« Green Power: Earth-Friendly Electric Bills Inside the Grand Avenue Haunted House »
February 27, 2007
Party Like It's 2005: Bidding Wars Galore
Remember the Times article last week about the reinvigorated real estate market in New York? Well, there may have been something to it. We've caught wind of a couple of bidding wars currently underway that certainly show that the demand side of the equation is strong. First up: A 1,350-square-foot, top-floor co-op at 235 Lincoln Place. The first showing on Sunday generated eight bids, six of them over the asking price of $795,000. (Of course, another conclusion could be simply that it was just priced too low.) Meanwhile, over at 218 Greene Avenue (which we discussed last week), the price was jacked almost 30 percent over the weekend. After it was listed at $650,000 on Wednesday, we hear that offers of up to $825,000 rolled in, prompting a swift price increase of the asking price to $850,000. How psyched is the owner. Guess the POS at 220 Greene was not much a deterrent after all.
235 Lincoln Place (#5761) [Warren Lewis] GMAP
218 Greene Avenue [Corcoran] GMAP
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/622
Comments
in the last 6 weeks I've been outbid on 3 apartments; all going above ask. There isn't much on the market so any place that doesn't have something majorly wrong with it is generating a ton of interest as far as I can tell.
Posted by: Ms. Brooklyn at February 27, 2007 9:55 AM
Maybe people are just finally learning to price better for this market.
Posted by: linusvanpelt at February 27, 2007 10:01 AM
Maybe all the doomsayers are full of it
Posted by: Anonymous at February 27, 2007 10:07 AM
what are we missing on the Greene ave lot? This is s 20x50 ft lot so 1000 sq/ft. With a FAR of 2.43 that allows a 2430 ft building for a price per buildable foot of $350.
There is a commercial overlay but I don't think this would change things much. Even with a community use bonus this still seems like a very high price to pay per buildable foot.
Anyone have any insight on this?
Posted by: Anonymous at February 27, 2007 10:12 AM
795k does seem low for a 3bed/2 ba even if it needs work and I'm sure it does. Maybe they are following Barbara Corcoran's advice to price 10% under market and get a bidding war. She said that's how you get top dollar but sellers are rarely brave enough to try it
Posted by: Anonymous at February 27, 2007 10:14 AM
This is all true i have seen 2 houses sell in a matter of days within arriving on the market . The frenzy is back and it has a leg to stand on . Like we heard already a thousand times Brooklyn s th new Manhattan.
Posted by: ronman at February 27, 2007 10:32 AM
wow. i'm stunned that a vacant lot is going for as much as 2 and 3 family homes were going for 2-3 years ago.
Posted by: benno at February 27, 2007 10:40 AM
I started coming to this website over a year ago and really enjoyed the informative conversations that took place. However, once the market started to decline, I found many people in this site to be rather bull-headed and close-minded to the thought that the market might go down. Once the market did proceed down, these individuals continued to state Brooklyn was unique, and would not be affected my the national market. Many arguments were clearly based on passion and not any historical data. Now, at the first sign of a potential increase in the market, these same people champion the amazing new york real estate market. While I concede that this might be the start of a new upward cycle, I have my doubts. First off, New York real estate prices are not supported by the average salary for a New York City resident. Yes, Wall Street bonuses bring in revenue to the City's real estate market, but 5-10% of the population (and that is being generous) can not maintain an entire market on its own. Next, the same economic factures that created the slowdown are still present (and are increasing), at the end of the year, many thought interest rates would be lowered by the Fed; however, inflation indicators have increased and it now looks like interest rates will be increased. the economy is slowing, and Greenspan even discussed the possibility of a recession. the only inidcator that was showing strength was the stock market; oh yeah, china's market feel almost 9% yesterday, and our market is down as a result. I hope that the market does increase, and I am not all gloom and doom as some have been (probably because they had an interest in a declining market); however, I refuse to jump on the strong market theory presented by so many on this web site without a strong rational argument to support it. And please don't respond with the ignorant and naive response that it is simple supply and demand, because that is like looking at a quadratic equation, which gives the result of four, and explaining the computation as 2 + 2= 4.
Posted by: disenchanted at February 27, 2007 10:40 AM
Good post 10:40. There are no equity investors or buyers in the residential real estate market. People buy houses based upon what they can afford on a monthly basis. Income demogrpahics are key to residential RE, as are mortgage interest rates.
As for the stock market, let's not forget there has NOT been a total recovery from the 2000/01 recession.
On an inflation adjusted basis, the major stock indexes are still down more than 10-15% from their 2000 highs.
Don't believe the banksters' inflation game.
Posted by: Eryximachus at February 27, 2007 10:49 AM
while i half agree with you 10:40, i would say that those people out there right now snapping up these places...especially those posted on this website are not being bought by wall street types. i think we are at an interesting point in time when there have been a lot of 20 somethings that are now moving into their early 30's and have lived in new york just long enough (5 -8 years) that they see new york as a really liveable place and one that they might like to call home for a longer period than they once may have thought (this, in and of itself may be in part due to all of the great things we hear sometimes about the nyc real estate market). i think in these past few years, new yorkers like to think of themselves as distancing more and more from the mainstream of american life, thus will do anything possible to settle here, if financially possible.
i think we are seeing (no, i am not a broker) a lot of the younger population looking for a place to buy here as they have not lived here long enough to remember what new york used to be like. i have been here 7 years and have no idea what the horrible days of new york used to be like...i remember 5th avenue in park slope being sketchy, but i'm sure that was nothing compared to the 80s and 90s.
this is a great time for new york and i'm not sure any of us know if it will go back to the way it was, but as long as people continue to believe in this city, i do think prices will be steady, if not continue to increase.
Posted by: anonymous at February 27, 2007 10:55 AM
Greenspan's talk of a possible recession coupled with the recent projections of the sub-prime market defaulting has caused a strong flow of funds into T-bills.
This is driving yields down which will result in mortgage rates for prime borrowers dropping as well.
The interest rate/economy relationship and it's effect on housing prices is tricky. If they economy sucks, rates go down making housing more affordable but since the economy sucks, wages/bonuses are lower and potentially less people will be working.
However, in the short term for those who have the cash to put a nice downpayment down, the lower interest rates will allow them to pay more for a property so we could see a nice uptick in prices.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 27, 2007 10:56 AM
New York City Unemployment rate = a little over 4% (that's about a 30 year low). You can still get a mortgage at around 6.5%. Those are pretty good fundamentals to support real estate values.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 27, 2007 10:59 AM
um, the chinese stock market just went down 9% -- and the american market just dropped about 130 points. let's revisit next week.
Posted by: naysayer at February 27, 2007 11:02 AM
NYC is simply not successful enough yet in solving quality-of-life issues. The schools suck (with a few exceptions in neighborhoods now too expensive for even middle and upper middle class people, to buy into); we're now officially considered the noisiest city in the whole world (we beat out Tokyo and Hong Kong); and the infrastructure is not sufficient to support the growing population. There was a recent news item about a conference on NYC and the growing population, and the experts did NOT have positive things to say about what it will be like to live in this city. In fact they said it would be miserable. Everyone needs to work on improving the city for everybody. No more "My neighborhood is fine, so I don't care what happens in the rest of the city."
Posted by: Anonymous at February 27, 2007 11:10 AM
Ummm....Greenspan is no longer in the picture. It is Ben Bernake.
Posted by: MBH at February 27, 2007 11:18 AM
"NYC is simply not successful enough yet in solving quality-of-life issues." Oh my god, you should have been here 25 years ago, this is paradise. Look, NYC is not Firefly, Utah. There is noise, litter, etc. but there are a lot of compensating factors that people find a worth while trade off.
Also, in terms of affordibility, don't discount people who can trade up because their coops or condos have appreciated and also parents who help their kids get their first condo with money they have because their wealth has increased.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 27, 2007 11:18 AM
i really think the doom and gloom people don't really and truly understand the fact that nyc IS a different beast. there is a reason why 8 million people want to live here with another million on the way. it's REAL. i personally have travelled all over the u.s. and don't want to live anywhere else and most people i know are at least somewhat on that same page. for these reason...and for all of the reasons you all choose to live in such a difficult place, things like the high cost of real estate come with the territory.
11:10. i wonder why people like you choose to live in new york. it makes no sense. those projections are for 10, 15, 20 years out. if you looked more closely you would see that there is time to change the problems before the influx is here. the issue was that it would be a problem if nothing were done.
i dare you to find a city of this size where people cared about it anymore.
just because you seem to be so pessimistic and hate the city doesn't mean everyone else does.
Posted by: anonymous at February 27, 2007 11:24 AM
I wasn't saying don't live here, 11:18. Inflation of prices in the Brooklyn real estate market is going well beyond the quality-of-life people get in return, in some places. I'm questioning if that will seem logical to buyers if, as this thread suggests, the prices are climbing again steadily. Because schools are not getting better anytime soon. A recent poll of New Yorkers said their #1 concern were the bad schools. More than terrorism, more than the economy. Everyone agrees it's a huge problem for NYC. And yes, everyone lives with a certain amount of noise in a large city. But for us to be the noisiest city in the entire world, noisier than cities in 3rd World countries? How do you justify keeping your standards so low?
Posted by: Anonymous at February 27, 2007 11:28 AM
"No more "My neighborhood is fine, so I don't care what happens in the rest of the city."
take a look at los angeles, chicago, san diego, phoenix, philadelphia...you think that the majority of people in those cities give two shits about what goes on in the city as a whole???
if you don't see how nyc is special in that way, you have really missed one of the greatest things about living here.
Posted by: anonymous at February 27, 2007 11:28 AM
people forget the stock market...bullmkt is in tact...the mkt is overdue for a correction...lets talk when S&P breaks 1320 below before we worry about bear mkt.
Posted by: Brownstone Dreamin at February 27, 2007 11:29 AM
Ummm...thanks 11:18. I guess once he left office he lost all ability to comment on the economy.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 27, 2007 11:30 AM
No, it's Ben Bernanke
Posted by: Anonymous at February 27, 2007 11:32 AM
Isn't this all part of the seasonal spring bounce. Despite the cold weather and snow on the ground, spring officially begins in 3 weeks.
This is expected. The real test sales volume, not sales price. If sales volumes don't show significant gains this spring, the fat lady will have sang.
The next 2 months in make or break for Brooklyn RE.
Posted by: ItsAWrap at February 27, 2007 11:42 AM
Just another anecdote - friend made an offer on a pricey NYC apt. 3 mos. ago. She lowballed, they told her to go spit. Just last week, they called her to accept her offer. So it's really dependent on more things that "the market is hot again." That's way too blanket a statement.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 27, 2007 11:51 AM
No, 11:28, I don't miss what's great about NYC. There's a lot that's great. It's just I do read this blog sometimes. And I've seen many many times how gleefully some will bash other neighborhoods for their bad schools and quality-of-life. But not in a way like they're dismayed over it, and want to help.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 27, 2007 12:03 PM
i beg to differ 12:03....the fact that a blog like this even exists where people get so excited, heated, adament, pissed off, judgemental, etc. is an example of just how passionate new yorkers are about their city.
Posted by: anonymous at February 27, 2007 12:06 PM
Anonymous 11:24.
I have one question for you, how long have you actually lived in New York City. Were you ever here, when things were bad?
New York City is by far the greatest city in the world, it has been for a long time. So many on this site state it as if this is a new thing. Just to fill you in, before you arrived here, Brooklyn was very diverse and had many nice neighborhoods and the commute to the City has always been the same. these are not new things, although many of you just started living here and might think they are new. Even in the 1970's, when many of you believed you would get shot if you lived in Brooklyn, it was a great place to live. So why now is it all of a sudden impervious to a real estate correction, when it wasn't in the past, merely because you haven't seen it happen before?
So far, everything on this website that I have heard is great about Brooklyn revloves around the trendy areas, Park Slope, Clinton Hill, South Slope, Red Hook, Prospect Heights, Fort Green, Prospect Lefferts Gardens, Crown Heights, Williamsburg. Does anyone talk about the areas that aren't trendy? If you want to believe that Brooklyn is bullet proof, tell me why those areas are good. Oh and to fill you in, when those areas go through hard times, unlike the rest of the United states apparently, they do effect the trendy areas of Brooklyn.
Posted by: Disenchanted at February 27, 2007 12:22 PM
Uh, that's more than one question. Just saying.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 27, 2007 12:25 PM
sorry....sometimes i forget about the anonymous thing. i have lived here for 7 years. i am also the poster at 10:55. i'm not claiming that new york being great is a "new thing," but i do know plenty of people who have lived here for 15, 20 years plus and not only do they describe a very different new york (upper west side, even) than you do, but they comment often about how different new york is in the last 10 years than the previous period.
i'm not sure what of my comment you are trying to argue exactly. did i say anything about the good neighborhoods of brooklyn? i love them all. i think brooklyn rocks.
what exactly of what i said made you feel the need to get all defensive?
the fact that i don't know what it was like when new york had 2500 murders a year compared to 500? no, i don't. and i probably wouldn't have moved to such a place, no matter how great a city it was, were i old enough to have lived through that period in history.
just because i'm young does not mean i'm a moron. i am 32, just bought my first place in park slope, don't really care if the price goes up or down at this point becuase i bought it because i love brooklyn and park slope and needed a home to live in. i'm sure prices will continue to go up and down, but i do believe that so much has been invested in this city that things are certainly in a pretty good position now. i don't necessarily think that saying because something was once this way, that it must go back to being like that again. it's a little thing called progress and evolution. i'm happy to be a part of it.
Posted by: anonymous at February 27, 2007 12:33 PM
and yes...i do believe "we" talk about areas that are not so trendy. i recall a conversation last week in fact about all of the gorgeous homes in bay ridge and people commented that they didn't know they existed. that's a great thing.
i actually have been talking to my other brooklyn-loving friends that we'd love to...when spring starts...form a sortof walking tour of different off-the-beaten-path brooklyn neighborhoods. i've explored many on my own, but can't get enough of all that this city has to offer...even after i guess in your mind a meesley 7 years.
Posted by: anonymous at February 27, 2007 12:37 PM
Woo-hoo! More paper money for my house! Which I will use to get out of jail.
People buy homes because they need shelter. 10:40 - the market went down (still loosing ground) in areas where supply outpaced demand. Not the case here - we live on an island, with too many restrictions to build more housing (Bruce Ratner excluded, of course).
San Francisco's market is an incredible example of ever-growing value - even during the dot.bomb era, the prices did not inch down.
Posted by: Bruce Ratner's alter ego at February 27, 2007 12:56 PM
Anonymous 12:37
You mistake my questions for an attack on your individual experience as an attack on the argument that New York is so great now that real estate will never be effected.
If that was unclear I apologize. I am glad that you enjoy Brooklyn and seek to explore its diversity and culture.
My point is merely that New York has always been great, and that real estate has never the less gone through ups and downs. My point has nothing to do with living in New York, or Brooklyn for that matter. This conversation is about the real estate market. I fail to see how evolution and progrees have any bearing on the real estate market. Unless of course, tomorrow, man learned how to fly, then maybe condos in a high rise would be worth more.
Posted by: Disenchanted at February 27, 2007 1:10 PM
The market system may be the most efficient system we know, but it's not the most fair system. In fact fairness has nothing to do with it.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 27, 2007 1:10 PM
Please, please don't act like the fact that we live "on an island" has anything to do with it at this point - it's a silly argument. That "island" hasn't prevented thousands of new condo buidings in the past few years, has it? no. It's a silly point to make.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 27, 2007 1:11 PM
i guess my point was that when you have a real estate market like new york's, i think that other facts must come into play. otherwise there is no explaining for the fact that things still seem to be rather heated here, while my sister in md couldn't pay people to come to an open house and dropped her price 3 times before making the sale last week.
of course this happens here as well, but i still would argue that new york is different in many ways than most of the rest of the country. and i think that a large majority of this is a recent change where more and more people feel comfortable enough to buy something and stay a while. that is significant in my mind.
Posted by: anonymous at February 27, 2007 1:17 PM
and i also must disclose that i'm more of a glass half full person by nature, so i suppose you have to take my comments with a grain of salt, if you must.
Posted by: anonymous at February 27, 2007 1:19 PM
The fact is that real estate values--even in New York--pretty much track inflation historically. Given that, how can anyone think that prices could continue to rise at this rate?
Posted by: Anonymous at February 27, 2007 1:45 PM
12:56: "San Francisco's market is an incredible example of ever-growing value - even during the dot.bomb era, the prices did not inch down."
San Francisco's market has decreased quite a bit in the last few months. Prices for the last quarter of '06 are lower than those for same quarter '05. If anything, it is an example of the fact that no market can keep going up forever.
I'd agree with the poster who said that this is an early spring bounce. according to Sunday's Times, the same thing is happening in Westchester.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 27, 2007 1:48 PM
10:55/12:33: I'm 41 and have lived here all my life. The "horrible days" you refer to were actually the "good old days" to some of us. The city was more diverse, unique and exciting. I don't speak for every native NYer, but I know I'm not the only one who feels this way. Just wanted to let you know.
Posted by: Yente at February 27, 2007 2:05 PM
i think that part of the reason the conversation heats up so much when talking about nyc real estate prices is that people (lots of bitter renters i'm guessing) like to throw out the word crash quite easily. while san franscisco's prices have fallen a bit here and there (and maybe nyc's will too at some point in the future) it's never going to be a situation where you can buy a brownstone again for under a million dollars in an ok neighborhood.
this is why people get defensive. those circumstances that provided for classic 6 apts on the upper west side for 100K don't exist anymore. there will be no crash. nyc will not BECOME affordable again barring multiple horrific and significant life altering events.
prices will go up and down, yes. but nothing of significance on the downside, i don't believe to make a crash impending. if you haven't bought yet and want to, i suggest you save your pennies and borrow from family or whatever it takes because i just don't see that things will ever be truly affordable here again. nor will they in san francisco, london, sydney, paris or any other terrific big city in the world.
Posted by: anonymous at February 27, 2007 2:09 PM
yente...yes, i can totally see how that would be the case and part of the allure of brooklyn for many people, including myself are the stories and ideas of yesteryear. thing is...the good old days are over for now. in talking about real estate, things have changed siginificantly and while i long for the idea of mom and pop stores on every corner, kids playing in the street, all that good stuff, i think there may now be a period of blandness in nyc which hopefully sometime soon people will begin to rebel against and turn the tide once again. sadly though, every time you hear about somebody doing something new, interesting or edgy they are criticized for it these days, whereas at one point, it was embraced. all of these social things are in a way connected to real estate i suppose, but i'm in agreement with you in general.
i guess i had no point.
Posted by: anonymous at February 27, 2007 2:15 PM
Anyone who buys uinto this current realtor hype will deeply, deeply regret it.
On fundamentals, theer is absolutely no way to justify current prices. This has been one giant Ponzi scheme, and the blame falls 100% on the Bush administration and Alan Greenspan. Bernanke just gets to clean up the mess.
This story is about a credit bubble, which has blown out asset values. Watch what happens over the next four years.
I'm not going to argue with anyone. But mark my words: you were warned.
Posted by: Brooklynite at February 27, 2007 2:36 PM
I think in the next week we will really see how the marketis going to react. Now that the market is down 500 points today, will people still have the desire to pay the current costs?
I personally hope so, but as stated before I have my doubts.
Posted by: Disenchanted at February 27, 2007 3:14 PM
the market tanking makes RE an alternate investment.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 27, 2007 3:20 PM
Ugh. Must preview next time.
Posted by: Brooklynite at February 27, 2007 3:30 PM
Anonymous 3:20.
do you honestly believe that a crash in the stock market, makes real estate more valuable? I have no words to describe my utter amazement at your naive statement. Are you a realtor?
Posted by: What??? at February 27, 2007 4:01 PM
I'm not 3:20 but to answer 4:01, the uncertainty of the stock market after 9/11 contributed to greater confidence and interest in investing in real estate, yeah. Where were you when that happened?
Posted by: Anonymous at February 27, 2007 4:14 PM
Anonymous 4:14pm
Of course, 9/11 also helped the real estate market, how could I be so foolish.
Let's all hope global warming occurs and water levels rise and make Brooklyn beach front property?
It is completely upsurd to assume that real estate markets increased as a result of 9/11. Increases during that time were the result of numerous economic factors, which were strong of enough to withstand an event like 9/11.
Is anyone on this site not a realtor?
Posted by: Anonymous at February 27, 2007 4:35 PM
Will your property be under water after the flood? Check this out:
http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=43.3251,-101.6015&z=13&m=7
Posted by: Hal at February 27, 2007 5:17 PM
Yo! I love Brooklyn, yesteryear, this year, next year. I ain't never goin' no place else. Ever. I had two ex-patriate experiences - Japan and Kansas City and when I got back home, I clicked my heels and said, there's no place like.... No...New York rocks, Brooklyn rules. I am so happy thinking about this, I think I'll cakewalk down to the AY site down the street. Yes!
Posted by: donatella at February 27, 2007 5:19 PM
4:35, I'm not a realtor. And I'm not talking about what economists might point to as the reasons for the surge in the real estate market in recent years. I'm talking about what the average people say all over America when you ask them why they bought and sold real estate during that time. It was something that made them feel more confident than investing in stocks. I've heard my MIL in VA say it, I've heard people in the Midwest where my parents live say it.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 27, 2007 5:35 PM
I agree Donatella, I couldn't live outside NYC (or the immediate area) ever again. But I don't think that means we shouldn't critique the city, and try and make it better. Being in denial about what holds NYC back on quality of life factors, is not any kind of answer. We should be able to openly discuss these things without being told we're ridiculous. That's just a very weird response. Seems it's people worrying their property values will be affected by such a dialogue. Doesn't sound like that's love of a city, to me. Why should our city be louder than Paris or London? Why should our schools be worse than in Oslo?
Posted by: Anonymous at February 27, 2007 5:50 PM
"and the blame falls 100% on the Bush administration and Alan Greenspan."
I Blame the Pentavirate.(The Queen, The Vatican, The Gettys, The Rothschilds, *and* Colonel Sanders)
Posted by: Anonymous at February 27, 2007 7:55 PM
here is another data point:
A&H have a listing called "sexy in the city" which closed for bids today. Apparently there were almost 100 couples who saw it, and they got almost 10 bids most over ask and happily report to interested parties that they better bid 10% over ask to have a prayer. Now I know that A&H likes to do this, generate a buzz, but at 800k for a floor-thru co-op in 321, a top floor walk-up, 10% over ask and a bunch of people fighting to squeeze ahead of each other is an overheated market no matter which way you look at it.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 27, 2007 7:59 PM
Brownstone Dreaming writes:
"..the mkt is overdue for a correction..."
nice timing!
Posted by: OE at February 27, 2007 8:51 PM
I hear you Brooklynite at February 27, 2007 2:36 PM but no one else does.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 27, 2007 11:05 PM
3:20 & 4:14,
It was cheap, easy money. Unbrainwash yourself.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 27, 2007 11:12 PM
It's the school, 7:59 pm. There are too few good public schools in NYC. Buyers will overpay to be in a good school district. They'll pay more than what it would cost to send the kid to a private school for K-5. But about PS 321, it's possible the lines are going to move. Did anyone else notice for the big new condos on 4th Avenue, in their descriptions on the website the wording is something like, "located inside the current lines for PS 321 school district". That word "current" stood out. Why say it if the realty co didn't have some knowledge the lines would be moving. Also because of the current lawsuit in Manhattan over the broker who sold an apartment as being inside a certain school district when it wasn't - the realty companies have to be more wary about stating what school district something is in.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 28, 2007 11:10 AM
funny, no mention of the one bedroom at 235 lincoln that sat on the market for a solid 6 months before dropping its asking price 60K....
Posted by: anon at March 2, 2007 2:45 PM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.