Why do people drive up rents?
Why do people drive up rents? I don't understand it. I mean, pick a neighborhood, find a rent-stabilized dwelling and stay there until you decide to by a house or move out of the city. I find it ironic that the people who complain about high rents are the same people moving every minute and driving rents up. Been in my digs 14 years this month, just jumping into the $600 a month range, right across from the Brooklyn Museum, and although my neighborhood has gotten horribly trendy in the last few years, even if I could afford my house now, I wouldn't leave the beauty of this place, especially in the Springtime. So when I see a new neighbor renting out a $2000 space similar to mine in the back of the building with no view, I think they're nuts. Why participate in the madness?
Comments
-
Pre-Gentriconfrontation!!!!
Congrats on your apartment. I also had a rent stabilized that I stayed in for years even though I hated my old neighborhood just so I could save up a down payment. I don't think that people with rent-stabilized apartments are the ones who move so frequently. You have to be in the right place at the right time to get one, and it's not that easy to find one on the market. -
Well, I think people move because their apartment needs change. I've moved a bunch of times. I found a nice apartment when I first moved here, but it was a sublet and the person wanted it back. Then I moved into a 3bdrm apartment for which a friend had the lease, but after two years, both of my roommates were moving to other cities, and the apartment was too shitty to be worth finding new roommates for. So I found a 2bdrm with a new roommate. Then I wanted to move in with my fiance. My point is that I don't think that people are moving around out of malice--their needs change. They want to live with someone they weren't living with before, or they need to commute someplace new. If you have a critical mass of people who make on average, say, $45K a year, and want to live in a certain place, rents in that place are likely to rise to the level that those people can bear, according to the number of people who can live in the apartment.
I find it ironic that the people who complain about high rents are the same people moving every minute and driving rents up.
Since you're not replying to anyone's post, I'm not sure who are "the people" you're talking about. It seems that you are just generalizing out of nowhere about the people who read the boards. Please familiarize yourself with the rules--your post sounds more frustrated than angry, but you are certainly skirting them. -
Most people move because they HAVE to, not because they just want to. Jeez. You have a huge place at $600. a month, well, good for you! Just wanted to brag? Ok, now you did. :roll:
-
EmilyM wrote: Well, I think people move because their apartment needs change. I've moved a bunch of times. I found a nice apartment when I first moved here, but it was a sublet and the person wanted it back. Then I moved into a 3bdrm apartment for which a friend had the lease, but after two years, both of my roommates were moving to other cities, and the apartment was too shitty to be worth finding new roommates for. So I found a 2bdrm with a new roommate. Then I wanted to move in with my fiance. My point is that I don't think that people are moving around out of malice--their needs change. They want to live with someone they weren't living with before, or they need to commute someplace new. If you have a critical mass of people who make on average, say, $45K a year, and want to live in a certain place, rents in that place are likely to rise to the level that those people can bear, according to the number of people who can live in the apartment.
I find it ironic that the people who complain about high rents are the same people moving every minute and driving rents up.
Since you're not replying to anyone's post, I'm not sure who are "the people" you're talking about. It seems that you are just generalizing out of nowhere about the people who read the boards. Please familiarize yourself with the rules--your post sounds more frustrated than angry, but you are certainly skirting them.
Wow. I didn't know a requirement for these boards was to reply to a new post the millisecond after it posts. What a chip on your shoulder! People, as in people...who drive up rents. I was pretty clear in my post, yet you want to look for trouble where there is none. Your paranoia is truly ridiculous. I'm not frustrated or angry, but I find your statement ironic since this board is filled with frustration from folks who complain endlessly about places to eat in PH, or because they got robbed, etc. You haven't attacked them. Your motivation is paper thin. -
sje wrote: Most people move because they HAVE to, not because they just want to. Jeez. You have a huge place at $600. a month, well, good for you! Just wanted to brag? Ok, now you did. :roll:
No. Not bragging. I'm acknowledging my anniversary in hood and feeling good about it. Didn't mean to make you feel like shit or anything. My point is, if most people were better at choosing with insight and foresight, they wouldn't end up shlepping their crap all over the city every year in search of new digs. I speak to my new neighbors all the time, and the way they've conducted their apartment searches is really a reflection of the erractic way they live their lives. High rent is the price we must all pay because of their flakiness. -
Um, first of all, finding a rent stabilized apt is not that easy. Most people who have them, like yourself, cling to them precisely because they're so valuable, so it's hard to get one unless you have a connection.
Second of all, there is ZERO correlation between frequency of movement and rental prices!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You think that more people moving means more demand, right? Well guess what, it also means more supply as the places they left become vacant.
In fact, one of the main factors pushing rents up is the existence of over a million rent stabilized apartments, which constrain the supply of market rate apartments, making those unaffordable. Sorry to disappoint you man, but you're one of the people pushing up rents, not the other way around. -
bleeds wrote: Wow. I didn't know a requirement for these boards was to reply to a new post the millisecond after it posts. What a chip on your shoulder! People, as in people...who drive up rents. I was pretty clear in my post, yet you want to look for trouble where there is none. Your paranoia is truly ridiculous. I'm not frustrated or angry, but I find your statement ironic since this board is filled with frustration from folks who complain endlessly about places to eat in PH, or because they got robbed, etc. You haven't attacked them. Your motivation is paper thin.
Wait...I replied too fast? I just went to the site this morning and replied to the most interesting-looking post. I didn't look to see when you started the thread. There was already a reply when I arrived.
Why did you post if you're not frustrated? You described these mysterious people who move all the time for no reason as "nuts" and participating in "madness." I think there is a difference between complaining about a thing, and complaining about people, particularly when you don't actually demonstrate the existence of the people you're complaining about. In my reply, I attempted to address the idea that people are "driving up rents" by moving around a lot. No. People are moving around a lot because their needs change. Landlords drive up rents--but that's capitalism for ya. -
EmilyM wrote: Landlords drive up rents.
Ooh, sorry EmilyM, my fight is not with you, but I just can't let that one slide. Landlords don't drive up rents, anymore than tenants drive down rents. Rental prices are agreed upon between the two parties mutually. When there's a glut, renters can go elsewhere. When there's a shortage, they can't. I'm not aware of any monopolist landlords in this city. -
Subject: Re: Why do people drive up rents?
bleeds wrote: Why do people drive up rents? I don't understand it. I mean, pick a neighborhood, find a rent-stabilized dwelling and stay there until you decide to by a house or move out of the city. I find it ironic that the people who complain about high rents are the same people moving every minute and driving rents up. Been in my digs 14 years this month, just jumping into the $600 a month range, right across from the Brooklyn Museum, and although my neighborhood has gotten horribly trendy in the last few years, even if I could afford my house now, I wouldn't leave the beauty of this place, especially in the Springtime. So when I see a new neighbor renting out a $2000 space similar to mine in the back of the building with no view, I think they're nuts. Why participate in the madness?
What is the purpose of this post? You clearly understand that you're very much in the minority when it comes to the amount you're paying for rent. Can you reasonably expect that your 'advice' is going to stem the flow of new people coming to the neighborhood? No. You can't, even with your sense of logic. So then, why are you posting? Your motives are clear to me. This is a not-so-thinly veiled attack on those that you see as yuppie scum. Your concern is faux. I don't believe a word you say. It's clear you don't want to face the uncomfortable reality of gentrification.
-
Okay, you're right (escap)--I stated that imprecisely. What I mean is that landlords ask for rents, and if you want the apartment and have the money, you pay it. I think in light of the very ongoing shortage of affordable apartments in the city, it's not fair to depict the setting of rent as a negotiation in which each party has equal power--I think landlords have more, because they are more likely to be able to find a comparable alternate tenant for the price they want than the tenant is to be able to find a comparable alternate apartment for the price they want.
In any case, the rents are affected by what the market is willing to bear, not by people moving around, thinking "I wish I could find an apartment that cost 20% more!"
I suppose you could argue that landlords are more likely to hike up rents between tenants, than when a tenant is in place, but I'm not sure that's actually true. There are people who've posted here who have experienced large rent hikes in market-rate apartments. -
Agreed.
Oh, and some other things that drive up rents are: low crime rates, parks, thousands of cultural events and institutions, great jobs, a thriving economy, world famous retail and commercial areas, public transportation, sports franchises, and other such nasties. Damn those things for making housing expensive!! At least we still have a crappy education system--imagine what would happen if we fix that!! -
Apartment #1, 11 months: Moved out because of psychotic roommate (who seemed nice enough at first) with a dog that shat on the living room carpet and a cat that shat on my bed, both with alarming regularity.
Apartment #2, one and a half years: Moved out because roommates, who were a couple, were pretty much ready to have their own place, and because the apartment on the first floor had just been moved into by a drug dealer who scared the bejeezus out of me.
Apartment #3, 14 months: Moved out because roommate was a stompy, inconsiderate freak case, my mother had just died, and I desperately needed my own quiet, peaceful space. Took the second place I looked at in part because it was two weeks after Mom's funeral and I was in no shape for a lengthy apartment hunt.
Apartment #4, two years: Moved out because landlord raised rent $100 at the end of first lease and then demanded an additional $250 per month if I signed on for a third year. I couldn't afford it at all.
Wow, I must be an evil, rent-driving-up asshole.
I'm in apartment #5 now, FINALLY in a stabilized place, and I don't plan to move at all unless I someday buy a place or something disastrous happens. -
escap wrote: Um, first of all, finding a rent stabilized apt is not that easy. Most people who have them, like yourself, cling to them precisely because they're so valuable, so it's hard to get one unless you have a connection.
There is a correlation between movement and higher prices. There's a guy in my building here since the early 70s, only paying $200 a month for a three-bedroom. If that same apartment had a high turnover rate, my landlord could get $2500 a month or more. So leaving your apartment guarantees a higher rent will be paid by the next tenant.
Second of all, there is ZERO correlation between frequency of movement and rental prices!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You think that more people moving means more demand, right? Well guess what, it also means more supply as the places they left become vacant.
In fact, one of the main factors pushing rents up is the existence of over a million rent stabilized apartments, which constrain the supply of market rate apartments, making those unaffordable. Sorry to disappoint you man, but you're one of the people pushing up rents, not the other way around.
You are right that rent-stabilization makes it difficult for people who are in the constant flow of looking for a new place to live. That should be more motivation to find a good rent-stabilized place. Look, I camped out in my broker's office when the call came in for my place. If you're committed to living in the city you have to do what you have to do. And please, stop referring to me as 'he.' -
apollonia666 wrote: Apartment #1, 11 months: Moved out because of psychotic roommate (who seemed nice enough at first) with a dog that shat on the living room carpet and a cat that shat on my bed, both with alarming regularity.
Apartment #2, one and a half years: Moved out because roommates, who were a couple, were pretty much ready to have their own place, and because the apartment on the first floor had just been moved into by a drug dealer who scared the bejeezus out of me.
Apartment #3, 14 months: Moved out because roommate was a stompy, inconsiderate freak case, my mother had just died, and I desperately needed my own quiet, peaceful space. Took the second place I looked at in part because it was two weeks after Mom's funeral and I was in no shape for a lengthy apartment hunt.
Apartment #4, two years: Moved out because landlord raised rent $100 at the end of first lease and then demanded an additional $250 per month if I signed on for a third year. I couldn't afford it at all.
Wow, I must be an evil, rent-driving-up asshole.
I'm in apartment #5 now, FINALLY in a stabilized place, and I don't plan to move at all unless I someday buy a place or something disastrous happens.
Good for you! I think the biggest mistake is looking for a place with roommates in mind. That shit never lasts. I learned that lesson in Paris and it served me well in my searches here. Take care of your rent-stabilized place and treat it well. -
bleeds wrote: And please, stop referring to me as 'he.'
Okay, you got us on that one!
But in your building--you're talking about a rent stabilized building. Well, people moving out of them definitely has the effect of raising rents! But in your original post you don't specify that you're only talking about rent stabilized apartments, and to tell the truth, I think most people who are lucky enough to have them are already following your advice.
On Tenant.net I found an interesting PDF about the city housing stock (as of 2001). Click on "Housing Supply Report here. It shows a 30% drop in "vacant, available" stabilized rentals between 1996 and 1999, for example. Does that mean that apartments are being taken out of the program (probably to some degree) or that the apartments aren't vacant or available because people are staying in them? There are some other interesting charts in there, too. -
bleeds wrote: Good for you! I think the biggest mistake is looking for a place with roommates in mind. That shit never lasts. I learned that lesson in Paris and it served me well in my searches here. Take care of your rent-stabilized place and treat it well.
Yeah, but for my first several years here I simply wasn't making enough money to afford my own place. I suspect the transient nature of so many people moving so often here is largely impacted by how many people absolutely have to have roommates in order to survive. -
EmilyM wrote: [quote=bleeds]And please, stop referring to me as 'he.'
Okay, you got us on that one!
Does that mean that apartments are being taken out of the program (probably to some degree) or that the apartments aren't vacant or available because people are staying in them?
Yep to both. I fear I will lose this place before I have the money to buy my own place. I wouldn't know what to do. -
wrote: "bleedsThere is a correlation between movement and higher prices. There's a guy in my building here since the early 70s, only paying $200 a month for a three-bedroom. If that same apartment had a high turnover rate, my landlord could get $2500 a month or more. So leaving your apartment guarantees a higher rent will be paid by the next tenant.
I purchased a two family home and my tenants were paying $550 before I moved in and I raised their rent to $850. I would have loved to keep it at $550 but I wanted to be able to defray some of the cost of my mortgage. Which is why we waited to buy a 2 family instead of a 1 family. We have been in this house for 2 years. I am in the process of renovating their apartment (making it bigger, putting in new hardwood floors and new walls). This winter heating bills really killed us. I told them that starting in January 2007 the rent will now be $900 per month. Because these are people we are very close with I probably wont raise it again after that.
So I think that the rise in rents is a reflection of the landlord, the cost of running the home/building, etc. and not those who are jumping around. -
bleeds wrote: My point is, if most people were better at choosing with insight and foresight, they wouldn't end up shlepping their crap all over the city every year in search of new digs. I speak to my new neighbors all the time, and the way they've conducted their apartment searches is really a reflection of the erractic way they live their lives. High rent is the price we must all pay because of their flakiness.
I was in my last apartment for 14 years (before my psycho landlady threw me out) but before that I lived an "erratic" (I prefer "bohemian") life, moving every year, sometimes because I wanted to, sometimes because I had to. I suppose it may be said, about both my apartment hunting as well as other aspects of my life, that I failed to Choose With Insight And Foresight. Fortunately Park Slope is where the people who've failed at least twice in their life come to live, so I feel at home here. -
stacey wrote: I purchased a two family home and my tenants were paying $550 before I moved in and I raised their rent to $850. I would have loved to keep it at $550 but I wanted to be able to defray some of the cost of my mortgage. Which is why we waited to buy a 2 family instead of a 1 family. We have been in this house for 2 years. I am in the process of renovating their apartment (making it bigger, putting in new hardwood floors and new walls). This winter heating bills really killed us. I told them that starting in January 2007 the rent will now be $900 per month. Because these are people we are very close with I probably wont raise it again after that.
Stacey, it's a mark of the bizarro ethical view that predominates on this board that you even feel the need to apologize for this. When you bought the place you paid a premium based on estimated future rental income. You're no more at fault for asking a higher price than a tenant is for asking a lower price. Sleep easy.
So I think that the rise in rents is a reflection of the landlord, the cost of running the home/building, etc. and not those who are jumping around.
Also, I can't believe bleeds is a "she". Yep, you got me there. I guess this exposes my bias that women are more polite and less aggressive. As for "her" point, EmilyM beautifully summed up the counterargument, so I can take a breather this round. -
escap wrote: Also, I can't believe bleeds is a "she". Yep, you got me there. I guess this exposes my bias that women are more polite and less aggressive. As for "her" point, EmilyM beautifully summed up the counterargument, so I can take a breather this round.
I highlighted with the my google toolbar, and I can find a single 'he' other than the one from bleeds... :roll: -
escap wrote:
You are right, in a way, rent stabilization in a contributing factor in rent prices. If those rent stabilized apartments suddenly went market tomorrow, there would be a crash in rent prices. Don't believe a market price landlord for a minute that they hate rent control. Still, rent controls are necessary to keep those same scumbag landlords from handing 85-year-olds their walking papers. And they will. Quickly.
Second of all, there is ZERO correlation between frequency of movement and rental prices!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You think that more people moving means more demand, right? Well guess what, it also means more supply as the places they left become vacant.
In fact, one of the main factors pushing rents up is the existence of over a million rent stabilized apartments, which constrain the supply of market rate apartments, making those unaffordable. Sorry to disappoint you man, but you're one of the people pushing up rents, not the other way around. -
Perhaps she was referring to this:
Sorry to disappoint you man
-
metulj wrote:
Right, so rent stabilized renters moving often will bring those units to market rent which will bring down what is currently the market rate due to the increased supply.
You are right, in a way, rent stabilization in a contributing factor in rent prices. If those rent stabilized apartments suddenly went market tomorrow, there would be a crash in rent prices. Don't believe a market price landlord for a minute that they hate rent control. Still, rent controls are necessary to keep those same scumbag landlords from handing 85-year-olds their walking papers. And they will. Quickly.
So the OP is right that the frequency at which people move can impact prices but the direction is wrong. Moving more often will LOWER prices for the general population, i.e. those who do not have a regulated unit. -
escap wrote: Perhaps she was referring to this:
Bah! That guy's just uptight!Sorry to disappoint you man
-
escap wrote: [quote=stacey]I purchased a two family home and my tenants were paying $550 before I moved in and I raised their rent to $850. I would have loved to keep it at $550 but I wanted to be able to defray some of the cost of my mortgage. Which is why we waited to buy a 2 family instead of a 1 family. We have been in this house for 2 years. I am in the process of renovating their apartment (making it bigger, putting in new hardwood floors and new walls). This winter heating bills really killed us. I told them that starting in January 2007 the rent will now be $900 per month. Because these are people we are very close with I probably wont raise it again after that.
Stacey, it's a mark of the bizarro ethical view that predominates on this board that you even feel the need to apologize for this. When you bought the place you paid a premium based on estimated future rental income. You're no more at fault for asking a higher price than a tenant is for asking a lower price. Sleep easy.
So I think that the rise in rents is a reflection of the landlord, the cost of running the home/building, etc. and not those who are jumping around.
Also, I can't believe bleeds is a "she". Yep, you got me there. I guess this exposes my bias that women are more polite and less aggressive. As for "her" point, EmilyM beautifully summed up the counterargument, so I can take a breather this round.
Thanks escap - belive me I wasn't apologizing - just stating the way it is for me - believe me I have busted my hump for all that I have and I do sleep very easy
-
Ben wrote: [quote=metulj]
Right, so rent stabilized renters moving often will bring those units to market rent which will bring down what is currently the market rate due to the increased supply.
You are right, in a way, rent stabilization in a contributing factor in rent prices. If those rent stabilized apartments suddenly went market tomorrow, there would be a crash in rent prices. Don't believe a market price landlord for a minute that they hate rent control. Still, rent controls are necessary to keep those same scumbag landlords from handing 85-year-olds their walking papers. And they will. Quickly.
So the OP is right that the frequency at which people move can impact prices but the direction is wrong. Moving more often will LOWER prices for the general population, i.e. those who do not have a regulated unit.
I don't know the details of rent control policy, but people have been moving in droves, yet we still have a million or so stabilized apts, I believe. I think the total # of stabilized apts has fallen, but there must be some policy in place to make sure that plenty of them remain.
It's an undisputed and central truism that price floors create surpluses and price ceilings create shortages. The question, as Metulj correctly stated, is whether such consequences are worth it. The efficiency vs equality argument. Since there are so many people ensconced in stabilized apts right now, you can't just turn them out on the streets. But I'd be in favor of allowing those apts to gradually move towards market rates as the residents die or voluntarily move out, then replace the whole system with one of direct rent assistance for low income people (okay, so secretly I'm in favor of letting the free market run completely rampant, but if we must intercede at least the direct assistance policy seems much better). -
metulj wrote:
Actually your wrong - using your premise of Rent Stabilized apartments going market tomorrow - the 'scumbag' landlord (and all landlords) would LOVE an 85-yr old tenant because she would be paying market rate (and at the same time probably be a better tenant that your average 25 yr old)
You are right, in a way, rent stabilization in a contributing factor in rent prices. If those rent stabilized apartments suddenly went market tomorrow, there would be a crash in rent prices. Don't believe a market price landlord for a minute that they hate rent control. Still, rent controls are necessary to keep those same scumbag landlords from handing 85-year-olds their walking papers. And they will. Quickly.
The RS laws don't protect the elderly, they simply protect the 'in-occupancy' tenant at the expense of the average person looking for an apartment - age is irrelevant.
The best way to balance it, is vacancy de-control but it will never happen -
friendlypitbull wrote: [quote=metulj]
Actually your wrong - using your premise of Rent Stabilized apartments going market tomorrow - the 'scumbag' landlord (and all landlords) would LOVE an 85-yr old tenant because she would be paying market rate (and at the same time probably be a better tenant that your average 25 yr old)
You are right, in a way, rent stabilization in a contributing factor in rent prices. If those rent stabilized apartments suddenly went market tomorrow, there would be a crash in rent prices. Don't believe a market price landlord for a minute that they hate rent control. Still, rent controls are necessary to keep those same scumbag landlords from handing 85-year-olds their walking papers. And they will. Quickly.
The RS laws don't protect the elderly, they simply protect the 'in-occupancy' tenant at the expense of the average person looking for an apartment - age is irrelevant.
The best way to balance it, is vacancy de-control but it will never happen
um. that 85 year old tenant would never be able to afford the rent. do you know what social security pays out nowadays? nothing, and that is eaten up by huge prescription costs. so, no, that 85 year old would be on the street.
the problem with vacancy de-control is that it encourages landlords to do everything they can to get people out--like that landlord profiled in the Times who allegedly harassed the tenants into leaving so he could convert. They wouldn't maintain the property, respond to demands, and so on--and the city is not good at making them do so. The whole point would be to drive out the tenants, make it vacant, raise it to market rate, repair it, and then go for broke.
I worked in lease law/tenant advocacy in boston for a summer, and I saw this all the time. landlords wanted to get the subsidized tenants out because the city restricted the rise in rent, so after a few years the apartment was far below market. the city was always swamped with applications and could barely afford to keep the program open (and this is in Massachusetts!), so they couldn't even consider keeping them open at market rate and subsidizing. so many landlords wouldn't spend any money upkeeping the place to drive out the subsidized tenants and then renovate and put it out at market price.
and I know that the city should just have given subsidies to tenants, but there's no way there'd be enough money to defray market rate housing costs significantly enough to make any difference. it was a bad scene. -
muteflute wrote:
um. that 85 year old tenant would never be able to afford the rent. do you know what social security pays out nowadays? nothing, and that is eaten up by huge prescription costs. so, no, that 85 year old would be on the street.
The premise was there was no RS laws, but even still - RS today only protects those 85yr olds who already are renting (and a couple who are lucky enough to find an under market-rate place - every other 85yr old is forced to pay more b/c of RS.muteflute wrote:
These cases happen today, and are the exception (b/c just like bashing someone over the head and taking their wallet - it is illegal and though most of the time you wont get caught most people dont want to be criminals). Further the pressure today is greater (except on the 1st vacancy under vac decontrol) because the disparity between market and RS rent is often so great b/c of a legacy of suppressed rents (i.e. 1 tenant lives in place 40yrs, moves LL gets smallish rent increase and then next tenant lives for another 20 yrs) - under vacancy decontrol, the 1st vacancy will bring the rent back to market and reduce the likelihood of insanely low rents.
the problem with vacancy de-control is that it encourages landlords to do everything they can to get people out--like that landlord profiled in the Times who allegedly harassed the tenants into leaving so he could convert. They wouldn't maintain the property, respond to demands, and so on--and the city is not good at making them do so. The whole point would be to drive out the tenants, make it vacant, raise it to market rate, repair it, and then go for broke.
What vacancy decontrol does is protect residents and neighborhoods from social dislocation due to immediate and wild increases in rental prices, while at the same time alieviating (a little) the supply problem increasing the number of market rate apts.
Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- 40K All Categories
- 27.1K Neighborhoods
- 5.1K Crown Heights/Prospect Lefferts Gardens
- 7.1K Prospect Heights
- 2.3K Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, Bed-Stuy
- 8K Park Slope
- 549 Williamsburg, Greenpoint, Bushwick
- 442 Flatbush/Midwood/Ditmas Park
- 657 BoCoCa (Boerum Hill, Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens)
- 151 Red Hook
- 104 Gowanus
- 304 Bay Ridge/Bensonhurst
- 130 Coney Island, Brighton Beach, Sheepshead Bay
- 270 Brooklyn Heights, DUMBO and Downtown
- 598 Windsor Terrace / Kensington
- 673 Greenwood Heights and Sunset Park
- 749 Brooklyn and Beyond
- 6.3K Stuff
- 86 Brooklyn Back When
- 1.2K Brooklyn Pets
- 257 Brooklyn Kids
- 241 Brooklyn Eats
- 51 Brooklyn Booze
- 3.6K The Lounge / Random Stuff
- 611 Brooklyn Politics
- 122 Brooklyn Sports and Fitness
- 111 Brooklyn Photos
- 339 Site Issues
- 8 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
- 6.2K Listings
- 1.1K APARTMENTS and REAL ESTATE
- 1.3K Sales Openings Events
- 2.3K The Classifieds