House of the Day: 165 6th Avenue

Yup, I agree. It's Italianate, 20-footer and apparently good condition. No brainer from this view. Let's hope the pictres don't do an unjustice and no red flags pop up.

Posted by: guest at August 22, 2007 1:15 PM

injustice?

Posted by: guest at August 22, 2007 1:16 PM

I think the one highlighted a couple weeks ago on Berkeley Place at 2.7 is a better deal. Side street, closer to the park, etc.

Why does the photo show no leaves on the trees?

Stock photo, or it's been for sale for that long?

Posted by: guest at August 22, 2007 1:27 PM

FYI this is no longer a subprime crisis but a global credit crunch and mortgage meltdown.

Posted by: guest at August 22, 2007 1:31 PM

Great looking house, but the kitchen is kind of tiny + inconveniently located.

Posted by: guest at August 22, 2007 1:38 PM

Mr. Joist - although I have already knocked out the wall between front door and narrow front parlor in my brownstone (only 16.67 wide) because I too loathe the narrow skinny front parlor, I would love to see photos of your layout with kitchen in the middle part of your house. We are not putting our new kitchen in for a while, and although we've already set up the plumbing in the back room of the parlor floor,are still harboring the possibility of having the kitchen in the middle. (since it's really not that big of a deal to put plumbing anywhere in these houses)

Posted by: guest at August 22, 2007 1:40 PM

Looks like a classic brownstone to me, inside and out. The kitchen is small, but that suits some people. Funny how they have such a tiny table in the large formal dining room, which could probably hold a table for twelve. The 2.5 million dollar price tag is ambitious but it is in move-in condition.
That is what these old rowhouses in Park Slope are going for I guess. It will probably go for 2.35. A very thin couple who neither cook nor eat will snap it up.

Posted by: guest at August 22, 2007 1:44 PM

agreed with 119pm - that broker is nasty lying sack of whatever - devil lady
but whatever 2.5 is way 2 much - good luck

Posted by: guest at August 22, 2007 1:45 PM

this one has been on the market since may 2nd at $2,699,000...the price was reduced to $2,599,000 on June 21st...it went off the market on August 1st...then back on on August 6th...the price was reduced to $2,499,000 on August 19th...

Posted by: guest at August 22, 2007 1:53 PM

Good point 1:32. I'm gonna have to bite off your idea. When you go to a resturant, you want the window to the street so you can catch all the action. When you relax in your living room, you want space and the serenity of your backyard. Kitchen in the middle (who cares what the view is when you're trying not to overcook the pasta).

Posted by: guest at August 22, 2007 1:54 PM

Although I am not surprised that condos in the former Plaza Hotel sell for twenty million dollars (there are the Saudis and Oprah after all), I am surprised that there are folks willing to spend two and a half million on a house in Brooklyn, lovely as it may be, two and a half million dollars is the kind of money very very few regular affluent people can afford. Most of us could retire for life on that. And yet I know that these houses do sell for that. It is counter-intuitive and I think a shame that these nice, middle-class houses can only be afforded today by the very wealthy.
And most of these houses do not even have good plumbing or air conditioning, let alone parking. Amazing. Amazing.

Posted by: guest at August 22, 2007 2:02 PM

I doubt one gets to be an SVP at Corcoran without being a nasty, lying, sack of _ _ _ _

Posted by: guest at August 22, 2007 2:05 PM

2:02 #1, I agree with you whole-heartedly, although I'm wondering what "very very few regular affluent people can afford" means.

Posted by: guest at August 22, 2007 2:11 PM

People spend 2.5 million dollars to live in San Francisco, in Los Angeles, in London, Tokyo, Sydney, Dubai, in Chevy Chase, Maryland, in Maine, in Park City, Utah, in Aspen, Colorado and in Hilton Head, South Carolina.

Can you tell me why someone wouldn't spend that for New York City?

In one of the top 10 most eco friendly neighborhoods in the country, with one of the most beautiful parks in the country, a top notch school, a restaurant for every day of the month within walking distance, and a community that supports urban living mixed with an atmosphere of family within one of the world's most culturally rich and ethnically diverse places on the planet?

I'm confused.

Posted by: guest at August 22, 2007 2:12 PM

2:06:
In my opinion, 2.5 million goes beyond the upper middle class and right into the upper class.
If you look at the old census tracks, these houses were owned by dry goods merchants, hatters, engineers, teachers, factory foremen, and the like. How many regular merchants or architects or engineers could afford a 2.5 million dollar house today?
We're talking the upper one half of one percent of the population, that's the upper class.

Posted by: guest at August 22, 2007 2:21 PM

Except 2.5 million buys you income producing property. It is more than just a home for the owner.

Posted by: guest at August 22, 2007 2:31 PM

How many desperately poor people live in Aspen or Dubai? Brooklyn is still primarily known world wide as the place where a million poor people of color live. Unfair and outdated as that may be.

Posted by: guest at August 22, 2007 2:36 PM

um....dubai is about 80% immigrant workers who are paid $300 a month.

if you think new york is the only place with rich and poor, you haven't left the city too much lately.

Posted by: guest at August 22, 2007 2:40 PM

2:36 Since when do desperately poor people EVER buy real estate ANYWHERE?

Posted by: guest at August 22, 2007 2:43 PM

2:02 - Not to state the obvious but...people pay 2.5 mill for a townhouse in brooklyn when the same one would cost 10 mill in the city. 2.5 would buy you a nice two bedroom in manhattan, and you'd still probably have to pay for private school and parking.

I'm not saying that any of these prices are reasonable - we're in a tulip craze of real estate.

Posted by: guest at August 22, 2007 2:53 PM

I saw the house a couple months ago - it may be in move-in condition for some, but my guess is not for anyone spending so much. I thought the parlor level was in good condition but definitely not the top two floors. The house is 20 feet wide but only 40 feet deep, so it feels considerably smaller than many (45 is pretty common and there are many 50 feet deep). The kitchen is really tiny and there is no room to have a 1/2 bathroom on the parlor floor. In my opinion it needs a fair amount of work, but the views from the back are lovely. Overall, I think it still is overpriced by at least 300k.

Posted by: guest at August 22, 2007 3:02 PM

3:12 - when I saw it I told the agent it did seem narrower than 20, but they insisted and I didn't have anything to measure. They told me 20 by 45 but it didn't feel 45, and looking at the floorplan showed it was 40, which it is what seemed to me. I wouldn't be surprised if it actually is 18 or 18.5. Some of the side walls are exposed brick (ie, less layers so you see more space) and still the house felt too pinched to be 20 feet wide... but in my experience, real estate people often don't do their homework thoroughfully (or at all!) so i wouldn't be surprised if it's much smaller than advertised

Posted by: guest at August 22, 2007 3:19 PM

The deal killer is the kitchen.

As for "income producing" it doesn't produce any income! - you will spend all that rent on property taxes and maintenance and necessary improvements over the years, as well putting some towards the 10% (250k) you paid to get into the property and out of it again. Plus, if the proceeding downers weren't enough, the rent goes to the interest foregone on the money you spent to acquire the top two floors that you are now renting to someone!

So ridiculous to say these houses are "income producing".

An "income producing" property is an 8 family bought for 12x nett income per year - if you can handle the work involved in being a landlord.

Posted by: guest at August 22, 2007 3:40 PM

Hey 3:40,

I think the tax deduction the owner will get for mortage interest would be pretty major and, along with the rent income, offset some of the negatives you mention. Closing on a house like this will probably cost you around $300K if you are lucky with the closing costs... does that sound right to people?

Posted by: guest at August 22, 2007 3:53 PM

I think paying this much for a regular, not spectacular, brownstone in Kings County is insane. Just the closing costs are obscene.
I'm lining up for my subsidized, new, moderate income house with a garage.
These prices are for the coke snorting classes. Fuhgedabodit.

Posted by: guest at August 22, 2007 6:31 PM

San Francisco, Aspen, Dubai, London, these are all really nice places. The question remains why would someone pay this much for an ordinary house in Brooklyn?

Posted by: guest at August 22, 2007 6:34 PM

I live in Brooklyn because it is the best I can afford. If I had 2.5 million dollars I would be in Aspen, Key Biscayne, or La Jolla so fast it would make your brownstone spin.
And yes, I read this blog sometimes because I get a kick out of you guys. It's like a cult.

Posted by: guest at August 22, 2007 6:53 PM

The deal breaker is that this is in the WRONG school district. Garfiled house is in the RIGHT shool district.

Posted by: guest at August 22, 2007 7:55 PM

having been to san francisco, dubai, london and aspen, i can say that, for 2.5 million dollars you would have a difficult time finding anything nearly as nice as a browntone.

you could probably snag something in dubai for under 2 million, but you'd also have to live in the middle east in a city where the vast majority are slaves. if that's your thing, then go for it.

if london is you thing, enjoy your 2.5 million dollar 2 bedroom, apt.

if aspen is your thing, well...enjoy aspen. not much else going on there.

san francisco. love it, but a place like this is gonna be just as expensive and well...as much as i love san francisco, it ain't no nyc.

guess i am of the belief that i live in a place i love rather than seemingly hating the place i live and saying i'd prefer to live just about anywhere else than here, as you seem to be saying, 6:34.

if you want the most bang for your 2.5 million bucks, you are in the WRONG city.

Posted by: guest at August 22, 2007 7:57 PM

We get a kick out of you as well, 6:53.

More than you know.

Posted by: guest at August 22, 2007 8:01 PM

86 garfield is far superior fantastic location on lovely treelined street. 86 is in 321. this house on 6 ave was priced by corcoran,corcoran always over prices everything and then it sits.

Posted by: guest at August 22, 2007 8:25 PM

7:57 I am so with you. what fantasy are these people living? london is literally looking at triple the prices, and frankly, brooklyn is MUCH closer to all great manhattan neighborhoods than most neighbs in london are to the center of london - it's that killer bridge and river that makes us new yorkers think we're out of it in brooklyn. and to the retarded poster who said you'd be out of here with 2.5 - whoever buys that house doesn't have 2.5, they have the deposit and the monthly income.

and I actually can't believe that people are listing dubai, key bicayne (spent a month there, HELL), La Jolla and aspen as alternatives to full time living in nyc. i think there are heavenly places to live (if you're someone who can make money from home) but those aint it.

Mother of God! you can certainly afford condos there if you're living in brooklyn. Are you kidding me? clearly you've never even been to these places.

Posted by: guest at August 22, 2007 11:15 PM

Where are the pictures of the kitchens and baths? Why is the cherry tree in full blossom? Does it stay in blossom year round? Why has this been on for so long? Anyone know?

Posted by: guest at August 23, 2007 7:18 AM

According to Property Shark, the lot is 20 X 100 and the house is 45' deep. Of course the interior dimention is probably closer to 18' with the party walls, plaster and lathe, etc.

Posted by: guest at August 23, 2007 10:10 AM

people don't just plunk down 2.5 million for a house. they first sell their 2-bedroom Manhattan apartment for 1.65 million (that they bought in 2000 for 745), pay down mortgage, take a million cash, put half down on this place and have 500k in the bank.

Posted by: guest at August 23, 2007 10:47 AM

Houses cost this much in Brooklyn (NYC in general) because people in NYC have the kind of jobs that can support the cost. Wall Stree, big law firms, fortune 500 companies etc. If you live in Aspen, you're not earning your money in Aspen. You've made it elsewhere and brought it with you.

Posted by: guest at August 23, 2007 11:00 AM

thank you, 10:47.

i agree with you, but so many people don't want to believe that this is how it works for many people in new york.

Posted by: guest at August 23, 2007 11:00 AM

Ok, have we beaten this to death yet?

Posted by: guest at August 24, 2007 7:42 AM

We had some interest in the property but at the original asking price and the work we would want to do it was too much for us. (Bathrooms need updating and new kitchen) However, the real drawback was considering the prospect of the agent receiving a portion of the 6% of the asking price. She was a little deceptive in her practices suggesting that they were taking last and final offers on the property months ago. Here we are 4 months later with two price reductions. I appreciate that deals can fall apart. However, the suggestion on the agent's part was that there were multiple offers being considered. If the seller would reconsider their choice of agents we would happily make an offer.

Posted by: guest at August 26, 2007 4:50 PM