I'm priced out forever!

falco, why no love for 17S (which i'm fairly certain i looked at when it was on the market in '99)?

05/13/1999 Previous Sale recorded for $550,000.
04/01/2002 Previous Sale recorded for $850,000.
12/06/2005 Previous Sale recorded for $1,565,000.
01/05/2011 Listed by Prudential Elliman at $1,575,000.

will likely sell for below 2005 prices...

Sure you'll be priced out forever if you look at things you can't afford. If you can afford $1.5 go for it, if not, take a look at post war co-ops, you can get something similar for around $1 million. Maintenance might be in the $2200 range and the building may not be as trendy but you get the doorman and the same neighborhood. Than in a few years if your finances improve you can trade up.

that's so funny, realestateny. 340 east 64th street was forever one of the red-headed stepchildren of the market. it was THE building you looked in when you couldn't afford something better.

RealEstateNY is right ... you can buy a $600K apartment in a post-war coop for $1 million. Act now!

What is with the constant obsession with stepchildren?

alanhart: Let me know when you can get a renovated, convertable 3 bedroom, 2 bath in a Manhattan doorman building for $600K. NEVER! Keep waiting, this ain't Peoria.

Don't be so sure, RealEstate. Is the general state of the economy better or worse than '97? That's what convertible 3s in most of the UWS were selling for then.

nyc10023: You have to factor in 14 years of inflation. Back in '97 the price of groceries, restaurants, public transportation, health care, theater, vacations, etc. etc. were all alot less expensive than today. Real Estate doesn't operate in a vacuum, all prices and salaries would have to go back to 1997. I hope you are earning more today than you were in 97.

>$600K. NEVER!

I assume your leaving out the lower east side of course
http://streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/480127-coop-570-grand-street-lower-east-side-new-york
http://streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/578958-coop-132-eldridge-street-lower-east-side-new-york

there will always be jersey city.

"Let me know when you can get a renovated, convertable 3 bedroom, 2 bath in a Manhattan doorman building for $600K. NEVER! Keep waiting, this ain't Peoria."

Actually, RealEstateNY, you're wrong!

http://streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/233169-coop-790-riverside-drive-washington-heights-new-york

My salary wouldn't be much more, sadly, for the exact same job/s.

As many would argue and have argued on this board, the bumper increases have come in the financial sector.

sledge: No, you're wrong! I said $600K, the listing you referenced is for $679K. Besides I thought this thread started out in Lenox Hill. I don't consider Washington Heights comparable, I don't even consider it Manhattan!

2 blocks from central park. Isnt Harlem part of manhattan since Clinton arrived?

http://streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/578958-coop-132-eldridge-street-lower-east-side-new-york

Oh and 639K is ASKING price. I think they'll sell for 600K

truthskr: Read a little more closely, neither listing has 2 baths, and the second doesn't even have a doorman. And even on the lower eastside you can't get a 3 bedroom, 2 bath for 600K. P.S. 570 Grand looks like a housing project. And don't compare the lower eastside to the upper eastside.

yeah dude we understand, but when you offer absolutes like NEVER WILL blah blah blah happen, your askin for it

Actually, I'd much rather be living at the Riviera, one of the most beautiful building in Manhattan, than be living on the grand project on the L.E.S. And at $679K, it's not by much stretch far from your $600K. + the apt has been 2 years on the market so i'm sure it's negociable too..

truthskr: Your name indicates you the truth. The truth is that Manhattan below 96th Street attracts all the type A personalities and high achievers. The type B's end up in the tri-state area but not Manhattan, the type C's end up in lower cost communities around the country. That's why prices will never get to the level you are waiting for. That's the truth!

whatever....so falco, what now...that youve been left at the station...and the bull train's steeamed off without you??

RealEstateNY
actually this is my price range...I'm just surprised at the optimism of the sellers that think they can float these pieces of re into that range. Today, I think the pricing of these apartments is so ridiculous that it was worth posting.

yes, 10023, i'm sure all those financial types are just dying to buy at the St. Tropez. how exclusive, although it does have the dubious honor of being the first condo building in manhattan (and a lovely location near a ConEd transfer station, as well, i believe).

realestateny, i'm fairly certain there are some people in greenwich who would disagree with your thoughtful analysis of personality types by region.

http://streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/578958-coop-132-eldridge-street-lower-east-side-new-york

This is an odd building indeed. Check the other units, all excellent prices but the crappiest neighborhood. You have to walk outside sometime. A bum offered me $1 for a cigarette down there. I should have taken it (instead of giving it to him free), I would have been profiting from one of the last made-in-America products.

Check the previous sales prices for a real laugh.

I think we have found one of manhattan's last remaining tear-downs.

falco: If you think the apartment you referenced is overpriced than find comparable apartments for less and buy one of those. If you're just poking around and waiting for a price collapse, be careful what you wish for. If prices ever collapse and the above apartment is listed for sub $1 million, the unemployment rate will probably be 20% and you might not be working and at that point you might not be able to afford the sub $1 million apartment. You may think sellers are being optimistic and in this case you may be right, keep in mind many sellers don't need to sell, they might be just testing the waters, just like you are as a buyer. But if you have been on the buyers market for more than a year, than it might be you who is being unreasonably pessimistic. Just my opinion of course.

All the type A's end up below 96th st. and the rest everywhere else? What a retarded statement.

Yeah, there are no achievers in Greenwich, Summit, Scarsdale, Dix Hills, etc. And there are no longer any artsy hippie (or ex-hippie) types in Manhattan.

Like many in RE, the less you talk the smarter you sound.

RealEstateNY
I hear you brother but, I'm a re junkie. I'm always checking out what their selling on the streets and putting in my 2 cents as to the quality/price relationship. When I see a sale price which is over the top I like to call attention to it and inform the other junkies who sometimes have different insights. You did mention that sellers don't need to sell, which is true, but never as little as buyers needs to buy especially in today's market. The great SE debate is 'Where R We Today'. Listed above is a seller who clearly feels that the market is all clear skies and smooth sailing. I view the waters as much more ominous...as usual we will just have to see.

The 132 Eldridge place is an HDFC coop. So it was abandoned property and sold back to the tenants by the city. Is it a real coop? Does this mean the building needs major renovation.

AvUWS: Ever hear of generalizations, I guess not! Besides what makes you think I'm in Real Estate, just generalizing I guess!

RENY
>truthskr: Your name indicates you the truth. The truth is that Manhattan below 96th Street attracts all the type A personalities and high achievers. The type B's end up in the tri-state area but not Manhattan, the type C's end up in lower cost communities around the country. That's why prices will never get to the level you are waiting for. That's the truth!

Is that your politically correct way of saying the spanish and black neighborhoods are not mnahattan?

And Im not waiting for anything, if you paid some attention to the posts of people you spar with, you'd know I'm in contract! Putz!

Don't you have a floorplan to exaggerate or something? A craigslist ad to collect application fees from?

Truth:
"Is that your politically correct way of saying the spanish and black neighborhoods are not mnahattan?"

Not the Manhattan we're talking about here.

"And Im not waiting for anything, if you paid some attention to the posts of people you spar with, you'd know I'm in contract!"

I guess you live on this board, I've got better things to do than keep track of your real estate transactions. You probably over paid. He He!

RealEstateNY, to really learn what "never" means, take a look at charts from the last really big market crash in NY (end of 80s, early 90s). It can happen; it will happen.

I do feel I slightly overpaid. But I did pay 220 times what I think it can monthly rent for.
For me it's both a home and investment, but a home first.

Alan: I was there, I bought in the late 80's and than bought again in the mid 90's. Both investments turned out to be great investments, just had to wait a little longer to sell the one from the late 80's. If you are waiting for prices to go back to where they were in the mid 90's you'll have a long wait. Prices in the mid 90's never got back to 1980 prices.

Bad logic. In 1999, folks used the same logic about dotcoms.

At the top of any bubble, it was "ALWAYS" a good investment. Thats part of the definition of bubble. The peak is higher than all the points before. Of course, things like that can change quick when it pops.

and that pets.com investment never did quite recover, did it....

somewhere: Many dot.coms never recovered but went belly-up. Real Estate did recover from the early 90's crash and hit the stratosphere. Only people who bought in the last 5 or 6 years are net losers, everyone else is even or ahead of the game. What happens in the future is probably better the pessimists predict and worse the the optimists predict.

the carpet at the st. tropez is hideous

"somewhere: Many dot.coms never recovered but went belly-up. Real Estate did recover from the early 90's crash and hit the stratosphere."

And there were tech crashes before 1999 that were recovered from too.

Your logic is still bad... yes, some assets recover from some crashes. But this is not always the case. So pointed at other recoveries is not at all evidence that this one's peak prices will be returned to.

"Only people who bought in the last 5 or 6 years are net losers, everyone else is even or ahead of the game."

That is a very broad statement, and not actually true... and will be even less true if prices are slow to recover.

"What happens in the future is probably better the pessimists predict and worse the the optimists predict."

Of course, what has already happened here is worse than the pessimists were originally predicting before the crash started.

"So pointed at other recoveries is not at all evidence that this one's peak prices will be returned to."

Definitely. But history in general is no surefire predictor of anything. What you wrote is a fancy way of saying nothing.

"Of course, what has already happened here is worse than the pessimists were originally predicting before the crash started."

Not true - you must have missed the numerous threads predicting 50% off! No, wait - 75+% off! We've had a significant correction, but plenty of people were far more pessimistic, despite this little bit of revisionist history. They might still turn out to be right of course (well, maybe not the 75+% nuts), but we've got some ways to go.

somewhere: Manhattan Real Estate has always been a good long term investment. Virtually no one who invested in Manhattan real estate and held for 10 or more years has lost money. If you did lose money you had to try real hard. From what I remember the pessimists were predicting a total crash back in 2008 and 2009. Never happened. Prices are down less than 20% from the peak in better areas. Check out this chart for a 20 year perspective. If you bought in 2001, you doubled your money. Not a bad 10 year return considering the economy as a whole.

http://www.millersamuel.com/charts/gallery-view.php?ViewNode=1168394442sGxaK&Record=0

Again, you are suffering from the bubble fallousy. Everything you have said was basically true of tech stocks in 1999 as well.

You are making a huge logical flaw... in assuming that bubble prices hold or are always returned to. That is simply not the case.

Could it happen? Sure. Lots of things "can" happen. But confusing that with probability is simply just bad logic.

And tulips before that!

somewhere: Did you checkout the chart, it doesn't look that scary. Prices would have to go down 80% from the peak for me to loose money, I won't loose any sleep over it. Best of luck to you wherever you decide to invest.

You are making yet another huge logical leap in using past purchases to defend future investments (which was the original point of this thread you are arguing).

Not to mention, I don't even think you are right there.

> would have to go down 80% from the peak for me to loose money

Only if you completely ignore inflation and interest costs...

btw, RENY, you also happen to be exhibiting the mistake of short-sidedness.

Take a look at the chart you should actually be looking at if you want to talk long term investment...

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2008/12/classic-case-shiller-hosuing-price-chart-updated/

sorry, short-sightedness. And I was about to comment on "loose money". ;-)

RE-NY, That chart begins with the last huge crash ... i.e. it's an illustration of the current bubble inflating!!!

if you had leveraged an indexed, balanced portfolio from the late 80's, and added in the 90's, with cash you committed instead, ongoing, to realestate; and you rented similar product to what you owned, over the entire run, you would be way better off than you are now--therein lies the measure of success or failure for your real estate investing

to say that "it always comes back if you hold for at least ten years" is just not meaningful

Good points.

You need some really rose-colored glases to work that spin.

This is my favorite debate.
RE is ultimately driven by the supply/demand relationship. We rarely find investors buying multiple individual rental units (in prime Manhattan) as long term investments these days. That tightens the supply/demand relationship. If we examine how prices got to where they are today it is clearly the result of that relationship. It would be impossible to consider another demand situation as intense as the last decade because we are never going to see those type of insane lending practices again. to maintain the current price you have to maintain the demand side of the equation. I just don't see this as realistic in the short term. I see sellers that have been sitting on the side lines waiting for the crisis to end. The perceived end of the reversionary feelings seems to be over in Manhattan so to most sellers it's back to business as usual. The reality is business as usual has changed and most sellers didn't get the memo. Time and sale prices will either bare this out or I'm just a dumb old bear with no sense of economic reality

>if you had leveraged an indexed, balanced portfolio from the late 80's,

Starting on Tuesday, October 20, 1987? How leveraged should someone have been bold enough to be?

and the beat goes on!
http://streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/417989-condo-134-east-93rd-street-carnegie-hill-new-york?email=true

falco, did you take a peak at who the buyer was?