Skip Navigation

An analysis of some psf trends from July 2008 to June 2009 using NYC data

Started by joedavis
about 17 years ago
Posts: 703
Member since: Aug 2007
Discussion about
I went over and analyzed the linear trend in real estate prices from July 2008 to July 1 2009 using the NYC real estate data (from the NYC site -- deleted all transactions less than $100 psf and over $5000 psf so that no strange things remain in the data I did this by category (as a regression of psf of the property vs the date and am reporting the slope of this regression) and by per sq foot so... [more]
Response by LuchiasDream
about 17 years ago
Posts: 311
Member since: Apr 2009

Thank you Joe. I found your analysis very insightful. It's posts like these that make this board worth coming to. I wish there were more of them.

Ignored comment. Unhide
Response by csn
about 17 years ago
Posts: 450
Member since: Dec 2007

Wow, great work!

Ignored comment. Unhide
Response by JDO1213
about 17 years ago
Posts: 2
Member since: Jun 2009

Great info. How about the Turtle Bay area?

Ignored comment. Unhide
Response by NYRENewbie
about 17 years ago
Posts: 591
Member since: Mar 2008

Thanks very much for sharing your research. It was very informative.

Ignored comment. Unhide
Response by Fluter
about 17 years ago
Posts: 372
Member since: Apr 2009

Excellent work. I am surprised by the UP findings in some areas. Murray Hill has been undervalued for awhile, in my most humble opinion, but why it should catch up a bit right now, I can't say (bargain hunters? Well nothing in Manhattan is really a bargain, so relative-bargain-hunteres) Why Soho and the Village should fall so much, while Tribeca gains, I don't know either. Of course, square foot isn't the whole story, we all know that, but it is important. Fascinating stuff! Thanks for your hard work.

{Manhattan real estate agent}

Ignored comment. Unhide
Response by aboutready
about 17 years ago
Posts: 16354
Member since: Oct 2007

joe, great stuff.

fluter, it could always just be a case of type of sales. more condos than coops, or more families looking to buy to obtain a spot in a decent public school (ps116, 234) rather than singles looking for studios, greater or less percentage of new development units closing.

the numbers are quite interesting, but at this level can only tell you so much.

Ignored comment. Unhide
Response by aboutready
about 17 years ago
Posts: 16354
Member since: Oct 2007

also, in the neighborhoods that have longer ownership trends, you have far more estate sales, and they really mix up things.

Ignored comment. Unhide
Response by NWT
about 17 years ago
Posts: 6643
Member since: Sep 2008

joedavis, where'd you get square feet for the co-ops?

Ignored comment. Unhide
Response by joedavis
about 17 years ago
Posts: 703
Member since: Aug 2007

Thx very much for the comments
Key one is that I should have explained 1 aspect better

There were a total of 17613 transactions. After I applied the criteria of keeping only those where the psf was less than $5000 and greater than $100, only 5943 transactions were left.
I had to do this to eliminate all the silly $0 and $10 transactions that are just transfers and all the divide by 0 errors for the cases for which no sq ft information is provided.
Unfortunately all the Co-ops disappear in the process of doing this.
My apologies for not making this clear to begin with.

So if you are focused on Co-ops this post has no useful information for you.
I suppose I could run an analysis on Co-ops only but then it would be hard to know what size of unit we are dealing with.

I am not a Streeteasy insider so if someone has the ability to download that sort of data, I'll be happy to run the analysis for you.

Ignored comment. Unhide
Response by NWT
about 17 years ago
Posts: 6643
Member since: Sep 2008

You'd still be left with no useful co-op info, as SE's square-feet are taken from the listing. As we know, those are useless except in very broad terms.

As it is, only 32 of the 79 recorded co-op sales for the last two weeks have associated square feet. (The other brokers wisely decline to include that number in their listings. That way they don't have to listen to whining from buyers who think they're purchasing carpet or fabric.)

Even among the 32, the number is meaningless. E.g., 4A and 7A at 330E79 both sold the other day. The floorplans and maintenance tell us they're the same size, yet one is listed at 1300 sf and the other at 1400 sf.

Ignored comment. Unhide
Response by hsw9001
about 17 years ago
Posts: 278
Member since: Apr 2007

For coops, some people normalize by the number of rooms. So instead of price per square foot, it would be price per room. It is not a good a metric as sq ft, but it is better than nothing. The idea is if your data set is large enough, the variations in different room sizes will average out.

Ignored comment. Unhide
Response by NWT
about 17 years ago
Posts: 6643
Member since: Sep 2008

Room-count would get you closer, but even then you're dependent on whether/what the listing reports. Of the afore-mentioned 79 co-op sales, only 51 include an associated room-count.

No clue how MillerSamuel does its categorization. Maybe they interpolate from the big firms, who presumably supply consistent data.

Ignored comment. Unhide
Response by hsw9001
about 17 years ago
Posts: 278
Member since: Apr 2007

I think Miller uses room count for the coop data.

Ignored comment. Unhide
Response by mimi
about 17 years ago
Posts: 1134
Member since: Sep 2008

Fantastic Joedavis!!! Thanks!!!!!!

Ignored comment. Unhide
Response by falcogold1
about 17 years ago
Posts: 4159
Member since: Sep 2008

Nice work my brother.

Ignored comment. Unhide

Add Your Comment