« Yowza! The Lamm Institute's For Sale Monday On The Record »
March 12, 2007
House of the Day: 277 Prospect Place
Why do people continue to hire brokers who have zero presence on the Internet? It's absolutely crazy. Take the owners of this place on Prospect Place. Maybe a slight stretch at its asking price of $1.5 million ("negotiable," according to the broker) because of it narrowness, but they might as well be asking $3 million given how little exposure the place is getting. In addition to not even having a basic website, the broker has not, as far as we've noticed, put any ads on Craigslist or the NY Times online. When we asked whether there were any photos of the interior anywhere on the web, the broker responded, "Not at this time." What a joke. So for the six percent the $90,000 or so they will end up paying this woman and her firm, they are getting a $30 sign in their front yard. Sounds like quite a value! This broker doesn't deserve us even printing her number. Go knock on the owner's door and offer them $1.3 million directly instead. We bet they'll take it. GMAP P*Shark
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/697
Comments
This has been quietly on the market for a long time (since the summer). The 16 foot width makes it much narrower than other houses in the area and I have felt that it is over priced. 273 Prospect Place sat on the market for a long time and I would love to know what the final sale price was. Both of the houses back up on to a vacant lot on Saint Marks—I wonder if the sellers know something that we don’t know—are there plans for a development behind the house?
Posted by: Anonymous at March 12, 2007 11:36 AM
That broker is not the only one. Look at urbanlivinginternational . Worst search tool ever. Park Slope is in Queen and even Brooklyn is in Queens County.
Plus you have to give you e-mail address to search for a listing.
Posted by: akbunte at March 12, 2007 11:36 AM
I sincerely doubt this no-name broker is charging 6%. You get what you pay for, and people who try to save money on the broker's commission get reduced exposure, fewer clients, and a lower price.
Posted by: babs at March 12, 2007 11:37 AM
Why is web presence so important? I bought my brownstone 11 years ago. Back then, they didn't have real estate on the internets. People actually got off their lazy azzes and literally hit the sidewalks in search of property.
Posted by: Anonymous at March 12, 2007 12:08 PM
I doubt someone listed with this broker to save money. In my house search, I found that usually when someone was going through a no-name broker like this, it was because they were throwing business to a cousin or because they called up the only broker they remember from 30 years ago. Either way, it's a good way for a buyer to get a deal since the property is under exposed -- or at least it was, until now.
Posted by: linusvanpelt at March 12, 2007 12:14 PM
Even 20 years ago, when we bought our house in Flatbush, (and there was no Internet), I was stunned by what the agent made off with, and even more stunned that he had to share half his cut with some slob from the "co-broker" at another agency who had done, literally, nothing--we met him for the first time at closing (if at all). We saw an ad in the Times, called the agency, and some slob drove us out to the house in his jalopy and stood around smoking while we trudged from room to room. He did a few minutes' paperwork on the binder etc. And then he and co-broker guy showed up at closing and walked off with at least 5% of the selling price--easiest money I ever saw...
Posted by: Brenda from Flatbush at March 12, 2007 12:17 PM
"Why is web presence so important? I bought my brownstone 11 years ago. Back then, they didn't have real estate on the internets. People actually got off their lazy azzes and literally hit the sidewalks in search of property."
Because 11 years ago 80-85 percent of buyers didn't start their search on the "internets". Today they do. More folks start their search with the web than with the newspaper (even the Sunday NYTimes). There are many reasons, including that its free, but I think the main one is ease of search. If I have to jump through too many hoops to see properties on a RE broker's website, I'm gone to the next (better) one.
Posted by: William at March 12, 2007 12:19 PM
Brownstoner, rather than highlight this property as a potential bargain, you seem more intent on blasting this house simply because it's not listed with any of your fav brokerages. Does REBNY have you on retainer?
Your advice... offer $1.3. Just what the neighborhood needs, lower comps...
Posted by: Anonymous at March 12, 2007 12:38 PM
All that might have looked easy to you Brenda, but there may have been a lot of work behind that -- such as getting the house ready to be shown, putting (and paying for) that ad in the Times (and who knows how many ads were paid for) and working with the attorney and owner to make sure the closing went smoothly. And maybe in your case it was easy, but trust me, more often it's not.
Posted by: babs at March 12, 2007 12:48 PM
That is a disgrace and a disservice to those owners even if the broker is getting 1%. I would know. I am tempted to call the owners and tell them that they are getting ripped off but I'm sure they know by now. It goes to show that you get what you pay for.
Choose your Broker wisely it can be the deciding factor on a lot of unnecessary headaches. Asking for references is a great way to see just how competent your broker is. I always recommend my agents carry at least 2 or 3 references with them to new or perspective customers. Moving is hard enough for many reasons and there’s no excuse to hire people and have their laziness or carelessness making it harder on you.
There is no better feeling then making any move a stress-free and enjoyable experience for all the parties involved. Everyone deserves that.
Posted by: Manhattan Group at March 12, 2007 12:56 PM
This house has been on the market for almost a year. It's right across the street from me, and had a Century 21 sign out front for months. They were asking $1.7 million before, which apparently they didn't get much interest with.
Posted by: anonymous at March 12, 2007 1:37 PM
This house has been on the market for almost a year. It's right across the street from me, and had a Century 21 sign out front for months. They were asking $1.7 million before, which apparently they didn't get much interest with.
Posted by: Anonymous at March 12, 2007 1:39 PM
"Your advice... offer $1.3. Just what the neighborhood needs, lower comps..."
yeah, 1.3 million for an ok neighborhood. what a travesty.
in a more normal world, this house would be more like 800K.
Posted by: anonymous at March 12, 2007 1:40 PM
Um, what exactly is a "more normal world"? A cheaper world? That would be nice, but I'm afraid $1mm+ prices for brownstones in neighborhoods like PH are normal now.
Posted by: z at March 12, 2007 1:58 PM
Im glad this post woke up Rip Van Wrinkle anon 1:40.
Posted by: Anonymous at March 12, 2007 2:03 PM
Hey, Anonymous at March 12, 2007 11:36 AM, that place 273 Prospect Place sold for $860,000 in 2003. I don't know if it has been resold since than, but the mortgage recording office does not have anything about a new sale, or at least it has not been recorded and posted yet.
Posted by: Pedro at March 12, 2007 2:22 PM
We were just walking by...
Posted by: brownstoner at March 12, 2007 2:48 PM
12:38, my reaction exactly. methinks mr. b. doth protest too much.
;)
Posted by: Anonymous at March 12, 2007 2:48 PM
I gave up on using brokers with our last house. They have never done anything of value that I could see. We sold our last place ourselves and it was the smoothest closing we have ever had.
Posted by: dt at March 12, 2007 2:56 PM
Mr. B, I know you are righteously indignant, but I gotta tell you that was exactly the kind of situation I was looking for as a buyer. In fact, big parts of Brooklyn are not covered by Corcoran and the big cyber-sophisticated brokers. I made the acquaintance of a total of 31 brokers in trying to find my place and in the end, it was a smaller broker from whom I got my place. I like to think I got a pretty good deal, which suited me just fine. And if I buy something again, I can tell you I am not hopping into a multiple bid situation engineered by the cyberbrokers. But then, I am probably just making your point for you. Sell global, buy local.
Posted by: donatella at March 12, 2007 3:25 PM
I think it would be interesting to look into how buyers search for real estate in brooklyn on the web.
Compare/contrast trulia, zillow, streeteasy, propertyrover, craigslist, ect. specifically in brooklyn.
highlight features of certain broker sites
Posted by: van delay at March 12, 2007 3:48 PM
Isn't the broker for this one either the owner or a family member of the owner of the house?
Posted by: Anonymous at March 12, 2007 5:26 PM
Give Brownstoner a break, folks! I think it's a legitimate point: in 2007 (not 11 years ago, or 20 years ago) any seller's broker who is not using the Internet is doing his/her clients a disservice. Period.
Posted by: Park Sloper at March 12, 2007 7:06 PM
I'm not sure I'd go that far, but for a property worth over $1mm, yeah, you better get that baby online.
Posted by: z at March 12, 2007 7:21 PM
why so much hate mr. brownstoner?
the internets is not the best thing in the world
many things get done fine without internets
you truly are an elitist slob
Posted by: in ur basement at March 12, 2007 7:27 PM
Well, this thread sure has degenerated into a complete Stupidpalooza. Jesus Christ. I hate to be uncivil, which is not normally my thing, here, but it is completely ridiculous to defend (let alone to be) a broker who can't even be bothered to place a listing in the NY Times in this market--which does not have a real Multiple Listing Service the way most cities do, and for which the Times is the closest facsimile--let alone to not have a useful web presence. Whether they're getting a 6% commish, or 1%, or whatever. There's a broker who won't be a broker for long. Brownstoner is completely correct. One poster here seems to actually be arguing that the best, or coolest, or realest (or something) way to find a house in Brooklyn is to walk the whole fricking borough looking at For Sale signs--I'm surprised a person like that is able to feed himself, let alone manage to buy property. If this seller had a cell left in his/her brain, he would just go For Sale By Owner and pay NO commish to anyone. Why pay commish if no service? Fer crying out loud.
Posted by: Bob999 at March 12, 2007 9:13 PM
Babs, the "preparation" of our house by the broker is a thigh-slapper. Our house was a tumbledown filthy "garbage house" crammed with so much crap that the house inspector couldn't get to the foundation walls to examine them. The broker seemed to hold the property and its owner in contempt (as, perhaps, even scuzzier than he was)--although he was quite willing to take his money!
Posted by: Brenda from Flatbush at March 12, 2007 9:17 PM
Dear Bob 999, Maybe times are a little different now, but when I was looking for a house, I was in many multiple bid situations, everywhere it seemed the usual way to find good properties resulted in these pile ons. I was interested in talking to the smaller brokers which did not attract so much attention. That was my point. Being cool has nothing to do with it. I am doing OK, thank you, putting food in my mouth and all that and I got a good deal. Not that that is for everybody, but looking for a house is a job; I never trusted brokers to represent me either.
Posted by: donatella at March 13, 2007 3:59 AM
I agree. I would never use a broker who doesn't have a website or advertise on-line. Local Fort Greene broker, L. Nelson & Associates, is horrible. I went with them once in 2001 and they had no website and would not advertise in the NY Times. Our listing lingered for months. We finally pulled the listing from them (after a huge battle) and went with another broker (the Evil Empire) and the property was in contract within a week. I thought L. Nelson would have learned a valuable lesson (they now have a crappy website) but they still don't advertise in the New York Times!
They have the listing for a beautiful property in Stuy Heights (408 Stuyvesant Avenue - offered for $1.6M) that no one in the world knows is on the market because they refuse to advertise in the Times. If I was the seller, I would go with Corcoran, Prudential Douglas Elliman, Halstead or Brown Harris instead. When selling a property it's always best to go with a major firm who can successfully market the property on the net and via thousands of brokers. I'm looking for the highest price within the shortest period of time - for that I will gladly surrender 5%!
Posted by: Anonymous at March 13, 2007 5:05 AM
I think you're all missing the point here - the small broker/no adv. is great for
the bargain-hunting buyer but the seller
is not doing well out of this - which
was Mr. B's point.
Posted by: Anonymous at March 13, 2007 8:39 AM
273 was sold, may not ahve closed or been recorded yet.
http://elliman.com/Listings.aspx?ListingID=809230&rentalperiod=&SearchType=houses
Posted by: Anonymous at March 13, 2007 9:57 AM
5.05 am -- interesting re: L. Nelson & Associates. They also have a "For Sale" sign on a brownstone on Macon between Stuy and Malcolm X -- sign's been out there for a month now and only this past weekend has anyone been out to look at the house...
Posted by: Anonymous at March 13, 2007 10:49 AM
On comps: offering 1.3 isn't such a bad idea. There was a weekend open house pick here about six months ago, at Sterling and Flatbush. 16 feet wide, just like this one, 4-story 3-family. Some nice details and a nice renovation in the top duplex, and a huge yard thanks to being on a 131-foot-deep lot.
I liked it a lot, and almost bought it. But I'm pretty sure it sold below its $1.375MM asking price, based on the way the broker hounded me as it got closer and closer to contract. So insofar as this house is on a similar lot and of a similar width and with similar details (some but not all), $1.3MM is probably about the right price.
In fact, I may have to go look at this during the weekend. Anyone know how many units there are? If it's 3 or 4 I might do just what Brownstoner suggests...
Posted by: comper at March 14, 2007 7:39 PM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.