Translation from English

Friday, May 8, 2015

Curbed NY- NYC "All Penthouses"?

THE GREAT OUTDOORS

A Sneak Peek at Brooklyn Bridge Park's Newest Section

AFFORDABLE HOUSING WIRE

De Blasio Says New York 'Can't Be a City of Just Penthouses'

CURBED MARKETPLACE

950 Fifth Avenue, Upper East Side, Stribling, $9,500,000

×

Get the latest from Curbed NY

AFFORDABLE HOUSING WIRE

De Blasio Says New York 'Can't Be a City of Just Penthouses'

Thursday, May 7, 2015, by Jeremiah Budin
Mayor de Blasio has announced plans to attempt an overhaul of the controversial 421a tax abatement program, increase sales taxes on luxury housing, and revise rent-stabilization laws in order to significantly increase the stock of affordable housing in New York City. "No more tax breaks without building affordable housing in return," de Blasio said in a statement. "This can't be a city of just penthouses and luxury condos."
The mayor's plans for the 421a program, which is hated by pretty much everyone except for One57 developer Gary Barnett and his ilk, are not to get rid of it, but to change the rules so that it no longer results in giving up billions of dollars in tax revenue to developers in exchange for relatively little new affordable housing. Condominiums would no longer qualify for the program, and rental buildings would be required to set aside 25 to 30 percent for affordable housing, up from the current 20 percent. As a caveat for the developers, the tax abatements would last 35 years, up from 25.
De Blasio also wants to raise the so-called "mansion tax," which is currently a 1 percent tax on the sales of homes over $1 million. He wants to raise it...an amount. From the Times:
Currently, the state has a "mansion tax" of 1 percent on the sales of homes over $1 million. The de Blasio administration is calling for an additional 1 percent tax on the sale of homes in New York City over $1.75 million, which would rise to 1.5 percent tax on sales over $5 million.
And Bloomberg:
De Blasio, a self-described progressive who ran for mayor in 2013 seeking higher taxes on the wealthy, also will propose a 1 percent surcharge on the transfer tax in sales of homes over $1.7 million. The "mansion tax" would rise to 1.5 percent on sales over $5 million. The city already imposes an additional 1 percent transfer levy on residential sales of more than $1 million.
One thing is for sure here, and that is that Mayor Bill de Blasio has proposed raising the mansion tax, either to 2 percent for sales above $1.75 million, and 2.5 percent for sales above $5 million, or to 1.5 percent for sales above $5 million, and...who knows. Perhaps even more confusing than the wording of the proposal is that the Real Estate Board of New York says it's supporting all of the mayor's proposals, including that one. 
Another part of de Blasio's plan is to rework rent-stabilization laws, which, like 421a, are set to expire on June 15. The mayor wants to eliminate the very outdated part of the law that allows a landlord to charge market rates once the rent exceeds $2,500, and get rid of the rule that lets landlords up the rent by 20 percent for rent-stabilized units in between tenants.
One big question mark in terms of implementing these changes is the current political situation in Albany, which is being purged of corrupt legislators by U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, leaving a couple of interns and a box of paper clips (more or less) to run the state. Some see this as a potential roadblock to getting things done, while others see opportunity. State Senator Liz Krueger commented to the Times that there may be a "window of opportunity," saying, "Everything is very fluid right now."
· Mayor de Blasio's Plan Aims to Spur More Affordable Housing in New York [NYT]
· De Blasio Seeks 'Mansion Tax' And Property-Tax Break Limit[Bloomberg]
· Cuomo says he'll stay the course on 421-a [Capital]
· 421a coverage [Curbed]
· Affordable Housing coverage [Curbed]
421A
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
AFFORDABLE HOUSING WIRE
BILL DE BLASIO
MANSION TAX
MAYOR DE BLASIO
TOP
 66 COMMENTS
RELATED LINKS
COMMENTS (66 EXTANT)
GeeWhiz528
About time!
Get rid of these bloodsuckers, the same ones who decry rent stabilization for the poor and middle class but want welfare for themselves.
#1. 05/07/15 10:15 AM
Reply to this.
zjpj824
$1 million is not a mansion. It's barely a one-bedroom. Over $5 million, we can start talking. But the "mansion tax" is currently ludicrous. 
What doesn't seem to have been proposed, but which should be, is a much much higher tax on absantee owners who come to their condos two weeks a year. They aren't here paying sales tax every day like the rest of it, so this would be a "fair" proposal. Plus might encourage apartments to be bought by people who actually live here.
The rest of this Robin Hood progressive crap is nonsense in my humble opinion.
#2. 05/07/15 10:17 AM
Reply to this.
ianmac47174
That is literally true. Penthouses are only supposed to be the unit with no other units above them, so any tower will also contain non-penthouses. 
#3. 05/07/15 10:21 AM
Reply to this.
Prince257
Thank Goodness we have fiscally-conservive (i.e. smart) Governor Cuomo who will veto this nonsense. 
Stupid politicians have done have done a stand up job shrinking Wall Street, so let's shrink our next biggest industry - real estate - just to see what New York will be like when it turns into a shitty blue-collar city.
De Blasio and his unfortunate wife who didn't even know what the Met Gala was need to just go back to Brooklyn. I miss Bloomberg.
#4. 05/07/15 10:44 AM
Reply to this.
rr22993
@Prince: do you really think it's even remotely possible that New York will "turn into a shitty blue-collar city"? 
#5. 05/07/15 10:45 AM
Reply to this.
Sh!tMyTenantsSay35
BDB wants to make it a city for people who make below $50K or above $5MM ONLY. Sounds perfect for voting blocks, but terrible for reality...
#6. 05/07/15 10:47 AM
Reply to this.
REspectator2382
The term "mansion tax" should probably be eliminated. Most of the homes subject to it are nothing at all like mansions, so the term itself, at this point, must almost sting like a nasty taunting.
I suggest it be called, instead, a "Count Your Blessings Tax."
Or perhaps different taxation levels could have escalating names similar to those for donors to charities (e.g. silver, gold, platinum, diamond). Perhaps:
Friend of the city
Sponsor of the city
Patron of the city
Benefactor of the city
Guardian of the city
Angel of the city
#7. 05/07/15 10:53 AM
Reply to this.
Views4Days1146
Curbed, it's not that confusing what Mayor Bill de Blasio is proposing. If you sell a property for $1 million - $1.75 million you pay 1% of the sales price as a 'Mansion Tax.' If the sales price exceed $1.75 million, the seller pays 2% of the sales price as a 'Mansion Tax.' If the sales price exceeds $5 million, the seller pays 2.5% of the sales price as a 'Mansion Tax.'
The tax is calculated on the entire selling price, not just the amount over $1 million, $1.75 million and $5 million respectively.
We don't need the: "or to 1.5 percent for sales above $5 million, and...who knows. " 
That just confuses people more. 
#8. 05/07/15 10:53 AM
Reply to this.
Views4Days1146
The posts are lagging again. 
#9. 05/07/15 10:54 AM
Reply to this.
Views4Days1146
This legislation, is passed, could have a severe impact on the sales of high-end condominiums. Buyers would not receive the 421-a tax abatement so their taxes would be much higher than they currently are and the additional 'Mansion Tax' would translate into an additional $150K tax payment (for a total 'Mansion Tax' of $250K) on the sale of a $10 million apartment.
To see how this legislation would effect the super-wealthy buying astronomically priced units at developments like One57 or 432 Park Avenue, we can use a $50 million unit as an example. Upon the sale of said unit the 'Mansion Tax' would be $1.25 million instead of the previous $500K for an increase of $750K.
While that may seem like a rounding error for someone selling a $50 million apartment, the impact when multiplied to include all the $5 million+ units - is profound! 
#10. 05/07/15 11:07 AM
Reply to this.
bc10953
I totally agree with the mansion tax increases (but also agree that the term mansion tax needs to be reconsidered), and in theory it sounds great for the city's tax revenue to get rid of 421A on condos if we expect sales to continue as they are now. But doesn't that make these properties far less attractive to buyers? I don't think someone paying 50M is going to be too upset by paying an extra 750k on a purchase price. But paying huge monthly taxes could certainly deter a lot of people, especially the type of buyer who has no intention of living in these places. Can we expect some major price-chopping on Billionaire's Row to offset some of this?
Personally, I'd love to see those prices come down. 150M for a condo disgusts me. I'd also love to see far fewer people buying homes they don't want to live in, while the rest of the city struggles to find a place big enough to live comfortably in. Empty buildings are a waste of space in a very crowded city. This could be very bad for developers, and possibly put a halt on these ridiculously expensive new buildings. I'm totally OK with both of those things.
A sidenote -- this whole "safety deposit box in the sky" notion seemed like a huge gamble to me even before this news. Keep your money in an actual safe--this boom for the ultra-rich can't possibly be sustainable now that so many of these developments are going up.
#11. 05/07/15 11:34 AM
Reply to this.
mmm deepfry55
One thing most people miss is that the abatement was 10 years, not 25 years, in Manhattan south of 96th st. So that those "billions" in lost revenue is less than half of what is being claimed. Also, opponents of the program never seem to consider the fact that the city is collecting more real estate taxes with the abiatment than they were before the development. They also never mention the fact that the developments generate millions in transfer, mortgage recording and sales tax, in addition to the construction, architecture, consulting, engineering, design, legal, finance, and supplier jobs, and therefore income tax, generated by real estate development. 
#12. 05/07/15 11:47 AM
Reply to this.
Views4Days1146
@bc109: That's de Blasio's entire premise: Make New York City a city for all people. The proposed legislation even has the support of the Real Estate Board of New York - an extremely powerful real-estate industry group!
London is already feeling the effects of a so-called 'Mansion Tax' and the rule hasn't even been passed yet!
#13. 05/07/15 11:47 AM
Reply to this.
NYC.ME943
$5 million is a low hurdle - AND - once you add this tax (which could be as high as 2.5%) to a flip tax or transfer fee (which average 2% to 3%) you could be looking at upwards of 4.5% to 5.5% as an "all in" percentage cost .. and these percentages really begin to add up. In a hot market they can sometimes be absorbed, but in a flat or soft market they only exacerbate the downward pressure. 
It is time to stop attacking only a small segment of the market, and solve for the inadequacies elsewhere and in a different manner. Taking money from people just because they might have a few extra dollars is unfair.
#14. 05/07/15 11:51 AM
Reply to this.
NYC.ME943
AND ... NYC will NEVER be "a city of just penthouses" unless every unit was built on stilts. :-O
#15. 05/07/15 11:53 AM
Reply to this.
Manhattan 4 Ever637
@views4days: mr agenda is posting again...how much do you get paid?
#16. 05/07/15 12:01 PM
Reply to this.
BKNYC184
Tax Everybody, but you also have to held accountable for where and how the money is spent.
#17. 05/07/15 12:03 PM
Reply to this.
Prince257
@BKNYC: 
Yes, even more taxes. Which is why New York State declining while Texas is running circles around this state when it comes to wage growth (hell, and every other type of growth).
New York already has the highest taxes in the nation. What does high taxes get us in New York? Nice roads? LOL. Clean streets? LOL. Nice airports? LOL. Acceptable infrastructure? LOL!!!
#18. 05/07/15 12:14 PM
Reply to this.
Views4Days1146
@Prince: Texas is not jumping for joy right now. There have been over 100K job losses in the energy industry due to the rapid decline in oil prices and many of those losses have been in Texas. 
#19. 05/07/15 12:17 PM
Reply to this.
Gramercy Denizen42
De Blasio, screwing the middle class again -- to help the rich (campaign donors -- who don't pay real estate taxes) and the poor (his voters -- who receive benefits). If you can find a mansion in New York for $1 million, let me know where. Agree with zjpj ^ -- this is an absurd tax. And don't forget to add the other taxes on residential real estate: state transfer tax of 0.4%, and a city transfer tax of 1% (less than $500K) and 1.425% (above $500K). That can add up to roughly 4% of the sale price. Add real estate commission, and you loose 10% of the sales price before you can count a penny of gain. Then you pay capital gains on anything above a gain of $250,000 per individual or $500,000 married. Renting starts to look better all the time.
#20. 05/07/15 12:18 PM
Reply to this.
Views4Days1146
@Prince: To prove my points above:
Texas' lack of state income tax helps to draw residents but when it's main industry takes a massive decline, it isn't immune from the effects and the data makes it clear. 
#21. 05/07/15 12:21 PM
Reply to this.
Prince257
That makes too much sense. Point is, the mooching classes are sick of the "evil rich" so the politicians have to respond with proposing more more taxes to soak those awful successful people to soothe their base so they'll go out there next election and vote them back into office.
Never mind many (most?) of these "empty" condos in Manhattan are actually rented out to people, so they're not actually empty. Never mind that the footprint of buildings like One57 and 432 are are practically invisible once you take into account New York City is over 300 square miles.
Rich people need to be destroyed at all cost because I am jealous. 
#22. 05/07/15 12:22 PM
Reply to this.
RoamDawG458
@Prince: Most cities in Texas are decidedly blue collar, the quality of which your character on curbed, real or fake, would hate to live in. The quality of design in most Texan cities is also terrible. That said, you are right that the taxes paid are not necessarily commensurate to the benefits we receive (still miles better than any infrastructure in Texas, which is atrocious... i.e., sidewalks that mysteriously end, roads that look like Grozny, etc...)
#23. 05/07/15 12:23 PM
Reply to this.
Prince257
I don't like Texas, but it's a fact that New York is stagnant at best, population wise, Texas is booming. 
Texas is right behind New York when it comes to Fortune 500 companies. A decade ago, it wasn't anywhere near New York.
There is a reason New York runs those ads non stop, begging people to move here. And what does the add highlight? Taxes. The Governor knows why New York isn't booming - it's seen as a high tax hellhole to a lot of people and the business community.
#24. 05/07/15 12:32 PM
Reply to this.
Views4Days1146
@mmm deepfry: A great analysis would be to look at the economic value in dollar terms of all the construction jobs created, building jobs created, interior designer projects created etc. transfer taxes paid and real estate taxes paid (currently by all the tax-abated units) and compare that to the true dollar value of how much the city loses to 421-a annually. 
I think that such an analysis would reveal that the city is still losing more money due to 421-a than it is gaining due to all the construction jobs, buildings jobs, interior designer projects etc., transfer taxes paid and annual property taxes paid. 
Yes, the value of the exemption is reduced every year, but in 2014 alone it was $1.1 billion. Even if you think the "true" value is half that amount or $500 million, I still don't think the city generated more revenue because of the new development than it lost:
#25. 05/07/15 12:35 PM
Reply to this.
AUTISTIC?$!.287
@Prince: somehow the class with the highest percentage of moochers are the uber wealthy, whom you claim to be associated with, most of whom's only talent is questionable and based on self grandiosity?!$.
#26. 05/07/15 12:48 PM
Reply to this.
NYCsince83463
@Prince: The "evil rich" ARE the mooching classes. If it wasn't for those "dirty blue collar" workers of the world (as you describe them), the billionaires wouldn't even HAVE their mansions in the sky (for which they pay HALF the property taxes that I pay for my modest 500 square foot apartment, thanks to 421a.) I hate to deflate your wealth boner, but most of us middle-class types aren't "jealous" of the rich; we're just sick of them using their money and power to manipulate tax laws to their benefit. We're sick of seeing our hometown transformed into a "luxury city" that caters only to billionaires and tourists. And we're ready for something, anything, that will help make it more affordable and fair for everyone.
#27. 05/07/15 01:00 PM
Reply to this.
AFineCo96
Most surprising to me is that deBlasio has the support of REBNY. That is a political coup of sorts.
Not in love with the plan. "Mansion" tax increase is better than the random annual tax that the city was considering on the high end condos. Still, $1.75M is a low threshold. I would favor 2% for $5M, 2.5% for $10M and 3% for $20M+.
There is no way in hell that Albany will stop the 421-a for condos. Too much campaign cash to be gained by keeping the developers happy.
And, I see NOTHING for Middle Class New Yorkers in this plan. The poor will continue to live for next to nothing, and the Middle Class will be made poor by paying market or move out. This system needs a complete overhaul, and incentives must be made to dramatically increase supply of apartments at all price levels.
#28. 05/07/15 01:00 PM
Reply to this.
Views4Days1146
I agree that something needs to be done about the grave housing problem, but the additional proceeds received by the city need to be spent wisely. The city needs to make sure that corruption in the city and state government does not end up squandering money that should have gone to areas in desperate need of improvement. 
As Prince said, New York City's roads are awful, the streets are dirty, the airports are worst than some in third world countries and the public transportation infrastructure is woefully inadequate. The people who drive on the FDR everyday, walk the streets to work, fly out of LaGuardia or take the subways - deserve better!
We need to get rid of property tax abatement for the rich, we need to levy higher taxes on the rich and their $100 million apartments and we need to make sure that additional revenue received by the city goes to improve the pothole covered roads, the dirty garbage-filled streets, the outdated airports and the overcrowded, constantly delayed subway system and not into the coffers of some corrupt politician. 
If something is not done soon, New York City will turn into an outrageously expensive playground for the rich. The small Mom and Pop stores will get priced out only to be replaced by large national drugstores and banks (isn't this already happening?), any form of grittiness will be wiped clean, and the city will lose what makes it so great.
REVOLUTION!!!
#29. 05/07/15 01:12 PM
Reply to this.
SlightlyCynical35
What we really need more is inventory, not more taxes that will just be wasted by the city. Get rid of the nimby attitude that this city has will result in more buildings, more inventory, and more jobs. Everyone wins. 
Also, stop supporting national candidates that give out billions in corporate welfare, making it possible for these people to buy the 100 million dollar penthouses. 
#31. 05/07/15 01:54 PM
Reply to this.
drop ceilings are in508
421-a inflates land prices. Having our land prices come back to reality would likely be a good thing. Clearly there will be an adjustment period, but 421-a just skews the market for land owners at the expense of everyone else.
#32. 05/07/15 02:01 PM
Reply to this.
AUTISTIC?$!.287
@Manhattan 4 Ever: Me accept gratuities, donations, assistance, love, applause, courtesy, amenities, immunity, support, assistance, help, welcome, grants, carte Blanche, invitation, comfort, amore?!$.
#33. 05/07/15 02:06 PM
Reply to this.
Views4Days1146
@SlightlyCynical: We can't build more affordable inventory because the land prices have shot through the roof! At the prices that land in Manhattan is at today, developers will need to sell units for $3K-$4K per square-foot, which is not close to affordable.
@drop ceilings are in: You're absolutely correct, 421-a has been an absolute disaster and the city never saw its consequences coming. Since Gary Barnett was able to build One57 and sell condos for astronomical price tags, it has created a chain reaction. If one developer is able to sell such lavishly expensive condos, the developer(s) down the street (CIM and Harry Macklowe) will do the same with 432 Park Avenue. This means the value of the land has shot up because of what that land can be used to create, which is ultra-luxury condo buildings with $1 billion + sell-out prices that create huge profit margins for the developers. The chain reaction has only continued with 520 Park Avenue, 111 West 57th Street, 217 West 57th Street, 220 Central Park South, 550 Madison Avenue and possibly yet another tower on 57th Street and Central Park South.
Even if these units are not tax abated, there is nothing else for developers to create because the land prices are astronomical. For example, just the land value at 220 Central Park South is estimated to be $1.2 billion. I would like to see a developer try to pencil out a project that isn't ultra-luxury with $150 million apartments. There is no way it can work! 
#34. 05/07/15 02:20 PM
Reply to this.
mmm deepfry55
@Views4Days: I agree that that would be a great study, but you forgot the most important part. The entire point of 421a is to create affordable housing, so some value must be attached to the affordable units created as another benefit of the program. I don't know how one would calculate that, maybe put a cap rate on the difference between the market rate and the affordable rate for every unit?
#35. 05/07/15 02:24 PM
Reply to this.
Manhattan 4 Ever637
@Views4Days: HERE IT IS AGAIN:
"Since Gary Barnett was able to build One57 and sell condos for astronomical price tags, it has created a chain reaction"
PAID SHILL! 
#36. 05/07/15 02:26 PM
Reply to this.
Manhattan 4 Ever637
@mmm deepfry: you write to someone who is pushing an agenda. 1,142 comments in 10 months, most of them writing about Gary Barnett and One57. He is paid to do that....
#37. 05/07/15 02:27 PM
Reply to this.
RE491
@mmm deepfry: yeah there are some weird ideas out there. NYC now collects more revenue than it ever did - so the opponents want to change it... Hmmm? If someone is a success - then why mess with it? I do agree with taxing wealthy NON-residents property - but even still - that is such a minuscule amount. You literally have more people living in shelters. Than those units that exist. Even if they all left their property you still couldn't fit the people living in shelters. What the mayor needs to spend revenue on the transit system. To paraphrase another politician - NYC doesn't have a revenue problem (which is an all time high) - wasteful spending is the problem.
#38. 05/07/15 02:30 PM
Reply to this.
Manhattan 4 Ever637
@Views4Days: get one of your other accounts @urbanobserver @ rainingsunshine @manhattanrealestatelover to defend you....
#39. 05/07/15 02:31 PM
Reply to this.
Manhattan 4 Ever637
@AUTISTIC?$!.: anything you want! how could I say no to an autistic handle ? :-)
#41. 05/07/15 02:32 PM
Reply to this.
RE491
@drop ceilings are in: wrong... No one wanted to build affordable housing because it was not lucrative. Developers are not in it for charity. You couldn't even get a construction loan to build "affordable housing" without tax breaks - even if you wanted to.
#42. 05/07/15 02:34 PM
Reply to this.
NYCsince83463
@SlightlyCynical: I agree, for the most part. But I don't blame the lack of inventory on "nimbys." I blame it on the * kinds" of real estate that are being built now. New residential construction is happening all over the city -- buildings are popping up like weeds -- but it's mostly high-priced luxury condos with only a handful of super-sized units that do little to relieve overall demand. Of course, I can't blame the developers for trying to get top dollar for their efforts (or taking advantage of 421a). But this city is more than just a business venture. It's a home and a community that serves a wide range of needs beyond the financial. That's why we need city planners, government regulators, and, yes, even nimbys, to represent all its citizens. 
Developers don't care about the middle class, quality of life, diversity of culture, affordable housing, or anything like that. They care about profits. Period. They will completely destroy this city -- if we let them.
#43. 05/07/15 02:35 PM
Reply to this.
drop ceilings are in508
@RE: In the 70s yes it was needed. Now it just props up land prices. In 2015 (or pretty much any year since the mid 1990s) without 421-a all other costs (hard costs, financing, etc) would stay the same, land prices would plummet.
#44. 05/07/15 02:52 PM
Reply to this.
Views4Days1146
@NYCsince83: We are letting developers destroy the city with policies like 421-a that increase the value of land. From my post above:
"We can't build more affordable inventory because the land prices have shot through the roof! At the prices that land in Manhattan is at today, developers will need to sell units for $3K-$4K per square-foot, which is not close to affordable."
"Even if these units are not tax abated, there is nothing else for developers to create because the land prices are astronomical. For example, just the land value at 220 Central Park South is estimated to be $1.2 billion. I would like to see a developer try to pencil out a project that isn't ultra-luxury with $150 million apartments. There is no way it can work!"
Developers don't have a choice. It is New York City policies and the consequences, intended or not, that are creating this ultra-luxury boom. Policies need to be changed and developers will then be forced to follow suit with the types of inventory they are building. 
If you get rid of 421-a the value of the land goes down because developers will not just build ultra-luxury units since they have a lower chance of selling given the high property tax burdens.
#45. 05/07/15 02:52 PM
Reply to this.
RE491
@drop ceilings are in: Land prices will not magically drop. You still won't have ppl just building affordable housing. Everything is just more expensive in NYC. You will still have to give tax breaks to get affordable housing. Even the mayor realizes it - even if his tweaks miss the mark. London has higher taxes on everything - yet land values are even higher there. This is a globally elite city. Unless the city is ruined again - prices will not drop. Sure it might feel good (to some) to say you are extracting more taxes - but it won't create affordable housing - nor will it lower any existing prices. It can have the effect that it slows down building and you lose revenue from all the taxes collected from the sales of units. That is a real possibility. NYC didn't get billion dollar surpluses because of increasing taxes. It got them because economic activity increased as the city became more we'll run.
#46. 05/07/15 03:21 PM
Reply to this.
RCNYC42
"De Blasio Says New York 'Can't Be a City of Just Penthouses'
---
Of course it can't be. If DeBlasio's intentions are any indication, he needs to be a city of both penthouses for the extremely rich and affordable housing for the extremely poor, not a city for the middle class. 
#47. 05/07/15 03:27 PM
Reply to this.
Views4Days1146
I really wonder what will happen to Manhattan in 10 years if this keeps up. Just how many billionaires will have empty $100 million units sitting in the sky? How many tourists will jam the sidewalks in Midtown and Downtown in areas like SoHo on Broadway and by One World Trade Center? How many people can get packed like sardines on the subway? How many more banks and drug store chains will there be? Will median prices hit $1.5 million? Will average prices hit $2.5 million? 
#48. 05/07/15 03:33 PM
Reply to this.
drop ceilings are in508
@RE: You clearly never took an economics class.
#49. 05/07/15 03:39 PM
Reply to this.
Manhattan 4 Ever637
@Views4Days: nobody replies to a paid shill...boo f@ckin' hoo...
#50. 05/07/15 03:49 PM
Reply to this.

POST A COMMENT

 
Comment feed for this post Feed-icon-9x9Submit an anonymous tip instead

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

 

FOLLOW CURBED NY

CurbedCurbedLet's Revisit this Gorgeous Fire Island Pines House, Shall We?Let's Revisit this Gorgeous Fire Island Pines House, Shall We? - Real Estate Porn - Curbed National5547f39ce58ece50290005fe_seelenkiste-spirit-shelter-finding-arcadie-allergutendinge_10-530x737.jpg5547f39ce58ece50290005fe_seelenkiste-spirit-shelter-finding-arcadie-allergutendinge_10-530x737.jpgForget Your Spirit Animal and Seek Out Your Spirit ShelterTour a Midcentury Time Capsule Tricked Out By a Modern-Day Mad ManTour a Midcentury Time Capsule Tricked Out By a Modern-Day Mad ManTour a Midcentury Time Capsule Tricked Out By a Modern-Day Mad ManGracia1.jpg7 Contemporary Mexican Architecture Firms You Should Know - Modern Mexico - Curbed National_MG_8912.jpgA Treehouse and Lush Gardens Grow in Brownstone Brooklyn - House Calls - Curbed NYA Treehouse and Lush Gardens Grow in Brownstone Brooklyn - House Calls - Curbed NYA Treehouse and Lush Gardens Grow in Brownstone Brooklyn - House Calls - Curbed NYA Treehouse and Lush Gardens Grow in Brownstone Brooklyn - House Calls - Curbed NYA Treehouse and Lush Gardens Grow in Brownstone Brooklyn - House Calls - Curbed NYA Treehouse and Lush Gardens Grow in Brownstone Brooklyn - House Calls - Curbed NYA Treehouse and Lush Gardens Grow in Brownstone Brooklyn - House Calls - Curbed NYRem Koolhaas's Fondazione Prada in Milan Wears a Gold Crown - Fondazione Prada - Curbed NationalRem Koolhaas's Fondazione Prada in Milan Wears a Gold Crown - Fondazione Prada - Curbed NationalRem Koolhaas's Fondazione Prada in Milan Wears a Gold Crown - Fondazione Prada - Curbed NationalWhat It Looks Like to Actually Live Under a Rock - Globe Trotting - Curbed Nationalkame2.jpgkame1.jpgThis Japanese Home Has Its Heart Carved Out and It's Rad - That's Rather Strange - Curbed NationalThis Serra Sculpture in the Qatari Desert is a Stunner - Mindblowing Public Art - Curbed NationalGeorge Nakashima rugs designed in 1959 and now released by Edward Fields.George Nakashima rugs designed in 1959 and now released by Edward Fields.George Nakashima rugs designed in 1959 and now released by Edward Fields.A 1930s Concrete Reservoir is Now a $3.7M Modern Home - House of the Day - Curbed NationalA 1930s Concrete Reservoir is Now a $3.7M Modern Home - House of the Day - Curbed NationalA 1930s Concrete Reservoir is Now a $3.7M Modern Home - House of the Day - Curbed Nationaltumblr_muoiv9OcJu1sqk0gqo3_r1_1280.jpgPaint Job Creates a Color Riot on Side of East London Building02_kensinger_bronx_courthouse_DSC_8878.jpg15_kensinger_bronx_courthouse_DSC_8811.jpgThis Eco-Friendly Philly Loft Was Once a Pickle Factory - Eco Living - Curbed NationalThis Eco-Friendly Philly Loft Was Once a Pickle Factory - Eco Living - Curbed NationalThis Eco-Friendly Philly Loft Was Once a Pickle Factory - Eco Living - Curbed NationalThis Eco-Friendly Philly Loft Was Once a Pickle Factory - Eco Living - Curbed NationalThis Eco-Friendly Philly Loft Was Once a Pickle Factory - Eco Living - Curbed NationalCurbed National : Interior Design, Decor, and Real Estate23_5_ETAGE1KASTEEL022.jpgEight Rooms by Ellen DeGeneres' Favorite Interior Designer - DeGeneres Wire - Curbed Nationalcsm_MN-01_LC1_Newson_01_b4e69cad3a.jpgLatvian-Zeimuls-Rezekne-Crtive-Service-Ctr-1.jpgZeimuls-Aerial-View.pngFor $17.5M, Airy Tribeca Condo Offers 360 Degrees of Manhattan - House of the Day - Curbed NationalFor $17.5M, Airy Tribeca Condo Offers 360 Degrees of Manhattan - House of the Day - Curbed NationalFor $17.5M, Airy Tribeca Condo Offers 360 Degrees of Manhattan - House of the Day - Curbed NationalSee On

CURBED FEATURES

CURBED'S GUIDE TO BUYING AND RENTING

Curbed University delivers insider tips and non-boring advice on how to buy or rent a house or apartment.

MONTHLY ARCHIVES

 All archives

FROM OUR PARTNERS

PREFERENCES

 Open external links in new tabs?
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please leave a comment-- or suggestions, particularly of topics and places you'd like to see covered

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)