Thank you for this article. The Times Real Estate coverage is ridiculous, and has been for a long, long time. It constantly overhypes the high end of the market and completely ignores the rest of the city's housing. Journalists really need to stop pandering to the rich.
I trust nothing I read in the Sunday real estate section of the Times. It's all hype to boost rental prices. For that matter, I don't trust anything I read in the Times. They have managed to gut what was once a quality newspaper. It is now a thicker edition of Metro and AM, and worth the same price.
This is nothing new. The newspapers will always hawk the city's real estate.
There is a luxury boom of sorts, but it depends on location (as always) and price range. And honestly, what defines "luxury" is very subjective. All landlords & developers stick the "luxury" label on any property to attract customers.
While I'd have to agree that landlords' improving their apartments is hardly a sign of a landlord's market, the NYT article doesn't really present it as such.
That is, the NYT article says rents have mostly been rising in the "luxury" rental market, and while they assume that will soon spread to the non-luxury market this has not yet happened.
In context, what the NYT is saying is that some landlords are upgrading their apartments in the hope that this will upgrade them from non-luxury to luxury status.
In any case, there is no discussion at all of the interdependence between sales and rentals. That is, if many are choosing not to buy due to uncertainty in real estate prices then one would expect more demand for rentals.
Unless those waiting are living in a parental residence, or on someone's couch or a park bench, of course.
Nothing new about real estate hype. All newspapers do it. This is not the first article the NYTimes had on rental price explosions, and I always suspected they were well planted articles by the Realtors who are desparate keep the real estate cash cow flowing.
Remember all bubbles will eventaully burst
What do you expect from the NY Times? they want to create the illusion of economic activity to help out the President. More economic activity means better economy means better chance of Obama being elected.
Remember how papers like the Times got behind Kerry's allegation that the booming 2003 - 2004 economy was in terrible shape?
When it comes to helping Democrats - especially in Presidential elections, media like the Times, the Washington Post, the major traditional networks - especially NBC, now that General Electric has decided to back the Democratic party uber alles, PBS, NPR - and other will do whatever is necessary to elect Democrats. That includes: twisting or even altering fact,s inserting opinions in so called factual articles, and basically doing 'whatever is necessary' to elect Democrats and especially Obama.
My own view is that the less said about it the better - in fact, better to completely avoid Democratic media poison. After all, you don't hear the Times complaining about what mark Levin is saying.
Better to ignore them, and maybe they will simply go away. After all, the NY Times lost $40 million last year, and is expected to bleed money indefinitely. After all, papers such as the Times and the Washington Post are all on borrowed time - don't tell them but the days of the print newspaper are over.
The irony is that these media entities could possibly have survived a bit longer if they had not turned off a substantial part of their readers - those that are older, generally more conservative, and more prone by life long to read old media like newspapers.
But, for the editors at the NY Times, Washington Post and others, as well as networks like NBC, ABC and CBS, money isn't as important as ideology. Someone should remind the people who run the very public companies that what they should be doing is increasing shareholder value, not imposing the ideology of those who run the company at the expense of those many shareholders who own the company. As for GE, it will likely be facing a far less friendly governmental climate when Republicans take the Presidency.
One thing is certain: Jeff Immelt's craven patronizing of Obama won't be remembered too fondly by Republican legislators with long memories, or so I understand.
Excellent analysis, we need the same in the political arena.
Perhaps Ms. Toy should venture to the top of the Times' Tower and look North, I am sure she could see the 8-10 tower cranes between 42nd & 57th (Broadway to 10th) that are building all those non-existent new luxury apartments.
Kudos for such a well argumented debunk of the Times article. When I read it on Sunday I did so with a grain of salt.
The rental market didn't have anything like the usual seasonal drop this winter. But no ceiling in sight? Hardly.
Well, of course their job is to sell real-estate advertising! The New York Times is, after all, a corporation which was intended to make money, even if The Times seems to being an execrable job of it.