Skip Navigation
StreetEasy Logo

location, location, location

Started by Location
almost 17 years ago
Posts: 3
Member since: Dec 2008
Discussion about
has turned on itself. Because the people with location felt entitled, they didn't invest in state of the art, and so their buildings fell behind better new developments in "off" locations in terms of lifestyle, and so those "off" locations with their better ammenities attracted the newer affluent and their relative locations started to improve compared to the traditional locations ... how else do you explain far west village beyond the west village projects. Ultimately, location location location still holds, but location is fungible, no matter if you say location once, twice or thrice.
Response by alpine292
almost 17 years ago
Posts: 2771
Member since: Jun 2008

I disagree. Look at Harlem. Prices there are falling off a cliff.

Ignored comment. Unhide
Response by Location
almost 17 years ago
Posts: 3
Member since: Dec 2008

apline - your statement doesn't contrast with my postulation

Ignored comment. Unhide
Response by nyc10022
almost 17 years ago
Posts: 9868
Member since: Aug 2008

Location absolutely matters... but locations change.

The far west side used to be horrible, now its the most expensive in Manhattan. Harlem used to be for the rich white, then the rich black, then the poor black. Williamsburg used to be filled with rich.

Locations matter more than anything else... but locations change.

Ignored comment. Unhide
Response by joedavis
almost 17 years ago
Posts: 703
Member since: Aug 2007

yes -- alpine292 -- would like evidence that harlem has fallen off a cliff -- the new developments are still not negotiating, and prices are not nearly down as much as in UWS on a % basis (i am not counting washington heights or upper manhattan in harlem, where prices have in deed crashed)

I think location's original point is supported.
access + quality makes a difference

Ignored comment. Unhide
Response by anonymous
almost 17 years ago

nyc10022 and location - basically making the same point I think.

Ignored comment. Unhide
Response by anonymous
almost 17 years ago

I am not sure I agree that prices in Washington Heights have crashed. They never really shot up. My rents up there have been stable and typically when I purchase new units I find the prices have gone up steadily but within reason. it is one of the reasons I have invested up there as downtown became insanity. If you're talking way up in the Heights then you might be right. I typically only invest between 157th and about 168th st because of the subway lines and size of properties. I never really felt comfortable with Harlem so that is another area I am less familiar with. Overall, I feel comfortable saying that lower Washington Heights is doing alright. Where it will be next year...I do not know. But that's true of my downtown properties as well.

Ignored comment. Unhide
Response by joedavis
almost 17 years ago
Posts: 703
Member since: Aug 2007

so if wash heights has not dropped then the main drops are in the expensive areas
however if you check
http://www.trulia.com/real_estate/Washington_Heights-New_York/5266/market-trends/
you see that WH is doing quite a bit worse than the other areas in town including harlem

Ignored comment. Unhide
Response by nyc10022
almost 17 years ago
Posts: 9868
Member since: Aug 2008

> so if wash heights has not dropped then the main drops are in the expensive areas

Well, there is a lot of carnage south of 96th..

Ignored comment. Unhide

Add Your Comment