April 28, 2005
Upper East Side more expensive than Little Rock!
How the mighty are fallen! After referencing this
list in this comment,
I saw the correction appended at the bottom:
Editor's note: Owing to an error in the data, a previous
version stated that 72201, in Little Rock, Ark., ranked 148 in the 150 Most
Expensive ZIP Codes. A correction has been made. The new 148 is 10128 in Manhattan.
As if coming coming 135 places below Tribeca wasn't galling enough, 10128's
Upper East Siders now have to deal with the fact that they're competing with
Little Rock, Arkansas for their place at the bottom of the list! After
the jump, all the NYC zips on the list, in order. See City Hall and Hell's Kitchen
beat out anywhere on the UES!
||Trump condos, Upper West Side
||Upper East Side
||Upper East Side
||Upper West Side
at 03:44 PM GMT
You left out #130 - 11201, Brooklyn Heights, $826,790.
Posted by: Jesse on April 29, 2005 02:34 AM
So I did! My bad. I thought that a Brooklyn zip code should be on the list somewhere, since there are so few apartments in Brownstone Brooklyn: anything which is sold is usually a whole building, often for three or four families. The fact that so many people buy a brownstone and rent out one or two apartments makes the prices a bit skewed, since the property comes with a pretty hefty income.
Posted by: Felix on April 29, 2005 04:26 AM
Im glad that Little Rock has been bumped from the list, as I was in mental agony trying to understand how it made it in the first place. I can now at least imagine it was a huge data error bumping it down to at least 400. But, still, I partially fear that it was just bumped 4 spots down to 152. What are your thoughts, big data error, or small? And why are they so wealthy, just from Walmart?
Posted by: question on April 29, 2005 03:40 PM
Walmart's based out of Bentonville, not Little Rock.
I was surprised to find that only two ZIPs in Florida make the list: one in Miami (obviously), and the other in Panama City, capital of the Redneck Riviera. Awesome.
Posted by: mike on April 29, 2005 03:53 PM
Because co-op sales are technically private stock transactions, I suspect they weren't included when compiling this list. If they were, more NYC area codes would be in here.
Posted by: Fran on April 29, 2005 06:43 PM
Au contraire, Fran, if co-ops were excluded (which I doubt), that would only serve to raise the median apartment price, since condos generally sell at a 20% premium to co-ops. The average condo, we can therefore assume, is more expensive than the average co-op. Especially since the majority of expensive new apartments are condos, while shabby old apartments are generally co-ops. I know from my period of apartment-hunting in New York that there's no such thing as a cheap condo; ever so occasionally, however, it is possible to find a (relatively) cheap co-op.
Posted by: Felix on April 29, 2005 10:37 PM
Is something wrong with the list?
How on earth is 10021 not included on this list, especially when all the cheaper Manhattan neighborhoods are?
Posted by: Mike on May 2, 2005 04:35 PM
Mike, I don't know how much time you've spent on 1st or 2nd Avenues in the 60s and 70s, but that is NOT high-end real estate, by any stretch of the imagination. 10021 is more than just 5th and Park: it includes quite a lot of relatively grotty bits as well. I can assure you that it's much easier finding an apartment under $1 million in the eastern reaches of 10021 than it is in Tribeca.
Posted by: Felix on May 2, 2005 05:59 PM
The math still wouldn't work. You're forgetting that that area is primarily rentals, and between all the blocks from third over to the park with a ton of sales inventory, and the limited east side inventory, they'd have to be almost negative amounts to bring the average down under $699 (necessary to make the list)...
Even Money magazine notes that the apartments average over $1 mil...
Posted by: Mike on May 9, 2005 02:20 PM
"Zip code 10021 on the Upper East Side of New York is a case in point. It possibly has more millionaires than anywhere else in the area, if not the country. It borders Central Park and includes stratospherically priced residential streets such as Fifth, Madison, and Park Avenues. The average apartment sells for more than $1 million."
The list isn't of mean prices, it's of median prices. Makes a huge difference. If it was mean prices, yes, you're right, 10021 would be higher up the list. Not that I trust Money magazine particularly.
Posted by: Felix on May 9, 2005 03:09 PM
From the language, its pretty clear Money is talking median as well...
And, as I said before, an area of primarily rentals won't have the volume to take down the west side of the east side.
Posted by: Mike on May 9, 2005 04:05 PM
Au contraire, from your language it's clear you're talking mean. "they'd have to be almost negative amounts to bring the average down under $699" you say -- but a $500k apartment has the same effect as a $10k apartment on the median price in 10021. It's only the mean where "almost negative amounts" would make a difference. What makes you think that Money is talking median?
Posted by: Felix on May 9, 2005 04:17 PM
Be careful with your reading comprehension. I noted that money was talking median, so your obnoxious retort is misguided (or wrong, if you had trouble with the last word).
> What makes you think that Money is talking
Its that reading comprehension thing again.
"The average apartment sells for more than $1 million."
Trusting that Money has a good set of editors, you can't say "the average apartment" if you are talking mean. That would simply be wrong.
You could says "apartments average $xxx" and be talking mean, but if you think Money is talking mean with what they said, then they made a mistake in language, or you did...
Posted by: Evil on May 12, 2005 02:15 AM
and here is another stat from the real estate board of new york:
"The East Side increased 15% in both average and median sales prices to $1,266,000 and $741,000 respectively."
They were talking 2004... and they were talking all areas of the East Side. meaning some area within is likely to be even higher... (and are we still betting on the 90's)
Posted by: evil on May 12, 2005 02:25 AM
Actually, Forbes tried explaining why some familiar ZIP codes appear unrepresented...
"And while more diverse than postal areas such as the Upper East Side of Manhattan or Lake Shore Drive in Chicago, have more than their fair share of high-priced properties, urban areas usually ended up lower on our list. That's because those ZIP codes are more diverse than those that encompass exclusive and relatively homogenous suburbs where home prices don't dip below $1 million.
"For example, a townhouse might easily sell for $15 million in Manhattan, a far higher price per square foot than a Montecito mansion, but a sliver of a studio on the next block may ring up at $300,000, bringing down the median home price. An exception is TriBeCa, a trendy neighborhood in downtown Manhattan, where commercial spaces have been turned into large, luxurious lofts for the hip and well-heeled. Here, in 10013, last year's median home price was more than $1.6 million."
That said, however, the reason you see so many Uptown areas so low (and 10021 not at all) really IS because of the the co-ops. Mike is right: Condos usually sell for more than co-ops. But that is not so true on the extreme upper end of the market--pricier blocks of Fifth or Park Avenues, for instance. How many condos are for sale on those avenues?
What did Rupert Murdoch just pay for the Laurence Rockefeller co-op? $40 million? You'd have to sell about 35 $300,000 studios to average that out to equal Tribeca"s $1.6 million. But if that $40 million is never reported, then the "average"--or median--sale is going to be way down.
The numbers and rankings reflect that there are few co-ops in Tribeca and few condos in 10021 (or elsewhere Uptown).
The rankings also reflect the relative few places sold in some areas. In Manhattan, the Uptown ZIP codes have a lot more properties to sell than the trendier parts of Downtown (or tonier California suburbs for that matter). Only about 5,000 places are sold in Manhattan each year, and these numbers reflect just a relatively small portion of those--condos and townhouses NOT co-ops.
So I wouldn't read a great deal into these sales figures or rankings.
Posted by: David Crook on May 12, 2005 08:37 PM
I am from Little Rock and currently live in the East Village. For all you ignorant/sectionalist people out there, Little Rock is a very wealthy and prominent city. Guess what: New York is not the only city in which people possess wealth. In every NYC neighborhood there are the have-nots. In Little Rock, the have-nots are sequestered away in Southwest Little Rock. 72201 is a section of the nouveau-riche West Little Rock that is, in fact, very wealthy. Incidentally, New York does not have the hottest summers and the coldest winters. The summers are INCREDIBLY mild and the winters are not bad at all. As someone who's lived through the summer heat and humidity of Little Rock as well as the bitter cold of New Hampshire in the winter, let me tell all you New Yorkers: GET OVER YOURSELVES.
Posted by: A. J. Collins on August 10, 2005 01:41 AM