always rent

Be patient.

Oh julia, you've been saying the same thing for years. Prices are already down 20% from their peak.

Just wait. Real estate is sticky on the downside, but inventory is massive and growing.

Because renting sucks. Can't make the place your own. Can't customize it via renovation to fit your life. Instead, always fitting your life into someone else's box. No sense of permanency or home. Beholden to landlord. No say in building management. No control over who shares your building and resolution of any problems. No say in amenities. If personal finances dictate, renting can be okay, but it just isn't the same as owning.

$479k for a studio...401 East 74th street...$400k for studio on 37th and lex a complete mess...I've just given up.

julia, i think maybe you're right. do you think prices will go up this year?

"If personal finances dictate, renting can be okay, but it just isn't the same as owning."

Spoken like a true realtor.

Buying sucks. Gotta fix everything that breaks. Can be stuck with it for a long time in a down market. Can fall precipitously in value. Beholden to the bank. Have to sit on building committees to make decisions. Life is tied to incompetent, power-hungry boards of directors.

If it's cheaper on a cash-flow basis to buy, then buy. If not, don't.

"Spoken like a true realtor."
By now, Steve, you know very well I'm not a realtor at all. It's only been what? A year or more we've been posting to this site? And come one. Be fair. "Fix everything that breaks..." I owned my last apt for 18 years. I think a switch on the dishwasher broke once and maybe a faucet was dripping that the super fixed. What "breaks" in an apartment? It isn't a house with a boiler and roof. And yes, one might be "stuck" in a down market if one anticipated moving, but many people have a very good idea where they'll be for many years and are absolutely right in the long run. So buying hardly "sucks" in that regard. And if you live in a place, like holding a stock, who cares what the value does for all the years between buying and actually selling? Supposed value is pretty meaningless until you actually put a place on the market. If you live there for 15 years, do you really care what it is worth in year #4, or #11? "Beholden" to bank? That's kind of a distortion. I don't know that not wanting to be "beholden" to a bank is really a concern I've ever heard anyone express except you just now. "Have to sit on committees?" Not if you buy in a reasonably large building and desire to let others run it. No one is ever obligated to serve. That's a red herring; why did you throw that in other than because you have no real response to my post of any substance? "Power hungry boards?" Really? Versus indifferent landlords? That is a reason to rent? Come on. And the vast majority of boards are fine. If you experienced dissension of boards you were on, maybe that's more a function of personality that the nature of a board. The boards I've worked with or served on or lived "under" have done great jobs of managing GV and Chelsea buildings.

If this is the best you have to make a non-economic argument for renting, that's pretty lame.

"What "breaks" in an apartment?"

You've got to be kidding.

"many people have a very good idea where they'll be for many years and are absolutely right in the long run"

That's a different argument.

"I don't know that not wanting to be "beholden" to a bank is really a concern I've ever heard anyone express except you just now."

Just as much as beholden to a landlord you are.

"That's a red herring"

Not.

"If you experienced dissension of boards you were on, maybe that's more a function of personality that the nature of a board."

If you call losing $1 million on a stupid lawsuit against the sponsor, then maybe that is a function of personality.

"indifferent landlords?"

My landlord is very responsive.

"If this is the best you have to make a non-economic argument for renting, that's pretty lame."

To use your example, I wouldn't buy stock for sentimental reasons (I used to work for Bank of America) nor would I buy a home for that reason. Your reasons were entirely sentimental, so I gave some of mine own, equally valid.

"why did you throw that in other than because you have no real response to my post of any substance?"

Because your post is nonsense. It is an argument that it's always better to own for sentimental reasons, regardless of cost. What is true is that there is some sentiment when buying, but there can be for renting as well. For rational people, it is primarily a financial decision.

Buying a home is capitalizing rent as a hedge against future rent payments.

You and I always differ here, Steve. You call my reasons "sentimental" and I might just as easily have called yours "cold." I didn't. Because for some people, simply crunching the numbers is how they feel most comfortable living. Why buy at Starbucks when you can make the same cup of coffee for 1/10 the price at home? Honestly, why buy leather seats in a car when fabric last just as long and work just fine? Why buy a luxury car at all?

Because it is about how one chooses to live life. The size of my bank account at my death is fairly irrelevant to me. I just don't want to run out of money and have enough to maintain my lifestyle.

I responded to the OP's question of why ever buy if it costs more. I never said "regardless of cost" so why did you say that I did? You make it hard to have a discourse when you respond to something one never said. I said there are non-economic factors which implicitly recognizes that of course there are economic factors, too. But since we discuss the economics ad nauseum on here, I raise the life-style issues that get lost very often. How painful is it for you to admit there are indeed lifestyle compromises that renting entails. Some of us are in an economic position to put a price on those luxuries, and then decide if they are worth it to us. Why do you have such a problem with that? It isn't always just about the bottom line. That is why there is a Starbucks (for now, at least), and Luxis dealers (which you enjoy as I recall), and mens stores other than Mens Warehouse.

You and I always differ here, Steve. You call my reasons "sentimental" and I might just as easily have called yours "cold." I didn't. Because for some people, simply crunching the numbers is how they feel most comfortable living. Why buy at Starbucks when you can make the same cup of coffee for 1/10 the price at home? Honestly, why buy leather seats in a car when fabric last just as long and work just fine? Why buy a luxury car at all?

Because it is about how one chooses to live life. The size of my bank account at my death is fairly irrelevant to me. I just don't want to run out of money and have enough to maintain my lifestyle.

I responded to the OP's question of why ever buy if it costs more. I never said "regardless of cost" so why did you say that I did? You make it hard to have a discourse when you respond to something one never said. I said there are non-economic factors which implicitly recognizes that of course there are economic factors, too. But since we discuss the economics ad nauseum on here, I raise the life-style issues that get lost very often. How painful is it for you to admit there are indeed lifestyle compromises that renting entails. Some of us are in an economic position to put a price on those luxuries, and then decide if they are worth it to us. Why do you have such a problem with that? It isn't always just about the bottom line. That is why there is a Starbucks (for now, at least), and Luxis dealers (which you enjoy as I recall), and mens stores other than Mens Warehouse.

Steve, to use your words, is it safe to assume that you are a "rational" person? and that where you live is "primarily a financial decison"? Then why don't you live in Jersey City over NYC?

Kylewest, you're peddling backwards. You started your post, "Because renting sucks."

Renting does not "suck." Most people in New York rent.

"I never said "regardless of cost" so why did you say that I did?"

Yes you did. You said, "If personal finances dictate, renting can be okay, but it just isn't the same as owning."

Your argument is, if you can't afford to buy, then it's "okay" to rent. I have no problem buying: I own, I rent, and I continue to do both. Lifestyle issues do matter - just what are you willing to pay for them?

And there are equally valid lifestyle reasons to rent.

One person likes fancier things, the other is happy if you just throw in a little alcohol. Different strokes.

Steve, your favorite retort is to use the word "back peddling." I'm not trying to make this personal in the sense of arguing with you personally. I saying, that if you set economics aside, I believe if you add up the benefits and negatives of renting and compare it to owning, there are very significant benefits with nominal downsides to owning. That is why is isn't always better to rent and why in many ways renting really sucks once you take the economics out of it. Now, the $$ is of course a factor at some point in the equation for most of us. But for you, you never give an inch on the $$ analysis as being the end all and be all. It just isn't. Why can't you acknowledge that for many owning offers tremendous advantages in terms of quality of life?

And sometimes you type so quickly I don't think you even believe what you say. Did you really mean to prove that "renting does not suck" because "most people in NY rent?" By that kind of absurd logic, starvation and malaria are fine since millions suffer from them in Africa. Just because people do it, doesn't mean they want to or would if they had a choice.

If you can get yourself to by a Lexus, isn't it just taking it a step further for someone to buy a place even if the ##s are off a bit? Otherwise you'd drive a Hyundai. For now, luxury of owning has a price. Some are willing to pay it, some aren't. But you do get something for the price of buying you don't get in renting. That is what I said initially in other words.

"I believe if you add up the benefits and negatives of renting and compare it to owning, there are very significant benefits with nominal downsides to owning."

I believe they offset each other.

"in many ways renting really sucks once you take the economics out of it."

In which case, I'll take Breakers.

"By that kind of absurd logic, starvation and malaria are fine since millions suffer from them in Africa."

Wow. Equating disease (not a choice) with a place to live (a choice) is really absurd.

"If you can get yourself to by a Lexus"

I have a Lexus. I bought it because the resale value was high.

For many people, renting is not a choice.

And if you buy an inexpensive car and drive it to death, you will always come out ahead monetarily no matter how good a luxury car's resale value is. Add in the money saved on gas from better milage in a non-luxury car and the money saved from being able to park a cheap car on the street (you are going to drive it to death so who gives a crap about how many dings it gets) and you are WAY behind driving that gas guzzling Lexus. Hypocrite.

And I suppose when you travel you always stay at the Motel 6? And never eat out. Or have shirts professionally laundered. Or spend the money on a flat screen LCD TV? Spending extra money to own is, as I said, a lot about a lifestyle choice in keeping with other luxuries. Economics are a starting point in the decision process as you and I went back and forth as long ago as fall '07. But it isn't the end point--except for you on these boards. In real life, even you indulge in the luxury car and who knows what else. Why you arbitrarily draw the line at housing isn't clear to me.

"And in the money saved on gas..." should read "And factoring in the money saved on gas..."

Hi Kyle, you may be new to Streeteasy. Before you continue to argue your case, no matter how meritorious you believe it may be, I suggest you study what these two links can offer you, and then I can answer any additional questions you may have and we can determine how and if to proceed with your points of view here.

The two links are:
http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/3410-real-estate-is-a-bad-investment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zf5ExRvDMgU

I'll be back tomorrow morning and we can pick this up. The first link will take you some time to go through with the level of detail necessary.

Regards

Oh, dear. How many lives have been undone by youtube? Omg. On the plus side, he's better looking than I had imagined.

Don't just watch the video. There's more homework to do.

I was witness to the thread when it was being created. There were dozens more like it. For some months I know Steve typed unbelievably long and repetitive, dogmatic, pedantic missives always with the same couple of points. It was like some kind of religious fervor. The thing is he has his points but just beats them to death in a kind of annoying way that never acknowledges the missives are just his view--not the only view a thinking, intelligent person could have. As evidenced here, nothing changes. He just types a little less these days.

Kyle don't be disheartened. You can still win an argument with Steve if you try hard enough. You have to think of him like Yeltsin, eventually, no matter how stubborn, too much vodka will force him to give in and go.

I have no more a desire to convince him of anything than I do to see my b/f reach the last level of whatever god-awful video game he sneaks onto the tv when he takes evening work breaks. My only aim is to suggest to those not really familiar with Steve's style that he presents a rather unyielding, pedantic point of view that isn't shared by many (most?) other informed regular posters. His failure to acknowledge that there is a reason the finer buildings in NYC are owner occupied--not rentals--is such an example.

Kyle, pedantic is a big word. Try smaller words when speaking to the people.

Pedantic: "narrowly, stodgily, and often ostentatiously learned," or "ostentatious in one's learning, " or (and this one is good)
"overly concerned with minute details or formalisms, esp. in teaching."

Ostentatious is a big word

I've rented and I've owned. In this market, I'm glad I rent. It is so much cheaper than owning, and I have a spectacular apartment that I could not afford to own. The key is to rent in a large building with a good landlord (think Brodsky, Glenwood, etc). I cashed out in 2007, feeling compelled to do so. Maintenance on my 2 bedroom apartment skyrocketed, making my cheap mortgage not such a deal. The building had many special assessments. I always had to tip the staff (which was huge) a lot of money over the holidays, since there was no building pool as in some of the rental buildings. I felt tapped out at every turn. And my apartment really needed new windows and upgrading.

I feel free and happy and I have no desire to own again, unless it becomes substantially cheaper than renting.

1566666 have you considered actually working harder for a living so you and your family could actually affort something stable instead of being a lazy ass who sold and then rented at Glenwood which is not cheap, you dumb shill.

vborge, most doctors who have been practicing medicine for a few years can't afford to buy a decent two bedroom, and I dare you to call them lazy. Glenwood is not cheap, nor is it particularly expensive. Compared to the cost of owning a two bedroom with dining area these apartments are quite cheap, if uninspired.

Renting is a choice, so is buying. I actually went ahead and did some renovations to my rental. I figured out the cost of moving to a nicer rental, buying, etc. and decided that if I intended to stay for at least three years (this was in 2007, and I'm pretty sure I'll be here until 2011), it made financial sense to stay and make my rental more to my liking. I didn't spend a ton, but more than I would usually even begin considering for a rental. Now I love my kitchen, and over 4 years the expense only increases my rent by a few hundred a month. Nothing structural was changed, and I can return the unit to its earlier condition without much work. My solution in a frustrating market.

I know a lot of wealthy people who are now renting, due to the uncertainty in the market.

For example, I know a partner at a top private equity firm who lives in the chelsea centro, a hedge fund manager who lives in grand tier, and an extremely successful stock trader who rents at the millennium building in battery park city. And I'v also heard from friends in 10 barclay that they've seen a few celebrities and models.

So this notion that only "losers" rent, is completely absurd.

VBorge, I will overlook your offensive comments. I am not plugging renting over buying; and I believe in ownership over renting. Also, I agree that certain rental buildings are too expensive, so you need to do your research before renting. However, sale prices are still outrageously high and the value is not there. And rents are coming down too if you track this stuff.

My point simply is meant to assure Julia that is no reason to spend almost a half a million dollars for an apartment that she doesn't even like. Just say no, and wait. Do what is best for your pocketbook and your emotional well being. When owing makes financial sense and you are excited about what you see, then jump in.

I went through this whole cycle; I was eager to own something in 1987 when I came to New York but I couldn't afford it; thank goodness because it all came crashing down.

It feels like 1987 again. And in my opinion there will be a freefall before it levels off.

steve actually thinks that having a mortgage makes you as beholden to a bank as a renter is to a landlord? This guy really does come up with the most ridiculous statements.

Kyle, I agree with you: renting sucks. I would give almost anything to be able to rip out my kitchen and redo it. I rent. My rent is not stabilized, but I have a nice responsive landlord who will not raise my rent more than 4% a year and will never, ever renovate my kitchen. The idea was to live with the crappy kitchen until I could afford to buy; that isn't quite working out as planned, given the evaporation of my down payment. I continue to rent because it makes sense for now, but the instant properties drop low enough and I can recover financially, I would be happy to take on those onerous obligations Steve describes. Fiscal responsibility sometimes comes out in favor of renting, but I think most people would still prefer to own, warts and all.

Hang in there, Julia. Prices will come down.

evnyc: Finally. An honest voice. I agree, obviously. I am currently renting while an apt I purchased is being renovated. The building I'm in is fantastic. Great location. Couple of "stars" you run into in the elevator. Wonderful, attentive staff. Dramatic pre-war features in the apt. And I can't wait to get the heck out and into the coop I bought. The appliances in the kitchen here are the cheapest "stainless" you can find. Wind comes through the windows that are original to the building. There are mice. The walls are chalk white and not worth painting because I don't feel like being obligated to paint it back to white. The air conditioners must move with me--the building doesn't let you leave them, and since they had to be specially installed, I have to pay to have the altered windows fixed when i go. The light fixtures are hideous--same situation as the paint though...not worth changing. Closets are inefficient, but why should I spend a few thousand to customize what isn't mine? Bathroom is a quick-fix type renovation that is adequate, nothing more. I don't work my ass off all week to "settle" when I come home. I want a place that is truly my home and am in a position to live with a slightly smaller bank account in the process.

Don't get me wrong. I'm grateful to be able to rent in a place as relatively comfortable and nice as this. But I wouldn't want this to be "it." If I had to, I'd be fine here. But since I don't have to, why should I?

when i saw the title of this post, before even clicking to the actual thread, i laid odds with my wife that there would be at least 5 of the usual blahblahblah posts from stevehjx. thank you steve for the $100. :)

The appliances in the kitchen here are the cheapest "stainless" you can find. Wind comes through the windows that are original to the building. There are mice. The walls are chalk white and not worth painting because I don't feel like being obligated to paint it back to white.

Related Rentals building?

Thanks for the free advertising!

Who do you work for Steve JHX?

Why get caught up in this rent or buy war on s.e.? There is no right or wrong answer as every individual has their own unique situation. That said I am of the opinion(and have been for at least a year) that it is worth considering waiting before making a purchase at this time.

Theburkhardt Group are you involved in real estate?

noneconomic difference rent/own: renewal notices at lease expirations

well stated burkhardtgroup. Owning v renting is a personal decision.

That's a bit simplistic 156844 (is that your pin number? All I need now is the account number). Everything is a personal decision but what people are trying to discuss here are the inputs that go into the "personal decision".

Kyle, your new home sounds wonderful. That is a life I can only dream of. My life can be summed up in two words:

"Magic Chef"

You know, the brand of toy stoves found in just about every rental? The ones you can barely cook on? That's my kitchen.

Gleeclub and enny consider this input: having had the Wolf stove as an owner, and the Magic Chef equivalent as a renter, the equation and the inputs are simple. Is the Wolf Stove worth spending thousands of extra dollars a month, especially when you don't get to cook if you work really hard and don't have the time?

Is the Wolf Stove worth spending thousands of extra dollars a month, especially when you don't get to cook if you work really hard and don't have the time?

Well, you said it yourself, you broke this "personal" decision down to an economic analysis on the one hand and an analysis of your lifestyle preferences and requirements on the other hand.

To me, pretty frustrating. The condos I've seen where closings took place in 2006, none are underwater. Also, those owners are in a pretty good position to rent out their units because they still cover their costs. Not so for the 2008 condos however. But, still, a buyer from 2006 is still doing well.

kylewest, I wouldn't go as far as saying "renting sucks," but I definitely have a strong preference for owning. I imagine most people do, and indeed most posters on this site. I've actually wanted to start a poll/thread on here to gauge what kind of premium most people would put on owning vs renting. I'm pretty confident most would pay at least 10% more. Regardless, makes me wonder why stevejhx posts here so much, if he's such a proponent of renting. What exactly are you getting out of StreetEasy if you're so sure of yourself? And didn't you sell your Fire Island property? What happened?

bjw2103, I sort of agree with you. I would pay a 10% premium to own under the right circumstances, and might pay more.

But there are a lot of ifs. I am in my early 30s, married with a kid, hoping/planning to have more, and intend to stay in NYC in the long run. It makes a lot of sense for me to own.

It didn't make a lot of sense for me to own as a 26-year old single guy, because the time horizon was too short, and there were too many uncertainties - will I marry someone who will hate my place/neighborhood, will I decide to move out of NYC, etc. Plus, I preferred living with roommates, and so was paying very little for great apartments.

I think most people in the right circumstances, and in the right stage of their lives, prefer to own. But I think there are also tons of people who don't fit those criteria, and who may actually require a discount to own (for instance, if owning was 50% cheaper than renting, I certainly would've bought at 26, despite my preference not to).

"Because renting sucks. Can't make the place your own. Can't customize it via renovation to fit your life. Instead, always fitting your life into someone else's box. No sense of permanency or home. Beholden to landlord. No say in building management. No control over who shares your building and resolution of any problems."

As opposed to being beholden to the co-op board? Are you aware of renovation restrictions?

At least with renting, if you don't like it, you move... if you're in a co-op you don't like, and you're underwater, that might be impossible.

And, when you are paying rent, you call the management company and say "fix this or I won't pay rent" o r you move out. I've always found landlords very responsive. If its a co-op, you're waiting for votes and budgets and such. Yes, you have a say, but you are also partly responsible for fixing.

Not to mention.. a good super is worth his wight in gold. If something breaks in the apartment, they fix it. Try that with a co-op.

Not saying there aren't pros on both sides, but flexibility is an absolute positive for renting.

> what kind of premium most people would put on owning vs renting. I'm pretty confident most would pay
> at least 10% more

In this city, I think its a premium to rent.

Any finance class will tell you that options are worth something. The ability to choose and choose again if circumstances change.

The ability to change your mind for a thousand in moving fees (and, hell, less, with all the free months rent availale) vs. tens of thousands in closing costs.... that is absolutely worth something.

This isn't the suburbs, where you have your "property" and you build extensions and remodel and whatever. In this town, few people have "extra" space, and need to trade up frequently as lives change.

That is certainly less expensive to do while renting.

"And, when you are paying rent, you call the management company and say "fix this or I won't pay rent" or you move out. I've always found landlords very responsive."

I've had some a few terrible experiences with landlords on this, and I would strongly advise against taking the "fix this or I won't pay rent" approach off the bat. Unless they refuse to respond, there is no real reason to be that combative.

"Not to mention.. a good super is worth his wight in gold. If something breaks in the apartment, they fix it. Try that with a co-op."

Well, I live in a condo, and the super is great.

"In this city, I think its a premium to rent.

Any finance class will tell you that options are worth something. The ability to choose and choose again if circumstances change."

As newbuyer99 said, this is really mostly applicable to the young and single. As you get older and have a family, you place a much greater value on stability.

wow. am i really reading a thread like this? i always took this site as an amusing place to banter and be sarcastic and maybe argue a few points, but this is really scary.

"As newbuyer99 said, this is really mostly applicable to the young and single. As you get older and have a family, you place a much greater value on stability."

If they stop having kids...

Yes, definitely more applicable at certain points in life, but you are talking about a large component of folks who bought in the past (if we're talking about this in a market sense). We actually lead the nation in single person households... its something like 50% of Manhattan. So, even if the old like the stability, there are counter market forces working against it.

> Well, I live in a condo, and the super is great.

Does he fix your dishwasher or fridge? Mine went, they replaced it in 3 hours. Would be great if you could get that in condos/co-ops, I haven't seen that yet...

> I've had some a few terrible experiences with landlords on this,

Maybe we're both lucky...I have not. I quickly note any issues, but I'm nice about it. Maybe its been some luck, but particularly in this market, landlords have been super super responsive to me. Could also be the price points, as many folks move from cheaper rentals to "better" condos/co-ops might skew the experiences. I've generally found that cheap buildings are cheap building and good buildings are good buildings.

actually, now that I think of it, the kids thing can "backfire" in a sense.

Think of the folks living in a LIC or WB... they don't have kids, but they have the room so they think they're stable. Then they learn about... school districts...

Especially with all the recent changes in manhattan, the kids thing can actually make flexibility more important (at least the one time, in getting to an apartment with the right zoning).

Does he fix your dishwasher or fridge? WHAT? is this for real? is this the new '09 streeteasy? how often does your fridge or dishwasher go that it informs your housing decision?? i understand you're making a larger point but, really, can we at least go back to the number crunching reasons to buy vs rent? if that's why you're renting, that is truly, truly sad. do you not own a car because you may have to get it fixed when it breaks? will you not have children because you might have to take them for shots and send them to college?

What is this absurd discussion re: dishwashers? Coop supers fix them, too. Mine did. The one time it needed something. Renovations? Most boards allow anything reasonable. And then it is exactly what you want when it's done--not someone else's taste.

And who above is saying to withhold rent for some b.s. like dishwasher broken or other minor crap? Good luck with that. You are 100% legally liable for interest and likely for legal fees (under your lease) if the landlord sues you--you don't have a legal leg to stand on if the habitability and fitness of your rented apartment is not affected. Inconvenience doesn't count. Reckless silly comment. Advise people to breach their lease like that--ignorant.

No owner I know would ever raise appliance maintenance as an issue in the larger scheme of things. Sounds like grasping at straws to find reasons to rent.

But regardless, if you live in terror your fridge will break and that only a LL can deal with that and that your life would just go to hell if you had to deal with it yourself once every 20 years, then you are right: renting is for you. Most sane people would not cite that as a real reason to rent.

Iffy time horizons, changing life-needs (kids likely to come into picture), job insecurity or relocating a real possibility...all very real reasons one might prefer to rent. And of course the financial reasons.

What I said initially and maintain is that there are quality of life issues that many, many people feel owning better meets. Not everyone, but many, many people. THAT IS WHY IT IS NOT BETTER TO "ALWAYS RENT" FOR ALL PEOPLE which is what I originally responded to. No one every said all must buy, but it is pretty retarded to say all should rent.

"Does he fix your dishwasher or fridge? Mine went, they replaced it in 3 hours. Would be great if you could get that in condos/co-ops, I haven't seen that yet..."

Well, don't need to yet because these are new appliances with pretty good warranties, but as eah said, if your decision comes down to this, something's a little wacky in your analysis. My super does handle a wide range of things though, so I'm not sure it's really different.

"Think of the folks living in a LIC or WB... they don't have kids, but they have the room so they think they're stable. Then they learn about... school districts..."

Can't speak for LIC, but there are a whole bunch of kids in WB. Regardless, I don't see what your larger point is. Older folks and families, generally speaking, do not want instability or hassles from having to move. And there are many of those here. Not all of them can afford to buy, but I would guess that those that can tend to favor owning.

"Does he fix your dishwasher or fridge? WHAT? is this for real? is this the new '09 streeteasy? how often does your fridge or dishwasher go that it informs your housing decision??"

Just giving some examples... fridge, washer, windows, caulking, AC units, bla bla. I like that I don't really have to worry about much other than lightbulbs and stocking the fridge.

"i understand you're making a larger point but, really, can we at least go back to the number crunching reasons to buy vs rent?"

I have no problem with that, but it was bjw who changed the topic...

> what kind of premium most people would put on owning vs renting. I'm pretty confident most would pay
> at least 10% more

Just noting that there are pros and cons on both sides, financial and non-financial.

> Can't speak for LIC, but there are a whole bunch of kids in WB

Yes, it was noted in the article about 5-6 weeks ago where the trouble with the lack of schools was brought up. My point is that not all neighborhoods work well for "stability", it can actually cause people to leave.

> Regardless, I don't see what your larger point is. Older folks and families, generally speaking, do
> not want instability or hassles from having to move.

I think few people like moving, but it doesn't change that folks sometimes have to. Families often become bigger families. Or emtpy nesters.

Just noting that moving is much less of a hassle if you rent. The value of that benefit can differ, hell it can be zero for some people, but that doesn't mean the benefit does not exist...

The most frequent move time I've ever seen is when folks get their first kid.... and we are talking about some neighborhoods with a high likelihood of that happening...

I think of myself as a middle-of-the-road guy on this discussion, and have stated a firm desire to own in the long run.

But I think kylewest, bjw2103 and others understate the difficulty of meeting criteria that make owning preferable, and overstate the number of people in NYC that meet those criteria. It's popular for the pro-own crowd to say "you just rent because you can't afford to own". Of course this is true in some cases. But in many others, it's more nuanced. Because the time horizons are different, what you would want/need to buy could be very different from what you would want/need to rent. Yes, kids are the primary driver of this, but the vast majority of people do have kids at some point in their lives, so it's a pretty relevant factor.

For example, let's look at my case. We am renting a 1100-1200 SF apartment. We could easily afford to buy an equivalent. But we'd grow out of it in 2-3 years with more kids, so doing so would be pretty dumb. Or we could skip the middle step and buy a 1800-2000SF apartment. We'd have to stretch, but we could do it. But then, for the next 2-3 years, we'd be paying for a much larger apartment than we need. Renting a smaller apartment which is plenty for us now saves us probably north of $100K in those couple years. So, are the considerations not to buy (even putting the market prognosis aside) financial? Absolutely. But are we not buying because we can't afford to? Hardly.

Now, to revisit the criteria. For someone to prefer buying, they should (1) be at a stage in their life where their apartment needs are likely to stay fairly consistent for at least 7-10 years, (2) be fairly sure they're not leaving NYC, and (3) be able to comfortably afford something where they could live those 7-10 years. From what I recall of kylewest's story, he fits all the criteria. I don't know about bjw2103. But I think that in general, the people in NYC that meet those criteria are a pretty clear minority.

"Just giving some examples... fridge, washer, windows, caulking, AC units, bla bla."

What is it you think a super in a co-op or condo does?

"I have no problem with that, but it was bjw who changed the topic..."

Are you this childish?

"Yes, it was noted in the article about 5-6 weeks ago where the trouble with the lack of schools was brought up. My point is that not all neighborhoods work well for "stability", it can actually cause people to leave."

There are schools in WB - some are actually pretty good too. I don't understand this "stability" point - you think if there is some semblance of it, people will leave? People come and go all the time. Demographics change.

"I think few people like moving, but it doesn't change that folks sometimes have to. Families often become bigger families. Or emtpy nesters.

Just noting that moving is much less of a hassle if you rent. The value of that benefit can differ, hell it can be zero for some people, but that doesn't mean the benefit does not exist..."

I completely agree, but nobody here said that it does not exist!

"Just giving some examples... fridge, washer, windows, caulking, AC units, bla bla."

What is it you think a super in a co-op or condo does?

"I have no problem with that, but it was bjw who changed the topic..."

Are you this childish?

"Yes, it was noted in the article about 5-6 weeks ago where the trouble with the lack of schools was brought up. My point is that not all neighborhoods work well for "stability", it can actually cause people to leave."

There are schools in WB - some are actually pretty good too. I don't understand this "stability" point - you think if there is some semblance of it, people will leave? People come and go all the time. Demographics change.

"I think few people like moving, but it doesn't change that folks sometimes have to. Families often become bigger families. Or emtpy nesters.

Just noting that moving is much less of a hassle if you rent. The value of that benefit can differ, hell it can be zero for some people, but that doesn't mean the benefit does not exist..."

I completely agree, but nobody here said that it does not exist!

newbuyer99, I agree with your criteria - I definitely am in that camp. I honestly don't know what percentage of people living in this city is as well.

> What is it you think a super in a co-op or condo does?

Your super will give you a new dishwasher? You don't own yours?

> "I have no problem with that, but it was bjw who changed the topic..."
> Are you this childish?

Get a grip, bjw... someone pointed out how the topic had changed, and I pointed out who changed it. You don't have to get all whiny about it... to me, what you are doing here is pretty childish.

"There are schools in WB - some are actually pretty good too. I don't understand this "stability" point - you think if there is some semblance of it, people will leave? People come and go all the time. Demographics change."

No, the point is stability can have value for some, sure, but less so if their current neighborhood does not meet their needs. Meaning in those neighborhoods, flexibility is worth even more.

> I completely agree, but nobody here said that it does not exist!

Most simply ignored its existence... not much of a difference.

"Your super will give you a new dishwasher? You don't own yours?"

He will not give me a new dishwasher, but a) it's new, and b) I'm talking about windows, caulking, A/C, etc. (all things you mentioned), which he will take care of. As several other people here have pointed out, if what your super does for you (which in the end is quite similar in rental vs co-op-condo, but not in a townhouse obviously) is a considerable factor in your rent vs buy decision, you clearly have different priorities than most.

"Get a grip, bjw... someone pointed out how the topic had changed, and I pointed out who changed it."

You were deflecting responsibility when someone called you out. My comment was quite in line with the thread's topic, unlike, you know, getting into the super's job description details.

"Most simply ignored its existence... not much of a difference."

It's a pretty obvious statement - not responding to everything you say does not equal ignoring its existence. There are pros and cons to pretty much everything.

"You were deflecting responsibility when someone called you out. My comment was quite in line with the thread's topic, unlike, you know, getting into the super's job description details."

Yes, the benefits provided in terms of service have nothing to do with the equation.

Now you are just being silly.

I'd rather be an owner, but I would only have owned something that I loved.
I rent, sucks, but it is in a nice condo. Still, I really don't at all love the place despite a nice kitchen and bath, good view, etc. So I just terminated my lease. So I have that flexibility which was great. But then as I said in the first sentence and I do believe, if I had owned, I would have make sure I owned something that I loved and wouldn't want to be leaving.

julia
about 4 years ago
Posts: 2840
Member since: Feb 2007
ignore this person
report abuse
>manhattan prices will never go down to '03 levels.

Julia, are 2003 levels still unattainable?

se, why?

"Julia, are 2003 levels still unattainable?"

I think Julia moved out of NYC due to high rent prices and living in Southern, NJ.
It's only been 6 years since this thread was started but based on current housing situation in NYC, we can conclude that Julia made a poor choice in renting instead of buying a place x many years ago. Long term renting in NYC really don't pan out very well.

God help those who listened to the stevejhx's and julia's of these boards years ago.

Aw, LICC, I miss steve's junk. If you filter out his vitriol at those who disagreed w/him or called out his hypocrisy, he was lotsa fun. I still think of his poetry about wildlife @ Newtown Creek, and I love the irony of someone so full of contempt for LIC and outer boros in general moving top FT LAUDERDALE! And don't start accusing him of being priced out! He made choices! hahahahaha BTW, LIC has got to be the most unaffordable alternative to Manhattan outside of Dumbo and is quite the hotel haven for tourists now. I don't agree with you that there's much to do in the way of restaurants, "amenities," etc., but it was a good financial investment.

How odd to read one's words of 7 years ago to see how they've held up over time. Lord knows what's become of stevejhx, but his insistence on the coming of a dystopian apocalypse for NYC RE was reminiscent,in those days, of the preachers who predicted the end of the world to their cults. The predicted end never came. In fact, the sun shines more brightly than ever illuminating not just Manhattan these days but also spectacularly successful neighborhoods in Bklyn and Queens. In fact, if you heeded stevejhx's advice in 2007 and waited to buy because he predicted a 50% drop in RE prices, you would perhaps truly be forever priced out of the market in his words. In Greenwich Village, if you purchased in 2008, you would now be seeing an almost 50% increase in value! For example, units that had sold around the $900,000 mark are now snatched up within 3 weeks of being placed on the market for just under $1,400,000. Inventory is non-existent in many segments--not just AAA areas.

So I say again, the better part of a decade later, the same thing I said in 2007: purchasing may be the right move for you if you 1) have a reasonable time horizon for ownership (7+ years?), 2) it fits comfortably within your current budget, and 3) it fits within your long-term savings and retirement plan as developed thoughtfully with an independent financial advisor.

Hi lowery- you probably haven't visited the LIC waterfront in a year or two. You should. There are plenty of really good restaurants now, with several more about yo open (including one on the water by the owner of Trattoria L'Incontro). New cafes, markets, stores have opened. The park has expanded. Check it out.

Kyle- LIC condo prices have almost doubled since 2009.

LIC, truth is that prices in some Queens and Bklyn areas surpass those in some Manhattan areas. I predict the RE boom will spread to other areas in Queens in the next 10 years as prices in prime Brooklyn areas go beyond some people's reach. He appeal of the vibrancy of our city remains. There is nowhere else like NYC, and people continue to put up with compromises in RE and to pay a premium for it to be here.

Renting in NYC is a loser's game unless you have a rent-stabilized apartment. Manhattan is for the rich and the regulated. The main barrier for most people is saving up 20% down + closing costs + co-op liquidity requirements.

LICC, I've been there in 2015. I know the market you refer to, some of the cafes, the restaurants. None of it was there 5-10 years ago, so it's an improvement, and I have always conceded some people will prefer the built-from-scratch nature. But for me it is not as good as being in an area that already had commercial spaces in place before the area changed. Definitely you will have seen huge return on investment and will continue to. I was there every day for two months and after a few days of awe for the new I hated being there. BTW, speaking of stupid wrong predictions from the past from naysayers who got run out of town, how about.................. RIDGEWOOD?! I don't recall anyone predicting that being the next boom town. I would have expected other areas to heat up before Ridgewood. And my all-time favorite sneer from past years was about East Williamsburg, equating it with Bushwick. As if being Bushwick were a bad thing. ;)