Manhattan rents creeping back up

what happens when the new hires dont show up again?

Marco, the gates of hell open up and Rodin comes back from the grave.

The NYT Real Estate Section might as well be one big advertisement supplement courtesy of Glenwood Management.

"A report released this month by Prudential Douglas Elliman, the brokerage, and Miller Samuel, the real estate appraisal firm, found that the median monthly rent in Manhattan in the first quarter of 2010 was 6.9 percent higher than in the previous quarter, although it was still down 6.1 percent from the same period a year earlier."

So, up from last quarter, but down y-o-y from the same period a year ago.

Isn't the most accurate way of looking at this the year over year data?

"Isn't the most accurate way of looking at this the year over year data?"

Nope, you say something like "rents bottomed in December". That way, when July rolls around and rents are seasonally higher, you claim your accuracy.

Has anyone ever seen a "market is heading lower" article in the NYT RE section? When that happens, I'll really be confused. We've seen "gone up", "heading up", and even the rare "gone down" article. I will buy each and every one of you a drink should we ever see a "heading down" article. And if we see a "Joe and Sally bought a condo five years ago before things really got crazy, plowing their their life savings of $200K into the down payment, overpaid $100K compared to renting in the form of negative carry, and now have to sell for the same price as they bought, minus $100K in transaction costs", why I'll up the ante to dinner.

It would be nice if the Times actually did some of its own investigation, rather than parroting industry reports paid for by industry.

Rents always stabilize in the summer. I do agree, though, that the free fall has stopped. I've not seen any evidence that they're rising, and there are still plenty of market rental buildings coming online that have to be filled. Maybe the real estate industry is doing the same thing as retailers' "same store sales."

I thought it was a positive article...they showed one bedrooms on the uws for under $2k.

Nothing is more confirmation as to how much BS the NYT article is than hearing Jimmy Jonesy get all swirley-eyed and kool-aid-krazy.

Jim-jones: settle down. You'll rent out a couple of apartments this summer. Promise. But you'll have to work really really hard to do so.

the most accurate way would be to look at net effective rent trends, as 2009 was all about concessions, that are now simply not there like they were in 2009. Of course, no way to accurately measure that based on data avail..for me, rent stats and trends are useless when landlords start offering concessions. what we see in data, is more illusion than reality if the renter got 1-2 months free rent as a concession to rent a 1BR for 3K/mth

What'd I say? Dude your comments were completely uncalled for. We are trying to have a civil discourse here.

I'm aware of the rental market from early 2009 and the rental market from early 2010. I agree with the Times that there were more incentives in 2009, and the overall sense of panic in the world made it a better time to be a renter. 2010 was/is more expensive all-in. I think now is a good time to lock in a two year lease.

I know that I'm not in "prime" Manhattan, but I can see three empty units in one of the better pre-war buildings across the street from me and there are at least three vacancies in my building. Amusingly, we moved in around the so-called bottom of the rental market and our landlord is asking more for similar one-bedrooms now. I know the panic is over, but has the economy improved dramatically? I've got plenty of still unemployed friends and lay-offs and furloughs are still going strong in our worlds. I don't think the increased rents are warranted and I'm not too worried about our renewal notice.

My rule of thumb is that averages are meaningless, you have to look at everything on the margin. Has the economy improved? To a reasonable degree, yes, though we still have significant unemployment. Is that unemployment as much in prime Manhattan, I actually don't know. But in prime Manhattan we probably have a disproportionate amount of people whose situations have improved quite significantly, take a look at the equity markets as an indicator for the better portion of the markets.

how long can one last in prime manhattan without a meaningful income?

land lords are making a agmae of this...they are trying to catch the few new people that are coming into the city right now. those few bodies arent even close to making up for everyone that has left as well as all the new supply.Its gonna be funny when June rolls around and owners / developers find themselves actually worse off because theyre still eating all that carry and no one is around.

I agree with the article. Effective rents have stopped declining and a number of properties have raised prices from a year ago. 32BJ made a point of this during their labor negotiations.

what happened to that article in the Times about 2010 being the year for rentals??

marco_m
1 day ago
ignore this person
report abuse land lords are making a agmae of this...they are trying to catch the few new people that are coming into the city right now. those few bodies arent even close to making up for everyone that has left as well as all the new supply.Its gonna be funny when June rolls around and owners / developers find themselves actually worse off because theyre still eating all that carry and no one is around.

new supply new supply new supply new supply

do you know any other songs marco?

Look, if you're lip syncing for your life, you only need to know the tune that is playing. Ru Paul don't give points for repertoire, mama.

can i get an a-men up in here?

Every one or two years you need to deal with this uncertainty? Plus every day you have to worry about your landlord.

Or...better yet..you can lose everything.

Buying an apartment means losing everything?

What percent of homeowners are currently underwater?

How many responsible homeowners can't make their payments, presuming they have any payments to make to begin with?

Do you know what underwater means?

Let me help you. It means that you lost everything and then some.

Hence my comment about losing everything.

Ok then, very, very few people have lost everything and then some. How many do you know in that category?

25 percent of current homeowners.

25% of current American homeowners have lost everything?
Interesting.
Which America do you live in?

I mean, 25% of Americans have lost everything, and then some.

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- More than 11.3 million homeowners -- nearly one-fourth of all Americans with a mortgage -- owe more on their loan than their home is now worth, according to a report released Tuesday by FirstAmerican CoreLogic.

More than 10% of people with mortgages owe 25% more than their home is worth.

Oh, so not 25% of homeowners as you stated.
And not lost everything they have and then some. Just lost their home downpayment which in some cases was less than 5%.

oh good lord, cc, they were all just greedy profiteers.

think about it. f'ng 25% of all mortgage holders. certainly they were ALL criminals.

come on, RS, you must have a response.

11million families isn't enough for you?

So before 25% of all American homeowners have lost everything they have and then some.
Now instead 11 million families have lost their downpayment?

Which is it?

People who made small down payments did so because they didn't have other money, so yes, even they lost everything.

Which is it? 25% of all homeowners have nothing? Or 11 million families lost their downpayment?

And how many of those 11 million families are out of their home, since they "lost everything and then some"?

You're making an even bigger fool of yourself than usual.

dabulls, your math isn't so good. go to sleep.

I'm sorry, please answer the question. You stated one thing, and then showed something entirely different.

columbiacounty said that 25% of all American homeowners have "lost everything".

Is that statement no longer correct?

What would be an acceptable amount?

No no, that's not the question. YOu made a clear statement. Do you no longer stand by that statement?

You said: 25% of American homeowners have lost everything and then some. That's what you said. 25% of American homeowners. Lost EVERYTHING and then some.

And you said that very few people have lost money. Who cares whether it's 25 percent or 20 percent? I have no idea what percent of homeowners have no mortgage but this is stupid nitpicking. Enjoy.

If 23% of Americans lost 95% of their worth, I'll let you slide. Were you just doing a little exaggeration?

So you completely made something up, and I'm nitpicking.

20% of American homeowners lost 50% of their worth? Or 15% of American homeowners lost 75% of their downpayment? Which is it? You were the one who asked the question. I said I didn't know and then you were pretty quick with an answer.

Are you for real?

That would be good and support the idea that home ownership doesn't often lead to financial ruin?

Ah, so before you had hard facts, and now you just have questions.

And..you'll let me slide?

How should I show my gratitude for your largesse?

More questions? Before you had answers.

You win...you're a genius. I am humbled to be in your mighty presence.

i adore it when people with zero credibility opine. makes the market seem even worse.

So you no longer stand by the facts that you used to support your prior statements?

i stand by everything i said in the past. fuck off going forward.

So, aboutready, what do you think columbiacounty means when he said I won? Was it an acknowledgment that his supporting statistic was false?