Williamsburg Is Over Priced and Will Plumet

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrjMkeXGfGM&NR=1

An inability to properly interpret data, incredible sweeping assertions based on one or two anecdotes, the inability to understand the meaning of simple words (e.g., approved vs. built), multiple contradictory and demonstrably untrue statements, self-destructive qualities by alienating clients and eliminating large, well priced and desireable housing stock, and the linguistic equivalent of simultaneous poo flinging coupled with self-abuse. Epic multiple paragraph borker monkey rants.

Another borker who apparently performed admirably on the lead paint tasting section of the borker exam.

"Because buying warrants reasonble investment judgement--bklyn heights will always perform at least as well as any NY neighborhood---williamsburg/dumbo will not"

What a dumb statement. Brooklyn Heights has been a safe investment (ie: lower risk, lower reward), so while valuations are higher on average, as an "investment" (if you're buying with that intention), why would it "perform" as well? If anything, Williamsburg and Dumbo offer more risk and therefore more potential reward (or loss, depending on how things ultimately go, of course). Of course buying anywhere in the city in these past few years and expecting to resell anytime soon and make anything resembling a decent profit is dumb/ballsy depending on your point of view, but Bottoms, your "analysis" is really just the former.

"and bklyn heights is anything but like the UES"
"heights is to bklyn as west of lex on the upper east side"

So it is and it isn't. Got it. Bravo.

LOL Ahart.

I mean treetownal! Whooops

treetownal - great post. i'm still laughing.

treetownal, pretty hilarious. Have to say though, at first I was mildly annoyed with some of angeloz's comments and careless interpretations. Now I just find them perplexing. Dumbo is really Brooklyn Heights? Wtf?

Williamsburg will plummet, DUMBO will plummet. Who cares - do any of us really know anyone we like who lives in either location?

Angeloz,

You make some good points. I'm interested in speaking with you about purchasing a condo in Dumbo. What company do you work for? Can you state your full name and contact info. Thanks!

It's in the first post, Lance.

My words:

and bklyn heights is anything but like the UES---most of which is doing very poorly pricewise

heights is to bklyn as west of lex on the upper east side, and east of columbus on the upper west side, is to manhattan

plowjop morons restatement:

<<"and bklyn heights is anything but like the UES"
"heights is to bklyn as west of lex on the upper east side"

So it is and it isn't. Got it. Bravo.>>

plowjop moron apparently doesn'r "get it"

Brooklyn Heights is Brooklyn's blue chip neighborhood, period. Limited supply, no room to build anew, and great, established infrastrucutre for well off families. A somewhat perfect opposite of characteristic of places like LIC and Williamsburg. Hang out/rent in Williamsburg, don't invest there, especially in when market conditions are generally questionable.

"Brooklyn Heights is Brooklyn's blue chip neighborhood, period. Limited supply, no room to build anew, and great, established infrastrucutre for well off families. A somewhat perfect opposite of characteristic of places like LIC and Williamsburg."

Interestingly enough, I think DUMBO has become the same thing for brooklyn loft neighborhood... limited supply, not much room left (even if you include all of vinegar hill, still relatively tiny), much building stock you can't build anew, and a whole lot of yuppies.

"Brooklyn Heights is Brooklyn's blue chip neighborhood, period. Limited supply, no room to build anew, and great, established infrastrucutre for well off families."

Yes, I see how that's "anything but like the UES." You must visit this city often.

you are correct. i don't "visit" this city often. in fact, never do--born/bred lived here most of my life.

the only thing to be seen is that you are a dope.

the UES, with exception to area west of lex, is the cheapest psf in mainstream manhattan.

west of lex, which includes park and fifth aves, is solid; as is brooklyn heights. both for the same obvious reasons

you bought a place, in freshly gentrified wburg, with gobs of unsold supply (much renting, for lack of sales), and much room for new supply to be built, at the very peak of the market. I can't think of a worst place to be as a RE investor

thanks for looking out for all of us--maybe you can help with financial portfolios--oh shit, youve already proved yourself a dope in that arena as well

elsewhere, i prefer your value prop re lo-mid 20's, park to 8th ave--i might buy an investment prop there if things get whacked again, or after a few years of stgnation

"west of lex, which includes park and fifth aves, is solid; as is brooklyn heights. both for the same obvious reasons"

Thanks for finally agreeing. Not sure why you made any fuss about it to begin with.

"I can't think of a worst place to be as a RE investor"

Slight exaggeration - but the vast majority of properties in this city make for pretty lackluster investments. But you're confusing owner-occupied real estate with "investing."

"maybe you can help with financial portfolios--oh shit, youve already proved yourself a dope in that arena as well"

How so? I'm not the best investor on this board by any stretch, but I've actually done pretty well in the past ~2 years (in part thanks to some people around here), and certainly better than your boy Steve, who might have some of the worst advice/timing when it comes to equity investing. Either way, stop whining, troll.

we dont agree--

UES, these days, refers more to the much bigger neighborhood east of lex, which represents the cheapest psf in mainstrean manhattan---quite the opposite of park and fith aves, where psf's are among the highest

Broklyn Heights is also quite the opposite of the UES, and a near-pefect Brooklyn comp for Park and Fifth Aves, as Ive said very clearly numerous times. Youre too dumb to get this apparently:

"Brooklyn Heights is Brooklyn's blue chip neighborhood, period. Limited supply, no room to build anew, and great, established infrastrucutre for well off families." Wburg couldnt be more the opposite.

and, back to the OP's point, your investment at peak in Wburg will seriously underperform neighborhoods like Brooklyn Heights for all the reasons I have cited, under all circumstances, except possibly if we return to serious bubbling; which is the last thing i'd bet on

re trolling--cease responding to my posts, and you'll hear nothing from me--it would be my distinct pleasure

"UES, these days, refers more to the much bigger neighborhood east of lex, which represents the cheapest psf in mainstrean manhattan---quite the opposite of park and fith aves, where psf's are among the highest"
"Broklyn Heights is also quite the opposite of the UES, and a near-pefect Brooklyn comp for Park and Fifth Aves, as Ive said very clearly numerous times."

So, what do you call the neighborhood west of Lex? Not the UES? You are quite the naming pioneer. I'm the one who said that the Heights is roughly the UES of Brooklyn. Because to most people (hell, all but you), the UES includes Park, Madison, and 5th. If anything, some refer to parts of the UES you're talking about as Yorkville.

"Wburg will seriously underperform neighborhoods like Brooklyn Heights for all the reasons I have cited"

Again, you're confusing owner-occupied RE with an investment, but as for the "underperforming," if you accept that Williamsburg is a riskier bet than the Heights (and please say if you disagree), unless you think the neighborhood and the city in general is going to sh!t, please explain how less risk leads to more return. Do you put your money in TIPS expecting it to outperform the S&P? That would explain a lot actually.

if we are going to get out the scalple east and west of Park are different hoods on the UES.
Significant different costs, sevices and lifestyles. The blocks also exude much different types of charm.
I'd rather be close to the park but the loss in space for the $ is steep.

FREE Wbottom

falco, of course they're different parts. But they're called the UES. Plenty of larger 'hoods have similarly divergent areas (Williamsburg being one of them). Even Brooklyn Heights, which is what we're comparing to the UES here, has its less desirable parts - the "fruit" streets are generally cheaper than something more desirable, like Montague Terrace, Garden Pl, etc.

"mainstrean manhattan"

Because areas like Fidi and Harlem are freakish.

no, jason--perhaps mainstrean is the wrong word--UES gentrified long ago, harlem has begun more recently--intertestingly many harlem properties command similar psf's to UES

and im not so sure im a fan of gentrification--can be great for ivestors, but brings pain to families who get forced out through no fault of their own

whatever the case the last area an investor want to own in, at peak, is a freshly gentrified or gentrifying neighborhood--best place at start of a bull or bubble cycle--not now tho, that's for sure

plowjop, youre slurping at my posts again, quite unintelligibly as always

if im a troll, youre a slurpstalker---stop---busy yourself slurping someone else

Just because you don't understand English doesn't make it "unintelligible." But hey, I like your plan - stop responding to everything I say and you won't have to pull up the dictionary page quite as often. Maybe.

bj
true that
but in the science of comparing likes to likes this level of detail is important.
Big diff in comparing East 77th street between 5th and Mad compared between 1st and York.
Both UES but worlds apart.

falco, totally agree. I did say that the Heights is "roughly the UES of Brooklyn." Not sure why Bottoms made such a fuss about it and retorted with nonsense statements about west of Lex being both part of but not part of the UES. Odd. In the end, every place is unique - just might help some not so familiar with one area to give some idea of what it's like.

BJW: Your theory of risk and return is novel, and I'd like to understand it better.

The conventional theory is that people usually will refuse to invest in risky enterprises unless they are paid to do so. Thus, investors will usually drive the price of high risk investments down. In bubbles, however, investors come to believe that (downside) risk is very low, so they bid up (objectively) risky investments to high prices and low (fundamental) expected returns, expecting to make their returns by selling to other investors thinking similarly.

You, in contrast, seem to have reversed the causality. You assert that the high risk you perceive in Williamsburg will generate high returns even for investors who pay high prices. Why would that be?

financeguy, I think you're attributing some things to me that I haven't quite said. Let me be clear: I haven't seen any properties that make sense as a pure investment in a long time. That said, if you did choose to invest now, regardless of the neighborhood, you're coming off a base of bubble pricing -20%, give or take. Williamsburg is cheaper than Brooklyn Heights for the very reason you cite: higher risk. So, barring a scenario where real estate takes a prolonged nose dive and this city goes back to what it was like in the 70s/80s, how can one be so certain that the safer investment will outperform?

>That said, if you did choose to invest now, regardless of the neighborhood, you're coming off a base of bubble pricing -20%, give or take.

Last time you went to buy a mattress at Sleepy's, were you excited that they offered it for 40% off? You didn't even need to negotiate and they just gave it to you for walking in.

>Williamsburg is cheaper than Brooklyn Heights for the very reason you cite: higher risk.

BJW, as usual is correct - as they always say, the 3 most important things about real estate are Risk, Risk, Risk.