Price Hike At The 14 Townhouses

I think it's a price trick...they're probably willing to sell lower and want to make buyers (who aren't paying attention) think they're getting a deal.

Posted by: Anonymous at February 6, 2007 10:57 AM

Can't this be blamed on wall street bonuses?

Posted by: Anonymous at February 6, 2007 11:18 AM

This is an interesting strategy, that I can see working in a lower price range, but at this price range - no way.

Posted by: Anonymous at February 6, 2007 11:25 AM

That's ok west, you and many others know you weren't talking out of any orifice other than your mouth.

The agent got touchy because it's true - the final call is the sellers. But who are sellers listening to for advice and guidance? Sellers are generally normal folk - they don't know the ins and outs of pricing strategy. So where on earth could a seller come up with raising the price when something hasn't sold other than an agent, where a normal person's reaction might be "gee, not selling, no offers, maybe it's overpriced." (although we know that no seller ever thinks their home, no matter how crappy, is overpriced).

Posted by: Anonymous at February 6, 2007 11:31 AM

It's funny that brownstoner calls these two Corcoran agents seasoned pros while he indirectly insults the other Corcoran agent who has 351 Adelphi. What's up with that? All Corcoran agents are pretty much the same to the world at large I think.

Posted by: Anonymous at February 6, 2007 11:49 AM

I keep saying this about the bigger properties, it's so rare for developers to offer big family-sized condos or townhouses in new construction. I think the rare few who do offer them will sell them for a lot of money, even if they are overpriced purely on a per square foot consideration. Some people have neither the time nor inclination to do a reno for years on a 100 year old house (being in the midst of one myself I don't blame them at times that's for sure) and yet they want the space a house offers. More developers should get a clue and offer more 4BR, or 3BR plus office/den, sized condos. Brooklyn is a place for families. But you wouldn't know it by looking at all the new buildings filled with studio and 1 BR units. Developers are thinking they'll maximize their profit by offering a greater number of small units, but really, how many singles (or couples without children) are going to buy high-end luxury condos in Brooklyn and not Manhattan? Especially in Brooklyn nabes that aren't totally "there" yet. A family will buy in a borderline neighborhood in order to have a lot more space. But I have a hard time seeing some young wealthy professional single buying a 1 BR luxury condo in a borderline Brooklyn neighborhood. For them the nabe will have to be hot hot if it's in Brooklyn, or they'll stay in Manhattan.

Posted by: Anonymous at February 6, 2007 11:51 AM

west, usually i disagree with ya, but i must admit i kinda felt like you got wrongfully bitch-slapped by that agent yesterday too.

i think i agree with you that it's a marketing trick...

Posted by: Anonymous at February 6, 2007 12:46 PM

Although the houses themselves look very nice, the exposure in the back is a big negative. Typically, the only ones who can see inside your house are your neighbors behind you, but here, unless you have your shades totally closed, anyone on schermerhorn street can look into these houses. Plus, who wants gaze out your back window onto a parking lot. I think one could do much better for 3 million.

Posted by: Anonymous at February 6, 2007 2:23 PM

TO: Anonymous at 11:51 AM
Point well taken about the need for larger units. The problem is they cost so much and they are harder to unload (ie. 14 townhouses) It is much easier to sell smaller units even if they are not in what you call "hot" neighborhoods. The point is they are $200/sf less than Manhattan, that is one resaon you move to Brooklyn. It is very hard to find reasonable 3-bed apt. in brownstone brooklyn. You always get some messed up compromise. The other option is to buy a brownstone but the probelem there is the $2 million needed.
These units miss all of the marks. they may be nice to look at but they cost too much for a young family and they do not have elevators for retired downsizers.

Posted by: Anonymous at February 6, 2007 2:53 PM

I agree, you can do better for $3M. These have been on the market for over 18 months for a reason. I like what the developer tried to do, but they were not realistic about the pricing. (Could be because the developer is one of these rich families for whom money is an afterthought. But the target market looking to buy that kind of property in that neighborhood, usually has their money as a forethought.)

On the pricing issue. One theory is that because the market is softening up, buyers feel that there is more room to negotiate. There was a time, just a year ago, that if you tried to offer 10% less, the real estate agent would just laugh in you face (literally). Now, sellers and their agents will listen to lower offers. But, being used to exponentially increasing offers, sellers hesitate to pull the trigger on any bid lower than the asking. Therefore, one strategy is to increase the price, and let the buyers negotiate from there. Generally, the norm says that you can offer 10% less for a property priced by an agent, and up to 20% less for properties FSBO.

It's similar to the common strategy in a sellers market, to price a property slightly below market, in order to spur a bidding war.

The point is not to let the marketing ploy fool you. Do your research and find out what the property is actually worth, not only in the market, but to you.

Posted by: Anonymous at February 6, 2007 2:56 PM

Anon 2:56 - besides being bitter ("Could be because the developer is one of these rich families . . .") you are a little behind the curve.

http://www.curbed.com/archives/2007/01/25/three_cents_worth_discount_compression_obsession.php

Also, I think you have the Broker and FSBO negotiability strategy wrong. Brokers just want to move the product, time is money, and FSBO are typically very informed sellers who are not just looking to save on the broker fee.

And I hate to be the one to break the news to you but "finding out what the property is actually worth to you" isn't going to make you an owner.

Posted by: Anonymous at February 6, 2007 3:56 PM

West - I am not sure but I think the developer is driving the process here, not the brokers. Developers land costs were extremely low, carrying costs are probably below average which allows them to be less sensitive to pricing. Different price points have different marketing times. Being that this is new construction in a previously fringe residential zone I expect that they are prepared to wait it out. This is not a typical marketing situation. When someone uses words like "trick" I think that person is more than just paranoid, they are ignorant as well.

5:18 - You are definitely bitter. What successful real estate developer isn't wealthy? One of the reasons they are is that they are good at what they do. The business of real estate development is very competitive and risky. Disparaging someone for being good at what they do is one way to express bitterness.

3:26

Posted by: Anonymous at February 6, 2007 6:57 PM

the developer owns the entire block. what is going on will be tastefully done and will include high end retail. if you all don't know what you are talking about, why to you always comment?

it is not a skeevy area, rather there is a building boom that is and will continue to make it even more wonderful. brooklyn law school is there, now top ranked, david walentas is doing 110 livingston, old buildings are being turned into lofts, transportation is unparelled, there are police all over the area.

it's a fantastic location and no i am not the developer or friend of, just someone who passes by daily.

Posted by: Anonymous at February 6, 2007 9:50 PM

I love these, and to the person who said developer should have coughed up more money for cornices...puh-lease. That would have been ridiculous here. The truly simple modern facade is wonderful. Enough with pastiche!!!

Posted by: Anonymous at February 7, 2007 10:13 AM

There are really only three downsides to these houses:

1. The immature immediate surroundings: the trees in front are new plantings that are years from being substantial and the construction in the reaer will make living in one of these unpleasant (from 7 am to 5 pm) for the next 18-24 months.

2. The narrowness of the houses -- it's hard to imagine paying the highest prices in the nabe for skinny houses.

3. Limited appeal of the interior design. I found them to be personally appealing, but had difficulty imagining easily reconfiguring any of the floors. For example, the houses without stoops enter right into a very small and odd feeling foyer -- I'd want to do something with that, but don't have a clue as to what. And forget about trying to convert to a triplex or four story owners with a garden unit without gutting the whole thing.

Other people might be bummed to be living so close to the House of Detention and Criminal court, but I don't think that's a big deal except for the impact on on-street parking (also severely impacted by the Brooklyn Tabernacle being so close).

Posted by: Anonymous at February 7, 2007 12:07 PM

6:57 pm

Just expressing an opinion that a property is pricey is not being bitter. There was no disparaging comment made towards the developer or anyone else. I agree that real estate development is a risky proposition, but I also believe these properties were overpriced and was speculating as to the thinking of the developer and their sales strategy.

On the other hand, I do sense quite a bit of bitterness coming from you, as well as anger. It seems to be triggered by opinions other than your own. Typical signs of acute real estate neurosis. Can anyone here refer a good real estate therapist to our 6:57 anonymous blogger?

Dude, get over yourself!

Posted by: Anonymous at February 7, 2007 12:40 PM

I think it's pricey and crappy. 2 million for fedders v.2 I think not!

Maybe I missed the memo, can the developer or broker explain the diffrent color patterns? Come out come out where ever you are...I know you're in here. did they run out red bricks

Posted by: Anonymous at February 7, 2007 4:11 PM

I disagree. Without the different color patterns it would look institutional. Just a big blob of red bricks.

Posted by: Anonymous at February 7, 2007 11:19 PM

12:40 PM - Dude? That explains it, you must be a youngster that doesn't know the difference between confidence and arrogance when formulating an opinion. You my good friend posses the latter. To speculate that a developer views the economics of a project as an afterthought because they are "one of these rich families" is just plain idiocy. More than likely the developer herself has a small amount of equity in the project along with other equity participants and most likely a lender of debt, which will probably require the developer to payback interest and principal. In the future, why don't you try to be more responsible when sharing you thoughts with others. Pulling your head out of your ass would be a good start.

Posted by: Anonymous at February 8, 2007 8:52 AM

8:52 am

I think your words speak for themselves.

Your reaction is bitter, angry and infantile. Personally insulting others who disagree with you is a sure sign of immaturity and lack of sophistication. You really have no class. Also your argument is weak at best.

Like I said, get over yourself. Get some therapy.

Posted by: Anonymous at February 8, 2007 10:17 AM

The attitude of brokers on this blog justifies why real estate brokers are viewed as such losers by the public in general.

"A Harris poll conducted last year that ranked occupations in terms of prestige placed real estate brokers at the very bottom of a list of 23 professions."

See article in NYTs

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A07E5D6163FF93BA15752C0A9619C8B63&vendor=GABRIELS&partner=GABRIELS

Posted by: Anonymous at February 8, 2007 1:07 PM