Most At Risk Manhattan Condominiums

anything in the financial district.

i think most condos in financial district and harlem are at risk because they're in less than desirable areas. also, the condos like loft 25 and onyx, which are near the disgusting and dangerous housing projects in chelsea, will suffer.

WARNING WARNING WARNING, everyone, rufus is trying to turn this post into another ideological talkingpoint-dump barrage of verbal diarrhea. As usual.

alanhart,

if you've actually BEEN to the area in chelsea where the projects are, you would know what i'm talking about.

glee, what is your basis for concluding that some of these buildings have poor construction quality?

and why do you say that 133 W 22nd is a bad area?

agreed, 20 Pine was getting its ass absolutely kicked before this week... and now, watch out.

Onyx is a good call.

Loft 25 is a bad area, but in some ways being a loft over there may benefit it vs. being new construction like Onyx. Or I could just be making no sense. But Onyx is a good call.

One more Chelsea condo at risk, new development, is the one by Alchemy on 15th Street. Not for most of the reasons stated above, after all they priced it fairly, there aren't excessive amenities or charges, and it is a central and attractive area, but there is a big hotel being built on that block and so for that reason alone it will reduce quality of life on that block.

good news is this could be late 2001-2002 all over again for deals.

I do believe also that the buildings with high monthlies and without an abatement (agree this is temporary but 10-15 years weathers a storm nicely) will hurt more.

So if it is 45 John with very very high charges (and very low light!) or the new Battery Park condos with the land lease, they will be hindered. At least Battery Park is family friendly, but FiDi doesn't really have that going for it.

ClintonB, you're talking about the Oculus, I looked there, the prices were not excessive but while you're right the amenities are not excessive, strangely the charges are very high. I also thought the finishes were pretty plain, kinda 2nd rate.

Actually, Rufus, the Onyx (which I otherwise find a completely unattractive property) is nowhere near the projects. I've just sold my apartment in Chelsea after living there for 15 years, so I know the neighborhood quite well.

I think that 133 W 22 and Yves, both by the same developer (not with a great rep!) will plod along ok, but you'll see a good deal of flips to the less suspecting. Those aren't buildings that will keep people long-term exactly because of the quality / construction issues.

Anything with a high ratio of doucebags ... single men are the worst category of buyers. (yes Im a single man)

William Beaver will be the poster child for straight single douchebags from Wall Street
Yves will be the poster child for gay single douchebags from Chelsea

the chelsea projects are in the area from 23rd-28th and between 8th and 10th. there's also a project around on west 17th and 10th, near the trendy meatpacking clubs and restaurants. i have no idea why any rational person would buy a condo in those areas.

the downtown club comes to mind, as does riverhouse and anything on John Street.

Jasper is in a poor area.

What about A Building?

Jasper is a freaking joke. it's next to a homeless shelter in murray hill. LOL!

Why Riverhouse? I kind of like that.

And why Riverhouse but not that other new one in south Battery Park that starts with a V (I can't remember the name)

Downtown Club seems to have been selling units for years and years.

Jasper is a dangerous area.

32nd b/w park and lex, dangerous?

My husband and I looked in Chelsea at 133 West 22, Oculus, and Yves. The area is ok but a little, well, you know. Probably least that way at Oculus but we couldn't get the unit line we wanted. For 133, we did see the construction part of the way when the floor plates had been poured. I really wasn't satisfied with how I saw it being built, not that I'm an expert. Yves was too glassy for us.

We decided to move to a co-op instead in Gramercy.

ClintonB, you're thinking of the visionaire condo in southern battery park city. it's a really nice building, but location is less than ideal.

ccdevi, yes, jasper is in a dangerous area. crime has skyrocketed in that area.

cdevi-
32nd b/w park and lex, dangerous?

Yeah pretty much. It gets all of the dregs, homeless, druggies, etc. of midtown.

Visionaire, thank you. Check resales at 10 and 30 West Street too.

Thanks everyone for participating in the discussion.

Some people have mentioned the west Chelsea area / projects and all.

I thought about including the Related development, Caledonia, but I think it is pretty decent and big enough that it might do ok.

"the chelsea projects are in the area from 23rd-28th and between 8th and 10th"

That is not a project. It is subsidized housing owned by the Ladies Garment Workers Union (now under a different name) and not at all dangerous.

The projects, on the other hand ... I was walking toward the Caledonia and I turned around because I felt like a target. Color doesn't matter - thuggery does.

caledonia is too close to the projects. only thing good about it is the equinox gym.

chelsea is one of the most overrated neighborhoods out there; half the area is dangerous projects and grimy buildings.

Just for some info - the PS for Jasper and I think the 29th st bldg is one of the most desirable in the city. Families will flock to it if the prices get slashed.

stevejhx, that area is indeed scary and is a reminder that manhattan is still very dangerous and is still far from being a clean gentrified place.

"half the area is dangerous projects and grimy buildings."

Chelsea is no closer to the projects than the Meat Packing District. It's hard to make an overall judgment of a neighborhood, especially in NYC. I live between 5th and 6th. Nice area.

i just don't get how these developers can charge so much for apartments that are next to housing projects. it's simply insane!

it's moments like these when i seriously think about moving to Chicago, where i can live in a luxury high-rise for 1500K/month, next to lake michigan, and miles away from any housing project. now, that's gentrification!

suggestion - rather than looking at which neighborhood a condo is, why not look at the makeup of buyers, and how long ago they closed - there's your risk factor.

rufus, those days are coming back to Manhattan. Maybe not $1,500 a month, but a lot cheaper than today.

stevejhx, i see your point; rent is coming down. but NYC is still so grimy and dirty. i recently visited chicago and was amazed at what i saw; it's the cleanest and most beautiful major city i've ever been to but is way cheaper than NYC and offers almost everything this city does.

Better question to be asked is "...Least At Risk Manhattan Condominiums..."

Everything in Manhattan is now an at-risk proposition.

If is not in an absolute prime location, with a solid layout, good room sizes, views, light, finishes, and amenities, then it's super at risk.

The only things that are not at risk (or at least are the least at risk) in Manhattan are those units where there are no 'weak-links' in any aspect of the unit. Every aspect will have to be solid and 'in-the-pocket' for an offered unit to move at all. Units that have a so-so location but alot of space, or great views and light but tiny bedrooms/common rooms/closets, or are in a nice full service building but have finishes that demand a major gut job, etc., etc., etc. just will not move at all - period.

rufus, Chicago didn't have a Wall Street boom feeding prices. When in a year or two you can get a 2-bedroom condo for $500,000, rather than today's $1.4 million, then the city will be a better place to live.

The number of listings hasn't budged from just under the 1-year supply level. But that's a 1-year supply using past volumes. If there's appetite for 4,000 units sold in Manhattan this year - excluding those already in contract - I'd be surprised.

And the oodles of new dev coming online. All the investment bankers who will be forced to sell when they lose their jobs. All the investors who can't flip and can't rent for even half of the carrying cost.

Sitting on the sideliners? I was one but I just lost a lot of money in the stock market. It will take me a year or more to make it back. Since it's now clear that this is not just a correction, but a fundamental long-term restructuring of our economy, I'm going 2x bear on everything, especially where I'm particularly bull - BRIC - because the collapse of our financial system will drag us into a very deep recession.

Am I alone in watching my down payment fizzle away?

stevejhx, rufus, with all due respect, can you stay focused and on topic?

gleeclub, by nature conversations diverge off topic, then come back on. Keep cool.

Thats funny. A bit of soapbox is something that we've all got to tolerate. But yes, I gave my thoughts and I think it is an interesting question. Would also like to hear from people who bought or are waiting for a closing in a new development if they have any concerns about what they bought and why so.

Maybe stevevjhx, but for instance, there are 42 posts, you've posted 5, more than 10%, but you haven't given one example of a condo, so basically you haven't said anything on topic at all, but you have managed to talk about Chicago and thugs. Come on

"Sitting on the sideliners? I was one but I just lost a lot of money in the stock market. It will take me a year or more to make it back."

steve, cuts both ways doesn't it? So much for that 60% return eh? Tough to argue renting is better than buying when you lose all of your down payment money in the stock market. What if you did a rent vs. buy analysis and included those negative returns in your analysis? I have to admit I'm a bit shocked to see that statement from you, I thought you would be in the all cash group.

My vote for this thread, 110 3rd

JuiceMan:
My vote for this thread, 110 3rd

There you go ... excellent example

How about the ones that we don't know the names of, but have completed their offering plans and are being released just now as yet-to-be-built holes in the ground?

Azure for sure and perhaps East Hill.

Surprised no one's mentioned the Ludlow. They've already had a hard time and will probably be one of the first to take major hits.

"Tough to argue renting is better than buying when you lose all of your down payment money in the stock market"

Unlike some, JuiceMan, I admit when I'm wrong, and I did lose money on the market. It's happened before, too, and it will happen again. Just like the one property I had a contract out on that was in bankruptcy court for a year and almost lost my down payment on, where the people who didn't sell right away are still stuck not only for the loss on their units (50%) but ongoing expenses for 3 years for units they can't rent out.

I always said it cuts both ways - had I seen what was about to happen I would have pressed the button months ago, and I almost did. But I missed it - not even I thought that the financial mess we're in was this bad.

I was in the mostly cash group in my retirement fund, however, since March.

Do I wish I hadn't lost the money? Yes. Do I blame myself? Not in a crisis that brings down MER, LEH, BSC, AIG, Freddie, Fannie, and WAM. I didn't do anything stupid or take unnecessary risks, nor am I broke. All investment programs I've watched say that this is a crisis of confidence. I believed that until yesterday. Now I believe that it's a serious economic problem that will impact us for many years to come.

FYI, I've reversed course in my retirement fund already, and as soon as I sell my co-op I'll invest that market according to a new strategy, with new learning under belt, and earn it back quickly.

What I am glad I didn't do is buy Manhattan real estate at the top of the market, or buy to rent, or buy to flip. As fast as I lost the money I can regain it since the assets are liquid, and there are no carrying costs. The same can't be said for real estate.

the Ludlow is a rental

650 Sixth Avenue

Overpriced, high monthlies (no tax abatement) and a stupid concept.

There are 2 Ludlows:

http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/building/75-ludlow-street-new_york

And I might point out the disparity between asking prices and asking rents:
Sales listings for this building

↓ $1,536,500 75 Ludlow Street #2B 3 beds 1,756 ft²
↑ $1,443,750 75 Ludlow Street #3B 3 beds 1,650 ft²
↓ $1,275,000 75 Ludlow Street #3C 2 beds 1,575 ft²
↓ $1,270,000 75 Ludlow Street #4C 2 beds 1,575 ft²
↓ $1,270,000 75 Ludlow Street #2C 2 beds 1,575 ft²

Previous Rental Listings
02/05/2008 $4,500 2 beds 2 baths 1,575 ft²
04/25/2007 $5,000 3 beds 2 baths 1,756 ft²

$5,000 a month rent seems a small price to pay for a $1.5 million apartment, no?

What is the definition of "At Risk"? Some of these projects are in very different stages, so the potential outcomes are rather different indeed. It seems strange to be directly comparing projects that are already/almost complete and mostly sold versus those years away from completion with only a fraction of the units sold.

The Ludlow converted to rentals, but I believe that was meant to be a stop-gap solution. Now, who knows?

there are many properties on ludlow street, but "the ludlow" means the rental building on houston across from katz's

but something is wrong on your rental values. 1 brs (that were prob 650-750 sq ft) rented for $4000-4500. see here: http://www.theludlownyc.com/floorplans_layout.php?id=105

but actually, I agree that "ludlow lofts" are overpriced. the psf value doesn't seem so bad but location (south of delancy, far less desirable and approaching the still-bad part of the LES) is not very good and layouts are odd

as for my vote - anything in the financial district, or any "condo-hotel"

I vote for anything that relied much on the Second Avenue subway being completed.

bjw - not if you mean the place on houston. that was always going to be a rental building (I know because I was keeping my eye on it in case I wanted to rent there). it was built by the owner of the (former) parking lot it sits on.

steve - I just realized your rents were for the other ludlow place. my bad.

Those are the rents for Ludlow lofts. They do seem awfully low for apartments with those asking prices. Maybe petrfitz, being the LES expert that he is, can make sense of the economics of that.

119th and Third

I know the LES pretty well. I think the area has great long term prospects, but you need to be north of Delancey and west of Clinton. Properties are cheaper outside that area for a reason.

I think petrfitz owns some slum buildings on ridge or pitt.

steve, I wasn't needling you, don't be so defensive. My only point was that regardless of what side of the fence you are on, there is risk. You have consistently focused on the risks of real estate and for me personally, I would rather have capital tied up in a place I love living in (that I can afford) that I can sell when I choose. Playing the market is no easier than going to Vegas, you really have to know what you are doing. The majority of people on this board would be better off locking up capital in real estate than trying to figure ways to best to spend / invest savings. Bad decisions are usually made when people have access to easy capital and a short term view. I'm not saying buy real estate at any cost, but forcing a long term view can be very beneficial for most people.

Why the change in heart with Fire Island? I thought you were keeping that for the long term?

Any thougts on other "At Risk" condos in Chelsea.

evillage, my bad, was confusing those two. Way too much construction in that area, still can't remember what's what sometimes. While we're in the LES, how bout them River Ridge condos? Yikes.

Two risks:
1 - buyers are stretching or bought for investment
2 - flawed construction

I mentioned yesterday that my wife, a civil engineer, looked at 133 West 22nd

river ridge may be the worst building in manhattan, new or otherwise. you can probably literally feel the wind from cars on the williamsburg bridge.

also, just so everyone understands, this is the area that pertrfitz is talking about when bragging about the buildings he owns, buildable FAR, or how hot the LES is. it's so bad that even the hipsters who think it's cool to be poor wouldn't live there

I vote for 110 3rd as well.

ClintonB - I have worked 2 blocks from where the Jasper is for over 10 years. The street is safe. It may not be the most residential spot, but your statement of homeless, druggies and crime is just not true.

Steve - First you said 30-40% declines on NYC RE a couple of weeks ago, then yesterday you said 50% declines and now you are predicting 65% declines? That $1.4 million apartment for $500k is a pretty hefty discount, huh? Perhaps your estimations of the % decline of RE in NYC will be as accurate as your ability to invest in the stock market? Maybe you don't know as much about everything as you think you do? Just a thought. I am sure that you will now hammer away to portray your self as all-knowing, but the truth is that you know very little about what will happen to the economy and RE in NYC in the next 12-24 months. You don't lack confidence that's for sure. Actual ability/knowledge to know what will happen....not so much.

evillager, no doubt. And yes, that's exactly the area petrfitz goes on and on about. I live in Williamsburg, and even people who would never leave Manhattan would rather live out there than in this section of the LES. River Ridge should be the poster child for the RE bubble burst in NYC.

"You have consistently focused on the risks of real estate"

This is a real estate board. I've always said that as long as buying and renting cost the same, I'd rather buy to lock in the cost. I have been talking about today's market.

I still have plenty of money to put down on the $1 million condo and have plenty left over for an emergency fund after that. Here's the thing: I'm self-employed and don't have a steady income - I am looking at cheaper digs right now, just in case there's a serious downturn in my business. Thus far there hasn't been, but I don't know.

You can't do that if you own.

I'm not a trader.

"Why the change in heart with Fire Island?"

Because last week the co-op voted to institute an underlying mortgage that I don't want in order to do very expensive renovations (cedar shingles, etc.) that aren't needed (in terms of the expensive choices made) on a sandbar that if they get washed away we'd be stuck with the mortgage on forever. When I moved there there was no flip tax or mortgage; now they have both. They spent $250,000 on landscaping before they fixed the roof. They are idiots - it's now cheaper to own a house.

Since that's the case, and given that I don't expect the market to remain buoyant there for long, it makes more sense for me to pull out now as I would have done it eventually. I'll miss it, but they are making it too expensive to stay there.

Makes sense steve, that sucks. I know you love the FI place. Good luck with the sale, your apt search, and I hope your biz stays strong. We may not agree on much but I wish you only the best.

I know you do JuiceMan, thanks. Likewise.

If Fire Island doesn't sell shortly then I'll put it up for rent for next summer - it will fetch me some $35,000+ a season, more than enough to cover my costs. But at this point, given my view of the next 12-18 months and thereafter, it's best not to own something I don't need to live in.

Semi-Pro...could you elaborate? Was your wife inside the construction? What exactly did she see that she did not like? Simply saying your wife is a civil engineer and she didn't like 133 is kind of pointless without elaborating on what it is she took issue with.

Steve, kudos to you for your honesty.

As juiceman says, your experience is probably more common than the theoretical scenarios put forth by people who talk about the money they will earn in the stock/commodities market/s with the down payment money that they did not have to spend.

My vote is for the Pearline lofts. Especially the first set at 414 Washington. They were supposed to have 2 apts per floor but changed to 1 3000sf with 52' long LR per floor at $4M-$5M. They should have stuck with the smaller apts.

The Charleston for the win!

You know what'll be nice about the financial district? The 421-G full abatement when property taxes go up.

Just don't sell...

mazdamp, The Charleston was totally sold out. There are some investors that have or are trying to flip and they will probably get beat up a bit. But for the most part there does not seem to be any problems of risk there.

gleeclub, 29th Park Madison is well over 50% sold and has yet to lower prices and some increases. Very few investors in the building but if there are flippers they will have a problem for the next couple of years.

The 505 gets my vote.

"Perhaps your estimations of the % decline of RE in NYC will be as accurate as your ability to invest in the stock market?"

Actually, until this I was extraordinarily good at investing, and did make fantastic returns year over year, and will again. What we're seeing is unprecedented, and if you would like to criticize me you're welcome to, but I seem to have preserved more capital than Dick Fuld did at Lehman, or what Stan O'Neal was able to do for Merrill, or Ken Thompson for Wachovia, or Kerry Killinger at WaMu. What happened here is that it happened to quickly for me to react - I lost tons of money in 2 days, while an order was pending execution. That's beyond my control.

That said, my retirement fund made 20% yesterday.

My vote for worst building - any building where you see a lot of flippers: 110 Central Park West.

505 in hell's kitchen is an absolute piece of sh*t. why the hell would any rational person live in that area? it's dangerous, dirty, grimy, far from everything. that whole area feels like a third-world country.

How can Azure not get the win- It's not even built and coming off a crane collapse and to start with is a building that will sit accross the street from the projects, is landlease with high CC's in a relatively isolated area (from transportation) and is overpriced.

i agree. any place above east 86th is not worth living in. too dangerous and ungentrified.

Rufus, where exactly do you considered safe? Clinton is a trashbin, anything above 86th (I thought the general marker was 96th) is too dangerous? If Lenox Hill is the only place you consider inhabitable, then move to Palm Beach, because most of Manhattan will never look like that.

My vote is for 110 3rd as well.

xellam, quite frankly, the only parts of this city that are nice are central park west, fifth, madison, and park, from 59th to 96th. the rest of the city is really grimy and unattractive. i'm seriously thinking of moving to Chicago because it is impeccably clean, has more luxury highrise apartments than NYC, and offers what NYC has but at a major discount.

Just curious, when getting a loan for a new development, how does the bank calculate owner occupied percentage?

Before the boom, banks would really frown upon lower owner occupancy and with most new devs selling to investors and foreigners.. how are people still getting loans at reasonable rates?

Rufus : I regularly go to chicago to see clients and you are greatly exagerrating the benefits. Most of the high rise condos in Chicago have seen the same % increases that NY have. Chicago is still way overpriced on a percentage basis. The gorgeous high rise condos you make reference to are all along Lake Michigan and sorry to burst your bubble but they are plenty expensive (you aint getting one for $1500/month)

The only thing you can get for 1500 a month are in the shadows of the L. All the trendy hip areas, bucktown, wrigleyville, the area where Oprah's studios are will cost you a pretty penny.

But like NY they will go down in price as well.

I do agree that Chicago is a cleaner city, but thats because aside from shopping on Michigan avenue no one does anything there. All the partying happens in the neighborhoods I just mentioned.

flmd, i looked at apartments in Chicago in my last visit. and there were studios in the hancock tower that were renting for $1400/month. my friend lives in an INSANE 2-bedroom for 2800/month, that has views of grant/millennium park, lake michigan, and the downtown skyline. for that same amount, you'll be lucky to get a livable 1-bedroom in manhattan. aside from pricing, Chicago apartments are simply more attractive, nicer, and there are more of them. the high supply of quality housing is one major reason why Chicago rent is so much cheaper than NYC.

it's not just michigan avenue that's clean. even lincoln park, lakeview, and wicker park, are cleaner than virtually any area of NYC.

chicago blows big time

rufus: I agreed with you, Chicago is cleaner

but as i said before on a percentage basis chicago was as overpriced as new york. You can't just look at the amounts, you're comparing apples to oranges...look at the % increases...you will see they are just as high.

Although the downturn hit chicago much sooner than NY

evillager, i noticed that a lot of people here in NYC are jealous of Chicago. i guess you're one of them.

"the only parts of this city that are nice are central park west, fifth, madison, and park, from 59th to 96th"

If you think that, you do belong in Chicago.

Hilander: "What about A Building?"

I just noticed the most recent closing (9/3) at a 9% drop from comps earlier this year, and the latest non-penthouse listing from the developer was at 15% below comps (now listed In Contract). An owner or broker in the building defended it from me on another thread by describing the owners as "young, hip and affluent." How many young, hip people are affluent without depending on family money? How much family money for needlessly expensive housing will be drying up after this week? This building is mostly sold, but if any building in Manhattan screamed "short-term," it's this one. I expect many people who bought bere to be selling at losses.

JuiceMan, since you ventured into my neck of the woods with your pick, I'm curious to know your reasoning. I do think that 110 3rd Ave is likely a place where massive stretching occured, and the building was a huge dissapointment, appearance-wise, when completed, but are there other reasons?

I'm in total agreement about River Ridge.

Also wondering about Tompkins East http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/building/631-east-9-street-new_york. It's on a gorgeous block, but arrived a little late to the party, in an area that looks promising when things are on the upswing (gentrification! bars and restaurants every 20 feet!) but risky on the downswing (far from trains, close to Mitchell Lama buildings and then projects, around the corner from a notorious squat full of Crusties). Elliman had the building at first and claimed a few sales in March, but I think construction is completed and no unit has a Recorded Sale. Corcoran took over and is also claiming a few sales, though much more recent (2 closings on 9/17?) and no actual Recorded Sales reports, and nothing listed In Contract here.

Just thought about The Flowerbox Building. I'm pretty sure that whole "secret early investor" thing was bullshit, they haven't had a sale since October of 07, there are still unsold units (no sales records for many, but there doesn't seem to be any active marketing, currently) and they haven't finished construction on the penthouse. With a fiscal crisis on the way, living 200 feet from a massive concentration of projects seems like a bad idea.

Of course Chicago is cleaner. It is so cold and windy for 6 months out of the year no one can be outside for longer than 15 minutes at a time. I am just kidding.....a little bit.

it's sad that these worthless housing projects are destroying manhattan's potential.

I know chicago pretty well - and in my opinion it is, for the most part, sterile and nondescript. lots of chain restaurants to choose from. lots of fat people. it gets cold as all hell, especially near the water. someone told me that bucktown was the "village or williamsburg of chicago", and then I went there to check it out and thought it was a joke.

but I am just "jealous", right?

look, I don't know if you are from there or what, but this is an nyc message board. you like chicago? good for you. go move there. but most people are here because they like new york. you want cheaper and cleaner, there are plenty of options: chicago, boston, pittsburgh, milwaukee, minneapolis, etc etc. be my guest and move to any of them. or you can try the nyc suburbs, they're a bargain compared to nyc.

Pardon the sexism, but there are noticeably fewer beautiful women in Chicago. Prettiest-girl-in-the-room syndrome sets in after a few days.

My two cents for this is Palazzo Chupi.

And rufus, if you don't like NY, leave NY. Why do you keep making racist statements about needing to gentrify and hating the projects?

tenemental - very true!

on the flowerbox, I actually like that building (and area) a lot. plus, it's on a nice block, although it is *very* close to the projects, although I could live with that. but yes, it does have 2 main problems: it is very far from any subway, and it is very expensive (esp for the area).

but if you have to choose the most at risk condo, I think there are alreday so many terrible ones to choose from. other than my other choice (any condo hotel in the financial district), I'll go with "Jade", which is absurd to the point of being funny with its "pods"

I agree with the Azure choice, awful. Georgica seems to be entering an overbuilt area for the demand. Does anyone know how the Lucida sales are doing? It seems as though some of those with contracts may not be able to close due to mortgage conditions.

Now for the bleeders, Harlem. Rhapsody, 5th on the Park, Lenox Grand, SoHa 118. It's too depressing up there, so I've quit following the new developments, but I think there are more small buildings that may have trouble.

One that I truly wonder about is Tempo, 23rd and 2nd. Gramercy Starck still hasn't sold out, on the same block, and rumor has it that Tempo, which won't be finished until 2010, will be more expensive. WTF?

Chelsea is not dangerous!! Please. It might become so if quality of life tanks and reductions in city spending accompany it. Right now, it's simply boring.

Wow! i can't believe you think i'm racist! i never once mentioned race in this discussion. but it's a fact that these projects are dangerous and bring down the overall quality of manhattan. this is not a tough concept to understand.

regarding Chicago, i think the women there are way more attractive than the women here, but that's not relevant to our discussion on this board.

hmmmmmm, so if you hate projects and want gentrification you are a racist?

rufus, I actually like Chicago a lot. Great city, but I find it a little boring and personally don't think it measures up to NYC. If you are really planning to move there, I don't think you can go wrong. tenemental is right about the beautiful women.

tenemental, re 110 3rd if you had the choice between this and ANYTHING else at $1500 psft, what would you do?

http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/316475-110-third-avenue-east-village-new-york

rufus, you're the same person in this discussion as the recent one on 80/20 buildings, in which you wrote "and i know this is politically incorrect, but all these people were racial minorities who were being subsidized by taxpayer dollars."

evillager, I agree about the appearance of the Flowerbox Building. It's beautiful (as is the historic block), one of the most attractive recent developments anywhere. Having the rear terraces over the park is also great. There just seems to be something shady with the supposedly pre-sold penthouse still under construction, and so many units not accounted for in sales. That and the projects and subway proximity make me wonder. You know I love the neighborhood, but heading into the fiscal downturn, the sheer number of projects - not only on Ave D through the FDR, but on Ave C. and some sidestreets - gives me a bit of pause.

Have you seen the townhouse just east of it? Recently fixed up, the rear is all wood (smells like cedar from the park) with a nice yard and huge picture windows. Looks like a mini Aspen ski lodge back there. Mmmmm, houselust.

where women are more attractive is most definitely relevant. that affects quality of life!

I'll take hot chicks over clean streets anyday