evacuation zone now to affect apt values?

Not at all.

Of course, I'm speaking as someone who lives in the highest elevation in NYC ...

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has put out food-safety instructions for people who have lost power in the wake of Hurricane Sandy. This instruction, in particular, jumped out at me:
Add block ice or dry ice to your refrigerator if the electricity is expected to be off for more than four hours. Fifty pounds of dry ice should keep an 18-cubic foot fully-stocked freezer cold for two days.
We were supposed to be keeping dry ice on hand in case of a power outage? Who knew?

And where are people supposed to run out and get fifty pounds of dry ice?

The folks in NJ are getting hammered. My office is over there and half our people live in NJ. All of them are without power in their homes.

But what of all the folks in NYC who have had serious hardships from Sandy? I have friends in the Village who have no power and I know folks in low-lying part of Bklyn who are also without power (Gowanus area, Red Hook, Rockaways.)

Some of these nabes are recently gentrified. Columbia Street district in brownstone Bklyn comes to mind -- that's an area where property values have gone up by several multiples over the past 10 years.

If you're sitting in an expensive apt on Columbia Street, with no power and the street outside is flooded, are you thinking, I'll never be able to sell this place for what I paid for it?

I don't know, I'm just sure that I would look up a place on the evacuation zone map before I decided to buy it.

Hurricane Irene last August, the Halloween blizzard last year, Hurricane Sandy in Oct. 2012. What's the next storm we'll add to this list? Will the same nabes in the evacuation zones keep getting pounded with flooding and power outages?

Will the city as a whole come to expect a subway shutdown once a year? We had one in 2011 and now we've had another in 2012. Is this going to be an annual event? A bi-annual event?

A quarterly event?

but when a buyer wants to buy a home on columbia street, he'll continue to flip out when he see the higher and higher asking and accepted prices

If you can afford that overpriced apartment in the recently-gentrified areas, you can afford to weather a day or two of "serious hardship" during a natural disaster.

all i know is Brooklyn heights is the closest dry place near Wall Street.....of course you have to walk the bridge tomorrow rather than catching the 2/3 subway though.....

ConEd should learn from other power companies in the NY suburbs.
I'm sure ConEd has more resources and funds; http://stormcentral.cenhud.com/mobile.html Dry Ice Bottled Water Distribution List- Click Here.

LMAO. Temporarily. They've rebounded.

Come on I know it wasn't that bad..
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-flY62jDBlAQ/UJAXdvl2EmI/AAAAAAAASWw/tBa8YcF83Go/s1600/sandy%2B1.png

Graffiti, best guess here is that 2 don't make a trend just yet (even if this one was particularly bad for a bunch of folks). New Yorkers tend to have short memories, and unless this does become a yearly event, I think this has little long-term impact on property values. They are other factors I'm more concerned about in that regard (namely the apparently realistic chance that we may elect a buffoon as President).

Didn't we elect a buffoon for president 4 years ago?

Here's The Mountain Of Evidence Linking Climate Change To Bigger Storms

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/climate-change-linked-to-hurricanes-2012-10#ixzz2ApeC9Rt2

I'd much rather have Obama with a second term than have the country so quickly elect to put what is just another Bush back in office.

> Graffiti, best guess here is that 2 don't make a trend just yet (even if this one was particularly bad for a bunch of folks). New Yorkers tend to have short memories, and unless this does become a yearly event, I think this has little long-term impact on property values.

NOT buying in low areas is a no brainer w/ increasing water levels any way. funny many don't get that, just like Katrina, when it came, 100% of those living in low areas were victims, not risk-takers.

> They are other factors I'm more concerned about in that regard (namely the apparently realistic chance that we may elect a buffoon as President).

sure, the fiscal cliff together with the aging and unfunded entitlements in a country w/out savings is not a situation that doesn't favor "let's go and buy real estate" as the favorite sport.

Any of you readers out there fans of the environmental/sci-fi writer Kim Stanley Robinson? Wrote a fantastic saga about humanity's colonization and terraforming of Mars. A little lefty/hippie-ish for my tastes, but I like the guy. His latest book is set in the year 2312, with humans settling all the planets and asteroids and doing all kinds of amazing things.

In his future, humanity eventually has to deal with a catastrophic 11-meter rise in sea levels due to some of Antarctica's ice breaking up. This floods all the low-lying land in the world, and in 2312 New York has become another Venice, with people paddling along streets that are now canals, with the lower two or three floors of buildings being abandoned and the upper floors inhabited. (Future jokes write themselves: "I work on Canal Street." - "Which one?")

I was just reading it last week -- don't tell me how it ends -- and then this storm came. Looking at the images on the news and then thinking about the future that might be in store,
I couldn't decide whether to be fascinated or terrified, and the way this storm is going, I'm leaning toward terrified.

If it does become a yearly event, wouldn't some businesses think about re-locating?

My company for instance is losing a whole week here of productivity, and maybe more. They're paying everybody's salaries but they're not producing anything -- not a sustainable model.

If the subways are going to be flooded once a year, and it's going to take the city a week or two or three to get transit back running again, just seems to me that New York will become a less appealing place for some businesses.

Or maybe the city will just shift northward, away from the harbor. In that case the financial district might move to midtown, and midtown might move to..... the Bronx?

I think we are really jumping the gun thinking direct hit hurricanes will hit nj/NYC with yearly regularity. As someone with a lot of experience in Florida you just don't know, it's actually quite rare for these storms to make landfall when you look at the stats. In 2004/2005 Florida had back to back hits, since then nothing significant on the east coast. At the time many thought this was the new normal, we would see big canes yearly, didn't happen. Of course we know there will be others.

The bottom line is we just don't know and running from NYC to nj will not offer you any protection, these suburban areas suffered tremendously. We know we need to fortify our infrastructure and let's hope we don't see any more monster storms for awhile. Hope everyone is safe!

Keith Burkhardt
tbg

If apt values bounced back from 9/11 , then this won't have any lasting affect. Breathing asbestos is a lot worse.

yeah, there is a lot of uncertainty, Keith but global warming is happening much faster than any of the scientists thought.

The arctic ice melt this summer happened about 50 years ahead of schedule.

I can easily imagine a flooded subway system being a yearly event now.

I always wanted to live on the beach. Not anymore

At GG, let's hope not.

> If it does become a yearly event, wouldn't some businesses think about re-locating?

sure, tech ones at least. why keep servers in a flood prone area w/out stable energy source?

> My company for instance is losing a whole week here of productivity, and maybe more. They're paying everybody's salaries but they're not producing anything -- not a sustainable model.

agree. i'm more interested on the public policy side. once rising sea levels is "priced in", why invest taxpayer dollars in zone 1 areas at all? much better is to declare them parks/green areas, cut the losses and move on.

> If the subways are going to be flooded once a year, and it's going to take the city a week or two or three to get transit back running again, just seems to me that New York will become a less appealing place for some businesses.
Or maybe the city will just shift northward, away from the harbor

of course. it's beneficial to be on the harbor when the economy runs around the port, it hasn't been the case in generations by now. same thing goes for New Orleans, using low areas close to the water exclusively for recreation and as a buffer for flooding events is a no-brainer.

"My company for instance is losing a whole week here of productivity, and maybe more. They're paying everybody's salaries but they're not producing anything -- not a sustainable model."

It's five days, not an entire year. This is not a "model" that needs to be "sustained".

And frankly, if your company is operating so close to the margin that 5 days of lost productivity is a serious problem, someone is doing something seriously wrong.

The hurricane also highlights how significant differences in incomes affect perception of the storm and how easily one weathered it. Those "on high ground" (e.g., Carnegie Hill) were much better off than those in flood plains.

"In the Union Square area, New York’s privileged could have dinner, order a food delivery and pick up supplies an hour or two before Sandy made landfall. The cooks, cashiers and hotel workers who stayed at work instead of rushing home made that possible."

http://blogs.reuters.com/david-rohde/2012/10/31/a-hurricanes-inequality/

> The hurricane also highlights how significant differences in incomes affect perception of the storm and how easily one weathered it. Those "on high ground" (e.g., Carnegie Hill) were much better off than those in flood plains.

over here, the super privileged in Harlem weathered the storm very well thanks to being on high ground. let's face it, in NYC not only the poor are right next to sea level which is set to increase. i'm afraid it had even become fashionable to do so among the group with more money than brains.

"Property Recovery in Northeast Challenged by Sandy: Mortgages" Bloomberg says so.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/business/bloomberg/article/Property-Recovery-in-Northeast-Challenged-by-3996348.php#ixzz2AtUYSnDw

> And frankly, if your company is operating so close to the margin that 5 days of lost productivity is a serious problem, someone is doing something seriously wrong.

Let's keep in mind that Zone A (mandated evacuation) is a tiny % of the surface of NYC so it's not such a big deal. it's clear that it's not wise to live there cause of rising sea levels, not only the sporadic huge storm. Most of Zone A is beaches and parks (check out the 9A that flooded, but every building starts at a much higher ground on the west side, as it should be).

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/10/28/nyregion/hurricane-evacuation-zones.html

But a biz might be able to make it and even benefit from it (say, it provides services around the recreation area facing the water).

"over here, the super privileged in Harlem weathered the storm very well thanks to being on high ground. let's face it, in NYC not only the poor are right next to sea level which is set to increase. i'm afraid it had even become fashionable to do so among the group with more money than brains."

EXACTLY. Central and West Harlem, most of East Harlem, all of Washington Heights and Inwood were fine, while Chelsea, West Village, Tribecca, Soho etc had massive power outages and/or water damage. Its not income, its elevation!!!!

> Central and West Harlem, most of East Harlem, all of Washington Heights and Inwood were fine, while Chelsea, West Village, Tribecca, Soho etc had massive power outages and/or water damage. Its not income, its elevation!!!!

Which known future sea level increases, correlates with brains for owners. Maybe renters is a different issue. But who on their right mind would buy at this point a place at sea level? Seriously? It takes a flipper to make it work.

meant:
"Which given future sea level increases, it correlates with LACK of brains on the part of buyer. "

too many chocolate cookies... make an area trendy and those with more $ than brains will show up and over-bid no matter what.

Makes me wonder what happened to valuations in the Marina in SF after the earthquake of 89. Because the Marina had been last built and was built on landfill, it was devastated by the earthquake. I know technology has come a long way, and the new buildings are all being engineered for earthquakes, but I am still willing to pay a premium for the bedrock of PacHeights. I am shocked people pay what they do for the houses built on sand in the Marina.

Yes. I wish I were 20 feet higher and 1000 feet further from river. Oh well, hopefully a greater fool will come along in time to buy my place before we're 10 feet under.

now the companies have more excuses to outsource more supporting jobs to india, fuck!

This is just silly. The northeast sees a gigantic hurricane every 70 years or so. Sandy is almost exactly on time.

The next one will hit in 2082. Just imagine how many cash-out refis you'll have gotten on your downtown riv vu condo by then, all along laughing about Sandy Bottom.

I lived in Malibu for some time in the 80's, landslides, quakes and fires. Some home owners kept mobile homes on stand by for when their house burned. Didn't hurt real estate prices, go figure?

80's was the beginning of the credit bubble. 2015 is when credit begins to contract. Tsunamis, floods, landslides...... Ain't helping. Homes will be an expense line item once again. Borkers making $100k/yr will be a by gone era. Good riddance. Get them out of my yacht club, country golf club and beach club. R u being nice to me bc you are a member or r u trying to sell me a house? Good fking riddance.

Once upon a time the most desirable section of Manhattan to live in was the center, as far away as possible from the slums and slaughterhouses and docks of the East River and the Hudson River. Westway was a pretty radical idea back in the 1970s. Even in the early 1990s when the city was formulating a redevelopment plan encouraging revitalizing the huge waterfront, it seemed a little weird given how ugly most of that waterfront was. After 9/11 lots of thought-leadership was directed into reversing the fear of terrorism factor - COME DOWNTOWN - IT'S GREAT! This cyclone was a game changer. All the shoring up of the bath-whatever at the WTC site, patriotism and lack of fear in the world could not prevent an unfortunate hurricane-related storm surge coming ashore at high tide. Result: Floods. It was not a hurricane. It was a flood.

Ocean levels are rising. Slowly, but surely. Oh, sure, people build houses on mudslide prone cliffs in California. People build homes on sandbars that they can afford to lose and build all over again. I'm wondering, though, what an insurance company would think of a highrise office tower right now on a landfill steps from New York Harbor.

Perception is reality, but reality itself changes ever so gradually, and eventually perception catches up to it. If you have not watched "Dead End" (1937) you should at least watch the first few minutes of it. A neighborhood is in painful transition, as luxury apartment buildings for the wealthy have come to the end of streets in the East 50s, colliding with the mean slums of what is now Sutton Place. Don't laugh and snear and shrug it off. The play was made into a movie 75 years ago:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppbpAf4hlTo

Thanks, lowery, interesting comment.

I agree with the commenter who asks why should we as taxpayers continue to subsidize risky development in obvious flood zones. And it's not just money -- why should we continue to put first responders at risk again and again because people want to live in high-risk neighborhoods?

At some point the insurers will put their collective foot down and say they simply will not write policies for buildings in these zones. That will be a major wake-up moment.

BATTERY PARK CITY DID NOT LOSE POWER FOR ONE SECOND.

I live in Battery Park City. Maybe Gateway Plaza (the rental buildings) had some problems, but the other buildings in the area namely the condos didn't lose power for one second. As a matter of fact this area fared better than many areas in the city. The area is bone dry. Many people who left the area found out that they were worse off in leaving than in staying. Now there are still many people in the city without power.

So in jumping to conclusions about this area losing value, nothing could be further from the truth. And as a real estate broker it is certain I will mention this when giving a sales pitch for an apartment in this area.

I for one was not targeting Battery Park City by my comments.

Well, don't sell your NYC property and move to Boston.

The MAJORITY of the land there is fill. Back Bay was a garbage dump.

Boston College Map, for your perusal; http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/fnart/fa267/boston/bos1820.gif

Look for that to go down in the next big one.

go ask a person who owns an ocean front property to move because of hurrican issues; he'll laugh in your face.

same for evacuation zones. If you have a great place with drop dead views, your apt. will always be worth a lot.

Dream on for the folks looking for a great deal.

You are so wrong. Rich people hate to be incommoded. The history of NYC development and where people escaped shows this clearly. Unless they can build their own protective wall, they will be greatly put out by such inconveniences.

but it will take some time. i think miami may be our wake-up call.

your apartment won't be worth shit if all of the major systems are corroded with sea water and you have to pay astronomical common charges/mtc to repair.

88 greenwich comes to mind. look on curbed.

I am in the camp that people will generally have short memories. Like Keith B, I have lived in a CA town with its share of fires and mudslides and I dont think those have affected the long term desireability of living there. Thus, I dont think that apts in the impact zone will generally trade at a discount. I'm sure that there will be some damaged apts that will hit the market at some sort of a discount though (for years one could buy lots in Malibu where a burned down house used to exist, but they were not giving them away).

One other thought. Even if apts in the impact zone dont trade at a discount, it doesnt mean that people with longer memories wont find additional value in apts that are not likely to be in an impact zone. Also, those people looking for rental apts may find additional value in renting from a landlord who stepped up and did the right thing with their tenants during this time (helped tenants relocate, didn't hassle tenants about breaking leases, propmptly refunded Nov rent payments, etc).

jojo, the problem is a massive change in weather patterns. yes, one, maybe two incidents won't matter. but downtown has become highly family-friendly. you spend seven to ten days with two or more kids in such a situation and report back. and it really didn't f'ng help that bloomie was unwilling to call the schools.

you don't think property values in new orleans have been affected? it's just a matter of degree.

AR, with all due respect I apologize but I dont totally follow your two comments but I'll respond as best I can. First, I'm sure NO is a great place but I dont know anything about it so I cant comment on its real estate. I do, however, know Manhattan and Malibu and Laguna Beach, CA and they were great, desirable places before disasters and are great places now (yes I'm including 9/11 as a disaster that Manhattan rebounded from). In the early nineties when those CA towns were getting hit with earthquakes, fieres and mudslights right and left people were not necessarily thinking global warming but there were plenty of people wondering if they were cursed.

As someone with young kids, I never fully understood the appeal of families living in the Wall Street area (not sure how much that was RE industry marketing people planting articles stating that families were living there and how much it was reality but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt and assume that it was reality) but many Manhattan areas affected by this are quite desirable for families and I dont see that changing. If someone wants to sell me a 3 bedroom place in Tribeca or the Vilage on the cheap I'm a buyer. If you would agree that Wall Street is a "fringe" family area then I'll agree that this storm could chase a few families out of there.

You are all absolutely correct. EVERYONE has abandoned San Francisco right after each and every one of its earthquakes. It is funny, because as a lifetime city resident, I always wondered since I was a child why people lived in those weather prone areas, hurricanes, tornados, hail storms, etc. We just had dirty streets and occasional big rains. In the first 30 some odd years here, we lost power for more than an hour or so exactly once, in the 1977 blackout. Since 9/11, this makes 4 times in 11 years.

Actually, I know a number of people who have decided against SF, moved out even, due to the earthquake issue.

But the San andres fault line is a much different beast than flood-zone mapping. Even if you crave a view, you can minimize your risk. Many on the barrier islands residents have been gambling for years. Now it's just hugely apparent how great a gamble that was.

I see these comments are going more towards the direction of impact on resale prices in flood zones, which is really not what I was reacting to when I posted. This is not a bear/bull opinion here. If I were thinking of buying a condo in BPC I would not be swayed by the fact that during the Halloween 2012 flood it stayed dry and never lost electricity. I would think about the flooding of all of downtown, and the fact that Con Edison made the strategic decision to power down. I may have hinted earlier, but if I forgot to, I'll drop the hint again: pretend you are an insurance company and a developer of an office highrise very near the Brooklyn/Battery Tunnel is your client. And about this only being the fourth blackout in 11 years, not everyone is so blithe about it. I only lost power for four days once, in 2003, and it did affect me, as did watching Manhattan turn into a ghost town after 9/11 and wondering whether the local grocery stories would be getting delivery trucks. I actually DID choose to live on high altitude, but I would never claim that I am the leader of a new trend sweeping the collective mentality of New Yorkers. I think I'm ahead of the curve, though.

I hear you, but the long term solution is not to abandon downtown and everybody moving uptown because that is just not realistic and not practical. We would be losing a big chunk of Manhattan if that is the case. The long term solution is to build appropriate sea barriers like in London and the Netherlands. I put up a post defending BPC on another thread because I got tired of people bashing BPC when they don't live here. I recognize that many people won't want to live in BPC, hurricane zone or not. But my point also was that if we can build a neighborhood that can withstand a 14 foot storm surge (and I can tell you that it would probably take a 20 foot storm surge, 40% higher level, not 5% to flood all of BPC) because of good long term planning, then we can do something about protecting NYC in the long run.

Many interesting comments, many digressions.

Originally I had wondered if the increase in extreme weather events would make people think twice before buying in evacuation zones. Gov. Cuomo a couple days ago referred to climate-change-caused extreme weather when he talked about how we should rebuild the city.

Now the NYTimes asks the same question: Would You Buy on the Waterfront?

clip:
In a news briefing on Wednesday, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo said elected officials had a responsibility to consider new ways to prevent similar damage to the region’s infrastructure in the face of future storms. “For us to sit here today and say this is a once-in-a-generation and it’s not going to happen again, I think, would be shortsighted,” he said. “I think we need to anticipate more of these extreme-weather-type situations in the future, and we have to take that into consideration in reforming, modifying, our infrastructure.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/realestate/after-hurricane-sandy-would-you-buy-on-the-waterfront.html?hpw&_r=0

A netherlands style sea barrier at the V-N bridge would cost about $7B. I assume a combination of land fill and Netherland style barriers between CT and LI and NJ and LI, which would cover a wider area, would cost maybe three times that. This storm will do $20B in damage to the NYC area, the vast majority of which is in areas that would be fine now were such barriers in place. If you actually think that such storms will be more common in the future - and the vast, vast majority of scientists do - then it is economical to erect such barriers.

W67 is a free mkter. Fk the wall. Fk the Lincoln tower residents bitching about trump blocking their views.

Why don't we spend $50b to ensure smokers have funds available to get lung transplants?

Lets build a sea wall for every beach house! Lets make sure every farmer makes money! Lets make sure non Asians that didn't pass the stuy test a seat at stuy!

Wtf is this country about?

Bpc properly designed. While our TriBeCa/financial district neighbors unfortunately lost power and experienced notable flooding, Bpc was essentially unscathed. This was truly remarkable, and in my mind, a salient selling point for future buyers.

I think that's lame. To suggest that BPC is structurally safe in ways that Tribeca or the Lower East is potentially dishonest. A couple more feet of storm surge, say if the storm had made landfall further up the New Jersey Coast, and ConEd would have shut the BPC network like the rest of downtown Manhattan.

A legally actionable selling point for future buyers

BPC was in the mandatory evacuation zones two years in row, and was cut off from the subway system like the rest of lower Manhattan this time. If you live down there, it was VERY inconvenient to not have businesses across the highway have no power and mostly be closed. Don't lie.

too many nots.

I'm sure a this concept of a sea wall will continue to be discussed in coming years. My first reaction to it is a question: If you block a storm surge from one costal area, don't the nearby coastal areas have to absorb that much more water? As water finds its own level, doesn't it just come right around to the opposite of that wall anyway? I wouldn't be so sure Cuomo was referring to a need to build a sea barrier in his comments. We may just reverse our love affair with ocean front property, yard by yard. But you're right, those tunnels aren't going anywhere anytime soon, so the tidewall idea is going to be with us. Longer term, this is all sticking a finger in a dyke. Ocean levels are rising. Coastal erosion is very real. Not only is land going under the sea, but it's also falling off into the sea in chunks, in Europe for instance. This was not even a hurricane. I doubt it will be another 80 years before a hurricane strikes the region.

Building a wall to protect low areas from permanent rising sea levels is as reasonable as planning to convert downtown into New Venice. Low areas are great as recreation areas that are by definition empty during a big storm. Not only nobody has to risk their lives trying to save those that don't follow through with evacuation mandates. It's also wise public policy wise to not encourage that level of risk-taking.

AR: great comment on 88 greenwich.
http://ny.curbed.com/tags/88-greenwich

One could speculate on what happens to prices based on future activity on the buildings that had been affected. imho more interesting than prices is what happens to transaction volumes as sellers might only agree to trade for at least what they had paid into, so it's a source of stickiness in prices. Although regarding 88 Greenwich, there were issues before the storm.

I don't get how a building that is not next to the water got so much structural damage from the storm while those closer to the water in the same area didn't.

I've heard of scores of places in the same situation as 88 Greenwich -- all large downtown buildings -- except those haven't been declared uninhabitable. Probably they should be. Although lights have come on, there's no water, no working elevators, no fire safety systems, laundry, heat, mojo.

One wonders at what point all that basement water -- and the hydrostatic pressure that comes with it -- damages the structural integrity of the building's foundation. Not a likely problems when bedrock is close to the surface, but isn't most of downtown on mushier ground?

> Not a likely problems when bedrock is close to the surface, but isn't most of downtown on mushier ground?

great point, don't know which parts of downtown have landfill areas. i checked the map that somebody posted a link for, of New Harlem and all the pink areas (land filled) on the east side are a turn off. we are living in harlem, on the west side, it's bedrock right away, no landfill at all.

For some reason I still get PCV/ST notices. Despite con Ed being able to restore power, many of the buildings have damaged systems. there is no electricity, nor will there be for some time, at my former apt building (and at a number of other buildings in the complex), and nine out of the twelve water pumps for PCV are broken, which means lilttle to no water pressure, other buildings have problems with the steam system, so they have no heat and hot water for an indefinite amount of time. Etc., etc. And I believe that many of the affected buildings were in zone B, not A. Our building was in B.

We should have been evacuated. That was stupid. Right across the street zone A - zone B on the other side of the 23rd street line. Tell me how the water makes s difference when it floods up 23rd street? So some water said let me go North and you guys on the South side will be spared. So dumb. Anyway, we didn't get hurt but still have no power. AR someone texted me and said I may have power although the letter said no at 6. Got the text at 10. Going to check but don't want to get my hopes up. I want out of my parents apt. THey said within 72 hours - Avenue C bldgs the worst. I'm ave C. Your bldg was not.

From the notice:

Electricity Service: Flood water damaged the main switchgear equipment in the following buildings:
Stuyvesant Town: 315, 319, 321 Avenue C and 620, 610, 540 and 530 East 20th Street
Peter Cooper Village: 601, 541, 531, 511, 411 East 20th Street; 8, 7, 6, 5 and 4 Peter Cooper Road; 530, 510, 440 East 23rd Street.
Due to the extensive damage caused by the flood waters, it is likely to take an extended period of time to restore electrical service to those addresses even after Con Edison restores power. We will make every effort to keep residents of these buildings apprised of repair progress so that they may plan accordingly.

My former building is on this list. As is cccharley's. It's not a contest. There's widespread damage throughout the complex.

I guess I was fortunate to only be without power (and heat and hot water) for four days. New York was truly a story like East and West Berlin. When I went uptown to "shower and power" it was like nothing was amiss: kids were out trick and treating, restaurants were jammed and normalcy reigned. But on the other side of "Checkpoint Charlie" (aka 39th Street), all was dark, eerie, dreary and closed. A friend was caught in the elevator in Sty Town for several hours but was finally rescued. An elderly friend was "fortunate" enough to be taken to the hospital on Saturday night where at least she's being cared for since the Mitchell Lama complex she lives in downtown remains without heat or heat water.
As AR says, its not a contest. Its not funny.

But there is much positive to take away from it. In the jammed pack buses coming from downtown and in the corridors of Beth Israel (now Jewish only in name and presence of a Sabbath elevator) one saw again the incredible beautiful diversity of our city. I can not say enough great things the building staff where I live. They were incredible, going above and beyond any possible expected duty, even delivering hot coffee and breakfast sandwiches to residents in the morning, climbing the stairs to do it! Our door was never left unmanned or our garbage left uncollected even if it meant staff members having to sleep in the building. And they did. Sure they get overtime and yes, its close to the holidays (sorry Matt, we DO tip) but this went beyond anything motivated by expected dollar returns. This was just generosity of heart and commitment to service.

Hang in there ccharley. Hopefully, you will be back home very soon. And believe me you will have a new appreciation for a working lightswitch and hot shower!

I think Williamsburg is the big loser. Do you know how much of a pain in the ass it is to deal with the L on a daily basis? And being trapped in Billyburg every time there is a storm....I think Williamsburg is the area that ultimately sees more pressure on prices than Zone A. Red Hook too.

No. You can always walk or bike across the Williamsburg bridge. And, believe it or not, some of us can figure out a bus map. Plenty of williamsburg and lic are zone A. But in this storm, at least, to compare the irritation of isolation in a neighborhood with fully functioning buildings with ample resources to those much less fortunate is nothing short of assholic, and a pointedly biased comment.

> My former building is on this list. As is cccharley's. It's not a contest. There's widespread damage throughout the complex.

great you are not in that building anymore! now you are not even in zone C, right?

> Plenty of williamsburg and lic are zone A.

how is LIC zone A doing? didn't come across any news specific to that area, even after googling it

Long Island City is Zone F.

Long Island City is Category 5.

notadmin, our home is currently off the flood maps. I highly suspect it will become zone C at some point, maybe zone B.

I can't tell you the joy I feel at not being stuck on a high floor of a building that may not have electricity for more than a couple of weeks. and I can't tell you how awful I realize it must be for those in buildings which have suffered structural damage and may or may not be able to open ever (I have no idea the extent of the insurance coverage of some of the lower manhattan buildings (building-wide, not individual coverage), and obviously many of the barrier island properties have no insurance, and you can argue that was their choice, but it's still a displacement and a tragedy). w67 is being a bit of an ass here. many people bought 40-60 years ago on some of the coastal areas. he seems to only be focusing on 1 west, 88 greenwich, etc. but the devastation is huge. and felt by renters as well as owners.

> I can't tell you the joy I feel at not being stuck on a high floor of a building that may not have electricity for more than a couple of weeks.

I can imagine! We are so glad we are on an elevated part of uptown even though we never lived downtown. So if we had just changed locations, we'd feel a much deeper relief.

> he seems to only be focusing on 1 west, 88 greenwich, etc. but the devastation is huge. and felt by renters as well as owners.

Too much weight is put on lost physical property and too little on why weren't the areas w/ the lowest elevations parks and flooding buffers. I do 100% believe all of us would have benefited more if they were parks. Those living in low areas will self-select towards consciously risk-takers and those w/out a choice. This process will play out in every densely populated area at sea level.

Not sure I'd support taxpayer $ to go into buying that land for inflated $ to redeploy it into parks at these point. The mistake was done and I expect it to continue. It's not the fault of current taxpayers that they were developed long time ago anyway. If there are tax liens and the like and it's super cheap for the taxpayer to redeploy, then I'd support it.

Even those with insurance will only recover a fraction of what they lost. Rebuilding will be an emotional reaction more than a rational one. So nothing will change unless gov development policy does, which I doubt cause it'll be too controversial.

Nor'easter coming this week! Woo hoo!!!

Oh, and northern NJ experienced a small earthquake this week, too.

Speaking of which, the Consolidated Edison facility on East 14th Street that was central to last week's power failure ... sits atop one of Manhattan's two greatest seismic faults. The other is at West 125th Street.

Only a complete fucktard would say that the storm will not impact future real estate prices after reading this article in today's NYT:

"Future Is in Limbo for the Damaged Buildings Close to the Water’s Edge...

...a far starker and more problematic future persists for scores of commercial and residential buildings that hover near the water’s edge, especially those that dot the financial district. Their mechanical and electrical systems destroyed by millions of gallons of water from swollen rivers, they remain weeks or months away from being able to reopen and invite their tenants back..."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/05/nyregion/damage-unclear-future-in-limbo-for-some-buildings-in-lower-manhattan.html?hp&_r=0

An article yesterday said the same applies to many riverside buildings in Dumbo, Hoboken, etc. MONTHS without being able to move back?

And even in "unaffected" BPC - still as of now no 1, N, or R service. Not super fun.

200 East End Ave took got evacuated but the rest of yorkville unscathed!

marco: Good for you.
Do you have any warm clothing to donate to the hurricane relief centers? Anything at all?
See: marathon thread.

I do. just put a bag together.

Thank you, marco.

I sincerely hope our Staten Island correspondent, lucillebluth, is well and was not adversely affected by Sandy.

And has anyone discussed the plan for waterfront development? A huge amount of Bloomberg's development is planned for areas along the East River. Huge. Both sides of the river.

And huntersburg, too, of course.

Another NYT story on similar:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/realestate/after-hurricane-sandy-would-you-buy-on-the-waterfront.html?hp

<>>

Somehow, that conjures an image for me of a disgruntled investor confronting an investment advisor/hedge fund manager/etc. being told, "But you knew the risks of speculative investment, and that's why you had to provide proof that you were in a position to absorb a 100% loss." Even if it's true that everyone who lives on the waterfront is similarly situated to an investor in limited partnership units for a failed oil-and-gas exploration project, which is stretching things, it matters not one whit to insurance companies, planning and zoning boards, etc., etc., etc.

Everyone be careful of this week's storm. Wind affects us equally, unlike flooding. Be safe.

oops - the cut and paste didn't work for me - what I attempted to paste was Dottie Herman's quote, that people who buy on the waterfront know the risks.

Where is huntersburg? Panic has set in.

take your pick. plenty of alternate identities.

Pretty exciting columbiacounty! A big storm coming and the Gov says that we haven't even recovered from the last storm. Could you be happier with everyone else's misfortune?

I mean this is a LOT of buildings that are currently forcibly empty.

http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2012/11/05/buildings_declared_unsafe_or_restricted_use_by_the_dob.php

While the number 1 train is not running, that's not the only subway system accessible here in BPC. The 4,5,and 6 is running.

NYC will always be a place where people want to live and tourists want to visit.

Not the most precise comparison, but a sea-wall is being built to save Venice from the yearly
Aqua Alta flooding.
Residents of those beautiful homes on the Grand Canal have not occuppied the ground level of their homes in decades. They moved up to the upper floors so the floods come in and then wash out and furniture is not destroyed. As is happening in NYC right now, building inspectors examine each building for structural damage.

The wakes from power-boats in the canals is another erosion problem and they will need to resolve that issue.

not a good sign anyway

scary piece, jason--striking is that so many of the bldgs shown are older, have never had anything remotely like this happen before

the little beachclub setup near my hopuse in ct was built in 1924--required minor repairs after 1938--nothing ssignificant since then beyond routine maintenance

now post irene we engaged a complete rebuild, and we will do another, agaain, one lusy year later

and few politicians have the balls (or ovaries) to utter the words "global warming"--i mean, obama and romney in debate had a mini-pissing-contest over who was kinder to coal!!

whatever...anyone found a map of the surge with depths of flooding? pls provide link if so--thx in adv

my take is this is an economic crisis we are just getting our arms around--which will definitely affect near-water properties, if only bc banks insurers etc wont want anything to do with them

JLL says 1/3 of buildings are affected, and its not just old ones. Note for example 2 Gold Street - relatively brand new. The common denomintor is steam heat for old ones, but for all ones its critical things in the BASEMENT.

I mean 1/3 below 14th, commercial bldgs (and they include high rise apartments in this.)