380 Degraw In Contract, Blue Rooms and All

it's cheerful

Posted by: Anonymous at May 16, 2007 10:06 AM

personally, I think the strong color choice contributed to its quick sale: it gave the building freshness, personality, style. Basically, it left a memorable impression. Everyone knows you can change the paint color if you don't like that particular color; few people have the vision to see past the generic look of most brownstones (they were, after all, designed in a cookie cutter fashion, just as condos are designed today, all that plaster trim notwithstanding).

So I say, if you want to sell your house quickly, put some daring, heart and soul into it, not just what you think others want to see. Personality goes a long way in this world of standard issue formulas.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 16, 2007 10:08 AM

^ couldn't agree more. I am so tired of the phrase "we did it for resale value."

--an architect in Brooklyn

Posted by: Anonymous at May 16, 2007 10:53 AM

I heard it went for significantly higher than the asking price. I think people bitch on here just to try to get a cheaper price for the house they are trying to buy. Didn't work this time.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 16, 2007 11:18 AM

OMG, PAINTING IS SOOOOOO HARD. knock off $100K!!!

Posted by: Anonymous at May 16, 2007 11:33 AM

If you think painting is hard, don't buy a brownstone.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 16, 2007 11:53 AM

it is in a bad school district though - correct? Would want to send kiddies to private $$$chools... ==> not super prime Cobble Hill. And isn't it in CG anyway

Posted by: Anonymous at May 16, 2007 12:34 PM

This is a lovely row of brownstones, but NOT in a good public school zone and it's near a housing project (but not right next to one) and not far from the Gowanas. So are we saying that similar sized 4 story brownstones in Carroll Gardens prime -- with a good school zone -- are now worth at least 2.5 million? How much of a premium do you get for a renovation in the style above, as opposed to something that wasn't a "gut", but needed some work? I'm kind of shocked at the price here, but maybe the renovation added alot of value.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 16, 2007 12:45 PM

well, at 230 Degraw St. (which is more 'prime' and probably is zoned for the 'good' elemenary school on Henry )is in contract with as list of $3.4.
Admittedly a bit larger and nicer. So there's your price differential.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 16, 2007 12:56 PM

I said it on the original thread about this house, I LOVED the blue paint. It's as people are saying here, it's unique, it stands out, it's memorable, had personality and would be fun to come home to. In a Winter climate in deep brownstones we have a sunlight challenge. I guess some people like that dark old Victorian look, but I find it depressing. Go Edwardian instead. It's still "period" and totally appropriate for these houses. It just means you don't strip the paint off the woodwork like the ubiquitous brownstone renovation always does.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 16, 2007 1:03 PM

I don't think PS29 zone goes that far. I think Smith St is the eastern most border..also, isn't that like 2 blocks from the projects?

Posted by: Anonymous at May 16, 2007 1:20 PM

Right, 1:20pm, we've all been posting that this house is not in a good zone, or even "prime" location (but a nice block) but the one at 230 Degraw is. That's why I was surprised it went for 2.5 million.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 16, 2007 1:37 PM

This house is between Smith and Hoyt . And the price wasn't quite $2.9 but $2.645.
And what was mentioned in this thread is that on a more 'prime' block of Degraw (#230 Degraw)another house is also in contract for a listing at $3.4M.
So this house on less prime block (although still quite nice), not quite as large and not quite as nice was listed for $750K less.
seems fair enough.
There is almost nothing for sale in this general area without needing major work
(whether you call the block or area Cobble Hill Carroll Gardens, BOcoCa, Gowanus, Boerum Hill, South Brooklyn).

Posted by: Anonymous at May 16, 2007 2:06 PM

too bad anony - you are the 'little people' then if can't afford the house.
I guess even the 'blue collar' can afford more than you.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 16, 2007 2:25 PM

Those little people are some smart mo-fos if they're living on properties that ask (and get) 2.5M.

I'd LOVE to live near them, if only in the hopes that their brue-collar street smarts would rub off on me.

But seriously: Real Estate isn't about your opinion about the social class of the neighborhood, it's about the value (now and future) of the property. And that value is determined by DEMAND pure and simple. So i guess a lot of rich people are demanding to live there, for whatever reason.

Any rich people on this site? Please share your reasons for why you are demanding this neighborhood ((to the tune of 2.5-3 m). Thanks=

Posted by: Anonymous at May 16, 2007 2:38 PM

anony says he/she would look for another area because Degraw is too 'blue collar' then calls somebody who challenges him on his snobbery
as "onoxious a-hole"

Posted by: Anonymous at May 16, 2007 3:36 PM

I have heard that this house is in contract for over ask and there were several such offers. So regardless of what people here think and write the market speaks for itself (thankfully!)

Posted by: Anonymous at May 16, 2007 4:39 PM

posters here have no clue at all about prices. most everything they say is wrong.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 16, 2007 5:04 PM

I'm not a "hopefully bubble burster", just shocked to find myself living in a house that, by these standards, is now worth between 2.5 and 3 million. Frankly, almost makes me want to sell but where would we go? Six short years ago, I thought no one would ever want to spend a million dollars to live in Carroll Gardens. Two million for a townhouse seemed ridiculous. And now you are telling me that people want to spend 2.5 or more. Sorry, it's just hard for us to believe this can last. I'm definitely not counting on it.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 16, 2007 5:44 PM

Just because you live near this house doesn't mean YOUR house is worth the same money they got. Maybe brownstoner could start a HOT OR NOT sort of page on this site and we could rate your home for you.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 16, 2007 6:59 PM

YEah, we would also have to rate Whoa him/herself, as he/she rates his neighbors.

I agree with Whoa's point that it is homes we should be buying, not investments. And guess what, that's exactly why most people are on Brownstoner to begin with-- we are all in LOVE with the idea of a home, an ideal of a home. Most people, of course, not all. But if you look at the forums, and you look at the general responses people have, these are EMOTIONAL responses. We do care where we live, and how the neighborhoods are changing.

Many people on this site are about to invest in their first property (Brownstoner helped me through buying my first home). It is a nervewracking process; no matter how much money you earn, inevitably you will always find a home that is barely affordable to you and you make the stretch/leap of faith. And therefore, people tend to obsess about whether the value is there; because they're banking their entire livelihoods on it, dumping all their money (plus a lot more) into something that may become a bottomless money pit. Give us a break.

Whoa, you sound to me like a complacent, self-satisfied resenter of the "new people" coming into your neighborhood. This is NYC. It is based on change, expansion, growth, immigration, emmigration and evolution. Relax and appreciate it. Or move to Long Island where you will find more people like yourselves gating their communities.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 16, 2007 8:09 PM

one more thing. There's a guy I know who, with a reasonable cost of living, bought a townhouse on 95th and Madison in 1979 for $70,000. He sold it to someone for 100 times more last year, to someone with a reasonable cost of living -- for manhattan.

What do you expect? There's nothing wrong with brooklyn "these days". If you learn some history about your borough, you'll know this is where the wealthiest new yorkers historically called home. HOME. (Hence the masses of beautiful buildings). This is NOT some quaint little Catskill town. Much as I hate all these dollar signs, you wouldn't have your Humble Heath moments in the 'hood if the man wasn't a friggin millionaire.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 16, 2007 8:20 PM

I agree 100% with donatella. By the way, we've been renting to tenants in the neighborhood for 6 years, and maybe (in the last 2 years) can get a bit more of each apartment, but even if we got $1,000 more per month, that would barely touch the mortgage on the extra 1.2 million we would now need to buy the same brownstone.

Despite what some people here think, there is not an unlimited supply of buyers who can afford $3 million homes, or even $2 million (and frankly, for most of the people I know in NYC , $1 million homes are way out of range.) Yes, there's a limited supply of brownstones, but at some point, with alot of new construction, a $3 million brownstone may be competing with a giant apartment for half the price. The value of that brownstone is only what someone is willing to pay for it (kind of like that Jackson Pollack painting). People are betting that others will consistently see some higher value in owning a brownstone, but if fashions change, that won't be the case.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 17, 2007 9:37 AM

It's a mistake to apply all the old rules over and over like people do here. Remember the new brownstone buyer spending $3 million or more, is not someone who wants or needs tenants.

They have to spend $7 million + for a house in Manhattan. For $3 million they get a condo in Manhattan that isn't even that big really, or an entire house in Brooklyn, which is a place seeing huge appreciations in values. Which would you choose if you had the dough? More importantly, where do you think their financial advisors would tell them to buy? Even Trump is developing a property in Brooklyn - how seriously do you think he or any of the luxury developers took Brooklyn seriously even 5 years ago? They all have a different attitude about Brooklyn, and we see the results in sales like this.

As for huge apartments being half the price of a $3 million house, 9:37am, which huge apartment is that, I'd love to see it! I saw the Vermeil 3BR condo priced at $1.65 million and it was tiny.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 17, 2007 10:25 AM

What you are describing, Anon 10:25, are a subcategory of very rich people who buy $3 million homes. Sorry, this is a very limited pool. Perhaps you are right, that they will continue to buy in Brooklyn, but this is about people with unlimited amounts of money to whom an extra million or two is meaningless.

That doesn't mean this kind of purchase is a guaranteed good investment, however. The problem isn't that prices are going up -- yes, Carroll Gardens should have increased in value -- it's about the rate of that increase. That's what the Nasdaq did -- jump way too high too fast, with no reflection of what a stock was intrinsically worth. The investment was a bet that everyone else would continue to bet that the stock would continue to go up. Once people stopped believing that, the whole thing collapsed.

I just hate to see people buying because they think this kind of price inflation will continue. I'm happy for people for whom $3 million is a drop in the bucket to buy a brownstone just like they might a painting. It just seems silly for people who are betting their life savings to buy at these prices.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 17, 2007 10:45 AM

But there's never a shortage of very wealthy people buying properties in Manhattan, 10:45. Even in tough times. So why would it happen here, now that it's acceptable if not becoming preferable for celebrities and the very wealthy to live in Brooklyn?

This kind of price inflation will absolutely not continue at this rate, because we're in a unique time when previously undervalued neighborhoods and borough that were blighted in the 60's and 70's, are climbing back into being the upper and upper middle class places they used to be. It's not like properties will appreciate at this rate every year from now on. Of course not. But it doesn't mean they'll "crash" either, simply because of the fast appreciation in recent years.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 17, 2007 12:22 PM

So here's what I would suggest, whoa. Sell your home for 1 million, out of courtesy to this not-so-rich group of people, who you imply are somehow preferable. Don't make hundreds of percent in profit, just make 20% profit. Or 30%. Or whatever it would be if you sold it for 60% less than your neighbor.

The thing is, not-so-rich people, whether it be out of desperation, greed, or just common sense, are selling their homes for the rate at which they are being bought. You have a problem with this because (it seems from these posts) that you fear for the well-being of the community . . . or the rich people who are overpaying . . . or something, I can't really tell.

Anyway, put your money where your mouth is and DON'T sell to the rich. Sell to the not-so-rich. Who, by the way, are often the not-yet-rich.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 17, 2007 3:24 PM

Anon 3:24pm, you are missing the point -- whoa doesn't want to sell, he wants to live here. And, he's simply pointing out that he wants SOME (not ALL) people as neighbors that aren't the very rarified group of people that can afford $2 million homes. He's not criticizing anyone who is selling for the amount, just expressing worry that this seems to be the market rate these days, and it means that lots of people with regular paying jobs(or even high paying, just not super - rich) who might stabilize the market in downturn can no longer afford to live here.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 17, 2007 6:09 PM

There are only so many people from
elsewhere who still have real estate profits to invest. No the market won't hold, prices are going down in Manhattan.
This is a spot market. Know your numbers.
I don't think that house will appraise for
2.5M I don't. I see more deals going south
because of the gap between price and appraised value.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 17, 2007 7:59 PM

If you want to know the price of a house,
you have a much better chance of getting
the real price once the deed is registered. Everything else is just
rumors, conjecture. I've had houses on the market for four, five months, you know
problematic houses, but they sell. There
is always someone for every property.
Comparing a house on Columbia Street to
a house next to the Degraw project is lunacy.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 18, 2007 7:16 AM

Stop with the rich and famous in my
nabe. The only true celebrity in Bh.
is Norman Mailer, been here since the fifties. He paid around fifty grand for
his house.
New York coops, make you have three
times the asking price in the bank.
Now that is rich. Not needing a mortgage
on an eight million dollar property, that is well off.
Putting all your cash into a house and
needing the rental to keep you afloat
isn't affluent, it's optimistic.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 18, 2007 7:24 AM

Actually, the only people trading up to houses at the $2 million mark are those from Manhattan. The price of townhouses is so high that the only thing you can do is sell an expensive coop in Brooklyn Heights, Cobble Hill, etc., and buy a Bed Stuy Brownstone. No one who is buying a $2 million brownstone in an already established neighborhood can be selling anything other than another brownstone in that neighborhood, or paying an additional $1 million mortgage.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 19, 2007 8:33 PM