Comments on: Dumbo Rezoning Passed City Council Vote

By: Dumbo NYC, Brooklyn » Archive » Toll Brothers to Build Condos at 205 Water St (DumboNYC.com)

Wed, 06 Apr 2011 15:52:36 +0000

[...] by LPC and the Community Board 2 before anything is built there. The lot is also part of the rezoning that was passed in July [...]

By: dumbostreets

dumbostreets — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 01:36:05 +0000

I vote for the simple supply and demand argument. The key variable is whether the volume of new apartments will offset demand. Yes, if enough apartments were built in the West Village prices would indeed drop… but you would need to build a lot of them. This is basic economics and, bubbles aside, there is data going back 500 years demonstrating this principle. The long term demand for Dumbo is still uncharted, but I don’t anticipate a crash. It is possible new units may hold prices down, but given the current economic state I’d say no one *really* knows.

During the dot com boom there was all sorts of data suggesting a “long” boom to last 40 years. And, in defense of this data, more people use the web now than in the 90s… and the biggest IPO in history actually happened after the dot com crash: Google. So, I guess I am saying either scenario is viable in terms of supply and demand.

By: loose stool

loose stool — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 00:52:09 +0000

You know what VH. I have said that more apartments will “possibly keeps rents, if not down, at least on a slower rise”. And I have also said “more apartments for rent the cheaper the rent”. For some bizarre reason you interpret this as “lower rent” for said apartments. For all your patronizing and “you don’t know who your talking to” attitude, Youze don’t cum off 2 smartz! I suspect your “work experience” (that you imply is in the RE business) is more on side of the Janitorial.

By: rawr

rawr — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 15:45:28 +0000

Burn! Loose Stool = Diarrhea of the Mouth Syndrome.

By: VH

VH — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 15:10:23 +0000

Hey LS, give me a time you want to meet and we can have a four plus hour sit down to review past and current real-estate data regarding the NYC market. We can look at all of the power-point data, which is difficult to do on this site, and then come to a decision.
Based upon my work experience; I do dispute the ‘general rule’ that having more vacant apts available will always lead to lower rents. And, please take notice that I use the word ‘always’.
I love how you go right for the insult. Esp. when you have no idea to whom you are even speaking to. But that’s the fun of posting.
Oh and L.S., the correct word you should have used in your post is: ‘cite’, not ‘site’.

By: loose stool

loose stool — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 04:55:46 +0000

VH you site exceptions (and only 2)to the rule to try to disprove a rather simple supply and demand theory. Of course there are many factors at play but as a general rule the more apartments for rent the cheaper the rent. Do you actually disagree with that?
I don’t think calling you intellectually lazy or lumping you with “Grassy Knoll” paranoids is tying you to some “far-out state of mind”. To the contrary it is predictable and de rigueur for people who have little understanding of human nature and how things get done.

By: VH

VH — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 20:18:05 +0000

Take a close look at the zoning map and you can see which property owners it helps.
Your theory about greater inventory always driving down rents, or holding them to a slower increase, is not correct because there are more factors at play. If a location is in demand then greater inventory will satisfy some of the demand, but will not always lead to a reduction in rents and/or prices. The West-Village is a perfect example of this, and so is Central Park West.
I enjoy your thinking. You generalize and then you accuse me of: “to continually see subversion..” Yet this is the only topic for which I have been commenting on. I notice that each comment you make tends to go far off topic and/or tries to tie me to some far-out state of mind.
L.S., you have to try stay on point with this or we will get nowhere.

As for the J-condo, the design is what the design is. But, the quality of its construction is far better then what tends to be built as of late in Brooklyn.

By: loose stool

loose stool — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 21:45:35 +0000

Then I would ask VH, How does the zoning change only help “a few landowners”. It seems to me any change to a residential zoning takes the pressure off existing housing and possibly keeps rents, if not down, at least on a slower rise. This benefits everyone in NYC in some way. To continually see subversion and plots is not a healthy questioning of authority, it is intellectual laziness and a need to identify with the “Grassy Knoll” crowd.
Judging architecture as to it’s look is purely subjective. I would dismiss the J Condo for the reason you define it (the upper east side), but that’s only my opinion.

By: VH

VH — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 15:52:21 +0000

Its not naive, its a fact. There have been plenty of zoning changes made throughout the city that benefit just a few, or benefit many. Some get lucky because they buy in the downtimes, and have great future opportunity to develop in the good times.
Not sure where your class comment about people digging holes along water Street comes from considering that I never mentioned that.
I don’t think the J-condo is so bad. Its like what you see on the upper-east side, its a bore. The unfinished Bridge & Water Street project, now that’s a shithole.

By: has a life

has a life — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 17:11:33 +0000

loose drool, pants around his ankles, one hand on the keyboard, strikes again. and again. and again. And again and again and faster…done. Submit comment.

By: loose stool

loose stool — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 00:32:36 +0000

You’re probably right about Con Ed however. The next shoe to drop might be the Zebras’ empty block. They may be crazy but not stupid, They will sell that block at some point. Me and my sister wives will be the first to move in. Backyard with a pool. Holy Yahweh!

By: loose stool

loose stool — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 00:27:31 +0000

I think you’re being a bit naive VH. How else should housing be created in NYC. By default there will always be a only a “few key landowners” who have the Cojones to develop in NYC. The pressure will be on in Dumbo to build once the recession levels out, might be sooner than you think. What would you have the City do, give shovels to the poor people in Farragut and tell them to start digging foundations along Water Street?
The only thing that will guarantee top notch architecture is competition. If someone wants to build a shithole like J Condo (sorry, I can’t resist) then he does so at his own peril.

By: VH

VH — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 23:25:36 +0000

It was a nice hand-out by the City to a few key landowners. Very sweet deal. And I am not opposed to the re-zoning. But what also bother’s me is that one particular owner will just build more of the same crap with the help of his flunky architect.

Con-ed will be around for a while to come. They make money from that plant not running because they get to sell the emission rights to other power plants.

By: rawr

rawr — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 22:34:40 +0000

No one cares what loose shithead has to say or what the DNA does. DNA who?

By: Truman

Truman — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 21:55:03 +0000

Same Old Song and Dance.
DNA loses again.
What an f’n joke they are, and always have been.
They are a rag-tag group of impotent, unimaginative clowns.
“Representatives from Dumbo Neighborhood Alliance were disappointed.” LOL
Check out their pathetic website. They’re still railing on about Dock Street. These people should get a clue. They have no power, no influence, no voice, no reason for being. In my ten years of living here they have not one accomplishment. Not one! These people must walk around in life with a vat of KY at the ready. Hey, DNA, what’s that queasy feeling you have? It’s David Walentas’s boot imbedded in your anal cavity.