Would you EVER live in Harlem ?

are you a moron? you live in midtown and you're talking about harlem being a problem for you? the place is heaven compared to midtown.

i don't see you getting that penthouse for under a mill in a decent area of harlem though. if you know what you're doing harlem is the spot but even w/ a downturn you're going to be looking at $600 sq. ft. to buy in a well-located area, ideally Central Harlem 116th and lower. Or west harlem 128th and lower depending on the blocks.

you can do central harlem up to 128th as well but you really have to know your blocks and it sounds like you have no clue. visit at night on weekends several times to check it out and you'll get a better idea of what your comfort level is with particular blocks.

and like any idiot, stay near the parks and transportation and you'll have little problem w/ resale. to me, the upside in harlem is way better than the rest of manhattan and even brooklyn at this point and your downside is limited, esp if you can find a tax-abated building (and there are many in harlem).

sorry, should have said, are your friends morons? sounds like you're willing to explore. you're 30-40% price reduction idea though seems a bit unrealistic. they'll turn them into rentals before selling them at that price. if they don't then you shouldn't be buying in that building, so a price cut of that magnitude should scare you b/c it basically means the developer can't get anywhere close to the rent they would need to cover their costs which means you can't either which means the place is likely overvalued at this point even w/ the price reduction.

sticky, the question is whether your circle of friends and acquaintances are indicative of the attitudes of ... well, how many other circles of friends beyond yours. I've already gone on record as being very interested in Harlem, so consider me biased, but I would not discount your informal polling of friends completely. You might be the only one of your friends to see the same values, the penthouse for only 700 that would cost many times more downtown. So you would have to be comfortable being either the leader of the pack, ahead of the crowd, or the last sensible of them. Remember that if you make all your most important decisions based on what your friends and acquaintances think, that may be limiting you. Best thing to do is to investigate Harlem yourself and form your own opinions. Walk around at different times of day and night, and on different days of the week. Take all the different trains and busses and log down exactly how long the commute takes you. Don't just say, "hey, that took me 12 minutes." Keep a little notebook handy and actually write down the moment when you are standing waiting at a platform and when it pulls into each station. Then look it over later. Don't just look at the condos you'd consider buying; be sure you walk in all directions around it. My opinion is that is that if prices really get discounted, you could get great value for your money and be the one your present friends later boast about having known at cocktail parties 10 years from now. But maybe not.

harlem is great at night.....you should get dressed up and go for a walk alone......it should be a great time...........idiots.

If you're a single non-black / non-hispanic male and you're looking to pull ass, try getting your one night stands to roll with you up to - and perhaps beyond - 125th street. Said one night stand will simply turn to you, smile, and then turn into anti-matter. In short: Harlem = no ass for you.

Patrick_Bateman is right. Harlem, especially above 125th, is a disaster. it's too bad that Manhattan isn't gentrified like Chicago.

Check it at night first. with BP vest. Little downside??? harlem, financial district and far west have the largest downside potential of all Manhattan.
That said the houses are beautiful. Staying safe is more important especially if the recession is severe as social unrest will start there.
dna may like it but stay away

when the economy gets weak, crime rises, especially in places like harlem and east harlem, where people release their anger by mugging and killing people. the level of barbarism in those neighborhoods is shocking.

I've survived Harlem for 7-8 years with nothing even approximating a problem, nor have I witnessed one, nor have I heard of any second-hand or third-hand. And I return from clubs at all hours, sometimes by subway, sometimes by car. Patrick might have a point, though, if only because of the distance.

When the economy gets weak, criminals move back to Chicago, their homebase.

And while we're on the subject of Chicago:
Shootings, murders up so far this year in city
http://www.suntimes.com/news/24-7/1200215,CST-NWS-murd03.article

Alanhart and I have shared our views as Harlem residents on several different threads on this board. Overall we have had positive experiences, and have seen lots of uneducated responses to the area on this board. Harlem is a rather large territory, and each section of Harlem is different.

I live in the upper 140's near Broadway and while my block is still a bit edgy (but not dangerous), many of the neighboring blocks are not only safe but incredibly beautiful. The Sugar Hill section of Hamilton Heights (northwest Harlem) is almost a West Village like vibe.

For those that insist on arbitrary borders (such as 125th St) haven't really explored the area. I honestly feel safer at night in the 140's than I do around much of 125th St (particularly as you travel further east). The 30th Precinct which covers Hamilton Heights has the second largest drop in crime in the entire city this year. The demographics have clearly started shifting as well. On my block alone, we have a billionaire that invested in 4 buildings, doctors, professors, a famous economist as an investor (and he accurately called the market tanking) as well a musicians and students.

There is a lack of great retail services in the area, and that could be a major turnoff for someone coming from Manhattan prime. Personally, I am patient and willing to wait for things to change. Slowly, but surely, I have been seeing the changes take place- but again, I did say I was patient.

I am not as certain as to the future of East Harlem, as the changes have only started to occur recently, and have much more spread out than much of Central Harlem and West Harlem. As in any instance of buying a home, due dilligence is vital- so before you consider that Penthouse, learn about the neighborhood, explore it during the day and at night. Talk to the community affairs officer at the local precinct and talk to the neighbors. I spent 3 years looking to buy in Harlem before I took the plunge. Most of my friends and family thought I was making a crazy decision, but when they look at the neighborhood now compared to a few years ago, they realize that I wasn't crazy but rather someone open minded willing to take a chance.

Rufus, we understand you love Chicago- but stop trying to force it on rest of us. Chicago is a great town, but we are here because we want to be and NYC inspires a passion that no other place could for us- otherwise we would all be moving to places like Chicago.

As for particular locations, I was really thinking of Rhapsody, at 127th & 5th Ave; and the Langston, at 145th near 6th Ave.

The Langston's area is pretty gritty but is only one street away from the 145th Street express trains. The get to Columbus Circle in 10 minutes. They have everything you'd need to live though (huge huge huge 24 grocery store, Starbucks, bank, gym & Duane Reade) right below the building. The penthouse in question there is 1300 sf with a 200 sf private terrace. Low low monthlies---common charges & taxes combined are $800/month.

Rhapsody's area is a bit nicer, and the penthouse is considerably nicer. But it's a longer walk to the 125th street trains, and which aren't express. I do love the restaurants along 125th, like Sylvia's (try the chicken & waffles, it's wonderful) & Mobay; and at least they have an H&M. The penthouse there is 1500 sf with a 300 sf private terrace. Higher monthlies because it's a smaller building---$2000/month.

I'm not sure which are is rougher, but I found this recent horrifying news report:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2008/05/28/2008-05-28_fear_bullets_and_blood_at_harlem_barbecu-3.html

I don't care about bringing one-night stands up there. I care about value & safety. I'm a 29-year-old white male & have been working mostly from home for the past 2 years ... hence my desire for a home office.

The Langston was originally priced at $960K, lowered to $850K 2 months ago; Rhapsody was $1.7M, reduced to $1.2M about 2 months ago. For the Langston I offererd $700K the other day, at Rhapsody I offered $800K. The both turned down the offer, but they both DID reply with long explanations (sales pitches) of why the properties are worth more.

Regarding whether the developer would rent before a reduction of that magnitude ... I mean, we don't know the developer's financial situation. They might need a lump of cash now, not just to cover the carrying costs of one unit. Furthermore, these properties have all been on the market for about 2 years.

Prospective President Barrack Obama would move his office from White House to Harlem. The exact address will be announced during his inauguration.

yawn

Hi, I saw something for sale at 1787 Madison ave and it might interest you but you should know it's not a penthousae. The building is decent at best but check out the $15,000 price reduction!

Anyway, if the time and the price were right, yes I would move there but not above 125th...good luck.

semerun, great post. I agree - there's so many myths about Harlem, it's tough to really know much about the area without spending time there yourself. I'm much more familiar with Washington Heights, but based on what I know of Harlem, it's going to be great for those with a little patience. There are some beautiful blocks (and some not-so-beautiful - this is an area where walking around and exploring each block really pays off) that have certainly appealed to the traditional downtown/West Village set. What's your take on the rezoning? Are you seeing any effects yet?

My personal take is... no. I'm talking about a slightly more gentrified version of the current Harlem. If it becomes something else in 50 years, who knows.

But, to me, its just too far uptown. Too far from most of the classic NYC stuff. I get that you can express train up there, but to me that is how you justify a LIC or a Hoboken. Not saying those are bad things, but you're talking about "access" areas, not areas whose value is their own merit.

So, judging Harlem as its own spot, I think its way too big to ever have a concentration of great spots. There are too many scattered projects, including the superblock that seems to split harlem in half in the middle. You'll get some nice cafes and stores, and I think you'll get another Fort Greene.

Fort Greene is nice, but I like the more "focused" areas like Cobble Hill if you're looking Brooklyn. I like a little more concentration. So, I'd do Brooklyn before I'd do Harlem.

I do know folks that just want the Manhattan address. But I like actual Manhattan.

I think a big question is whether you like Harlem exactly as it is. If you are buying the future of Harlem, you might be waiting ten years or more. The discount to prime Manhattan is there for a reason, and it will only get larger over this down cycle. Gentrification comes in waves and this wave is over. Many parts of Harlem have not reached critical mass to support the retail that you might desire. To answer your question, I think it's a "no".

Well said, 10th. I think the "potential" neighborhoods are going to suffer in the downturn, especially since there was so much construction there. The buildings like the Langston and such were noting problems well before the more southern parts of Manhattan.

Central Harlem south of 125th street is close to Central Park, and as close to midtown as Tribeca, and a 5-minute cab ride from UWS and UES. Depends what you like. If you are in your early 20s and your whole life is going out to clubs, then no, but otherwise, I actually think it does have a lot of convenience.

I suppose people say Hoboken, Williamsburg, etc. are just as close to certain parts of Manhattan... but the problem with those places is there 10 minutes from ONE part of Manhattan - midtown in LIC's case, Union Square in Williamsburg's case,so you need to transfer to get anywhere else, which always adds 20 mintues to your commute.

Harlem has the A, B,C,D, 2,3, and 4/5 .. all of which are very close if you are South of 125th street, and they'll get you anywhere in Manhattan quickly WITHOUT having to transfer. Plus, you don't have to worry about traffic on bridges, etc. if you are taking a taxi, and you don't have that mental block.

As for projects, Central Harlem south of 125th street doesn't have many. That strip ends on 6th avenue, so just extends 1 block into Central Harlem, which is West of 5th avenue.

I do think Central Harlem will get there, but it'll take 10 years. Parts of West Harlem are arguably nicer and already more gentrified, but to me, too far from the rest of Manhattan.

I think Central Harlem will eventually be on par w/ Brooklyn Heights in RE values and possibly one day even exceed. It's closer to midtown, close to a lot of the UWS/UES private schools (many of which are in the high 90s close to the park), lots of parks.

not 6th Ave, Lenox Ave.

Lenox = 6th.

People who live in Harlem call Lenox 6th, and it's easier that so everbody knows what you are talking about if they aren't familiar w/ Harlem.

No, kspeak, people who've lived in Harlem long-term call avenues by their traditional names, rather than the black civil rights names they were changed to. Lenox was never 6th, so it remains Lenox. Harlem old-timers get really cranky about that.

my tenant live in washington heights for years with no issue so i imagine harlem is a similar situation. does anyone remember the city of the 80's and 90's? am in rome now and see similarities....

> Harlem has the A, B,C,D, 2,3, and 4/5

Yes, but all going to different places. Thats like saying Brooklyn has 10 trains, so transportation is great in Bushwick.

> and as close to midtown as Tribeca

You picked the southernmost destination neighborhood, and then noted its proximity to pretty much the northern most destination neighborhood. If its access to Midtown, weehawken rules.

But I figure manhattan access means likely a spread of midtown, village, soho, union square, etc. The path from hoboken gets you most of that pretty quickly...

My office is in midtown, and I've mapped out locales many times, and Harlem is in no way convenient for the things I do. As I said before, I'd take one stop into Brooklyn well before it.

"I think Central Harlem will eventually be on par w/ Brooklyn Heights in RE values and possibly one day even exceed. It's closer to midtown, close to a lot of the UWS/UES private schools (many of which are in the high 90s close to the park), lots of parks"

But, more downsides...

Much further from other destination spots.
Inferior housing stock (some nice brownstones, but very inconsistent)
Overwhelming number of projects
No water views or anything close
Outside of living in the teens, no nearby park / promenade

And access to UWS/UES doesn't mean a whole lot, and it will probably mean even less in the future as the cultural shift continues downtown.

Oh, and I believe BH has more trains, and, more importantly, you would be near all of them. They're aren't as spread out as they are in harlem.

And, BH also has nicer adjacent neighborhoods, can't forget that (DUMBO on one side, downtown on another - coming into its own, and cobble hill, already expensive on the other).

"Yes, but all going to different places. Thats like saying Brooklyn has 10 trains, so transportation is great in Bushwick"

Exactly - the A, B,C,D, 2,3, and 4/5 take you anywhere you want to go in Manhattan. If you are in South Central Harlem (below 125th) - the neighborhood I was referring to - you're a within 5-10 minute walk from all of these trains. Brooklyn is much bigger than the neighborhood in question; you're not that close to that many trains in many parts of brooklyn. As for Hoboken, the Path does run up into Manhattan, but still not as many places as all those subways, it doesn't run as often (esp. at night) and that requires that you be in Hoboken near the Path which costs almost as much as many parts of Manhattan.

"You picked the southernmost destination neighborhood, and then noted its proximity to pretty much the northern most destination neighborhood. If its access to Midtown, weehawken rules."

Well, it's evidence that you can be relatively far from midtown and have pricey real estate; tribeca is the most expensive zip code in NY. And midtown - not lower Manhattan - is the primary business center of Manhattan (look at all the condos being converted in FiDi), so arugments that Tribeca is near lower Manhattan's busines district only go so far. The point is Tribeca is just as far from where many people work AND farther from schools once you get past elementary schools (Tribeca of course has excellent public elementary schools - something Harlem lacks, although PS 180 is improving rapidly nad Harlem has excellent charter schools - but also note that Brooklyn Heights doesn't have good public elementary schools and lacks Harlem's private school options) As for Weehawken, it doesn't have the ease of public transport, that's just ridiculous.

"Much further from other destination spots."

For young 20s nightlife, yes. No question - not even close ... but not for Central Park, cultural institutions (Lincoln Center, Met, Museum of Natural History), Harlem's cultural institurions (Apollo, St. Nick's Pub) that should be lifted by 125th street rezoning, Columbia University, Yankee Stadium, all of midtown's cultural institutions (just as close as LES/Tribeca)

"Inferior housing stock (some nice brownstones, but very inconsistent)"

Many are not renovated yet .. this will take time. But the raw spaces are beautiful

"Overwhelming number of projects"

East Harlem, yes, but not the part of Central Harlem I was talking about, except for the strip that ends on Lenox/6th. That strip is no bigger than the projects in Chelsea or East Village.

"No water views or anything close."
"Outside of living in the teens, no nearby park / promenade"

Morningisde park, central park, and Mt. Morris park are all there. Hudson River Park is being developed - will be very nice one day.

"And access to UWS/UES doesn't mean a whole lot, and it will probably mean even less in the future as the cultural shift continues downtown"

Again, for schools, parks, and restaurants, it does. Agreed - not for nightlife.
I'm certainly not arguing it's there yet. It's not nearly as safe as Brooklyn Heights or many parts of Brooklyn - yet. It doesn't have the restaurants. Yet.

But, for all the reasons I mentioned (parks, schools, proximity to midtown office buildings) I think it has great potential as a family neighborhood. Given how far from the downtown hotspots, I am not sure it will attract massive horders of college grads anytime soon - at least not who can afford to live downtown.

The approx. $7 Billion Columbia Univ. expansion over the next 20 years will help Harlem weather the economic downturn....and despite the economy, parents of Columbia Univ. students continue to rent apts and purchase condos for their children.

The Rhapsody is a beautiful building in a nice location....and close to the luxury car dealership (selling Bentleys, Ferraris, Lambos) located at 129th St and Lenox Ave. You should also check out 50 West 127th St(btwn Lenox Ave and 5th Ave) which is right up the block from the Rhapsody...nice building with Sylvia's right around the corner.

dont count on the columbia expansion -- if the markets tank they wont have any money to expand -- the cost of their expansion is roughly equal to their entire endowment

dg156 and I agree on the effect of the Columbia expansion. Although I don't know how that exotic car dealership will do in this economy. I am also not so convinced that as many parents of Columbia Univ. students will buy condos for their kids- as bank lending standards have changed. I am seeing Columbia students everywhere now, and I surely didn't see them 3 years ago when I signed the contract for my apartment. Restaurant Row is picking up steam (I saw one of the restaurants featuresd on tonight's 5 pm news on Channel 7) in the former uptown meatpacking district- my dad literally ran for his life from this neighborhood back in the early 70's- what a dramatic change.

I am very familiar with the Langston (I live closer to 145th and Broadway). I have very mixed feelings about that area. While there are several large new buildings in the neighborhood, there are also LOTS of housing projects nearby. The Pathmark over there is massive with a pretty decent selection and wide aisles, but be prepared to wait on the checkout lines forever (don't buy ice cream unless you are certain the checkouts are clear). I have tried going there during a weekday during the day, at night, weekends...it's always been the same. I haven't tried early mornings, maybe the checkout lines would move for a change. If you check out Yelp.com you will see simiilar reviews for that Pathmark.

I live near 147th and Broadway in West Harlem and the Langston is Central Harlem...not far, but far enough that I don't spend a lot of time around there. I looked at the Langston after I bought my place, just out of curiosity, and briefly considered selling my apartment for one in the Langston, but ultimately, I was turned off by the density of the housing projects nearby and dealing with that long steep hill to get to the subway every day. On the plus side to that area is that there are even more new construction condo's going up in that area- I believe these are mostly aimed at an afforable level starting in the 350k range. Homes costing 350k might be low income by many New Yorker standards- but these are still likely to be people earning in the 100k/year range. Also to be noted- in the Bronx, just over the 145th Street bridge (which is not far from the Langston) they are building a massive retail complex with a BJ's wholesale club, Target and lots of other retail. I have a Costco membership, but I would gladly shift to BJ's since it will be only a few minute bus ride away. Little by little you are starting to see the retail situation improve around 145th St...such as a little juice bar that recently opened at 145th and St. Nichloas or the ancient pharmacy at 145th and Amsterdam that repainted the store's sign and improved their window display. I imagine that the Juice Bar won't survive long, but it's ususally the pioneering stores that come in a little premature.

Prices will go down here, but let's assume prices slide all throughout Manhattan- this will still be one of the truly affordable areas left- and with billons flowing in from Columbia plus the businesses that will follow and have already started- long term the only thing stopping the growth would be a return of crime or a unemployment situation that batters the city worse than I can already envision. Hopefully all the inflow of new residents trying to protect their investments (we already know there will be less money for cops) will make sure that crime doesn't rise again.

BJW, as to the Columbia rezoning, I think the neighborhood priced in that it was a done deal 2 years ago when they already owned about 70% of the area. Prices peaked and now they are on the way down...at least for a a few years. I expect to be here for at least 10 years (but who knows) and by then you will have some of the new campus coming online. I know that not everyone agrees with me on the impact of the new campus, but I don't take lots of risks- and this is one of those risks I felt comfortable taking because I truly believe that this is a game changer for the area.

Whomever mentioned Weehawken, come on....I can almost agree with JC or Hoboken due to the path trains, but with only Ferry Service- no way is it on par.

sticky -

Before you buy in a neighborhood that is alien to you, I suggest you trying renting there for a year first. I moved to Hoboken a few years ago with a similar notion to yours: convenient transportation to midtown and a bigger space for the same cost as sharing an apartment on the UWS. I loved my apartment, but hated the inconvenience of not being able to make any spontaneous plans. While the commute was relatively easy during work hours, it sucked on weekends and late nights. Meeting friends in Manhattan for brunch became a big time sink - it took longer to get there and back than the brunch itself. And it would take forever to get back to Hoboken after an evening out. Despite my city friends' good intentions, it was a project to get them to visit. As soon as I could (a little over a year later), I moved back to the UWS.

I expect Harlem to be not all that different. I have a number of friends who moved to Harlem for more space. Some loved it (and those tended to be the family-oriented types with large apartments close to Central Park North), but others hated it and moved back downtown once their leases were up. And even those who love it don't feel 100% comfortable in their surroundings. They find that they are resented by the "victims" of "white" gentrification of Harlem and have had comments to the effect of "white people, go home, you have ruined my neighborhood." BTW, the train situation also sucks on nights and weekends - the B train doesn't run, the C is erratic, and the 2/3 trains often go local local- and cabs are expensive these days. It takes me overcoming a high activation energy to visit friends in Harlem, particularly the ones not immediately north of the park but in the 140s and 150s. That being said, if you put a gun to my head and said I had to move to Harlem, I would choose the area immediately north of the park around Frederick Douglass. I have seen the neighborhood improve vastly (it's cleaner, more affluent, and has more conveniences) in the last 2-3 years, although I don't feel entirely comfortable around certain blocks.

As others have said, if you are to go in do it with your eyes open. The improvements to Harlem may stagnate or even reverse themselves for a while with the economy tanking. If you rented for a year, you would get a feel for the neighborhood and if you find yourself liking it there you can buy then. If you are tempted by the good deals now, you can probably find even better deals next year.

Good luck.

Joe - really interesting point on Columbia expansion ... funding may be an issue ..

Funding is not very likely to be an issue for Columbia's expansion. They're well along and ahead of schedule for their $4+ billion capital campaign, and history has shown that high-level giving to universities doesn't slow down during recessions (granted, though, what we're experiencing is more complicated than a simple recession). Provided their investments haven't tanked, they're okay. A worldwide recession would mean cheaper steel, concrete, glass, etc. A local one would mean more readily available tradesmen.

Moreover, the expansion plans call for phase-in over decades. Only a handful of buildings are scheduled for the next 5 years or so.

With apologies to those who've already read it: I've stated my view on the expansion's impact on the surrounding area -- not the necessarily the magic wand that many believe it to be, but certainly not bad for the neighborhood either.

The info on the car dealership was just an FYI for sticky....since it's close to the Rhapsody and 50 West 127th St developments.

I agree with renting before you buy - tons of nice rentals coming online right now as condos that aren't selling are being converted to rentals. It certainly can't hurt and I think it's fair to say prices aren't going up right now and are very likely to go down, so there isn't much opportunity cost.

Also would live in the area above central park/south of 125th street (South Central Harlem or "SoHa") - there are some nice parts of West Harlem, but you're just far from the rest of the city to easily entice friends up there. Cab fares to South Central Harlem aren't terrible - I just took a cab there this a.m. from the East Village and it was $15. I took the subway back (B/D) and it took me 20 minutes, including waiting for the subway (I personally have never had a problem with them running on weekends in Harlem, late nights may be different, but I don't take subways late at night anyway).

Personally I am curious what the effect of this recession will be on 125th street rezoning - I think this is far more critical to Harlem's future than Columbia Expansion which is pretty small (just a few acres really) in comparison to the rezoning of the entire street and building apartments and retail.
Just wonder how many developers will bid on space in this environment. But Bloomberg seems committed to it and will give tax breaks, so I think it does get done, it'll just take longer.

In response to the original question, yes I would consider living in the S. W. quadrant of Harlem. One does need to be careful, but over the years the area has decidedly improved. Curiously, the police think that 112-114 is still plagued by gangs and drugs -so proximity to Central Park does not necessarily translate into current safety. There have been 6 shootings in that area in the last month or 2.
Block by block variations are still a factor.
However, in many respects, relative to the current level of gentrification the area is still overpriced, as of course is Manhattan at large. In its favor are a number of new developments of variable quality that could anchor the gentrification and if they retreat in prie would maintain the gradient from the UWS.
Walking around in the area, I have run into both welcoming residents and residents who are rude and resentful. Unfortunate, since the latter behavior inhibts even those who may be keen to participate in and help with the community.
Of course, you also have to be prepared for dog and human poop on the sidewalks and other relatively unpleasant things.
It is an economic tradeoff, and the advice to rent in the area before buying is very sound.

I bought in Harlem about 6 months ago and even then got a good discount on the orginal pricing. I have been very happy with the area which pretty close to 145th. 125th is more of a rowdy area from what I have seen so better to be away from it. It's is a short trip to downtown and the fast train can get me down to the west village fast enough to shop italian food in bleeker street and be back swiftly. the pathmark is busy, but it is also cheap to get all your regular supermarket needs. You get more space for your dollars so if you want to have people around for dinner and people stay with you, its great. I'm not really believing its so hard to take 15minutes to get to a store restaurant that i like. well its always a tradeoff for real estate in a city unless you have many millions.Of course there is a more limited amount who think this way so it will take a while to really improve

"try getting your one night stands to roll with you up to - and perhaps beyond - 125th street"

Yeah, but think of all the big-booty new talent he could find!

ROFL. I'm gay. No big-booty hoes will be making money chez moi.

I'd probably get quicker drug deliveries living up there, though.

"Well, it's evidence that you can be relatively far from midtown and have pricey real estate; tribeca is the most expensive zip code in NY. And midtown - not lower Manhattan - is the primary business center of Manhattan (look at all the condos being converted in FiDi), so arugments that Tribeca is near lower Manhattan's busines district only go so far."

But that certainly wasn't my point. The majority of "destination" neighborhoods in my book run from soho up to midtown. Midtown is the upper extreme nowadays. Folks are choosing downtown over uptown, and aren't returning for anything. Dowtown is more expensive than uptown now, so I'm not really going to go with proximity to the upper east side as a value factor.

Tribeca is simply closer to what most of NYC is trying to be near...

Hell, Brooklyn is now more of a cultural destination that the upper east and upper west now...

> The point is Tribeca is just as far from where many people work AND farther from schools once you
> get past elementary schools

Except for, of course, the best high school in the country.
And there are more to come, certainly more top schools than anything going into Harlem....

There is an overflow, and more schools are being built. Few places are going to be able to complete with the schools in Tribeca, which has already given the UES a run for its money.

> but also note that Brooklyn Heights doesn't have good public elementary schools and lacks Harlem's
> private school options)

But cobble hill next door has AMAZING schools, if you are going for the kid thing.... You can be in the middle of kidland (whatever that park where the halloween parade starts) and be a couple blocks from Borough Hall.

> As for Weehawken, it doesn't have the ease of public transport, that's just ridiculous.

You can get to midtown in 20 minutes last time I checked....

sticky: "ROFL. I'm gay. No big-booty hoes will be making money chez moi."

You might change your perspective after a few months in the right neighborhood.
'yeah I'm a country boy, But that big city bottom fill me up with joy' - Bubba Sparxxx, "Ms. New Booty".

"Folks are choosing downtown over uptown"

I'm aware of the "hip" factor of downtown (I've lived south of 14th street for a decade) and have conceeded this point many times. But what is hip, by definition, is constantly in flux. Notice how the hot club neighborhood is different every 5 years. So it's not wise to buy on the basis of this generallly. One thing that will not change is this: NY's major museums, Manhattan's most famous park, best University, and elite private schools are not going to move. It's like I say - prewar is always going to be prewar, new construction is only new once. As I've reach my 30s and gotten married and have slowed down the things I did in my 20s - bottle service on 27th street, liquid brunches on the LES, etc. - I find things have changed.

Why? My friends have started doing the kids thing, and a lot of die-hard downtowners who used to brag about never going north of 14th street except for work, are regretting buying a place in LES or East Village or FiDi. Outside of kid-friendly Tribeca, the streets are just jammed packed (even in West Village), there are few parks, it's hard to push a stroller, etc. Yes, schools are good in West Village and Tribeca, but real estate costs a fortune. So, I find myself uptown more and more.

"Except for, of course, the best high school in the country"

Stuyvessant is excellent - but only one option - one that I am not sure is better than Trinity or Collegiate or other good private schools, which I personally would prefer to send my kids to for a host of reasons (mostly having to do w/ extracurricular and athletic options, emphasis on writing skills, etc.). Not saying everybody would prefer this. Just saying that Stuyvessant is only one option and not better to everybody, and that if you want to send your kids to Trinity or Collegiate like many UES families Harlem is closer to these schools than Park Avenue.

As for Tribeca is changing in terms of schools for older kids - I again mantain it's hard to create good high schools, and middle schools to a lesser extent, overnight - you need sports teams, respect from elite universities and connections, lots of teachers to have enough diversity of offerings. Anybody can create an elementary school overnight with 100 students and a dozen teachers and administrators. Not so with high schools.

I'm not arguing that Harlem is better than Tribeca for kids - just saying given that places are half the price AND that Harlem has certain advantages I have pointed out (parks, proximity to private schools, comparable access to midtown) - I see why families are going this route.

3) Cobble Hill has great schools, so do parts of UWS. Harlem is zoned for District 3 - you still have a shot of getting your kid into one of these schools, but it isn't your neighborhood school, just like Cobble Hill wouldn't be in Brooklyn Heights.

4) I don't know where the buses go, but if you are busing you are fighting traffic. The train takes you to Penn Station, which isn't that close to the real business center of Manhattan (40th-57th street, between 7th avenue and Lexington).

The point is not to say that Harlem is for everbody or better than Tribeca or West Village, which clearly have their own advantages and better amenities today. I'm just saying I think Harlem has a ton of good fundamentals, which I don't need to re-hash, and I think it will do very well long-term as many people with families who wants space will do their own "cost/benefit" analysis and say it makes sense for them.

I also will say this again - hipness is by defintion transient in its nature; old schools institutions are not. Downtown may lose its edge - and some people say already has - and while I am not ready to predict this because I don't think it's the most likely thing, it's possible that uptown could become hip ... as racial lines in this country blur (with a likely black president and whites to be a minority in the not-too-distant future), the uptown neighborhoods that have long been bastion of black and latino culture and already produced best-selling music could become hot .. witness restaurant row in West Harlem in the high 120s/low 130s ... artists buying lofts in the South Bronx ... I am not yet going to make this prediction, but wouldn't rule it out, either.

"Stuyvessant is excellent - but only one option - one that I am not sure is better than Trinity or Collegiate or other good private schools, which I personally would prefer to send my kids to for a host of reasons (mostly having to do w/ extracurricular and athletic options, emphasis on writing skills, etc.). "

Check the facts... Stuy has more sports teams and more extracurricular activities than either. And a whole lot more diversity.

And I'm not sure why you think there isn't an emphasis on writing skills at Stuy. Check the awards the kids win. Or the shools they go to. Stuy feeds more to Harvard, Yale, pretty much go down the list than any schools in the country... someone is teaching them how to write. You seem to be forgetting that half the entrance test is verbal....

Not to mention, there is a healthy share of other decent high schools right there. Economics and Finance seems to be doing well as well. Harlem, I can't name one public school that has sent a kid to an Ivy.

Second, in terms of private schools, are you really saying that the folks with enough money to send their kids to private schools will be living in Harlem? That to me is a *huge* stretch. Harlem has TERRIBLE public schools.

You say its hard to create new good public schools, but Tribeca doesn't really have to, and if it does, then I give them a better shot given the kids and parents already then than Harlem. It might be a socio-economic issue, but we're talking reality, not how it "should" be.

> Cobble Hill has great schools, so do parts of UWS. Harlem is zoned for District 3 - you still have a
> shot of getting your kid into one of these schools, but it isn't your neighborhood school, just like
> Cobble Hill wouldn't be in Brooklyn Heights.

As I said, just move to Cobble Hill then.... you can still be a coupld blocks from all the trains, and its actually a bit cheaper for the same fantastic housing stock. Possibly better. The historic districts (which are much of CH) are fantastic.

Bigger picture is, there is just too much to overcome in Harlem, and time just ran out... we're in a crunch. The cultural shift is moving further and further downtown and into Brooklyn, the most expensive neighborhoods are shifting down with them. I think Harlem just has waaay too many hurdles to climb, and I think southern manhattan and brooklyn already offer values making the harlem push make little sense for folks that don't have to be up there.

nyc10022, re: Stuy . . . were you on the inside?

Not everybody who send their kids to private school is ridiculously wealthy and snotty, so yes. One of my closest friends grew up in Manhattan Valley - very rough in the 70s when her parents first settled there in a brownstone, rougher than harlem in the 70s - and went through Fieldston as did her sister, and both her parents are Columbia professors. Plus, it's not as if park slope had good public schools when families started moving there, and you were a lot farther from private school options.

I'm not arguing everbody is going to move there or that Harlem is better than Cobble Hill - just that
it some real positives and long-term potential. Like all emerging neighhorhoods, it will take a hit in the short-term, but I think long-term it has a good future, especially with the planned changes to 125th stree, etc.

And again, let's be careful how we define cultural shift - again, what is hip and hot constantly changes ... not a wise basis for real estate investing necessarily... whereas iconic old New York things like Central Park, the Met, Museum of Natural History, Yankee Stadium etc. are staying put so there is certain value to being near these things.

sticky - back to you on this one, with your profile, very different from a parent with kids profile:

Don't buy anything with the necessity of sharing it with paying roommates. Buy something you can handle all your expenses for by yourself.

Do not be concerned about gay male 30-ish in Harlem. As for the commuting: NJ towns, no matter how closely they hug the Hudson, are connected with Manhattan via tunnels, ferries and ONE bridge. Those connections are fewer in number than the connections with Bklyn, Bx and Qns. Put yourself in Harlem and it is difficult to underestimate the advantages of being on the same land mass. Should you wish to get to that terrific tourist destination spot known as Port Authority, from Harlem you can get there just as quickly as those NJ towns hugging the Hudson. But Port Authority is never going to be your destination.

When there are transit strikes, terrorist attacks, or the weather is just beautiful and you find that your contribution to a "green" New York is to commute via sneakers, Harlem is a hike from Midtown that most people guffaw at as "crazy," but which I can assure you from having down it many times is no big deal. If you walking or biking or cabbing to destinations around Manhattan Island south of 96th Street, you do not have to go through any one bottleneck of car or train traffic, which you will find if you live in NJ, Bklyn, Qns, SI or Bx (less so in Bx, because there are so many bridges and Harlem River is narrower than East or Hudson Rivers).

So the traditional wisdom in NYC has long been that Brooklyn, Queens and New Jersey are easily accessible to anywhere you want to be, and that Bkln Hts is closer to downtown than Uptown Manhattan, that Hoboken is close to the Village, Astoria is close to Bloomingdale's, etc., etc., etc., but I would submit to you that there are nongeographical barriers and perceptions of urban decay and chaos that in the not so distant past trumped physical realities. I think this is what you're really asking here. Would anyone in your world live THERE? My answer is yes. And I lived in Park Slope when the houses on my block had plain metal doors with thick double chains and padlocks as entrances. I lived in Hell's Kitchen when there was trail of a fresh blood on the sidewalk of my block one night, when I stepped over vomit in my vestibule now and then, routinely saw people meeting their drug dealers on the landing outside my apartment. Your friends may look down their nose at your possible Harlem address, but I doubt you're going to live in anything like what Park Slope, Alphabet City, LES, Fort Greene, Hell's Kitchen or Williamsburg were like.

> nyc10022, re: Stuy . . . were you on the inside?

Yes. (And AP English). ;-)

> Not everybody who send their kids to private school is ridiculously wealthy and snotty, so yes.

Didn't say they were. But to rest the hopes of an up and coming neighborhood on expectations of residents sending their kids to private schools is a bit batty to me. Being near Trinity is not going to solve the schools issue in Harlem.

> And again, let's be careful how we define cultural shift - again, what is hip and hot constantly
> changes ... not a wise basis for real estate investing necessarily...

All evidence to the contrary. SoHo and Tribeca, fantastic investments in the last few decades. Artist brooklyn, fantastic investments in the current few. IMHO, they make the wisest basis for real estate investment.

BTW, as for your "I lived in bad neighborhoods, so I say Harlem is best", I've been here through the worst years, so I've seen crap and gentrification. I had feces (I think it was human, but it was HUMONGOUS) in my vestibule three times. I've been mugged 3 times (all 4 cases by 5 or more folks, not in the last 15 years though). So, I don't need to be explained anything about bad neighborhoods or good ones.

I just think Harlem has too many things going against it, relative to other neighborhood opportunities. I've seen what gentrifies well, and I think Harlem has too big a hill to climb, and its a little too late to make a big last push.

year?

is central harlem desireable?

Desirable by whom, and for what?

Central Harlem has certain streets with beautiful Victorian townhouses -- some classic brownstone style, others an eclectic mix of styles. It also has streets that are . . . less that way.

I prefer the little sliver of Harlem immediately east of Columbia U. and Morningside Park

nyc10022, I'm not sure who you're responding to by "I lived in bad neighborhoods, so I say Harlem is best", but in case it's to me: I certainly do not say anything of the sort, but I have pointed out just how bad some neighborhoods have been and now are very expensive. I think several downsides to Harlem have been pointed out, including schools, which sticky is not so concerned with. Geographical location I do not agree with as being a minus for Harlem, but people's opinions differ. Harlem in the '70s and '80s looked a lot like the South Bronx looked at the time - lots of burned out buildings, empty lots. You can still see a little of that up in the upper stretches of Madison Avenue and east of there. Crime can happen on the nicest looking of blocks. The gentrification of Harlem was already a subject of discussion in the last real estate boom, when people priced out of UWS were looking for apartments with views on CPN. The newer buildings in Harlem include expensive condos, but also subsidized housing with income limits. The newest buildings are all expensive. 10-15 years ago the types of buyers these condos are hoping for would not have paid that kind of $$$ to buy in Harlem. Buy you did have new coops on formerly devastated blocks for middle-income people. "Gentrification" means different things to different people, and it happens differently in different areas. The legendary artists who people have heard about taking loft spaces in Soho, Tribeca, Williamsburg, DUMBO, Columbia St, Brooklyn years ago were looking for large spaces and low cost. In those areas outside of Manhattan below 96th the changes were a little different from say, Soho, where art galleries led to boutique clothing stores, which led to Bloomingdale's. The young professionals do not move to loft areas the moment the artists do, but the university students and recent grads follow them pretty closely. Sometimes the hip clubs spring up, but they were light years into the future when artists pushed out of Manhattan were taking loft spaces in Williamsburg. After the hip clubs come, and restaurants and coffee shops, the neighborhood looks like a good bet for high priced condos. With Harlem, the expensive condos are spread out through a huge group of neighborhoods. There are no artists working on conceptual sculptures in huge industrial spaces in Harlem. But there are also not neat new rows of townhomes in every "gentrified" area as there are in East Harlem. There is no big hill to climb with Harlem. It's more a question of invisible boundaries being pushed little by little, a couple of blocks at a time, north from UWS and UES, combined with the scattered high-income housing projects attracting buyers looking for a 30% or more discount on new construction. Don't underestimate Central Park. Why should a rows of old brownstones two blocks from Central Park remain some exotic, scarey no man's land just because it's north of that invisible boundary line from 'good' Manhattan?

"Why should a rows of old brownstones two blocks from Central Park remain some exotic, scarey no man's land just because it's north of that invisible boundary line from 'good' Manhattan?"

That's exactly the point - beautiful brownstones most of which are less than a half mile from the park with easy access to midtown - I agree 100%, I don't see how that part of Harlem doesn't get there. I think just like Morningside Heights is now basically the same as the UWS, I think the line of "prime" Manhattan eventually moves to 125th street, especially west of Park Avenue.

NYC 10222 - point is by definition neighbhorhoods early in their gentrification stage rarely have good public schools, and the lack of that doesn't stop it, and the point is at least in Harlem (unlike parts of Brooklyn when they were gentrifying) you are near good private schools AND have better access to midtown (subways and easy cab access). To say nothing of the rapidly improving PS 189 and Harlem's succesful charter schools.

Of course SoHo and Tribeca were great real estate investments. But the point is hip and hot changes and to say you can guarantee that you know where next hip spot will be in 10 years is very difficult. It's true you can look at where the artists go, but once a neighbhorhood gets too expensive (and everywhere in lower Manhattan and many parts of Brooklyn are), the artists look elsewhere. Yes, some of them are moving farther into Brooklyn, but you have to go out pretty far to get good prices. A number are going to Harlem and the South Bronx, which I think offer better pricing than the convenient parts of Brooklyn (new construction in harlem I think is still a bit overpriced, but the spaces you can rent or by in older buildings are not). The point is, there is no guarantee that the cultural center of NY will be in downtown or Brooklyn forever- think about how much it has changed in the last 15 years. I think there is a guarantee that Central Park will always be what is is, so will the museums and schools that surround it.

A few points:

1. "beautiful brownstones" -- eye of the beholder. I love Victorian brownstones. I grew up on the UWS, which along with Park Slope exemplifies them. Federal style townhouses, as in the Village and Brooklyn Hts, make me sad. Pile of bricks. But others love them.

2. Don't think of gentrification as an inexorable march -- or even a fits & starts inevitability. within the shorter cycles, known logic fails to predict. But there's a bigger cycle whereby the whole city (or area) goes into a decline instead. As happened on the UWS, that can affect those neighborhoods that seem to have everything going for them.

3. Top private schools today require absolutely top-notch and deep-rooted connections for admission. Not so in the 70s, when quite a few of them went defuncto or merged; maybe not so in the future. But don't plan your life around getting in.

4. At least at HS level, NY kids commute from throughout Manhattan, and even from the provinces, by subway. Staten Island kids getting in late to school have to explain "I missed the boat," which is always true of them anyway. Some kids from the remotest areas of Queens take the LIRR. So Stuy in Tribeca is a non-starter, really. And Harlem kids can also opt for BS

5. There's no guarantee that Central Park will always be what it is -- it was recently a dustbowl, among other attributes. Its turnaround depended on a massive infusion of donated cash, mostly from financial services sources. When philanthropy dollars are cut, seemingly frivolous things like parks get cut more quickly and deeply than others. Same for government $.

1. Agreed granted in the eyes of the beholder (and I too am in your camp in that I prefer that style) but there are lot of beholders who like that style. Fact is a brownstone in Harlem costs 1/4 of what it would just 30 blocks South, and there are tons of people who like that style or who just like having space and will go with either style.

2. Gentrification is not an inexorable march. I have said again and again emerging neighbhorhoods get hit - which is why I've said I would wait a couple years until prices in Harlem fall and then buy. There is some possibility NY will totally reverse, but the argument that Harlem is going to be worse off than emerging parts of Brooklyn to me hold little water.

3. The top private schools in NY are difficult to get into, but not everybody who gets in has connections. Most people I know didn't have connections but got there kids into one of them - yes, they applied to a bunch, and yes, it's work. Frankly Stuyvessant is hard to get into too. As for "planning your whole life around this" the fact is that in MANY neighborhoods in NYC, there aren't good public school options, and this is something families all over NYC struggle with.

4. Yes, they can commute farther in high school, but still, shorter commute is better.

5. Central Park isn't moving. Will park budgets be cut? Probably. Will it become a crack den? You never know but I think unlikely. I think NY learned it's lessons from the 70s. As Bloomberg said recentely in an interview "maybe we'll plant a few less flowers in the parks, but we'll still police them and keep them clean."

There is always a risk NY totally goes the other way. You are taking a chance in Harlem, yes, but not necessarily more so than other emerging neighborhoods.

just one more point about predicting gentrification - Bruckner Blvd. just south of the Mitchell Houses is an area with lofts and tenements with artists having moved there for (emphasize the following word) cheap space, which you need when you make no money and you paint, make films, etc.

I do not believe Bruckner Blvd. west of Willis Avenue will be the next SoHo, with the beautiful people paying a fortune to have cool looking spaces above funky streetscapes and galleries and antiques. I think if someone were to buy there expecting to hit it rich by having predicted gentrification they would make a mistake. However, that doesn't make it any less true that that is an artists' area today. And I don't see the artists moving out to take spaces in downtown Manhattan because and when and if real estate prices fall.

About Central Park..... I think you can count on the parks continuing to be pretty nice, including Morningside Park and others on the west side of Upper Manhattan. There is now the private foundation money (see Sherman Creek, the new boathouse at Swindler's Cove, etc.) as well as it being a Mayor Bloomberg priority (stop the presses - Mayor Bloomberg steps foot on the High Bridge!)

We all have our "I wish I woulda/coulda" moments - mine will always be the condos on CPN. However, I still would not counsel anyone to buy TODAY in Harlem with the expectation of hitting the jackpot. Buy at a substantial discount from UWS/UES. Hope for a discount under '08 prices. But take Harlem for what it is now or don't go there.

alanhart - I agree with you on old architecture - I find Georgetown in DC the most oppressive, repellant place in the US. I call it Midgettown.

> but I have pointed out just how bad some neighborhoods have been and now are very expensive.

And there are some bad neighborhoods that are still fairly bad neighborhoods.

I absolutely agree that some neighborhoods have mae some incredible leaps, and probably more will, I just think that Harlem has done most of its "leaping" already.

> beautiful brownstones most of which are less than a half mile from the park with easy access to
> midtown

Sounds like Hamilton Park in Jersey city to me. ;-)

Seriously, I think part of the point is there. If in the biggest boom of all time it didn't "hit", I don't know if it ever really will... Neighborhoods are usually about critical mass, and Harlem didn't get the critical mass of gentrification waves that other neighborhoods did.

"Seriously, I think part of the point is there. If in the biggest boom of all time it didn't "hit", I don't know if it ever really will..."

This is a good point (I am not going to dignify the Jersey comment- maybe if you hit the express traings just right, but Harlem you can cab as well as subway), and I think the best one you've made. I've thought about this a lot ... I think there are several factors.

1) It started out from a lower point than many other places (such as LES and parts of Brooklyn) and was arguably the center of the crack wars ... it had farther to go.

2) Unfortunately, and most of all, racism ... Harlem is the symbol of black America, and the other neighbhorhoods that changed were not (Williamsburg had Orthodox Jews, for example). This is unfortunate, and a sad statement on where we are, but true ..

3) Until recentely, a lot of the housing stock is brownstones, which fit fewer people, so it takes longer to get critical mass. The condo thing didn't hit harlem until a bit later for the reasons I mentioned above. So there weren't that many buildings bringing in large numbers of people: SoHa 118 didn't get completed until a little over a year ago, the Khalari was just completed, Fifth on the Park is still being built. Many if not most of the previous developments were smaller. A lot of these still aren't occupied - it's bad timing as so many are coming online while the market is tanking.

Anyway, I actually think Harlem is okay now and it has kind of gotten there in many ways, especially relative to where it came from. As for the condo glut, what do I think happens? I think most of them go rental, and some developers chop their prices and sell for cheap. They may not like it, but that is the choice: sell really cheap or rent cheap; you can't unbuild it (I suppose they could stop construction on 5th on the Park). This is why I wouldn't buy right now. But, one way or another, they'll get occupied - I maintain, in manhattan, there is ALWAYS a price for rentals.

So I do think a bit more critical mass will continue to come - just at discounted prices and probably mostly through renters. I think some people will continue to buy brownstones especially when prices fall a bit more, because they are still so cheap compared to 30 blocks south. Unlike new construction condos there, which is only 25%-30% less than farther South, brownstones are literally less than half the price.

So, yes, short-term I would not buy - but in a couple years, provided that the city doesn't cut its police force in half - I think it will continue to march forward, slowly but surely. I wouldn't buy on the hopes of doubling my investment in 5 years (I think the days of buying on these expectations are over for at least the next decade); I'd buy because I could get a lot of space for the money, and settle in long-term into a physically beautiful, convenient, and I think friendly part of Manhattan.

For those that haven't taken the changes in Harlem seriously...here is a great comparison of Harlem in the late 80's/early 90's to 2007.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=149448

I personally knew the changes in Harlem were signficant, but I don't think it truly hit home until I saw the pictures in the link above.

I've seen that before .. it's fascinating ... that's the point - it HAS come far, and the other neighbhorhoods that gentried during this real estate boom didn't have to come that far. it's unbelievable, thanks for posting, I couldn't find it.

kspeak, I'll take reason behind box #2 - you nailed it, baby

kspeak, I think your points are well put, and definitely along the lines of what I was thinking.

I agree that there is definitely some 2) involved, but it takes a lot more than that. Too big, started from too far back, just a little too far away, and I think you hit it with the condos... I'm not saying racism isn't part it it, but I think its a little ignorant on the other side to not recognize the other serious issues.

Wahchu tal'kin 'bout Willis?*

The great.........Gary Colman

To me, it's not overt racism, it's more subtle - a lot of the people who wouldn't move to harlem would vote for Obama and never consider themselves racist - it's more that fear of walking down the street and standing out as a white person and thinking that makes you an easy target. The reality, of course, is there are enough white people there now so that you don't stick out that much (you are definitely in the minority). Plus, you are less likely to be attacked - my black friends who grew up in rougher neighborhoods say most criminals are aware that the consequences are unfairly greater if you attack a white person (look at that crazy girl in Hamilton Heights who people thought was missing - never would have been news if she was black).

Does Harlem have problems? Yes. But I still think location is good for South Central Harlem for all the reasons I mentioned. That's also not a big areas- but it's true that all of Harlem is too big to change quickly. In my opinion location, along with its architecture and its iconic status, is its greatest advantage. Plenty of people may prefer Brooklyn for the reasons nyc10022 mentioned, but I think a lot would agree with me about Harlem's locational advantages.

To me problems are:

1)SROs and restricted income housing .. to me the projects are less of an issue in South Central Harlem since it's only got that one little strip, but plenty of places in NYC have grown around this. But this slows it down.

2)There are a lot of churches, and since a bar can't be within 100 feet of a church entrance, harder for retail to develop

3)Everything I said before - racism, how bad it was - Harlem has an iconic status in this country. Even people in Kansas have an image in their head... a bad one in most cases.

Long-term I think it's iconic status (which has hurt it in the short term) will help it as people realize how much it already HAS changed and race relations ease and race relations improve with whites becoming a minority and a likely black presiden. Harlem's contributions to American culture - music, art, etc. - are already well known, and it's future growth should - and I think is already - celebrate this. Althought I would never buy right now, I still think Harlem has great upside, although the current economic crisis is going to be a severe blow in the short term

2) I didn't think of that, but thats a great point.

But I still think projects will hamper. Its not just the income issues, its that some of them are absolutely huge and cut off parts of the neighborhoods.

And schools, at least for a while.

And I have another... cars. I find Harmel an incredibly car-driven area, particularly given its location on Manhattan island. I know that not a lot of people catch that, but I think it can really slow down "village" living. I think Washington Heights is another area with a lot going for it, but the car issue really slows down development IMHO.

Schools are an issue in every developing neighbhorhood, and Harlem is making major progress here (some excellent charter schools).

Agreed about the projects and cars - in some areas. There is that massive strip of projects in East Harlem (and a small part of Central Harlem) that take up all of 112-115th. And cars do ruin that compact village feel - there are stores with parking lots in the 140s that ruin the feeling that you're in Manhattan.

That's why I think the area above Central Park and south of 125th will do the pretty well, these issues are less severe - not too car driven and projects end on Lenox (they are an eyesore and certainly will hurt a bit - but there are pockets of projects in Chelsea, UWS, UES too). I think any discussion of Harlem has to be pretty specific: East Harlem, Central Harlem north of 125th, Central Harlem South of 125th, West Harlem are all pretty different areas and cover a lot of geographic ground ...

I so agree with Kspeak. I feel in Harlem the energy I used to feel in downtown Manhattan a couple of decades back. Foreigners like me worshipped that spark of creativity in action that the city had, and many of us stayed. I lived in the east village and in Tribeca for more than 10 years, then moved with the kids to CT in 2000, like many others, and got terminally bored. Now, happily leaving overseas, I wanted to buy a pied a terre in the city, so I flew in last month to look at properties. And I preferred Harlem over any other option. The place has a life. It might be challenging, and a bit more risky, but it is a real place, possibly a hub for the post-racial paradigm, and it doesn't look like a mall, like most of Manhattan. When I moved to Tribeca it was full of seedy employment agencies and discount stores, they were horrible... And when I left it was becoming very trendy and yuppie. And when this happens I lose interest...That said, in the last few weeks I began worrying about de-gentrification, because I can take a bit of risk but I am not suicidal. And also, I might make a better deal if I wait...

Fantastic link to those pics of Harlem then and now. Anyone who didn't click on it above definitely should. Really fascinating.

And 'blech' to Stuyvesant. I went there for a year in the 90s and hated it. Transferred to Bronx Science and was much happier.

Neither school offers stellar writing training. True, I haven't been in high school for a decade and a half, but I highly doubt things have changed. One constant among public schools of all qualities - even the top schools - is that class size is enormous. There's simply no opportunity to provide the kind of time-consuming, personalized training a discipline like writing requires.

After going through the system, I came to the cynical but reasoned conclusion that schools like Stuy and Science are feeder schools for top-flight universities more as a result of the high schools themselves being magnets for exceptional students, rather than because the high schools make them that way. The learning environment, for those who choose to avail themselves of it, is excellent. Your classes are filled with kids who genuinely want to learn and have demonstrated the aptitude and interest in doing so their whole lives. Unlike other public schools, getting good grades doesn't make you a target for derision. Oh, and everybody who enters the school already knows how to read and count, which sets them apart from a significant segment of the rest of NYC's public school student body.

But for those who don't have the discipline, it's very easy to fall through the cracks. The teachers are overworked and assigned too many students, like teachers everywhere. And surprisingly, there is no 'elite' class of teachers assigned to the best schools; because of stupid rules like tenure, you are just as likely to have a burnt-out, whacked teacher in a Bronx Science or a Stuyvesant as you are at a Bushwick High. I was always astounded at the array of truly insane and even criminal elements among the faculty in high school. In the four years I was a student of NYC's auspicious specialized public high school system, I had one teacher kicked out for racism/anti-Semitism, another temporarily suspended for being drunk and making lewd comments to students in the middle of the day, a third fired for writing love notes to a student in a pile of tests she gave him to help her grade, and a fourth fired for being the national secretary of NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association.) And in addition to those, we had a number of others who were truly socially dysfunctional, way-behind-their-prime misfits who may not have been criminals or pedophiles, but had absolutely no business being in front of a classroom - particularly in charge of educating NYC's supposed best and brightest. None of this stuff was a secret either; everyone, both students and the 'normal' members of the faculty and administration knew who the whack-jobs were, but except in the most extreme cases, nothing could be done about their employment. At the beginning of each semester, you just hoped that the computer stuck you in some normal teacher's class, instead of the weirdos'.

And this was at Bronx Science. And Stuyvesant. The 'greatest high schools in the United States.'

You attended what I like to call Battery Park City High, which I can't comment on in detail except to say that it seems a mistake to have expanded the number of students when they moved there.

We had a similar range of beyond-insane teachers, but I think of it as sort of the "What They Don't Teach You At . . . " part of the learning experience.

And anyway, the John Stewart running joke goes more like "the National Association of Condo and Coop Realtors, or NAMBLA."

Oh, and of course you had a bad year there. You were "incoming".

My sophomore year at Stuy was the first year of the new building. The building was beautiful (much nicer than the FRIGHTENING building on the east side) but nothing ever worked. I don't recall the number of students having been expanded to a number greater than what they had in previous years. Like all public schools, there were 32 kids in a class, or whatever the number was.

And yep, you hit the nail on the head with the 'incoming' thing, which, I think, typifies the INCREDIBLY snobbish and elitist attitude that permeates that school, and was one of the primary reasons I left. I remember the entire sophomore class was divided into homerooms that started with the number "3", followed by a letter; thus, there was class 3A, 3B, 3C, etc. Except the 'incomings' - who were labeled with that pejorative appellation throughout the year. Incomings were in 'specially designated' homerooms that all started with '3J' (for jackass, maybe?) - there was 3JA, 3JB, 3JC, etc. Since your homeroom was part of all of your identifying information in that school, you were constantly reminded - and reminding everyone else - that you just weren't smart enough to make it in when you were 13, and had to wait until you were 14 to finally demonstrate that you had the smarts to make it in. All that crap might seem trite now, but when you're in your early teen years, desperate to fit in, barely stumbling through puberty and carrying the weight/stress of being in 'the greatest high school in the United States', having to constantly be reminded that you're an 'incoming' is truly demoralizing and exacerbates the situation.

I really, distinctly remember that and associate it strongly with the whole Stuy experience. There was such an attitude of elitism and superiority there that bled even to the stupid homeroom designations, and created two classes (literally) of students within the same school. I hated that, and escaped back to Science, where the kids were just as smart and driven, the teachers just as insane, and there was greater representation of Nobel prize winners and successful real estate investors among the alumni. :)

OK. Let's assume I'm ready to sacrifice a chic neighborhood on the altar of a cheap spacious condo with luxury finishings.

There seems to be 2 options. A doorman building with many units, or a townhouse with no doorman with only 2 or 3 units.

The townhouses are much bigger, and much cheaper to maintain. But I dunno ... not to sound like a snob, but in neighborhood like, say, 136th street & Lennox ... wouldn't a 24-hour doorman almost be a necessity for security? Or would a alarm system be all that anyone needs?

I think I could live with not having someone at the front desk to sign for packages. But knowing there's a person who can call the police or restrain some bum or burglar, that's a big relief to me.

Am I being paranoid or prudent? Is a doorman in the grittier areas of Harlem a real safety bonus, compared to an alarm system?

will the doorman walk you to the train, will the doorman walk you to the store? You say gritty, I say it's a bad, bad area.

SomeoneWhoKnows - I agree - as somebody who attended a well-known magnet HS school for 2 years in anothet state before transfering to a top private school, I has similar thoughts.

It was an excellent school in many ways, but with flaws: big classes, bureaucracy, lots of teams but not enough 2nd/3rd strings to let everyboy play if they want, less emphasis on writing, etc. Private schools have their flaws too and plenty of elitism, but you're less likely to fall through the cracks, I think. My private high school and magnet schools sent the same number of kids to the ivy league college I attended, but my private school was smaller, and I think the average caliber student at private school was slightly lower in terms of pure intellect. Maybe this is bad - makes it slightly less competitive - but it means my private school did a better job harnessing people's potential and "packaging" them for college. Of course, parents paid $15K a year for that privilege (now even more!), you had less diversity, so there are trade-offs both ways

Yep, you hit the nail on the head.

Private schools 'package' their kids for college better and probably offer a much better education. There's much to be said for smaller class size and individualized attention, and neither parents nor an administration with absolute power would stand for the kind of wholly incompetent teachers that permeated the ranks of the faculty at Bronx Science/Stuyvesant.

On the other hand, despite what admissions committees may tell you, a primary criterion for acceptance to a top private school is the depth of daddy's pockets. And even amongst the impoverished gifted who might otherwise be worthy of attendance, there's only so much scholarship money to go around. The public schools' admissions criteria are purely merit-based (although how well you fare on a 3-hour test when you're 13 years-old is probably not the best measure of scholastic aptitude, but it's all we've got.) On the whole, the caliber of student is likely to be slightly better in a specialized/magnet HS, but the education better in private school. Both end up sending a disproportionate number of kids to top universities, but the ideal secondary school environment would combine the best aspects of each ssytem.

I think that a doorman is a gatekeeper & all that you need in a nicer area but in a more gritty area you need to remember that this is a doorman not a security guard. Also, I love a townhouse but I think about mail, for instance; a package will probably be left on your doorstep & in a gritty area I wonder if it will be there when you get home; the same can be said about credit card bills which generally have all of your info printed thereon.

Exactly .. assuming you can afford both, you've got to pick your poison in, both have their tradeoffs.

Sticky - as for townhouse safety, it depends where you live in Harlem. It's block by block. There are some gorgeous blocks and some blocks with decrepit houses. Most people I know up there get to know people on their block .. much friendlier than downtown and will enhance your sense of security. But why not rent for a year first? You can rent a floor or two of a townhouse pretty cheap. After all, while we all may disagree on how much prices will fall, I think 99% of people think they aren't going up right now so there is little downside to waiting, unless you don't want to deal with the hassle.

Long-term I have no doubt from a buying point of view townhouses are better investments (although mostly only if you buy the whole thing - less true if you buy a floor or two as a condo) simply because they aren't making more of them and you don't have the "supply glut" issue.

sticky, doormen don't really provide security, other than of the emotional variety -- they provide package handling (which is a very valuable amenity). Additionally, if you check nytimes.com for community crime stats, you'll find that all the "good" neighborhoods have much higher crime rates than Harlem (especially the Village).

I'd rule out a 2-3 unit condo, and even more so a tiny coop, because you'll have financial entanglement with too small a base of people. One job loss / health cost situation and everyone's sunk.

Building on what a few others have said, you'd do well to get as much space as you can comfortably afford WITHOUT a roommate, for both financial and social reasons. You'll be trading off the longer commute and isolation, and inability to pop home after work and go out again, in favor of a bedroom-community bigger/nicer apartment, tranquil neighborhood kind of thing.

You might consider the Morningside Parc condo -- 49 units, no doorman, onsite super who handles packages (but isn't obligated to). It's 371 W 117th and 370 W 118th -- a few units were recently delisted after months on the market, so you can search using the box at top right, then consider an attack plan (direct contact with owners; previous listing broker; or your own broker) if you seriously like anything. And yes, the park across the street is extremely safe and you can safely walk through it during the posted open hours.

"Long-term I have no doubt from a buying point of view townhouses are better investments (although mostly only if you buy the whole thing - less true if you buy a floor or two as a condo) simply because they aren't making more of them and you don't have the "supply glut" issue."

Note that the premise has been true for quite some time, but the conclusion has not. There were absolutely times where townhouses did not do as well as apartments. My personal take is we've swung one way where they are, and we might see a swing the other way at some point...

RE: townhouses. More specific to Harlem right now than anything else; I wouldn't make this statement citywide, all the time (although I will admit to my personal bias toward townhouses). In Harlem, it's two things:

1) The relative pricing of townhouses is better. Townhouses in the BEST parts of Harlem that are rennovated are less than 1/2 of what they would be 30 blocks South .. but new construction is maybe 25% less. Townhouse prices in Harlem are like $400 for older ones that are still in very good shape (e.g. not shells) to $600 PSF for mint rennovated townhouses. I recentely skimmed the Eilman towhouse report and in UWS, UES, West Village it's starts at 1200-1500 and goes much much higher. From what I can tell new construction in Harlem is maybe 25% cheaper than downtown.

2) Tons of condos on the market in Harlem ... and a lot of those new developments aren't even being listed yet so we haven't seen the full extent of the glut. I recentely read about some fool in the nytimes who bought 2 floors of a townhouse in Harlem for $1.7mm - when you can buy A WHOLE TOWNHOUSE MINT RENNOVATED for $2mm (note you still have most of the townhouse disadvantages -e.g. no doorman!) Now, I think we'll see some more townhouses on the market soon too since there are a pretty good number in pre-foreclosure right now, but nothing compared to the hundreds of new condos. Yes, there's a smaller buyer pool, but there are just so few big spaces available in the city.

Part of this dislocation is due to the fact that financing for townhouses is hard to get right now - most are zoned as multifamily so it requires 30% down, plus you're past the conforming loan limit, etc.
But if there were a way I could be market neutral on Harlem - long townhouses and sohrt condos - I would do that in a heartbeat. But there is no way to do this, and I think it all suffers in the short term.

kspeak what is to be market neutral, pardon my ignorance? And what do u mean by long townhouses and short condos?

I think both go down but condos more than townhouses (simply because townhouses even before the credit markets got really bad require 20% down .. now it's much more of course) AND because lots of condos being built and lastly because I don't understand why their are 3 BR condos listed for the same price as many townhouses ...

I rented in the low 150s and B'way for 2 years. This is technically Hamilton Heights but borders on Harlem. Having lived in the area, I want to say:

1) Most of the time I felt safer there than I had felt in W'burg (South side), Astoria, or Hell's Kitchen (54th and 10th). I think this is mainly because I was right on Broadway, so even late at night there were always people around and it was a family-oriented neighborhood. Also, I was very close to the 1 line, and that train is crowded even in the middle of the night because a lot of people live way uptown off that train.

2) That said, I certainly felt somewhat self-conscious and on-edge a fair amount of the time in the neighborhood, and I never felt particularly welcome in the neighborhood (just FYI, I'm a fair-skinned, blonde, blue-eyed 20-something, so obviously I didn't exactly blend).

3) People's comments on the doorman situation are very true. I realized this after living at my building for awhile, and I would definitely consider finding out more about the doorman's security policies for any building you're looking at. For example, not to be sexist but frankly I feel more secure if the door personnel are male, especially at night. Secondly, find out if they have people sign in or not, and if they call up to the apartments or not, and also if they have you fill out any kind of form for overnight visitors. That may sound like a lot of monitoring, but that was all part of the deal with the doormen in my building in Hell's Kitchen and it made me feel much more secure than the very lax/casual policies of the door personnel at my building in Harlem/Hamilton Heights.

4) There was once a notice in my building about some burglaries at gunpoint in the neighborhood. This freaked me out. That said, I have a friend who lived on Bleecker Street for years and had something similar happen in her building, so I know it's not exclusive to the neighborhood where I was.

5) You might want to consider not just safety but comfort, as I implied above. Being a liberal, politically correct person with a diverse group of friends, I've always figured that I could be pretty comfortable in a neighborhood regardless of its demographics. This is true to some degree but I've also learned that I feel more at ease if I'm not a complete minority in my neighborhood. This is a really sensitive topic and I realize it may sound insensitive to say this, given the fact that there have been hundreds of people in the history of our country who've had to live in neighborhoods as minorities and had no choice but to deal with it. That said, if you're purchasing an apartment, you have some choices about what kind of relationship you want to have with your neighbors, etc. Also, I don't know which parts of Harlem this would be most relevant for, but I kept wishing that I spoke Spanish and if you don't already speak it, if you do buy in a mostly Spanish-speaking neighborhood, you might want to consider learning it. If you're not a native speaker, people may not speak Spanish back to you but at least you can show the respect and consideration of speaking some of their language. Again, this is not going to be relevant in all areas of Harlem. Then again, it might also be relevant in other areas of NYC besides Harlem (for example, the neighborhood of Williamsburg that I lived in when I first moved to NYC was mostly Dominican, so it would have been relevant there, too).

Hope this helps in some way!

"1) Most of the time I felt safer there than I had felt in W'burg (South side), Astoria, or Hell's Kitchen (54th and 10th). I"

What's more important... "feeling" safe or being safe? The crime stats point in another direction...

Its also not just "safety when walking". Of my friends in the city, most of the crime I know of has been break-in type, not street mugging. And some of that has been when they are home....

acm 34 - I actually own in hamilton heights, same area (low 150's and bwy). I feel the same away regarding safety - there are many areas that are dead at night downtown, not a single soul on the street. Yet even at 3 AM here, there are dozens of people who get out at the 145th st station, so you never feel on edge.

nyc10022 - I've lived in the area for many years and don't personally know anyone who has been robbed up here or had their home broken into (obviously, not to say it doesn't happen).
If I felt a real threat that someone could break into my house while at home, I would definitely not live here. Fortunately, I have never experienced that or know anyone (in all of manhattan) that have either. So for me, it's not just feeling safe - I am and have always been safe. Perhaps you should look again at the crime stats for Hamilton Heights over the past few yrs, it's very clean compared to the "getting robbed at gunpoint in your own apt" picture you paint. No matter how much harlem gentrifies, people like you will always feel unsafe there, despite actually being safe.

Although, ironically, as much as I try to convince people that Hamilton Heights is OK, I'm currently looking at a condo further downtown. There simply aren't enough restaurants (to my liking), better supermarkets (whole foods), etc. But safety-wise - I find no problems here.

Crime stats:

http://realestate.nytimes.com/community/hamilton-heights-new-york-ny-usa/demographics

vs.

http://realestate.nytimes.com/community/greenwich-village-new-york-ny-usa/demographics

Thanks for the links alanhart. I advise everyone reading this thread to look at them.

we rented in east harlem since there are a couple of new buildings going up and wanted to get a feel for the neighborhood. We tried to let the good over take the bad but after a year and ½ it was not worth it. Even being just a block away from the subway it was not worth it one bit. I don’t know how people who live like on 121st and 1st do it.

yes. on the south west, below the 120ths facing morningside park.

wouldn't consider the east "spanish" harlem and i can see a lot of potential on avenues like lenox. but still there are a lot trashy dilapidated little buildings that have to be replaced entirely and many others that need gut renovations. the "bones" for a great avenue are there though.

I'm with Mercuricoxide. For me the issue is food. We looked, and pretty seriously, in Harlem. Many things I liked, did not feel uncomfortable or unsafe (yes, hung around at night). Liked the community, the sense of promise. BUT, I do so love my Trader Joe's and Whole Foods. And I love the East Village and other points downtown for dining just as much. I just couldn't go from Peter Cooper, where the food scene is not very good but you are very close to much, to Harlem, where the options are few and the distances to the neighborhoods I like are great.

I think if they had moved more quickly on 125th I'd have a better sense of long-term retail, services and food potential. But now, with the horrific commercial real estate environment, I'd be worried about reduction, not growth, in options.

I THINK you meant http://realestate.nytimes.com/community/harlem-new-york-ny-usa/demographics versus http://realestate.nytimes.com/community/greenwich-village-new-york-ny-usa/demographics and yes, the point is that that and hells kitchen and MANY other parts of Manhattan below 110th have higher crime rates than Harlem. Basically, you are only safer in FiDi or BPC.

As for living there and getting a deal for below 1 million, OF COURSE you can, in this market. For SURE. The person who said above that you could not is a moron. However, the middle ground is renting there for a year (rents are falling there faster than in the rest of Manhattan.) MANY brand new condos are for rent in Harlem, or BOTH for rent AND for sale. Live there a year, and I doubt prices will rise by then. Plus, in a year, there will be even more oversupply of condos as new buildings are finished.

The best part of Harlem now is FDB from 100th to 125th. East Harlem is a whole other world, don't bother with that.

that's 110th...

We regret to inform you but, the Harlem revival has been canceled...

Again.

If you had actually been to Harlem in the 80s, and saw it now, you would not say that. Even if not a single new buidling goes up after the ones being built now, it is 100 times better than it was then, dummy.

I think the question is how sticky the changes will turn out to be.

I would as long as I could stick out this downturn, say 5 plus years. After that, I think Harlem will be the next best thing in Manhattan.

How sticky? Maybe if all the current ones being built or just built were ALL that happened for 20 years, MAYBE then it would look as bad as it did even in 1995. It was REALLY REALLY bad then. I COULD see the uptick stalling there, and in LIC and Wburg, sure. But the city is trhowing so much money and so many tax breaks up there, it will be a few years before we know. I DO think 5th on the Park and 2280 FDB are a BIT ahead of the curve, even for the optimists.

Finally, I doubt that even in the best case senario it will be "I think Harlem will be the next best thing in Manhattan." Hells Kitchen and the FiDi aren't even all the way there yet.

Harlem has much more to offer that the FiDi and even Hells Kitchen as far as a community and neighborhood. The question is, will it ever realize its potential.

http://zincplatepressblog.wordpress.com/2009/02/22/saturday-night-in-harlem/

This post (see also comments, esp those pointing to manhattankids blog)is an eye opener for any (including me) considering the Harlem area near Central Park and Morningside.
The area looks quite nice during the day, but the experiences of people actually living there suggest a very different setting at night.

Sadly, this is what will be happening more in not only Harlem, but many parts of Brooklyn and other areas of Manhattan. Times are tough now. Be prepared. Or head to the suburbs for "safety."

That blogger implies that the drug addiction of a few other people will somehow cause danger to him and his family. He seemed spooked, so my guess is that fear was with him all through the process of choosing a place to live and moving there.

He also calls 8th Avenue "Freddie D" . . . know what I mean?

No doubt, though, that area is much nicer from 116th to 123rd than it is south of 116th.