http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/29/realestate/2-bedrooms-are-back.html?pagewanted=2 Scott Harris, a vice president of Brown Harris Stevens who has several two-bedroom listings ranging from $499,000 to $1.56 million, said two-bedroom buyers on a budget were motivated by low mortgage rates and also by concern that when the limit for conforming loans drops to $625,500 from $729,750 on Oct. 1,... [more]
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/29/realestate/2-bedrooms-are-back.html?pagewanted=2
Scott Harris, a vice president of Brown Harris Stevens who has several two-bedroom listings ranging from $499,000 to $1.56 million, said two-bedroom buyers on a budget were motivated by low mortgage rates and also by concern that when the limit for conforming loans drops to $625,500 from $729,750 on Oct. 1, mortgages will become more expensive. “The lower limit affects this buyer more than any other,” Mr. Harris said, noting that buyers of higher-priced properties tended to have higher incomes, which protected them somewhat from fluctuating mortgage rates.
“We also decided this was the best and safest place to invest our money — plus we get the utility of the apartment.”
i find these 2 paragraphs questionable. 1st tighter lending standards are something to look forward to as a potential buyer cause it brings prices down, why jumping just before it happens? the only ones to worry about less cheap credit are sellers, not buyers.
also since when can somebody DECIDE that sth is a safe investment? of all asset classes, real estate, coming just a few years after the crash it still seems bubble-talk is still alive and kicking.
[less]
Response by 300_mercer
about 15 years ago
Posts: 10723
Member since: Feb 2007
"To rent the kind of two-bedroom apartment he seeks — in a prewar doorman building on the Upper West Side with decent views — would cost him $5,000 to $5,500 a month, and at that rate, he said it would be wiser to buy a two-bedroom for $775,000 to $925,000. "
This potential buyer needs a reality check of what one would get for $925K. Best case no more than 900 sq ft in a decent doorman building which is just a junior 4. That apt can be rented for $4000-$4500K easily.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by Riversider
about 15 years ago
Posts: 13573
Member since: Apr 2009
50% more expensive than a one bedroom and in the case of an expanding family only temporarily more usable. And if you're looking at an under 1000 square foot two bedroom, you're not getting much space.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by hofo
about 15 years ago
Posts: 453
Member since: Sep 2008
When did the 2BRs go away?
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by lucillebluth
about 15 years ago
Posts: 2631
Member since: May 2010
at least ms. Arabella doesn't pull any punches about the value of her opinion, it's right there in her name. everyone should be this brutally honest about themselves.
(hope she's a good sport)
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by sjtmd
about 15 years ago
Posts: 670
Member since: May 2009
Funny, on March 25, 2011, The NY Times said "Prices Say It’s Time to Think Studios". Today an article about two bedroom apartments. I am wondering what the marketing people on the realty boards have on deck - one BR or three BR. They must think that if we read it in the Times, then, lemmings that we all are, we will run out and buy what the Sunday paper tells us to do.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by Riversider
about 15 years ago
Posts: 13573
Member since: Apr 2009
Well, it was posted on the Times' real estate section...
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by falcogold1
about 15 years ago
Posts: 4159
Member since: Sep 2008
Ah yes.....the scrubs...I know you well.
The laughably affordable home of the professional working class stiff (of which I am one).
Sure it's in demand...there always in demand. As long as there are those among us who refuse to commute and raise at least one kid or married or single who want more than a one bedroom...
It's the property that screams QUIET DESPERATION.
The 925-1.56 is still kind of shabby or in need of considerable investment (after the carrying charges are factored in).
Once you get to 2.25-2.75 the place is still only 2 bedrooms but the building, the view, and the street have improved.
You're off the bench.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by malthus
about 15 years ago
Posts: 1333
Member since: Feb 2009
Brings me back to the days when an expiring tax credit of $8000 was reason to buy a studio. Play it again Lawrence:
"Lawrence Yun, the chief economist for the National Association of Realtors, described the tax credit as “the big factor in bringing the buyer back,” even if mainly as a psychological element. If the government is offering, as he put it, “one would be foolish not to take advantage of it.”" -- Nov. 2009.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by 5thGenNYer
about 15 years ago
Posts: 321
Member since: Apr 2009
My favorite line- indicating the super geniusness of brokers!
"...noting that buyers of higher-priced properties tended to have higher incomes"
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by West81st
about 15 years ago
Posts: 5564
Member since: Jan 2008
notadmin: For the most part, I agree with you - tighter credit and higher rates are a bigger problem for sellers than buyers. Just keep in mind that "buyers" are not a uniform bloc, and they do not act in unison; on the contrary, they compete against each other. So, in this particular zero-sum game, the big winners are cash-rich buyers who are inclined to borrow little, if any, of their purchase price. The direct losers are sellers, who have to settle for lower prices. To a lesser extent, though, another group may perceive themselves as losers: buyers who are inclined to stretch their borrowing power to the limit to buy the most home they can afford.
Measuring the impact on the second group is tricky. To some extent, you can say they will be saved from their own foolish optimism, but they won't see it that way. From their perspective, subsidized lending enables them to compete with cash-rich buyers. So, although prices will almost certainly fall as credit supports are removed, the net impact on affordability (at least in the near term) could be negative for buyers who need to borrow, and positive for buyers who don't.
"To rent the kind of two-bedroom apartment he seeks — in a prewar doorman building on the Upper West Side with decent views — would cost him $5,000 to $5,500 a month, and at that rate, he said it would be wiser to buy a two-bedroom for $775,000 to $925,000. "
This potential buyer needs a reality check of what one would get for $925K. Best case no more than 900 sq ft in a decent doorman building which is just a junior 4. That apt can be rented for $4000-$4500K easily.
50% more expensive than a one bedroom and in the case of an expanding family only temporarily more usable. And if you're looking at an under 1000 square foot two bedroom, you're not getting much space.
When did the 2BRs go away?
at least ms. Arabella doesn't pull any punches about the value of her opinion, it's right there in her name. everyone should be this brutally honest about themselves.
(hope she's a good sport)
Funny, on March 25, 2011, The NY Times said "Prices Say It’s Time to Think Studios". Today an article about two bedroom apartments. I am wondering what the marketing people on the realty boards have on deck - one BR or three BR. They must think that if we read it in the Times, then, lemmings that we all are, we will run out and buy what the Sunday paper tells us to do.
Well, it was posted on the Times' real estate section...
Ah yes.....the scrubs...I know you well.
The laughably affordable home of the professional working class stiff (of which I am one).
Sure it's in demand...there always in demand. As long as there are those among us who refuse to commute and raise at least one kid or married or single who want more than a one bedroom...
It's the property that screams QUIET DESPERATION.
The 925-1.56 is still kind of shabby or in need of considerable investment (after the carrying charges are factored in).
Once you get to 2.25-2.75 the place is still only 2 bedrooms but the building, the view, and the street have improved.
You're off the bench.
Brings me back to the days when an expiring tax credit of $8000 was reason to buy a studio. Play it again Lawrence:
"Lawrence Yun, the chief economist for the National Association of Realtors, described the tax credit as “the big factor in bringing the buyer back,” even if mainly as a psychological element. If the government is offering, as he put it, “one would be foolish not to take advantage of it.”" -- Nov. 2009.
My favorite line- indicating the super geniusness of brokers!
"...noting that buyers of higher-priced properties tended to have higher incomes"
notadmin: For the most part, I agree with you - tighter credit and higher rates are a bigger problem for sellers than buyers. Just keep in mind that "buyers" are not a uniform bloc, and they do not act in unison; on the contrary, they compete against each other. So, in this particular zero-sum game, the big winners are cash-rich buyers who are inclined to borrow little, if any, of their purchase price. The direct losers are sellers, who have to settle for lower prices. To a lesser extent, though, another group may perceive themselves as losers: buyers who are inclined to stretch their borrowing power to the limit to buy the most home they can afford.
Measuring the impact on the second group is tricky. To some extent, you can say they will be saved from their own foolish optimism, but they won't see it that way. From their perspective, subsidized lending enables them to compete with cash-rich buyers. So, although prices will almost certainly fall as credit supports are removed, the net impact on affordability (at least in the near term) could be negative for buyers who need to borrow, and positive for buyers who don't.