Skip Navigation
StreetEasy Logo

Upper Manhattan Land Prices down 50%

Started by nyc10022
almost 17 years ago
Posts: 9868
Member since: Aug 2008
Discussion about
http://ny.therealdeal.com/articles/upper-manhattan-development-prices-halved Prices for development properties in the northern part of Manhattan may have fallen by about 50 percent as demand dries up due to the tight credit market and the loss of state tax incentives, some brokers say. The prices for development sites have fallen as new condominium and market-rate rental construction has nearly... [more]
Response by urbandigs
almost 17 years ago
Posts: 3629
Member since: Jan 2006

its not so crazy that residential is following land prices

Ignored comment. Unhide
Response by mbz
almost 17 years ago
Posts: 238
Member since: Feb 2008

I would think the % change in both the land and housing markets would be similar. An investor can choose either so that must force some sort of equilibrium. Thoughts?

Ignored comment. Unhide
Response by hotproperty
almost 17 years ago
Posts: 277
Member since: Nov 2008

What do you mean that residential is following land prices?

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

"I would think the % change in both the land and housing markets would be similar. An investor can choose either so that must force some sort of equilibrium. Thoughts?"

I don't believe its a one to one though. Direction, absolutely.

BUT land prices are only part of the development game, you have to figure the building itself. If land is only 20% of the cost, then a 50% decline might only infer a 10% price reduction. Numbers are made up, but I think you get the point. Assuming development costs are relatively fixed, it says more about the "margin".

That being said, when something's value is cut in half, you are talking about a VERY different market...

Ignored comment. Unhide
Response by urbandigs
almost 17 years ago
Posts: 3629
Member since: Jan 2006

right, not one to one. What I mean is land is AHEAD of the residential market. It seems that residential is FOLLOWING land prices, to me at least there is some relationship in terms of trend.

Jeff will write about this soon on UD..Its like stocks were following credit markets from late 2007 to late 2008

Ignored comment. Unhide
Response by hotproperty
almost 17 years ago
Posts: 277
Member since: Nov 2008

WHich is it 50% or 11%? According to Massey Knakal's year-end report for upper Manhattan investment properties, released today, the year-over-year change in value for vacant land declined by just 11 percent to $102 per square foot in 2008 from $115 per square foot in 2007.

Ignored comment. Unhide
Response by urbandigs
almost 17 years ago
Posts: 3629
Member since: Jan 2006

the y-o-y report says "-11%", the guy talking about where deals are happening at says "-50%, easy"..

I guess its like me saying deals are happening in residential down 15-25% from peak, yet official reports dont show this.

Ignored comment. Unhide
Response by semerun
almost 17 years ago
Posts: 571
Member since: Feb 2008

I view this as a postive for properties above the new line drawn for 421-a abatements (somewhere in the 130's). A friend and I have talked about developing a property in our own neighborhood and there are some good lots still available- but prices just made it unrealistic to consider unless the market continued to skyrocket- which didn't seem possible.

Perhaps in 2010 or 2011 we might consider the idea again.

Ignored comment. Unhide
Response by PMG
almost 17 years ago
Posts: 1322
Member since: Jan 2008

UD is correct. Land values lead residential, but they are also more volatile than residential because they are a bit like an option on development. It is not clear when the development game gets restarted or when financing becomes available. Fully improved property has a use today and can command rent today. Apartment prices won't decline as much as land values.

Ignored comment. Unhide

Add Your Comment