Hot off the Press----- Manhattan Rent Increases

What's the YOY effect?

Wow vacancy rate down to 1.21

Any independent sources to quote? Not saying it isn't accurate, but Manhattan's biggest rental brokerage may not be so objective.

tenemental here you go

http://ny.therealdeal.com/articles/manhattan-rents-rise

tenamental, so true.

I'm not in the biz, but looking out my window I see bunch of empty apartments in my building and the one across from me. There's always turn-over, but I'd say there's about 1/3 more vacancies than in the past. We'll see how the summer goes...

LP1 you and Stevejhx may be right after all he knows of a joint a few blocks to the southeast of him where they have some vacancies as well. My uncle Joey knows a friend of a friend who has a nephew that thinks he knows of place that's vacant as well.

houser, I understand it's an article in The Real Deal, but the only source cited in the article is Citi Habitats: "according to a report by brokerage Citi Habitats"

tenemental not what your point is. Please elaborate.

I just read that stuyvesant town which rents one bedroom apts for $3100 have enough vacant apts to fill five bldgs. they are also allowing dogs which they never did.

They're getting 3100 per month for a one bedroom in that place. Oh my goodness

houser, not saying that the report isn't accurate, but that a grain of salt is necessary when the only quoted source has a definite interest in higher numbers.

Julia, 5 buildings full has been the story for a while. I ran into a guy from work who lives in Stuy Town on the L train. He balked at the "5 buildings" story, but when he did the math (he knew the number of vacant units and the number of units per building) he came up with 7 empty buildings worth.

Actually, they may be asking $3100, not sure of the figures, but it is known that they are offering some big incentives (I've heard as much as two months free).

Fot that price the whole complex should be empty

Glad to hear that this is the case, because if I truly believed it, then my UES YORKVILLE current rental, a 1 BR Penthouse Apt with a 26X8 Private Terrace, would already be sublet from me...or rather someone would have already taken over my wife and my lease or signed a new one with the Mgmt Co!

That being said, I have 2 friends who are in a similar boat, i.e. trying to find someone to take over their leases, one lives in the UWS, and 1 in the East 40's, and neither has had any luck.

True, I am sure that my Mgmt Co would love to increase the rent for someone who chooses to sign a new lease. But, there is no rent increase on my apt which has 6 1/2 months left on the lease, and, we have had no takers.

So while Manhattan Rents might be increasing, i think that number is skewed by people who are RESIGNING their lease and paying the rent increases...ie not by new people coming into the bldg.

My other friend just signed a lease on a studio in the MELAR, they gave him 1 month free, and a flexible move-in date. I haven't seen month free rent since when i moved into the Chelsea Towers (26th/6th) 5 yrs ago (they gave me 2 months free and picked up the broker fee).

Bottom-line is the Rental Mkt is soft, and although no one seems to want to admit it.

Wait wait wait. This is "according to a report by Citi Habitats". A rental firm, whose prosperity depends on the prosperity of the rental market. I'm calling shenanigans, for lack of wanting to post an abbreviated curse word.

Houser, you repost to your own post "Wow vacancy rates down to 1.21". You are the biggest loser in the world.

Streeteasy shows 23,375 apartment for rent in Manhattan at this very moment. houser believes streeteasy's numbers about rentals b/c real estate agents never lie about them, post fake listings, pull the old switcheroo.

Manhattan's population grows at about 10,000 people a year. Therefore, if not one more apartment became available, it would still take two years worth of immigration to fill the available vacancies.

actually steve the available apartments are much higher than the total number of occupied apts in Manhattan plus the vacant ones times two. Once again I think it's time for for your Prep H treatment.

houser, dismissed.

I though I was BEGONE.

You're too vulgar to warrant such a fine word.

Dismissed.

Can you elaborate how was I vulgar?

hey Mike above - if you are having a hard time subletting a short term rental (not sure about price, which of course could be a factor) try offering it furnished, call it "turn key ready" (just add some nice towels / linens from BBB, set of dishes, glasses, hairdryer, set - nothing elaborate) and call it "Perfect Executive Short Term Rental" or something like that. Just a suggestion - worked for me on UES studio (I also included weekly cleaning service / laundered sheets and towels - added that to rent).

Rent-regulated apartments account for 57 percent of the total in the Bronx, 42 percent of the apartments in Brooklyn, 59 percent in Manhattan, 43 percent in Queens and 15 percent of those on Staten Island, the Rent Guidelines Board says.

"59 percent in Manhattan"

Wow, that number is a lot higher than I thought. This must really throw a wrench into rent to income correlations. In fact, with only 41% of apartments at free market rents, it is a virtual impossibility to correlate incomes and rents in this city. Probably not even worth mentioning it anymore.

Hey stevjhx glad to see you again. Can we make up and kiss.

JuiceMan, "it is a virtual impossibility to correlate incomes and rents in this city. Probably not even worth mentioning it anymore."

LOL. Wouldn't you love that.

Alas, your analysis (yet again) falls apart with just half a thought. First, no one who makes over $175,000 two years in a row is eligible for a stabilized apartment. Therefore, we've excluded just about everybody here (except spunky because his burger king job pays $225k a year). Then, we're talking about apartments with rents below $2,000, and apartments with a very low turnover ratio - "The New York City Rent Guidelines Board says the vacancy rate on rent-regulated apartments is 5.6 percent each year."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/09/business/09rent.html?ref=realestate

Moreover - and more moronically on your part - we're talking about what it costs to buy properties in Manhattan, which is directly tied to income * leverage. Stabilization is not directly related to the price of properties except insofar as it raises the price of free-market rentals, but that only occurs when there is more demand for free market rentals than supply, which does not currently seem to be the case.

What is moronic steve is that there was nothing in your post explaining how you would correlate incomes to rents when only 41% of capacity is free market, which was the point. You seem to have misunderstood it, because what is written above (in quoting my "analysis") is just a bunch of cobbled together poo poo.

Stevejhx mixes good with blatantly false numbers and statistics, and always comes up with a cocktail (don't take that the wrong way) that may be tasteful to him and his groupies but just plain out right disgusting to those who know the truth and can see right through this little weasel.

JuiceMan: That's an excellent point. Steve is right that rents correlate to income. The problem is WHOSE income. Median income figures are not very helpful because there's no easy way to filter out rent-regulated paupers like me (under $175K/year - the shame, the shame). There are quite a lot of us, and whatever Houser might think, very few of us are rich.

west81st why do i have a feeling pooririshlady is a male and one of those rent control cheaters. Any hoot at least we know you deserve the benefits of your rent control apt. Looking forward to reading your open house analysis. Try keeping it below 4 mil though because that a little above our budgets.

Because, JuiceMan, we're not talking about rent-regulated apartments. We're talking about market-rate rentals, which are in direct competition with market-rate purchases. We're not talking about subsidized purchases, either, or housing lotteries, or anything like that.

The effect of stabilized apartments is simply to limit the supply of apartments available, making unregulated apartments more expensive. IT DOES NOT AFFECT THE CORRELATION OF INCOMES TO PURCHASING PRICES.

What it will affect is if you do a comparison of the income levels with free-market rents - that won't work in any area where there is a lot of regulated supply. But that's not what we're doing - we're saying that there is a certain supply of apartments on the market at a certain price, so how many people can afford those apartments.

To learn you a few things, here are the rental vacancy rates in NYC in 2006:

"The Bronx had the lowest vacancy rate in the city, at 2.63%, while Manhattan had the highest, 3.79%. Of the other boroughs, Queens’ was 2.82%, Brooklyn’s was 2.78%, and the small sample size of vacant apartments in Staten Island made calculation of a vacancy rate in that borough unworkable."

www.housingnyc.com/downloads/research/pdf_reports/06HSR.pdf

Citihabitats seems to have underreported the vacancy rate a tad, no?

I'm not talking about PURCHASING PRICES steve. All along you have said (correctly) that rents are correlated to incomes and if incomes fall, so should rents. I was merely pointing out the correlation in Manhattan is seriously flawed because of 59% stabilization and the myriad of different incomes that are living in stabilized apartments. Translation, who the hell knows what will happen to rents.

Thanks for trying to "learn me a few things" but I have to say, it is more off point poo poo.