NY and Chicago down in prices both m/m and y/y

The New York index doesn't include co-op apartments, and is therefore not terribly meaningful to most members of this board, who are interested in Manhattan and Brooklyn.

ali r.
DG Neary Realty

FP, really? I have my issues with the condo indices, but to say they aren't terribly meaningful to most members of this board is silly. Just how,any threads do we have devoted to condos vs. coops? And I'm not so sure that many pockets of the coop market are thriving right now either. It's interesting what is being listed. And not.

The fact is that it has always been expensive to live in Manhattan and anything within an hour's commute; and that won't change. Little blips up and down but if you want a to live here you have to pay up. LOL!

AR, from the Denver Business Journal: (http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/news/2012/12/26/case-shiller-denver-home-prices-up.html )

"Only New York and Chicago had year-over-year price declines in October, the same two cities with declines in September. The 20-city average month-to-month loss in October from September was 0.1 percent, not seasonally adjusted.

The prices are for resales of stand-alone single-family homes only, not for new construction or condominiums."

Happy Holidays.

greenwich is at all time lows since lehman.

no bounce there. lowballerama

Wow, so if the Case-Shiller index only looks at single-family homes and excludes condos and coops, is it fair to say that the NY index basically only measures the New York suburbs? If true, that paints a pretty warped picture of real estate prices in the NY Metro area. I don't have any numbers to back me up, but my sense has been that a dominant trend over the past 15-20 years has been the increased desirability of living in the city as compared to living in the suburbs.

I think words are being minced here. If the report does not include coops, then it definitely needs to be considered with caution. You can make many assumptions about how coops would impact the results. One can argue coops are pretty much like condos and would follow their trend. Then again, there are significant differences between the two and one could argue most condos are new developments with comparatively higher maintenance and unattractive tax abatement issues, thus making them less attractive than coops. If that's the case, then there could be a big component to NY housing being missed. I think we're somewhere in the middle and coops would have a notable net positive effect on these figures.

"most condos are new developments with comparatively higher maintenance and unattractive tax abatement issues, thus making them less attractive than coops"

this is the first time i've heard this statement. most condos are insanely overpriced due to the tax abatement and having 90% of the buyers being oblivious about the concequences.

I'm not sure why the difference between condos and coops matters, both seem to be excluded from the Case-Shiller index. As per FP's previous post:

"The prices are for resales of stand-alone single-family homes only, not for new construction or condominiums."

Seems to me the index is wildly misleading for the NYC area, because basically the entire city lives in multi-family apartment buildings rather than a single-family home (but the reverse is true for the suburbs).

Ab,
You're agreeing with me. Reread my post. Because of the unattractive tax abatement issues, coops may be where people are buying, whih is not reflected in the OP's link.

Has anyone ever back-casted the NY metro Case-Schiller against NYC condo and or coop actual sale prices and measured the strength of the correlation?
Urbandigs? Bueller? Bueller?

I once did Case-Shiller NY Metro vs. Streeteasy's Manhattan condo index. Correlation was 60-80% if I recall correctly, varied on whether one used the Case-Shiller single-family home index or their condo index (NY Metro, again).

Correlation of 60% is very strong. If that's the case, Case Shiller is picking up NYC condo/coop behavior despite not explicitly including it. Still leaves 40% not explained but 60% is not insignificant.

Wayne, NJ?

that's completely wrong.