UK- Right on schedule

Have you deemed yourself the bearer of bad news doom and gloom or what?? Why do you choose to live in that place? It is so much nicer to be in the middle and realize that life is all about ups and downs and without one we cannot appreciate the other. Life ebbs and flows. Sure we are in a bad state economically, but we will be in a good one again as well. I hope that you can widen your vision and realize that you are entitled to an opinion without having to prove yourself.

buddyparker- "you are entitled to an opinion without having to prove yourself". That may be some of the best advice I have ever gotten. No really I'm being serious. I know that it seems that is what I'm trying to do and to some extent you are right. The other thing that I'm trying to do is to display information combating the NYC RE marketing machine. They just continuously spew BS about markets and lie to potential buyers. Well maybe now you might understand a little of my mind set. And thanks for the advice.

So the UK economy is slowing, but still growing. Another great mystery that you uncovered dco, you must be so proud of yourself. Obviously based on this article, the NYC real estate market will crash by 50% . . .

LICCcomment "Obviously based on this article, the NYC real estate market will crash by 50% . . ." you said it not me.

LICComment- You attacking my character is getting old. Stick to the information and debate its validity as to its substance and effects on NYC RE. That would be a much better use of everyone's time. And while we are at it. Can you give us a LIC update? How are sale progressing? Also can you shed some light as to why the Powerhouse is well over a year behind and not even close to being ready? Just curious?

Why don't you answer my questions first? What are your credentials for economic and real estate market analysis? Instead of cutting and pasting isolated articles and babbling unintelligent conclusory statements, tell us what in your background or experience would lead anyone to take you seriously?

LIC - why does DCO have to provide you with credentials? It's an article that DCO believes puts to rest some of the assertions that European buyers are going to continue to drive real estate prices in Manhattan. Why does he have to have a degree in economic theory to post an article? Why do you get so defensive every time he does? Seriously, I read this board for information about the current state of the market. That includes getting information about the well being of foreign economies that Brokers tell me are influencing prices. Who are you to constantly argue the merits of these articles? What are your credentials? If you don't like the article, or think it is wrong, then post some economic theory of your own. Don't just make pointless ad hominem attacks. I am no fan of DCO or anyone else here, but I can't abide refuting an article with "why should I take you seriously". If you have an alternative view point with data to back that up (Case shiller, articles, your own research) then post it.

LICComment- Does it matter what my qualifications are? Those that ask usually hide behind their big degrees and have no real life experience. If I told you I hold an economics degree from Harvard would that make a difference. You act as if there are some qualifications for common sense. I'm sure Bear Sterns had their fair share of "qualified" people and we know how that ended. So what is your point? Are you saying that those who only have formal educations or brokers have knowledge of markets? I don't know where you are going with this obsession?

If you really want to challenge my qualifications perhaps you should check my old posts and compare them to today's markets and see if I'm right, some what right or dead wrong. I already know for myself. Perhaps if you need reassurance go and do the research and prove your own qualifications to yourself.

Give me a break already with your superiority complex. Even with this market you still insist place like LIC are selling and will increase in price. You have lost so much credibility your making yourself look foolish.

Ah, dco, you're almost adorable.

Memnonhi- That is exactly my point of posting articles. It shows that the attacker (LICComents) doesn't care about the message, it's the messenger he despises. He has a clear problem that I disagree with the NYC RE marketing machine that he is a member of and has resorted to insults because the facts are overwhelmingly bearish on NYC RE. This is seen by him as a threat. If he and others just accepted it we would recover much faster. Giving sellers high expectations and ling to buyers is not the fastest way to correct the problem.

Look, I and many others have refuted dco's "analysis" and opinions substantively many times over. Just go back to the old posts. He consistently posts insulting negative comments and spins out-of-context facts to back his argument that real estate prices are going to crash 50% or more. He ignores every logical and factual argument that contradicts him and just keeps spinning misleading statements. It isn't worth having a merit-based discussion with him anymore because of all his nonsense. Until he can establish why he should be taken seriously, I choose to just point out the fact that his posts are inane. Memnonhi, if you are relying on a dco cited article for your knowledge of the real estate market and the state of foreign buyers, then you need to learn how to do your own research.

"Those that ask usually hide behind their big degrees and have no real life experience."

This is where I would tend to agree with you.

LICComment- Don't get made at me because the market is slooooooowing in LIC. Almost every unit sold in LIC was pre-2008. The inventory is piling up even with a collective effort of new developers. As matter of fact some re-sells are hitting the market at 5sl and View 59. Lets not even mention that most of the projects can't seem to get their act together and finish what they started 3 years ago. So you keep telling people now ids the best time to buy and that you will be priced out if you don't act now.

LICComment - "if you are relying on a dco cited article for your knowledge of the real estate market and the state of foreign buyers, then you need to learn how to do your own research".

Now, who is spinning out of context facts? When did I say I was relying on DCO? I didn't. If DCO points to CNBC and I read the article on CNBC's website am I doing my own research? Is it valid then? You have said nothing concerning the validity of the article and why it refutes DCO's assertion. I didn't even say that DCO was right, just that he was pointing to an article that backs up his statement. So, instead of providing a counter-argument to the fallacy of DCO's argument, you went straight for my credibility. Weak. Why try to insult me? I have nothing to do with DCO's argument, or your long running argument with him.

Memnonhi, the issue with dco isn’t that he posts only bad news articles. dco, has in his head that because the economy is in trouble, he has been right all along. What he has not provided is any “analysis” that supports his theory of a 50% market correction (I’m laughing as I type this). The analysis he is referring to is a couple months of posting economic downturn articles and claiming that he has been right all along. We can all see that UK job losses, Spain’s economic troubles, Wall St. layoffs are not good for NYC real estate. How big of an impact all of these things will have remain to be seen. dco talks as if the outcomes are already set in stone (e.g. a 50% correction). You would think that anyone with such bold predictions would have more to fall back on than daily articles from CNBC and his ever popular “see I told you this was going to happen” remarks.

The whole thing is quite comical actually. dco is basically streeteasy’s village idiot, but at least he is entertaining and every community needs one.

JM- Thanks for the kind words. I guess people have short memories. For months the "Crew" was stating that Manhattan is this unique island that will never decrease. They never anticipated the job loses on wall street would be so big, although they claim to be so intelligent. They never anticipated the credit crunch, although they claim to be so intelligent. They never imagined that imagined that lending standards would change overnight. I stated months before the bottom fallout that this would happen. And when the market saw a fools rally most bought into it and claimed the problem solved, only to realize that it's hit new lows.

OK, Here we go again. Things are going to get worse for both RE and wall street. Save the link. Do what ever you want. We will see both markets deteriorate further in the next several months. If you want me to give you my reasons I suggest you read watch cnbc. And If you do pay attention to how bullish they are. You'll see I agree with everything they say.

wait. so...uh, cnbc leads you by the nose.
that's quite funny.
at least UD rehases seeking alpha.

dco, what exactly do you think you were right about? Everyone has known for months now that credit issues would be a problem and that Wall Street would be down with significant layoffs, and that the real estate market would be hit hard nationwide and likely soften in NYC. NYC real estate has not crashed. Not even close. You have yet to predict anything or say anything original.

"For months the "Crew" was stating that Manhattan is this unique island that will never decrease."

dco, "the crew" has asked you multiple time to find one post where someone actually said this. You have failed to provide one and continue to dodge the question. You also still haven't provided any reasoning other than news articles for your 50% correction theory. It is pretty simple really.

JuiceMan - I see your point. Thanks. However, don't take this as defending DCO, but so what? Specifically, so what if DCO thinks that the ground is going to open up and swallow all of Manhattan island on Christmas day 2012? So what, if based on that belief, he posts articles from National Geographic showing how Manhattan has increased in seismic activity. The appropriate response to DCO is to say "You are wrong, and in support of that statement, please refer to the following articles and laws of physics".

Now, i happen to not believe that Manhattan is going to drop 50%. However, no one is giving solid data that says WHY it is not going to drop. I think the level of discourse could be raised here by refuting DCO's statements with actual data as opposed to insulting him. It is possible that DCO is crazy and has no idea what he is talking about, but if you can't refute the "village idiot" with logic and data, what does that say about us?

"Now, i happen to not believe that Manhattan is going to drop 50%. However, no one is giving solid data that says WHY it is not going to drop."

Fair Memnonhi, but that is exactly my point. There is no data that supports a 50% correction any more than a 25% increase. What is helpful to readers is intelligent dialog over the risks and potential outcomes. Pulling 50% out of your ass helps who? Why not 95%? As LIC mentioned above, when dco is faced with reasoned arguments he goes off on one of his “Manhattan prices can never decrease” tirades. It is really quite a useless exercise.

"Specifically, so what if DCO thinks that the ground is going to open up and swallow all of Manhattan island on Christmas day 2012? "

This is another good point Memnonhi, and the fact is, I really don't care. I do however like reading this blog and when I log on in the morning and see pages of replicated media articles presented in a EUREKA type fashion, I will lash out on occasion.

JM - Fair and good point. What I mean about refuting the data is that DCO has a basis for this 50% number. As I can ascertain, it comes from SteveJhx's formula for valuing the price of an apartment. I have no idea if this formula is valid or not. Regardless of if it is, DCO and others use it to explain why they think the asking prices are 50% overboard. They then bring in general economic distress at home and abroad to further support their theory of inflated prices. As such they have at least some objective data that the current real estate market might face some downward pressure. Whether that pressure is enough to drive prices down 50% remains to be seen (and as I previously stated, I doubt it). What I would like to see is some objective data that contradicts "the downward pressure" model. If he is full of it, I would like to know why one thinks so and the data they used to come to that conclusion.

Memnonhi, plenty of us have provided the reasoned analysis and objective data and support refuting steve and dco, and they just ignore it and continue with nonsensical conclusions, flawed arguments, and isolated articles. If you really want to see it, go back to the old posts, because I believe that we are all tired of having to present the same rational argument and research the same data over and over again.

"I believe that we are all tired of having to present the same rational argument and research the same data over and over again" -LICComment

My point exactly.

i will now make a DCO like prediction - "I predict that there will be problems in the middle east>"

petrfiz said: "i will now make a DCO like prediction - "I predict that there will be problems in the middle east>""

I took that to my broker, and he said "yes, so everybody in the middle east will want to buy a property in manhattan, and so the prices will go up for EVER .."

petrfitz- That made me laugh. How is RE in the middle east?

Hey dco, this must blow your mind, why didn't you cut and paste this article:

Collins Stewart is taking advantage of Wall Street layoffs and expanding into new business areas.

July 08. 2008 1:09PM Aaron Elstein

Collins Stewart, a London-based investment bank, is taking advantage of steep cutbacks in staff at rival firms.

The English concern is expanding in New York, and in the past month has hired teams of research analysts in such areas as energy and biotechnology. It is looking to further broaden its reach into such areas as derivatives and merger advisory.

“We’re in building mode,” said Shawn McLoughlin, Collins Stewart’s chief executive of the Americas. . . .
Collins Stewart ventured into the United States a year ago when it acquired investment bank C.E. Unterberg Towbin for $32 million. The firm currently has 175 U.S. employees, about a quarter of its total worldwide workforce. Most of the U.S. workers are in New York.

While London by some measures has surpassed New York in recent years as the world’s leading financial center, Mr. Plasco said he sees the tide turning in New York’s favor. The dramatic drop in the dollar’s value makes it less expensive for businesses based overseas to hire people here and also means the United States is a more attractive place for manufacturers to set up shop.

LICComment- That's great news. Now that the foreigners are no longer buying RE, they are giving jobs away. This will fuel the RE market in NYC. You see it's just one great foreign circle of RE.

I don't see how a bank with 175 people saying it's expanding makes a difference when a bank with 14,000 people says it's laying off half of them.

Collins-Stewart has never been bloated with people. They keep a very tight, lean staff. And they do a lot of business.

ok so DCO you have no "credentials"

Have you been to the UK in the past 3 or 6 months, or even a year? Any first hand experience or street smarts, to make up for the fact that you didn't go to Harvard?

TwoFacedLiar- Has anyone else noticed a lot of new people on the site. Almost all bulls. My guess is that as things get worse they get more frustrated and need to vent. Perhaps they are Realtors with a lot of time on their hands these days. Any insight or opinions, fire away.

dco - things were much more vitriolic a few months ago - mood has changed

re posts, the data in a different thread, re "if anyone has ....." is more specifically about price movements, though it takes more time to read through fewer words and get a handle on what they mean

I'm more interested in seeing things like which neighborhoods are reducing prices, in what types of buildings, what kind of buyers and sellers they are, and trying to figure out overall trends that way. The news articles about layoffs and economists predicting the future are less helpful. The theoretical arguments that raged forever about multiples of rent, etc., were interesting, but after a while just chest-thumping nastiness, though they did reveal how prestige points are important to some New Yorkers. I would not take the generalized gloom and doom mainstream newspaper articles too seriously, frankly. A huge corporation makes an announcement about a certain round number of planned layoffs. When and where? I keep seeing people type this number of 175,000 jobs lost in finance. It could be people adding together different estimates by different people, and each of those numbers could include jobs in other areas of the country and overseas. Yes, downsizing in Manhattan financial firms has profound effects. But no one can say with certainty 20%, 50%, 75% reductions in prices. My own worst-case scenario I could imagine (which does not mean that I believe my own worst-scenario is what I think will happen) would be a prolonged, gradual rise in mortgage rates and a decade of flat real estate prices. We shall see.

TwoFacedLiar - I am sorry to keep laboring this point, but so what? Are you telling me that CNBC is lying? Are they shading the truth? If I go to London tomorrow will I see for myself that everything is fine in the London and greater UK housing market? Why would DCO going to London be more credible than DCO citing an article from CNBC? I have been to London, recently, and was not given an economic primer on the state of the housing market while waiting to claim my luggage. So please explain why DCO, or anyone for that matter, needs to go to a place before they can credibly cite an article that speaks about that place?

LIC - That is an interesting counter article to DCO.

Memnonhi, LICC is correct. There are a number of threads where I (and many others) have argued the 50% theory with facts, numbers, and analysis. Most of those discussions got derailed based on some mundane point that had nothing to do with the analysis in the first place. It is impossible to argue with someone that wants to be right more than to come to and objective and unbiased answer that everyone can learn from. It is also huge a waste of time. Unfortunately, it seems you have come to this board after all of this occurred. Your request for competing analysis is justified, however doing so with a few particular individuals has proven not worthy of the time.

That said, pick any current property in a solid neighborhood priced between $1000 and $1100 per sq ft. Do a rent vs. buy analysis using a comparable (and I stress comparable) rental and you will see that the statements like it is “2x more expensive to rent than to buy” is well, inaccurate. As you requested, this will disprove the 50% correction statement with real numbers. That said, if you look at most new developments, these will be 2x (or more) in some cases. I still don't feel that a 50% correction is probable for many reasons (would be a good discussion on a separate thread), but feel it is impossible for those units to avoid considerable price pressure.

Memnonhi- I appreciate you recognizing BS and now you see why I post the way I do. If you looked at my old post, dating back 6 months or so, you will see that I gave many explanations for my analysis. However it was treated with the same reaction from the "crew". I'm in no way suggesting you look at my old posts, just bring you up to speed on why I post the way I do. I just got tired of posting my own interpretation of market conditions and how I believe the economy would react and it's effects on the NYC RE market.

Past posts included my analysis on why New Developments can't lower prices, despite a decreasing market. And why inventory numbers are much higher then currently listed on the market and that it's a collaboration effort from a well organized Marketing machine with New Developers at the head. It's in essence a fictitious market. And this is why prices will decrease in Manhattan just as much as the rest of the country. The "crews" whole argument is that buyer in NYC are much more sophisticated and this can never happen here, it's the furthest thing from the truth. I'm quite certain that Bear Sterns and the rest of the Banks thought they had the most intellectual employees and investors and they are the on of the ones that got us into this mess.

Let me be clear I think that you can make money in both RE and stocks. I just think things age going to get worse and the time to buy either is much to high of a risk. If some of those intelligent Bankers would have assessed risk "at all" we may have avoided this whole mess.

Juiceman - Thanks. That is a reasonable analysis. I am not sure if I agree with you entirely (you stated " in a solid neighborhood" and I am not sure that is an objective standard, but 1000 to 1100psf is very objective so I spit the difference).

As I read this board in general, it becomes more clear that people are at times arguing to apply similar analysis to different situations. Perhaps that is why sometimes it devolves into personal attacks and what not. I would find it hard to believe that some areas of the city are going to decrease by 50%, however, I think it is quite likely that some areas will get close to that number. Regardless, if someone has a theory to support their assertion, then I see no harm in entertaining it.

My purpose here is to get some quantifiable data (pro and con ) so that when the time comes for me to make my move, I am well equipped.

> Hey dco, this must blow your mind, why didn't you cut and paste this article:
> Collins Stewart is taking advantage of Wall Street layoffs and expanding into new business areas.

Dude, did you actually READ the article?!?!?

They added TWELVE people.

Talk about grasping for straws... if 12 new jobs are "great news", then man are things fucked.

> There is no data that supports a 50% correction any more than a 25% increase.

Wishful thinking... but given that co-op sales are down 50%, layoffs like mad, significant declines in income, etc.... a significant decline is absolutely supported by the data more than a 25% increase.

> That said, pick any current property in a solid neighborhood priced between $1000 and $1100 per sq
> ft. Do a rent vs. buy analysis using a comparable (and I stress comparable) rental and you will see
> that the statements like it is “2x more expensive to rent than to buy” is well, inaccurate.

Watch me... DUMBO. There are rentals going for half the carrying costs of the sales prices.

EddieWilson- Welcome and stand by your convictions, the "crew", also known as the NYC Real Estate Marketing Machine will try and wear you down. They have a lot at stake, in keeping the market, artificially inflated and will compromise their own integrity to get that accomplished. Good Luck and "see you on the beach". (great movie)

I work in the Wall St area (albeit in healthcare, not finance), but impressively have not known a single person who's been given a pink slip in all this mess. I'm not doubting it's happened, but just wanted to get some feedback from anyone else out there who's experienced (or not experienced) the job-cutting. For one, I think that 175k is a gross exaggeration, but who knows.

bjw, same. though, i also work in the biotech/healthcare space. so, might explain why we're seeing the same thing.

"EddieWilson- Welcome and stand by your convictions, the "crew", also known as the NYC Real Estate Marketing Machine will try and wear you down. They have a lot at stake, in keeping the market, artificially inflated and will compromise their own integrity to get that accomplished. Good Luck and "see you on the beach". (great movie)"

Thanks, and totally agreed. Its pretty easy to spot the broker shills from a mile away. And then you have the additional mass of the 'scared shitless stretched to purchase in 2007' crew thinking that if they yell enough, somehow we'll skip the recession. I usually feel bad for those guys... but then I see one of them with a ridiculous rationalization post and I can't help myself.

It's also easy to see the "I'm bitter that I can't afford to buy on my salary and I don't want to admit that there are lots of people out there who make a hell of a lot more money than I do so I'll pretend the market is 50% overpriced" crew.

LICComment- If there are as many people making all this money, how do explain the increasing inventories. I'm fully aware how much money there is in this city, however you grossly exaggerate the number of people making that kind of money. There is tremendous wealth in this city. The problem with your theory is, that it's not spread among all the people you think. What's better for the RE market, one person worth 1 Billion or it spread out over thousands of people. So the fact that there is all this wealth is not as significant you make it appear. It's this little exercise that makes rising inventory a concern for real estate market. Now add new developments, still waiting to come on line and you have potential inventories, that will increase by the thousands this time next year.

dco, some signs of a crash scenario to look for - construction halted on condos as the developer goes bankrupt (happened in early '90s) - new construction switched from condo to rental by the time the building is finished, due to lack of buyers - numerous R/E ads in the papers on Sunday, for foreclosure auctions ("meet in the rotunda at 60 Centre Street at...") - numerous resale ads that say "owner must sell" - huge reductions in asking prices at new developments - new condo projects that switch to "coop" so that they can advertise deceptively low purchase prices, by adding huge mortgages into the maintenance charges (remember the $30,000 coops in LIC?)

none of this has happened yet - so far, though, it looks possible - exactly how many units are under construction now? - how are sales at them? - etc.

LICComment, that makes perfect sense. Anyone who refuses to overpay for something is, obviously, poor

btw, how's the L train?

> none of this has happened yet

We kidding with that?

> new construction switched from condo to rental by the time the building
> is finished, due to lack of buyers

Uh, try half of brooklyn new condo construction. Curbed has resorted to calling them "nondos". Beacon, Nexus, 70 Wash, 110 Livingston, TONS of that going on.... hell, the NY TImes did an article on the "trend".

> huge reductions in asking prices at new developments

Hmmm... 20% plus reductions don't qualify as "huge" anymore?

lowery- That is a fair assessment. Didn't the NYT run an article about a condo going rental in Brooklyn last month. Actually there was a quote at the bottom of the street-easy page. The NYT was glorifying it as how innovative the developer was. So I guess with falling prices and conversions already underway the rest may follow. Just my observation. Also there are dozens of buildings that have been stuck with units they needed to rent. I guess that is the first stage. Sell what you can and then rent the rest. If you planned to sell and then convert totally, I guess that's the next step.

EddieWilson, I think that's true in the less desirable parts of Brooklyn - downtown, Dumbo, Gowanus, East Williamsburg. I have not seen 20% reductions in the desirable buildings in more established neighborhoods. Have sales stalled? Absolutely, and there's certainly room for negotiation, but 20% is just not happening in the places I described. I'm not saying this will never happen, but it just hasn't thus far.

EddieWilson and dco - I'm slow... I didn't realize the condos switching to rental buildings was going on, certainly not widescale. I'm curious... are the ones you mention in Bklyn a mix of condos sold to buyers before the market softened and then the remaining units held by the developer and rented out? What happened in the last crash was you would see a condo project announced, the building would go up, no one would move in, it would stay empty after completion, deposits would be returned, and voila -- Tribeca had a new rental building, for instance.

EW, yes 20% sure qualifies as significant. I didn't know new developments are advertising offering prices 20% off their original offering price. Agreed, bad sign.

I do not see massive foreclosures going on. I did in the last crash. To be continued, monitored with interest by all of us.

lowery- The building that was in the NYT several weeks ago, started as a condo and transitioned to a complete rental. Also in East Harlem the same thing happened at a new development. Like I said it starts with the the surrounding areas first. All the signs are flashing and some just choice to ignore it. The risk to the downside is just overwhelming.

lowery - these things you mentioned have not been happening. Eddie talks crap and makes things up. Some buildings withheld some units to rent. A few decided before starting sales or shortly after to go rental instead of condo, but this has not been widespread in the least I also haven't seen many, if any, new developments with across-the-board 20% price drops.

> Some buildings withheld some units to rent.

Oh My Lord, with the rationalizations NEVER CEASE. Now its the Pee Wee Herman defense.... "I meant to do that". I meant to not be able to sell the apartments I've been trying to sell for two years. Sorry, but thats just wrong. The buildings I named pull ALL apartments for sale... none were "held back". Wishful thinking.

> lowery - these things you mentioned have not been happening. Eddie talks crap and makes things up.

Yes, me, the New York Times, and the buildings all made it up. Genius, the NYtimes RE section did a COVER STORY on this two weeks ago.

> EddieWilson, I think that's true in the less desirable parts of Brooklyn - downtown, Dumbo...

Those are the "less" desirable parts? Talk about rationalization up the wazoo. DUMBO is the MOST EXPENSIVE PART OF BROOKLYN. The buildings named were among the most expensive PSF anywhere in the borough (including when some actual sales were made). Oh my lord, can we cut the lying already??

> EddieWilson and dco - I'm slow... I didn't realize the condos switching to rental buildings was
> going on, certainly not widescale. I'm curious... are the ones you mention in Bklyn a mix of condos
> sold to buyers before the market softened and then the remaining units held by the developer and
> rented out? What happened in the last crash was you would see a condo project announced, the
> building would go up, no one would move in, it would stay empty after completion, deposits would be > returned, and voila -- Tribeca had a new rental building, for instance

Thats exactly what happened with a lot of the stock. Check out the curbed threads on buildings like 110 Livingston, the Nexus, the Beacon, 70 Washington. Crain's reported that only 50% of the new condo construction that has legally been available for sale in Brooklyn since 2006 has sold. Yes, 50%.

As much as some want to claim that the builders meant to do that, its an outright lie.

Again, this was a New York Times RE section COVER STORY. I know that some folks want to bury their heads in the sand, but facts are facts.

> Like I said it starts with the the surrounding areas first. All the signs
> are flashing and some just choice to ignore it

100%. Its an old story. If we didn't have the deniers, we wouldn't have had the bubble and crash in the first place.

Folks like LICComment just don't want you to know the truth because they've soiled themselves worrying that they bought at the top of a bubble.

110 Livingston pulled ALL apartments for sale Eddie? Really? You better tell all the people that bought condos in that building that they don't really own them.

As far as neighborhoods go, Brooklyn Heights is more established than DUMBO.

I bought in 1998 Eddie. Do you ever get tired of sounding so ridiculous with these comments of yours?

> 110 Livingston pulled ALL apartments for sale Eddie? Really? You

More lying? I'm not surprised.... show me the part where I said the entire building. They were selling fine in early 2007. Its a *whole* nother story in 2008. They claimed SOLD OUT about a year ago, and then came crawling back. And, hell, the average PSF in the building has been steadily decreasing as well.

> As far as neighborhoods go, Brooklyn Heights is more established than DUMBO.

And CHEAPER. Your point?

> Do you ever get tired of sounding so ridiculous with these comments of yours?

No, saying "told you so" makes it a lot of fun!

Yes, it would be better if I stopped being right about calling the decline, and instead just went with lying... like "Some buildings withheld some units to rent."

Oh my lord, talk about someone trying to cover up a DEEP insecurity with a lie...

Here is the coverage of 110 livingston lying about being sold out, then having to resort to renting when they couldn't sell...

http://curbed.com/archives/2008/06/16/shocker_40_apartments_at_110_livingston_went_nondo.php

Here is the coverage of 110 livingston PSFs steadily declining... even before they resorted to renting...

http://curbed.com/archives/2008/02/21/curbedwire_110_livingston_gets_graphed_lic_flips.php

thanks, both of you, but whichever has the whole picture straight, neither picture approaches the scenarios I remember from around 1990-1992 -- not to say we won't get there, but....

Eddie: "The buildings I named pull ALL apartments for sale... none were "held back". Wishful thinking."

Eddie's previous comment: "
new construction switched from condo to rental by the time the building
> is finished, due to lack of buyers

Uh, try half of brooklyn new condo construction. Curbed has resorted to calling them "nondos". Beacon, Nexus, 70 Wash, 110 Livingston, TONS of that going on."

Now you say that you never said 110 Livingston converted to rentals. You either are a liar or you are delusional. You take the prize for being so wrong and so arrogant at the same time.

The condos in Brooklyn Heights may be cheaper than DUMBO, but BH is more of a townhouse neighborhood and overall costs to buy a home are higher.

EddieWilson, don't understand why you're so combative. I don't consider Dumbo to be all that desirable, but hey, that's my opinion - not lying or rationalizing. Brooklyn Heights is definitely not cheaper - I'm not sure where you're getting that info. As LICComment said, BH has many townhouses and is quite different from Dumbo.

> EddieWilson, don't understand why you're so combative.

Its called *correct*, not combatative. Pointing out a lie isn't combatative.

> I don't consider Dumbo to be all that desirable

It doesn't matter what YOU consider desirable, its what the market considers desirable. And, to make an incorrect point, you picked the MOST statistically desirable spot in all of Brooklyn and called it "less desirable".

Thats basically lying... you couldn't be any more statistically inaccurate than you were.

bjw, Eddie seems delusional. The best part is that he has no clue how everyone who reads his comments can see how simple-minded and wrong he is. He makes things up and when you point it out, he calls you a liar to hide the fact that he is clueless.

LICComment- And you claim I'm a broken record.

EddieWilson, you are pretty combative. It doesn't matter what YOU consider *correct*. In my experience, Dumbo is really not as desirable as some people make it out to be, which is why we're seeing poor sales there now. The most desirable areas in Brooklyn, I think, are really Brooklyn Heights, Cobble Hill, most of Carroll Gardens, most of Boerum Hill, Park Slope, most of northside Williamsburg, and most of Fort Greene. Dumbo, Downtown, southside and east Williamsburg, Clinton Hill, etc. aren't quite in the same ballpark for the time being. If you think I can't be "any more statistically inaccurate," well then let's see some stats. Until then, your comments don't come off any better than the "broker shill" you seem to hate. And most likely worse because they're so bullheaded and vituperative.

> LICComment- And you claim I'm a broken record.

Bingo.

The funny thing is, I'm talking about actual stats. And this schmuck is a 3rd grader covering his ears and yelling over and over again.

DUMBO apartments are simply the most expensive apartments on average. You can scream over and over how you don't like DUMBO, but the rest of the world is paying more for them than anywhere else. Sales are down for sure, but they're down all over the place. Did you miss that whole thing on how Brooklyn sales are down 44%? Clearly you did. EVERYWHERE is slowing down.

But DUMBO is still the most expensive...

Eddie, really man? You've got to resort to name-calling? I saw the sales report, but explain to me how lower sales for the entire borough leads you to the conclusion that Dumbo is the most desirable neighborhood in Brooklyn. That's ridiculous. The three biggest sales of the year in Brooklyn are all in BH so far, but that's not even that significant. Think it through - most people who could afford to stay in Manhattan come to Brooklyn for townhouse-style living, not for high-rise condo replications.

> Eddie, really man? You've got to resort to name-calling? I saw the sales report, but explain to me
> how lower sales for the entire borough leads you to the conclusion that Dumbo is the most desirable
> neighborhood in Brooklyn.

Uh, it didn't. Highest PSF in all of Brooklyn does (with a *very* healthy margin over BH). REBNY source.

> That's ridiculous

The only ridiculous thing here is the putz calling the most expensive neighborhood in Brooklyn "less desirable".

> The three biggest sales of the year in Brooklyn

Oh, I get it. YOUR opinion means you can say "everyone". And 3 sales is the market. Now I see where you get your delusions from.

You can talk in circles all you want, but you tried to claim that the market softness reports were because "less desirable" neighborhoods were picked.

Thats a lousy rationalization bordering on absolute lie.

Now sit down and shut up.

Oh, and I almost forgot this one:

"I work in the Wall St area... impressively have not known a single person who's been given a pink slip in all this mess."

So, Wall Street is fine because you don't know sh*t about it either...

Keep your head in the sand...

Eddie, love the arrogance. You're completely ignoring the difference in housing stock in BH vs Dumbo. Townhouses sell for less psf than condos - I assumed you'd know that. I didn't claim that those 3 sales are "the market," but if you're going to claim Dumbo is the most desirable/expensive part of Brooklyn, where's the data? You've yet to post anything really, other than your foul-mouthed rants. Dumbo has pretty poor subway access, and not a ton of neighborhood amenities. And I'm not criticizing the market reports on softness - it's clear sales are way down, but your incessant chanting about new devs slashing 20% off asking isn't accurate. It might happen down the road (and certainly, slowing sales is an early indicator), but hasn't yet, certainly not in the desirable areas I mentioned. And I never said Wall St is fine - I merely asked a question. Quit putting words in people's mouths, and take your ridiculous behavior elsewhere. Or "sit down and shut up," whichever you prefer.

Eddie, how can you be so angry and so stupid at the same time? Try to buy a median priced home in Brooklyn Heights compared to DUMBO. Brooklyn Heights will cost more, because there is more townhouse stock than condo. I can't believe you are so arrogantly stupid about this point. Brooklyn Heights is easily the more highly regarded area. This isn't my opinion, this is practically everyone's perception.
You don't give stats, you give baseless conclusions and then moronically attack everyone who disagrees.

ROTFL. You're talking in circles again.

Explain again how any of this makes DUMBO a "less desirable" neighborhood, and one where stats on it should be ignored.

And, big picture, explain how the FORTY FOUR percent decline in Brooklyn means anything other than a FORTY FOUR PERCENT DECLINE.

> Dumbo has pretty poor subway access

Yes, ACF within 3-5 blocks of most of DUMBO, and uh, 45 NR 12 and, well, hell, almost everything else 10 blocks away.

ARE YOU KIDDING WITH THIS? ARE YOU REALLY THIS DUMB?

> but your incessant chanting about new devs slashing 20% off asking isn't accurate.

You can keep saying it isn't happening, but you'd be wrong.

> Quit putting words in people's mouths

I didn't, you're the ass with the post up there who called it a "less desirable" neighborhood of Brooklyn...

> Try to buy a median priced home in Brooklyn Heights compared to DUMBO.
> Brooklyn Heights will cost more, because there is more townhouse stock than condo.

Thanks for proving the point.

That doesn't make it more desirable, that is a SUPPLY issue. Demand is what we're talking about. And PSFs are a pretty clear sign of demand factors....

> This isn't my opinion, this is practically everyone's perception.

That DUMBO is a "less desirable" neighborhood. Really? Everyone.

Gocha... you two schmucks deserve each other. Go hide your heads in the sand and tell us that the market is "strong".

Eddie, I usually steer clear of the ad-hominem stuff on here, but you're clearly an instigator, which means this is how you're getting your kicks (quite sad really). You're just wrong on the subway access to Dumbo - it's really just served by the York St stop, which is ONLY the F line. It's a longer walk to High St for the A or C, but still not too bad. Beyond that, it's a hike by NYC standards. The closest 4/5 stop is Borough Hall, and the closest N stop is Pacific (at 4th Ave!), which is so far from Dumbo, I'm beginning to question that you've ever set foot in the area. And yes, the 1 doesn't even go to Brooklyn. To quote you, "Are you really this dumb?"

As for the 20% cuts, show me a new dev where that's happened in any of the areas I mentioned. You STILL haven't produced any facts here. This board is for intelligent discussion, from both sides of the coin - it's a shame you're incapable of that.

I could be wrong but I'll take a stab at it. Eddie's argument is that the price of Dumbo, being so high PSF makes it more desirable based on price. If dumbo was that much less desirable, then the price would reflected in lower demand resulting in lower prices. But it's just a guess. Hope this helps.

dco, now you're defending this foul-mouthed instigator? As much as I think you can be insulting, I give you credit for not being crude.

Now, as for your comment - PSF is mostly relevant in condos and coops. Brooklyn Heights has many more beautiful townhouses than condo buildings. It is a different market. You probably are not familiar with those neighborhoods. BH is an affluent, highly regarded Brooklyn neighborhood much different from DUMBO.

LICComment- I'm not defending anybody, however I would agree that I made a mistake. The mistake I made was trying to assume some others thoughts. I thought it would of helped. Sorry.

LIComment is correct - BH has been Wall St's bedroom, so to speak, for decades. Dumbo has some very nice (and pricey) newer loft-type condos, but a) there aren't that many of them yet (~60 per Streeteasy), and b) the area hasn't caught up just yet in terms of amenities. It's amazing that the neighborhoods are so close considering how utterly different they are otherwise. Again, to be needlessly reductive - people buy in BH for the traditional townhouse/Brooklyn feel; people who buy in Dumbo are looking for a hip, edgy, Manhattan feel. I'm guessing that many of the younger and successful Wall St guys bought here, which will only add to the pressure on housing in the area. I'd be curious to see data on how many townhouse owners in BH have completely paid off their mortgages.

actually, dco, don't apologize, you have it right... and we also have a bunch of putzes trying to rationalize a near 50% decline. Once the facts don't support their arguments, they go to "well, people might not pay more but they LIKE it more, so...". In the end, its a MAJOR, MAJOR drop. NO way to play that.

> Heights has many more beautiful townhouses than condo buildings. It is a different market.

And cheaper. If it was more desirable, people would be willing to pay more for the space. And they aren't. And, in the end, it still doesn't justify calling the MOST EXPENSIVE neighborhood in town the LEAST DESIRABLE. That is just moronic.

Oh yeah, btw... median hours price is higher in Cobble Hill than Brooklyn Heights. Whoops...

And, back to the putz's.... talk about foot in mouth.

Putz #1
> I'm beginning to question that you've ever set foot in the area.

Putz #2
> You probably are not familiar with those neighborhoods

Except for the fact that I LIVE THERE.

Want to tell me else something incorrect about my neighborhood?

I'm within 3 blocks from 3 trains, one more block gets me 2 more and 8 blocks total from another 5 or 6 or who knows, there are too many to count.

Eddie, just repeating your lies over and over again won't make them true. Tell me where in Manhattan, BH, DUMBO, etc. that homes have lost 50% of its value. It hasn't happened, not even close. Maybe you should go back to school and learn how to argue properly.

LICComment,

I think Eddie is referring to the near 50% decline in sales transactions in Brooklyn that the press has recently printed.

50% price declines have not happened in Manhattan.

Eddie, it's great that you live in Brooklyn (as do I), but you really can't fault me for saying that when you say ridiculous things like Dumbo is close to a stop on the N or 1 lines. Again, one of those doesn't even go through Brooklyn! So, where's the developments with 20% cuts on asking? The funny thing is I agree with you that prices will come down (not 50%, but still) - it just hasn't happened yet. Even that Brooklyn report you cite has median condo prices up 9% in some of the areas that some consider overdeveloped. Those are closings to contracts signed a while back obviously, but the data to back your statement up isn't there now.

i would like to thank Steve, BJW,dco, ediewilson, MMAfia, and LICComment for the rent checks that you wrote to me this month. I paid my mortgages and the remaining 50% went to my yatch and the chinese girl down the street who gives me massages with happy endings.

You guys are brilliant for renting and not buying. Please keep up that mentality.

what's your yatch Your_Landlord? Is that what the chinese girl plays with to get you to a happy ending?

Your_Landlord "the chinese girl down the street who gives me massages with happy endings."

Do you know that's not even remotely cool. Perhaps I missed the memo that paying for sex was what real men do. You're pathetic at best. Perhaps you should use some of that money and learn how to find a girlfriend that doesn't take credit cards.

> So, where's the developments with 20% cuts on asking?

Forte is already well beyond that, at least 5-6 more were recently mentioned on Curbed, I just can't keep track of 'em all.

And the ass who is trying to go after me for getting 7 of 8 subway lines right is the schmuck who said "Dumbo has pretty poor subway access, " You clearly missed the big point, you were blatantly wrong. I've got 5 lines within 4 blocks... 3 of those express. And a bunch of crap at borough hall (8 blocks) I don't use.

And, once again, its just part of the bigger, dumber rationalization you made that DUMBO is one of the "less desirable" neighborhood... when the demand says its on top.

TwoFacedLiar, HYSTERICAL comment on the "yacht".

Your-Landlord - You are blowing smoke man, the guys I know with "yatchs" aren't depending on chinese girls "down the street" for anything. They're getting the prime stuff for free. Might wanna consider a blood test.

Eddie, Forte is NOT in the areas I described - it's downtown Brooklyn, which has taken its lumps for a while now. I've seen the cuts on Curbed as well - nothing coming from the prime areas yet. I acknowledge it could well happen - all I'm saying is that it hasn't yet.

Dumbo has poor subway access - I'm glad you're happy with it, but for someone who constantly talks about rationalization... I particularly love how you label Borough Hall "a bunch of crap" with that many lines running through it, yet love the York St stop that much. Regardless, Dumbo is changing, no doubt (I visited this weekend for the first time in a few months and was impressed), but I'm still not convinced that it's on par with the rest yet. That much was clear when I passed through Brooklyn Heights on the way home. If you've got a problem with my take, fine, but at this point you should probably just get over it.

> Eddie, Forte is NOT in the areas I described

Yes, I know that every neighborhood we name will be called "less desirable" by you... sorry, but once you tried to remove DUMBO from the equation because it wasn't "desirable", I stopped paying attention to your neighborhood assessments.

> I particularly love how you label Borough Hall "a bunch of crap" with
> that many lines running through it,

You read the line wrong. BH isn't crap, there is a bunch of crap AT borough hall is what I said. I was talking about subway lines.... noting that there are a lot, I just don't use 'em as often. Generally ACF23 I use, all within 4 blocks (or 5, depending on how you count).

And, yes, the F stop itself sucks.

> Dumbo has poor subway access

OK, keep saying it and it will be true. I'll enjoy the 5 lines I have within blocks.

> Regardless, Dumbo is changing, no doubt (I visited this weekend for the
> first time in a few months and was impressed), but I'm still not convinced
> that it's on par with the rest yet.

Yes, maybe there will be a crime wave and prices will lower, so it will be "on par" with the other neighborhoods.

Eddie, who is "we"?

Forte is downtown Brooklyn. You just can't use that as wishful thinking for price cuts in every part of Brooklyn.

It really just sounds to me like you're getting defensive about Dumbo because you bought there, are rationalizing it, and jumping on the "bear bandwagon" to mock anyone else who bought/is thinking of buying elsewhere.

> It really just sounds to me like you're getting defensive about Dumbo
> because you bought there, are rationalizing it, and jumping on the
> "bear bandwagon" to mock anyone else who bought/is thinking of buying elsewhere.

Wishful thinking, but, no... I actually don't like DUMBO as a place to live. I just happen to know its the most expensive neighborhood. In fact, you have it completely backward. I noted that there are major price cuts there, and its having serious issues.

So I'm not sure what I'd be "rationalizing". I'm just correcting those who are ignoring pretty blatant facts with lousy rationalizations.

> Forte is downtown Brooklyn.

I wouldn't actually call it that.... its *very* far from the courts, and on the opposite side of flatbush. If anything, I've seen that called BAM or "brooklyn arts" district.

In the end, it really doesn't matter. There is a FORTY FOUR percent decline in the market. Everywhere in Brooklyn is getting hit... and this is only the beginning.

Saying "this neighborhood doesn't count" and "that neighborhood doesn't count" is nothing but....

rationalizing...

What exactly am I rationalizing Eddie? You seem to spend most of you day posting here, putting words in people's mouths, and supposedly enjoying the CRASH that's coming. I'm not rationalizing anything here - I'm just disputing your statement that all new devs in Brooklyn have slashed asking prices by 20%, that's all. The fact is, it's happened in the less desirable parts of Brooklyn (call that section of downtown BAM or whatever you want - ahem, rationalizing - but it's still in an area that most people wouldn't put at the top of their list), but hasn't in the better parts - YET. That's what I've been saying; don't say something's happened before it happens (if it ever does). You can yell Forte all you want, but a universal price chop that does not make.

Also, to belabor the point, but here's a nice map of Dumbo and the more expensive listings. Notice that the walk to subways (even the York stop) is a hike any way you slice it. 1 Main St is what, 7 blocks to the F. Even further along Cadman Plaza (always a beautiful scene) to the A/C.
http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sales/dumbo-brooklyn/

> I'm just disputing your statement that all new devs in Brooklyn
> have slashed asking prices by 20%

Well, thats an excellent waste of time... because I never said that. Let me know where I said that *every* new development has slashed prices by 20%.

"The fact is, it's happened in the less desirable parts of Brooklyn (call that section of downtown BAM or whatever you want - ahem, rationalizing - but it's still in an area that most people wouldn't put at the top of their list), but hasn't in the better parts "

Again, the rationalization here is picking the most expensive part and claiming data there doesn't matter because its not a "better part". This used to be a funny joke, but its getting old.

I'm glad you need a map to tell you where DUMBO is, but you still don't get it. As for DUMBO, the best buildings are on main street and adjacent to the water - 1 main and sweeney. But they're the older buildings, and not very big. Most of the building and the apartments are not there... they're on the other side of the commerce side. And I personally don't like most of the new stuff, but their PSFs seem to be higher than the main street stuff (especially the higher floor J condos stuff)

70 Washington, Nexus, Beacon, are basically all there when you walk around 1 block. J Condos is another block, and its ON TOP of the f stop. 70 washington, becon, nexus, besides being within 2 blocks of F are also within 3-4 (depending on how you count the park) from the A.

Not to mention the absolute hypcrisy.

On your map, put yourself on Montague - the main drag of BH - at the promenade - the most expensive part), and you are pretty damn far from the subway. 4 long blocks, or, if you count the shorter blocks, its 6. The Joralemon side is completely screwed..

So, apples to apples, of course the stuff ON THE WATER is going to be a little further. And you picked the stuff in the corner, not where stuff is being built. But, when you get to the middle, I count just one station in BH - 23 on this map, although I do think there is an R somewhere that isn't listed - and the rest you have to pretty much walk to court street (downtown brooklyn).

Ok, good, we agree then. Sure sounded like you were saying all of Brooklyn has been taking those hits, but glad we're on the same page.

I never said Dumbo doesn't matter - I just said I consider it less desirable. I don't know a single person who's moved there or thought about moving there, but it may because I don't frequent too many of the "Murray Hill types" you said have moved there in droves.

As for the subway points, if the "best buildings are on Main St and adjacent to the water," aren't those the most desirable, and therefore the ones to be looking at for subway access? And as for the "absolute hypocrisy" (hyperbole if I ever saw it), Montague St provides access to the 2/3, 4/5, M, and R. That's a little different than the F and A/C.

Anyway, we're clearly not going to agree on whether Dumbo is as desirable as what I described as "prime" Brooklyn - my main point was that new devs in those areas aren't yet seeing 20% cuts on asking. That's all.

> I don't know a single person who's moved there or thought about moving there,

Well, thats why you shouldn't resort to anecdotes for your real estate data. I don't know anyone that has moved to BH or thought about it for years... Cobble Hill became more preferred for the folks I know years ago. But, it all depends on the circles you're in. And, there are certainly HORDES of retards moving into DUMBO these days.

> As for the subway points, if the "best buildings are on Main St and
> adjacent to the water," aren't those the most desirable, and therefore
> the ones to be looking at for subway access?

No, you're making things up again. I think they are the best buildings in terms of quality. But they are clearly NOT the most desirable, as you pay more PSF to be further from the water in the newer buildings.... thats a clear sign that those are the desirables. Not saying I agree, but thats what the market is doing.

> And as for the "absolute hypocrisy" (hyperbole if I ever saw it), Montague St
> provides access to the 2/3, 4/5, M, and R. That's a little different than the F and A/C.

Yeah, and I live CLOSER to the 2/3 and probably the M&R than the point on Montague I mentioned....

The major point here is, we're arguing over number of lines and number of blocks... but both neighborhoods clearly have choices in the issue, and some parts are (much) further than others. And folks probably want to live in every neighborhood, no matter how sucky...

But, the stats say 1) dumbo is the most desirable and 2) even if you don't think its the most desidable, trying to put it in the "less desirable" category is ridicluous and at best a stupid rationalization to cover up major declines borough wide.

Brooklyn sales are down 44%. Again FORTY FOUR PERCENT.

Calling that anything other than what it is - a major downturn - is buring your head in the sand.

I think I'm getting the picture now - Eddie lost his job some time back at a Wall Street firm, and now he is bitter and jealous of those successful enough to keep their jobs and buy great homes for themselves. Eddie, you should try to handle your anger issues and stop lashing out at everyone else.

Ok guy, I'm not "resorting to anecdotes for [my] real estate data." I can't relay a piece of anecdotal info without you jumping on it for not being "data"? At the same time, shouldn't you be providing me with "data" about the number of new residents in Dumbo? Come on.

Those buildings on Main St and the water are the most expensive (Streeteasy ranks by price and only places the given listings on the search results page on that map), so aren't they the most desirable then, according to your definition? I'm not going to check because this is getting tedious, but if you're right and you pay more PSF further from the water, that means those not on Main St and the water just all happen to be significantly smaller apartments? Seems unlikely.

For the last time, I'm not trying to "cover up major declines borough wide." I'm not disagreeing with the major slowdown in sales activity. But the price cuts have yet to show up "borough wide." Maybe it's just a question of personal definitions of what a downturn is, but either way, I hope you enjoy your RE crash party when you have one.

"I think I'm getting the picture now - Eddie lost his job some time back at a Wall Street firm, and now he is bitter and jealous of those successful enough to keep their jobs and buy great homes for themselves. Eddie, you should try to handle your anger issues and stop lashing out at everyone else."

Keep trying, LIC... you made a bad investment and are trying to deflect by going to personal insults.

And, no, never been laid off... sorry to burst your bubble. And I've actually been pretty lucky, I'm ahead of the majority (maybe all, not sure) of my friends who stayed in banking.... only possible related exceptions being some friends who joined some big hedge funds when they were not big hedge funds.

But, of course, what do facts matter to you.

> Eddie, you should try to handle your anger issues and stop lashing out at everyone else.

Talk about calling the kettle black.... JESUS.