UK- Right on schedule

And I've actually been pretty lucky, I'm ahead of the majority (maybe all, not sure) of my friends who stayed in banking....

but you choose to live in under 1500 sq ft in brooklyn? yeah, i'd say you're way ahead.

I'm not sure what "bad investment" I made, but owning my home has worked out great for me. Keep paying that rent Eddie . . .

> At the same time, shouldn't you be providing me with "data" about the
> number of new residents in Dumbo? Come on.

Sure... I don't have the exact numbers, but of legal residences in DUMBO, you used to have 1 main, 16 main, 99 washington, and 81 washington, plus a couple of under 10 apartment buildings here and there (66 water, etc.). Maybe that one above the sushi place, too, don't know what its called. None of those were particularly big buildings. In the last 2 years (maybe less), you had come to market... 57 Front, Nexus, 70 Washington, Beacon, Jcondos, that triangle building at water and the manhattan bridge, and more. And I'm not even including vinegar hill with 99 gold and such.

The buildings I noted are each probably as big as any of the older buildings. So, just off estimates, thats a tripling of inventory. Say I'm even off, you're *definitely* talking about a doubling. Now, many are rentals now, but I don't see any empty ones anymore.

I'm sure someone can take the time and count apartments, but no way of getting around that its a BIG increase...

Now, as a separate data point I got, they did an neighborhood survey they gave out. Over 90% of the residents had moved in within the past 2 years. Obviously, there was some switching, but not enough to create that stat alone. Maybe you could be talking about 20% turnover in a rental building. And I don't think 1 Main turns over 10% a year. But that still means a HEALTY chunk of new apartments (and still pointing at more than doubling of inventory).

Maybe you want to do the detailed data, but its definitely the biggest increase in housing stock I've seen in 1 neighborhood in years.

> 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.

PSFs are the answer. You don't have to factor in apartment size... but, separately, I ABSOLUTELY think 1 main apartments are bigger). When they built them, they had to attract folks with bigger layouts. I've not seen smaller apartments in them Hell, some of the older rental buildings START at 1200 psfs (and those are 1 bedrooms). In the jcondos and nexus, they're not at manhattan size apartments. Maybe 600 square feet for their 1 bedrooms. 70 Washington is same developer as one of the rental buildings, and they took the same size apartments, and turned them from 1s to 2s with a laundry room at the SAME psf

I watched PSFs all the way. When Jcondos apartments were starting over $1000, you could still reliably find 1 main listings under $900 psf, and I saw some $800 and under $750 ones, even while 70 washington was bragging about their last 5 sales being over $1100 psf.

I don't agree with it, I don't like those buildings at all, but the market was definitely pricing them higher, and jcondos seems to have sold out pretty early.

> but you choose to live in under 1500 sq ft in brooklyn? yeah, i'd say you're way ahead.

2500 square foot bachelor pads only come in central Jersey. My living room is over 30 by 30. What the hell do I need more space for?

> Keep paying that rent Eddie . . .

Sure, and I'll enjoy it. Its half the carrying cost of apartments in the area.

But, if you're right, and I do lose my money and my job, and end up working minimum wage, I guess I'll be joining you in Long Island City, no? Its the Jersey City of the future.

"Its half the carrying cost of apartments in the area"

-Another total lie. If you believe this you really are nuts.

You couldn't afford LIC now, when you lose your job you'll be stuck moving back in with your parents.

> but you choose to live in under 1500 sq ft in brooklyn? yeah, i'd say you're way ahead.

So much for EAS trying to pretend he's taking the higher ground.

Yes, someday we can all get as rich as you in biochemistry. Thats where the real money is.

Not biochem. Started in banking, now biotech VC. till that bubble bursts. then, who knows.

> > Its half the carrying cost of apartments in the area
> -Another total lie. If you believe this you really are nuts.

Or I just know, well, math.

> You couldn't afford LIC now

Uh, yeah.

This all you got LIC? Not even pretenting to have a fact or a clue?

You know the market is absolutely fucked when all the bulls have to say, they learned in 3rd grade.

Thanks Eddie, good stuff. Did you live in Dumbo at some point? Or were you shopping to buy there? Based on what you're telling me here, I think the rapid overdevelopment has a lot to do with product not moving there as well. It's an area that still has some grit and was well-marketed as Soho-esque, which likely helped prices shoot up so fast, back when condos were selling quickly. I think that's part of what I meant by "less desirable." It may be quite expensive, but it's still too new and a bit too risky for a lot of buyers.

"Thanks Eddie, good stuff. Did you live in Dumbo at some point? Or were you shopping to buy there?"
The former.

> Based on what you're telling me here, I think the rapid overdevelopment has a lot to do with product
> not moving there as well.

I don't know what you mean by this.

> It's an area that still has some grit and was well-marketed as Soho-esque, which
> likely helped prices shoot up so fast, back when condos were selling quickly.

Like it or not, there 'aint a lot of grit left, if any (at least if you're sticking to the actual dumbo definition, not vinegar hill) Front Street, Washington street, cleaner and fancier than pretty much anywhere else in brooklyn now, short of promenade blocks. They might make it look all cool in movies, but its yuppie hell now with fancy stores that suck. Outside of the tobacco warehouse (the part that isn't being made into the fancy club) and some buildings under construction, its freaking Murray hill now. I'll throw in the jay street exception, at least the part by the water, because they're still trying to figure that one out.

But, its definitely not gritty anymore... its freaking its baby carriage city.

And I don't mean ANY of this in a good way.

> I think that's part of what I meant by "less desirable." It may be quite
> expensive, but it's still too new and a bit too risky for a lot of buyers.

So, by "less desirable", you meant its so desirable the prices have gone so high they are "risky"?

I don't think there is any risk left, short of the risk of it becoming even more filled with people from murray hill. As a RE location, I think its pretty much locked in its status. It can't really grow anymore (its locked in), its location can't change, and with the waterfront parks and all that and fancy stores and all the stuff I hate, its gonna be at the top of the brooklyn price range for a long time to come.

Again, I personally don't like it, but in terms of a neighborhood for the larger market, I think the days of "risk" there are long past.

Eddie, just from taking a quick look on streeteasy listings for DUMBO, it costs around $3,200 to rent a one-bedroom, and between $700k-$800k to buy. At that price, your after-tax carrying costs (mortgage plus cc's) would be around $3,500 per month, roughly. Let's go crazy and say $4,000. The rent doesn't quite seem like half to me, but maybe your school taught math differently.

your logic actually makes sense, but your assumptions are way off.

Lets just say my rent is in that range, and my square footage is in the range of 2 one bedrooms. Some friends in DUMBO (in once of the nicest buildings) have a 3 bedroom with a 20 x 35 living room and they're paying right around $4k...

Now rerun the math...

You rent Eddie?

I rent the current apartment... (I've owned others).

Admittedly, I'm not 100% short, I currently have some RE in my portfolio... (just not anything NYC-specific)

"I don't know what you mean by this."

Lots of supply added in a short time, not being taken up too quickly. Like what's happening in some of the areas discussed in the "fringe" NYC neighborhoods threads - Chelsea, Harlem, LIC, Williamsburg, etc.

"So, by "less desirable", you meant its so desirable the prices have gone so high they are "risky"?"

Sure, let's call it by something else we can both understand - overpriced. NYC RE prices have overshot in many areas (as they do in any "bubble" market). It seems like this was most pronounced in Dumbo.

"I don't think there is any risk left, short of the risk of it becoming even more filled with people from murray hill. As a RE location, I think its pretty much locked in its status. It can't really grow anymore (its locked in), its location can't change, and with the waterfront parks and all that and fancy stores and all the stuff I hate, its gonna be at the top of the brooklyn price range for a long time to come... I think the days of "risk" there are long past."

So are prices going to continue to tumble here, or are they going to be at the "top of the Brooklyn price range for a long time to come"? It really can't be both, but I'm guessing you're going to say just that.

"I don't know what you mean by this."

> Lots of supply added in a short time, not being taken up too quickly.
> Like what's happening in some of the areas discussed in the "fringe"
> NYC neighborhoods threads - Chelsea, Harlem, LIC, Williamsburg, etc.

Half right. Yup, it expanded too fast.... but it also sold pretty fast, too. The inventory got mopped up relatively quick.. granted, thats because most iof it came to market before the market got this bad. There isn't much still being built relative to what finshed a year or two ago.

Its more the resales that are having issues....

In terms of % increase in apartments, its a multiple of any neighborhood in Brooklyn (give we're talking 100% or 200% growth, thats probably 5x - 10x of anywhere else). The PSFs have still been *very* good in the more expensive buildings - jcondo, 70 washington even. Even Nexus is sold out.

If any of the other neighborhoods had seen that sort of inventory growth, it would be SCARY now.

Beacon tower is the one that had to resort to rentals... its big issue was hitting too late, I think. It started before jcondo (sold out) but got delayed... hence the rentals.

"So are prices going to continue to tumble here, or are they going to be at the "top of the Brooklyn price range for a long time to come"? It really can't be both, but I'm guessing you're going to say just that."

Sure, it can be both. If DUMBO tumbles at the same pace as everywhere else in Brooklyn, it stays right on top. If everything does down 40% psf, DUMBO is still in the exact same relative spot it is.

I do think DUMBO will come down a little more than average, but I think its got a healthy margin on the other neighborhoods that will be somewhat but not fully eroded.

"Sure, let's call it by something else we can both understand - overpriced. NYC RE prices have overshot in many areas (as they do in any "bubble" market). It seems like this was most pronounced in Dumbo."

No, I think you're trying to put words in my mouth again. DUMBO clearly had the biggest ascent, but part of it was for good reason (and not just speculation). It went from crack den to the most tourist-happy area in all of Brooklyn. Some of the ascent was bs, clearly, but I think we've seen a permanent leapfrog here. Its not a "fringe" area, its pretty much central to what the high end buying segment sees as Brooklyn.

If anything, I think its the lower psf areas that will get hit the hardest %-wise.

"Sure, it can be both. If DUMBO tumbles at the same pace as everywhere else in Brooklyn, it stays right on top. If everything does down 40% psf, DUMBO is still in the exact same relative spot it is. I do think DUMBO will come down a little more than average, but I think its got a healthy margin on the other neighborhoods that will be somewhat but not fully eroded."

I agree with you, it will tumble more than average, but we're just speculating here of course. And I don't want to keep going in circles here (we should have moved this to a separate thread on Dumbo by now, but no big deal), but the housing stock in Dumbo is so distinct from the traditionally desirable Brooklyn neighborhoods (which are full of brownstones/townhouses), which makes it even tougher to compare, I think. I'm surprised you say that it's "the most tourist-happy area in all of Brooklyn." Sure, Grimaldi's and the Empire-Fulton Park have always attracted a crowd, but the rest of the hood? Compared to the promenade, downtown, Williamsburg, or Prospect Park?

"but the housing stock in Dumbo is so distinct from the traditionally desirable Brooklyn neighborhoods (which are full of brownstones/townhouses), which makes it even tougher to compare"

but also meaning advantage to DUMBO. Think of the court street shuffle.... BH too expensive, go Cobble Hill. CH too expensive, to CG. And so on. There are brownstones all over the place. The cobblestone streets and old school factory buildings (I do like the old dumbo buildings) on the waterfront are in short supply. There aren't any direct substitutes. There are film crews all over the place in DUMBO, where you can do a LOT of block substituiton in the rest of brooklyn.

So, I think you're talking about a MUCH smaller supply... meaning more help on keeping prices.

"I'm surprised you say that it's "the most tourist-happy area in all of Brooklyn." Sure, Grimaldi's and the Empire-Fulton Park have always attracted a crowd, but the rest of the hood? Compared to the promenade, downtown, Williamsburg, or Prospect Park?"

You probably haven't been to DUMBO in a weekend in a while. Seriously, take a walk over on a weekend. I kid you not, 5x more tourists than there were last year. The waterfalls help, but the bridge, the park, its tourist hell now. They all have dumbo front and center on their brooklyn maps...

If you really think Williamsburg has more, seriously, you haven't been here in a while...

You missed the part where I said I went there just this past weekend. There were more people there than I ever remember, true, but I also spent parts of that weekend in Brooklyn Heights and Williamsburg. Just seemed like there were more there. During the week, I even directed two French families to the L to go to Williamsburg.

As for the supply issue, it's not that limited, when you take into account, you know, Manhattan, which is much more similar in terms of stock. The point is (and I know this is needlessly reductive, but I think most people would agree here), most people who move to Brooklyn do it for one of two reasons: they want a change/prefer townhouse-style living, or they can't/don't want to pay Manhattan prices. Dumbo doesn't really fulfill either of those needs given the current situation.