Manhattan IS different

"Wrong, our recovery has begun. Watch the 3rd and 4th quarter numbers for confirmation."

I already made a call for Q3 improvements and its not really a ballsy call because of the FIERCE DESTRUCTION of Q1 and Q2..so your comparing a seasonal market to prior quarters to build a bullish argument when those prior quarters happen to be the ones that defined the downturn in the first place. Not so risky of a call and wrong to call a trend by comparing qtr-to-qtr. instead, compare to Q3 of 2008 and Q4 of 2008 to see where this market is. Of course, Q12009 and Q22009 will ultimately be compared to on a y-o-y basis and it will be rather easy to beat those reports, that saw the MOST SLUGGISH first half of 2009 in the past 10 years

i am not a permabear. I am bearish when there is reason to be bearish, I am less bearish when there is reason to be less bearish and I will get bullish when there is a reson to get bullish. No where do you mention the state of unemployment or incomes for this city.

details. who cares if incomes are lower? who cares if there are thousands (some say over 10,000) shadow units?

what rhymes with poker?

ps: no doubt the media and brokers and executives will focus on qtr-qtr improvements as the foundation of a bullish argument for rising prices and that the bottom is in. In this industry, the data is often cherry picked so that it is always a good time to buy, even before the downturn began, the argument was that Manhattan was immune because it IS different in the following ways:

1. foreign buyers
2. weak dollar
3. limited supply
4. unlimited demand
5. sideline buyer theory that was dished out claiming this market had a floor of 5% down as buyers would rush in to take the deals

All of which has been proven very very wrong. Of course, people have ADD and no memory and now that the wave down happened, people forgive those that made those calls prior to the downturn. Instead, they focus on the improvements from the frozen period now. Funny how that works. Bullish before, bullish during, bullish after. You can always find a way to spin data to suit your agenda. Instead, lets look at this market for what it is - trading DOWN AT THE COMFORT ZONE BASED ON PRICE POINT AFTER THE PEAK AND PRICING OUT ARMAGEDDON AFTER OVERSHOOTING TO DOWNSIDE IN FEB/MARCH

midnight smoker?

dot.com

I always loved this front page story in NY Times in NOV 2007, right at the tail end of the PEAK of the market and when the credit markets already dislocated yet everyone ignored it and fiercely argued how Manhattan was different and foreigners would save us. Now those people deny their arguments and say they knew the downturn would come. Yea, of course they did. Where is Spunky?

Foreign Buyers Take Manhattan

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/realestate/04cov.html?scp=5&sq=foreigners,%20manhattan%20real%20estate%202007&st=cse

And of course this one in JAN 2008, with writing clearly on the wall. Nobody would even remotely discuss the possibility that maybe, just maybe, Manhattan can have a wave down equal to 25% or so from peak. Now these same 'experts' are calling the bottom and pointing to qtr-to-qtr improvements using the very weakest of quarters to compare to!

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/03/realestate/03real.html?scp=9&sq=manhattan%20real%20estate%202007&st=cse

“I’m not forecasting high appreciation,” said Dottie Herman, the president of Prudential Douglas Elliman. “I’m forecasting that the market will be flat” in 2008.

UD, I'm not making any of those claims (1 to 5)

Its not my intention to be more ballsy than yourself but some people are having difficulty seeing the forest for the trees at the moment. The elephant in the room is the motivation of day long pajama posters to drive prices lower by their collective efforts to drown out positive discussion.

i agree there are permabears on this board just like there are permabulls. But people on both sides tend to cloud their thinking with their agenda. Ive been on this board since Fall of 2007 and trust me, when we were trading at peak and warning of the expected wave down, we got hammered by the bulls!

A few were around, I know stevejhx had very similar views to mine and we explained why this crisis was different. When looing at the 'forest' or green shoots or whatever, I can help but look at the unprecedented stimulus and policies taken to avoid a depression. But people use that and not fundamentals to bolster their arguments. My main point is, few brokers and no execs predicted this downturn because of their sales agenda for their firms. The destruction happened. And now those same people will look at upcoming improvements on a quarterly basis to hammer home why they are right and its all cake from here.

watch! But I agree that some on this board are too doomy while others are too optimistic. Im still less bearish from uber bearish in fall of 2007 now that process started. This cycle can take years to play out and we can muddle and see relational growth spurts in between. I dont see us out of the woods.

i'll be bullish when housing prices fall in line with incomes. and then, absent a bubble, i'd expect a limited but reasonable rate of appreciation.

i've bought four times. quite the bear.

Nor am I vying for a return to the ridiculous moments of the past. Multiple bids, high leverage, "irrational exuberance" and so on. For many its either one way or the other -feast or famine. What about sustainability? Moderate levels of inventory, modest appreciation, sane lending practices?

"Wrong, our recovery has begun. Watch the 3rd and 4th quarter numbers for confirmation."

I wouldn't count your chickens just yet. I'm guessing the reports will be more positive (and Q2 was pretty bad, so this wouldn't be a shocking development), but I think we'll want to see sustained improvement, or at least sustained flatness before we can judge correctly.

"When have Manhattan real estate prices ever seen a perfect sustainable match of this metric? We deal in cycles and occasionally orbits will match but never for a moment believe equilibrium is a sustainable goal."

I actually agree with this. There are always externalities and market imperfections, so equilibrium is not a sustainable goal (which is why stevejhx's formulas sometimes leave things a little bit too pat). That doesn't mean prices won't drop to the downside at some point either, but you're right, it's foolish to wait for an exact number before pulling the trigger (though I have no idea how many people really think like this).

"The last 15 years has seen boomers wealth explode. Those who purchase are financially secure and able to put down large amounts of cash. Even small players (sub $1M) have demonstrated affordability and inventory has dramatically tightened. Those whose incomes and savings can't support a purchase join the rental ranks"

Yes, but there's been significant erosion of wealth for a fair number of people here. That will impact the market. I think some people overstate this, but others are too quick to dismiss it as well.

"Condo prices were heavily inflated to begin with. A slow leak of inventory (it won't be a giant dump folks so quit waiting for it) will effect a price leveling that has been slow to happen because of existing contracts on new development."

By and large I think you're right, especially on the releasing of inventory.

"The fact of the matter is Manhattan IS different and will break any perceived mold these experts attempt to create. The motivation of the bears to drive prices down to the point THEY feel comfortable with is evident."

Yes, Manhattan is different, but so is every market, to some degree. The more appropriate statement is that Manhattan is different, but by no means immune. There will always be a few people whose primary motivation is to talk down prices, but I think there's just as many who are here to do the opposite (as well as people who are paranoid/quick to accuse others of being one of these). I wouldn't worry too much though - permabears and permabulls are by definition wrong.

uwsmynabe, i agree with that last comment entirely. the problem is the feast is still on the table. and lending practices are hardly sane right now at the lower end.

ill say one thing, the diversity of the buyer pool and the depth of wealth of the buyer pool in this city never ceases to amaze me. However, pent up demand kicked in during May, June, July, and into Aug. I dont see that as sustainable and many listings were removed from marketplace in line with seasonal trends.

What concerns me is the FRAGILE state of the buyer pool. One shock, one big move down in stocks, or a double dip recession will lead to a very illiquid market again, that could define another smaller wave down in prices before buyers re-emerge. Ill get bullish on our markets when/if that happens OR fundamentals clearly turn around to support rising employment and rising incomes with prices stable.

You're right, UD - WHERE'S SPUNKY?!

people often forget the wrath against us in those early days stevejhx!

off to nawlins!!! yayyyyy

Question regarding shadow inventory...I know that many developers have started renting a large portion of their units. Are they able to have positive cash flow by doing this? Also, should buyers be wary of purchasing in a building with high rental percentage?

have fun down south. where is spunky? i'd like a few words with him also.

nyc_observer, tough to know if they're generating positive cash flow. You'd probably have to ask a developer or somehow get a look at their financial statements. My shot-in-the-dark guess is that they're covering a high percentage of costs at least, and possibly generating some positive cash flow in some buildings/areas. The only certain thing is that rental income is better than no income, and this will help some pay off their loans and stave off foreclosure.

As a buyer, I would definitely be wary of purchasing in a building that's got a lot of renters. Nothing against them personally, but they naturally have less of a vested interest in the long-term well-being of the building (physically and financially). Unless you absolutely love the apt/building, I would look elsewhere.

NYC_OB, there's a big difference between renting and putting on the market for rent. The rental volume is down 60% since last year. An empty condo for sale or an empty condo for rent is still an empty condo.

Noah... I hope your trip is UD 2.0 related, otherwise GET BACK TO WORK!

ha! nope...3 days of r&r and blues/jazz!

have a hand grenade for me... and a couple dozen at Acme. Man do I miss that place.. but not the mornings.

whats Acme? heading to french quarter. any good dinner/bars that i shouldnt miss?

got 45 min before I leave!

"i've bought four times. quite the bear."

aboutready, agree with all you've said here except this - having bought in the past doesn't preclude you from being a bear, I think. As Noah says, if you're honest with yourself, your level of bearishness/bullishness should be shifting as factors change. If you're a permabear or permabull, that's a different story, but then you're clearly not aware that markets move in cycles.

acme oyster bar... hand grenade at tropical isle.. all french quarter stalwarts.

bjw, i would have shifted but for the continued efforts to prop up the bubble. until the bubble is allowed to burst, at least significantly, and/or real incomes rise significantly to meet prices, i won't be a bull.

that doesn't mean i'm a permabear, in the slightest. i don't know if i'll buy again in manhattan, but that's circumstantial, based on age and employment and the potential desire to relocate, and i've never hidden that.

if i were 26 (the age when i first bought) i'd be far more invested in the eventual outcome, but my conclusions would most likely be the same. i've always been a fairly conservative investor. even as a child i saved 90% of my allowance. and bought my first car with my own money at 16, a classic thunderbird. good investment, even though i never got a driver's license. i made a pretty profit when i sold it a few years later.

what was i thinking, mustang.

steve thought the economy was and would be fine and that real estate would just magically decrease by 50%. I don't think that was your position digs was it? I'm confused on how your detailed economics analysis is comparable to a white paper steve produced on the state of real estate in Albany.

aboutready, was using the general "you," not pointing to you specifically (sorry for confusion), but what you say makes a lot of sense. The decision to rent or buy is so dependent on everyone's unique set of circumstances; it's refreshing to have discussion here where people aren't stamping their foot down that one alternative is clearly the "right" decision for everyone right now.

nice tropical isle! cant wait to see Big Al!

Any others? feed me!!!!

aboutready - When the bubble finally bursts, as confirmed ostensibly by the Post headline "Bubble Gon", where will we be then? The beginning of another frenzied run-up? Please play out the scenario because I'm not clear how your theory is supposed to work and be sustainable without a similar result.

By the way, you seem almost conciliatory when not worked into a froth by your contemporaries. I actually enjoy the debate when I get a rare opportunity to do so.

UD, well I love HOB if there is someone worth seeing there. I also, and don't flame me, love JB's Margaritaville Cafe -the bar/lounge part. There is usually some cheesy Jimmy Buffett knock off entertainer in there and the well oiled crowd gets into it.

btw - House of Blues has a great patio out back perfect for an afternoon bluesy steam bath.

Then let me please sum up the bull case:

1. Neither the history of real estate nor the history of NYC real estate have any relevance any more.

2. New York is uniquely desirable and people will buy here no matter what because they don't care whether they lose money.

3. Unemployment does not affect NYC real estate.

4. The shadow inventory will stay in the shadows indefinitely because all of those developers have deep pockets and can afford to wait for the market to come back.

5. What happens to the real estate market outside of NYC does not affect NYC, except sometimes it does.

Sorry if I don't find any of this convincing.

Is this your summary for THIS discussion or did you enter the wrong thread?

uwsmynabe. if you haven't been around for awhile i could see how it would be easy to decide at first glance that i'm an asshole/bitch/whatever. i have some definite opinions. last night i was particularly bitchy, sorry riversider. but do remember that sometimes you might have missed certain exchanges. and yours against me earlier wasn't particularly novel. i get it all the time.

but generally i'm very supportive. and i try to be helpful. do i think it's a much better time to buy now than 2007? absolutely. do i understand why many would find it compelling to do so? absolutely. do i admit that i have no need to buy, as i have come to terms with renting in PCV, possibly indefinitely? absolutely. and if falco or marco or julia or any number of other people asked me what i felt about comps, would i tell them honestly? absolutely.

but do i see further downside potential, and no real need to hurry? absolutely. do i listen to the post? no, and i didn't on the way up either.

malthus, the difference between UWS' summary and yours is that his isn't composed entirely of strawmen. Frankly, anyone subscribing to all those viewpoints isn't really worth arguing with.

really?

lets examine OP's original statement.

1. NY drop began long after the rest of the country therefore we will be last to recover.

Wrong, our recovery has begun. Watch the 3rd and 4th quarter numbers for confirmation.

OUR DROP CERTAINLY STARTED AFTER THE REST OF THE COUNTRY...NO DATA ON RECOVERY...CERTAINLY A PICK-UP IN TRANSACTIONS BUT THAT'S RELATIVE TO A RIDICULOUS LOW

2. Price to rent ratios out of whack.

So? When have Manhattan real estate prices ever seen a perfect sustainable match of this metric? We deal in cycles and occasionally orbits will match but never for a moment believe equilibrium is a sustainable goal.

EXAMPLE AFTER EXAMPLE HAS BEEN CITED WHERE YOU CAN RENT VIRTUALLY THE SAME SPACE FOR CONSIDERABLY LESS THAN PURCHASE WITHOUT CONSIDERATION OF ANY CAPITAL LOSS. ANSWER IS "PEOPLE LIKE TO OWN"

3. Affordability relative to incomes out of whack.

So? Manhattan is a center of worldwide wealth but predominantly a renters city. The last 15 years has seen boomers wealth explode. Those who purchase are financially secure and able to put down large amounts of cash. Even small players (sub $1M) have demonstrated affordability and inventory has dramatically tightened. Those whose incomes and savings can't support a purchase join the rental ranks.

SO...ONLY PEOPLE WHO CAN AFFORD TO BUY WILL? BRILLIANT.
5. Shadow inventory is lurking.

So? Condo prices were heavily inflated to begin with. A slow leak of inventory (it won't be a giant dump folks so quit waiting for it) will effect a price leveling that has been slow to happen because of existing contracts on new development.

SO SHADOW INVENTORY IS THERE BUT WILL BE SLOWLY (MEANING OVER 3-5 YRS?) BE RELEASED BECAUSE EVERYONE INVOLVED WILL WORK CAREFULLY WITH EVERYONE ELSE?

4. A return to historical period pricing is inevitable because of the above reasons. Lets see, they range between mid 90's to mid 00's depending on the which bear needs to hit a particular number.

The fact of the matter is Manhattan IS different and will break any perceived mold these experts attempt to create. The motivation of the bears to drive prices down to the point THEY feel comfortable with is evident. They are paranoid of any discussion which doesn't serve their collective goal. Look at ANY thread where someone attempts a remotely positive discussion.

MANHATTAN IS DIFFERENT?

Watch and wait... heeeeeeree they come!

bjw2103: Framing the other side's argument the way you would like it to be is bs and useless, except perhaps to make you feel better. That was the point of my post. With all due respect the difference between the original post and mine is that I conflated the arguments with the answers to save time.

yes, op just doesn't have the facts right.

1. The prices in the contract data for Q3 are lower than Q2.

2. yes, price ratios are rarely stuck in equilibrium... what you generally get is an OVERSHOOT. Pretending the extreme will last forever is a little nutty and not based in fact

3. Haven't we heard this before "this time its different". Economics stop working in NYC, right?

4. Not really worthy of a response, there is no logical argument in here. The numbers point down, whether or not anybody can predict perfectly doesn't mean the numbers don't point down. Just because I can't time the jumper's landing doesn't mean he's not going to go splat

5. I think she just made the case for further declines. Thanks.

UWSmynabe, would you please sum up the history of Manhattan RE in the ten years following the 1987 stock market? And explain why it played the way it did? And how today's (next few years) general economic environment compares?

And please don't include explanations that New York "was dirtier" or "had more crime" then ... those are highly transient qualities (i.e. let's see what happens in the next few years; I hope no degradation in those areas).

"malthus, the difference between UWS' summary and yours is that his isn't composed entirely of strawmen. Frankly, anyone subscribing to all those viewpoints isn't really worth arguing with."

That you don't agree with the people who said these things doesn't make them strawmen.

Its actually because not enough folks argued with that stupidity that it became prevailing sentiment, certainly more in 2007 than that we were in for a major crash. Those same folks were tearing into bears.

That some of us were proven right doesn't make the original claims strawmen, it just means we were right.

Not all that compelling columbia, sorry keep trying. If 2nd half data makes it to what UD predicts, we will have made a turn and numbers will be analogous with historical yoy numbers. UD is predicting 2000-2500 Q3 sales -maybe he's all wet, but I don't think so. Only 3 of the last 10 years have seen Q3 numbers higher than 2500 and all were at least 2000. One quarter does not a trend make but it does show something. Hmmm what could it be...?

"ps: no doubt the media and brokers and executives will focus on qtr-qtr improvements as the foundation of a bullish argument for rising prices and that the bottom is in. In this industry, the data is often cherry picked so that it is always a good time to buy, even before the downturn began, the argument was that Manhattan was immune because it IS different in the following ways:

1. foreign buyers
2. weak dollar
3. limited supply
4. unlimited demand
5. sideline buyer theory that was dished out claiming this market had a floor of 5% down as buyers would rush in to take the deals

All of which has been proven very very wrong. Of course, people have ADD and no memory and now that the wave down happened, people forgive those that made those calls prior to the downturn. Instead, they focus on the improvements from the frozen period now. Funny how that works. Bullish before, bullish during, bullish after. You can always find a way to spin data to suit your agenda. "

VERY well said, UD.

It is funny how much ADD there is.

In 2007, folks said prices only go up! In 2009, they're saying the same thing and claiming they're right, because they think they can ignore the, uh, 20-30% blip in the middle...

JuiceMan, you have become such a boor.

ud: get brunch at alpine just off jackson square. i always get the fried oysters benedict.
of course, get beignets and coffee at cafe du monde. eat dozens and dozens of oysters. before children we used to go to new orleans twice a year for a long weekend to just eat and hang out.

my husband goes to the cigar factory for stogies. and you can get your booze to go at any restaurant! what a great city.

malthus, I understand the frustration, but this was the summary UWS made for the bear case:
1. NY drop began long after the rest of the country therefore we will be last to recover.
2. Price to rent ratios out of whack
3. Affordability relative to incomes out of whack.
4. Shadow inventory is lurking.
5. A return to historical period pricing is inevitable because of the above reasons.

These aren't strawmen - they're actually legit arguments (and ones I mostly back) that he happens to disagree with. That's fine and makes for a healthy debate, which most of this thread has been. It's pretty tough to make a bullish case for real estate here in the near-term, but I don't think that means we should just dismiss the idea out of hand. Otherwise, what's the point of discussing here?

alanhart - the relevance of 20 year old history would make some sense I think if the city hadn't changed so dramatically. 2010 ny is very different than 1987 ny.

"That you don't agree with the people who said these things doesn't make them strawmen."

Really? Because the person who actually posted them actually just said they were. You really don't understand what that term means, huh?

"it just means we were right."

You weren't on these boards in 2007. You take a lot of credit for someone who showed up after the peak.

alanhart - just take the example of speed of information and ability to access data real time. It is a wholly different world today than it was in 87. That makes all markets different now (equity, RE, singles) and quicker to react.

UWSmynabe, having lived here since the 1960s, I can tell with certainty that the City hasn't really changed that much from 1987.

Looks pretty much the same but acts entirely differently, no?

btw, you have my vote for the most brilliant one liners on SE.

I mean, most of the coke is gone, or maybe it's because I don't go out anymore.

Technology has gotten prostitutes off the streets, porn out of otherwise disused theaters (and even obsoleted blue-video shops nearly out of existence). It's eliminated a lot of street-level drug dealing, but not the lookouts. That's about it.

"One quarter does not a trend make but it does show something. Hmmm what could it be...?"

A quarter might show something, but a prediction or a quarter from someone who hasn't show much logic.... that doesn't really show anything except a good sense of humor.

bjw2103: I never said they were straw men, but they are crude reductions. All you have to do is look at the next 15 posts after mine to see that my first reason (history is irrelevant) is alive and well in the mind of UWS. I don't think I really need to defend the rest as you are a regular and have seen them all here before.

> You really don't understand what that term means, huh?

Are you pee wee herman now, too? "i know you are buy what am I".

Sorry, but you still don't show any understsanding of what a strawman is... no matter how much you repeat what I say.

malthus,

Who's actually said these exact things? They're pretty strong misrepresentations, no? I think you can make your case without resorting to that.

"1. Neither the history of real estate nor the history of NYC real estate have any relevance any more.
2. New York is uniquely desirable and people will buy here no matter what because they don't care whether they lose money.
3. Unemployment does not affect NYC real estate.
4. The shadow inventory will stay in the shadows indefinitely because all of those developers have deep pockets and can afford to wait for the market to come back.
5. What happens to the real estate market outside of NYC does not affect NYC, except sometimes it does."

No. They are not. e.g. "the relevance of 20 year old history would make some sense I think if the city hadn't changed so dramatically. 2010 ny is very different than 1987 ny." WTF? You don't even need to look beyond this thread.

I would like to address the following point: 2. Price to rent ratios out of whack.
So? When have Manhattan real estate prices ever seen a perfect sustainable match of this metric? We deal in cycles and occasionally orbits will match but never for a moment believe equilibrium is a sustainable goal.

Not true and this argument is used by many that simply don't know the facts - In most of the 1990's you could buy a condo for $300 psf and rent it out at a 5-6% Return. A one bedroom that costed $300,000 would rent for about $2,000 with common charges and taxes roughly $700 per month.

But today, same apartment is asking $650,000 but only rents for $2,500 per month. And to top it all off, the common charges and taxes are $1,200 making up for the small rent increase.

Same example more extreme - $1.5M Apartment rents for $6,000 today with cc/taxes of $3,200 per month. Used to be $550,000 and rent for $4,500 with cc/taxes of $2000 per month

NOW do you think that rents are severely depressed or prices are severely inflated?

malthus, "2010 ny is very different than 1987 ny" is a very different statement from "Neither the history of real estate nor the history of NYC real estate have any relevance any more." It's much easier to argue against the latter than the former (exactly what a strawman aims to do, right nyc?). That's my point. Let's be real here.

....and off it goes, dither amongst yourselves.. and try to get out of your pajamas before the wife gets home.

I enjoyed it while it lasted bjw, ar, ud, ah

3. limited supply
4. unlimited demand

hilarious!

bjw2103: Read it again. The relevance of history "would make some sense if ...". Doesn't this mean that the relevance of history doesn't make any sense because it doesn't meet his conditions? Really, this is ridiculous.

malthus, I don't agree with him on these points (read my first reply to this thread), but I think the way you presented the supposed "bull arguments" was disingenuous. I thought you were going for comical effect, but again, if you think serious and credible people (I'm not talking about the petrfitzes of the world, of course) believe these things as you've laid them out, I'm just not seeing it.

lr, why do you think the early and mid-90s should be the example of a normal real estate market? The early 90s was one of the worst times in city in decades and the demand to live here was very low.

So? buy away....

It is your choice. The first time I bought it was the same cost to rent as to own (1997) -- so I bought as I planned on living here for a while. The second time I bought, I traded up and sold after three years as the market had given me such a gift -- I took my chips.

I love Manhattan real estate. I have done quite well by it. I will happily wait until I am comfortable to buy back in. Why do you care if people have a different perception than you do?

Great quote on Bloomberg yesterday referring to the stock market levels. the Bulls were surveyed at 51%. The bears at 19%. They flagged it as negative -- they said "that is a cautionary warning in that it questions who is left to "get back into the market" from here...."

That may apply here. If you are the genius bull -- Buy away!! So, some bears missed the bottom/Dip/opportunity..... Oh, well.

Free choice society.

"early 90s was one of the worst times in city in decades and the demand to live here was very low."

Are you deranged? Not compared with the entire generation that preceded it ... and I'm not aware of any population drain in 1990s Manhattan vs. 1980s.

I saw my neighbor moving out and I tried to lowball with no broker. He said he sold it in less than two weeks, all cash deal at a profit. I myself am bearish short term, but this was a pretty big shock to me.

Sorry, I can't really spend any more time on a reading comprehension exercise. We agree to disagree.

aifamm, when did he buy?

malthus, fair enough. For the record, I enjoy the vast majority of your posts.

"He said he sold it in less than two weeks, all cash deal at a profit."

All depends on when he bought, no? This is obvious, but making a profit in real estate is all about entry and exit point - knowing just one or the other doesn't really tell the full story.

alanhart, beat me to it!

When I 1st started looking for a condo 4 years ago, agents would push me out of the way to get to another buyer. Now they won't leave me alone. Anyone who claims that the real estate market hasn't changed in NYC isn't playing with a full deck.

"yes, price ratios are rarely stuck in equilibrium... what you generally get is an OVERSHOOT"

nyc10022, the overshoot theory has been overplayed and you are the only one with an instrument.

"JuiceMan, you have become such a boor."

Is that because I point out the obvious?

alan, do you ever say anything accurate on this board? The population in Manhattan increased in the 1980s after declining every decade since the 1940s.

"Is that because I point out the obvious?"

No. It's because you're delusional.

LICC, I didn't say the population didn't increase in the 80s. It's clear to anyone who's not a total moron that I meant that the population didn't decline in the early 1990s, and that the early 90s was not one of the worst times in the city in decades.

"No. It's because you're delusional."

How so? You were the one that said the economy was strong and there was nothing to worry about, I merely pointed out that digs had a different opinion at that time.

I lived here then Alan. Obviously you did not. The end of Dinkins' term in the early 1990s was one of the worst times in the city in decades.

And which decades would those be? Surely not the 70s and 80s.

For once, LICC, you are right -- congratulations!!! Indeed, I did not live in Long Island City in the early 1990s.

Then as now, I have my pride.

The late 80s and early 90s were without doubt worse than the 70s or early to mid-80s in NYC, as far as quality of life. The late 70s were also bad, but the early 90s were worse. As far as crime, it was much worse.

To this day, police officers refer to the 1970s as the era of "misdemeanor homicide".

this may be worse than matt. just make it up--the 70's were a fucking disaster.

"The late 80s and early 90s were without doubt worse than the 70s or early to mid-80s in NYC, as far as quality of life. The late 70s were also bad, but the early 90s were worse. As far as crime, it was much worse."

LICC, this is pretty off-base. The New York City of the 70s was a horrific place compared to what we have now. Dare I say it, but Carrie Bradshaw's 70s version of her "column" would be more about statutory offences than troubled relationships.

pretty off base would have been to say that the 90's were almost as bad as the 70's. this remains horseshit.

"bjw2103: I never said they were straw men, but they are crude reductions. All you have to do is look at the next 15 posts after mine to see that my first reason (history is irrelevant) is alive and well in the mind of UWS. I don't think I really need to defend the rest as you are a regular and have seen them all here before."

Which has never really stopped him before...

""The late 80s and early 90s were without doubt worse than the 70s or early to mid-80s in NYC, as far as quality of life. The late 70s were also bad, but the early 90s were worse. As far as crime, it was much worse."

LICC, this is pretty off-base. The New York City of the 70s was a horrific place compared to what we have now. Dare I say it, but Carrie Bradshaw's 70s version of her "column" would be more about statutory offences than troubled relationships."

bjw, you are just wrong here, once again speaking to things you know little of.

I was here in the 70s and 80s and 90s, and crack made everything worse, and that went into the 90s. Murders peaked well after the 70s and early 80s.

We had MAJOR fiscal issues in the 70s, sure, but the quality of life kept falling for years afterward. Crack really did a number here.

and for another level of color... there were more "money people" at the higher end in the late 80s, I would not deny that. Means and medians might have looked a little better. But the lower level cratered, and thats the stuff that affected street cime, subways, etc.

Don't forget the deferred maintenance on the trains and bridges... which meant the problems showed up in the 80s and 90s (even if the mistake was made earlier). Thanks Koch!

> "yes, price ratios are rarely stuck in equilibrium... what you generally get is an OVERSHOOT"
> nyc10022, the overshoot theory has been overplayed and you are the only one with an instrument.

Juice, didn't you use the same line about the pending RE crash you denied? You got tired of hearing about that one, too... which just meant you should have listened better.

> "JuiceMan, you have become such a boor."
> Is that because I point out the obvious?

Nah, you are just too consistent in your inaccuracy. You should shake things up and get something right for once.

Did any of you even live here then? From 1988 to 1993, the number of NYC murders year by year were: 2,244 - 2,246 - 2,605 - 2,571 - 2,397 - 2,420. The worst six-year stretch in the 1970s were from 1972 to 1977: 2,026 - 2,040 - 1,919 - 1,996 - 1,969 - 1,919. In 1978 there were 1,820 murders, and in 1979 there were 2,092.

Just about every major crime category was significantly higher in the early 90s than in the 70s. Vehicle theft, larceny, aggravated assault, robbery. The numbers for forcible rapes were about the same, and there were more burglaries in the 70s. Neither period was very good, but the late 80s/early 90s clearly were worse.

I think some of you just like to argue for argument's sake.

"malthus, I don't agree with him on these points (read my first reply to this thread), but I think the way you presented the supposed "bull arguments" was disingenuous. I thought you were going for comical effect, but again, if you think serious and credible people (I'm not talking about the petrfitzes of the world, of course) believe these things as you've laid them out, I'm just not seeing it."

Like it or not, the moronic perfitz' views were more present that bear views before the crash. So to remove "the idiots" and what they said from the conversation after NOT addressing them for years to be is quite disingenuous.

"bjw, you are just wrong here, once again speaking to things you know little of."

In your never-ending quest to be this board's biggest jackass, you failed to understand that I compared the 70s to 2009. Maybe read more carefully before you pick yet another fight?

Deferred maintenance as a policy began in the mid-1950s, and started showing up in the 1960s when the subway/rail signal system started failing, so that trains had to crawl along at the safest max speed. And don't forget the Miller Highway's collapse in 1973. I'm no fan of Koch (at least not what he became by this third term), but don't stick it on him.