What's Next for Stuy Town?

I'll tell you one thing, regardless of the fate of this complex, or who's hands it eventually ends up in.... This is gonna be a fantastic catalyst for dramatic drops in NYC rents. Stuy town is the tip of the iceberg.

you sound like a real estate agent.

...well, i was. before the market..

Hah, not exactly. I'm a commercial RE analyst and over-payer for an NYC apartment. And, I'm also a firm believer that the only way we get out of this crisis is for people, like Tishman/Blackrock (owners/borrowers in general) to stop postponing debt maturities based on over-inflated valuations, and start REALIZING loses so we can move forward.

You know... kinda the exact opposite plan Obama has.

Exactly what Obama plan is that? (please cite)

Thank god we have good people like Tishman Speyer around to stop 'postponing debt maturities'and get this country back on solid ground.

I mean, pick one. Cash for Clunkers, the Stimulus (coming soon: Stimulus Part II), Bank/AIG Bailouts....it's all just artificially propping up failed institutions and delaying the inevitable losses they all deserve to incur for making bad bets. (In all fairness...this was a Bush plan too...Obama just clearly liked it...CHANGE!)

And, maybe you don't understand each parties role in this situation, but Tishman was the one that needed to lose money for betting that ST was worth over $5 BILLION, and, THANK GOD, they're finally gonna lose it. Whoever ends up buying it will own it at a lower cost basis, and can afford to charge tenants (like me!) lower rent. Pretty much win/win for everyone without the last name Tishman. So...yes...It's about time we see more of this.....and....we will.

In theory, you are right about Obama avoiding the crash. But, the resulting economic adjustment could take over a decade or even a generation to finish. That sort of timeline could be too much for the the US, and the world, to take.

I'm might be missing your point slightly, so I apologize if this isn't 100% in response... but....

We both agree that EVENTUALLY something needs to crash, right? You can't just print money out of thin air, infuse that money into the system to prop up failing companies, incur trillions of dollars of debt to foreign countries, and expect it to just go away at some point...right? So...then, my question is...what are we waiting for? YES, it's gonna be bad, YES, it's gonna take a while...maybe even a decade...but, guess what....WE DESERVE IT! We MUST let failing institutions....FAIL...then we can let the good companies that actually turn a profit start growing.

Clearly that would open up criticism for the Obama administration, and they (understandably) have no interest in that.....but, by artificially propping up the failed institutions, you're pushing the limits of PROFITABLE businesses who didn't need a bailout to keep the lights on and keep paying their employees.

Annnd...they can't keep doing that forever..... LET EM FAIL!

I see the point you are making and I agree to a certain extent, but I think the point of the bank bailouts (which was actually Bush's) and the auto industry restructuring is that allowing the amount of correction in the these industries would set in motion a series of failures spreading far out from the original event. In the case of the banks, without government action the entire global banking system would have been destabilized- with unknowable results. In the case of the collapse of the auto industry, the sudden disappearance of such a large chunk of american manufacturing would have crushed the already-in-recession economy.

While I think it is absolutely true that propping up insolvent businesses and entire industrial segments is disastrous in the long term, the alternative in this case was of too large a scale for the economy to weather. Without government intervention, it would have spiralled beyond our control.

I agree and totally disagree with you.

Agree: "The amount of correction in these industries would set in motion a series of failures spreading far out from the original event"....also...This was Bush's original idea (that's more a fact than an opinion)

Disagree: "the alternative in this case was of too large a scale for the economy to weather. Without government intervention, it would have spiraled beyond our control."... and now it won't?

Like it or not...we WILL weather this storm at some point. This debt WILL eventually have to be paid. These companies losing billions of dollars a year WILL have to fail when the bailouts go away...and we'll just have to face that issue head on when we get there. The only real variable here is "when". Government intervention doesn't just make these issues magically go away. In fact CONTINUED Bail-outs, printing MORE money, borrowing MORE money we can't possibly pay back (hey, isn't that how we got in this situation to begin with?)does nothing more than compound the problem we're already in.

The difference between Obama and Bush is that Bush made us start driving down this road....Obama is now just flooring the gas pedal rather than hitting the brakes.....and eventually we will crash. (that was a totally lame, but effective metaphor...no?)

They dump the property after their chance of a FAT profit when down the drain. I hope the Bank/creditors go after all these assets. They have deep pockets.

test

someone enlighten me

I've never understood why anyone would want to live in these buildings. The apartments are gross and un-appealing. It like living in the projects, I really do not understand.

it doesn't feel at home for me and for a lot of people--that much i can say for stuy town. it almost feels like you're living in queens or long island but you're physically in new york--just above east village, even.

Isn't Queens also physically in New York? If not, I'm seriously confused about the geographic boundaries of New York.

by new york, i mean 'manhattan.' y'know, when you write your address and if you live in queens, it's "Queens, NY 100XX" something like that, whereas if you're in manhattan, it's "New York, NY 100XX."

Queens is officially the only borough made up of neighborhoods. Y'know: Flushing, Astoria, Jamaica, Forest Hills, Bayside, Long Island City, etc. Nobody in Queens uses Queens,NY as their address.

hah! i should have used brooklyn as an example. or the bronx. or is it bronx without the 'the' now?

The address is Bronx, NY.

But, it is called The Bronx.

You downtown people should know that.

the old joke used to be,

which borough is spelled with a "D"?

"Da Bronx".

Or maybe you should have just typed Manhattan.

neveeer!

ah, hell. manhattan. there. i said it.

See....that didn't hurt.

he he he

I'll bite, though I haven't lived in the projects, I've lived in a place almost like ST. I've visited the projects a few times and it's nowhere at all like them.

unless you like loud echoing hallways.

affordable rent, where a guy working a civil servant job can afford their own place.

well managed, a sense of community, there are tenants there who lived there for decades and are active in the tenant's association. Quiet, safe, walls that are almost soundproof, larger than normal rooms, a place to call home.

Maybe things have changed since they've let in market renters, who knows?

one bad thing, jehovah witnesses do get in.

Citation Needed.

What makes them gross? The non-renovated units are a) decent apartments in b) a pretty good location and are c) nicely priced given a & b.

they feel more living in an institution than actual homey living. Based on my last few experiences, I would say they

a) are not clean

b) built cheaply (sub-par)

c) um...remind me of the projects.

A couple of hundred dollars cheaper, and I would call them ok apartments.