Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think you way overstate the case. Neighborhoods don't become "hot" because of the real estate industry or the media want them to. People visit a neighborhood, see if its affordable, see if they like it and can make a life for themselves there, and decide, accordingly, to rent or buy. Moreover, this process happens BEFORE the media or big real estate catches on to an evolving neighborhood. The people make the decision and the corporate interest follows -- not the other way around.
BlueDog2 spoke truth. A college professor told me the New York State real estate lobby is as powerful as oil industry lobby in Texas. Cuomo and Bloomberg colluded with NYS real estate lobby to okay Barclays Center development. Overnight, Boreum Hill area in Brooklyn is home to MTV Awards, Nets, & soon NHL Islanders.
I don't think this is a Harlem effect..it is just a real estate effect. And some people have mentioned a pretty good reason why this is happening: parts of these areas are getting much better, while parts are not as much. Kinda like saying how much better the LES side...except if you are on Avenue D! That doesn't discount the fact that the LES is MUCH better than it was, even if there are parts that are still struggling.
Harlem, like every transitioning neighborhood, is block by block...some much better (visibly and otherwise) than others. Sure it has it's issues...as does almost every nabe in this city...but it is in fact changing, dramatically so despite the fact that parts still fit the stereotype. This is pretty normal I would say.
BlueDog2 spoke truth. A college professor told me the New York State real estate lobby is as powerful as oil industry lobby in Texas. Cuomo and Bloomberg colluded with NYS real estate lobby to okay Barclays Center development. Overnight, Boreum Hill area in Brooklyn is home to MTV Awards, Nets, & soon NHL Islanders.
No, NO, NO ! Big commercial real estate developers are notoriously leery of investments in unproven neighborhoods. They will follow and come in when they see a trend developing, but rarely will they ever start one. They leave the urban pioneering/early gentrification to individuals, mom-and-pop stores, and small landlords. When it becomes a proven neighborhood that is commerically viable, THEN, they step in, along with the higher-end commerical establishments and national chains.
Boerum Hill, Prospect Heights, and Ft. Greene were all respectable, stable neighborhoods (the last two long established by the black middle-class), long before Barclay's was built or the Nets sold. It was only when affluent white residents began moving into those neighborhoods in earnest did the area attract serious attention from the big developers.
I can't think of any truly revitalized neighborhood that BEGAN with large-scale development or a push from some magazine article or newspaper. Reporters also FOLLOW what is happening. They can't write such-and-such a neighborhood is hot until they see those small renovators, changing retail, and higher demographics first. They can certainly say what they THINK will be the next hot neighborhood, but we've all seen articles mentioning how X neighborhood would be the next hot spot -- only to be waiting years later for things to happen.
I was just curious after stumbling on this website, The New York World Homicide Map, which matches up 2012 NYC neighborhood homicide rates with the same rate in another country, why people talk about Harlem as if it were completely transformed and void of problems.
East Harlem murder rate was 21. This was the second highest in the city last year, worse than Brownsville, behind Bed Stuy, and has been always in the top three. However, most posters here realize East Harlem is one of the worst neighborhoods in the city and I see few defending it, so I won't go into it.
But Central Harlem is what I don't get. The northern part of Central Harlem (32nd precinct) had a murder rate of 15.51 which was fourth in the entire city behind just Bed-Stuy, East Harlem, and Brownsville. It was ahead of Hunts Point and all other Bronx neighborhoods. Yet I see posters refer to this area has an up-and coming area with less problems than most other hoods (despite it having a higher murder rate).
My biggest issue is the lower part of Central Harlem (28th precinct). It's murder rate has always been high and last years 11.17 put's it squarely in the top 10. It was worse than Tremont, Morris Heights, Morissania, West Farms etc ( basically any Bronx neighborhood not named Mott Haven and Hunts Point), had a rate which was 1.5 higher than East NY etc and yet people recommend the area like no tomorrow. I don't understand why a more murderous neighborhood is recommended by everyone, yet safer neighborhoods in the Bronx are no go zones. People are really being falsely led by the Harlem propaganda. I think that the fact that it's in Manhattan, and people who move there are not shot on site, allows for all the positive opinions on what is still a very bad neighborhood. So for any of you who moved to Harlem, why not the Bronx? You are actually more likely to get killed in Harlem than in most of the Bronx.
Same issue with Bed-Stuy. Eastern Bed-stuy is either in 1st or 2nd in murder rate every single year. Yet people consider places like East NY worse. The gentrification wave has clouded alot of people to what is really the reality in these hoods.
So anybody care to explain why this is? (Excuse the poor grammar, I'm on a phone and in class)
When you say eastern bed stuy are you talking about ocean hill which is basically Brownsville or are you talking about Malcolm x, patchen and Ralph.
No, NO, NO ! Big commercial real estate developers are notoriously leery of investments in unproven neighborhoods. They will follow and come in when they see a trend developing, but rarely will they ever start one. They leave the urban pioneering/early gentrification to individuals, mom-and-pop stores, and small landlords. When it becomes a proven neighborhood that is commerically viable, THEN, they step in, along with the higher-end commerical establishments and national chains.
Boerum Hill, Prospect Heights, and Ft. Greene were all respectable, stable neighborhoods (the last two long established by the black middle-class), long before Barclay's was built or the Nets sold. It was only when affluent white residents began moving into those neighborhoods in earnest did the area attract serious attention from the big developers.
I can't think of any truly revitalized neighborhood that BEGAN with large-scale development or a push from some magazine article or newspaper. Reporters also FOLLOW what is happening.
Yes! Yes! Yes! Don't be mad, bro. Your words may be in bold, but your logic is anemic.
IF what you say about "big commercial real estate developers" betting profits on "proven" neighborhoods is true, why didn't Forest Ratner firm invest on stable Atlantic Yards in previous Dinkins and Giuliani eras?
Gov. Cuomo, Borough Presdient Markowitz, and Bloomberg administration relaxed property tax incentives and allowed firm to flex "eminent domain" muscle to run mom/pop stores out of Flatbush/Atlantic Avenues. This is Real Estate Lobbying 101 on how to influence your elected officials to START a commercial trend.
Current NYCHA residents in Wyckoff Gardens/Gowanus and evicted starving artists also disagree with you. Boerum Hill, Prospect Heights, and Ft. Greene were all NOT respectable areas. Hence, true New Yorkers know area was for long called "dark slope" and "park slop" since mayors ignored area. Neighborhood was known for prostitution and seedy bars. This desolation allowed poor artists to live in nearby rent stabilized apartments hardly renovated. Legendary mom/pop stores (Triangle Sports) survived paying cheap rent.
Developers have invested in downtown Brooklyn because working class Black/Hispanic folk used subways and buses to spend millions there. People come from East New York to Red Hook to shop there. So-called "big developers" did not just discover the area because of "affluent whites". Most affluent whites live in the Brooklyn Heights. Most rather walk over Brooklyn Bridge to shop in Manhattan than walk to Fulton Mall.
Your developer friends are like reporters in one way only. They share ability to lie and steal like reporters. Evidently, they weren't smart enough to turn profits in Galeria at MetroTech even after bulldozing Albee Square Mall. Citylove: City YOU claim to show love for is not New York City. How can u love someone you don't know.
No, NO, NO ! Big commercial real estate developers are notoriously leery of investments in unproven neighborhoods. They will follow and come in when they see a trend developing, but rarely will they ever start one. ..........
Actually they go where,and usually only where,they are directed to go by various forms of corporate welfare, like cheap land , years and years of big tax abatements and new or upgraded transportation links.
Look, I don't hold big real estate developers up as any paragons of virtue. They can be some of sleaziest businesses around, bar none. But they also are some of the smartest in terms of making money. Which means that they won't take unneccessry risk if they don't have to. Big real estate iin NYC is so expensive that most of them are highly risk-averse when it comes to getting into a residentlal area without some record of favorable demographic change. They leave the early projects to small landlords, individual renovators, and mom-and-pop developers to gauge the possibilities of later success on a larger scale.
Park Slope is actually a prime example of this, where after the areas closer to the park were improved, bigger projects began moving to 4th and 5th Avenues -- and would probably be moved even closer to the park if the area weren't already dense, landmarked blocks. You see a similar dymanic in other now expensive neighborhoods like Tribeca, Soho, DUMBO, and Willamsburgh, to name a few, that became trendy after small-scale early projects were successful.
But developers indeed lobby hard for tax breaks, eminent domain, zoning changes, and whatever other help they can get from elected officials, when they do decide to move in. Nobody is arguing that this isn't the case. Those things cut the risk of development and make it more profitable. I am just stating that the big boys generally don't LEAD large-scale residential development. They FOLLOW the success of small scale revitalization, as noted in the examples above.
Development in and around the core of downtown Brooklyn is directly attributable to the fact that a critical mass of more affluent, often (but certainly not always) white, newcomers are now in many nearby neighborhoods besides Brooklyn Heights. As such, the low-rent stores on Fulton Mall are slowly giving way to more upscale places. The days of Fulton Mall being door-to-door wig shops, sneaker outlets, and cheap cell phone stores are clearly numbered. And most of that change is due to the fact that the surrounding brownstone neighborhoods have become more desirable and upscale. That change has also lured the big developers in, as witnessed by the new residential towers going up in downtown Brooklyn. In short, the successful small-scale development nearby has meant that there is a lot less risk an a bigger appetite for large-scale development.
The big developers don't always get it right. Too early or too late to the party, bad market research, an unforesen recession or mortgage crisis -- sure, lots of things can make big projects go wrong. Nobody is arguing that either. But the idea, all other things being equal, is to cut the risk of it going wrong. That's why the big developers will often let somebody else take the risk first.
And lastly, I don't know any brokers, mortgage bankers, or developers, big or small, and have no connection to the real estate industry; I do know several people in the news business, some of whom are friends, and they and 99.9% of their collegaues do not lie and steal, that's just ridiculous. I don't claim to know everything about NYC. One reason I like coming to C-D is to find out stuff I don't know. But I do know that some posters like to argue for arguments sake, even when the facts are pointed out to them.
Last edited by citylove101; 09-04-2013 at 12:16 PM..
Look, I don't hold big real estate developers up as any paragons of virtue. They can be some of sleaziest businesses around, bar none. I do know several people in the news business, some of whom are friends, and they and 99.9% of their collegaues do not lie and steal, that's just ridiculous. I don't claim to know everything about NYC. One reason I like coming to C-D is to find out stuff I don't know.
In that case, keep coming to C-D to raise your consciousness. I question everything & don't trust reporters.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
