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.
These areas have different job centers, aka JFK.
These areas can be lighter toned or catered to boaters.
Not everyone wants or needs to get into the city,you know.
None of that justifies the prices. I’m also familiar with this areas. The people who live in these communions work all over. The vast majority aren’t boaters who work at JFK lol.
I can understand this from a rent point of view but the people being pushed into these areas still couldn’t afford a home then anyway.
With these high prices I would expect these areas to be diverse by now but the demographics are literally the same and I don’t know much black or Hispanic folks paying these down payments unless they apply for FHA.
One of my professors actually told me FHA is a rip off deal.
You are making a lot of assumptions about areas that you don't know. Southeast Queens is known as being middle class black areas where people can afford to purchase a home. The North Bronx also has areas where there are middle class residents that can afford to purchase homes. These are usually two household incomes so it would make sense that they could.
That said, prices have gone up all over the City, so why would any other area be exempt from this? For places that are further out those that need to work in say Manhattan do so, and on weekends stay local or drive wherever they need to go, so it isn't a big deal.
You are making a lot of assumptions about areas that you don't know. Southeast Queens is known as being middle class black areas where people can afford to purchase a home. The North Bronx also has areas where there are middle class residents that can afford to purchase homes. These are usually two household incomes so it would make sense that they could.
That said, prices have gone up all over the City, so why would any other area be exempt from this? For places that are further out those that need to work in say Manhattan do so, and on weekends stay local or drive wherever they need to go, so it isn't a big deal.
Assumptions? I’m Haitian American. I have family who live in Queens Village, Cambria Heights, Rochdale Village, and Rosedale.
I’m very familiar with Southeast Queens, Canarsie, Mill Basin, Flatlands and Nassau County in general.
Most of the minorities I know who are looking to buy a home now if they can’t afford the downpayment often move throughout the metro area/out of NY to buy homes at a good price. Obviously the same people rushing to move to Downtown/North Brooklyn, North Queens and Manhattan have no interest in places like Southeast Queens/North Bronx.
At least with Bed Stuy/Harlem you know the brownstones have a large fan base of many different people which justify the prices.
I’m still confused as to why homes in South East Queens, North Bronx and parts of east Brooklyn are pricey.
None of these areas have high demands and are extremely far from Midtown/Lower Manhattan. Virtually all minorities can not afford a 20% downpayment on a home in these areas and neither do the homeowners in these areas make incomes that justify these housing prices.
A lot of bogus and racially motivated assumptions here. Virtually all or even most? Seriously?
If your stereotype of a minority... let's say they are a married couple who are both teachers who just started their careers ($60K). With two 60K incomes and a couple of years of saving and being extremely frugal, they can "easily" afford a downpayment on a $500K-$600K home without FHA.
If you let go of your "virtually all cannot afford" BS, and your minority is a Software Engineer, Dentist, Lawyer or Education Administrator (even a Mid Career Teacher or Social Worker), then these down payments aren't a big deal. A $500K home with 20% would be close to $120K at closing ($600K around $132K at closing). Even a single income can afford that with extreme discipline (good credit, etc).
You can't understand why South East Queens and the North Bronx are "pricey"? Plenty of people enjoy low NYC property taxes with a Suburban lifestyle. You still get MTA $2.75 buses with near 24/7 service, and if you want to get to the city faster, you have the LIRR and Metro North (you can get to the city FASTER from South East Queens by LIRR than you can from Subways from many parts of Queens). You don't "need" a car to survive in these areas.
You also do not need to go to Manhattan to do all of your shopping and business ya know! Those areas are also safer than Central and Western Queens due to less density and better incomes. I'd feel safer walking down a block in Queens Village or Rosedale at 3 AM, than I would Jackson Heights or Astoria at 8PM.
Some areas weren't years ago, but this is what happens when you have gentrification. It impacts other areas as well. As people are pushed further out, demand spikes and prices go up. Some areas of the Northeast Bronx like Williamsbridge... You couldn't pay me to live there, but the prices had to go up despite all of the quality of life issues.
I doubt that this is the case. A typical middle class citizen who can no longer afford his/her "good" area will move to a different city, not pay an inflated price to live in a rundown area of the same city - particularly now that NYC no longer has a unique cultural vibe to which a nostalgic NYorker used to hang for dear life in the past.
Ocassionally you have a huge stampede of higher-income people into some formerly depressed area that is suddenly "discovered" as being "very cool" for some (usually architectural) reason - but that happens only every 50 or 100 years, and only in an area of Manhattan or very close to Manhattan.
Manhattan south of 100th St, suburban areas in the boroughs, and depressed areas in the boroughs/north Manhattan are otherwise three totally separate housing markets that have no connection with each other. What sets the minimum price in Manhattan are architectural features and trendy "amenities". What sets the minimum price in middle class family areas are the usual market forces (safety, quality of schools, quality of public transportation, supermarkets/other household shopping). What sets the minimum price in depressed areas is the amount of Section 8 voucher.
"Gentrification" by three people of higher socioeconomic status, or of white race, in a low-income neighborhood is an urban myth, as far as I have been able to see. The chief problem is probably the fact that middle class is still (and likely always will be) the largest segment of every society, and NYC does not offer enough housing for its middle class - because it offers way too much to the poverty class (unlike any other city except those where the whole local economy has bankrupted, ilke Detroit). If projects were turned into a market-priced middle class housing stock (and people who do not work anyway were moved to some sparsely populated area Upstate), the problem of lack of affordable middle-class homes in NYC would be entirely solved.
All of the gentrification whores in here trying to pump up the prices... They done a great job...
early 2019 rents went down if I'm not mistaken. Iunno know or care, but I believe a "rent" control law was recently passed to curtail stupid 20-30-50-90% troll rent hikes landlords like to do.
only a matter of time before it applies to all rental units
I doubt that this is the case. A typical middle class citizen who can no longer afford his/her "good" area will move to a different city, not pay an inflated price to live in a rundown area of the same city - particularly now that NYC no longer has a unique cultural vibe to which a nostalgic NYorker used to hang for dear life in the past.
Ocassionally you have a huge stampede of higher-income people into some formerly depressed area that is suddenly "discovered" as being "very cool" for some (usually architectural) reason - but that happens only every 50 or 100 years, and only in an area of Manhattan or very close to Manhattan.
Manhattan south of 100th St, suburban areas in the boroughs, and depressed areas in the boroughs/north Manhattan are otherwise three totally separate housing markets that have no connection with each other. What sets the minimum price in Manhattan are architectural features and trendy "amenities". What sets the minimum price in middle class family areas are the usual market forces (safety, quality of schools, quality of public transportation, supermarkets/other household shopping). What sets the minimum price in depressed areas is the amount of Section 8 voucher.
"Gentrification" by three people of higher socioeconomic status, or of white race, in a low-income neighborhood is an urban myth, as far as I have been able to see. The chief problem is probably the fact that middle class is still (and likely always will be) the largest segment of every society, and NYC does not offer enough housing for its middle class - because it offers way too much to the poverty class (unlike any other city except those where the whole local economy has bankrupted, ilke Detroit). If projects were turned into a market-priced middle class housing stock (and people who do not work anyway were moved to some sparsely populated area Upstate), the problem of lack of affordable middle-class homes in NYC would be entirely solved.
Except true middle class professionals are not going to move into housing projects.
Except true middle class professionals are not going to move into housing projects.
Most junior (and some not so junior) healthcare professionals associated with NYU hospitals live in Peter Cooper/Stuy Town, which is the same type of construction as housing projects, and considered a highly desirable rental by middle class professionals. As I said a million times, housing projects are architecturally sound except that in some of them plumbing and electrical installations are past their life expectancy (which can be fixed). There is nothing wrong architecturally with buildings in the projects. These buildings were built with the expectation that people who would live there would be low-income, but otherwise (in terms of normality and civility) would be no different than higher income people. That expectation proved to be wrong. Projects are bad places to live only because of who lives there now, not because of how they are built. If housing projects should be sold at market rate to become regular co-ops, they would lose bad reputation and acquire a "trendy" one immediately. People live in former warehouses and factories, and consider that very cool - why not in former projects?
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.
