Big Slowdown Seen in Brooklyn's Poorest Zones

Million dollar question: Will the slowdown be contained to those zones?

Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 9:38 AM

No. Now, give me my $1m.

Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 9:47 AM

Can I give you a Bed Stuy brownstone instead?

Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 9:50 AM

once again they'll be nearly giving away those low income area homes. all those folks who over paid for bed stuy would be crying about now.

Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 10:18 AM

The report is speculative, subjective and draws conclusions that don't necessarily hold water, to say the least.

Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 10:31 AM

six months is a long time. Take a look at the sales for the last one month vs last year.

The market has all but frozen, even in gold plated park slope.

Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 10:40 AM

I agree with 10:31.

Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 10:43 AM

"The report is speculative, subjective and draws conclusions that don't necessarily hold water, to say the least."

Why does this sound exactly like the lawyer Kramer sometimes gets tangled with on Seinfeld? Just say it in his voice, and you'll see ..

Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 10:46 AM

yikes.

frozen, 10:40?

how many open houses in park slope were you at this weekend?

i was at 2. i could barely move in either.

Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 10:47 AM

I dont know about that 10:40 - I was on 4th Ave in PS this weekend and based on the number of people checking out the new condos down there - Novo, Crest, Heritage et al as well as some resales.... you'd think they were selling for $200 a sq ft.
I have no idea if all that looking translate into sales - but the amount of people 'shopping' was unreal and totally out of sync with the national housing/mortgage realities.

Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 10:51 AM

Bed-Stuy itself is a tale of (at least) two worlds.

Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 10:54 AM

Did anyone go to the 3.4 million Berkeley Place house?

Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 10:55 AM

Yup, the Park Slope RE market is still percolating along just fine. The open houses I visited were quite busy.

Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 10:57 AM

busy open houses doesn't mean offers and closed deals. It just means people got back from summer vac and want to do something with their sundays. Hell, I went to two to look-see as well .. but they sure as hell aren't moving at these prices.

And I'm not talking 400k studio alcoves for 1st year law slaves, I mean the 750k to over 2m range.

Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 11:06 AM

What is funny is they never quantify the numbers sold in Park Slope and other "high-end" neighborhoods. What do the statistics mean if 200 homes sold in Bed-stuy; but 60 sold in Park Slope and 20 in Brooklyn Heights?

How do they define "Brisk" ?

Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 11:24 AM

Something tells me that people who are looking for something to do on a weekend arent going to be checking out open houses in cookie-cutter 2br condo apartments on 4th Ave in droves - you might have an argument if these were gorgeous Brownstones but you'd have to be desperate for entertainment or in the industry to trek to open houses in these types of developments - clearly the vast majority of these people were shoppers (although obviously not necessarily buyers)

Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 11:35 AM

Brisk means look in any real estate office window in Park Slope or listings online and you see very few things for sale in the neighborhood. Brisk means multiple bids on properties.

Decent anything in Park Slope stays on the market for a short amount of time.

The 2.7 million total fixer near me at Berkeley Place was on the market less than a month.

But you're right 11:06, nothin is sellin.

I understand that you don't seem to like Park Slope and that's fine with me, but don't talk out of your ass and make shit up to support your cause. Just say you don't like it and move on. It would be great if sales in Park Slope were less brisk, so some of us who love it here might have a chance to continue moving up the real estate ladder.

That isn't happening now.

Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 11:39 AM

Agreed that people don't usually check open houses out on 4th avenue because of boredom.

Especially on an amazingly beautiful day/weekend.

It was a really great energy all over Park Slope this weekend. Beautiful weather, lots of people out, stoop sales, so many new stores open on 5th avenue.

If you haven't checked out the frozen yogurt place, Oko on 5th, you HAVE to.

It's better than Pinkberry.

Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 11:42 AM

fact is this, that any mortgages over 417k are not getting approved or if they are the interest rates are penal.

Fact is that wall st employees (at least the not so dense ones) are wondering who is going to get the axe next year, and even wondering if we might get a bank run or three just like they have in the UK right now.

Fact is that no places are getting over-bids as there was before summer, whomever CAN buy it has the power in the negotiation.

The lack of stock is just that sellers are being told by their brokers not to list and to wait out this "temporary" slump.

Keep bringing up the beehives on 4th ave if you want, they are practically affordable housing for the 20 somethings. The stuff this blog talks about, the nice co-ops, the full browstones, are a whole other kettle of fish.

If you think stuff is selling then prove it: identify a few online listings for houses or 750k+ apartments that will be marked 'under contract' on the sites by the end of this month... My bet is there are still there, and if the seller is sane, listed for less.

Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 11:59 AM

From this week's NY Mag:

http://nymag.com/realestate/features/37656/index3.html

EMERGENT BROOKLYN: BEDFORD-STUYVESANT AND BUSHWICK
Few neighborhoods in New York have been directly rocked by the subprime-loan crisis, but dozens of homes are on the auction block in these two areas, with more to come. At press time, there were 225 properties in distress here (compared with zero in Park Slope)...

Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 12:07 PM

NY Mag is a joke. They change their tune as often as their underwear.

Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 12:36 PM

Those were not facts, 11:59.

Those were your opinions.

And extremely bitter ones at that.

I just gave you an example of the Berkeley place that sold in a month. 2.7 million.

Last I checked that was over 417,000.

And I thought it was way overpriced.

ps. Just because you can't approved for a mortgage, does not mean others have not. My best friend just got her call this morning from Manhattan Mortgage that she was approved, in fact.

Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 12:43 PM

Hmmm I don't see no price dropping where I'm looking so should I just wait 6 months more?

Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 12:43 PM

maybe there's a slowdown in certain parts of bed stuy, but not where we live-on the western edge, bordering clinton hill. things are booming here-the changes in demographics and new businesses are noticeable to everyone from 6 months ago. i'll say it again-bed stuy is a gigantic area, encompassing some parts that are gorgeous and thriving, and others that are not.

Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 12:47 PM

another example...

Check out Sunday Times. Another house on Lafayette, same block or very close sold over asking at 2.025 in one week on market.

Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 12:48 PM

10:54 is right. westbed is thriving, as is stuy heights.

Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 12:53 PM

Wow, a lot of dillusion on here. Look people, it's a tale of ONE WORLD called "For The Next Ten Years, NYC Real Estate Is A Wrap". Don't be blinded by sequence. The boom started in 'prime' and ended in 'fringe'. Now the reverse is true for the bust.

Oh, here's my evidence...

http://tinyurl.com/mythk
http://tinyurl.com/2tysbn

Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 1:00 PM

People will continue buying and selling homes.

The entire world has not come to a halt.

As things slow, it only makes sense that the better neighborhoods like Park Slope will continue to do well.

It makes total sense.

Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 1:04 PM

"People will continue buying and selling homes."

NO ONE DISAGREES WITH THAT STATEMENT. BUT AT WHAT PRICE?

"As things slow, it only makes sense that the better neighborhoods like Park Slope will continue to do well."

IF YOU CALL -25% TO -50% DOING WELL.

Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 1:14 PM

evidence, please 1:14...?

Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 1:28 PM

Most people on this blog are hilarious. First they started off saying Real Estate never goes down, then it was NYC is immune to the real estate collapse, now they are saying Park Slope and Brooklyn Heights are immune. Next you people will be quoting specific street addresses that won't be affected. RE is a cycle and it goes up and it MUST come down and the more it climbed on the up end of the bubble, the more it has to fall. This is not a guessing game, it is a fact.

Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 3:09 PM

How is this any more HILARIOUS than the same people who came on this blog and others in 2001 and said the housing market was crashing, then again in 2002, then in 2003, 04, 05 and 06.

Meanwhile, we all made a killing. Yes, we might lose 10% of what we've seen in appreciation over the last few years, but we'll be ok.

No thanks to your, oh so helpful predictions over the years, 3:09.

Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 3:18 PM

"RE is a cycle and it goes up and it MUST come down"

Know that that means?? You left off the next part of the cycle.

Right.

It goes up again.

Here's hoping you don't get left behind again. Getting sick of hearing how you can't afford anything.

Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 3:23 PM

It is so strange to me that some people seem to take glee in the prospect of people's home values plummeting (not saying they will, just that some people think/hope they will), either because they hope to buy or because they're insecure or being defensive about their own investment.

Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 3:29 PM

agreed, 3:29.

a major housing bust will mean economic decline for all. the more you wish for the bust, the more we'll eventually have problems with jobs, crime, and then everything else. housing is very much based on people's perceptions.

i think those who say with glee they hope prices will decline have some serious psychological problems.

Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 3:37 PM

See 1:00 please, 1:28.

Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 3:55 PM

"Next you people will be quoting specific street addresses that won't be affected."

ROTFLMAO

Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 3:57 PM

Current prices are unsustainable based on income levels in NYC. Housing has a direct relationship to median income in a community. We are seeing prices falling to reflect that in many areas of the country. It will happen in NYC. Your property is only worth what someones is able to pay for it. If incomes are not increasing prices can't either in the long term.

Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 4:01 PM

"How is this any more HILARIOUS than the same people who came on this blog and others in 2001 and said the housing market was crashing, then again in 2002, then in 2003, 04, 05 and 06."

BECAUSE THE TECH BUBBLE WAS REPLACED BY THIS MASSIVE CREDIT BUBBLE TO AVOID A CRASH BACK THEN - TEMPORARY RELIEF. NOW WE'RE OUT OF BUBBLES...HA HA HA HA HA HA!

Meanwhile, we all made a killing. Yes, we might lose 10% of what we've seen in appreciation over the last few years, but we'll be ok."

YOU'VE ALREADY LOST 10%. TRY SELLING YOUR PLACE FOR IT'S 2006 PRICE NOW. YEAH, YOU'LL BE OKAY IF YOU CAN HOLD ON FOR ABOUT 10 YEARS OR MORE.

Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 4:06 PM

Why do you leave out owners who taunt renters about never being able to afford a home (although absurd), 3:29?

I take glee because these prices are ridiculous and it is just so obvious ( http://safehaven.com/article-7192.htm "A History of Home Values") that they will fall significantly in value. It all comes down to 3X income and 10X rent. In the end, homes values have to come down to affordable levels (think late 90's). Sellers glee on the way up, buyers glee on the way down. Blame it on capitalism - competition.

Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 4:20 PM

"Meanwhile, we all made a killing. Yes, we might lose 10% of what we've seen in appreciation over the last few years, but we'll be ok."

This is retarted logic when you are talking about your home - you made NOTHING - 1st of all you make zero until you sell and second if you sold and bought (in NYC) virtually all properties increased in tandem so you 100% "killing" on your 1st house just means you have to pay 100% more for your 2nd house.

Please call me when you retire to South Carolina or Florida (or die) and then we can discuss your brilliant investment strategies - any such discussion now on your primary place of residence is way too premature.

Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 4:22 PM

"i think those who say with glee they hope prices will decline have some serious psychological problems."

I think those, except the very wealthy ones, who can't get a clue and continue to buy at today's prevailing prices have some serious psychological problems.

Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 4:24 PM

4:22 has it correct. That's why you sell, rent and then buy (unless you know you want to hold on long term - 10 years +). Or if you're rich (or an investor), you sell all but your primary and then buy again at bottom. I read an article about an economics professor in the DC area who was doing this.

Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 4:34 PM

btw, new york city homes will never be affordable to the masses.

keep waiting.

they've never been the typical ratio 3 times, 10 times, etc. as in the rest of the country.

and they shouldn't be. this is an island. if home prices were cheap, we'd have 20 million more people packed in this place.

wake up.

Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 4:41 PM

Very true 4:20. I can't even begin to take those comments seriously either, or fathom why those people are so insecure and, let's face it, downright mean. But I guess that's the MO of this entire site.

Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 4:42 PM

YOU'VE ALREADY LOST 10%. TRY SELLING YOUR PLACE FOR IT'S 2006 PRICE NOW. YEAH, YOU'LL BE OKAY IF YOU CAN HOLD ON FOR ABOUT 10 YEARS OR MORE.

So I was dreaming when I bought my studio last year (yes, 2006) for 250K and sold it last month for 339K?

Damn, was almost as good as a wet dream.

Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 4:43 PM

4:41,

Go to Corcoran's site and read median/average incomes for your nabe of choice. Multiply that figure by 3 and you will have your pre-bubble (late 90's) price per family/unit.

Clinton Hill
Avg. Household Income: $45,534
Avg. Fam. per Brownstone: 3
Pre-bubble price: (3 X $45,534) X 3 = $409,806.

Yup. That's about what they went for back then (and even less). So whatchyoutalkinbout' Willis? I have an old 1998 ad in my hand from Brooklyn Landmark Realty, Inc. with the following immaculately restored brownstone listings in move-in condition...

C.Gardens 3-story, 2-fam: $429K (2.8X income)
B.Hill 4-story, 3-fam: $575K (2.5X income)
F.Greene 4-story, 3-fam: $420K (3.1X income)

Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 5:20 PM

No, 4:43. But you'll be dreaming if you think you can do it again after the economic events of this past summer.

Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 5:23 PM

Eh.
I'm not worried about all this. I'm here to stay.
Besides, that's what they said about Ft. Greene in the 90s.

Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 5:28 PM

um...the average median income for clinton hill in 2006 was $19,000 and change. i just researched it last week, in fact.

you need to look at a government census report.

not stats from corcoran.

Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 5:32 PM

The median income for ALL of Brooklyn is like $32,000, btw.

Not sure where in the world you got 45K for Clinton Hill.

Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 6:05 PM

3:37pm, et al: I don't think it's such a bad thing to wish for housing prices to go down at all. I think it's called being rational and selfish, and, for the most part, a normal human being. As one of the many people I imagine living in Brooklyn that, no matter how much money they make, simply can't afford to buy anything in any sort of decent neighborhood, I would be surprised to hear more people weren't waiting for this sick bubble to pop.

I'm not looking for "affordable housing"...I'm looking for "affordable for me housing"...which, to put it simply, is middle-class.

to guests 5:32 and 6:05: if the median incoming of a Brooklynite is 32k, then it boggles the mind how anyone can afford to buy anything at all. Whether the real estate market collapses or not (and I'm betting it's not right now, unfortunately), those are the people who will never get a chance to own a thing. And that's just sad. But, to be fair, you won't see any of those people wasting their time posting on this thread, so it's not like it matters so much eh?

Let's all hope for a crash

Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 7:48 PM

Affordable "for you" might mean going to Kensington, Flatbush, PLG, Midwood, etc.

No one said you were born with the right to live in Park Slope or Brooklyn Heights.

Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 8:04 PM

guest 8:04: affordable "for me" housing means Bay Ridge right now. That's how overinflated the Brooklyn housing market really is right now. And (at least according to these guys at NYU: http://furmancenter.nyu.edu/documents/202.pdf ), I make considerably more than the median income of even Brooklyn Heights...so why I'm being priced out of (practically) everything so quickly just amazes me. Bring this overinflated garbage down already.

Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 8:26 PM

7:48:

"if the median incoming of a Brooklynite is 32k, then it boggles the mind how anyone can afford to buy anything at all..."

Most can't. And never have. New York has always been a city primarily of renters--about two-thirds. Buying is not something the average New Yorker has ever been able to do.

Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 8:37 PM

Cycles happen, i don't think anyone is disputing that. and those who bought during the uptick made the right call and those who didn't probably wish they did.

those who predicted the prices would come down for the last 5 years were wrong. and i would venture to say that those are the same people regretting now about not buying back then. and it wouldn't be too far off if i were to say that these were also the same people who are wishing for a dramatic price decreases now.

at the end of the day, there are arguments for both side. nowadays, you can use google to find links for any argument, so it is quite funny when people, give blanket statements then provide a link that they found somewhere. its pretty deceptive.

despite where prices go, here are things that some people have not considered:

-median incomes were mentioned, but do you realize that alot of people don't work in nyc. homes are inherited.

-wealth of nyc residents, there are some people who are just that rich and would not have to worry about a downturn in the subprime market.

-new your city has vastly improved since the 1990's becoming a more desirable place to live. this has cause more people to pour into the city and many retired to come back.

-the global appeal and the weak dollar has attracted foreigners wanting a piece of the big apple.

-the amount of coop's in new york city who evaluate one's financials.

-good job economy

-low vacancy rate for renters

just to list a few.

Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 8:40 PM

It's all about priorities, then 8:26.

I happen to make less than 75K and bought a place in Park Slope last year, yet you say you make far more than that and can afford nothing but Bay Ridge.

Either I'm better with money than you, or we have very, very different styles of living.

Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 9:02 PM

dead on, 8:37.

the majority of new yorkers will never be homeowners. it's the way it's set up.

the huge difference now is that it seems so many more want to than ever before.

not necessairly because they "feel" that they want to own a home, but because they see and hear about so many people making large sums of money in real estate over the last 10 years.

you should buy a home if it's something that will increase your satisfaction of life. that's why i own. i hated renting. just didn't feel right. plenty of people are totally fine renting, and that's great. some of those are now going against what they naturally feel out of the possibilty of a windfall.

it would be an interesting topic to write about...

Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 9:09 PM

guest@9:02: I make roughly what you make (gonna use a broad range, say 60-80k), and I absolutely can't afford anything in Park Slope today (except quite possibly for the shoebox listed in an earlier Brownstoner entry today)...I'm starting to think that one year really made a sufficient difference...

do you feel like describing your place at all? cost, sq. feet, general part of Park Slope, would all be appreciated. Maybe in a year from now prices will have fallen enough to allow me to buy a similar place. But I'm definitely not holding my breath.

My style of living involves trying to save up for a downpayment that rises at a drastically higher rate than my rate of savings...it's ridiculous.

Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 9:29 PM

Honest question: does the board here consider a couple of 35-years olds making a combined $175k in Brooklyn "rich" or "middle class" or something else?

I have no idea how much my fellow Brooklynites make, but most of the younger, yuppie-er set around here do seem to make a heck of lot more than the $32,000 per capita mentioned in the stat above. Then again, I see families who seem to be barely above welfare level living in Brownstones. So odd...what's the deal?

Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 9:58 PM

9:58, not everyone who lives in a brownstone bought in in the last 5 years. There's nothing odd about it. Tens of thousands of lower middle class families bought in brooklyn when a brownstone could be had for under 50K. Mine was bought in 1972 for 28k, and is worth at least 50x as much today. Poor families still live in brownstones because they bought into these neighborhoods when rich white people were fleeing to the suburbs. Now that's reversed, but it's a free country, and many of the people are staying.

Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 10:15 PM

$175k is rich anywhere but here...

Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 10:38 PM

So, did anyone go to the Berkeley Place house listed at $3.35?

We own a brownstone nearby and while our place doesn't look as nicely remodeled as this one, that seemed high to us. If not, maybe it's time to sell.

Posted by: guest at September 18, 2007 7:01 AM

don't think it's high, 7:01.

206 berkeley was listed at 2.7 million and sold within a month very recently...

i saw it and it needed a total overhaul.

don't know what it sold for, but have to guess it was close.

if your place is done up, i'd say 3 million is the going rate, especially up on berkeley which is one of the nicer streest in the slope...

Posted by: guest at September 18, 2007 11:09 AM

My place is not on Berkeley (President), but the block is still beautiful. I always assumed it was worth high $2's or maybe even $3, but this listing opened my eyes a bit. Especially, since everything I hear on the news and read (see NY Mag cover) suggests the market is at a peak.

Posted by: guest at September 18, 2007 11:31 AM

yeah, president is equally great.

while things might be at their peak, i believe places like park slope are and will hold their value quite well.

the north slope in terms of location is prime. doesn't get much better. and the housing stock is superb.

very few brownstones come on the market up here and i've noticed that they always get snatched up quite quickly.

without seeing your place, i'd say 3 million will be more common around these parts.

Posted by: guest at September 18, 2007 11:38 AM

Thanks for the feedback... seeing some of these places fly on Berkeley, maybe I should ask for more. Ha ha.

Posted by: guest at September 18, 2007 11:58 AM

sure, push the envelope.

places like those on the named streets in park slope cost 5 million in brooklyn heights and 10 in manhattan.

no reason not to try to inch them up a bit.

i prefer park slope over manhattan any day.

Posted by: guest at September 18, 2007 12:20 PM

What is considered rich around here?

Posted by: guest at September 18, 2007 8:28 PM

FROM MARKETWATCH.COM: For those on the brink of foreclosure, that's not the life preserver they need to keep them from falling in. And for those who also are subprime mortgage borrowers -- there's an estimated 1.5 million to 2 million out there -- the Fed move is of little consequence.

"It will help those who need it the least," said Richard Hastings, an analyst at Bernard Sands LLC. "But for those who need the most help, this does nothing for them. The Fed cannot help them at all."

Posted by: guest at September 18, 2007 8:46 PM

the fed wasn't trying to help them. Bush offered a relief package for a few of those poor suckers last week. The fed cut is to head off recession, and the cut to the discount rate is to preserve liquidity in the banking system. However, when some ARMs reset, they won't reset as high now, and other ARMs might go a little lower

Posted by: guest at September 18, 2007 8:54 PM

The quickest path to an economic recovery is to let this impending recession run it's course. To get it over with if you will. Rate cuts are nothing more than temporary relief, if that. They do nothing to negate the all-of-a-sudden tough lending standards that are purging the qualified demand pool of many would-be buyers. There have been reports of many sub-prime borrowers in default even before their resets. Both stock and home prices are on life support. Sooner or later, the plug will be yanked.

Posted by: guest at September 20, 2007 11:00 AM