White flight

ha, you'll be back. they all come back.

no, i really won't. i'll keep reading for the economic news and discussions, but i won't post again. there's no point. our family is done with new york for now. and i just posted some nasty and too personal stuff for a future deterrence. rangersfan, good luck to you in all of you endeavours and i'm sorry you had to settle for a stupid west coast wife.

make sure you try the roller rink at the mosque, i hear its going to have one of those giant disco balls like the rinks in jersey. cant wait!

Of course my wife knows all the financial facts you dopes.

lucllbluth.... You're quite intelligent and witty. Don't let the 'tolerant', 'open-minded' and faux elitism demoralize you. Most of the so called sophisticated critics are just sad and soulless. Good luck....

Rhino86
about 3 hours ago
ignore this person
report abuse Of course my wife knows all the financial facts you dopes.

Beat into her every so often?

I guess I'm with uwsmon on the 'who makes the final decision' discussion. I can see the 'main breadwinner decides' argument if for some reason the decision on where to live actually affects the ability to have/keep the breadwinner's job. However, in that case I would think that both spouses would do what is needed to keep the job and it would really be the needs of the job making the final decision rather than one of the partners imposing their will. But in the case where the main breadwinner doesn't like the cost/quality of life trade-off and wants the burbs, but could continue to do the job and win the bread effectively despite residing in Manahttan, I don't get why the breadwinner decides. The breadwinner can only have the high paying job, typically with long hours, travel, etc., if the SAH partner is there for the kids, so how is the SAH partner's role any less important? I would never think of trying to club mrs sideline over the head with some big male provider power trip. But maybe I'm just bowing to reality since I know she would never stand for that sh*t in the first place.

Rhino seems to be all(mostly) about the numbers, but for many it is more of a philosophical debate. It's funny how us New Yawkers are so attached to city life. Told my golf buddy I was finally moving (after 26 years!) to NJ, just a few miles from him. As he started to rail against NYC and how silly it is to live there, not good for kids, ridiculously expensive blah blah...I could not help but go right into defensive mode!! lol. Even though I started out by telling him how happy I was to be making the change...lol.

I hear Westfield is a very nice town, similar to Montclair with good restaurants and the arts...This was suggested to me while we were exploring. I love Maplewood, great little downtown sort of a Cobble Hill vibe. Friends in the Garden State were kind of negative on it because of it's proximity to Newark/Irvington and one of the Oranges? I was not bothered by this until we looked at a rental there and drove in via Springfield ave.

KeithB - Westfield, Montclair are both nice towns. Montclair probably has a bit younger demographic and probably more in the way of diversity with restaurants, nabes and things to do. westfield seems a bit more spread out to me but some great places - not much land though if thats your bag and i never really heard of those negatives on proxmity to Newark/Oranges. both great commutes to nyc.

I think a lot of the perceived 'people are moving out to the burbs' is just a reflection of you and your contemporaries aging, and desires changing. When you are newly married w/o kids, have just spent the past 10yrs single in the city, of course you think 'I'm never moving to the burbs, I would wither away and die'. But you get older, have kids, things change and the pro's/con's of each alternative change. For some, inevitably that means moving to the burbs, or a smaller city, etc.

I think there are a lot more people living in the city via the bubble that are more suburban by nature. These are the ones I think will continue the exodus back to their homelands...(; No relation to kids or any other quantifiable data, just a thought.

Not all about the numbers....but the numbers are a compelling tie breaker. Free school is well...free. And if I say living in a 1500sqft is hard to bear...the counter is what -- that my wife likes the walking lifestyle. NYC living I'd argue needs to be a unanimous decision. Tie needs to go to the financially sensible thing.

Before the bubble, you could weigh these preferences more heavily. Now its just too expensive for a lot of people that used to be able to conceive of it. I may be one of those....at least as far as what I perceive as the minimum space and lifestyle necessary to me.

rangersfan,

i've only been in newark to use the airport, but a friend of mine works there... i was wondering, being so close to manhattan and having so much cheap real estate, wouldn't be a good timing to buy something over there?

i don't know if newark right now is worst than, say, what harlem was a decade ago... could you comment on it?

notadmin: I just drove through Newark and also grew up not far from it, oh yeah also play golf at Weequaic on occasion http://www.golflink.com/golf-courses/course.aspx?course=753745.

You cannot compare Newark to Harlem for two simple reason; proximity to Upper West Side and being part of Manhattan Island.

Buying commercial/industrial property, maybe, but that's
not my thing. Speculating on residential, I would say not in our lifetime.

I've always felt that the decision maker should be the one who is home more. After all, if you work full time, for 5 days a week you are basically just there to sleep and eat. If you are with the kids all day, you are spending 7 days there. Of course each option has to be financially equivalent.

"Before the bubble, you could weigh these preferences more heavily. Now its just too expensive for a lot of people that used to be able to conceive of it. I may be one of those....at least as far as what I perceive as the minimum space and lifestyle necessary to me."

This is the crux of it now. You layer this on to the usual push/pull of staying in the city with kids. Rightly or wrongly most people in that position several years back didn't have to think about getting out or moving when it came time for school decisions because prices would always go up, or at least there would be no significant decline. Now if I have a four year old in a decent primary school district, do I want to take the chance that prices decline further before I have to move in 6 years? Can I trade up anymore to get into the decent school district? Is the future of my company/industry as secure as it was? The uncertainty is fodder for rethinking plans.

We are not quite there (re schools) but thinking about the same issues so this is a pretty helpful thread, even if it has careened off into strange paths (Newark residential?).

There is no such thing as financially equivalent really. Clearly you need to compare an apartment to a house. The question is, what do YOU consider equivalent. A 3000 sqft house is financially equivalent to a 2/2 in Manahttan. You may think the apartment is equal or better. I dont think it is.

Malthus, I know that a few years back, I thought private in five years would be okay / was a long way away for my yet to be first born. I dont think that way any more to say the least.

How old now?

Outside of this little sphere, telling your spouse they need to live in 1200-1500sqft instead of 2500-3500sqft because they like the walking lifestyle and musueums would be considered insane. And it is insane. Both partners need to be game for the sacrifices necessary to live in Manhattan.

She is 21 months....and my last big bonus was 2007 (paid in early 2008). End 2007 I was looking at $1.5-2.0mm apartments and kind of nonchalant about the financial burden of one or two kids in private because it was not till 2013-2014.

I can think of dozens of better school districts than Montclair.

Mine is over 1 and my expectation had been to go public until 5th grade and deal with it shortly before that, but I have a lot to learn on this score and if a second comes along I realize all bets might be off. But my caclulus is a bit different in that we both work and want to stay and the location of her job would make commuting a bear. I also don't dig barbeques quite as much. Still, some common themes and I imagine that, as you originally stated, it is not unusual. And then there is the sheer number of friends who have left already for the reasons already discussed...

"A 3000 sqft house is financially equivalent to a 2/2 in Manahttan"

I would agree with that statement. And yes, that's exactly the decision - would we rather live in the city in the 2/2 or the house in the suburbs. It sucks that you and your wife apparently feel so differently about it. Personally, I've always felt that if one person is spending 7 days a week there, vs. 2, then that person's desires carry more weight - that person is going to have to deal with the trade-offs in a much more tangible way. Luckily for me, we are both on the same page - the city while the kids are young, and then the burbs later on.

lol, sorry malthus about newark...

in our case, with only 1 kid (no plans to have more), a 2/2 we like and hubby's office just a 10' walk across a nice park there's no incentive to move to the burbs. he would like the idea in theory, then he remembers that commuting sucks. the other issue for us is that the burbs wouldn't allow me to be very productive.

maybe that's my idea only, but friends of mine become part time drivers after moving out of the city and the house simply demands more of their time. if it's the wife the one with higher earning potential (ok, not that common) the burbs impose a tax on her time. please feminists of SE, don't kill me for assuming than women do more housechores, it's simply the way it works in our household.

notadmin, wondering if yours is really a legit question, but taking the chance that it is, i wouldnt consider newark as an option for a variety of reasons. i realize they spent a ton over the past six-seven years on "revitalization" and the new performing arts center, etc but still a long way to go. jersey city is a much better option if that is the theme your leaning towards...

of course a rangersfan would be repulsed by the idea of living in Newark and walking by the Rock everyday.....

you know, i'll be honest about our situation. my husband is two years away from partnership decision at his firm and quite honestly, without that fat paycheck, i'm not sure either of us would really want to raise our kids in the city (we have 2 now and want more). we discuss our "what if's" from time to time. assuming special counsel or in house counsel at a bank, that puts you at what, $350kish? considering this scenario, he's said on more than one occasion that we would downsize and buy a 2/2 (we're currently renting a 3/3). this seems nonsensical to me each time he mentions it since we can rent a much more comfortable space on much less money now. but, if i'm really being honest, i probably don't want to keep renting. i really feel like we're in a holding pattern now, and for the next two years (waiting, waiting to see if we win the lottery; it's f'ing insane!) so, yeah, i get it Rhino. i want to feel settled. i want a home, and a 2/2 really wouldn't cut it for us in the end.

Printer I think its pretty silly to assume that my evenings at home don't count....especially given that I do early morning to market close.

> notadmin, wondering if yours is really a legit question, but taking the chance that it is, i wouldnt consider newark as an option for a variety of reasons. jersey city is a much better option if that is the theme your leaning towards...

hey, not for me, for a friend prof at rutgers. yep, he's thinking about moving to jersey city, cause of the proximity to manhattan. renting makes more sense there too (as it still does in manhattan imho)?

UWS mom I think you are among many who might be in that range of $350k who will decide at the margin to leave Manhattan....in the 1990s the financial/space trade was much less wide than it is now.

Printer on the one hand you sound like you are Manhattan for life....then you drop the "while the kids are young". I guess if (like you) I thought a 2/2 would be cool till my first kid was say 9 or so...then I guess city makes sense...even more so if my wife worked. I guess by you're logic though, I could insist my wife work, and then we'd have equal say....haha. But then I'd be caught in a circular loop because then the two commutes argument would keep us in the city. Needless to so, I don't think you're "waking hours spend in the city air" thesis really makes a ton of sense.

yep, rock is a repulsive place given the devils play there. not up on the current buy/rent ratio but it made sense to rent up until recently. plus, the appeal of buying as "back office" ops of the financials has dimmed given the state of the street. there are some nice neighborhoods though so works for some.

> my husband is two years away from partnership decision at his firm

is there a timetable for partnership at law firms? have no idea how it works

> we have 2 now and want more

wow, wow, love your energy and enthusiasm! even with the fat paycheck, when the household is that big, burbs win imho if you can dedicate your time to it (a house in the burbs will demand more of your time). if you don't plan to work full-time in the future then it makes tons of sense to move to bigger digs. that is, if he doesn't mind the commute.

3 kids: it's not only about being able to give each their own room. it's also about allowing them to invite friends whenever they want and have a decent amount of space for each person.

Printer I fear that once you realize you dont have enough space you'll be at a loss for your transaction costs... And we're not that far apart -- my idea of leaving when they kids grow a little older is just when my first is four or five. I'll wait for the run on the treasury haha. This said, rents are firm. Maybe the rise enough to make the purchase look a little better.

In my early years of marriage (late 80s early 90s), I was a stay at home mom in suburban Atlanta. My husband worked long hours in Buckhead (just north of Atlanta) and we lived in the suburbs. I was miserable. Because most of the dads worked long hours, the moms and kids were the families and the dads were these people that showed up at times (mostly after dinner) or on weekends. I insisted that we move from there- either to Buckhead or to a smaller town. We had three small children at the time and I felt that our children needed to know their dad. I think if moving to the suburbs means that dad is never home... suburban living is a bad idea. If you have a job that is flexible with hours and allows you to get home for dinner and attend your child's activities than it may work out great. It may also work out okay if you don't really like being around your husband that much. As a caveat, I am not a New Yorker; I follow Streeteasy from time to time because my daughter lives in New York.

"A 3000 sqft house is financially equivalent to a 2/2 in Manahttan"

Maybe it's just me, but I think the statement is really stretching it for what's possible in a lot of the suburbs. We looked in the nicer (but not the nicest) parts of Westchester in the $1.25 - $1.5 range, and that generally got you about 2,200-2,500 sqft along with a ~$25k (give or take) annual property tax bill.

My idea of a decent 2/2 in good Manhattan zoned neighborhood is very doable in that range (or even lower), and with lower maintenance/property taxes. I guess you did say CT, so maybe taxes are not as big a part of the equation. Still, is CT that much different?

Yeah you can 3000 sqft in Darien for $1.3mm maybe. If you are looking at Larchmont, your figures are more in line. In Darien, however, that $25k in taxes is more like $13k.

This is why I think CT prime is much better package than Westchester prime. But even still, the $1.2mm house in Larchmont is a nicer option in my view.

yes, Rhino, my wife and I both work, and the proximity of everything in the city (workplace, schools, friends, parks) makes that possible. When the kids are older and the vast majority of their day will be centered around school and school-based activities, we won't need that. I'm also positioned such that I can easily move my business to the suburbs, which means I neither have a hellish commute to the city nor the alternative, which is to live in an expensive town on a direct train line to the city, so my $ will go much further.
Absolutely transactions costs will bite, but we fully expected that. I think a big difference between us is that we bought the place several years ago before my wife was even pregnant, so we had and have a holding time of around 9-10 years, which I felt was reasonable long enough to amortize those costs. And we bought in a good school district (PS 6), so we are very comfortable staying a couple of years longer if necessary. If I were doing so now with a 4-5yr hold, I can't see that buying would make much sense.
As it turns out, as of now, the towns with good schools but no train which we are interested in have done much worse than the train line towns or the subset we currently own, so we may actually move earlier than planned b/c on a relative basis we've outperformed the next home. I've looked at some homes which recently sold that we'd happily move into, and I'm giddy at the thought of how low our mortgage/insurance/taxes/maintenace would be compared to what it is now.

CT prime is less expensive (overall ---- considering taxes) than Westchester prime. Westchester is preferable, of course. Closer to the city, more culturally interesting and diverse, better sidewalks!!!!! CT gets kind of white-bread pretty quickly --- )
And it's not as though you're going to move to the 'burbs and be happily ever after. The 'burbs are DEATH for many people ......... Watch the film "Revolutionary Road" with Dicaprio and Winslet ----
Rhino ==== I feel sorry for your wife ......

Westchester is better than CT...interesting blanket statement. Printer buying higher, earlier was better? Confusing.

Not so confusing - I effectively put on a paired trade, and though the long went down, the short went down more, so I'll be in better shape.

Huh? Manhattan went down more than the burbs since you put your trade on.

Certainly not true in my case - as I outlined above. The towns not on a direct line to Manhattan (which I am looking at), have fallen much more than my apartment over that time period. It may be different for train-line towns. Remember, those town peaked out in 2005-6, whereas Manhattan still ran though '07, so I had a couple of years of appreciation before my place lost value, whereas those places flatlined and then fell.

I have you confused with someone else. I have a directional short on...and its been working well. I also like the fact the stock market rally had absolutely zero carry over into the Manhattan real estate market. If you bought that early, that's fine. Your carry is probably less than rent (even pre tax). I never have a problem with that.