Real Deal: "Bad timing hurts Harlem condos"

""To be completely candid, we forecasted that we could have more sold [by this point], but our price per square foot is the same," said Hans Futterman, the president of RGS Holdings, which is developing 2280 FDB. The 89-unit building has sold 31 units after 16 months on the market."

Somebody tell Hans there may be a causal relation there.

If you made the leap of faith and decided to buy a place in the city right now, would people think this area would be a good one to target because maybe the prices at some of these new buildings will be lower to reflect the competition between them all? Longer term, do these new buildings push up prices because, for better or worse, the area will continue down the dreaded "gentrification" path and become more similar to areas like the UES and UWS where prices are higher?

we moved into our townhouse 2 weeks ago from the uws and are v happy with the move
the new grocery store and general feel of the place, including friendly neighbors is very nice

Altogether its much nicer than 10 years ago and worlds better than 20 years ago. So so many market rate new places do make it more liveable long term...but prices will come down, so no rush to buy in Harlem right now.

No rush at all.

I've been looking at homes in central harlem. I think there is still a drug problem up there - sellers are pricing their THs like they are on crack. seriously, though, it is Unclear to me how quickly things will get better. It seems like there is a ton of rent stabilization and SRO housing, which cannot be turned into high-end property any time soon. May just make sense to stay downtown....

"though, it is Unclear to me how quickly things will get better. "

Things in central harlem ARE currently right now better then they were in 2007, which was better then 2003, which was better then 1995, which was better then 1986...

It may not be GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU, but there is no question its better then it was in the very recent past by any subjective or objective measure.

White women jog at night by themselves and by day stroll with their babies alone, for christ's sake.

I would agree with jason10006. I live in Harlem since 2005. There have been dramatic changes just in five years. As for condo sales hurting, I see no evidence of that. I recently met someone who is moving into the douglass from the UWS. The reason for the move - more space, stay on the big island of Manhattan and wants to get into the area before it goes up in terms of prices.

Harlemgal, Ive been following the Harlem market very closely for the last year and a half and, though listing started moving at a faster pace in the last 6 months, there is no evidence that the prices will go up any time soon. Actually, I am seeing more distressed situations now, bank sales are common, and there is a lot of properties at the verge of foreclosure. Do you actually follow the market.

"Actually, I am seeing more distressed situations now, bank sales are common, and there is a lot of properties at the verge of foreclosure. Do you actually follow the market."

please share the data that shows these trends

Moxie,
I am not interested in posting the listings I am following in a public forum for obvious reasons. If you want to believe me, fine, if not, fine as well. All I can tell u is that I am aware of 1 bank sale in the first six months of 1OO9 (in Striver´s row) and now I have 6 such listings in my list (there are many more, but I look only in the best parts of Harlem.) Only the best houses in the best blocks are selling, and at discount prices. I am not a broker, I am a buyer, so I don´t have an agenda. Maybe you do. I am still waiting because prices are still coming down. This is what happens in a non-prime neighborhood (that appreciated 5OO% in 7 years) after such a crisis. Put together underwater developers, high inventory, credit tightening, higher taxes, people that borrowed against the property like if it was an ATM machine, and tell me how is Harlem doing...

"please share the data that shows these trends"

Did u miss the word please? I was simply asking you to share the info that brought you to these conclusions. Good luck in your search.

Sorry Moxie, I guess I woke up a little sensitive.
I am curious. Are u a broker?

No worries, and no I work with animals(not brokers)

Mimi is right: There are multiple properties in some stage of the foreclosure process all over Harlem. If you want to know what/where they are, buy a subscription, as I suspect Mimi has, to realtytrac or one of the other online services.

This was written some time ago when the news that a McDonalds was moving in at 111 CPN.

This would be so funny if it was not so sad.
Let's face it once and for all...
Harlem is the Sisyphus of neighborhoods.
Just when it looks like she's gonna get that boulder to the top of the hill...
That mother f*cker rolls right back down to the bottom.
CURSE THE GODS THAT CURSE HARLEM!!!
Imagine the horror...
You bought into the dream
You bought the dream at the virtual top of the frenzy
Your a believer, a pioneer, a visionary Opportunist
trading the safty of city life for the wide open vistas that only CPN has to offer
Where other ask 'why?' you ask WHY NOT!
You load your love ones in a Conastoga Wagon
A fond fairwell to friends and family
To end up as sickly twisted version of the Donner Party
Killed by Fast Food

I shake my fists at the Gods!
Oh the horror, oh the horror........................................................

Oh, Harlem will be nicer 5 years from now than it is now...but it will be no nicer than Hell's Kitchen, it won't be Lincoln Center or Tribeca like some cheerleaders think.

It wont be Hells Kitchen in these next five years. Maybe the next good five years....which might happen in the next 15 years.

They way I see it is this way: the Harlem is much more like the rest of the country than most of the rest of Manhattan: lots of people in trouble sooner and deeper. So, it's at the forefront of the short sale experience in NY. While that may mean lots of movement, it will be movement BECAUSE of low prices, not an indication of rising prices. In fact, what you might see is a crack in the dam, people see lower prices, then realize that the listing prices of most of the market it WELL beyond what transaction prices are, so you get lots of people jumping in as buyers, but at short sales, which will encourage that banks to do more short sales, which will dilute the 'sucker" sales at high prices (which occur because people pay too much attention to asking prices and how much they can negotiate off them rather than actual worth).

I don't mean to be putting words in mimi's mouth, but I think she has a better pulse on this than anyone else here, and it seems like this is consistent with what she is observing empirically.

Another problem is that there was SO much renovation done in Harlem (especially when you look at the number of buildings or even whole blocks which were blighted by shells) that you now have a market where it is far over saturated with units which have overpriced renovations which could not be justified at today's prices. I think we are going to have to see a huge period of absorption of this existing stock before we seen new renovations in the area. How does an area improve (at least cosmetically, looks wise, etc - not population demographics) when there's no new renovation going on?

The boom came to Harlem too fast. Price went up way too quickly in relation to the surrounding neighborhoods. That's why the fall has been hard and will be very slow to come back. It's a great area to invest in and has amazing potential. For now, however, we are back to late nineties in terms of prices. Or at least that's the way I approach it. Others are biting at the broker's high prices and to each their own.

Late 90s prices?
Could you provide some evidence of this, because I am skeptical of your claim.
Unless you're referring only to your beliefs, not something that is backed up by any recent transactions or data.

>>>> Another problem is that there was SO much renovation done in Harlem (especially when you look at the number of buildings or even whole blocks which were blighted by shells) that you now have a market where it is far over saturated with units which have overpriced renovations which could not be justified at today's prices. I think we are going to have to see a huge period of absorption of this existing stock before we seen new renovations in the area. How does an area improve (at least cosmetically, looks wise, etc - not population demographics) when there's no new renovation going on?

There is a TON of NEW rennovation going on in terms of brownstones. I walked through central Harlem last week and couldn't believe how many new work permits I saw. Remember -this doesn't require an upswing in the real estate market since it's individual real estate. It just requires somebody being able to get in at a low enough price so that they can afford to put work into it. With shell prices coming into the $600k ranges and many "needs work" places in the low $1 million mark, a lot of people can get there. Especially when ANY rennovated, non rent stabilized brownstone just 20-30 blocks south is going for $4 million plus. I know a few families with kids in private - or Upper West side schools (this area is District 3 so you can stay at your school once you're in) - who are thinking about making this move. They can get triple the space at the same price point, plus a backyard.

This is not to say that a number of places aren't priced unrealistically too. I just think it's short sighted to say that no improvements will be made during the downturn; it's just not true. I'm actually shocked at the level of activity in the individual brownstone market. I think there are still a ton of overpriced thing out there, but I don't think everything is overpriced right now.

The condo glut will also help in a long-term way by bringing people up there - many probably as renters. Prices will go down in the near-term. I do think Harlem will continue to gentrify through the downturn. Even if prices fall another 20% downtown, Harlem is still a bargain.

Also, as far as the "overpriced rennovations" - I think the issue is the opposite. I think most of the rennovations are crappy. This is not surprising because many of the original buyers who bought in 2002-2005 were able to buy places for cheap and may not have had the capital to do a really nice rennovation.
Many of the buyers looking would prefer to buy unrennovated and do it themselves. If I look at what's actually SOLD since the credit crisis it's well-rennovate places (like 9 West 123rd) which went for $1.85mm OR unrennovated places like 16 West 120th or 15 West 122nd which had a lot of original detail but needed a lot of work. The places with crappy rennovations - like 106 West 118th street or 14 West 120th - don't end up selling for much more that unrennovated places.

Of course brokers and developers are not asking late 90's prices for Harlem. But that's where I think the market should be up there right now. It's going to get better, but it's going to struggle a bit first. The market boomed totally unrealistically without any change in services in the nabes back in the mid 2000's. Now it's back to reality for Harlem.

Harlem IS better already, but you're right, bronxboy and others, it is not going to command prime Manhattan prices for years to come. That doesn't mean it will be worse as a neighborhood than at present, though.

In the mid 90s you could buy a 1 bedroom in Harlem for $50-$70k, and a 2 bedroom for $80-$150k. I don't see that happening. I don't see Harlem going for under $100 bucks a foot.

It's really difficult to look at Harlem in terms of the percent it appreciated in the 2000s. In my opinion, this is no longer relevant. Harlem wasn't considered a real "option" for middle-class (in the NY sense; not in the "median per capita income" sense) and upper middle class buyers. So the early prices aren't totally relevant. Now, it is. I'm not saying everybody would consider Harlem an "option," but many, many, many people do. I was a dinner party the other week - randomly mentioned I was considering Harlem. One guest told me that the head of his group - he works in prime brokerage at a major Wall Street firm - through the groups's Christmas party at his Harlem townhouse. Another person mentioned a friend who ran his own $200mm fund just closed on a place up there. There is money in Harlem now.

What's relevant now is: 1) what is the appropriate discount to other "decent but not prime" parts of Manhattan and 2) where is the rest of Manhattan headed. When I say "decent but not prime" parts of Manhattan - I mean basically anywhere except most of the UES, West Village, Gramery (not including the far East 20s), SoHo, Tribeca, and parts of the UWS and arguably lower Chelsea. Neighborhoods that are okay but probably not most people's first choice if money were no option, and neighborhoods where the public school choices aren't great. Personally, I don't see this discount for what is rapidly becoming the best part of Harlem being more 50-60%. Clearly the condo market isn't there in general with prices still around 700 psf in many parts. I would argue that many of the trades in the brownstone market (not listings, but actual deals) have happened at that level. To me, what the right price is depends on 2) where the rest of Manhattan goes.

"It wont be Hells Kitchen in these next five years. Maybe the next good five years....which might happen in the next 15 years. "

Have you actually been all around HK? Not just 57th street or 42nd or 9th ave?

Large swaths of it are interchangeable, still, with Harlem. People pooping on the street (not DOGS, PEOPLE!) - crack addicts, etc.

Lots of the side streets are quite sketchy still, so yes I think its not SO crazy to think Harlem could be "better" but NO BETTER than HK, which is a backhanded compliment. That is islands of luxury in a sea of not so great.

Jason, agreed. I think Harlem could be like a Hell's Kitchen in 5 years - it's not a great comparison becaues Hell's kitchen is always going to have a different feel. But I think to say in 5 years South Harlem will be like's hell's kitchen today with the same percent of "sketchy" blocks and "nice" blocks is not crazy.

Harlem is clearly not "prime" manhattan yet. Maybe someday down the road but not for awhile.
It is definitely an option for many more people than it was 15 years ago which makes me think that prices won't drop more than 10% further.

I think that there are better deals on townhouse shells than condos right now for a multitude of reasons. From what I've heard and seen, its become very popular to try and get a townhouse in Harlem right now.

Agreed it's not prime Manhattan - but it can be discussed as what it should be at relative to prime Manhattan now, which is a huge shift relative to 10 or even 5 years ago.

The condo market I think has more downside than 10% just because of the huge supply. But I don't see the sky falling in the townhouse market unless we have a double-dip recession. There is limited supply, and economics are extremely compelling relative to 30 blocks South. Yes, there are properties in foreclosure which will continue to hit the market, but I see only 30 or so townhouses in 10027 and 10026 in foreclosure or pre-foreclosure. This will trickle into the market and probably prevent it from going up dramatically, but I don't think this alone will make the market fall dramatically. I know this is a very unpopular opinion on streeteasy, but it's one I've developed after carefully tracking the Harlem market. It is the last chance a person who has $2 million to spend has to own a house in Manhattan, and personally I think the area south of 125th Street has enough going for it at this point to be worth 50% of what a townhouse on the Upper West or Upper East is worth. And really, not many townhouses on UES or UWS going for $4 million that don't have tenants or need substantial work.

The projects cut a nice swath through Harlem from 1st Ave to 7th ave (ACP Blvd.) and 115th and 116th this is the reason all of Harlem could not be prime.

You mean like in Chelsea?

That huge swath of project ends on Lenox, not ACP. And we're not talking about all of Harlem, we are talking about a pretty specific part of Harlem (east of 5th and South of 125th). So the projects take up a couple blocks of this section. Of course it doesn't help the neighborhood but plenty of parts of Manhattan have very expensive real estate not too far from projects. I do think the sheer volume of projects in East Harlem will make that story play out differently, but I don't think the volume in this part of Harlem is so great it will prevent the neighborhood from improving. And nobody is saying Harlem is prime now - my point is that Harlem townhouses that are selling are already at a 50% discount in general to "off prime" parts of Manhattan like Murray Hill, Hell's Kitchen, upper chelsea, etc. I would argue this IS fair pricing.

type - should have said "west of 5th"

kspeak you are right. And I need to correct myself the projects actually run from 1st Ave to Lennox ave and 112th and 115th. But once you get to 7th Ave over to the west side you should be good.

"But I think to say in 5 years South Harlem will be like's hell's kitchen today with the same percent of "sketchy" blocks and "nice" blocks is not crazy. "

Not sure I agree. HK has come a long way - if you don't think so, you never saw 10th ave just a few years ago vs. today - and has some to go... but I think its "inevitable". Critical mass is in, the buildings are there, hell, even big business is there. And even hudson yards will help.

Harlem, unfortunately, has waaaaay too many projects to contend with. Critical mass will always be tough, because there is just too large a "tide" to fight.

I think we're going to see a bit of backsliding in harlem, then maybe a return to slow improvement. As a long term bet, I think upside is limited, and much of it has already been priced in.

I think the housing projects figure in much less than all of you seem to think. That bridge has been crossed -- permanently -- in a few other neighborhoods.

What Hell's Kitchen has over Harlem is that it's walking distance not only to jobs, but to cultural institutions and a multiplicity of other prime and choice neighborhoods. Harlem will never have that, but for some that's not essential. So it's not a particularly relevant comparison.

On the other hand, it has nightmarish traffic and exhaust fumes that will ultimately limit its recovery. Harlem has the potential to become a nice neighborhoody neighborhood that's a step up from a bedroom community ... more like prime central Brooklyn areas. Similarly, Brooklyn's 3rd Avenue is so ugly that someone who wants to (and can) live on 7th Ave would never move there, but its presence doesn't stop 7th Ave. from being a choice neighborhood, or 4th Ave. from being a select neighborhood ... there's just less fat marbled in, that's all.

somewhereelse What is priced at @ 645 750pf think again. We have some time on the bottom of the roller coaster. Last time I checked sixflags was in trouble like Harlem.

As covered in the point above, there is not a ridiculous density of projects in the part of Harlem being discussed . And the buildings are there now too. It's true Hell's Kitchen has certain advantages -it's within walking distance of midtown - but Harlem has other advantages: aesthetic beauty, proximity to parks, subway access, etc.

And if you want to talk about something being different 10 years ago, Harlem was very different thentoo.

I don't see backsliding in terms of services - in prices, I definitely see backsliding in the condo market because there is such a glut. But services have continued to improve rapidly throughout the downturn. Far more businesses have opened than closed. And as the individual condo units get filled -through rentals or sales - this will continue to improve. Walk down any of the brownstone blocks in South Harlem and you'll see new work permits posted on many of the brownstones. For this reason, I don't see the backsliding. I do agree that the upside is somewhat priced in, so I would not buy a townhouse for just this reason. But I don't see the downside some people do. Full truth, I used to, but the time I have spent up there has convinved me otherwise.

How about this - PARTS of Harlem will, parts won't. We almost all can remember the meatpacking district just ten years ago. Most of us remember HK 15-20 years ago, or Chelsea in general or Tribeca 20-25 years ago. So if I had to guess I would say Harlem below 125th and west of Park will be fairly gentrified, as will east harlem below 106th along 5th, Madison, Park, Lexington and 1st. Probably Mt. Morris Park area too. These will be what 42nd street is now to HK. However, outside of this you need to wait more than 5 years, i think.

"I think the housing projects figure in much less than all of you seem to think. That bridge has been crossed -- permanently -- in a few other neighborhoods."

And noticeably hasn't in many others, as I already noted to you... whether far east village or canarsie or lincoln towers.

They have a pretty darn permanent effect.

> proximity to parks, subway access, etc.

You're claiming that HK doesn't have these things? Really?
Your credibility is quickly slipping...

> Harlem was very different thentoo

And was worse on average before and after....

> Most of us remember HK 15-20 years ago, or Chelsea in general or Tribeca 20-25 years ago.

Yes, but I also remember lots of neighborhoods that got better but didn't really gentrify.

And, why assume that gentrification will continue? Gentrification and housing busts don't usually go hand in hand.

There is a change that certain neighborhoods will get worse.

Its funny how folks new to this town think that neighborhoods only get better...

I think there has been a 20 year secular trend of Manhattan neighborhoods getting better up and down the Island, yes. Harlem included. i certainly do not think its inevitable, but the secular trend has continued through the prior real estate boom and bust (just as it did in San Francisco proper from 1977-today, through three such booms and busts.)

dont't understand "secular trend" re: this thread. Are we talking religion or real estate?

so guys -- we have moved in to our townhouse and are generally v happy with the move relative to the UWS -- our biggest concerns were grocery shopping, parking and safety.
The new grocery store -- Best Yet is excellent so far. Makes up for moving away from West Side Market, and Fairway is closer. Parking on the street has been much easier, and no safety concerns at all so far.
Several people I know have bought in the immediate area in condos recently -- Livmor, Douglass, and 220 St Nicholas. I was really very surprised by this. Ran into these folks I know walking in the neighborhood and had no idea they were looking.
May be the condos are dealing -- I am too shy to ask what they paid.
One couple that bought in the Livmor indicated they paid full price since there was a counteroffer.
I can't predict where the prices will go or what the conditions will be, but so far have to report that the neighborhood is very nice and has a lot of middle class people and new restaurants etc.
Jason and co. are right that it is patchy and the area S of 125 to about 116th West of FD is a pocket that may be a bit different.

What's the difference? right now both require huge amounts of faith.

>>> You're claiming that HK doesn't have these things? Really?

Yes, lots of parks in hell's kitchen. And subway access is great. Umm ...no. If you live on 10th or 11th, you have to walk 2-3 AVENUES to get to 1 subway line. Vs. south harlem west of park, whereas if you walk 2-3 avenues you have access to almost every subway line in the city.

>> Its funny how folks new to this town think that neighborhoods only get better...

Have lived here for a long time. Don't think things always get better. But people want to live here ... and I am just saying this: let's discuss Harlem in terms of the discount to off-prime Manhattan. We can debate where the rest of Manhattan goes, but I don't think that discount should be more than 50%-60 for much of Harlem.

Agree w/ joedavis. Shocking the number of people who are considering Harlem. Even RENTS in Harlem for a floor through townhouse are commanding $1800-2000 a month if they are in decent shape. Think about that which provides a lot of downside protection. Then think about whether the sky will fall in Harlem

"I think there has been a 20 year secular trend of Manhattan neighborhoods getting better up and down the Island, yes. Harlem included. i certainly do not think its inevitable, but the secular trend has continued through the prior real estate boom and bust (just as it did in San Francisco proper from 1977-today, through three such booms and busts.)"

Yes, if there is anything we've learned, its look at the data about improvement at the top of a bubble!
OF COURSE things will look improved near the peak of the biggest RE bubble in history.

Its like saying "see, RE always makes money" in 2007.

OF COURSE, when you're only looking at the period after the runup.

Expecting that to continue is mistake #1 of investing.

NYC certainly did NOT see a continuous improvement everywhere in that time (just visit Canarsie). A lot of other neighborhoods have gone done. And thats in the BUBBLE.

Expecting only gentrification, and not the opposite to continue forever is simply not learning from history.

"We can debate where the rest of Manhattan goes, but I don't think that discount should be more than 50%-60 for much of Harlem."

IMHO, thats way off. Not even close.

You're telling me harlem next to the projects should be, what, only a 1/3 discount off the most expensive stuff? 2/5ths? That sounds insane to me.

> But people want to live here

Lots of places people want to live get less expensive. Especially when less people want to live there. And those people have less money.

If you see my above posts, I have always been comparing the BEST parts of Harlem (South of 125th and west of Park to "off prime" Manhattan neighborhoods like Upper Chelsea, Murray Hill, etc. And I stand by what I sad. And a 50% discount is 1/2 the cost and a 60% discount is approaching 1/3 the cost, if you need a lesson in math. This is really basic math.

And "people want to live here" - see my posts on what rents are in Harlem and come back to me.

> Yes, lots of parks in hell's kitchen.

Yes, you should visit. Clinton Park is about the same distance from central park as marcus garvey is, with no parks I'm aware of anywhere in between. Both neighborhoods run right up to central park. And one has morningside to the far west, and the other has the hudson river greenway. And then hudson yards is going to add a lot more not too far. Claiming harlem has an advantage here is quite a stretch...

unless you're counting the projects as "parks". You certainly have a lot of those.

> if you walk 2-3 avenues you have access to almost every subway line in the city.

Only if you're not being honest about it. If you want to compare walking across the express blocks, guess where the biggest concentration of subways is... its called Times Square. Perhaps you've heard of it. And you get 3 more lines on 8th ave (and you can enter on 9th in places if you'd like).

Of course, not all parts of HK are that accessible, but then again, your comparison isn't accurate for most of Harlem either.

You're picking the most central spot of one neighborhood and comparing it to the least central of the other. If you're NOT on the express block, you have 4 trains to pick from, with each pair separated by a distance WIDER THAN ALL OF Hell's Kitchen!

In my book, as soon as you start those ridiculous comparisons, you've pretty much admitted you lost.

and, of course, you don't NEED the trains! try walking to work from Harlem....

I also find it funny that you're comparing avenues with CONSIDERABLE difference in distance. 5-6 is *by far* wider than any other ave pair...

Have we all not said we are talking about a specific part of Harlem? Is this really that hard to grasp?
So, when you talk about this part of harlem you are always within 2-3 avenues of multiple subway lines. Manhattan is a North-South city when it comes to subways ...

Hudson river greenway ain't that green in the west 40s. Clinton park doesn't start 'til 52nd street and 11th avenue. That's a long way from most of hell's kitchen.

Beg pardon, what do you mean by "secular" - I don't think the gentrification of Manhattan nabes is independent of the U.S. economy.

>> also find it funny that you're comparing avenues with CONSIDERABLE difference in distance. 5-6 is *by far* wider than any other ave pair...

It's about 10% wider. Not a huge difference.

I'll give you that it's more likely you can "walk to work" if you live in Hell's kitchen in general. But unless you work in West Midtown, this is not a huge drawing point. Only a crazy person would say the park access is better. Both neighborhoods are equal North/South to central park, but one starts west of central park whereas the other is pretty much directly North.

I said a secular trend for the better in MANHATTAn. I also used the word ISLAND. I was not talking about NYC. Just as I was referring to SF proper, not the Bay Area. And the trend for "better" in terms of lower crime, more services, and nicer-looking neighborhoods has been going on before, during, and after past and present real estate booms and busts in both MANHATTAN and in the CITY OF San Francisco, among other urban centers (DC, Atlanta, Portland...)

Jason is right - urban centers of many cities have been getting "better" as a general rule through both parts of the economic cycle.

Of course, on this board if you say anything to suggest this may continue through the current downturn, you are called naive, accused of being born yesterday, and given a lecture about how short-sighted you are.

But there is a definite trend towards the middle and upper classes wanting to live in cities, and I do not see this reversing anytime soon - if ever. There are compelling reasons: people are having fewer kids so they need less space; people are delaying having kids so they in many cases have lived in cities for 10, 15 or 20 years before starting a family so are used to living in cities; energy costs are higher so having less space a a shorter commute is appealing; people are working longer hours and there are more two-income families so an increasing premium is being place on a short commute; people are cooking less and eating out more so living in a city is easier. This is not to say some people won't always chose the suburbs, but in a city like NYC - with 1.6 million living in Manhattan, 8 million people living in the boroughs, another 10 million in the metropolitan areas - you don't need a huge percent of those not living in Manhattan to want to live in Manhattan for the entire island to gentrify.

In Europe, it has been true for years and years that urban centers are wealthier and the outskirts are poorer - the term "banlieue" has decidedly negative implications in French.

This is not to say the all of Manhattan will gentrify immediately; it will take years and years, especially for the most far-reaching and inacessible neighorhoods in Manhattan. Nor is it to say that this makes Manhattan immune from price declines, because it doesn't. But there is a compelling argument that gentrification will continue throughout the downturn ...

^^what s/he said. The gentrification of major urban centers is a secular trend. In fact, real estate downturns have often furthered the trend, not hurt it. That is, when it comes to gays/artists/young couples wanting to buy & fix up. What is certainly hurt is ready-made luxury developers who build on spec. But once built, these places would take decades to decay, so assuming the overall secular trend continues...you get Tribecca in 1980 versus Tribecca today.

Are we in church it is not secular you people mean CYCLICAL!

No, Holmes. He means secular, as in an inexorable, monotonic trend.

Had to do a little research b/c I personally had not heard of this term before. So you guys must be talking "over a long period of time" Just to clarify what we are really talking here in terms of time?

SECULAR TREND definition:

Economy or market trend associated with some characteristic or phenomenon which is not cyclical or seasonal but exists over a relatively long period.

Maybe it means secular because it doesn´t follow the usual expectancies, it is not "orthodox", it might work in a reverse way that other markets or other segments of the market.

Maybe it's the opposite of catholic, which means universal or something like that.

mimi Not sure but the meaning seemed to not be in line with the true meaning of the word.

mimi forget my last too much work. Not sure but the meaning seemed to not be in line with what is being said in this discussion.

A secular trend is one that is not affected by seasonality or booms and busts, yes. So women entering the workforce has been a secular trend for 50 years or so, regardless of economic cycles. More people getting college degrees. The spread of the Internet is a recent one. CYCLICAL factors may hamper or accelerate the trend, but the SECULAR trend continues regardless.

Global warming, free trade, the increase in pre-marital sex among Western nation inhabitants...all secular trends.

Nice to have u back, Jason.