NY Times - Last Stop on the L Train: Detroit

[Bham1982]

Meanwhile, since we're comparing Detroit to Brooklyn, here's a house for rent in Brooklyn: http://streeteasy.com/building/414-d...et-brooklyn/th. Sure Park Slope is a nice area, but this is on an unappealing block on its fringe, hemmed in by the noise and traffic of Flatbush Avenue on one side and more noise and traffic of 4th Avenue on the other. It's steps from the Barclay's Center and the often unruly crowds it attracts nightly. It reeks of grease from Shake Shack. Burger and pizza joints, like sports bars and bright signage, are emblems of the neighborhood's downward spiral since the arena opened. It costs $15,000 a month, owning nothing. For a year's rent there, what can you buy in Detroit? Is value out of whack?

Maybe most people just don't share your preferences, or biases. You could have just bought the entire Fisher Building for less than some homes in Park Slope.

I'm well acquainted with Park Slope, and not aware of any "unruly crowds", "bright signage" or "reeking of grease". And the neighborhood is one of the hottest urban neighborhoods on the planet, so definitely not on a "downward spiral". The most expensive real estate in the Midwest is dirt cheap compared to Park Slope.

This is the problem with DYes boosters. They're living in fantasyland. The idea that Park Slope, where a [[not particularly large) home that needs work sold for 13 million just this week, is a "grease pit" on a "downward spiral", while Detroit is some booming mecca of creatives, is so out of whack with reality that it's just absurd.

If Midtown Detroit had 5% of Park Slope's appeal people on DYes would be throwing a ticker tape parade. Someone who likes Park Slope isn't going to move to Detroit; they are about as similar as Park Slope and Montevideo.

[bust]

I'm well acquainted with Park Slope, and not aware of any "unruly crowds", "bright signage" or "reeking of grease". And the neighborhood is one of the hottest urban neighborhoods on the planet, so definitely not on a "downward spiral".

I live in Park Slope, you don't, and probably never have. I'll trust my decades of experience over whatever you think you know. Meanwhile, speaking of Montevideo, there's another place with great potential, like Detroit. Have you been there?

I don't mean to pick a fight with you but it pains me when people misinform about topics they clearly don't know. Like I said, I usually otherwise agree with you. Keep writing about your topics of expertise. I'm happy to learn when you know better, and I'll continue to disagree when you don't. I expect the same from you. And with no animosity whatsoever. Let's both learn.

[TTime]

I live in Park Slope, you don't, and probably never have. I'll trust my decades of experience over whatever you think you know. Meanwhile, speaking of Montevideo, there's another place with great potential, like Detroit. Have you been there? I don't mean to pick a fight with you but it pains me when people talk like they know about something they clearly don't. Like I said, I usually otherwise agree with you. Keep writing about what your topics of expertise. I'll do the same.

You should move to Detroit. I hear it's the next big spot for artists.

[bust]

You should move to Detroit. I hear it's the next big spot for artists.

Thinking about it, clearly. It's where I got my start. And where mom still lives. That's home.


Meanwhile I'm well aware of the problems. And now able to see them from outside, I suspect some of the problems I see exist are different from yours.

[Patrick]

Newark is 20 minutes by PATH subway to Manhattan, which is probably the cultural capital of the world. Bridgeport and Camden are short train rides to Manhattan.

What is so "culturally attractive" about Detroit? The DIA? Cleveland's art museum is better still, and the city is just as cheap/wrecked as Detroit, so is Cleveland going to be the next great art center?

I disagree with that. I wasn't overly impressed by the Cleveland Museum of Art. I mean, it was nice, but the DIA is just as impressive.

[TTime]

Thinking about it, clearly. It's where I got my start. And where mom still lives. That's home.


Meanwhile I'm well aware of the problems. And now able to see them from outside, I suspect some of the problems I see exist are different from yours.

Can't argue with home and being near family. You are probably correct when it comes to Detroit's problems and my problems. My problems are really not problems at all in the grand scheme. I just want a little culture and some nature and to be around friendly people and not get ripped off or sold any bullshit along the way.

[Hypestyles]

I want to move to NYC.. or the vicinity.. I've had enough of Detroit.

[Junjie]

What "cultural cache"? What does this even mean? Michigan in the national context, is cow country. How is Six Mile and Mound "inspirational" and the spectacular Hudson Valley not "inspirational"? Sounds absurd.

Admittedly, I spelled "cachet" incorrectly, so maybe that threw you... but I would think this would be pretty obvious.

Cultural cachet refers to a city's fame, reputation, and associations in the nation's culture. Milwaukee has very, very little cultural cachet. New York has a ton. Detroit has significantly more than Milwaukee and significantly less than New York.

You brought up Camden, Newark, etc. You also love to bring up Cleveland, Milwaukee, St. Louis etc. in comparison to Detroit. But none of those places have the cultural value that Detroit does. This should be obvious. There are articles in every paper in the country, every week, telling you what "Detroit" [[i.e. the auto industry) is doing. None of them tell you what "Cleveland," "Milwaukee," or "Camden" are doing, because those cities have no comparable national influence or fame in even one area the way that Detroit does. "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" was a presidential campaign issue that played on that precise fact, but somehow Cleveland and Camden were overlooked. None of those cities have universally known nicknames like "Motor City." None of them invented entire genres of popular music. None of them invented the assembly line, or were known by amazing epithets like "arsenal of democracy." Hell, none of them have even gone bankrupt. Even the magnitude of its decline is a sort of cultural asset, increasing its fame [[or infamy) and drawing attention that other cities don't get.

What's Cleveland known for? "Haha, the river caught on fire." Ok, and then what? "Idk..." How about Detroit? "Haha, it's a pit and went bankrupt." Ok, and then what? "Well, cars, and Motown, and..." Detroit is a famous, interesting place with a wealth of historical value that no comparably cheap city can match.

I have had conversations, in Chinese, in Beijing with average people about "Car City" [[qi che cheng / 汽车城), as they call Detroit. They had heard it had gone bankrupt and wanted to know how that was possible given how popular Buicks are in China. I am skeptical that they would have much to say about "ke li fu lan" [[Cleveland) or "niu wa ke" [[Newark). Even across the globe, speaking in Mandarin, Detroit gets a special nickname! Detroit is simply bigger on the cultural landscape than any of these other places you bring up. That's cultural cachet.

Now, none of that is relevant to most people when they choose where to live, except maybe to avoid a bankrupt city if they can. And rightly so. But young artists aren't most people. Some are assuredly inspired by natural beauty like the Hudson Valley. But others are inspired by the interesting, unique, and provocative. Detroit has those latter characteristics in spades.

[EL Jimbo]

SoHo is one of the most expensive places to buy real estate on the planet. I'm not sure what insight is gained by comparing real estate there to Detroit. Why not compare Beverly Hills to East St. Louis while we're at it? lol.

Yes, I know that. But it is also in the same relative geographic market as Brooklyn and contributes to the property values of Brooklyn because the people who have been priced out of Soho are going someplace else..like Brooklyn.

I'm sorry you were too busy focusing on snark to make the very simple connection to this conversation given the relationship between what happens in Soho and what happens in Brooklyn.

[TTime]

Admittedly, I spelled "cachet" incorrectly, so maybe that threw you... but I would think this would be pretty obvious.

Cultural cachet refers to a city's fame, reputation, and associations in the nation's culture. Milwaukee has very, very little cultural cachet. New York has a ton. Detroit has significantly more than Milwaukee and significantly less than New York.

You brought up Camden, Newark, etc. You also love to bring up Cleveland, Milwaukee, St. Louis etc. in comparison to Detroit. But none of those places have the cultural value that Detroit does. This should be obvious. There are articles in every paper in the country, every week, telling you what "Detroit" [[i.e. the auto industry) is doing. None of them tell you what "Cleveland," "Milwaukee," or "Camden" are doing, because those cities have no comparable national influence or fame in even one area the way that Detroit does. "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" was a presidential campaign issue that played on that precise fact, but somehow Cleveland and Camden were overlooked. None of those cities have universally known nicknames like "Motor City." None of them invented entire genres of popular music. None of them invented the assembly line, or were known by amazing epithets like "arsenal of democracy." Hell, none of them have even gone bankrupt. Even the magnitude of its decline is a sort of cultural asset, increasing its fame [[or infamy) and drawing attention that other cities don't get.

What's Cleveland known for? "Haha, the river caught on fire." Ok, and then what? "Idk..." How about Detroit? "Haha, it's a pit and went bankrupt." Ok, and then what? "Well, cars, and Motown, and..." Detroit is a famous, interesting place with a wealth of historical value that no comparably cheap city can match.

I have had conversations, in Chinese, in Beijing with average people about "Car City" [[qi che cheng / 汽车城), as they call Detroit. They had heard it had gone bankrupt and wanted to know how that was possible given how popular Buicks are in China. I am skeptical that they would have much to say about "ke li fu lan" [[Cleveland) or "niu wa ke" [[Newark). Even across the globe, speaking in Mandarin, Detroit gets a special nickname! Detroit is simply bigger on the cultural landscape than any of these other places you bring up. That's cultural cachet.

Now, none of that is relevant to most people when they choose where to live, except maybe to avoid a bankrupt city if they can. And rightly so. But young artists aren't most people. Some are assuredly inspired by natural beauty like the Hudson Valley. But others are inspired by the interesting, unique, and provocative. Detroit has those latter characteristics in spades.

It really isn't as obvious as you suggest. Milwaukee is the home of iconic Harley Davidson, PBR, Laverne & Shirley, Happy Days, Miller and St. Louis is home to Anheuser Busch and The world famous Arch and Cleveland has The Rock n Roll Hall of Fame and the world famous Cleveland Clinic and here's the kicker....all 3 of those places are arguably nicer cities with more to do than Detroit, it simply depends on who you ask. The homerism on Dyes is laughable sometimes. If you are going to look at the whole picture you must include the negatives. With that in mind, Detroit's rep clearly is not in a class above the towns mentioned so just enter reality and deal with it and be happy.

[Bham1982]

I live in Park Slope, you don't, and probably never have. I'll trust my decades of experience over whatever you think you know.

I don't think you've ever lived in Park Slope. You don't even seem to know where it's located, as Barclays Center isn't in Park Slope.

And nothing you wrote remotely resembles Park Slope. There are no areas of blaring signage [[the neighborhood is 80% landmarked, with tightly regulated signage), no "grease pit" restaurant zones [[there is one fast food restaurant in the whole neighborhood and almost no chain restaurants), and the neighborhood isn't remotely in decline [[has been ascendant since the 70's, at least, and is now more expensive than large swaths of prime Manhattan).

My best guess is you visited Brooklyn once and saw blaring signage and fast food in downtown Brooklyn [[which indeed does exist along Fulton St., and not far from Barclays Center, though much. much less so than 20 years ago), and got that confused with Park Slope.

And, yeah, I have lived there [[not that it matters).

[iheartthed]

Yes, I know that. But it is also in the same relative geographic market as Brooklyn and contributes to the property values of Brooklyn because the people who have been priced out of Soho are going someplace else..like Brooklyn.

I'm sorry you were too busy focusing on snark to make the very simple connection to this conversation given the relationship between what happens in Soho and what happens in Brooklyn.

I didn't mean for my comment to be snarky towards you. It's just that the premise of comparing SoHo to Detroit did not make sense. Even within the context of New York, nobody would write an article saying that SoHo is 20 times more expensive than East New York in Brooklyn. It would be a nonsensical thing to compare that offers no real insight.

[Dan_the_man]

No offense, and I have next to no experience with Brooklyn, but if you look up the house that he posted, it does fit into the boundaries of Park Slope that I found in a quick google search. The house is also very close to the Barclays Center [[about half a block) and even closer to the restaurant mentioned, a Shake Shack, which while fancier than other fast food, is still a burger place. I can't say how far the scents from the restaurant would travel, but I would imagine that there would be some spillover crowds from a large arena less than a block away.

Also, nowhere in his post does he use the word declining which you keep referencing as if he did, unless he edited his post to remove it.

[iheartthed]

It really isn't as obvious as you suggest. Milwaukee is the home of iconic Harley Davidson, PBR, Laverne & Shirley, Happy Days, Miller and St. Louis is home to Anheuser Busch and The world famous Arch and Cleveland has The Rock n Roll Hall of Fame and the world famous Cleveland Clinic and here's the kicker....all 3 of those places are arguably nicer cities with more to do than Detroit, it simply depends on who you ask. The homerism on Dyes is laughable sometimes. If you are going to look at the whole picture you must include the negatives. With that in mind, Detroit's rep clearly is not in a class above the towns mentioned so just enter reality and deal with it and be happy.

I haven't lived in Michigan for nearly 10 years and I can write for days about Detroit's problems. But I don't think anyone can seriously say that Detroit's not the far more well-known of those three cities.

[TTime]

I haven't lived in Michigan for nearly 10 years and I can write for days about Detroit's problems. But I don't think anyone can seriously say that Detroit's not the far more well-known of those three cities.

I had to look up the definition of cachet to make sure I wasn't losing my mind but it is a state of being respected or admired or a level of prestige. I'm going to stick with my original thought and I do believe Detroit does not have more cachet than any of those cities mentioned but I will agree that it is more well known. Now I'll have to go back though and see if we were arguing over cache or cachet....ha slightly different argument.

[iheartthed]

I had to look up the definition of cachet to make sure I wasn't losing my mind but it is a state of being respected or admired or a level of prestige. I'm going to stick with my original thought and I do believe Detroit does not have more cachet than any of those cities mentioned but I will agree that it is more well known. Now I'll have to go back though and see if we were arguing over cache or cachet....ha slightly different argument.

I think being "well known" is also a measure of cachet. But even that aside, I don't get the sense of St. Louis or Milwaukee being admired more or having a higher level of prestige than Detroit.

[bust]

I don't think you've ever lived in Park Slope. You don't even seem to know where it's located, as Barclays Center isn't in Park Slope.

And nothing you wrote remotely resembles Park Slope. There are no areas of blaring signage [[the neighborhood is 80% landmarked, with tightly regulated signage), no "grease pit" restaurant zones [[there is one fast food restaurant in the whole neighborhood and almost no chain restaurants), and the neighborhood isn't remotely in decline [[has been ascendant since the 70's, at least, and is now more expensive than large swaths of prime Manhattan).

My best guess is you visited Brooklyn once and saw blaring signage and fast food in downtown Brooklyn [[which indeed does exist along Fulton St., and not far from Barclays Center, though much. much less so than 20 years ago), and got that confused with Park Slope.

And, yeah, I have lived there [[not that it matters).

Park Slope has changed a lot since whenever you left. I've lived here since the 90's, and I write you from there now. No doubt it's one of the nicest neighborhoods in the city. And it is quickly getting wealthier.

But the specific part I referred to is that "fringe" corner of Park Slope where the $15,000 rental I linked to is located. It's half a block from the Barclay's center. And it's smack dab in the area where the burger and pizza joints, the vape and smoke shops, the sports and "Irish" bars, and yes many chain stores have been popping up like mushrooms to cater to the tens of thousands of patrons the Barclays Center attracts from outside the neighborhood almost every night. Even pre-existing bars and restaurants have installed tvs and bright signage to compete. Hooters tried to move into the triangular property at Dean and Flatbush -- literally at the end of the block where that $15k rental exists -- but community opposition prevented it. Hooters! Another bar was proposed a block down Flatbush suspected to be a front for a full-fledged strip club, and the community stopped that too. But for each of those, three or four other bars have opened that cater to the Barclays Center crowds. The arena is clearly the catalyst for these changes. And just like a critical mass of florists led to the creation the flower district, the momentum the Barclays Center started is accelerating here. It won't be long before this corner of Park Slope has more in common with the area around Penn Station / Madison Square Garden than the urban idyll you remember.

Overall, Park Slope is a wonderful neighborhood. But read more carefully: I'm talking about one specific part of it. The area around the Barclays Center is in a downward spiral. And by downward I mean in quality, not in price. Greedy commercial landlords jacking rents so high only chain stores and bars catering to Barclays Center crowds can afford them are a huge part of the problem. Local businesses are in a high rate of turnover. And many of the ones struggling to remain are changing in ways that would apparently surprise you. Greedy residential landlords catering to rich fools from out of town willing to pay $15,000 a month in rent are a huge part of the problem too. As are those rich fools moving in. They don't stay long, leave every weekend or for longer, and make no attempt to integrate into the otherwise still strong but recently quickly weakening community. More expensive doesn't necessarily equate to a better neighborhood. What's happening in Park Slope: case in point.

New York changes quickly. For better and for worse. If you lived here, you should know that. However your part of Park Slope was when you lived here, it is not like the part of Park Slope we are discussing today.

[iheartthed]

Greedy residential landlords catering to rich fools from out of town willing to pay $15,000 a month in rent are a huge part of the problem too. As are those rich fools moving in. They don't stay long, leave every weekend or for longer, and make no attempt to integrate into the otherwise still strong but recently quickly weakening community. More expensive doesn't necessarily equate to a better neighborhood. What's happening in Park Slope: case in point.

New York changes quickly. For better and for worse. If you lived here, you should know that. However your part of Park Slope was when you lived here, it is not like the part of Park Slope we are discussing today.

I live a stone's throw away from this area. I think the $15,000/month is actually the going rate for that much space in that part of Brooklyn. It probably has nothing to do with the stadium being there.

[bust]

I live a stone's throw away from this area. I think the $15,000/month is actually the going rate for that much space in that part of Brooklyn. It probably has nothing to do with the stadium being there.

Hey, neighbor! Funny meeting you here.

Yeah, my point was the rental is $15,000 despite the Barclays Center, not because of it. The stadium is not an appealing neighborhood amenity, nor are the changes it has brought. Although a fool from out of town would be the last to know.

I mentioned this to support my original point, which is it's easy to compare prices in Detroit and Brooklyn to see market value is out of whack. Today's ridiculously high prices in Brooklyn help explain why artists and other creatives from New York may find it attractive to move to Detroit.

And for those who wonder why Detroit, not Camden, Newark, Cleveland, Milwaukee, or St. Louis, I don't mean to disparage any of those places, and ultimately it's a matter of opinion and particular circumstances, but I agree with those who say Detroit is much more compelling -- especially among the creative and entrepreneurial populations we discuss. I hear those sorts of people mention Detroit as an attractive future destination for creatives a whole lot more than I do those other places. In fact, of all them, the only ones I've heard mentioned as such are Newark and Cleveland: Newark more specifically some neighboring suburbs, and rarely; Cleveland only once. Meanwhile Detroit is high on the short list of places I hear mentioned most often, and I'm sure not just because I'm originally from there.

[EL Jimbo]

I didn't mean for my comment to be snarky towards you. It's just that the premise of comparing SoHo to Detroit did not make sense. Even within the context of New York, nobody would write an article saying that SoHo is 20 times more expensive than East New York in Brooklyn. It would be a nonsensical thing to compare that offers no real insight.

The point of the original graphic was to point out just how absurdly expensive Soho is. It actually compared it to many cities throughout the country including Detroit, Cleveland, and Memphis.

And obviously, the direct comparison is silly. But it does provide some context as to how different the markets are in New York and Detroit. The overwhelming high price of Soho and other such Manhattan neighborhoods has a ripple effect throughout the entire New York Market.

The exclusivity of that price point forces many people who may have been interested in that location to look in neighborhoods nearby. That increases demand for those neighborhoods as well, increasing prices in those area. In turn, that prices out people from those neighborhoods and that effect cascades outward to other parts of Manhattan, the other boroughs of NYC, and out to the entire NYC Metropolitan real estate market.

The outlandish rates in Soho are an extreme example of the higher real estate costs throughout the entire NYC area. Thus, my original point is that even if someone "bought high" in Detroit and property values started falling, they would still be seeing significant rent/mortgage savings over living in Brooklyn or most any other part of NYC.

[Bham1982]

No offense, and I have next to no experience with Brooklyn, but if you look up the house that he posted, it does fit into the boundaries of Park Slope that I found in a quick google search.

He referenced Barclays Center as Park Slope, and then claimed to live in Park Slope. No one who knows NYC would claim that Barclays Center is in Park Slope. You could say Prospect Heights, or Fort Greene or downtown Brooklyn, but not Park Slope.

The house is also very close to the Barclays Center [[about half a block) and even closer to the restaurant mentioned, a Shake Shack, which while fancier than other fast food, is still a burger place. I can't say how far the scents from the restaurant would travel, but I would imagine that there would be some spillover crowds from a large arena less than a block away.

The poster claimed that Park Slope "reeks of grease". The evidence is that there's a Shake Shack. Putting aside the fact that there's no Shake Shack in Park Slope, the presence of a foodie burger restaurant does not make a neighborhood "reek of grease". If this were true then we could say that almost every decent urban neighborhood in the Western world "reeks of grease".

And if Detroit got a Shake Shack there would of course be a giant celebration and any concerns of $10 yuppie burgers and burger smells and the potential for burger smells to allegedly cause neighborhood decline would magically be forgotten.

Also, nowhere in his post does he use the word declining which you keep referencing as if he did, unless he edited his post to remove it.

No, he used the term "emblems of the neighborhood's downward spiral since the arena opened". The claim is absurd because 1. The arena isn't in Park Slope, 2. The area around the arena has absolutely boomed and 3. Park Slope has absolutely boomed.

Anyone who claims Park Slope is in decline, Barclays Center is in Park Slope, and Barclays Center caused decline [[or had any effect) in Park Slope knows nothing about this corner of Brooklyn. Park Slope has nothing to do with Barclays Center.

Park Slope is a twee brownstone neighborhood centered on Prospect Park and the relative merits of developments a few miles away are non-issues when it comes to potential home ownership.

[Bham1982]

Park Slope has changed a lot since whenever you left.

I'm in Park Slope a couple of times every year, and used to live there. It's quite obvious from your postings you can't even locate the neighborhood on a map.

And just like a critical mass of florists led to the creation the flower district, the momentum the Barclays Center started is accelerating here. It won't be long before this corner of Park Slope has more in common with the area around Penn Station / Madison Square Garden than the urban idyll you remember.

I doubt you've ever visited the area more than once or twice, because the area you're referring to [[Prospect Heights area) in no way resembles Penn Station or anywhere in Midtown, and will never resemble the area. For one, almost the entire neighborhood is landmarked. For another, there are strict height restrictions and retail use restrictions.

And there was never an "urban idyll" along Flatbush Ave., LOL. That area was always loud and chaotic, as it's the most trafficked street in Brooklyn, The area was semi-dumpy 15-20 years ago and now is quite nice. I doubt the arena made the area nice; it was just the general gentrification that basically yuppie-ized everything in North Brooklyn. Upscale restaurants like Frannys started opening long before the arena opened, and the upscaling has only increased in recent years.

Since Barclays Center opened, Flatbush Ave. has gotten much nicer and more upscale. The quality of retail is vastly better than before Barclays Center. What this has to do with Park Slope is beyond me, but, yeah...

[Bham1982]

The outlandish rates in Soho are an extreme example of the higher real estate costs throughout the entire NYC area. Thus, my original point is that even if someone "bought high" in Detroit and property values started falling, they would still be seeing significant rent/mortgage savings over living in Brooklyn or most any other part of NYC.

The reason this makes no sense is because people want a return on their investment rather than a cheap entry price.

Who has made more money- the person who bought in NYC 20 years ago, or the person who bought in Detroit? According to DYes Detroit is the better deal, because the entry price is so cheap. But it's so cheap specifically because there's no price appreciation. It's like buying a car. It isn't even an investment.

I never get why people say, for example, "CA is such a bad deal. Who would pay so much for real estate? The Midwest is such a good deal compared to LA." Well, yeah! You buy for 100k in Toledo or Lansing and it's worth 100k 10 years from now. You spend 400k in LA it's worth 800k 10 years from now. Unless there's some massive paradigm change, LA is the much smarter investment. It's "cheaper" in the long run because you earn massive equity. The guy who bought in LA has more money in his pocket at the end of the day, even if his mortgage was massively bigger.

[iheartthed]

The point of the original graphic was to point out just how absurdly expensive Soho is. It actually compared it to many cities throughout the country including Detroit, Cleveland, and Memphis.

And obviously, the direct comparison is silly. But it does provide some context as to how different the markets are in New York and Detroit. The overwhelming high price of Soho and other such Manhattan neighborhoods has a ripple effect throughout the entire New York Market.

The exclusivity of that price point forces many people who may have been interested in that location to look in neighborhoods nearby. That increases demand for those neighborhoods as well, increasing prices in those area. In turn, that prices out people from those neighborhoods and that effect cascades outward to other parts of Manhattan, the other boroughs of NYC, and out to the entire NYC Metropolitan real estate market.

The outlandish rates in Soho are an extreme example of the higher real estate costs throughout the entire NYC area. Thus, my original point is that even if someone "bought high" in Detroit and property values started falling, they would still be seeing significant rent/mortgage savings over living in Brooklyn or most any other part of NYC.

SoHo is expensive, and New York by extension, for reasons of supply and demand. When demand is greater than supply prices are higher. SoHo and Manhattan aren't driving the market for NYC or the NY Metro area. The entire market has higher demand relative to market supply.

[iheartthed]

He referenced Barclays Center as Park Slope, and then claimed to live in Park Slope. No one who knows NYC would claim that Barclays Center is in Park Slope. You could say Prospect Heights, or Fort Greene or downtown Brooklyn, but not Park Slope.

No, Barclays technically sits in Prospect Heights, but it literally sits on the border of Park Slope. Flatbush Avenue is the border between Prospect Heights and Park Slope. Downtown Brooklyn doesn't extend that far south and nobody has ever considered anything east of Flatbush as downtown Brooklyn.