Are you shitting me?!?!

[The Sloth]

Prices up 333% last 10 yrs.


BY LORE CROGHAN
DAILY NEWS BUSINESS WRITER

Apartment owners in Harlem and other uptown neighborhoods are sitting
on gold mines. The average sale price of apartments in upper Manhattan
has skyrocketed.

Prices are up a staggering 333.7% in the past decade, and have gained
36.9% in the past year alone, appraisal firm Miller Samuel said
yesterday in its first full-scale assessment of this market for
residential brokerage Prudential Douglas Elliman.

Uptown prices rose twice as fast as those in other areas of Manhattan.
So many shoppers from other parts of town headed north seeking bargains
that they pushed prices in those nabes way up.

"Economics are driving buyers uptown - it's simple supply and demand,"
said appraisal firm CEO Jonathan Miller.

Prices have risen handsomely all over Manhattan. Last year, for the
first time, the average apartment-sale price for the entire borough
topped $1 million.

And Manhattan co-op prices more than doubled over the past decade - to
an average of $846,595.

But the increases were most dramatic north of E. 96th St. and W. 116th
St. - where the average apartment price was $358,657 last year, versus
$82,693 in 1995. The nabes Miller Samuel included in its study were
Harlem, East Harlem, Morningside Heights, Hamilton Heights, Washington
Heights, Fort George and Inwood.

The most dramatic upswings occurred in the most northerly nabes.

In Washington Heights, the average apartment price increased a
phenomenal 532.5% over the past decade, to $364,369. In Inwood, a
506.7% rise drove the average apartment price to $255,367.

In Harlem, East Harlem, Morningside Heights and Hamilton Heights, gut
rehab projects and new construction were a major reason for the price
increases, Miller said.

In contrast, Inwood and Fort George were comeback neighborhoods, he
added. They were strong apartment markets in the 1980s, but went
dormant in the recession of the late 1980s and early 1990s.

Until recently, many moneyed Manhattan apartment hunters were reluctant
to buy in uptown neighborhoods. So some market-watchers wonder if the
uptown buying frenzy means the end of Manhattan's residential real
estate boom is near.

Top brokerage execs are convinced that it's not.

"For 10 years, people have been asking, 'When is the bubble going to
burst?'" said Dottie Herman, Prudential Douglas Elliman's CEO. "But
prices really did nothing but go up."

Herman expects Manhattan prices to keep on rising in 2005 - because
there's a shortage of flats available for sale, and strong demand,
particularly from baby boomers.

"They're spenders," she said. "They don't have a Depression mentality."

Hot housing nabes

Upper Manhattan apartment-sale prices have risen dramatically in the
past 10 years:

# Upper Manhattan: Up 333.7% to $358,657.
# Washington Heights: Up 532.5% to $364,369.
# Inwood: Up 506.7% to $255,367.







Are you shitting me?!?! I had no idea the situation was this bad...I had no idea that the average apartment in Manhattan costs approximately $1 million. How is anyone supposed to afford such obscene prices?

To top it off, Washington Heights, Harlem and East ("Spanish") Harlem are mostly lower and working-class neighborhoods, with a few blocks for exceptions. This sudden influx of tenants within the past ten years is pushing the prices up exponentially considering that whites and non-whites from other areas were tired of paying equally obscene amounts of money for similar apartments. On top of this, jobs in upper Manhattan have, for a while, been rare...the unemployment there is close to 50% No jobs, no money to pay for all of this shit...what's going to happen?

Shit, I guess these folks are going to be pushed back into the background once again...I foresee a sharp increase in crime in the South Bronx, once again.

[DarkAngel]

Even rent in my area is getting really expenisve ( South Brooklyn) I can imagine how much an apartment would cost around my area. Not to mention Brooklyn has the highest auto insurance rates, then any other place in the US!

[Sabocat]

This has been going on for sometime now in Boston. Most if not all the ethnic neighborhoods have been gentrified and forced out long time residents. Downtown, rents for small apartments are routinely anywhere from 1500-3000 per month.

I saw a billboard yesterday in fact advertising a new condominium development that is in kind of a run down part of town and said "This is your city" and showed an elegantly dressed women looking out a very high window overlooking the city of Boston. Prices started at 350K.

The bottom line is, they don't want the working class in the city. They want the city reserved and safe for the wealthy.

[Exploited Class]

Originally posted by Disgus[email protected] 23 2005, 04:47 PM
The bottom line is, they don't want the working class in the city. They want the city reserved and safe for the wealthy.
Whenever I see prices of high expensive apartments and houses in reports like this I think, Angle?

Good buy rent controlled areas and laws, considered reports coming out like this an advertisement to property owners to form a lobby group to get rent controlled taken down.

Property owner "What, they are worth so much and I can't charge that much! I am losing money, time to lobby for a repeal of these laws and we will call it government reform."

"We will be giving the workers the freedom to live 2 hours from work."

[The Sloth]

"Economics are driving buyers uptown - it's simple supply and demand...."


That is part of the article.

Now, considering that cappies are undenianly committed to an abstract ideal, regardless of the ramifications of real-world application, I would like to see some replies to this heightening of prices. I doubt many here, capitalist or communist, are able to afford $1 million apartments in the middle of the city's largest ghetto.

How do you, thus, justify this? I can think of something like, "The laws of the market are the laws of the market, and we must obey...or else!"

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Brooklyn-[email protected] 24 2005, 02:21 PM
"Economics are driving buyers uptown - it's simple supply and demand...."


That is part of the article.

Now, considering that cappies are undenianly committed to an abstract ideal, regardless of the ramifications of real-world application, I would like to see some replies to this heightening of prices. I doubt many here, capitalist or communist, are able to afford $1 million apartments in the middle of the city's largest ghetto.

How do you, thus, justify this? I can think of something like, "The laws of the market are the laws of the market, and we must obey...or else!"
Well, I live in the 3rd most expensive metro region after San Fran and New York, so I can relate.

My wife and I live in a 600 square foot, 1 BR box. It's pretty convenient location-wise and is in a decent neighborhood. Neither of us is into materialistic shit (i.e. we don't own a bunch of crap), though we'd obviously like to move into something bigger and own. Problem is, the identical 600 sq ft box across the hall just got sold for something over $330K. Which is ridiculous in its own right, and made especially worse considering we're from the upper midwest where mansions go for $300K.

Additionally, all the developers are building are the luxury condos and apartments with olympic sized pools, on-site dry cleaning, concierges, etc. That means not only do 1 BR boxes start in the low $300s, but condo fees are usually around $500 per month.

I'm on the fence on the issue as far as supplying low-income housing. Arlington County has, I think, taken the position that they'll require a certain percentage of new units to be "affordable". I think that sounds like a decent policy. I do not know if it works or will work.

I've heard arguments that govt-subsidized housing ruined the low-income housing market. A great book that deals with this is "The Wealth of Cities" by former Milwaukee Mayor John Norquist, a Democrat. His position was that tenament housing before the Great Society was not so bad, and certainly better than the god-awful government-built projects. The tenaments, he said, at least fostered ownership and community, whereas government projects destroyed those qualities because they were so awful (as rationed products usually are) that people only wanted to get the hell out.

I don't think a purely free-market approach would work. I'd like to think some developer out there would realize there is money and social good to be made by building some non-luxury, decent-sized condos that skip all the extra crap and sell for a reasonable price. Perhaps he/she needs tax incentives to do it, or maybe he needs to be required to build some along with the over-priced luxury units he wants to build elsewhere, as Arlington is doing.

So, my answer, as a capitalist, is that I really don't know what should be done. I think some sort of private-public partnership is probably going to be the best way - it usually is.

[dakewlguy]

I don't see a problem. Eventually prices will crash and the area will be affordable again, the market will sort itself out. In the meantime many people can make some money out of the boom and climb the property ladder.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by dakewlguy
I don't see a problem. Eventually prices will crash and the area will be affordable again, the market will sort itself out.

:lol: And "eventually" the homeless will all win the lottery and be able to have a place to live again.


In the meantime many people can make some money out of the boom and climb the property ladder.

Except the last buyer...who loses his ass. Can you spell P-O-N-Z-I?

Of course you can.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[inquisitive_socialist]

So, Dakewlguy, do you just spam posts every where so that your rating goes up? I'm sorry, but theres no way you made that many intelligent posts in the last few weeks. This is even showed in your post to this topic. you don't add anything to the conversation. You don't seem to realize that if prices crash, that means the economy in Harlem and other areas long known as slums will return to being slums, forcing the tentants to work harder for less as the available capital dissapears from their surroundings. you want the prices to crash? you explain to some kid that the mortgage on his apartment is worth so little that he coundn't pay the interest on the loan with the money he gets from it.

[dakewlguy]

Except the last buyer...who loses his ass. Can you spell P-O-N-Z-I?

Of course you can.
Yeah, there will be losers too, but that's capitalism for you, not everyone can win. And at least they'll own a house.


So, Dakewlguy, do you just spam posts every where so that your rating goes up?
Haha, rating? It's a retarded post counter, not a rating of how good you are.


I'm sorry, but theres no way you made that many intelligent posts in the last few weeks. This is even showed in your post to this topic. you don't add anything to the conversation.
Yeah sorry, I should add some more circlejerk dated Marxist theory to my posts.


You don't seem to realize that if prices crash, that means the economy in Harlem and other areas long known as slums will return to being slums
No it wont. You will have a significant fall in house prices until people can afford to buy them again. This may mean less very rich people owning the houses, however the local economy will be affected little, you will still have the same amount of people living nearby. Therefore local demand for goods will be the same except for top-range luxury items.
Also, a question. How can an areas long known as slums return to being slums? If they are already slums then it is impossible for them to return to that state.

[dakewlguy]

B you MP!
_____|^|
_>_>___|

[The Sloth]

Yeah, there will be losers too, but that's capitalism for you, not everyone can win. And at least they'll own a house.

In other words, you are admitting that the "winner" will live at the expense of the "loser," an expense that is parasitic since there is an unequal reciprocity.

Why should I allow someone to live at my expense if they refuse to compensate me by allowing me to do the same -- no more, and no less?


You will have a significant fall in house prices until people can afford to buy them again.

And what will be happening in the meantime?

So, in other words, you're waiting for some kind of catastrophe, and, when the catastrophe ends up fucking others over some more, you'll wait for another one?


This may mean less very rich people owning the houses,

Yes, because they'll move out of Harlem and into the Hamptons as crime will increase proportionally with the sharpening poverty rate. In the meantime, the little Harlemite animals will be left to fester in their own externally-induced discontent.


however the local economy will be affected little,

Yes, the local economy will be affected little; unemployment will remain at that notorious 50% mark, and, if you are wrong, it will increase significantly.


you will still have the same amount of people living nearby.

And they will be doing what to each other...?


Therefore local demand for goods will be the same except for top-range luxury items.

And the money for these goods? Where would it come from?

Oh, yes, I remember...the crack from the local peddlers.

[dakewlguy]

In other words, you are admitting that the "winner" will live at the expense of the "loser," an expense that is parasitic since there is an unequal reciprocity.
Why should I allow someone to live at my expense if they refuse to compensate me by allowing me to do the same -- no more, and no less?
No, I'm not. The winner, those who get out as close before the crash as possible, do so thanks to their own skill and ability to read the markets. Those who don't get out in time and see their investment wasted have themselves to blame for being too reckless.


And what will be happening in the meantime?
So, in other words, you're waiting for some kind of catastrophe, and, when the catastrophe ends up fucking others over some more, you'll wait for another one?

Read what I quoted for the context. You are completely wrong. I'm not waiting for anything.

You don't seem to realize that if prices crash, that means the economy in Harlem and other areas long known as slums will return to being slums
What I am saying is that naturally prices will correct themselves. There is no need to wait for a 'catastrophe' to happen, it is all just a part of supply and demand adjusting to try and meet each other.


Yes, because they'll move out of Harlem and into the Hamptons as crime will increase proportionally with the sharpening poverty rate. In the meantime, the little Harlemite animals will be left to fester in their own externally-induced discontent.
No it will mean less very rich because the current batch of house owners at the time of the price fall will have to be rich to be able to afford the houses. However after the price fall they will be much less rich.
Also the poverty rate cannot 'sharpen', only rise or fall. And there is little evidence to show it is directly linked to crime. Other factors such as police targetting, labelling, and individuals opportunities are more important than simply poverty.


Yes, the local economy will be affected little; unemployment will remain at that notorious 50% mark, and, if you are wrong, it will increase significantly.

Irrelevant, the local economy's status is not being discussed, the effects of a price crash are.



And the money for these goods? Where would it come from?
Oh, yes, I remember...the crack from the local peddlers.

Haha. Oh, ok. So the very rich house owners who purchase these goods are drug dealing criminals. But also criminals come from high poverty levels. You have a bit of a contradiction there buddy.

You've taken what I have said out of context again. The people who demand these top range luxury goods are the very rich. The very rich who own these houses that are rocketing in value. I am fairly sure that 'local peddlers' would not be able to afford a $846,595 house.

So your suggestion that the fall in demand for top-range goods after the house price fall will be from 'local peddlers' is rather bizzare. Also, considering you claim crime will increase after the house price fall, surely these local peddlers will in fact be earning more money, so in fact top-range luxury goods would rise in demand.

Or are the rich who own these houses in some secret conspiracy acting as grand co-ordinators of all these local peddlers. If so why is it you are saying it is unfair that they will lose money after the price crash?

Whatever your thinking here, it's rather muddled. Try fully putting quotes in context next time you feel like posting.

[The_Motorcycle_Diarrheas]

If there is gentrification, will this become fertile ground for the revolution? Time will tell.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 05:23 PM
If there is gentrification, will this become fertile ground for the revolution? Time will tell.
Communities have been gentrified for, oh, 150 years now, and no revolution has taken place, so I think time has already told.

[Dwarf Kirlston]

ummm... manhattan has been expensive for a while now.
the workers live in staten island or something and commute. that's the way it is.

I don't see a bad side to this. I really don't.

Make some Living space outside the city and make metros or something like that, don't complain about prices.