New York Times reports newly minted Brooklynites returning to Manhattan

I think the Chelsea renter got a better deal.

That is hilarious. Who needs a sink? I remember apartments with the bathtubs in the kitchen. Haven't been in one of those for awhile.

I always thought the tub in the kitchen was romantic. I once lost (and pined for) a walk-up on Stanton with blood-red walls and a clawfoot tub in the kitchen. Then I moved to Brooklyn because it was cheaper - straight up cheaper. But that was 1989! Now I have lots of reasons for staying put - but if I was 20 I'd gladly live in a cold water flat. That's what your twenties are for.

I don't do many rentals anymore, but I hope this article is a heads-up for Brooklyn landlords. As the gentleman above says, "concessions must be made."

Tina
(Brooklyn broker)

Funny, we just did the reverse of that - we're (very happily) back in Brooklyn as of last week. When we moved back to NYC from Dallas a year ago, we went straight for Manhattan - had to wash the Texas taste out of our mouths and we thought we were tired of Brooklyn, where we spent the previous 8 years. But after a while, we realized we missed Brooklyn and were spending much of our free time there. For us it's home in a way that Manhattan never was, or could be. I'm glad that the people who "settled" for Brooklyn are getting out. It expands our options for buying here in a year or two, and fewer hipsters and yuppies make the borough even more pleasant.

My wife says the same thing once in a while - "look at these places on the Upper East Side!" We don't want to live on the UES, but in many ways it seems more economical than our preferred neighborhoods in Brooklyn (BH, CH, CG, Boerum Hill).

How bizarre is that?

But yeah, tina, Brooklyn landlords should wake up. When all those downtown BK condos go rental, a market tilting slightly toward renters is gonna tip over.

As others have mentioned, I think the faster churn in Manhattan - and therefore more transparent comps - have it leading the market down as renters/buyers feel more empowered. It's only a matter of time before that same dynamic hits Brooklyn.

I moved to Brooklyn in the midst of the 1987 -1991 slow burn real estate crash. Yes, Manhattan rents were dropping, but Williamsburg was ridiculous (at one point I shared a $578/month railroad apartment on North 5th Street with two roommates). But I'm here now for the quality of life stuff you can't get at any price in Manhattan. Which doesn't mean it's better than Manhattan, it's just different. And - for the moment at least - still cheaper.

Tina
(Brooklyn broker)

I don't know about cheaper, Tina. The more I do cost analysis on the places I can get in Brooklyn vs. in Manhattan, the more I become convinced I'll be staying in Manhattan. I still mostly look in Brooklyn, but increasingly I'm finding more in Manhattan that's closer to what I want for what I can afford. Soon, anyway.

I absolutely love Brooklyn (lived there for 11 years), but I think may neighborhoods in Brooklyn are getting a bit full of themselves. Take Williamsburg, for example. By and large, it's butt-ugly, and requires a minimum of TWO subway trains to get wherever you want to go in Manhattan (unless 14th Street is your ultimate destination), and is about as isolated from the rest of Brooklyn as Staten Island. Yet rents in that neighborhood are higher than many parts of Manhattan.

I've been taking clients out of Brooklyn and back to Manhattan for a while. If you aren't totally committed to Brooklyn, especially if you're buying a studio or one bedroom, chances are you can find a good deal in Manhattan. It may be smaller, it may not have a sink in the bathroom, but the monthlies will be on par with a studio in Brooklyn Heights or Park Slope. And if, like evnyc, you never left Manhattan, it's hard to see what would draw you to Brooklyn at this nanosecond in our economy. There are great deals to be had in Manhattan. Why not?

The funny thing is, lots of people don't want to leave Brooklyn. Williamsburg has always been ugly, but if you like a big sky and an industrial waterfront (I'm from a bombed out industrial town in Western New York, and the old brick of the 'burg always made me feel at home) then it beats the Union Square area any day. And lots of folks have built a social life in Brooklyn that they'll have to reverse commute to access if they move back to "the city."

I think the good news for everyone is that if you still have a job, the life you envisioned for yourself when you moved to New York may be closer to your grasp. It's just that some of us pictured a life you can only find in Brooklyn. Or we started with other dreams and then revised them till they bear no resemblance to the originals. (Which is probably why I don't work at the Whitney and eat butt naked at the bar at Cafe Luxembourg, which is what my subscription to Interview Magazine in 1986 seemed to promise me...)

Tina
(Brooklyn broker)

No sink in the bathroom? Yuck. Deal breaker.

Tina, Interview Magazine, that takes me back. Today's New York City life envisioned is more of a "Sex and the City" fantasy. I prefer the Interview and Project X days myself...

When I as looking for apartments, the difference between Brooklyn and Manhattan was approximately this: 550-600 s/f 1-bedroom for $2600 a month (elevator, renovated kitchen and laundry being the nonnegotiable factors) or an 800 s/f apartment with 2 free months of rent bringing my rent down to $2650 a month. Plus I could rely on the subway service to get to work. And, Tina, the vast majority of my friends are in Brooklyn. Some of them move it, some of them feel mixed about it, but consequently I spend a lot of time there. As long as there's no significant savings on rent or to buy, I'll keep browsing but see no significant draw.

Durh, "some of the LOVE it." Typo. Sorry.

When I was looking for apartments when I first moved to NYC in the mid-90s the difference between Manhattan and Brooklyn was thus:

- Manhattan below 96th Street (why would you even dream of going above 96th anyway??): Studios $1000, 1-bedrooms $1300-1500, 2-bedrooms $2000K, etc.

- Brooklyn Heights: Studios $750/month, 1-bedrooms $1000/month, 2-bedrooms $1300/month.

- Park Slope (for those who couldn't afford Brooklyn Heights): Studios $500/month, 1-bedrooms $750/month, 2-bedrooms $1000/month.

- Williamsburg (if you really wanted to save money): 2-bedrooms $500/month. Get a roommate and you're only paying $250/month.

Unless you grew up in Brooklyn, looking outside of Brooklyn Heights and Park Slope was unnecessary, and frankly dangerous.

evnyc - when I said "never left Manhattan" I didn't mean to imply that you never left Manhattan. Although I can see why you would read it as such, since that's how I phrased it. I should have said "never moved out of Manhattan, even when prices were at their peak."

As an indicator of how much things have changed, it didn't occur to me to suggest that there are people who have never been to Brooklyn. Although that was the case for many Manhattanites for years, I think those folks are in the minority now. I think we're in agreement - if you haven't built your life there already, I think there is little *financial* incentive to do so now if you're a buyer in the studio/one bedroom market, or a renter.

You can always visit. The trains run both ways.

Tina
(Brooklyn broker)

Sometimes! We'll see what the MTA does to them this summer. ;)

So is Manhattan the only good place in NYC?

Of course not. All of the boroughs have their charms.

"why would you even dream of going above 96th anyway"

Besides saying "to stay away from assh*les like yourself, I would say because for those of who work midtown, its ten minutes fater to AND from work each day than it would be from ANY stop in ANY part of Brooklyn for rents as cheap or cheaper than what you describe. And we don't have to ever give a taxi driver bridge or tunnell toll. And because that same taxi ride is almost invariably cheaper. And because we do not fear black people.

Jason, the comment about "why would you even dream of going above 96th Street anyway" meant rents were so affordable everywhere BELOW 96th Street at the time, so why bother living further away.

That's "farther", of course. My mistake.

You can get a brand new never lived in 3 bed 2.5 bath with laundry in unit in a 24-hour doorman concierge buidling with a gym in harlem for LESS than a 2/2 without luandry walk up in lincoln center. harlem is still a lot cheaper than below 96th.

^^^^---- Wow, defensive much? I agree with NYCMatt, above 96th St? Really? What a race-baiter-troll. Shakes head, ignores the douch of douchebags.

Well, I live above 96th, asshole. And could aford to live below but chose to have 50% more square feet and washer dryer in unit.

The question being "why live above 96th." The answer being more for your money, and I might ad a much faster trip to andd from work than not only Brooklyn, but than when I lived in Hells Kitchen (or if I lived on the UWS or far west village or Chelsea...)

Jason what't your prediction for Harlem re safety and amenities (like restaurants) fo the next 5 years? I am interested in your opinion.

I live above 96th (west) and I love it. It is beautiful, sandwiched between two parks, it is quiet, lots of great restaurants and people are easy going and nice.
Those people talk bad about above 96th St. probably do so because they have never been here because they are afraid for whatever reason they have. (It was, bad till the 80s, I clearly remember.) You should come up and walk around on a nice sunny Sunday like today. It is stunning up here, with all the spacious and gracious pre-wars that are long gone in other areas.

I did "serve my time in" Brooklyn between 2001 and 2004. It was before 9-11 and I couldn't afford the rent on 101st St anymore. I know a lot of my friends LOVE Brooklyn and live there by choice, but I did it just for the financial situation, so I personally hated it.

I don't take either side of Brooklyn lovers or Manhattan lovers. It is just that if there are someone like me now is the time to move back to Manhattan. Those who love Brooklyn, more power to you.
The bottom line is: are you happy where you are? And I am, and hope you are too.

Mimi, I think it will be at least 5 years. I have lived here for two, and seen it get possibly worse with places like Ginger closing. Its perhaps a reflection of the overall Manhattanretail slowdown, but other than two more Starbucks and NYSCs opening, I see more vacant retail not less. Its perversly because of all the new condos - they bring people with money, sure, but they also bring thousands of square feet of additional vacant space.

I lived in Fidi for four years earlier in the decade, and kept hearing it would get better, and it never did. I have been back many times and still its a dead zone. I lived in HK too, and heard from various folks that took over a decade. So five years is minimum.

However, I save SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much on rent that I can easily afford to eat further downtown and take a cab home whenver I want.

I think this just shows that a huge chunk of the people who moved to Brooklyn for the "culture" - "Manhattan is so tired" were just lying... they moved for the price, and now that they can afford it again, they're coming right back.

"Well, I live above 96th, asshole. And could aford to live below but chose to have 50% more square feet and washer dryer in unit. "

I think someone said that about Hoboken, too.

I've been up there hundreds of times and its certainly gotten better, but it would not be my choice of neighborhood. They're not getting rid of the projects, and it still shows...

With Brooklynites considering a move back to Manhattan, will this provide some price cushion on both the rent and buy sides of the equation? I am wondering if this could potentially create level at which Manhattan prices (rent & buy) will not go below as demand will be there from other areas. This would also cause more price reductions in those other areas as people come back to Manhattan.

Thoughts either way?

I think this means Brooklyn starts to tank as much as Manhattan has... then its a race to the bottom.

You know have 2 boroughs competing for the same people, who are now less numerous and less wealthy.

I've been thinking about Brooklyn sellers and what they must be thinking....

first, I think some number of them are not serious sellers. They rejoiced in 05 and 06 when their $150k apartment suddenly seemed to be worth $400k, and now they are curious if the market downturn is cutting into their profit, and ifso, by how much. So some portion of them are just testing the waters.

second, some portion of them believe, or want to believe, that Brooklyn was historically undervalued vs. Manhattan. This is not entirely unreasonable, but the problem is these folks have carried too far, and now believe that Brooklyn values will hold tight while Manhattan values sink like a stone.

third, some portion of them are so provincial that they are in denial about reality. They are the huge Brooklyn boosters, to the point where they think Manhattan is almost completely undesirable and Brooklyn is the best part of New York.

These folks in the third category could end up hurting their cause more than helping it because they come off as loonies. I can easily imagine prospective buyers shunning Brooklyn deals for many many many months, out of fear that the loonies have hi-jacked the market, and caused asking prices to be badly skewed in an unrealistic direction.

"I've been up there hundreds of times and its certainly gotten better, but it would not be my choice of neighborhood. They're not getting rid of the projects, and it still shows..."

It certainly is true of Hoboken, and BK, and LIC. So? If I could find the EXACT same apartment as what I have in Lincoln Center or the Meatpacking for the exact same price, would I move? Sure. But in fact those would still be more than double what I pay, which I could afford...but then I would not be able to afford to eat out at all those nice restaruants and go to those nice bars all so tantilizingly close. Or I could live a place half the size and go to a luandry mat instead of right outside my bedroom door to do luandry.

My 4k a month apt is a frickin palace by Manhattan standards, in other words.

What I find appaling is jerk-offs who think they are some how superior because they choose to live in a hipper neighborhood, as though I could not do so myself. I COULD, but choose not to. Nor am I or any of the other thousands of upper middle class people who live above 96th crazy, as other imply - as in "why would ANYONE live up there!!?!?!?" We chose more space and in my case a faster commute. It does not make you better or me crazy.

I for one would never do Hoboken myself - it would be 25 minutes more to and from work each way and too much cab fare late at night. But it works for some people, as does LIC, FiDi, or other cheaper places.

"I don't take either side of Brooklyn lovers or Manhattan lovers. It is just that if there are someone like me now is the time to move back to Manhattan. Those who love Brooklyn, more power to you.
The bottom line is: are you happy where you are? And I am, and hope you are too."

I totally agree. So much verbiage spilled over this issue, it's not really worth it. And to accuse so many people of "lying" about their reasons for choosing a neighborhood, that's just silly. Everyone's different and has their own preferences.

Yeah, I would say many BK people are like me, they want more space. or in the case of Brooklyn Heights or even Dumbo folks, the price is actually more than what they would pay in a lot of hip Manhattan neighborhoods for the same place.

I'll just third the recent sentiment -- to each his/her own.

Hey bjw2103, weren't you the one looking for a nice 1 BR rental in Brooklyn Heights? Did you ever find one? Our landlord actually rented the one in our building before our friends even had a chance to look at it. Jerk!

He's smart that way, though -- he underprices and moves things quickly.

However, if you're still looking, I hear there's a couple looking to move to San Fran this summer. Another 1 BR may be opening up. Again, we're on Clinton, a couple blocks north of Atlantic in a solid, but not fancy, townhouse.

"Dumbo folks, the price is actually more than what they would pay in a lot of hip Manhattan neighborhoods for the same place"

What "hip" Manhattan neighborhood do you think that a Brooklyn Heights place would be cheaper in? Are you talking Inwood?

Because the numbers just don't support it south of 96th...

Average apartments are very expensive in DUMBO, but thats because apartment sizes are very large. But the psfs cheaper in DUMBO and Brooklyn Heights, particularly when you compare like spaces (anyone think a doorman elevator loft condo should be cheaper than an unrenovated co-op)?

"third, some portion of them are so provincial that they are in denial about reality. They are the huge Brooklyn boosters, to the point where they think Manhattan is almost completely undesirable and Brooklyn is the best part of New York.

These folks in the third category could end up hurting their cause more than helping it because they come off as loonies. I can easily imagine prospective buyers shunning Brooklyn deals for many many many months, out of fear that the loonies have hi-jacked the market, and caused asking prices to be badly skewed in an unrealistic direction. "

Bingo...

"It certainly is true of Hoboken, and BK, and LIC. So? If I could find the EXACT same apartment as what I have in Lincoln Center or the Meatpacking for the exact same price, would I move? Sure. But in fact those would still be more than double what I pay, which I could afford...but then I would not be able to afford to eat out at all those nice restaruants and go to those nice bars all so tantilizingly close. Or I could live a place half the size and go to a luandry mat instead of right outside my bedroom door to do luandry."

Sure, and its a very logical compromise. But its still just that, a compromise. I've heard folks argue that the neighborhood is better because its cheaper... when really its just the opposite in most cases. Not everyone wants to spend all the dough on the hip neighborhoods, sure... but it doesn't make the compromise neighborhoods "better", just cheap enough to be worth what one is giving up.

Same way that pick a lousy car isn't better than pick a good car because it leaves you more money left over. Call it cheaper, call it a better value... but only better is actually better. Now whether or not the better is worth the marginal $$$.

Well, personally I feel that we spend so much (not just $$$) to live in this town, that I'm more in the "going all the way" camp. If one has to cross a river to get to where one goes most of the time... there are probably better "value" cities for that... (where you can spend less and not have to cross a river)

I'd much rather spend my extra money for other things. I think it's a compromise to spend more for an apartment and limit those life experiences that matter to me, i'd just be compromising on life instead of real estate. Now, if I had unlimited funds...

"I'd much rather spend my extra money for other things. I think it's a compromise to spend more for an apartment and limit those life experiences that matter to me, i'd just be compromising on life instead of real estate."

Absolutely a valid and fair point, but its also the same one tons of folks use to explain why they live on Long Island... or Westchester... or Kansas.

"Now, if I had unlimited funds..."

Well, I guess thats the real test of "better"....

>Well, I guess thats the real test of "better"....

nyc10022 wins.

unless the things you value doesn't cost anything... great health, happy disposition, the maturity and humility to accept financial trade-offs as the resultant of the "limited" resources of this planet, grt sex life w/ sig other or others, and happy kids are just a few on my mind.

I am no more happy now with my $80K 997 Turbo as I was in HS driving a POS Ford! Live for the moment and enjoy your little spot in life :)

I personally have never at any point said that Harlem is nicer or better than below 96th, except perhaps for certain blocks in HK and the LES. You folks, on the other hand have said "why would ANYONE live above 96th." And other threads people have literally said you had to be crazy to live there. So I simply answered the question.

People live in Hoboken and Kansas, too. To each his own.

> unless the things you value doesn't cost anything...

I don't think that changes anything. If the things you value are free, then you go and get 'em to your hearts desire. When cost is an object, folks make compromises. I was only pointing out that "if money were no object" can get you a clearer vision of what you value (over what just happens to be cheap).

well, this year i want three weeks in turkey, two in california, one in England and one in Hawaii (and maybe a jaunt to Barcelona, when my husband has to go for business). and i want to send my spoiled child to a very expensive private school. to each his or her own. both of those wants would drive some people crazy.

few people have unlimited resources. junkman, not a contest, but how did he win with my quote?

nyc10022.. I don't necessarily disagree w/ you on things costing more = better.... but like Aboutready, I'm actually really "tired" of looking at $10K bill for every little thing that I do... for goodness sake, I used to have $10 in my pocket and kept myself pretty well entertained and happy most days in the summer.... it's just when I looked at $10K monthly carrying charges.... I had this realization I spent that amount to backpack thru Europe w/ my girl for 3 months and was prob the best summer that I've ever had :)

Now I spend double that on a week to Hawaii w/ 2 kids and a nanny....

I summary, I don't think it's unreasonable to be successful and want the finer things in life but the RE bubble totally skewed what is "reasonable" to put your head down to rest... whether Hoboken, Kansas, LIC or w67thstreet....

aboutready, instead of thinking "what if i had unlimited money" think about it in the context of "what if it all cost the same". The amount is irrelevant, $1,000,000 or 10 cents. See 10022's clarification just above your post.

My daughter recently put forth the argument that everything would be better if there was no money and everything was free. But she's seven, so what does she know?

If it's just a matter of priorities, where I live with my family still matters to me, hugely. I work from home, for the most part, and spend at minimum 70% of my time at my house or in my neighborhood. If it all cost the same, I would probably still live in my neighborhood. Which is Red Hook, and certainly not prime anything, money or no money. But we love it here.

Given unlimited dough, I'd probably shoot myself. Okay, I wouldn't shoot myself - I'd just hire aboutready as my travel agent and enjoy more of the world. But here in New York, I'd probably stay put.

Tina
(Brooklyn broker)

the young can be very wise.

if you ever win the lottery, just give me a holler.

"I summary, I don't think it's unreasonable to be successful and want the finer things in life but the RE bubble totally skewed what is "reasonable" to put your head down to rest... whether Hoboken, Kansas, LIC or w67thstreet...."

Absolutely... 100%

"recently put forth the argument that everything would be better if there was no money and everything was free. But she's seven, so what does she know?"

Huh, my mom says the same thing. Only I think she phrases it more along the lines of "damn money!"

> few people have unlimited resources. junkman, not a contest, but how did he win with my quote?

Junkman hit it right in reading what I said... but, yes, while few people have unlimited resources, the exercise is still valid.

Asking yourself where you would live and what you would do if money were no object can be helpful in determining what you should aim for with what you DO choose as a career and what you DO spend your money on.

FBI crime stats from http://topics.nytimes.com/top/classifieds/realestate/locations/newyork/newyorkcity/manhattan/index.html

Where I work: (10022 - straddles Lenox Hill and Midtown East.)
"Total crime risk 140
Personal crime risk 249
Murder risk 171
Rape risk 86
Assault risk 198
Property crime risk 90
Burglary risk 74
Larceny risk 86
Motor vehicie theft risk 76

Where I live (10027)
Crime
Total crime risk 125
Personal crime risk 189
Murder risk 142
Rape risk 84
Assault risk 154
Property crime risk 107
Burglary risk 85
Larceny risk 125
Motor vehicie theft risk 79

For kicks, meatpacking district (where I used to work - 10011 - and a trendy place)
Crime
Total crime risk 141
Personal crime risk 218
Murder risk 140
Rape risk 85
Assault risk 221
Property crime risk 118
Burglary risk 97
Larceny risk 98
Motor vehicle theft risk 111"

Apparently, I am safer at home than at work or my old work, both of which are "safer" neighborhoods.

Now of course we all know BPC is far and away the safest in Manhattan, far safer than any of the above, but I post these stats repeatedly so as to show its a rational decision I make.

10022, well if you want to depress yourself thinking of things that are outside the realm of possibility (unless unlimited funds are in your future), you go right ahead. I'll keep doing my little cost benefit calculations that show me where to make my compromises to maximize my happiness.

thinking like that could have led me to marry that boyfriend I had who was at MS and later became an MD. some things money just CAN'T buy.

"10022, well if you want to depress yourself thinking of things that are outside the realm of possibility (unless unlimited funds are in your future), you go right ahead. I'll keep doing my little cost benefit calculations that show me where to make my compromises to maximize my happiness."

No reason you can't do both. I like to know what I want before I decide what to compromise on...

Yes, as I said way in the beginning, its called compromise... but you need to know the values to input to do a proper calculation.

nyc10022, i have a pretty good idea of the values. :)