Crown Heights may be near the bottom of the list as far as price per square foot ($2.01 vs. $6.23 in Soho), but the Brooklyn nabe saw a 18% jump in square foot prices during the quarter.
A report that provides more than you ever wanted to know about NYC rents, by neighborhood: http://static.rentjuice.com/rj_index/NYCIndex-4Q2011.pdf
Page 12 of the report will tell you if you are paying more than average to live in CH...
I believe it!! Landlords are asking crazy prices for Crown Heights.
More importantly, tenants are paying them.
Yes, when one looks at the report, Crown Heights remains relatively inexpensive compared to many areas of the city.
...given its proximity to the park, lots of express trains, and increasing numbers of restaurants I see the 'hood continuing to be able to attract people with the means and desire to pay the increased rents.
I'd be interested in knowing whether landlords are feeling some pressure to provide clean, renovated apartments to the new tenants.
Judging by the number of renovations going on (five buildings in progress on my block, at least three completed in the last year, MANY others around the neighborhood) I would say the rising rents are at least partly due to an improvement in the housing stock.
The rental building they are redoing by Pine Tree is certainly getting updated.
...but I am suspicious of the interiors of those buildings being rented out by MySpace. Are they doing anything more than putting on a coat of paint and renting the two bedroom units to four 26 year olds?
Although MySpace may have some property holdings, they're primarily brokers as far as I can tell, so it really depends on the building owner.
In my experience, if an apartment has reasonably functional kitchens and bathrooms, modern windows, and is cosmetically acceptable, there's not much benefit as a landlord to doing anything beyond paint and prep.
But a lot of the buildings now undergoing renovation in the neighborhood have not been occupied in a long time, or haven't seen a renovation in a half-century. Those are the ones you see with major alterations, gut renos, non-combustible interior walls, extensions, etc. And there's four of those on Sterling between Franklin and Classon alone.
Yes.
Despite this, many people seem to believe that there is far more "displacement" than is actually occurring.
They are convinced that many of the new faces they see have replaced faces they imagine to be now missing, when in actuality this neighborhood has had a large number of new units constructed and "re-occupied" after long periods of being vacant, AS WELL AS people being replaced by tenants who can pay more (aka "displacement").
I wish people would see that there are not only more comparatively wealthy people, but there is also simply a lot more people in the neighborhood over the last, say, 10 years.
CH population is increasing due to:
-situations where four 26 year olds out price a mother and her two kids.
-long vacant housing being brought back on the market.
-new construction or rentals and condos.
-situations I am too lazy to type.
...I hope that Rent Is Too Damn High guy runs again; he was hugely entertaining.
...I hope those buildings on Park Place near Franklin get renovated. Lots of people could live there.
What % of people who live in CH own in CH?
50%?
25%?
less? more?
how about PH?
How about the rest of NY?
Would love to see this data.
And "love" ye shall receive....
The folks who study such things at the Furman Center will tell ye that approximately 20% units in CH/PH are owner occupied.
Go ye to the links at the bottom of this page for the same info on the NYC neighborhood of your choice.
Does a multi-fam where the owner resides in one of the units count as "owner occupied" or not (or both?)
I hate to quibble, Mike F, but the 2010 census seems to disprove your claim that there are "a lot more people in the neighborhood over the last, say, 10 years." (http://projects.nytimes.com/census/2010/map). According to the data, almost every census tract from Kingston to Vanderbilt between Eastern and Atlantic lost between 1-10% of its population (the except are the three tracts bordered by Park, Atlantic, Vanderbilt, and Franklin, an area that has shifted from light-industrial/abandoned to new condo developments and lofts). Looking by race/ethnic group, the trends are even clearer - along Franklin between Eastern and Atlantic (my self-appointed beat, as it were), the white population has increased anywhere from 4-11-fold, while the black population has dropped by about 30%. That's a significant shift - fewer people (likely fewer families in many of these units), and specifically, many fewer African-Americans.
The question of displacement, I'll agree, is trickier - back in 2003, Lance Freeman (a scholar of urban change who wrote "There Goes the 'Hood about Harlem in 2006) did a study (http://www.observer.com/2003/11/exploding-the-gentrification-myth-columbia-profs-surprising-findings/) that surprised him by revealing that low-income people in "gentrifying" neighborhoods were actually more likely to stay in their apartments for longer periods of time than low-income folks in "non-gentrifying neighborhoods." The gist of the argument is that there's a ton of turnover already in low-income communities, so it's a bit confusing as to whether that turnover becomes "displacement" when younger, whiter folks become part of the equation (particularly if neighborhood change inclines the low-income folks they're "displacing" to actually stay longer). I don't want to cite Freeman without reservation; some scholars have revisited this and suggested his findings aren't definitive, and others have pointed out that the changes in these neighborhoods eventually shift them out of the low-income circuit (people don't tend to move far away) and push low-income folks further out of sight and mind.
Anyway, long story short, the population in Crown Heights east of Kingston Ave over the last decade has been shrinking, not growing, and almost all of that loss has been in the African-American/Afro-Caribbean community. Whether this represents immediate displacement or a shift in an ongoing process of turnover is an open question.
Well, forty years ago it was moving in the opposite direction. Was that better or worse than what's happening now?
Is it somehow more desirable for neighborhoods to become poorer than wealthier?
Don't know if you read that whole article about Freeman, but that's exactly the question he asks at the end of it. I don't think anyone's arguing for neighborhoods to become further impoverished, but with respect to the "desirability" of change, I think the point is that it depends on your perspective.
In the case of NW Crown Heights, the data show that a significant number of Afro-American/Caribbean folks who lived in the area in 2000 don't live here anymore. Some of them may have moved for reasons wholly unrelated to gentrification and may not care at all about whatever new businesses have opened, etc (if you look at those census maps, big chunks of Brownsville and East Flatbush have lost folks since 2000, too, and I don't think anyone's arguing that Brownsville's in the midst of gentrification). According to Freeman's (now a bit outdated, perhaps) study, it's possible that MORE people would have moved if the area WASN'T gentrifying/revitalizing/pick-your-loaded-term-for-change-and-insert-here. Lots of longtime residents, understandably, find improvements to the housing stock, increased retail options, and safer streets "desirable."
On the other hand, there are certainly plenty of people who've been displaced by rising rents, renovations, and the like - people who wanted to stay in the neighborhood but can no longer afford to do so. From their perspective, that change is not desirable.
Whynot/Mike F's point, if I read it correctly, was that displacement isn't as big an issue as people think because the neighborhood population has been expanding. My point was that the data show the opposite, which means the possibility that displacement is a serious issue should at least be considered.
Ah, the problem of different tools measuring different things.
The census measures people who live in given area, and everyone "counts".
However, I was thinking more in terms of real estate documents that measure the number of recently built or reoccupied units in a given neighborhood. Despite this, I used the term "people and population", when in fact I meant to state that there are:
- more occupied units of housing, and (dare I say it),
- more people who are readily seen.
For example, homeless people are a subset of low income people that are often hard to miss. However, seniors and children do not tend to occupy the same public spaces, or in the same manner, and are thus easier to miss.
Everyone with me?
Of course, all of this depends on where you tend to spend your day, and who you tend to see..... For people who work the typical 9-5 job, and make an "ok" (whatever that means...) salary, the poorest members of a given neighborhood are often almost "invisible": They rarely eat or drink with "them", or even ride the subway at the same time.
It hopefully comes as no surprise that the poorest in our society are disproportionately:
a. families with young children and only one wage earner,
b. the elderly.
c. not "white".
Unless they able to "score" some variety of subsidized housing, these populations are usually in the first wave of people that don't/can't renew their lease in a neighborhood with increasing rents.
....I'm of the opinion that very few poor people can quickly increase their income to meet a rent increase, because they would have a long time ago if they could.
But back on topic:
Rents are increasing. What role in the food chain do you occupy? Are you poor to the degree that you must...
Move?
Or, merely cut back on other expenses?
Or, finally cover more expenses from tenant rent?
Sadly, it is much easier to down the food chain than up it.
eastbloc said:
Does a multi-fam where the owner resides in one of the units count as "owner occupied" or not (or both?)
I'm not sure.
I'd like to think that they have sophisticated enough methods to count it as "both".
I like Furman as a source because they just state the factual information; the reader gets to decide what (if anything) it all means and/or whether "we" should try to:
I would think that 50% Ownership rate would indicate a fair balance between owners and renters
Higher ownership rates consist of people who have a direct vested interest in the neighborhood they live in---very positive for the neighborhood.
These ( http://furmancenter.org/research/sonychan/2010-report/) low ownership rates indicate Real Estate prices are too high.
I wish I could see historical rates for these areas.
Some of these numbers are shocking---
20% (21% actually) CH/PH
15% Greenpoint/Williamsburg
33% Ft. Green / Brooklyn Heights
21% Astoria
Homeownership is not always a good thing:
It prevents the movement of labor.
It requires people with some degree of skill, income and ability to budget.
It involves risk of losing lots of $
...The real estate crash of 2008 came in part due to government programs that were intentioned to increase the rate of homeownership in the US, but provided loans to unqualified people at 3% down.
The crash was also due to real estate banking fraud, speculation by buyers and banks and predatory lending practices. (I will let others fight over which forces came first, or were dominant)
Suffice it to say, increased home ownership is a very laudable goal, but one that has proven very hard for our government to achieve.
"proven very hard for our government to achieve."
I would like to see historical data before I would agree.
I bet you home ownership in CH/PH was double current rate in 1950s
For some reason 1960 is easier to get data on than 1950.
Here is the Federal Reserve discussing home ownership on a national scale:
http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/current_issues/ci16-5.pdf
http://www.danter.com/statistics/homeown.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeownership_in_the_United_States
National rates over time
Now for Home ownership rate in NYC, in the past:
1960
BLS » There were approximately 2.8 million
housing units in the city, of which 75.3
percent were rentals. The average
housing unit in the city had 3.9 rooms.
The market value of the median owned
home was $17,000; the average monthly
rent was $73.
source: http://www.bls.gov/opub/uscs/1960-61.pdf
This NYT article states NYC homeownership rates have were around 20% in 1970, 1960, 1950. 1940 they were only around 14%
NYT » the level of homeownership declined slightly during the 1970's, from 23.6 percent in 1970 to 23.4 percent in 1980, after rising gradually from 21.8 percent in 1960, 19.1 percent in 1950 and 14.3 percent in 1940.
I wasn't able to quickly find data on PH/CH homeownership rates in 1960, but the rate for the city as a whole was 21.8%. Do we think PH/CH exceeded the citywide rate?
I'm surprised the rate isn't currently higher given the fact of the boom in co-ops & condos in the city since the 70's. The fact that its remained pretty constant might be explained by a growth in overall population, but its still a shockingly small number.
NYC could have a low homeownership rate in part, due to the city having a large number of poor and/or undocumented people.
I also sense that we also have a lot new immigrants and young people, meaning we might be more likely than people who live in other places to just live in NYC for a little while before we move somewhere else. ....making "us" not buy homes.
...and be in competition with others, driving up demand and making us pay a lot in rent.
inpixels said:
I would think that 50% Ownership rate would indicate a fair balance between owners and renters
50% ratio is absurd when you look at all the apartment buildings and brownstones. a brownstone with 4 floor thru apartments, with an owner in 1 floor would already be 25%. Just on my block I know of only 6 or 7 building that that are occupied by only 1 family.
New York homeownership rates seem well within the norm when you consider the huge amount of multifamily buildings here and the high cost of living.
Some communities deliberately attempt to keep renters out, and have achieved above average rates of home ownership.
On some occasions this takes the form of creating well run affordable housing that is managed in such a way that it attracts "entry level" home owners who are ready for the commitment and responsibility.
On other occasions, these efforts use zoning, taxes and rules concerning asthetics to make sure that only the wealthiest people are likely to become neighbors. The resulting "environment" ensures that persons of moderate and meager means can not rent in the area, much less buy.
Here's a fun measure...
I contacted a good friend and was able to obtain the stats from MTA's that record the average number of daily users at the Franklin Ave 2/3/4/5 station.
Using data from turnstiles, the table below displays how many people used the station on a daily basis since 1998.
Look at that rate of growth!
1998 - 10,613
1999 - 11,008
2000 - 11,691
2001 - 11,732
2002 - 12,073
2003 - 12,141
2004 - 12,307
2005 - 12,236
2006 - 12,341
2007 - 12,882
2008 - 13,537
2009 - 13,557
2010 - 14,071
We will never know for certain, but many people believe that in a neighborhood such as Crown Heights, more subway riders are an indicator of more people being:
a. employed and/or
b. employed at jobs which require commuting via subway.
Some take the stats even further and argue that an increasing number of riders at a given station is often correlated to an increasing number of neighborhood residents that hold jobs that pay better than those that the typical "outer borough" resident can walk to, or drive to.
Are any of these theories concretely related to the truth?
I have no idea. ...but, to me, subway ridership is an interesting measure of a neighborhood.
I question the stats that is gather for the original article.
armchair_warrior said:
I question the stats that is gather for the original article.
Yes, the stats seem to compare only one quarter to the next, which leads me to believe that their sample size was small.
I'd be more interested in seeing a report that compared annual numbers (ex all of 2010 to all of 2011).
Could it be that the proportion of paying subway customers has increased, while the turnstile-hoppers have been priced out of the neighborhood? 
^That is a possibility^
But we should also keep in mind that (in many US neighborhoods) as more ice cream is sold, the number of murders increases. It could be that eating ice cream causes people to become murderers, or it could be that ice cream sales and murders tend to increase when it gets hot outside.
Clearly, local business owners and developers perceive this neighborhood as having more present and potential renters, home buyers, drinkers, diners, and shoppers.
...despite this, many businesses go under because they can't (or don't) adapt to the changing demographics.
I've always been partial to non-violent competition.
So many CH statistics, so little time!
^newly released data on the hood^
Use this fun data to try to convince people that we should try do something, or try to do nothing.
While we jabber about the increasing costs of living in CH and how we might soon be priced out, and demographics are changing, and we feel like we can't stop it (or make it go faster).....
I have only one consolation: It is a good thing we haven't decided to do the same thing about Manhattan.
Wow, look at those average rents!
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2012/02/surprise_surpri.php
Rents were depressed though. My rent in CH went down in 2009 by about 7% in the same apartment. The whole economy contracted.
Mamacita said:
I <3 CTK
Yet another article on the topic: http://fort-greene.thelocal.nytimes.com/2012/03/07/whats-so-funny-bout-peace-love-and-gentrification/
I was just looking at that report above. It's funny that in a number of neighborhoods (Harlem, for instance) the average-ask for a studio is higher than that for a 1BR.
Yes, we'd have to know how they collected and tabulated their data before we conclude it makes sense.
That said, this famous guy thinks Brooklyn housing continues to be under valued and hopefully wasn't paid to say that by REBNY. ...of course, this may assume that the opinion of people with something to gain should be trusted more than those that have nothing to lose. Hmmmmm
Welcome! Please log in to post, or register a new account!
now :
most recent : chca, threecee, lancekalp, armchair_warrior, tateinbk, carmen, aepete, xlizellx, madsy_swami, mg, flushy, eastbloc, epiclylaterd, brooklynbound, opossumqueen, susanderavish, god, rogersma, inpixels, turtle95, ribbons, arches
Get Brooklynian.com by Email! 
Grab the Feed (RSS)
