Park Slope Real Estate Market

I think that the real estate in the 3rd to 5th ave will become more valuble and covetted over the next 2-3 years based on the development on 4th Ave. Hey... who knew? A suprise to me that 4th Ave would have ver been a position to increase in value... but here we are. 7th ave real estate is already so inflated that if I owned property thee I would just be hoping that it held its price or decreased slightly from the inflated current value.

booklaw wrote: I am concerned about the effect the Atlantic Yards development will have once it dumps a large number of new apartments on the Brooklyn market, and at the same time turns Flatbush, Atlantic and Fourth Avenues into reasonable facsimiles of the Long Island Expressway (i.e. world's largest parking lot).

It can't be good...

Unfortunately, you aren't very informed about the Brooklyn real estate market. The majority of Brooklyn residents reside in buildings that were constructed generations ago, and the vacancy rates of apartments is amongst the lowest in the nation. The lack of supply of for-sale housing product means that only people in the upper 15% of Brooklyn's 872,000 households can afford to purchase a home anywhere in the borough.

By all accounts, dozens of Atlantic Yards developments would have to be constructed to lower prices to an affordable level.

The Atlantic Yards development is just one project that will make housing affordable in Brooklyn. The traffic issue is of course irrelevant. People said the same thing about Manhattan in the 1920s. Obviously, they were wrong. The reality is constructing high-density urban housing is the only sure-fire way of reducing the people's dependency upon automobiles, reducing the average carbon footprint of our citizenry, and ultimately freeing us of dependency upon foreign oil.

booklaw wrote:
While you write about "reducing the people's dependency upon automobiles...", the construction of huge amounts of "high-density urban housing" without comparable construction of adequate roadways will "reduce the people's dependency upon automobiles" the same way that cutting our legs off at the knees would "reduce the people's dependency upon feet".

For that matter, the creation of all that high-density housing without comparable expansion of existing subway tunnels and bus routes (again requiring more roads) isn't going to reduce the people's dependency upon automobiles very effectively... the existing subways will not be able to absorb the additional traffic.

Actually, planning a city around cars (widening streets, providing parking, etc) tends to increase people's use of cars. Making cars difficult (by keeping roads narrow and limiting parking) tends to decrease people's use of cars. And public transportation is great, but it's not necessary to achieve a reduction in car use. People will walk further and carpool more often when driving is a pain in the butt. And they also tend to stay longer in places where they've parked, so it can be very good business for pedestrian malls and city center type places.

I learned this from my mother, a retired city planner in California who isn't interested in helping developers.

benzapp wrote: Again, look at Manhattan. Ridership is substantially higher than in Brooklyn. Further, we are only talking about an additional 20,000 people tops spread out over 11 subway lines. Consider that population estimate includes children, your information regarding the capacity of those 11 subway lines is obviously misinformed. The average citizen will not even notice a difference in capacity, as the effects will be so small.

The following is from an article written in the New York Times in June of last year.

June 26, 2007
Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity
By WILLIAM NEUMAN
They are just lines on a graph, but for many subway riders they will provide unique insight into one of the great aggravations of life underground: why trains on some lines are so often both crowded and late, while on other lines the trains seem to cruise along on schedule with almost no one on board.

In an unusually candid effort at self-examination for a habitually insular agency, New York City Transit yesterday presented what could be called an index of straphanger frustration. It made an analysis of each subway line that shows at a glance how often trains run late, how crowded they are and whether more trains could be added to ease the problems.

What is revealed is both predictable and eye-opening. Many subway lines are simply maxed out, meaning there is no room on the tracks they use to add trains that could carry the swelling numbers of riders. And that has implications that range from day-to-day decisions about how trains travel through the system to long-term planning on how to best move people around a growing city.

“From my point of view, this is scary,” said Howard H. Roberts Jr., the president of New York City Transit, who presented the data to members of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s board. “This is scary in the sense that right now, on a lot of these lines, we’re several years and a big capital construction project away from being able to provide what I consider adequate service. We’re constrained.”

Mr. Roberts said the data had particular significance in light of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s proposal for a congestion pricing system that would charge most drivers who enter Manhattan below 86th Street — with the intent of moving people out of their cars and onto mass transit.

Mr. Roberts said that on many subway lines, especially the heavily used numbered lines, there is little or no room to accommodate more riders.

“It’s bad news,” Mr. Roberts said. “There’s no room at the inn.”

If congestion pricing becomes a reality, planners will have to rely on additional bus service as a way to increase the transit system’s capacity.

Mr. Roberts had his staff compile the data to solve a mystery he encountered after taking over the nation’s largest transit system in April. He said that he noticed that the subway’s A division (the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 lines) regularly operated with about 7 percent more late or canceled trains than the B division, (all the letter lines and the No. 7 line.) The 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 trains are part of the old IRT system, the city’s first subway.

What Mr. Roberts discovered was that most of the A division lines are being stretched to their limit in two ways: no additional trains can be added to the schedule during rush hours because the tracks they use are already handling the maximum number possible, and most of the rush hour trains are already crammed with an overflow of riders.

Crowding is so bad that on the 4, 5, 6 and L lines, trains during the morning rush exceed the transit agency’s loading guidelines, which posit that every rider should have at least a three-square-foot space to stand in (that translates to a square patch of car floor 20 inches on each side).

Crowded trains can lead to delays because it takes people more time to get in and out of the cars.

But the real squeeze results from the crowded tracks. Trains must operate with enough space between them so they have room to stop to avoid a collision. That limits the number of trains that can fit on a stretch of track. And when a track is operating at full capacity, even small delays —like those caused by a passenger who is ill or someone holding a door open while a friend races down the stairs — can have a big impact.

“You get to the point where the slightest deviation in schedule causes a backup and what is sometimes referred to as ‘the wave,’ ” Mr. Roberts said. “One train slows down for any reason and it starts a wave back up the system.”

He compared the most heavily used tracks to a highway with bumper-to-bumper traffic, where someone slowing down or changing lanes can force drivers far behind to put on the brakes.

The information presented yesterday brings the problem into clear focus.

The No. 4 and 5 trains share the express track on the Lexington Avenue line in Manhattan. The track is at full capacity, with a total of 27 trains an hour running during the morning peak. In addition, peak ridership on both lines exceeds the guidelines, with more people jamming onto cars than the cars are meant to hold.

It is no wonder, then, that in April, riders on the No. 4 line suffered through the greatest number of late trains, with only 83.2 percent of trains running on time. The No. 5 train was not far ahead, with 87.2 percent of trains on time.

It was a far different story on another set of tracks. The J, Z and M trains, which run from Queens to Manhattan and Brooklyn, are far from using their full capacity, both on the tracks and inside the cars. All three lines had an on-time performance close to 99 percent in April.

Mr. Roberts said that he is trying to find solutions to these problems. He has asked the agency’s engineers to study the feasibility of extending the length of the platforms on the most crowded lines, to allow for longer trains. On the Lexington Avenue line, that could mean running 12-car trains instead of the current 10-car trains, a 20 percent increase in capacity. But a project of that magnitude would take several years to complete.

Other long-term solutions are also years away, including a new Second Avenue subway and expansion of a computerized signal system that would allow the trains to run closer together, increasing the number that could run on the tracks.

So according to the MTA itself there is a substantial problem with crowding on subways that will not be resolved without an system expansion or major capital plans. And as the only significant expansion plans for the system is the 2nd avenue subway and the extension of the 7 line in Manhattan that does absolutely nothing for all of those people moving into the Brownstone Brooklyn neighborhoods who need to get to work in Manhattan.

The reality is that what should be happening in Brooklyn is that subway service should be extended to the quarter of the borough that has no subway access. This would encourage development in the parts of Brooklyn that have the lowest density thereby allowing real growth and diversity. Shoving more haves into prime real estate and subjecting the have nots to two-fare zones and a life on the commuter bus to Manhattan is ridiculous. What about a subway tunnel to SI? A train that runs north south across the borough in the eastern part of Brooklyn? A east west train in the south part of the borough perhaps from Bay Ridge to the end of the L train line?

[/b]

I meant the people who use alternative means of transportation such as dollar vans. You are correct that the MTA did away with paying for bus to subway transfers, but a lot of folks don't find the buses run with great eenough frequency to be able to use them for a commute.

homeowner wrote:

So according to the MTA itself there is a substantial problem with crowding on subways that will not be resolved without an system expansion or major capital plans. And as the only significant expansion plans for the system is the 2nd avenue subway and the extension of the 7 line in Manhattan that does absolutely nothing for all of those people moving into the Brownstone Brooklyn neighborhoods who need to get to work in Manhattan.

The reality is that what should be happening in Brooklyn is that subway service should be extended to the quarter of the borough that has no subway access. This would encourage development in the parts of Brooklyn that have the lowest density thereby allowing real growth and diversity. Shoving more haves into prime real estate and subjecting the have nots to two-fare zones and a life on the commuter bus to Manhattan is ridiculous. What about a subway tunnel to SI? A train that runs north south across the borough in the eastern part of Brooklyn? A east west train in the south part of the borough perhaps from Bay Ridge to the end of the L train line?

The article refers to city-wide data, and ignores most of the lines that service the Atlantic Terminal station. Anyone who rides the 4 or 5 train in Brooklyn knows damn well it is nowhere near as packed as in Manhattan.

Besides, that is one line. I work on the west side and find the B/D/N/Q trains to be acceptable. Certainly enough to handle a few thousand more people.

Your other ideas are for the part not very financially feasible, and the city has made it clear they are working to automate the subway to allow trains to run closer together thus increasing the frequency of service and capacity. New subway lines would literally cost billions upon billions of dollars, and the city is in no position to finance the cost.

So, keep dreaming. Also, a train from Bay Ridge to the L? What, on the old LIRR tracks? What would that accomplish?

sweet tea wrote: [quote=homeowner]I meant the people who use alternative means of transportation such as dollar vans. You are correct that the MTA did away with paying for bus to subway transfers, but a lot of folks don't find the buses run with great eenough frequency to be able to use them for a commute.

yeah, the buses here suck. i'm not sure why they aren't better than the chicago buses, since nyc is generally so much better for transit, but the chicago ones are better. (more of them (it seems, anyway), more frequent, more dependable, seemingly speedier.)

thanks for the clarification. i agree with your points, btw.

I lived in Lincoln Park for a bit and had to take the 151 bus or walk a mile to the el, trust me the bus service sucks. I would just bike to work, it was so much faster than that dog of a bus. Bus service sucks everywhere because cities either have lots of traffic and money for bus service, or no traffic and no money for bus service.

benzapp wrote: [quote=sweet tea]a couple of questions about all this:

1. is AY really only 20,000 more people? I thought i remembered a number more like 300,000.

1a. does your 20,000 number count people coming to games, etc. at the stadium?

2. are there really 2-fare zones anymore? i thought free subway-bus transfers got rid of that. or do you mean people who end up using LIRR or other non-city transit in addition?

300,000? Do you really think 20 highrises could accommodate 15,000 people each? Even if they were 100 stories high, that would be 150 people per floor! These are are fairly standard apartment buildings, and individually would not be considered particularly unusual. We're not talking about Arcologies, ie SimCity 2000 style!

Subway service is not crowded at all on off peak times, so the Arena issue is a moot point in terms of capacity. Traffic however is another matter. Personally, I would prefer a baseball stadium on Empire Boulevard again, but I'm not talking about anything but the residential component of the AY project.

1. dude, no need to yell. it was an honest question. i'm not screaming about AY, i'm just trying to clarify some information.

1a. fair point, although i think stadium events would add to the evening rush.

2. i lived in chicago, too, commuted to all different parts of the city (often different places every day) using the cta (even the 151 sometimes, although my go-to favorite were the 145,6,7 set). the trains here are 1,000x better than the trains in chicago, but i maintain that the buses there were better. biking is almost always faster than the bus, due to the reasons you cite, but the buses in chicago run more often on more streets citywide and do less of the stopping-at-borough-border nonsense they do here.

btw, where did you live in lincoln park that you had to walk a mile to the el?

benzapp wrote: [quote=booklaw]

That's all very interesting, but totally irrelevant to those of us who already own homes in Brownstone Brooklyn and worry about maintaining their value.

And that of course obviates the relevance of your post. The purpose of public policy and the state itself is not to benefit a tiny minority of our wealthy citizenry, but to better the lives of everyone. Your needs and wishes are ultimately irrelevant compared to the immense human misery that surrounds you.

While you write about "reducing the people's dependency upon automobiles...", the construction of huge amounts of "high-density urban housing" without comparable construction of adequate roadways will "reduce the people's dependency upon automobiles" the same way that cutting our legs off at the knees would "reduce the people's dependency upon feet".

Manhattan has had the same roadways for 150 years. I really don't see how a rational and informed person can make such an obviously flawed argument. There is no reason why the development of Brooklyn cannot parody that of Manhattan in the early 20th century.

For that matter, the creation of all that high-density housing without comparable expansion of existing subway tunnels and bus routes (again requiring more roads) isn't going to reduce the people's dependency upon automobiles very effectively... the existing subways will not be able to absorb the additional traffic.

Again, look at Manhattan. Ridership is substantially higher than in Brooklyn. Further, we are only talking about an additional 20,000 people tops spread out over 11 subway lines. Consider that population estimate includes children, your information regarding the capacity of those 11 subway lines is obviously misinformed. The average citizen will not even notice a difference in capacity, as the effects will be so small.

Let me guess... are you a developer?

No, I am a 20-something involved with real estate economics who is not fortunate enough to have millions of dollars to buy a townhouse. Because of people like you, real estate development is largely the province of a select few who have the financial resources to start projects in a city where developable area is in short supply due to oppressive zoning regulations and selfish community activists.

benzapp, you have hijacked this thread... the original poster asked "I wanted to get a thread going of people's thoughts on the real estate market in Park Slope. Do you think there be a slow down? How bad? What areas? Who will be affected? What will 5th and 7th avenue look like in 3 years? Can this slow down be compared to previous years?"

The poster did not ask, "how much can we make Brooklyn into a clone of Manhattan, with similar population density and maximum utilization of available space", or "how many additional people can we cram into the subways"?

Many people choose to live in brownstone Brooklyn simply because it is not Manhatttan. We are more interested in quality of life issues (yes, it is selfish of us) than in "the purpose of public policy" or in entertainment for people "involved in real estate economics".

For your information, "people like me" invested the grand sum of $5,000 in real estate, and watched their investment grow over the years. No greedy developer will thrive or starve on my account.

As to whose post is "irrelevant", I again refer you to the questions posed by the person who began this thread.

booklaw wrote:

benzapp, you have hijacked this thread... the original poster asked "I wanted to get a thread going of people's thoughts on the real estate market in Park Slope. Do you think there be a slow down? How bad? What areas? Who will be affected? What will 5th and 7th avenue look like in 3 years? Can this slow down be compared to previous years?"

Oh great, now we're down to personal attacks. I was responding to YOUR post! You are wrong about the real estate market, as I think I clearly indicated. AY will do nothing but increase value of existing properties. While there may be a short term slowdown, there will not be a long term one. While I didn't spell it out, the realities of peak oil production will make urban locals much more desirable in the future. Home prices may tank in Jersey, but not in Park Slope.

The poster did not ask, "how much can we make Brooklyn into a clone of Manhattan, with similar population density and maximum utilization of available space", or "how many additional people can we cram into the subways"?

It is the people (and thus the market) that creates this density. The future of Brooklyn is Manhattan density. It is not so because evil developers want to rain on your parade or are possessed by the devil like yours truly, but because people want housing.

Many people choose to live in brownstone Brooklyn simply because it is not Manhattan. We are more interested in quality of life issues (yes, it is selfish of us) than in "the purpose of public policy" or in entertainment for people "involved in real estate economics".

In terms of economics, the people to whom you refer are a tiny minority and have minimal impact on the real estate market. Those who share your view are obviously a minority, otherwise you wouldn't have to lobby politicians to make laws to prevent the market from working. If everyone wanted low-density housing, there would be no need for zoning laws as a few developers would build towers for which there would be no tenants or buyers. After that, you'd never see another tower go up again.

For your information, "people like me" invested the grand sum of $5,000 in real estate, and watched their investment grow over the years. No greedy developer will thrive or starve on my account.

Ahh, you're an old timer. Can't you at least allow us the opportunity to afford a decent home?

As to whose post is "irrelevant", I again refer you to the questions posed by the person who began this thread.

As I said, your views are not representative of the market, and therefore are irrelevant to the original posters question. Your first response however, that AY would somehow negatively affect demand for housing, is flat out wrong.