May 23, 2005
get this on your radar
after winding down its short-lived operation in 2003 due to a poor ad market, i'm excited to say that radar magazine rolled its first "v2" issue off the presses recently. for those who long for the untouchable pop-satire of spy magazine, you should at least give radar a shot. though i fear that the 2005 version, in an attempt to draw a wider audience, may get too mainstreamy--i'm still giving it a shot.
Posted by brianf at 05:16 PM | Comments (0)
May 17, 2005
real estate and human nature
meghan and i are starting to think about buying a home here in new york. of course, the mind immediately starts racing about how to maximize your investment - how to find an area that still has some good growth in it, but in bad times, will be reliable. this article tries to explain the volatility of buying property around the ny metro area. as you think about it, it seems logical, but cool to kind of think how this breaks down:
seems as though blue chip will always be blue chip. these areas probably started as simply convenient, and probably had some nice qualities - trees, a park, etc. so builders built there. because of the history and mistique that has taken root over the years, the dollars have followed in - over many years. essentially, that equates to building reliable infrastructure and the perception of quality. examples in new york are the goald coast, upper west side. beacon hill in boston. pacific heights in san francisco.
some of the more speculative, newly-gentrified areas, though a bit more vulnerable, can still be good bets during a downturn--if they have simple, universally good qualities (trees, nice looking buildings, low crime) and reliable infrastructure (eg. parking, subway). examples are brownstone brooklyn, soho in nyc. i think of the south end in boston, or cole valley in san francisco.
seems as though the key is to avoid the trendy, completely speculative stuff that does not have inherently good infrastructure. sounds simple, but there can be a tendency to gravitate toward this type of property. when times are good, these areas have the greatest upside, so folks get wrapped up in squeezing short term return. the "pros" can spot these areas a mile away (i saw a guy in a beret with thick rimmed glasses and paint on his shoes drinking coffee there!), and also have visibility into how long the waves will last. so, you get developers buying up properties in harlem, red hook, and bed stuy. they collaborate with real estate agents to "create" a story around how these areas will be the burdgeoning community, as soon as the sunday ny times real estate section covers it (i'd love to be selling ads for that page, must be like collecting tickets at the carnival), it is go time. they restore the properties, flip them in 12-18 months, and get out before the bottom drops. those who are either thinking only about the short term gain, or who actually believe that the good times will last forever, also buy in. some get lucky and make out well, others get caught on the tail end, or are locked into holding onto their property for the long term. of course, this seems to be what you need to avoid as a buyer. examples seem to be chelsea, soma in san francisco, east boston.
in short, buying patterns seem to be totally predicatable, and really just a reflection of human nature - in bad times, peeps want liquidity, cash, and fall back on the age old notion of only needing "the basics" - good transportation, safety and a old tree.
Posted by brianf at 12:22 PM | Comments (0)