Today in W'Burg News.

mutombo, still doggedly avoiding my emails, huh? Oh well, was looking forward to your explaining your thoughts more.

mutombonyc

this is a smart and positive move....!

bjw2103,

I never received an email from you if I would of received an email from you I would of replied to you. I have already explained my thoughts to you on numerous occasions. You need to stop obsessing about my email address you have bigger fish to fry e.g. your property value continues to decline and you're not happy with your purchase. Stay classy and stop trolling you shameless hall monitor.

Fayek,

Please explain.

To avoid having the property go back to the lender a condo has to sell units....to avoid the FATE of the FORTE.....see my thread .......the Future of new condos in Downtown Brooklyn!

And if there are no takers which was the case in this developement, the condo gos rental!

mutombo, what a typical jackass response from you. Seriously, why did you give me your email address if you're not going to respond to anything I send you? I definitely sent you emails and there was no bounceback, so I'm pretty sure I got the address right (mutombonyc@yahoo.com).

Fayek,

Thanks for explaining. What if the project has a hard time renting units what's next?

Price adjustment!

bjw2103,

I did not receive anything from you via email, leave me alone you troll.

Fayek,

PA aka reduction in rent?

Yes

Fayek,

Plenty of projects have went rental, reduced rents prior to this project, why is this tactic good for this project?

Fayek,

Its good talking to you. Thanks for simplifying the many processes in RE.

It is the only option for the above developemnt! If it fails to sell and then fails to rent the project gets foreclosed....action that every developer wants to avoid!

mutombo, just sent yet another email. I think the only troll here is you, sadly. And not to get pompous here, but the fact that you're asking such very basic questions about real estate/economics and yet don't hesitate to blindly judge anonymous buyers/owners' decisions over the internet is pretty telling.

bjw2103,

Your tactics are despicable. I asked those basics questions becaused I wanted to not because I was unaware of the outcome for that project on the NS of W'Burg. You make yourself out to be a RE/economist guru if you were a guru you would not be the hall monitor of W'Burg with so many regrets. I did not receive yet another email from you.

bjw2103,

Your upset because I blindly judged you correctly over the internet about your superb decision to purchase because it was a great time to buy and now your suffering from buyers remorse because the market took an expected nose dive but not expected by you because your an educated consumer.

Fayek,

"this is a smart and positive move....!"

Smart might be...positive might be...only the future will tell if "this is a smart and positive move....!"

bjw2103,

You want to talk about "basic questions about real estate/economics" but have always ignored the laws of supply and demand which W'Burg neglected. Your hypocrisy runs rampant you are so agenda laden its not funny.

Now you still have to find people down enough on their luck to rent in Williamsburg.

Falcongold1

finding renters for new condos, should not be a problem!

Fayek,

Wishful thinking.

mutombo, I've always wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt, but it's clear you're just lying and playing the troll to perfection. I guess I should have picked up on it when you didn't know there was a Fairway (let alone 3 of them) in New York City. Good luck. Ah, the internet...

bjw2103,

I would never give you the benefit of the doubt because of your hypocrisy, lies, false information and delusion but your credibility on an anonymous blog is very important to you. I don't need luck you need luck. Fairway your a class act.

look at this one:
http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/441688-condo-1-northside-piers-williamsburg-brooklyn?email=true

what a haircut from the original price. did they really think they were going to get $1.3M?

meagle,

It will receive another haircut.

Poor poor WB. Like that kid from Jr. High who rode to school in the little bus, in gym you prayed that he mignt get out early in the game of dodge ball but, relished the moment when he was to be the last out whilst the other team, still populated by nuckel dragers, collected all the balls and prepared for the final moment. This is that moment for the WB. It will be just a short hop to the time when even the shinnest of hopes and dreams will be covered in unintelagible gaffitti and soot. Dashed are the hopes of a community who for one short moment was almost in range to grasp that brass ring only to miss and end up with a servere head and neck injury. What can you say to the terminally ill? Hope you get better?
For the WB it's Hospice time. Don't take this as an attack, just a diagnosis. If there were Obama death panels they would be nailing closed the coffin on this neighborhood.

lol where do these trolls keep coming from? wtf is "unintelagible gaffitti" supposed to be?

exactly!!!
better duck, I see a ball heading for your skull.

Fuzzyjizz, where in w'burg did you buy? And what planet do yo spend most of your time? And arguing with you would be like arguing with a dinner table.......

Lmao. No trolls, just a bunch of happy renters laughing at your silly re purchases in all the nabes that are going o lead to financial RUIN! Hahahahahahahaahahahahhahahhahahaahahaaahha

rock me amadeus!

"I would never give you the benefit of the doubt because of your hypocrisy, lies, false information and delusion but your credibility on an anonymous blog is very important to you. I don't need luck you need luck. Fairway your a class act."

Yikes, lots of misplaced anger mutombo. This is all a bit silly no? If you don't want to respond to the emails, fine; I just wondered why you were ignoring, that's all. Stay classy brother.

falco, what a strange bit of "analysis." Williamsburg will be fine in the long run; I've never gotten the obsession over its "demise."

bjw2103,

No anger here. Silly you tell me? I can't respond to an email I did not receive. Take your own advice brother.

mutombo, since you seem to be having trouble opening up my emails, why don't you send one my way first? My address is the same as my screenname here @gmail.

bjw2103,

At this point you play too much and I don't trust you. I will communicate with you here as you will forever troll.

mutombo, at this point it's painfully clear you're the one trolling around here. What a joke.

bjw2103,

Did you read the news? Yet another project in the NS of W'Burg went rental. LOL.

mutombo, I'm not sure what's so funny about that. More housing is a good thing for this city, whether it's rentals or owner-occupied.

how many gang related murders happened in W burg this weekend?

bjw103,

Additional transportation would be good for the city too.

"More housing is a good thing for this city"

Still delusional.

petrfitz,

The Guardian Angel aka bjw2103, knows he patrols the streets of W'Burg conducting neighborhood watch.

mutombo, instead of pointless name-calling, your comments might actually be useful if you explained why you think more housing is bad (ie: that we have a housing surplus).

bjw2103,

You are right "pointless name-calling". The basic laws of supply and demand. Lets rid the glut of inventory out there before adding. After occupying the inventory, make an assesment whether to building based on demand. Why continue to build and developments are foreclosing? I thought you knew that.

the glut is not good for housing prices, but like everything in life there are winners and losers. additional supply means lower rental costs, which is something this city certainly could use.

mutombo, yes, some developments are in trouble, but that has nothing to do with a supposed housing surplus. In fact, the more they build, the more people will be able to afford. That's the "basic laws of supply and demand." And there's quite a bit of demand to live in this city.

Good Day AR,

If no additional housing is built rents and property value will decline its called self-correction. Additional inventory will be a headache as the current inventory on the market a headache. The city can have lower rents and mortgages without additional housing being built.

Again, NYC has a surplus of housing, pricing not the only factor hindering the housing market, supply and demand and banking are additional factors hindering the market as well. There will always be a bit of demand to live in NYC but do all the high rises justify the demand to live in NYC?

'falco, what a strange bit of "analysis." Williamsburg will be fine in the long run; I've never gotten the obsession over its "demise."'

How about Detroit? Newark? Toledo?
In the long run? What's the time frame? I would imagine when The Standard Oil refineries occupied present day Williamsburg every time toxic waste was released into the ground water someone would say, " It will be fine in the long run". They probably said it every day. In the long run (our life time) the WB will remain a dump, sorry to say. There is no part of this city that I don't want to improve but, this one looked for a while like it had legs.
The bottom line. Three reasons to live in the WB.
1. You work there or near by and youre going to score a place to live at an unbelieveable price.
2. You are an aspiring artist and this is where you can do your work unmolested by high overhead.
3.In the time of chimpanzees I was a monkey
butane in my veins & I´m out to cut the junkie
with the plastic eyeballs, spray-paint the vegetables
dog food stalls with the beefcake pantyhose
kill the headlights & put it in neutral
stock car flamin´ with a loser & the cruise control
baby´s in Reno with the vitamin D
got a couple of couches, sleep on the love-seat
someone came in sayin´ I´m insane to complain
about a shotgun wedding & a stain on my shirt
don´t believe everything that you breathe
you get a parking violation & a maggot on your sleeve
so shave your face with some mace in the dark
savin´ all your food stamps & burnin´ down the trailer park

(yo. Cut it.)

Soy un perdedor
I´m a loser baby, so why don´t you kill me?

(double-barrel buckshot)

Soy un perdedor
I´m a loser baby, so why don´t you kill me?

Forces of evil on a bozo nightmare
ban all the music with a phony gas chamber
´cuz one´s got a weasel & the other´s got a flag
one´s on the pole, shove the other in a bag
with the rerun shows & the cocaine nose-job
the daytime crap of the folksinger slob
he hung himself with a guitar string
a slab of turkey-neck & it´s hangin´ from a pigeon wing
you can not write if you can not relate
trade the cash for the beef for the body for the hate
and my time is a piece of wax fallin´ on a termite
that´s chokin´ on the splinters

Soy un perdedor
I´m a loser baby, so why don´t you kill me?
(get crazy with the cheeze whiz)
Soy un perdedor
I´m a loser baby, so why don´t you kill me?
(drive-by body-pierce)
(yo bring it on down)
soooooooyy....
(chorus backwards)
(I´m a driver, I´m the winner; things are gonna change I can feel it)

Soy un perdedor
I´m a loser baby, so why don´t you kill me?
(I cannot believe you)
Soy un perdedor
I´m a loser baby, so why don´t you kill me?
Soy un perdedor
I´m a loser baby, so why don´t you kill me?
[repeat]
(Sprechen sie Deutche, baby)
Soy un perdedor
I´m a loser baby, so why don´t you kill me?
(Know what I´m sayin´?)

"In the long run (our life time) the WB will remain a dump, sorry to say. There is no part of this city that I don't want to improve but, this one looked for a while like it had legs.
The bottom line. Three reasons to live in the WB.
1. You work there or near by and youre going to score a place to live at an unbelieveable price.
2. You are an aspiring artist and this is where you can do your work unmolested by high overhead.
3.In the time of chimpanzees I was a monkey"

falco, ok, thought you might have something genuinely interesting to add. If you don't like the neighborhood, stay away (please), but if you call people "losers" based on the neighborhood they live in, I can only imagine how fun you must be at parties.

Sorry if I left the impression that the folks that live in the WB are losers.
They clearly are not. Those that over paid and bought into the 'WB Dream' from a RE investment standpoint are clearly on the loser end of that deal. The hood that initially showed promise has doubled back to it's low end roots. So why am I ragging on the WB? I actually took the time this summer to venture over the WB bridge to investigate all that this little seedling has to offer. I had been dazzeled by tails of this up in coming gem sprinkled with the elements that every lefty New Yorker dreams, Greenwich Village circa 1960, artists, intelectuals, radicals, coffee houses, alternative music.
My careful investigation yeilded non of the above. I witnessed a dirty over built hodge potch of unattractive new mixed with unattractive old and runed down. A neighborhood with a mixed population of unfriendly ultra orthodox Jews living in giant fugly block buildings with bars on every window all the way to the top floor (who are they expecting? Elijha or Spiderman) coupled with a low income hispanic population. Mixed into these groups are your so called hipsters, tattoo covered pierced wanabees living in prehaps the only place they can afford, not to mention, the lower hygene standards. Then there's the dreamers. I'm not sure that would be you bjw2103 but, seeing how offended you are by my reporting I would guess that I am ruining the dream for you. If you choose to live in the land of illusion let me say that I am sorry for shining the light on the WB. If you live in the WB, don't you think it might be your civic duty to warn others? Why should other suffer the pain you suffer? I understand, you will never unload your place if people like me keep writing the truth. What can I say to make you feel better? Your not that far from Manhhattan, the toxic waste under your feet will shorten you life but the part it makes short is the end, if you can write, have most of your teeth and, $35 I think they will let you be the Mayor of WB. Mayor bj...I like the way that sounds.

mutombo, good day to you also.

actually that's not quite correct when it comes to NYC rental construction. there is a huge demand for certain types of rentals, and literally no economic incentive to provide it. in recent decades it only gets provided during times of economic destruction. fine way to do urban planning, but there it is.

falcogold1,
I too have visited Williamsburg, but have done so every 2-3 months for the past 3 years. I have brought my wife and two girls there and have brought relatives there. And guess what, we are planning to buy there. We see a vibrant neighborhood full of youth as well as professionals. We see good restaurants. We see a significant European contingent. We enjoy the Eastern European flavor, the hispanic flavor as well as the Jewish culture that you can experience by walking around. I have read much of the negative views on Williamsburg, and despite that we cannot convince ourselves to hate the place. So try harder please.

"My careful investigation yeilded non of the above. I witnessed a dirty over built hodge potch of unattractive new mixed with unattractive old and runed down. A neighborhood with a mixed population of unfriendly ultra orthodox Jews living in giant fugly block buildings with bars on every window all the way to the top floor (who are they expecting? Elijha or Spiderman) coupled with a low income hispanic population. Mixed into these groups are your so called hipsters, tattoo covered pierced wanabees living in prehaps the only place they can afford, not to mention, the lower hygene standards."

falco, I'm not offended, I just don't find anything you typed to be particularly helpful here. What's your angle? Despite your "careful investigation," I think you missed a lot of what the neighborhood has to offer (and frankly it sounds like you spent most of your time in South Williamsburg, which has quite a distinct look and feel compared to the northside, not much of it good), but I'll be the first person to tell you that it's not for everyone. Few neighborhoods (if any, really) are. Your jokes are mildly amusing, but all of this has been done to death - you're like the guy at open mic night doing standup with knock-knock jokes. What's even "funnier" is that despite all the "toxic waste," cancer rates are lower here than in Manhattan. Yeah, there are issues here with supply, less-than-pretty streets, a potential transportation situation down the road, etc., but unless you genuinely want to advance the discussion, I don't get the need to go over-the-top and bag on the neighborhood.

Thanks LookPied and bjw for the reasonable discussion. I also think that WB has much to offer and will be fine in the long run. Despite the fact that some people would refuse to even consider living there, there are still plently of people who would love to do so.

To whoever asked, I currently rent in manhattan, so I have no vested interest in WB.

The following must be one of the dumbest things ever posted (courtesy of falcogold1):

"I actually took the time this summer to venture over the WB bridge to investigate all that this little seedling has to offer. I had been dazzeled by tails of this up in coming gem sprinkled with the elements that every lefty New Yorker dreams, Greenwich Village circa 1960, artists, intelectuals, radicals, coffee houses, alternative music. My careful investigation yeilded non of the above."

Anyone who calls WB a "seedling" or "up in coming" [sic] must be living in the mid-1990's. WB is no seedling, nor "up in coming". It's been here for a long time (much to the chagrin of the earlier artistic pioneers, not to mention the true old-timer), and is world-famous, well-established, and practically a brand name by now. If anything, it's past its prime.

So Mr. Missed-The-Last-Decade does a "careful investigation" of this "up in coming" 'hood and finds lots of Hasids, but no artists, coffee houses, or alternative music venues? I am sorry, Falcogold1, as bjw2103 points out, you must have been stumbling around far south Williamsburg, as all the things you were "carefully" looking for exist in abundance on the northside (and some on the southside too). Come to think of it, you might have been in a different neighborhood altogether. Check your map. And not the one from 1993.

"mutombo, yes, some developments are in trouble, but that has nothing to do with a supposed housing surplus"

Huh? Difficulties in selling have nothing to do with excess inventory in that market? Did they just overturn economics?

"mutombo, yes, some developments are in trouble, but that has nothing to do with a supposed housing surplus. In fact, the more they build, the more people will be able to afford. That's the "basic laws of supply and demand." "

But the law only works one way? Prices lower for buyers, but somehow developers/sellers aren't affected?

I'm totally missing you here.

nyc10022, that's conflating separate issues, isn't it? Some developments are in trouble because pricing is too high and financing isn't as readily available. At the right price, these apts will fill up. Just look at the rental building that leased out in a day on Bedford Ave vs some of these overpriced developments that end up languishing on the market and end up in foreclosure. It's all about pricing.

pjc, thanks, and wholeheartedly agree.

bjw2103,
I think your right...I'll stop.

nyc10022,

"Huh? Difficulties in selling have nothing to do with excess inventory in that market? Did they just overturn economics?"

I totally agree with you here. High prices + Difficulty selling = a surplus in inventory.

Overall, how is a surplus in housing good for NYC beside driving down prices?

bjw2103,

"At the right price, these apts will fill up. Just look at the rental building that leased out in a day on Bedford Ave vs some of these overpriced developments that end up languishing on the market and end up in foreclosure. It's all about pricing."

The building on Bedford Ave that "leased" in one day what did the rents go for? Was this building slated to be a condo?

bjw2103,

"What's even "funnier" is that despite all the "toxic waste," cancer rates are lower here than in Manhattan."

We all know W'Burg has locations that has been affected with toxic waste. Why would you compare a section of Brooklyn to the entire Borough of Manhattan? Where did you get those cancer rates from?

bjw2103,

"nyc10022, that's conflating separate issues, isn't it? Some developments are in trouble because pricing is too high and financing isn't as readily available."

This right here creates a surplus.

AR,

To continue building housing, do you think banks would make loans to potential developers?

falco, no worries.

mutombo, again, this isn't a surplus - people want to and need to live here; it's just been the prices that are out of whack relative to income. Though vacancy rates have been rising of late, they've traditionally been very very low in this city. The Bedford Ave/S 2nd St rental had prices from $1800-3300 for studios-2BRs. Those aren't stellar, but they're decent, which is one of the reasons it went so quickly. I don't believe they ever intended to sell the units.

"We all know W'Burg has locations that has been affected with toxic waste. Why would you compare a section of Brooklyn to the entire Borough of Manhattan? Where did you get those cancer rates from?"

You can compare to neighborhoods as well:
http://www.health.state.ny.us/statistics/cancer/registry/pdf/volume1nycneighborhoods.pdf
(Note that northside Williamsburg falls under "Greenpoint" for this study).

There are certain localized areas that have a history of industrial pollutants in Williamsburg, but to perpetuate the myth that it generally lies on top of toxic waste is to perpetuate ignorance, or at least to distort the facts.

In any case, here is info on cancer rates, by neighborhood, compiled by the NYS Health Dept.

http://www.health.state.ny.us/statistics/cancer/registry/vol1n.htm

mutombo, sort of like Tempo? i don't know williamsburg that well, but it depends on how much money has already been sunk into a development. banks are doing everything to avoid recording losses on bad loans, including offerring additional loans to the parties who have the bad loans in the first place. they are hoping that in a couple of years demand will be back. it's a crazy game, and it's crazier this time around.

i posted an article earlier today which showed that for the entirety of the 1990s 21,000 units were built in manhattan. supply is what has kept prices so high in NYC. this discusses manhattan, but it's applicable elsewhere as well.

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_39.htm#12
The difference between New York in 1950 and New York today, or between New York today and the high growth areas of the Sunbelt today, is housing supply. The key to keeping housing prices down in a growing local economy is to allow developers to build new units.[3] As Figure 1 makes clear, during New York’s earlier heyday tens of thousands of new units were built. Throughout the 1990s, there were only 21,000 new units permitted in Manhattan. In contrast, there were over 13,000 new units permitted in Manhattan in 1960 alone.

under normal conditions, with appropriate pricing, there would be plenty of demand for new housing in NYC.

"under normal conditions, with appropriate pricing, there would be plenty of demand for new housing in NYC."

Exactly - great post!

"nyc10022, that's conflating separate issues, isn't it?

Uh, that developers can't sell apartments because their prices are too high, and the market/buyers aren't willing to go that high?

These are separate issues, really?

A bit ironic that you mentioned supply and demand, which is the thing that makes these things *completely* related.

You are contradicting yourself.... it makes no sense that you are saying pricing on one side is unrelated to pricing on the other. Its one market!

Pretending they are unrelated is ludicrous.

> Some developments are in trouble because pricing is too high

And that they can't get a certain price has nothing to do with market supply?

Seriously?

> At the right price, these apts will fill up.

Yes, where the supply curve meets the demand curve. Of course, the supply affects where the supply curve is! Not sure how you are suddenly "forgetting" this part of the equation.

Your assertion that they aren't related makes absolutely no sense. The fact that developers can't get certain prices is completely related to reduced demand and increased supply (which you yourself named).

> Just look at the rental building that leased out in a day on Bedford Ave vs some of these overpriced
> developments that end up languishing on the market and end up in foreclosure. It's all about
> pricing."

> Some developments are in trouble because pricing is too high.. At the right price, these apts will fill up.

And market price is determined by.. the market!

Pretending that supply has nothing to do with that - when its half the equation - is a pretty fundamendal mistake.

> "under normal conditions, with appropriate pricing, there would be plenty of demand for new housing
> in NYC."
> Exactly - great post!

Technically, thats not true.

Demand reflects pricing, thats how you get a demand curve. Pricing just determines where on the curve you land. It (outside of a hair bit of psychology) doesn't really change demand, its just changes how many people act on the same given demand.

> i posted an article earlier today which showed that for the entirety of the 1990s 21,000 units were > built in manhattan. supply is what has kept prices so high in NYC. this discusses manhattan, but
> it's applicable elsewhere as well.

NYC building congress... 35,000 new units were added in 2008 ALONE. 2009 is supposed to be just short of thatm, 2 biggest years ever.

Yes, this is why now is different... its substantially worse.

"Pretending that supply has nothing to do with that - when its half the equation - is a pretty fundamendal mistake."

This is such a strawman, I don't even know where to start. I never said supply doesn't affect prices - I was arguing that there isn't an oversupply of housing in this city. I even said that the more they build, the cheaper housing will become! Crazy how contentious you need to be all the time.

Aw, bjw, you need to either look up what strawman argument means, or just read what you wrote....

"nyc10022, that's conflating separate issues, isn't it?"
"some developments are in trouble, but that has nothing to do with a supposed housing surplus."

> I never said supply doesn't affect prices
thats sounds like exactly what that says.

> I was arguing that there isn't an oversupply of housing in this city.

Except thats not what you said. You said they were unrelated, and they're simply VERY related.

> I even said that the more they build, the cheaper housing will become!

Which makes it even harder for the developers with existing projects..... which is exactly what you denied.

Mutumbo is right, supply issues affect dramatically, and we've had the largest every supply jump in history (so your new claim would also be wrong).

and let me document the rest of this...

"> I never said supply doesn't affect prices
thats sounds like exactly what that says."

you also said....

"Some developments are in trouble because pricing is too high"

When you say prices are too high is a negative effect on the developments, but the surplus has nothing to do with the problems with the development, you are directly logically inferring that prices have nothing to do with the surplus (or the logic makes no sense).

nyc, sorry but that's as pristine an example of a strawman as you could ask for ("pretending that supply has nothing to do with [market price]" is most definitely NOT an argument I've made).

Developments in trouble are hurting because they likely overpaid for land/buildings and construction costs, took out what have turned out to be troublesome loan terms, and were therefore banking on getting certain prices. It's the rampant speculation and expectation that prices would continue skyrocketing that got these developers in trouble. That's clearly not a supply issue. This is what I mean by your conflating the issues. Even blindly accepting the 70k number of added units - what is that as a percentage of the city's population? That's not even 1% over 2 years. It's a lot of units, sure, but it's not the catastrophe you make it out to be, especially when you consider that the city's population is expected to continue growing.

there's limited demand for $1300 psf units. there's limited demand for units in developments that might fail. but there's no reason NYC needs to be so heavily skewed toward rental. plenty of people would buy, at the right price. during the bubble we had increased supply and prices, now we just have overpriced supply.

from the paper i posted earlier:
Over the past 20 years, the price of apartments in Manhattan has increased twice as fast as the rest of the nation. This has not been the case historically. Between 1950 and 1980 real prices in Manhattan remained relatively flat.

This study finds that the difference between pre-1980 Manhattan and today is increased regulatory constraints on housing supply. From 1980 onwards, there has been a marked drop off in the number of new apartments in Manhattan—despite a growing economy, robust demand, and escalating prices. By restricting the supply of new apartments, these regulations exert a “zoning tax” on housing prices that is responsible for much of the high cost of housing in Manhattan.

btw, that was a 2003 article. obviously there was supply added after it was written, but the premise holds.

> nyc, sorry but that's as pristine an example of a strawman as you could ask for ("pretending that
> supply has nothing to do with [market price]" is most definitely NOT an argument I've made).

Except, right there in the second post, I addressed it there directly.

And, bigger picture, your claims were just wrong... that the developer problems had nothign to do with oversupply. That was mutumbos point, and you were wrong on that.

"It's the rampant speculation and expectation that prices would continue skyrocketing that got these developers in trouble. That's clearly not a supply issue."

And there it is, another mistake. If you think speculation has nothing to do with supply...

again, I just don't think you quote have the whole supply/demand thing down.

"btw, that was a 2003 article. obviously there was supply added after it was written, but the premise holds."

Except it doesn't really.

It talks about a marked drop off and constraints in housing supply, and they we had the OPPOSITE after 2003.

Again, the peak year EVER of adding apartments to Manhattan was 2008, and 2009 will be a close second.

10022, if those units were being marketed at prices consistent with incomes, and the bubble hadn't obliterated credit availability, they would sell. there isn't endless demand, but this is a huge city and we have quite the unusual rent/ownership ratio. and i say that from the perspective of someone who thinks it's fine to rent. but normal rental/ownership ratios are not found in NYC, and it's because supply was kept so low.

did we need tens of thousands of "luxury" units, small little overpriced boxes in the boroughs? of course not. so now the supply issue is grossly distorted, as we have supply that is relatively hideous to anyone not caught up in a bubble.

"Except, right there in the second post, I addressed it there directly."

What? It's a strawman, plain and simple.

"And, bigger picture, your claims were just wrong... that the developer problems had nothign to do with oversupply. That was mutumbos point, and you were wrong on that."

No - go back and actually read this thread. mutombo claims there's a housing surplus; my contention from the beginning is that there isn't.

"And there it is, another mistake. If you think speculation has nothing to do with supply..."

If either one of you can successfully argue that there's too much housing, please do so; to me, you're arguing for the sake of arguing.

"Again, the peak year EVER of adding apartments to Manhattan was 2008, and 2009 will be a close second."

And again, that's STILL such a small number relative to the size of this city. I know mutombo kisses your butt, but he's proven to be quite the troll, so I'm not sure why you're going out of your way to defend his statements.

> What? It's a strawman, plain and simple.

Only if you don't understand what a strawman is.

Here is is, your first paragaph on the topic:

"some developments are in trouble, but that has nothing to do with a supposed housing surplus. In fact, the more they build, the more people will be able to afford. That's the "basic laws of supply and demand." And there's quite a bit of demand to live in this city."

Shows a pretty clear lack of understanding of supply as it related to profit and developer success. Claiming that developer problems have nothing to do with supply is simply ludicrous.

> I'm not sure why you're going out of your way to defend his statements.

my response had nothing to do with mutumbo, if you had written that in response to obama I would have pointed out the mistake. It was a pretty clear mistake, no matter who you wrote it to.

"If either one of you can successfully argue that there's too much housing, please do so; to me, you're arguing for the sake of arguing."

Now you're changing the subject. But there absolutely IS too much white box yuppie housing, as AR has said. But you're still off the point, claiming that developer problems have nothign to do with the supply is nonsense.

> And again, that's STILL such a small number relative to the size of this city.

Only because you're making yet another bad logic mistake here. You assume that every housing unit gets exactly one occupant? Really.

VERY bad math there.

Not to mention, as AR noted, the units werent' dispersed among all types.... when the stock gets added to certain categorie more so than others, yes, that has had a great effect.

I'm surprised you miss this... don't you live in WB? Thats ground zero.

"Shows a pretty clear lack of understanding of supply as it related to profit and developer success. Claiming that developer problems have nothing to do with supply is simply ludicrous."

Two things: one, you're speaking in general, and I was pretty clearly speaking about the developments that have been in trouble in the area, and two, you're completely ignoring the factors I listed. There's been strong evidence that at the right price, inventory will clear pretty fast here (see: rentals at South 2nd/Bedford, 72 Berry, etc.). The developers' problems here are tied to pricing FAR more than any supposed surplus of housing (for which I've yet to see a truly convincing argument).

"Only because you're making yet another bad logic mistake here. You assume that every housing unit gets exactly one occupant? Really.
VERY bad math there."

I NEVER made that assumption. I actually assumed 2.2 people per unit (somewhat random number, but I think more than fair, esp since there are so many single people in this city) - it's still quite low.

"I'm surprised you miss this... don't you live in WB? Thats ground zero."

I'm not missing anything - I've always said there's a lot of inventory to clear here. Again, the problem is pricing.

You all have to realize when a factor does not benefit bjw2103, he will dispute it as hard as he can. bjw2103, must of been on the bebate team in H.S.

Did the DEMAND for housing warrant all of the SUPPLY we have for housing in NYC?

How was the Supply Vs. Demand formulated for NYC? There had to be some serious miscalculations here.

In 2010 & 2011 how many new developments will NYC have?

bjw2103, how do you say "Stay classy" whenever you reach your apex you're all but classy.

"Two things: one, you're speaking in general, and I was pretty clearly speaking about the developments that have been in trouble in the area"

Because the laws of supply and demand happen to skip the developments you're now talking about? Btw, you said "some developments" to start your point, hardly "pretty clearly" talking about specific developments. Seems like you're a bit off on both fronts.

> There's been strong evidence that at the right price, inventory will clear pretty fast here (see:
> rentals at South 2nd/Bedford, 72 Berry, etc.).

Yes, as I've said, supply and demand works like that. Cut prices in half, and you should be able to clear out excess inventories. That doesn't necessarily mean there wasn't too much supply in the category.

> The developers' problems here are tied to pricing FAR
> more than any supposed surplus of housing

A meaningless statement given that these things are tied. Surplus is all relative to price.
This statement doesn't mean a thing, because its just a move on the supply and demand curves.

Of course if you lower prices you "dry up" a surplus... in the same way that you create one when you raise.

That you pretend that these things aren't linked is your mistake... when they are completely interlinked.

"Again, the peak year EVER of adding apartments to Manhattan was 2008, and 2009 will be a close second."

"And again, that's STILL such a small number relative to the size of this city. I know mutombo kisses your butt, but he's proven to be quite the troll, so I'm not sure why you're going out of your way to defend his statements."

Your response was like a corpse unresponsive. The last part of your unresponsive response seems like your upset because nyc10022 is defending me, I'm not being defended, nyc10022 wanted to point out that you're incorrect which is not hard to do.

I agree, this had nothing to do with defending mutumbo, I'm not much of a "defender", but there were just some pretty clear mistakes in bjw's posts.

"I NEVER made that assumption. I actually assumed 2.2 people per unit (somewhat random number, but I think more than fair, esp since there are so many single people in this city) - it's still quite low."

Then it should have been calculated as relative to housing units, not population.

Not to mention, you're also making the mistake of assuming even distribution, which is NOT the case. 13% of apartments in the city are getting section 8 assistance, those should not be in the denominator. Or go by neighborhoods of development. Or $$$ classes.

Assuming you can spread the total evenly over the populace is a pretty fundamental mistake.

More importantly, pricing in the bubble was partially dependent on rampant undersupply. You don't need to get to oversupply to push for continued price decreases, only an increase in relative supply. You don't have to get to "lots", you just need to have less of a crush... and we have the biggest change in that in history.... and the price declines to match.

AR,

I heard about the Tempo (in Chelsea I believe) but can you give me a quick overview of the Tempo.

How long do banks go on before before they foreclose on a development?

furthermore, relating it to population changes. NYC through 2008 had a net loss of 1 million domestic folk. It was balanced out by births/deaths - about 500k net - and international inflows (which total about 850k).

So, one, thats a 4.4% increase over eight years! a half a percent a year, not so good....

And, when you look at the demographic... for the most part, the influx and births are coming out of communities that aren't buying in the areas that saw the big development.

So, I'm sure we'll have undersupply in public housing and lower-income areas, but in the areas that got the development, there likely isn't the population growth needed to support the prices and new supply.

So, oversupply in the white boxes!

(now, of course, Bloomberg might change that a bit with the public housing in LIC and buying downtown brooklyn apartments for section 8, etc., but I think that just proves the point)

nyc10022,

In addition, you shed great light on issues and back your statements with facts. Your sole purpose is not to argue but bjw2103 can bring that characteristic out in anyone.

mutombo, in a normal environment, not so long. today, who the f knows. really. it depends on the bank's balance sheets, their need for cash, their need for raising cash via stock offerings, whether they are already broke and owned by the government, what the government tells them to do. mostly it depends on their leverage. what will adding the losses to their balance sheets do to their leverage?

i used to read about the phrase "extend and pretend" all the time. recently it's been modified to "delay and pray."

"Did the DEMAND for housing warrant all of the SUPPLY we have for housing in NYC?
How was the Supply Vs. Demand formulated for NYC? There had to be some serious miscalculations here.
In 2010 & 2011 how many new developments will NYC have?
bjw2103, how do you say "Stay classy" whenever you reach your apex you're all but classy."

I don't know mutombo, was it "warranted"? As I said way back at the beginning of this thread, more housing is a good thing in this city. Are you really that opposed to it? It'll keep things affordable and hopefully lessen the "playground for the rich" effect that some had openly worried about. The miscalculations, as I've repeated ad nauseum, were in pricing, but it will be sorted out because people do want to live here, and a paying occupant is better than no one. I don't know how many new developments we'll have in 2010-11, but my guess is fewer than we've had recently. And yes, I happen to think you're a pretty strange and classless guy around these parts. You're also clearly infatuated with me - it's somewhat flattering but more creepy than anything.

'Because the laws of supply and demand happen to skip the developments you're now talking about?"

No, but I'm trying to explain a specific situation, and you're constructing strawmen left and right. Hard to have a conversation that way, huh?

"That doesn't necessarily mean there wasn't too much supply in the category."

So if things get snatched up quickly (in this economy and lending environment, no less), you still think that's indicative of a surplus? Thats a tough position to support.

"A meaningless statement given that these things are tied."

As JuiceMan said, you really are the most contentious poster here. All factors in the buying and selling of real estate are tied - you're now presenting tautologies to make your case? As if it's wrong to explain the immediate factors affecting the market here? Come on.

"Not to mention, you're also making the mistake of assuming even distribution, which is NOT the case."

Again, what's your angle here? It was pretty obviously a back-of-the-napkin calculation, and one that you haven't even offered an alternative to. The basic points are still quite valid - it's not a particularly dramatic number of added units given the enormous population and continued growth.

"So, I'm sure we'll have undersupply in public housing and lower-income areas, but in the areas that got the development, there likely isn't the population growth needed to support the prices and new supply."

This is even less scientific than what I posted earlier. It's steeped in too many generalities to be taken seriously.

"Cut prices in half, and you should be able to clear out excess inventories."

Oh, and prices were definitely not cut in half; they were lowered to reasonable levels.

bjw2103,

Housing thats occupied is good, housing thats unoccupied is not good for NYC. What is your definition of affordable? Currently, NYC has a surplus of housing and its anything but affordable, again, what is your definition of affordable? Playground for the rich, the way prices skyrocketed NYC would of been exclusively for the rich Brownsville Brooklyn included. Was it thought out where the bus drivers and sanitation personnel would live given the hyper-inflation of RE? You know those in the playground for the rich would not had drove the bus and fulfilled sanitation personnel duties. You are correct a paying occupant is better than no occupant, the reality of a lot of these new developments don't have tenants too occupy half there building being generous. I think your a joke, with plenty of regrets and I get good laughs from as your the joke of W'Burg. bjw2103, if you don't mind how old are you?

Yes, mutombo, and my point all along has been that these buildings will be occupied. No they won't all sell out or lease out instantly, but they will be occupied. I think you need to make a distinction between inventory and surplus - a surplus implies a sustained long-term trend of high vacancy rates. I have not seen a convincing argument for that. I agree, a lot of the housing here is overpriced - rents and sales prices have to be more in line with incomes (that's what "affordable" means to me anyway). I don't think that means we have to subsidize a lot more, just that the bubble needs to deflate sufficiently. If you actually take the time to look, finished buildings with a C of O are mostly occupied. You may not want to believe that, but that's a different story.

"I think your a joke, with plenty of regrets and I get good laughs from as your the joke of W'Burg. bjw2103, if you don't mind how old are you?"

Says the guy who is, for whatever reason, afraid to respond to my emails, and often babbles incoherently, anonymously, over the internet. Funny stuff indeed.

"No, but I'm trying to explain a specific situation, and you're constructing strawmen left and right. Hard to have a conversation that way, huh?"

Even harder when you still don't know what a strawman is.

"So if things get snatched up quickly (in this economy and lending environment, no less), you still think that's indicative of a surplus? Thats a tough position to support."

So, now things are getting snatched up "quickly" in Williamsburg? Really?
Thats funny, the stats show otherwise.

> It was pretty obviously a back-of-the-napkin calculation

A pretty mistaken one, yes.

> and one that you haven't even offered an alternative to.

Incorrect, see above.

> Again, what's your angle here? It

Angle here is simple... you are mistaken about claiming that oversupply isn't a factor in these developer problems.

> "Cut prices in half, and you should be able to clear out excess inventories."
> Oh, and prices were definitely not cut in half; they were lowered to reasonable levels.

You are missing the point here entirely. At *some* price, inventory will clear out. That doesn't mean you didn't have too much inventory.