that is not completely unworthy of discussion? Just curious. Their reputation has been worse than dismal since before I got to the city 20 years ago. I'm bacially at, "what aboutready said".

sideline, I don't particularly like them either, and I totally recognize that brokerage reports are not as pristine as many of us would hope for, but unless they're totally making up data, I don't know if it's totally useless. If there are notably better current rental reports out there, I'd happily ditch this one.

I wouldn't say "useless" either, but the methodology leaves a lot to be desired. I think the SE index vs. metrics from JM's Miller Samuel data revealed a huge gap in JM stats: namely, the average apartment transacted has improved greatly over the past 15 years (something like 50%), even on a ppsf basis. But at least there, JM has been "honest" with doing the best he could: the SE methodology is quite complicated.

The Citi report, on the other hand, is about as lame as one could get. They solely query asking rents from 20-30 buildings for determining prices. With the number of apts they rent out, they have much better data than that. To make matters worse, their vacancy rates are determined by querying the same 20-30 buildings about their vacancies to get numbers like 1%. To add insult to injury, even a simpleton can take the inventory on the market from their report (a number like 10K) and divide it by the number of market-rate apartments in Manhattan (a number like 175K) and get a vacancy rate in the range of 5%.

I think it's an anomaly as well. For whatever reason.

Another aside for discussion:

Provided one can comfortably afford it, is it rational to find the rental that has the highest implied to price/rent multiple...is this the best deal? As an analogy, if an asset produces a stream of cash flows yielding 2% and I think it should be yielding 5%, then in the fiancial markets any rational person with conviction would short that asset. To turn it to this example, you'd rent whatever you could find that had the biggest disconnect between price and rent, basically. But does it pay to proceed this way in personal real estate decisions.

Im in the process of re-pricing four neighborhoods where I expect to have vacancies soon: midtown west
at 45th street betwen 8th and 9th; Midwood and Clinton Hill Brooklyn, and Forest Hills, Queens.

Forest Hills seem weaker than it did in June-July 2009; Midwood is up from December 2009; west 45th seems
up substantially, and Clinton Hill is off the charts.

In Clinton Hill, 2-bds at +/- $2500 last only several days on SE, and some are in outer-of-the-way loca-
tions or less desirable buildings like walk-ups. That is a tremendous contrast to spring-summer 2009 when
I rented a different apartment there for a loss less and with lots of grief.

inonada, the Citi report is sh*te indeed. I don't particularly love the Tregny one either, but for different reasons (overly segmented, I think, to be truly useful). Any others out there that are better?

"Provided one can comfortably afford it, is it rational to find the rental that has the highest implied to price/rent multiple...is this the best deal? As an analogy, if an asset produces a stream of cash flows yielding 2% and I think it should be yielding 5%, then in the fiancial markets any rational person with conviction would short that asset. To turn it to this example, you'd rent whatever you could find that had the biggest disconnect between price and rent, basically. But does it pay to proceed this way in personal real estate decisions."

Almost certainly not. This would be akin to going to a store and buying whichever item was on sale for the most off of its regular price, regardless of whether you wanted it or not. The reason that the logic applies to the financial markets is that the result of the various transactions you can enter into are fungible: your returns are cash regardless of how you earn them. On the other hand, with a residence you're stuck with that particular unit at the end of the day. If 3BRs with crappy kitchens are running at a huge discount but you're single and really like to cook, buying the big apartment isn't going to provide you with much utility.

bjw, their whole report is based on activity in 25 buildings that they follow. possibly worse than useless.

SE had prior rental history records for every building which is advertised. Back-tracking
old ads is a ver easy way of tracking rental market prices and trends. The street-view
function is also priceless for purposes of assessing competitive listings.

"But does it pay to proceed this way in personal real estate decisions."

Depends on the person and their view on whether the different places are fungible. I certainly see fluctuations in inventory and pricing across areas over time. For example, high-end downtown rentals were hard to find at good prices in fall 2010. In 2009 or now, much easier. Park-view apartments were scarce in 2009; over the last year, they've littered all around the park.

Now if you're a family of 4 with kids in public school and bi-weekly soccer practice for the kids in the park, what does that 1BR/1.5BA 1500 square foot loft in Soho going for $5000 do for you? Not much: you'll have to choose between one of the 5 $5000 choices in the right school district. Yeah, you'll pick the best one, but 4 of the 5 will be overpriced crap that has been sitting on the market 4 months because no sucker large enough has yet been found.

On the other hand, if you're inonada, your MO is to live in an interesting place for a few years and then switch to the next one. If that means Soho this year, so be it. It's not like the UWS is going anywhere.

ar, as I've said, I think it is a bit of crap, but can't we agree to disagree on it being totally useless? I'd really like to see something better, so am totally open to suggestions.

"Any others out there that are better?"

I'd be inclined to think JM is more careful. That being said, with the huge variations in inventory over time (including long-term ones such as generally-improving apts), I'm with rb345:

"SE had prior rental history records for every building which is advertised. Back-tracking
old ads is a ver easy way of tracking rental market prices and trends."

yes, but unfortunately there is no way to determine discount to ask.

bjw, nothing personal, but something that is so flawed in terms of methodology obviously may be providing not only incomplete information but inaccurate as well. i'm really not interested in how those 25 buildings have done quarter over quarter and year over year. so to the extent that it may actually be misleading, i think could be worse than useless.

ar, no offense taken at all - I appreciate the dialogue more than anything. What drew me to the report initially was the talk of concessions, and I have a hard time buying that they dropped by quite that much, hence the search for something more reliable on that. And yeah, the most frustrating thing about the rental market is that there's no way to determine discount to ask (and now concessions that should be factored into actual pricing as well). It makes apples-to-apples on the buy/rent that much tougher. Ok, I'll drop this thread and let it die a deserved death. Thanks for the contributions.

jordyn: exactly.

People will cry "apples and oranges", but this is a point worth exploring. Take the Perry Street 4.5 room listing above. I agree with inonada that it could be a $15K rental without too much effort -- that's 25x rents.

What does conventional wisdom say about this financial decision (assuming comfortable affordability of both)

1. Rent the Perry Street 4.5 room unit at 25x rents
2. Buy a similarly-sized (but less posh) space in the ~$1.5mm range, with some modestly negative pre-tax carry day-1, as compared to renting.

Most will call the "Buy" decision a bad if not downright irresponsible finanical decision. One which can only be justified as a luxury. With annual costs to own in the ballpark of $85,000.

But #2, with $180,000 of annual rental costs is a great deal, because the implied rent is 25x.

The lines between "investment", "financial decision", and "luxury" are blurry.

"Depends on the person and their view on whether the different places are fungible..."...

I see you addressed the point while I was writing the follow-up.

The short-term nature of the rental is wonderful for the flexibility.

On the other hand, I know people who rent (or own) places much nicer/larger than they need, yet they think they're getting a great deal relative to other options. Maybe so. But obviously it's possible to overspend on an absolute basis, even if it looks like a good deal on a relative basis. If it's what they want, it makes sense, but perhaps not from a purely-economic framework.

I don't think the issue is just small sample size. I go back to one of nada's calculations here from ealier this year, as the numbers appear to have errors by a factor of 10X from month to month.

inonada

The US Census Bureau puts the NYC free-market rental stock at 187.5K as of 2008. Call it 190K to put that number in 2010. Streeteasy shows 8500 apartments available for rent with "must have address" to filter out the likely fishing-expedition listings. That alone puts the vacancy rate at 4.5%. Throw in the fact that much of the rental stock from rental buildings doesn't make it's way onto SE, and you're looking at something in the 5-10% range. Yet Citi-Habitats reports 1.xx%.

By Citi-Habitat's own April numbers:

http://www.citi-habitats.com/market.php

There were 9974 rentals available in April 2010 with a vacancy rate of 1.23%. This translates to 811K rental units in Manhattan. Two questions for you, then:

1) Should the vacancy rate only reflect free-market apartments or the entire rental stock, including rent-controlled, rent-stabilized, Mitchell-Lama, and public housing units? I'm pretty sure the average prices being reported only include free-market rents.

2) Assuming we go with the vacancy rate overall, the Census Bureau puts the total number of rental units in Manhattan at 587.5K as of 2008. Where do the other 811K - 587.5K = 223.5K units come from???
...
More on the idiocy of the vacancy rate numbers. In the March report, there were 10,002 vacant apartments. In the April report, there were 9974 vacant apartments. The difference is 28 apartments.

What was the difference in the vacancy rate reported? It was 1.38% in March vs. 1.23% in April. If a 28 apartment difference amounts to a 0.15% difference in vacancy rates, then that would imply a rental stock of 18.6K apartments. Yet the 9974 vacant apartments vs. a 1.23% vacancy rates implies a rental stock of 811K apartments.

Uhh, that's some good statistics -- the 2 pieces of data they provide don't even line up within a factor of 10.

Skinny, that's some solid work. This is pretty frustrating to say the least. Maybe urbandigs can tackle the rental market at some point...

huge numbers of rentals never even enter databases. silvertowers, for example, may have 20 studios, 20 one beds, 20 two beds and 20 three beds available (all hypothetical, mind you). SE or another source may list 2 of each sized unit, or the NYTimes may tell you to come on over and check out what they have. much less clear than even the condo new development inventory, which all eventually enters the system if sold.

'The US Census Bureau puts the NYC free-market rental stock at 187.5K as of 2008. Call it 190K to put that number in 2010. Streeteasy shows 8500 apartments available for rent with "must have address" to filter out the likely fishing-expedition listings. That alone puts the vacancy rate at 4.5%. Throw in the fact that much of the rental stock from rental buildings doesn't make it's way onto SE, and you're looking at something in the 5-10% range. Yet Citi-Habitats reports 1.xx%.'

I don't think this analysis is correct. A lot of apartments will be listed while there's still tenants in place, and some of them will turn over with essentially no gap in occupancy despite being available for rent for a while. Even for apartments that do go vacant for a while, I'd expect the average period of vacancy to be shorter than the average period of listing, so you'd expect significantly more apartments listed than vacant at any given moment.

Also, I'm not sure how the census data treats, e.g., condos that are rented out. These numbers seem to be a big part of the inventory on Streeteasy, tend to stay vacant longer than I see in true rental buildings, and may or may not count towards the census's version of the rental stock.

Having said that, I'm still pretty skeptical of the CitiHabitats numbers.

They all may be well and true, but rents ARE up YOY. They have been per every report for like 8 months in a row. A simple search on NYBITS or SE shows that I can NOT find and apt like mine for as cheap as mine ANYWHERRE in Manhattan below 110th, whereas I could easily a year ago to two years ago. This has been true since about May.

Its just plain head in the sand-ism to claim otherwise.

^^^^And I mean, within even 10% of my rent. Have not been able to for almost a year.

Here is a third report:
http://www.platinumpropertiesnyc.com/files/the-fidi-report-2010YE.pdf

J miller has said rents have been up YOY for many months now.

How much do you want to bet the NYC CPI data says the same?

Your apartment, jason? i thought anecdotes were useless.

I justed mentioned four reports and the CPI data, ass wipe. I am adding my anecdote to the mix. And looking for a @bd/2Ba doorman bldg with WD in unit using SE and NYBits weekly means I am combing lots more data than just mine.

Speaking of CPI, it says rents in the NY metro area have been up. Its idiotic to argue they are up in the METRO area but somehow down in Manhattan.

Anyone who still argues this point is beyond stupid, they should be commited. See:

http://www.bls.gov/ro2/cpinynj.htm

Incidentally, it would take me about two minutes to find the New York Fed ALSO saying NYC rents are up year over year.

You people are idiots, all of you.

jordyn: the analysis was mine originally, so I'll respond.

While I agree with your assessment that some listings are not vacant, it is also the case that some vacancies are not listed. Do you really believe that there are only 2500 vacant apartments in Manhattan right now? Streeteasy alone has 3332 rentals listed more than 60 days ago. Mind you that listings often get re-listed (or are perceived to by SE), SE does not include any open listings, SE does not include many rental buildings, and rental buildings never show their full inventory.

Boom, the Federal reserve says rents in NYC are up:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/fomc/beigebook/2010/20101020/2.htm

http://www.federalreserve.gov/fomc/beigebook/2010/20101201/2.htm

to base a thread on "results" from citi habitats is insultingly idiotic

next

"Speaking of CPI, it says rents in the NY metro area have been up. Its idiotic to argue they are up in the METRO area but somehow down in Manhattan."

CPI has the NY metro area's rents up 8% from Nov 2007 to Nov 2009. Do you think Manhattan went up 8% during that same period? Be careful, I'd hate to see you call yourself an idiot ;).

Note that I'm not disagreeing with the statement that rents similar to your place (and much of the market broadly) are up YoY, just poking some fun at you.

"Boom, the Federal reserve says rents in NYC are up"

Err, here are the only words I can find regarding Manhattan rents from the Dec Beige Book you linked:

"Manhattan's rental market has reportedly softened a bit since the last report. Rents remain stable, but landlords are, once again, offering concessions (such as one or more month's free rent), though these discounts are not as steep as in 2009. A substantial amount of new housing in the pipeline is likely to be offered as rentals."

Can you point me at the "boom" part? Again, I'm not disagreeing with the premise, just how this evidence supports it.

Yes -- that should have been more clearly attributed to nada. It didn't come out that way because I removed the normal SE signifiers of quoted text.

5 minutes ago
ignore this person
report abuse

jason, you are so knee-jerk. i never even said rents were down, didn't opine either way. merely pointed out that the citi report is a piece of shit, and noted that you were using anecdotal evidence after you said it was useless.

there is no way to measure the rental market real time, other than anecdotally. i believe even the fed's beige book is based on "reports" from its contacts in the field.

as to ny metro area, maybe people have been moving out of higher priced areas into lower, driving prices up in lower priced areas. i don't know, but unlike you i'm not telling people what has happened without decent evidence to back it up. the NYC rental reports are garbage.

"to base a thread on "results" from citi habitats is insultingly idiotic

next"

To kvetch about it on the very thread you're complaining about is embarrassingly dumb. Next.

ar, you're probably right - I'm a data junkie and tend to want to avoid anecdotes, but it's frustrating to analyze a market when you've got so little to work with.

Time to get the rainbow azz hat for the rent bullz.

inonada, where did I say "boom?" Idiot.

Extra idiot: do not conflate owner-equivalent rent from RENT, which is seperate in CPI.

Third, do a keyword search in the October report. Which I posted.

What are you, blind?

"jason10006
about 14 hours ago
ignore this person
report abuse

Boom, the Federal reserve says rents in NYC are up:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/fomc/beigebook/2010/20101020/2.htm

http://www.federalreserve.gov/fomc/beigebook/2010/20101201/2.htm"

"Third, do a keyword search in the October report. Which I posted."

Sure. And what of the December report, you know the more recent one, that you yourself posted as evidence? How does that support what you are trying to say? That's the one I asked about, genius.

"Extra idiot: do not conflate owner-equivalent rent from RENT, which is seperate in CPI."

No shit, genius. CPI has 286.418 to 308.977 for rent from Nov 2007 to Nov 2009: that's 7.9%. Owner's equivalent rent went from 305.934 to 319.404: that's 4.4%. I don't get it, but there it is. Word of advice: before calling someone an "extra idiot", maybe look up the data first. If you have trouble finding the place to look, here it is:

http://data.bls.gov:8080/PDQ/outside.jsp?survey=cu

One favor. Before going all agro on me some more and calling me "idiot" for stating facts, can you please go to the thread were you yell at nellm and apologize? SE was delaying her posts because of troll control, which she didn't understand, so she poste multiple times thinking it wasn't going through.

jason--wuttup?--the bunching-up rainbow thong has really been nagging you

of recent you sound sneering and cranky like me

Putting aside the sniping for a moment, here's what Miller Samuel says about average rental price. The 2010 Q4 data is in the news but not his website, so I've put in what I can gather from the news.

Year Quarter Studio 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4+ Bedroom All
2010 4 ?,??? ?,??? ?,??? ?,??? ?,??? 3,499
2010 3 2,306 3,053 4,414 6,851 9,903 3,460
2010 2 2,268 3,159 4,945 8,024 10,290 3,710
2010 1 2,417 3,094 5,021 8,653 12,197 3,812
2009 4 2,253 3,026 5,228 7,515 12,749 3,789
2009 3 2,252 3,026 5,048 7,603 12,925 3,759
2009 2 2,304 2,874 5,018 8,849 15,430 3,839
2009 1 2,221 3,200 5,375 8,760 15,670 4,142
2008 4 2,294 3,245 5,257 9,378 18,825 3,958
2008 3 2,441 3,344 5,139 8,676 26,172 3,796
2008 2 2,449 3,311 5,250 9,564 16,814 3,806
2008 1 2,388 3,281 5,297 9,287 27,461 3,850
2007 4 2,315 3,303 5,272 7,846 13,527 3,801
2007 3 2,282 3,308 5,122 8,035 12,378 3,757
2007 2 2,257 3,313 4,895 8,016 13,655 3,704
2007 1 2,261 3,276 5,116 8,209 17,183 3,762

Here's average price per square foot:

Year Quarter Studio 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4+ Bedroom All
2010 4 ? ? ? ? ? 49.13
2010 3 47.82 49.34 45.05 37.62 42.48 47.22
2010 2 47.55 50.02 49.81 54.01 51.55 49.60
2010 1 51.61 46.89 46.63 53.76 56.42 46.91
2009 4 47.28 44.71 49.10 52.67 50.78 47.02
2009 3 50.52 46.62 46.66 47.94 60.94 47.84
2009 2 52.13 43.87 46.20 52.81 63.42 44.16
2009 1 49.98 47.04 51.64 54.44 60.16 48.41
2008 4 50.20 50.70 48.60 56.50 103.80 49.30
2008 3 52.40 53.20 50.70 61.20 96.50 52.80
2008 2 52.90 52.90 52.30 58.30 71.30 53.50
2008 1 53.20 51.90 50.20 59.80 95.40 52.02
2007 4 54.67 52.93 48.58 51.16 69.51 51.00
2007 3 52.40 52.10 49.60 49.90 58.90 50.00
2007 2 51.40 51.80 49.50 52.00 62.10 50.40
2007 1 50.70 47.50 50.40 55.10 78.80 50.90

Here's median price per sq ft:

Year Quarter Studio 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4+ Bedroom All
2010 4 ? ? ? ? ? 2,950
2010 3 2,195 2,950 4,250 5,233 6,195 3,000
2010 2 2,100 3,000 4,499 6,698 9,100 3,000
2010 1 2,048 3,000 4,645 6,829 12,500 3,100
2009 4 2,100 2,850 4,700 6,588 11,500 2,900
2009 3 2,000 2,895 4,700 6,800 12,000 2,950
2009 2 2,000 2,795 4,550 7,673 14,700 3,100
2009 1 2,150 3,000 4,995 7,850 14,500 3,300
2008 4 2,295 3,185 4,700 8,000 20,000 3,200
2008 3 2,395 3,250 4,795 7,145 22,500 3,195
2008 2 2,450 3,220 4,795 8,000 15,000 3,200
2008 1 2,350 3,195 4,948 8,000 23,500 3,200
2007 4 2,300 3,200 4,995 6,695 12,500 3,200
2007 3 2,295 3,250 4,895 7,250 10,500 3,200
2007 2 2,275 3,220 4,630 6,530 13,625 3,195
2007 1 2,250 3,195 4,800 7,500 12,900 3,264

inonada, great stuff, and thanks for making this a much better thread (despite the sniping going on, as usual). Looks like 2BRs in particular took a pretty big hit last quarter (which is surprising, given their usual strength relative to other apt sizes); will be interesting to see how that goes. From the looks of the fluctuations on 3BRs+, it's hard to feel as comfortable with those numbers (when avg price psf drops $17 in one quarter, or from $71 to $104 to $60 in less than a year, something seems fishy in terms of sample size).

All 3 varieties of data seem to show a little strength in the lower end of the market since 2009 coupled with marked weakness in the higher end of the market. Comparisons to 2007/2008 are even more pronounced. This data is in line with what many of us have been seeing and backs what some of us have been postulating: that weakness in jobs & incomes translates to a compression from the high end to the low end.

bjw, note that the quarterly numbers only go through Q3; I'm not sure what happened to 2BR in Q4. I agree that the noise & inventory mix issues are worse the higher-end you go, but the progression of strength to weakness from studio to 4BR is pretty pronounced.

One more table, this is quite remarkable (unless it's an issue of changing data source). This is the number of rentals.

Year Quarter Studio 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4+ Bedroom All
2010 4 ? ? ? ? ? 7,217
2010 3 2,308 3,798 1,874 502 111 8,593
2010 2 1,406 2,562 1,302 320 69 5,659
2010 1 578 1,245 681 129 30 2,663
2009 4 623 1,071 541 188 33 2,456
2009 3 604 1,145 592 173 35 2,549
2009 2 533 1,057 585 132 42 2,346
2009 1 448 1,060 578 164 33 2,290
2008 4 371 762 433 94 6 1,665

The last numbers make sense, inonada.
People who sold still need housing and decided to rent instead.

inonada, that's insane. Was 2009 that slow for rentals? Something seems off, but I trust Miller's data, so wow.

The Q4 2010 numbers can be found here:

http://www.elliman.com/reports-and-guides/reports/new-york-city/4q-2010-manhattan-rental-market-overview/1-316

I do think 2009 was insanely slow: I do remember reading about the huge uptick in rentals done by Citi in 2010 according to its president. There's also this:

http://therealdeal.com/newyork/articles/new-rental-data-from-prudential-douglas-elliman-and-jonathan-miller-of-miller-samuel-shows-60-drop-in-deals
"The report, which tracked data about the rental market that has never before been published, determined that 2,346 apartments were rented in the second quarter of 2009, down from 5,624 during the same quarter of 2008."

"The last numbers make sense, inonada.
People who sold still need housing and decided to rent instead."

Sledge, I think the majority of the activity is just renters shuffling. But who knows...

A lot of that too... Some people downsizing and some people upsizing + getting a roomate to minimize housing costs ...

Sounds like it corroborates the theory of renters waiting it out, or at least delaying upgrades. I don't think this is any indication that people who sold turned renters in droves though. But it's striking to see triple the volume YoY for each of the last quarters.

The rebound in Manhattan in 2010 was remarkable - confidence, no financial catastrophy, improving stock market, the better retailers rebounding significantly, the media industry doing well, many other things on the rise, and then of course the tax extensions. Real estate is expensive and I can see why people aren't buyers if they aren't buyers. And on the other hand, even though I have zero data on the rental market, I fail to contemplate why the rental market of 1,2,3 "luxury" bedroom apartments (but not ultra luxe) in prime Manhattan would have done anything but be stable or increase modestly.

whats up with all the kiddies movin to Austin ??

On the example above with the 2009 last-ask of $6600 vs. current last-ask of $6200, I spoke too soon. It didn't go with a last-ask of $6200, but rather just got chopped again:

StreetEasy History
07/22/2008 Previously Listed by Halstead Property at $6,600.
08/16/2008 Halstead Property Listing rented.
06/30/2009 Previously Listed by Halstead Property at $6,600.
07/12/2009 Halstead Property Listing is no longer available.
10/29/2010 Listed by Halstead Property at $6,750.
11/24/2010 Price decreased by 4% to $6,500.
01/05/2011 Price decreased by 5% to $6,200.
01/13/2011 Price decreased by 5% to $5,900.

A click through to Halstead reveals the asking price was dropped again to $5,300:
http://www.halstead.com/detail.aspx?id=1734565
Listing ID: 1734565
Monthly Rent: $5,300
Listing Type: Condominium
Type: Simplex

The cheapest in this line ever was 14D for $5800 in early 2009, which went quickly. The latest sale comp in the line is 9D (the floor below) which went for $1.575M in August, putting this at a 25x rent-to-price ratio.

This listing now has inonada's official stamp of approval, some SE reader should get on it.

so 5300 to rent an apt in a line sold in august at 1.575mm with a 1500/month mntnce

speaks of a weak rental market, and a potentially very weak sales market

any 4 year old can see that apts in this building hope to sell at laughable prices when compared to rents that arent even finding renters

hissssssssssssssssss

W, just as one Citi Habitats report does not mean much, neither does one rental listing speak of a weak rental and very weak sales market. Maybe those conclusions are right, but that's not the grounds I would use to make those claims. Btw, would appreciate a response to my last post on the maintenance thread if you can.

that building screams bubble. those prices on 107th street, with those tiny little bedrooms. nothing says luxury new construction like a less than 120 sf master bedroom.

I would like to add that the building in question blows. Not that I have ever been in it, but it was constructed recently and all the newly constructed buildings seem to not make sense compared to a nice pre-war apartment that hasn't been cut down all to hell. And the make of these buildings always seem cheap to me with their thin walls and low ceilings.

And if that ain't enough, that building was built at the expense of the Olympia movie theater, which always sucked, but at least you didn't have to get on the train to see a flick is you lived in the 100+ streets of the Upper West Side. Damn, I watched Die-Hard, Beetle-Juice and many a classic at the Olympia. Sometimes I saw them all on just one ticket. I squeezed a few fine chicks over there too.

There used to be choice for movie theaters in the neighborhood, now you just gotta head to 84th or 66th street to see a flick.

Phooey!

[/end rant]

Agree with aboutready, particularly on the location.

But bringing back to more normalized locations, as I said above,
The rebound in Manhattan in 2010 was remarkable - confidence, no financial catastrophy, improving stock market, the better retailers rebounding significantly, the media industry doing well, many other things on the rise, and then of course the tax extensions. Real estate is expensive and I can see why people aren't buyers if they aren't buyers. And on the other hand, even though I have zero data on the rental market, I fail to contemplate why the rental market of 1,2,3 "luxury" bedroom apartments (but not ultra luxe) in prime Manhattan would have done anything but be stable or increase modestly.

Burg, why not ultra-luxe? What do you think is going on there that makes it special / different?

jason10006,

It would be nice of you not to call people names as often as you do. I always thought better of you. Would you like it if people called you names? On SE we cannot all sing the same song, but there is no need to belittle people as often as you do for little to no reason. Have a blessed weekend and stay classy!

Bj, you complete tool, get over it, your condo is a financial fail...do some teamwork on that, girl!

Wbottom, you're hilarious really, but stop projecting, you ninny.

Miller samuel says rents went up, rents per square foot rent up, YOY in 4Q2010. Inventory down YOY, listings 26% down.

Are we still arguing this?

http://www.millersamuel.com/reports/pdf-reports/MRMO4Q10.pdf

And yes, I went nuts a few posts back sorry.

i find the vitriol against citi habitats to be highly out of place. whether you think the market report is valid or not, no one else has provided meaningful data here. Citi Habitats rented nearly 13,000 apartments in 2010, there isn't even a close second.

"Wbottom
3 days ago
ignore this person
report abuse to base a thread on "results" from citi habitats is insultingly idiotic

"sidelinesitter
3 days ago
ignore this person
report abuse bjw - what is it about Citi Habitats that is not completely unworthy of discussion? Just curious. Their reputation has been worse than dismal since before I got to the city 20 years ago. I'm bacially at, "what aboutready said"."

Given that NY is a renters city (despite that volumes written hear about the sales market) if you transact with as many people as citi habitats does (in addition to the 70-80 sales the firm does per month) your comments reflect very little of reality.

consider as well the following recent rental projects that citi has handled the marketing and leasing for:

silver towers
the aldyn
the ashley
the townsend
beatrice
continental (next week)
gehry tower (tallest residential building in the world not in asia, next month)
dekalb bklyn
addison bklyn (spring)

I'm sure I forgot one or two.

Anyway, does the bad reputation tag still exist? Clearly for some, but then again, obviously for many no.

next"

@citiagentnyc - You find the vitriol out of place? Well, do some research. Pose as a prospective renter, and call some citi-habitat listings. Call a bunch of them! See how much you get bullsh*tted, bait and switched, and outright lied to.

Then you will see why the vitriol.

oohah - Call Joey, He isn't cut from the same cloth.

oohah, then please explain the below:

consider as well the following recent rental projects that citi has handled the marketing and leasing for:

silver towers
the aldyn
the ashley
the townsend
beatrice
continental (next week)
gehry tower (tallest residential building in the world not in asia, next month)
dekalb bklyn
addison bklyn (spring)

I'll say this with as little vitriol as possible: I've called Citi regarding at least 50 posted apartments and NOT 1 has been a real and available property. Why I continued to call after the first 5 is a legitimate question. I suppose I'll chalk it up to their ability to post pretty pictures and my (fading) faith in people.

@citiagentnyc - Who gives a damn about your list of rental projects? So Citi-habitats has snookered some buildings into letting them represent them. That has nothing to do with the experience of the everyday person trying to rent through them. What does that have to do with the run-around you get when you try to rent an apartment?

Why don't you just call up a bunch of Citi-habitats listing and deal with them as a customer? 99 out of a hundred times you get some douchebag who just quit their waitering job and took the 1-week real estate course - hardly a real-estate professional!

After you see that the spam ad they posted either doesn't exist or was the description was a straight up lie, they try to rope you in by to show you listings that they pulled from OLR or someplace, that don't nearly resemble what you requested, or what they told you it is.

If they can't sell you on some bullsh!t with minimal effort, they won't return your calls or emails, and they'll move on to trying to catch some other poor desperate person with the same tactics. Citi-habitats agents pretty much want to deal with people who have to move now.

I don't care what kind of half-assed "evidence" you try to trot out. Just go to Craigslist and start contacting your fellow CH brokers. Then you'll see that Citi-habitats brokers have terrible ethics, even compared to the general low-moral pool of real estate brokers.

So the answer to your "question": People direct so much vitriol at Citi-Habitats because they earned it.

CITI-HABITATS = AVOID LIKE THE PLAGUE.

P.S. Apparently AvUWS has met the one ethical broker at Citi-habitats. I might call him. But I might not, because I literally have never had an honest exchange with that company.

Is there a market for summer rentals in NYC with outdoor space? Many thanks.

"jason10006
11 days ago
ignore this person
report abuse Miller samuel says rents went up, rents per square foot rent up, YOY in 4Q2010. Inventory down YOY, listings 26% down.

Are we still arguing this?

http://www.millersamuel.com/reports/pdf-reports/MRMO4Q10.pdf"

Yeah, Jason, we're still arguing this. Look at page 2 of the report and note how YoY numbers for 2/3/4 BR units are weaker across-the-board while 0/1 BR units were stronger. Also note how 2/3/4BR units went from being 31% of the total rentals to just 26% of the total rentals YoY. Note how the greatest strength was shown in the 1BR segment, which went from being 43% of total rentals to 48% of total rentals. So yeah, if you're in the market for 1BR, things strengthened. If you're in the market for something bigger, not really. Presumably, we are seeing compression to the lower-end.

Here's a typical story of the higher-end market. Rental done in 2009 / early 2010, read too many articles about a stronger rental market leads to overzealous pricing, a few months on the market presents reality.

http://streeteasy.com/nyc/rental/715311-condo-31-west-21st-street-chelsea-new-york
06/06/2009 Previously Listed by TDG/The Real Estate Group at $8,750.
08/28/2009 TDG/The Real Estate Group Listing is no longer available.
03/24/2010 Previously Listed by TDG/The Real Estate Group at $8,800.
04/04/2010 TDG/The Real Estate Group Listing is no longer available.
11/24/2010 Listed by Prudential Elliman at $12,500.
12/21/2010 Price decreased by 8% to $11,500.
12/29/2010 Price decreased by 15% to $9,750.
01/20/2011 Price decreased by 8% to $8,950.
01/26/2011 Listing entered contract.

Toona
4 days ago
ignore this person
report abuse I'll say this with as little vitriol as possible: I've called Citi regarding at least 50 posted apartments and NOT 1 has been a real and available property. Why I continued to call after the first 5 is a legitimate question. I suppose I'll chalk it up to their ability to post pretty pictures and my (fading) faith in people.

You are exaggerating badly. 50? I've been with the company for a while. When apartments get rented, the ads for it get taken down. It's actually fairly unrelenting. There are of course exceptions (apt rents friday, ads stay up till monday), or landlord only updates us once per week, etc. so 50 times? really?

oohah
3 days ago
ignore this person
report abuse @citiagentnyc - Who gives a damn about your list of rental projects? So Citi-habitats has snookered some buildings into letting them represent them. That has nothing to do with the experience of the everyday person trying to rent through them. What does that have to do with the run-around you get when you try to rent an apartment?

Why don't you just call up a bunch of Citi-habitats listing and deal with them as a customer? 99 out of a hundred times you get some douchebag who just quit their waitering job and took the 1-week real estate course - hardly a real-estate professional!

After you see that the spam ad they posted either doesn't exist or was the description was a straight up lie, they try to rope you in by to show you listings that they pulled from OLR or someplace, that don't nearly resemble what you requested, or what they told you it is.

If they can't sell you on some bullsh!t with minimal effort, they won't return your calls or emails, and they'll move on to trying to catch some other poor desperate person with the same tactics. Citi-habitats agents pretty much want to deal with people who have to move now.

I don't care what kind of half-assed "evidence" you try to trot out. Just go to Craigslist and start contacting your fellow CH brokers. Then you'll see that Citi-habitats brokers have terrible ethics, even compared to the general low-moral pool of real estate brokers.

So the answer to your "question": People direct so much vitriol at Citi-Habitats because they earned it.

CITI-HABITATS = AVOID LIKE THE PLAGUE.

P.S. Apparently AvUWS has met the one ethical broker at Citi-habitats. I might call him. But I might not, because I literally have never had an honest exchange with that company.

oohah, thousands of people live in those buildings. aren't those renters everyday people? what about the 12,000 plus thousand that rented through citi last year, or bought? did they all get lied to as well? how can a company that is so thoroughly disreputable, as you claim, have such a market share. it doesnt seem like it would be sustainable. but, i just quit my waitering job a year or so ago, so what do i know.

Okay CitiAgent, the real problem here is that you are ignoring the unsolicited honest evidence of the experiences that people have been so kind to share with you. I promise you there is no conspiracy against Citi-habitats. People are sharing this evidence and your answer, instead of asking for more information to see how you may improve, you cover your ears.

You asked: Why the vitriol? I explained it to you. I gave you a way to check for yourself. You see similar stories about CH all over this site and likely in other places with similar subject matter.

But obviously you are not interested in the truth. Instead of simply checking into it yourself you came back with some piss-poor nonsense about how did Citi-Habitats make all those rentals?

Well, I'll explain it to you. The Citi-Habitats tagline is: "More Brokers Per Square Foot" Not: "Quality, Honesty, Integrity". In other words Citi-Habitats is about quantity.

Citi-habitats is making lots of money. So is McDonalds. McDonalds is placed in amazing, affluent districts in city centers all over the world.

So it must be, based on the citiagentnyc standard of proof, McDonalds' food and eating experience is of the highest caliber of quality and service, and doesn't make you sick after, just like dealing with Citi-Habitats.

citiagentnyc, if I point out a listing from CH that has been up for months now despite the listing having been long rented months ago, will you have it taken down?

Oohah, yes, I consider companies the earn lots of money and serve lots of clients to be successful. Call me crazy.

Inonada, it's not really in my power to have other's listings taken down, but please show, I'm curious.

citiagentnyc - You are changing topics and being deliberately obtuse. This was never about the financial success of Citi-habitats. We all already know they make money, but that does not mean they are good for their customer, or was the McDonalds analogy lost on you?

Let me remind you: You asked, "Why the Vitriol?". The Vitriol is about the dreadful experience of working with them as a potential renter.

Now that I have reminded you of your own questions, why don't you go ahead and take one of your free days and call a bunch of Citi-Habitats listings - and even go see some apartments with the brokers? Then you'll know why the vitriol.

Or is that simply getting to be too real for you? I am beginning to suspect you already know that Citi-Habitats is wall-to-wall lying unprofessional hacks.