And that appears to be what’s happening. Commercial landlords apparently are still waiting, hence the empty storefronts, but it seems the residential landlords have finally realized the market needs to correct.
It needs a long correction.
High vacancy symptoms can be caused by suppliers seeking higher surplus than the market will offer, it can also be caused by artificial price floors caused by free-market perversions. E.g. factor in all state-mandated costs contributing to a price floor: no one is going to rent a property for less than its property taxes etc.
If you own it already, not renting it doesn't save you from paying property taxes and renting it even at a lower rate reduced your losses from ownership. The only reason you shouldn't want to do it, then, is that you think that the low rental price will depress future rental prices or create friction that will make you miss an opportunity for a higher-paying tenant, and that expected costs outweighs the present rent—but that's just as possible with rent above the property taxes; the property taxes aren't a special cutoff.
Your 2-N homes are also investments, just riskier ones than they were thought to be previously. Whether people know this or are just blindly parroting outdated advice remains to be seen.
It is possible to use your primary residence as an investment, but everyone still needs a place to live, so it is also a form of consumption.
If you want to consider it an investment by definition, then you should actually explain how it is an investment.
Speculation is allocation of capital to an entity because you believe you or someone else will need it in the future. e.g. A banker buying a baker's oven.
A primary residence is at best an investment (you need to live somewhere to earn an income), a second residence is purely speculation.
The housing market is highly highly leverage with the median ratio ~= 14:1 [1]. Since small changes to the amount of money inflated by commercial banks and the Federal Reserve can have extreme consequences on prices, it's highly inadvisable to speculate in highly leverage markets.
[1] 7% median down payment, 1/.07~=14 https://www.attomdata.com/news/mortgage-and-finance/q3-2017-...
The average American loses money on real estate once you factor in inflation, property taxes, interest, and maintenance. Yes, we hear all sorts of stories about houses appreciating six figures per year in the Bay Area but that is very, very far from the typical American experience.
They dont make new land anymore while population growth continues and more and more money is printed. The changing climate [real as well as political] also makes many places less livable than before. That all makes for strong appreciation at good places.
Land and real estate are very legitimate investment vehicles. That fact is not diminished just because they can lose value. All investments can lose value.
Your home shouldn't be an investment. It's actually good if home prices go down because that makes housing more affordable. Housing can be either affordable or an investment, but not both. There's plenty of other investments you can park your money into so it's better that housing be affordable.
I'm used to seeing HN comments where people who don't live here say all sorts of obviously untrue things about NYC (like how a lot of it is vacant) -- but you've lived here for ten years.
In what way exactly do you think Manhattan is declining? (Except subway service, that's well known.) Why is it a problem if people are not buying second or third houses?! Is this a 1%er problem?
https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/New-York-s-infrastru...
Largely this is because in LA most companies/residents strongly prefer buildings with occupied ground-level, to the point where otherwise identical buildings with differences in ground-level occupancy can see double digit differences in above-ground occupancy rates! (This played out earlier this year and last year in the Little Tokyo and South Park neighborhoods.) Due to the sprawl of LA, ground-level commercial spaces don't command a significant enough premium over the above-ground offices/apartments rental prices to let the ground level remain empty.
In contrast, in NY, land, office space, and residential space is at such a premium that tenants don't really have much of a choice, so landlords can afford to wait out poor leasing conditions for their ground-level units since an empty storefront doesn't impact the rent they can charge for their above-ground units.
friends who have bought homes are experiencing
a depreciation in their investments
Wait...So lack of affordable housing is a bad thing, and housing becoming more affordable is also a bad thing?Yes. They just are bad for different sets of people.
Large parts of Tribeca right now are empty and boarded up. You'd think it was London during The Blitz and everyone was just hiding or something.
For all that people complain about SF, it's pretty amazing that you can go there after not having visited for ten years and not a single thing has changed. All the houses are the same color, all the same little shops and restaurants are still in business, etc. Whereas you walk down St. Marks or Carmine St. and the majority of businesses are less than a year old.
As for there being many businesses starting all the time, that's a good thing. It means the city's economy is vibrant, and less profitable businesses are turning over to make room for ones that can be more profitable. Neighborhoods that only have the same businesses that have been there forever generally aren't doing very well economically-speaking, as they haven't been able to attract investment or growth.
Manhattan has the wealth and technology to build infrastructure to mitigate against changes in weather and environment. What is lacks is competent administration and the political will to tax the rich to build any of it.
Queens and parts of Brooklyn are likely out of luck, but Manhattan will be protected.
Hmm, which part of manhattan are you talking about? Living in the upper east side I don’t notice any change at all
Here's a walk down the memory lane:
* In 1997 my girlfriend at the time bought a two floor condo in Park Slope (2,400 sq feet) for $220,000. Her friends told her that she overpaid.
* In 1999 a friend of mine had her generation skipping trust buy two buildings in Soho next to each other for $1.27M. They had to modify trust documents because with that buy trust was over exposed to real estate.
* In 1999 apartments on Broome St in Soho were lofts with the kind of showers one would expect in the third world countries. 5-6 artists would live in one because they split 3000 sq foot one floor apartment 5 ways for a grand total of $1200/mo.
Residential leases are simply too short which is why we do not see the massive spikes in rents as the lease is being re-negotiated the way we see them in commercial real estate.
You may also find this more noticeable if you are into food, great restaurants getting booted out of their space, only to have that space sit there and remain vacant.