"Prime Manhattan"--Please define

"Is it GV,WV,Soho, Tribeca, 5th & Park Aves, certain enclaves of Chelsea, UWS?"

without nit picking too much on these few blocks or those few blocks, pretty much how i think of it

If you are only including 5th and park for ues prime, then I don't think you can really take GV... except for lower 5th.

For me,

UPTOWN

UES - Fifth until 1001, Madison until 1035, Park until 1040
UWS - CPW until 211
CPS - selected buildings (like 222) with great Park views
+ the associated cross streets between these

MIDTOWN

selected buildings like Time Warner Center
some might consider specific areas such as Sutton Place listings as 'prime,' but I think they're an acquired taste.

DOWNTOWN

Fifth until 60
Anything on north and west side of WSP or in direct vicinity
Village (obviously on a case by case, street by street basis)
TrBeCa (obviously on a case by case, street by street basis)

I don't actually think of SoHo as prime anymore.

Add Sutton Place and I think nyc10022 has it. If I had to drop anything, it would be enclaves of Chelsea.

For those of you who don't think the Village should be considered 'Prime,' please remember that in the 1990 correction the Village held value better, and snapped back faster, than any other area of Manhattan by zip code. And that was the 1992 Village. The 2008 Village is much less grittier, and now has the entire west Village development that didn't exist 16 years ago.

I don't think that makes it any more prime. Plenty of stable neighborhoods in NYC through crashes were middle class... think of South Brooklyn...

Much of West Village is now prime, yes. But thats West Village, not GV.

nyc10022:

One of the primary aspects of any "prime" neighborhood is the fact that during times of correction, it holds value better than almost any other neighborhood, and snaps back faster as well - and the reason it does that is the simple Darwinian natural selection based on location, schools, amenities, and numerous opaque quality-of-life that makes people still want to live/buy there, even in during a correction.

During the last downturn 20 years ago, the leading 'prime' area was indeed GV, even more than Prime Fifth on the UES. Not to include it as a 'prime' shows how uninformed your opinion is in this particular matter. With the addition of the entire West Village complex, luster has only been added to the area.

I might also add that the original OP was for Prime areas specifically in Manhattan - not Brooklyn, as you mentioned. But your comparing the economics of South Brooklyn and the Village in a severe downturn is apples-to-bowling-balls, and rather laughable, really.

Generally, "prime Manhattan" is considered to be all of Manhattan south of 96th.

If you're looking for a tighter definition of "best neighborhoods" that's one thing -- "what would hold up in a crash" might be something else.

In the late 80s/early 90s drop, certain neighborhoods fared better than others -- but they were mostly anchored by "good buildings" -- for example, the co-ops on the Lower Fifth Avenue Gold Coast held up pretty well.

Inventory has changed so much, with the arrival of hyperexpensive condos, I'm not sure we can say what the market would call "quality" in a "flight to quality" -- would it still be the Lower Fifth Gold Coast? What about 15 Central Park West? Are those new condos going to be protected by their quality and amenities, or slammed because of their interchangeable inventory?

In general, I'd say the "most stable" areas would be UES between Fifth and Park, the stretches of Fifth and Park themselves where Tom Wolfe literally mentioned "Good Buildings," Central Village around Tenth and Eleventh Streets, and some selected new condo buildings. I wouldn't, say, bet against 200 Chambers at this point, but I realize that's open to debate.

I think of SoHo and Tribeca in general as "prime" -- I focus a lot of my job on that -- but I think that you make the case more street by street. Ditto Chelsea.

I also think prime Riverside Drive holds up decently in a downturn scenario, possibly better than fringe CPW.

ali r.
[downtown broker}

columbus circle, central park west from 60th to about 86th, fifth, madison, and park below 96th.

front_porch, interesting analysis. what streets of chelsea, tribeca, and soho, do you consider "prime?"

"One of the primary aspects of any "prime" neighborhood is the fact that during times of correction, it holds value better than almost any other neighborhood"

Yeah, personally, I don't think that prime at all... and in some cases the opposite. The best stuff sometimes goes up the most and comes down the most.

Prime to me is just that, the best.

Prime steak isn't steak that will refrigerate well...

btw, a good example of prime RE that got hit hard was 5th ave in the 80s. There were co-ops that traded hands at $1. Mainly because maintenance was VERY expensive...

?? Would you consider the far east avenues of the upper east side, and the far west avenues of midtown, to be prime Manhattan ?? or the financial district (that is, prime for residential) ??

Are you guys counting union square area as part of GV? In my mind, union square - south to Astor place and WSP east to gramercy park and north up to madison square park is prime.

"...Prime to me is just that, the best..."

And WHY is it the best? WHAT precisely makes it the best? You throw around opinions with no cogent reasoning to back them up!

The reason real estate is considered prime (the same way art is considered blue-chip) is that it tends to increase in value moreso than, and when inevitable retractions occur, holds value better than, other comps.

That's why it's considered "... the best..." The best location, the best amenities, the best schools, the best quality-of-life all add up to "prime."

And the steak analogy is even more retarded than the South Brooklyn analogy you (embarrassingly) attempted above.

Far east of UES, yes. Far west of Midtown, not a chance

There is a LOT of inventory south of union square that is far less psf than a lot of other areas left off the "prime" list. Same for the other neighborhoods you noted.

nyc10022, maybe i'm biased because i live in union square =)

The LES is best positioned to survive this downturn.

On the other hand, now I'm in the mood for Luger's tonight......

The South Bronx was not middle class, it was working class. The middle of the Bronx was middle class, including neighborhoods like Tremont. Then Robert Moses built the Cross Bronx which cut out the middle third of Tremont and created a big separation between the remaining thirds. After that, all the residents who had lived there started moving to Co-op city, NJ and elsewhere and a large thriving middle class community just died, taking much of the rest of the Bronx that bordered on it with it.

oh my lord, Perfitz just admitted that there was a downturn to survive! Amazing!

Its funny how the folks who couldn't see this coming at all are suddenly the experts in telling us how exactly what they couldn't see coming will happen...

Petrfitz, you mean Pitt St, specifically, right? (Sorry, couldn't help myself).

"Prime" designates ability to retain value, in my experience.

bjw - you really have no idea what you are talking about. Remind us - are you a renter or do you own a condo in williamsburg? I forgot your RE pedigree.

Only because folks think "quality" areas hold value, which isn't always true.
Prime means what prime means... "best", "choice", "of the greatest commercial value", "first-rate".

Having grown up in a real estate family, it has never meant anything else.... in the industry, or in the dictionary.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prime

A cheap neighborhood that probably won't get cheaper is NOT prime. Or, hell, prime manhattan would be washington heights.

nyc10022 - i will admit that there is a downturn but I am not saying that there isnt money going to be made in RE this year or next. The opposite, there will be lots of money made in RE over the next few years. The people making that money are the ones who are not scared sheep, are well positioned to deal with downturn (high cash positions), and have the ability to creatively think.

I am still buying. I have an offer on another beach house - listed 1 year ago for $1.1, now listed at $850K in an estate sale, and I have an offer at $550K. This property is worth more to me than any other buyer off the street because it is contiguous to another property I own, and owning them both allows me to them sell them together with the combined being worth more than the individuals.

So NYC10022 - are you a renter?

Sorry, should have said high-priced areas that retain value - good catch nyc10022. But overall, malraux's pretty spot-on with the def, I think.

Petrfitz, why so much hate for Williamsburg?

bjw - now i remember you own a condo in williamsburg. This is perhaps that worst thing you could own now. There is so much inventory of condos in williamsburg and even more peices of crap sold into the market overpriced for many years. Hee hee good luck.

condo in williamsburg = bear sterns stock.

Cool, petrfitz. Maybe I'll move to Vegas.

you can rent out my second vacation home if you want. Its going for $7500 per month currently.

For having supposedly "...grown up in a real estate family...," you're really quite dense, aren't you?

Again, you are totally missing the entire point -

"..."best", "choice", "of the greatest commercial value", "first-rate"..."

Yeah I (we) all get that. Duh. The next obvious question is the WHY or HOW is the "best", "choice", "of the greatest commercial value", and/or "first-rate" determined? What EXACTLY is it that indeed makes one location/neighborhood worthy of these epithets that you hurl about with no context whatsoever, and makes another location/neighborhood unworthy by comparison?

Location.
Schools.
Amenities.
Municipal services.
Crime rate.
General cleanliness.
Quality of life.
General income bracket.
General education level.
Etc.

These things (and others as well) determine (amongst others) -

Real estate values.

And real estate values are a key component of what determines -

"best", "choice", "of the greatest commercial value", "first-rate" when it comes to determining what is 'prime,' and what ain't.

Jesus, it's like talking to the family dog who cocks his head and lifts his eyebrow at you when you speak to him as if he understands, but you know all he's really hearing is "blah blah blah blah blah blah baddog blah blah blah baddog blah blah blah baddog blah blah blah"

Riiiight..... Williamsburg is going to tank, but the East Village will double,
And the market will be up 15% by spring... oh, whoops.

"you can rent out my second vacation home if you want. Its going for $7500 per month currently."

Dandy! Where do I sign?

malraux - if you looked at all those things you named, you would identify neighborhoods in manhattan that have had the highest run ups, and currently have the highest per sq foot costs. They also have the highest density of Wall Street types.

Therefore I think that "choice" in Manhattan may see the highest per sq ft drop, and neighborhoods in Manhattan that were not considered "choice" and did not have a lot of wall street types which currently have lower pper sq ft prices may not fall as much as the "choice"

I see "best" in terms of real estate currently as the properties that will hold value not by what school is in the area.

Gold coast properties (59th-79th 5th to Park). That is about as prime as you get.

It's amusing that Sneaky Pete is crapping on Williamsburg when his properties are (so he says) LES tenements. I'm not bullish on Williamsburg but it's like a 500lb person calling someone else fat...

williamsburg is already overbuilt with tons of inventory, there is also a lot of are to still build in Williamsburg, so there is a lot of inventory still left. The LES is pretty much developed, tthe current rezoning limits further development, therefore there is nothing really left to build on.

The LES also has some of the top schools in the city, the east river park is being redeveloped etc. Its not just me who sees the opportunity, Chang, Pomeranc, Fischer, and Trump all have projects in the LES.

oh yeah - Williamsburg is on the other side of the river. Buyers cross the river when they cant afford Manhattan.

petrfitz, if you get a 1.1 M place for 550K, that's a 50% price drop. Isn't that what most of us have been saying all along about price chops?

that beachhouse isnt in Manhattan. also note that I bought my navada house a year ago for 50% off previous list.

Petrfitz, pretty baseless statement. There are significant chunks of the LES (and other parts of Manhattan) that are pretty miserable and, yes, actually cheaper than Williamsburg (or other higher-end Brooklyn neighborhoods). Also, I'd imagine most people would want to live in a quality new building over a beat-up tenement walkup, but that's just a hunch.

also the beachouse isnt a normal deal - the other property i own impinges the for sale property's riparian rights, and it is an estate sale. not relfective of what an unencumbered property in this area would go for .

bjw - please name these areas you speak of.

peretfirz:

"...I see "best" in terms of real estate currently as the properties that will hold value not by what school is in the area..." evinces your total lack of business acumen when it comes to investing long term in Manhattan residential real estate.

Rufus --

I think Chelsea over by the seminary will stay attractive because of the quality of the housing inventory; Tribeca (including the FiDi Tribeca of Chambers and Warren) will stay competitive because of PS 234; and that central SoHo and east ("Little ChItaly" or whatever you want to call it) is close to transportation and very liveable. I'm less sure about that stuff west of SoHo ("Printing District" or "Hudson Square" or whatever you want to call it) because I'm not sure that the retail is there yet.

ali r.
{downtown broker}

malraux - so you are saying that the best real estate buying acumen is owning in overpriced neighborhoods that are going to crash the most?

I would rather buy in underpriced neighborhoods that will hold its value.

petrfitz, we've gone over this before, but I'm talking about most stuff below Delancey and towards the East River. Pitt St, Grand St, FDR, etc. Some unattractive stock in those parts.

below Delancy is not the LES

Below Delancey is the LES (most people living there would tell you so), but whatever you want to call it, that area is not so great.

just like Bushwick is Williamsburg.

Uh, no.

According to your logic, since Prime Fifth was also populated largely by investment professionals, had great schools, and saw some of the fastest appreciation in the 1980's, you're saying that it would have been one of the worst investments?

Again, you'd have been proved wrong. Prime Fifth was just behind the Village as #2 on the list of neighborhoods whose property values dropped the least and snapped back the fastest.

With your impeccable logic, you should investing RIGHT NOW in someplace like Jackson Heights. I'll stick with the Village, thank you very much.

The fault in this logic is the safety factor. Back in the 80s, UES was considered the only real "safe" neighborhood (crime I mean - suprisingly, UWS was considered risky) and that is why values held relatively speaking. Now, UES is not the most desirable part of town, and there are a healthy set of other "safe" neighborhoods to choose from. UES is less desirable than a host of other choices now.

More importantly, folks won't be running back to the UES to flee the criminals...

"I would rather buy in underpriced neighborhoods that will hold its value."

Might I suggest Soundview, Brownsville, and East New York. I heard there are some good deals in the Rockaways these days too.

well see in a couple of months when all the Wall Streeters go through thier nest egg. UWS, Tribeca will crash. The West Village's best days are behind it.

And what propped up the value of tenements in the East Village at yuppie prices will still somehow hold.

Bankers who moved to the East Village will be immune from wall street, and the trust fund kiddies' trust funds didn't just lose 25%. Somehow Bowery is an invisible force field protecting the east village from market realities.

Next week, that force field might come down, but apparently there are protective bubbles around only buildings that perfitz owns.

Here is the REAL definition of "prime". Any logical-sounding group of neighborhoods or streets in Manhattan that somehow magically includes the speaker's property, but not the property down the block that sold at a major discount.

Eddie has it been 6 months already?

It seems to me that part of the definition of "prime" would be places that already have the things that buyers want. Non-prime are places where you are buying a future that's better than the present (LIC, Harlem, parts of Brooklyn, FiDi, etc.). For instance, many people are buying in Williamsburg because they are anticipating all of the waterfront amenities that do not yet exist. They are looking forward to increased capacity on the L train. Etc. I don't think anyone will pay for the future over the next few years. Prime areas already have what people want -- they are buying what's in-place, and don't need the future to look much different than the present to be satisfied.

This Prime Property for saleis somewhat not so really important but helpful to someone who needs it the most like some offices who really do care about things like this.