In a Switch, Manhattan Lost People, Census Says

e.) jim cahones is about to be proven wrong yet again this spring as the rental markets collapses

f) Manhattan is overpriced to the extreme.

I pick f) !

I agree with f). We should all move to LICC - suicide capital of the world!

Oh, come now Steve. Surely with JetBlue arriving, things are not so bad? Plus there is Gallagher's.

There IS Gallagher's!

(What is Gallagher's?)

Isn't this section equally important???

As for metropolitan New York over all, about 110,000 more people moved out last year than moved in from elsewhere in the United States, according to the estimate, which is made on the basis of projected growth rates since the 2000 census.

Only two years earlier, the loss was twice as high, and in the middle of the decade it approached 300,000 annually. In New York City, the loss was 77,000 last year compared with 171,000 in 2005.

The shrinking migration deficit reflected several factors. The city is considered a more attractive place to live, and fewer retirees may be leaving it because they delayed retirement after the recession took a toll on their savings or they were unable to sell their homes.

uh, Monte, I think I'll take box number e) with such a surplus of Manhattan-quality condominium construction in Brooklyn, Queens and New Jersey, choosy New Yorkers are rethinking the wisdom of paying Manhattan prices for living in Manhattan when they could be just as broke somewhere else and not have the prestige factor. Either that or, Mr. Hall, my feeling from having lived in high-rent Manhattan rentals during the '00s, has been confirmed - the pool of people from which Manhattan luxury rentals is drawn is precisely those people who can't afford them, i.e., 22 somethings, under 30, no kids, pointed shoes, iPods, college degrees, perhaps post-college degrees, the world waits to be conquered by them, will soon belong to them, deserves to be theirs, except for one annoying detail - their incomes are not the $171,600 necessary to afford a $3,300/mo. rent. Pop the bubble of euphoric hoping for it all to work out in the end, bring 25 people somewhat more down to earth, and their feet will land them either A) at Mom and Dad's; B) back in graduate/professional school; or C) in Hoboken, Williamsburg, Astoria, Prospect Heights, Woodside, Jackson Heights, Bushwick, Red Hook, etc., etc. I don't think they bought condos in Long Island City, though, because only very, very, very, very savvy people make that investment, and these young "like"-sayers don't make investments.

f)... nothing more to add really.

Buy now or be priced out forever.

While the point remains the same, TOP is utterly misleading. Here is what ACTUALLY happened per the same article:

"The population of Manhattan, which had grown by nearly 90,000 since 2000, dropped by about 2,500.."

NOT 22,000. That was net migration among U.S. residents. There are ALSO such thinga as births and non-U.S. immigration, which mostly offset the internal migration, for a NET decrease of only 2,500, not 22,000.

In addition, the internal migration city-wide might have been net 110,000, but the OVERALL population (yes, because of immigrants and births) was up 58,000.

Net-net, since 2000, the NYC's population is up 384,000 people, and Manhattan added 92,000 people. Net-net, since 2008, NYC added 58,000 people and Manhattan lost 2,500. Not such a big deal either way in the grand scheme of things.

The net loss from 2008 was 22,000 - according to the article, anyway.

About equal to the net gain of new dev. units.

"The net loss from 2008 was 22,000 - according to the article, anyway."

No, you are KILLING me. The net loss was 2500 PEOPLE. 22,000 refers JUST to a subset of people who lived in the US both in 2008 and 2009. THAT subset went down by 22,000 - but ALMOST that many PEOPLE were either born or migrated into Manhattan from OUTSIDE of the U.S. Thus the POPULATION went down by only 2500 people. Again, this is a VERBATUM quote from the article:

"The population of Manhattan, which had grown by nearly 90,000 since 2000, dropped by about 2,500."

2500. Not 22,000.

"The population of Manhattan, which had grown by nearly 90,000 since 2000, dropped by about 2,500."

"The population of Manhattan, which had grown by nearly 90,000 since 2000, dropped by about 2,500."

2500. Not 22,000.

"The population of Manhattan, which had grown by nearly 90,000 since 2000, dropped by about 2,500."

2500. Not 22,000.

Jason, I'm not disputing what you said. I'm saying the article says something else:

"The biggest factor in the population change for Manhattan from mid-2008 was the disparity between the number of people who left the borough and the number who moved in from elsewhere in the country. The net loss of 22,000, which demographers attributed primarily to the recession and the financial crisis on Wall Street, was the biggest such disparity since 2002, when its size was attributed to the Sept. 11 terror attack. "

FROM MID-2008.

The arguing is silly. 22k vs. 2500 loss is small potatoes, at least relative to the fact that its NOT A GAIN. Built into all these explanations of why Manhattan RE would go up was the "everyone wants to live here, not making more land, bla bla".... has been reversed.

I'm not sure how you get a reversing trend from that at all. It seems far more likely to be a little bump in the road to continued population growth.

But it is a gain..."Net-net, since 2000, the NYC's population is up 384,000 people, and Manhattan added 92,000 people. Net-net, since 2008, NYC added 58,000 people and Manhattan 2,500" All gains and the 2,500 is statistically irrelevant given the population size.

Should say Manhattan *lost" 2,500.

well, back to Monte Hall's pick your reason, here's another silly rationalization we may hear someday about this small statistic: with higher demand for larger sized apartments in prime Manhattan, developers are replacing old houseing with newer buildings which house fewer people, sort of like Yankee Stadium II, which takes up more space but has room for fewer spectators. If this trend continues, bla bla bla - - - anyway, what makes ME laugh is the predictions that Manhattan will revert to a mid'70s blighted area. Oh, ho-ho-ho!!

well, back to Monte Hall's pick your reason, here's another silly rationalization we may hear someday about this small statistic: with higher demand for larger sized apartments in prime Manhattan, developers are replacing old houseing with newer buildings which house fewer people, sort of like Yankee Stadium II, which takes up more space but has room for fewer spectators. If this trend continues, bla bla bla - - - anyway, what makes ME laugh is the predictions that Manhattan will revert to a mid'70s blighted area. Oh, ho-ho-ho!!

"what makes ME laugh is the predictions that Manhattan will revert to a mid'70s blighted area."

Whoever said that?

Not me - I live in Hell's Kitchen, where it was unwalkable in the 70's.

I just received my census form yesterday, but who cares? The Census Bureau already released their estimates.
The NYT should announce the mid-term election results tomorrow, so we can all start the important task of commenting. Doing is so passé.

Those people weren't lost -- they are hiding. From the property-taxes.

no, not you, steve, but there have been lots of ominous postings by others shuddering in fear that people are leaving Manhattan, services will be cut, etc., yadda dadda.

Ah, Hell's Kitchen.......... memories, light the corners of my ........ huh?

I'll bet that 2,500 falls inside the +/- confidence bounds of the data analysis (i.e it's probably 2,500 plus or minus 8,000 statistically, so we may have actually gained 5,500 or lost 10,500)

30yrs - probably, but it still suggests housing may stay level in Manhattan for a year or so

How canything be deduced from a number that is estimated and within the margin of error? Let's say the "real" number ends up with Manhattan at +2,000 from 08 to 09. Will it mean prices are going back up? We might as well read tea leaves.

it means very little, but it's different from an unambiguous report claiming that population is in a steady state of net increase

I agree with f). We should all move to LICC - suicide capital of the world!

You can die jumping out of a basement window?
I thought that was the LIC selling point...

So anyway, far more people moved into NYC over the last decade versus the number of units built...

http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2010/03/25/dissecting_the_real_estate_boom_23691_new_condos_built.php#more

...but of course, if you do the math of people per unit, it does look like pop growth under-paced housing stock growth....

"anyway, what makes ME laugh is the predictions that Manhattan will revert to a mid'70s blighted area."

What makes me laugh are the strawmen coming from folks who were proven horribly wrong and just won't admit it....

"...but of course, if you do the math of people per unit, it does look like pop growth under-paced housing stock growth...."

Not to mention, the growth was already priced in! The prices went up partially based upon expectations of future growth demand.

So, even staying flat is a negative for pricing, if the market expected growth.

two years into the Great Recession, and Manhattan doesn't look that different, really; it's just that what was once very extremely overly expensive is now only overly expensive

We can argue about what "different" looks like (to me, empty storefronts, more beggars, less cops, more unemployed friends looks quite different to me) but in terms of the decline, thats pretty much what I've been saying all along. MAnhattan RE didn't need to "die" to see major declines, just going from hot to slightly less hot would be a major drop. And thats what we have, a major drop. 20-30% is officially a crash. Thats definitional.

It may be a crash but white woman can walk strollers in Harlem, so its CERTAINLY not the 1970s, when Chelsea and the UWS were off limits to many, let alone Harlem.

...or HK.

> so its CERTAINLY not the 1970s

Since when does it have to be the 70's to be different?

What kind of logic is that?

These sorts of comparisons are the enemy of honest analysis. There have been significant changes in many regards. That its not the 1970s, the 1870s, or the 1770s doesn't have anything to do with that.

Have you BEEN on the boards long? There have been 1124 posts on how the real estate crash will make NYC like the 1970s again.

It's not the '70s again. Yes, it's different since the Great Recession. Definitional, okay, I'll buy 20% down being a "crash." I have in my mind "crash" a more visceral feeling engraved in my memory, 1991 or so, and Manhattan RE was down 40%. Yep. And the '90s didn't take the look and feel and safety of Manhattan back to the '70s either. People talk about the crack epidemic of the '80s. Very true. But you had to see Manhattan before crack even existed. Chelsea was dark and scarey (and cheap). Harlem was burned out hulks and empty lots everywhere, like the South Bronx Jimmy Carter posed in, except things closer together.

"There have been 1124 posts on how the real estate crash will make NYC like the 1970s again."

And I say no, it won't. Decline does not mean going back 30-40 years.

Re prices have nothing to do with Manhattan going back to being "dangerous". Prices could drop 95% and it wouldn't happen. What caused it was "white flight" (and in this case doesn't have much to do with race, but class). In other words, what it will take is people no longer wanting to live in Manhattan except those "dangerous" one's. A simple price drop at this point, where there are MILLIONS of people ho would move into Manhattan if prices dropped, it is very unlikely to "go back to the 70's".

What it MIGHT cause is some of the gentrifying or newly gentrified neighborhoods (like Clinton Hills/Bed Stuy/etc.) to collapse.

I basically agree with you, 30yrs, but even the most dangerous neighborhoods of the 5 boros today have less crime than in the 1970s, and in fact less crime than many "good" neighborhoods in the 1970s. The quality of life arguments are all relative, I suppose, and mostly fearful handwringing. Now we're into the stage of budget crises where significant cuts will be made in cops, subways, sanitation, hsopitals, etc. No question qualify of life will decline because of budget cuts, and no question real estate prices are down. But the "oh my God, the '70s are coming back" hysteria I hear from people in conversations make me kind of sick, really.

That is my point. NYC is still MUCH nicer than it was in the 70s/80s, and is still much lower crime and such than 95% of the largest 100 cities in the USA.

lowery, I generally agree, but what I'm talking about is that if prices decline significantly, the gentrification of "bad" neighborhoods will not only stop, but reverse. And when the economy goes into the toilet, crime almost ALWAYS increases. So while I don't see things getting extremely worse in most sections of Manhattan, in places like Bud-Stuy, East NY, etc., there is some chance that things will get precipitously worse as the "good people" who were "forced" to move into those neighborhoods due to high prices elsewhere move out into neighborhoods they wanted to be in, but were priced out of, combined with the rising crime in those areas which naturally comes along with general economic hard times. For example, I see housing projects which used to be *horrible*, but became much less dangerous recently, falling back into being dangerous again.

yeah, I know what you mean, 30yrs

I know what you mean, too, 30-years. Very well said. And likely to happen not only in edge-ier parts of Bklyn but also in parts of Harlem as well.

"Have you BEEN on the boards long? There have been 1124 posts on how the real estate crash will make NYC like the 1970s again."

Actually, longer than you. Which is why I know that that isn't the case, and even numerous BEARS were arguing against that (including me!)

"That is my point. NYC is still MUCH nicer than it was in the 70s/80s, and is still much lower crime and such than 95% of the largest 100 cities in the USA."

well, then you're missing the point.

Which is that NYC doesn't NEED to get back to the 70s to see major continued declines. Point is, we've come SO far since, and prices have inflated SO MUCH since, that we don't need anywhere near the 70s to have a signficant decline in quality of life OR additional declines beyond the current 20-30%

somewhereelse, maybe these issues get conflated in forum posts innocently, but I do recall having read some ominous usings by some about "back to the '70s." I do agree that if prices went another 10-20% lower it would not be because ohmygawd, there's more crime than there was, etc.

"musings" not usings - bad keyboard ;)

> somewhereelse, maybe these issues get conflated in forum posts innocently,

They do... mainly because the bulls who were proven wrong have resorted to strawmen. "well, the world didn't end, so my prediction that there would be no decline was right!"

and, of course, there was more crime in late 80s / early 90s than there was in the 70s.