Open House Picks

The St. Marks place is drool worthy...

Posted by: guest at October 5, 2007 1:15 PM

warren street house:

"in the shadows of the projects"

literally

Posted by: guest at October 5, 2007 1:34 PM

I wish they'd post photos of the interiors at MacDonough, though. It's renovated apparently, so the lack of photos is weird.

St. Marks is beautiful. I LOVE a garden level kitchen. I do not understand the aversion to that at all.

Strange to me in the Warren Street house the owner's unit is the 1 BR not the 3 BR. That says gut renovation to re-order the floors and rooms, right?

Posted by: guest at October 5, 2007 1:35 PM

Anyone know what's going on with the huge empty lots right next to and behind the 321 State St. house?

Posted by: guest at October 5, 2007 1:40 PM

To anyone attending the 60 St. Mark's Avenue open house: at the previous open house, the brokers requested that all attendees remove their shoes because the "sellers have small kids and don't like germs"! Don't do it... I say that if you're trying to sell your $2.8 million dollar house, you gotta make some compromises, no?

Posted by: guest at October 5, 2007 1:46 PM

st. mark's seem pretty fairly priced considering the renovation and location...

i see some stuff in ft. greene and clinton hill trying for 2.8

this part of park slope for a house like that is surely worth 2.8 mil.

i smell a bidding war.

Posted by: guest at October 5, 2007 1:48 PM

the st marks house will be worth about 1.6M by this time next year

Posted by: guest at October 5, 2007 1:51 PM

Nothing wrong with asking to remove shoes...It's actually pretty common...and not a bad idea. Who knows...maybe one of the kids has some sortof ailment.

Don't judge...it's closed minded...this is their home...it might be for sale but it's still their home until someone purchases it.

They can do what they please. This is America.

If it's too much trouble for you to slip your shoes off, don't go inside.

Posted by: guest at October 5, 2007 1:51 PM

isn't warren street in the "heart of crack city" ?

Posted by: guest at October 5, 2007 1:52 PM

Saint Marks house looks ordinary--$2.8 seems like a big reach....

Posted by: guest at October 5, 2007 1:55 PM

if warren street is crack city, i'd love to know what you think of the bronx, brownsville, detroit or south central la.

where are you from?

bev hills?

Posted by: guest at October 5, 2007 1:56 PM

yeah quite ordinary...i see so many beautifully restored browstones, dripping with details and a florida room.

would love to see your pad.

Posted by: guest at October 5, 2007 1:58 PM

It's so easy and inexpensive for the sellers to provide those disposable slipcovers for shoes though, 1:51pm. I agree, if they are asking $2.8 million you don't ask your multi-millionaire potential buyers to take their shoes off. You're putting the buyers in a state of feeling vulnerable, awkward and uncomfortable the moment they walk in the door. It's a stupid decision on the part of the realtor, s/he should know better.

Posted by: guest at October 5, 2007 1:58 PM

It might 1.6 next year but 4.6 in 2012... It seems like so many are looking down the short road on here.

Posted by: guest at October 5, 2007 1:59 PM

Me again from 1:58. Also, don't forget some people have a problem with serious foot odor no matter how clean they are. Men especially. It's actually cruel to ask those people to remove their shoes. It's humiliating for them.

Posted by: guest at October 5, 2007 2:01 PM

The St Mark's house looks very nice but this isn't the loveliest block (btw 6th Ave and 5th Ave) in the north slope. Frankly, I'd want to be closer to the park to pay $2.8m. Also, it's hard to tell from the pics but how high quality are the finishes, especially the floors? Given the volatility in the market, I'd guess this would be better priced at $2.4 - 2.5m. Then again, the move-in nature of it may convince someone to bite. As always, the lack of supply drives prices up.

Posted by: guest at October 5, 2007 2:01 PM

Yeah, sure they're allowed to ask people to remove shoes, but I think it's a seriously bad move when trying to sell one's home. You have to do everything you can to make people imagine that the house is *their* house, not your house, and requests like that don't help.

Plus, germs? Are they asking the broker to smell people's socks, too?

Posted by: guest at October 5, 2007 2:02 PM

105 St. Marks is for sell for the same price I hear and it has more details than this house and a much larger lot...

Posted by: guest at October 5, 2007 2:04 PM

I'd much rather be near 5th Ave. Close to shops and restaurants. The newest coolest amenities are arriving on 5th and 4th Ave, and on Union between 7th and 4th.

Posted by: guest at October 5, 2007 2:06 PM

2:01...The thing is that a home like this near the park is more like 3.4 like the one that was listed a few weeks ago.

2.8...3.4....I suppose it doesn't really sound like that much of a difference, but still...

If this were on a park block, it would be well over 3 million.

Plus, we have to give some credit here to that Park Slope 10 best neighborhood in the U.S. article that came out this week...

No matter what you think of the neighborhood, that certainly added on another 5% to asking prices...

Posted by: guest at October 5, 2007 2:06 PM

St. Marks has been on the market for about 2 months, so no bidding war at that price, my friend. It's on a short lot, made even shorter by the enclosed glass addition in the back. The renovations are standard, nothing special. And its location is not "prime" PS--truth is that for that money it's too close to AY construction than many Slope buyers would like.

Posted by: guest at October 5, 2007 2:09 PM

I have notice that Park Slope is not slowing down when it comes to homes prices and it seems like Ft. Greene is also trying to tag along...

Posted by: guest at October 5, 2007 2:09 PM

I've heard it from quite a few people in the biz that Park Slope this past year has been one of the top 3 most sought after neighborhoods in all 5 boroughs.

Posted by: guest at October 5, 2007 2:14 PM

At 60 St. Mark's, the renovations and finishes are fine, but mediocre, especially the wood floors. It's a cute house, but NOT a 2.8 million dollar house. While it is still PS, it's one block from Flatbush and four blocks from the AY construction site. The location and the type of finishes have to be reflected in the price--come on!

[BP also has that other PS listing that has been languishing on the market for quite some time--52 Berkeley. The price was recently reduced.]

Posted by: guest at October 5, 2007 2:20 PM

St. Marks Place between 5th and 6th is a beautiful block.

Wish I had 2.8 million bucks.

Considering those State Street Carriage House condos listed today are 3 million, I would say 2.8 for a full house is pretty good.

Don't think so...2:20?

Posted by: guest at October 5, 2007 2:27 PM

Hey 2:04--who is listing 105 St. Mark's?

Posted by: guest at October 5, 2007 2:28 PM

105 St Marks is not listed but the owner wants to sell... He is "trying" to renovate... Mec/elec etc... but he says he wants 2.4 mil

Posted by: guest at October 5, 2007 2:32 PM

Open House Picks
Park Slope
$2,800,000
Whatever...lot's has been said above...
Is this a 19 or 18-footer?

Boerum Hill
321 State Street
$2,375,000
Okay but it is annoying how they stretched/widened the photo of the facade to make it look the house is wider...it's a two-window wide house, ahredi, enough with the b.s. The house width is not even mentioned in the listing text. And...I'm tried of seeing that photo of Gail Morin, SVP. Most of the Koko-ran agents' photos generally make them look less than reputable.

Boerum Hill
471 Warren Street
$1,115,000
Charming at first but such a lack of interior photos...and a super blurry one? Unprofessional...
Looks like it needs a possible overhaul. Also, I'm sure the paint they've just slapped on is not so hot for the brick and mortar. If you're painting old brick and mortar, you have to be very selective of the paint specs. Has to have a very high vapor permeability.

Bedford Stuyvesant
631 MacDonough Street
$729,000
Interior photos???? I'll be interested to hear reports back after the open house.

Posted by: guest at October 5, 2007 2:35 PM

I'm digging the interior of the 321 State Street, and laughing at this part of the broker description "... yields extra wide proportions for the rooms making it feel like much wider townhouses than dimensions would suggest."

Property Shark map shows that there are humongous empty lots right next to it. Anyone know what's up with that? I'd think that given the location, condos??

Posted by: guest at October 5, 2007 2:45 PM

Hey 2:04/2:32: if the owner is interested in forgoing those upgrades and selling for a bit lower than the price you mentioned, let me know. I'd love to see it. I'm not a broker, I'm just looking for a house.
s_taylor141@yahoo.com
Thanks.

Posted by: guest at October 5, 2007 2:54 PM

What's wrong with the floors in the St. Marks house? They look good to me.

Posted by: guest at October 5, 2007 2:59 PM

At my open house, it was imperative that people remove their pants. Accepted an offer that day.

Posted by: guest at October 5, 2007 3:05 PM

"...the st marks house will be worth about 1.6M by this time next year..."

Naw, give it 'til 2010 at least. Real estate slows down very slowly.

Posted by: guest at October 5, 2007 3:07 PM

I believe the St. Marks home will be worth 3.5 by 2010.

Who's right?

No one knows. That's the beauty of it.

Posted by: guest at October 5, 2007 3:16 PM

Open House Picks is my favorite thread, always.

Posted by: guest at October 5, 2007 3:18 PM

definitely HIGH-larious, 3:05.

Posted by: guest at October 5, 2007 3:38 PM

all landlords are greedy scumbags!

oops wrong thread

Posted by: guest at October 5, 2007 3:46 PM

4:21, the kitchen at the St. Marks house is in the back of the garden level--it's right before that "sun room" thing. I was at the barefoot open house.

Posted by: guest at October 5, 2007 4:33 PM

The MacDonough house looks beautiful. Anxiously waiting interior photos to appear on the broker website.

Posted by: guest at October 5, 2007 4:35 PM

If the broker is having an open house at MacDonut this weekend...just go. I doubt they're going to add photos...they would have had them up already. The interior may not be photogenic. I wonder if you'll have to take your shoes off when you go to the open house...

Posted by: guest at October 5, 2007 5:20 PM

I really want to love 60 St. Mark's, and I'm in the market for a nice brownstone like this one, but the 82 foot lot is what kills it for me. It's especially noticeable when you walk into the garden--those extra twenty feet (that a standard 100 ft. lot has) are very important.

Posted by: guest at October 5, 2007 5:53 PM

"Regular" 100' lots? Maybe in PS...there are lot of 80' lots in FG...but FG was developed earlier in the 1800's which may explain this. Anyone on the site today know the history/timing/impetus behind the lot layouts/planning in Brooklyn through the 1800's?
Brownstoner Dude (Matt? Josh? I can't remember your name...shook your hand at the outdoor event you organized on the schoolyard),
Can you put in some good history links on your site.
Thanks!
FortGreener

Posted by: guest at October 5, 2007 6:14 PM

st. marks will sell for full asking.

amazing home.

terrific location.

Posted by: guest at October 5, 2007 6:37 PM

What is everyone talking about.. terrific location?? This is in the shadow of Atlantic Yards. Years of contruction followed by forever of hellish car and people traffic.

Posted by: guest at October 5, 2007 7:18 PM

437 Clermont Avenue Fort Greene Brownstone $1.3M

Posted by: guest at October 5, 2007 8:43 PM

hate to break it to you, 7:52, but i'm not the broker. or even A broker, period.

just someone who lives around the corner, likes the house and likes where i live and like to see well cared for homes like this go for a good, fair price.

not sure what sortof bitter person you have to be to assume all positive posts are brokers.

you know...i actually did ask someone who was a broker if they went on these sites or if she knew about people at her office going on here and she said it's a very rare occassion that she would ever look at brownstoner, and has never commented on it. she said it's all too ridiculous to comment on and said thought her colleagues felt the same for the most part.

i'm pretty sure your cynical mind does not believe me, but i promise you i am not a broker.

i'd probably be a good one though if i'm to be honest.

Posted by: guest at October 5, 2007 9:42 PM

437 Clermont is 16.75 x 45. It's long and narrow. It's a good block, but a small building. Does a user buy it?

Posted by: guest at October 5, 2007 10:09 PM

Go look at the MacDonough house, we bought and did a reno on MacDonough between patchen and Ralph, we are so happy!! The block is beautiful it's close to the A and C (I prefer the A, the C walk isn't the prettiest) Quiet nab I couldn't believe it! Nice neighboors that look out for your house,hell I thought I moved back down to south. This part of the stuy is a well kept secret but, I'm going to tell the story.

Posted by: guest at October 5, 2007 10:39 PM

FYI-pics are up on the MacDonough place..looks pretty good IMHO.

Posted by: guest at October 5, 2007 11:14 PM

9:42, that is not true. My broker told me just the opposite. She says she reads Brownstoner, as do her colleagues. She also said they occasionally tip off Brownstoner as to their listings, because in her opinion, any publicity is good publicity, so whatever. She said she was thrilled to see that one of her recent listings got such positive comments across the board on this site. So either your broker is lying and you're gullible, or you are full of BS!

Posted by: guest at October 6, 2007 12:49 AM

or maybe my broker friend is a whole lot busier than yours.

she works for one of the big companies and i don't believe they spend tons of time on here for the most part. sure they check it out from time to time, but sounds like yours uses brownstoner as a major marketing tool, and i'm sure my friend does not.

Posted by: guest at October 6, 2007 1:30 AM

You lost me at "thought I moved back down to the south" 10:39.

Is that supposed to be a good thing?

Posted by: guest at October 6, 2007 1:33 AM

1:30am - here's a little guidance:

Realities of real estate blogs:

(1) Everyone is anonymous
(2) Lots of people read them, especially folks looking to buy
(3) Because everyone is anonymous, they use it to push their agendas
(4) For this reason, you'd be stupid not to post in a clever way supporting your agenda
(5) Especially if you're a broker
(6) If you don't believe brokers use every tool available to them to push their product you are
(7) naive
(8) an idiot
(9) deluding yourself
(10) living on planet "where, what, who am I??"
(11) #7 through #10

Thought that might help.

Posted by: guest at October 6, 2007 2:04 AM

Very true 2:04. Whether bull or bear, everyone's pushing their own agenda on brownstoner and any other blog. Those in between are just spectating.

WTF are we doing on this blog after 2am on a Friday? We're such losers.

Brownstoner - Just put a 'TWhat' link (to an area with his comments and our replies) next to those of 'GMAP' and 'P*Shark' at the bottom of all threads that pertain to the market. The What has become somewhat of an unkickable bad habit to the bloggership whether we want to admit it or not (we still respond to him).

Posted by: guest at October 6, 2007 2:57 AM

6:37, the fact that you live around the corner makes your comments as unreliable as a broker trying to sell the place since you have a vested interest in keeping property values high. Furthermore, I disagree that the larger brokerage firms do not read or utilize brownstoner to their advantage. Nobody uses brownstoner better than Corcoran. Jerry Minsky's fingerprints are all over Brownstoner. You would think he were sleeping with Jon B to get the publicity he has.

Posted by: guest at October 6, 2007 3:46 AM

60 St Marks block is far from great... really noisy (the house around the corner from Flatbush), VERY dirty (I walk through it every day), and some house are frankly really ugly and badly kept. Not a block where I would pay a top price for a house with mediocre finishes and home depo kitchen and baths. On the plus side, it's in almost move in condition and has a sun room that makes it look somewhat different from the rest (even though it makes the yard really tiny).

Posted by: guest at October 6, 2007 8:22 AM

All brokers certainly do read Brownstoner, but they never admit it. I would never tell potential clients I spend my time reading an internet blog, were I a broker. Nobody in any profession would confess openly how much time they waste on blogs and eBay!

Posted by: guest at October 6, 2007 12:14 PM

If you are thinking about MacDonough, you better own a car. Few good serives. Projects a few blocks south near the local train stop.

Great house though.

Posted by: guest at October 6, 2007 3:23 PM

I live on Macdonough and don't own a car! The A train is so close and it's express. That particular house is stunning. I plan on stopping in tmorrow.

Posted by: guest at October 6, 2007 3:31 PM

All this shit talk about brokers, noisy streets, taking shoes off, floors, ikea this...ikea that...blah blah blah.

It doesn't make one bit of difference. The St. Marks house will sell. It will sell for a lot of money. It will probably sell before the others listed. And then all of you will disappear and pretend like this conversation never took place.

Talk about ridiculous.

Posted by: guest at October 6, 2007 6:02 PM

"I thought I moved back down south" yeah that was a good thing for me:) I knew all my neighbors and still keep in touch, there was a real sence of community. I know New York offers that same love but, sometimes it's hard to find. It's all love

Posted by: guest at October 6, 2007 11:27 PM

I agree St Marks will sell. After all, it's in move-in condition, which is a nice but unsual thing. But I very much doubt it will go for anything close to aksing. The price is way off, and proabably putting off some potential buyers. I would be surprised if it sells for more than 2 million. The block is not so good, the school in the area is terrible, there is no garden apartment to help pay the mortgage, the lot is small, the renovation was done on the cheap... still, move in condition. I think it will sell, but at a price wich is realistic. The asking would work in a better block with a better house, but not in this one imo.

Posted by: guest at October 7, 2007 9:37 AM

2:21. Hard time sleeping? Take a pill.

Posted by: guest at October 7, 2007 1:29 PM

Too many preachers on this site.

Posted by: guest at October 7, 2007 1:34 PM

6:02 p.m.: I don't understand why you read this freaking blog since the point of it is to talk about all those issues you're mocking. What's your problem?

Posted by: guest at October 7, 2007 4:20 PM

1:34. you are right. that is because NYers think they know it all. NYC is a magnet for Know it alls from all over the world and all fields of discipline. And Now in this new century the only thing left of NYC is its real esate it is over people the once great hub of all things interesting is over. Williamsburg is over it is all over. now we are left with Chuck e cheese sitting next to MR Gehry's Miss Brooklyn. UGH. It is over. Did any one go to the open house at St Marks or all of you just a bunch of know it alls judging everything by a few pictures on a website. As Elton John said recently " lets close down the internet for 5 years, it will do wonders for the music biz" Elton gotta love a man in platforms....

Posted by: guest at October 7, 2007 4:59 PM

Yes, actually I DID go to the open house at St. Mark's about 1 month ago. And any comments I have made on the house are based on my first-hand observations, as well as my opinions of the market and comparables. This is the point of this forum, right? Thought so.

Posted by: guest at October 7, 2007 5:48 PM

can we get back to the purpose of this blog (real estate)and leave all the personal feelings and nasty comments for a more/less appropriate venue...
Did anyone go to the MacDonough St. open house today?

Posted by: guest at October 7, 2007 9:00 PM

I went to mcdonough. The house is fabulous. Original details mixed with new conveniences. Really well done. I would be shocked if it didnt sell quickly.

Posted by: guest at October 7, 2007 9:11 PM

Hey 9:11 post, can you elaborate, maybe give a few details. I did not make it to Brooklyn in time for the open house. Is it worth setting up an appointment? The asking price is rather high for so far down and the comparable sales suggest the same.

Posted by: guest at October 7, 2007 9:30 PM

st marks has offers.

Posted by: guest at October 7, 2007 11:24 PM

People like "The What" just reinforce the old stereotype of poor people being stupid. He thinks he's got some edjumacation or something, but....no.

"Open class warfare"..?! Okay, how about shut up and supersize my fries and shake you fucking retard. Chop, chop!

Posted by: guest at October 8, 2007 12:21 AM

Not long ago, a hand-addressed letter arrived at my home in Brooklyn. “Dear Mr. Cassidy,” it began. “I represent a buyer who is very keen to purchase a house in your neighborhood. This buyer is willing to pay cash. If you are interested in selling, please contact . . . ” I allowed myself a rueful smile. Almost five years ago, after driving out to Levittown, New York, and discovering that small ranch houses in that quintessentially middle-class town were selling for more than $300,000, I wrote an article predicting a real estate downturn. As prices continued to soar in Levittown and elsewhere, my friends and colleagues didn’t hesitate to tease me about the headline of my piece: “The Next Crash.”

At the beginning of 2004, at the instigation of my wife, I swallowed my reservations and bought a decaying Brooklyn brownstone, with the intention of doing it up and renting out part of it to help pay the mortgage. The purchase price, of just over $1 million, seemed astronomical, but from today’s perspective, it was a bargain. Houses on my block are now fetching more than $2 million and, as evidenced by the real estate agent’s missive, demand for them is brisk. I dropped the letter in the trash, turned to my wife, and said, “Thank God for the Chinese government. It’s made us a million dollars.”

The link between Brooklyn real estate and policy decisions made in Beijing isn’t immediately obvious, but bear with me. As you may well know, the U.S. is now the world’s largest debtor. According to the Treasury Department, at the beginning of 2007, Americans—that includes you, me, Citigroup, hundreds of thousands of other businesses, and the federal government—owed foreigners roughly $10.7 trillion. (In case you’ve forgotten what 14-figure numbers look like, that’s $10,700,000,000,000.) Now, the U.S. has the biggest economy in the world. The gross domestic product—the value of all goods and services that we as a nation produce each year—is about $13.6 trillion, so we can shoulder more debt than other countries. But still, in just three years, the external debt has shot up by about 55 percent.

The culprit is the chronic trade deficit, which has been running at almost 6 percent of G.D.P., a level unprecedented in our history. To pay for the difference between our import bill and our export revenue, we have to borrow from abroad. Most countries with compa rable trade deficits meet a predictable fate: Investor confidence ebbs, capital flees, the currency crumbles, the central bank is forced to raise interest rates, firms and consumers retrench, and the economy goes into a recession.

Nothing like this has happened in the U.S.—at least not yet—largely because we have been able to withdraw cash from what is effectively a giant A.T.M. stocked by the Chinese government, the Japanese government, and other generous lenders. In return, we have been handing out IOUs, mostly in the form of Treasury bonds. On June 30, 2006, China owned about $680 billion worth of bonds issued or backed by the U.S., and Japan owned about $800 billion. (These are conservative figures from the Treasury Department. Many analysts believe the real numbers are much higher.) Other big holders of U.S. debt include Russia and Saudi Arabia, which are both flush with oil revenue. But even countries such as Brazil, India, and Thailand have been lending us sub stantial amounts of money. It is im possible to say precisely what would happen to the U.S. economy if it weren’t benefiting from the largesse of central bankers bearing yen, renminbi, won, rubles, and riyal. It is pretty certain, though, that mortgage rates would be appreciably higher.

Back in 2002, I assumed that the Fed eral Reserve would raise interest rates, and that once cheap money was no longer readily available, housing prices would fall. The first part of this prediction proved accurate. Since the middle of 2004, the Fed has taken the federal funds rate—what it charges banks on overnight lending—from 1 percent to 5.25 percent. Nor mally, such a dramatic shift would prompt a sell-off in long-dated Treasury bonds and a rise in long-term interest rates. This time, that didn’t happen. Thanks to all those central banks stocking up on paper issued by Uncle Sam, the interest rate on 10-year and 30-year Treasurys, rather than jumping to 7 percent—which might have been predicted based on past experience—stayed closer to 5 percent.

The fixed rate on 30-year mortgages (closely tied to Treasurys) barely crept above 6.5 percent, creating a floor for real estate prices. Despite all the talk of a housing slump, there is still no sign of a nationwide crash. In parts of South Florida, there have been significant price reductions, but Oklahoma City and ­Albuquerque are still enjoying increases. In my neighborhood, housing prices seem to go up every week.

If the sight of the world’s richest nation borrowing heavily from much poorer countries strikes you as strange, award yourself a jelly bean. Traditionally, the relationship has been the other way around. In the 19th century, when England was the workshop of the world, British lenders paid for the railways and other capital projects throughout North and South America. After World War II, U.S. tax payers financed the reconstruction of Western Europe and Japan.

Economic theory says wealthier countries should provide capital to poorer ones, because that’s where the highest potential returns are. Today, however, the U.S. doesn’t have much savings to lend anybody. The personal-savings rate is negative (people spend more than they earn), the federal government runs a big deficit, and American firms are using much of their surplus cash to finance buybacks of their stock.

There is a neat phrase to describe the relationship between the U.S. and its Asian creditors: vendor financing. The governments in Tokyo, Seoul, and Beijing lend us money; we use it to buy Lexus cars, Samsung cell phones, and all manner of Chinese products. It seems obvious that such a one-sided arrangement can’t last, but predictions of its imminent demise haven’t fared any better than my real estate call in 2002. In February 2005, Nouriel Roubini, an economist at New York University, and Brad Setser, a senior economist at the website RGEMoni tor.com, predicted that within two years, America’s lenders would balk at providing additional funds and the U.S. economy would risk a recession. Oh really? In 2006, China bought an estimated $250 billion in dollar assets. In the first quarter of 2007, it purchased at least $100 billion more, according to Setser.

Some analysts did recognize the potential durability of vendor financing. In a series of articles published in 2003 and 2004, Michael Dooley, David Folkerts-Landau, and Peter Garber, three economists then connected to Deutsche Bank, argued that it could last a generation, until the Chinese economy had absorbed the country’s enormous pool of rural laborers into factories.

The trio explained how China benefits from financing our profligacy. In the past two decades, it has transformed itself from a rural country into the world’s second-largest exporter, after Germany (the U.S. now ranks third). From the perspective of Beijing, investing hundreds of billions of dollars in low-yielding Treasury bonds is a modest price to pay for keeping U.S. markets open to Chinese goods and gaining access to U.S. industrial technology.

Media accounts of Sino-U.S. dealings tend to ignore this reality. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson flies to Beijing to chide China for not instituting more reforms, including currency revaluation. Chinese vice premier Wu Yi politely tells him to shove off. (Cue headlines about rising tension between Washington and Beijing.) But the very idea of Paulson lecturing the Chinese is an absurdity akin to a shopaholic lecturing his credit-card company on the need for lower monthly interest rates. The Treasury secretary’s trip was an elaborate charade designed to discourage Congress from slapping tariffs on China.

The U.S. and China have a symbiotic relationship that neither side can afford to disrupt. Partly for this reason, much of Wall Street is remarkably sanguine about the U.S.’s growing indebtedness. A while ago, I had dinner with a big-time investor, who told me to quit worrying: The foreigners won’t stop buying Treasurys anytime soon, he said. They need to park their money somewhere, and the U.S. still provides the most hospitable environment for itinerant capital.

Perhaps my dinner partner was right. He’s made a lot of money betting on his optimistic outlook. Many of the skeptics, meanwhile, have been silenced. In April, Stephen Roach, the veteran chief economist at Morgan Stanley—who in November 2004 predicted an “economic Armageddon”—was “promoted” to head the firm’s Asian operations, a position in which he no longer opines on behalf of the company.

Given my sorry record as a real estate prognosticator, I should probably leave it at that, but I can’t resist adding a historical note: During any period of intense speculation, there are signs that a peak is approaching. These include relaxed credit standards, a glut of inexperienced buyers, elaborate theories that justify rising prices, a lack of dissent, and more and more media outlets focused on the speculation.

During the bull market of the mid-1980s, stock-market newsletters proliferated. In the late ’90s, there were CNBC and financial bulletin boards on websites like Yahoo Finance, where small investors swapped stories about high-flying internet stocks. There are dozens of real estate websites that critique and track the progress of new listings in Brooklyn. My wife and many of our neighbors obsessively monitor these sites, which have names like Brownstoner, Curbed, and Property Shark. “Did you see the news about 152 Dean?” they whisper to each other when they meet on the street. “It just sold for $2.45 million—$150,000 over asking.”

Suffice it to say, I do not take these communications as a bullish signal. I would develop this argument further, but my wife just asked me to look at a recent posting on Brownstoner. There’s a three-story fixer-upper close to the heavily polluted Gowanus Canal that’s a real steal at $1.1 million . . . 

Posted by: guest at October 8, 2007 2:20 AM

"People like "The What" just reinforce the old stereotype of poor people being stupid. He thinks he's got some edjumacation or something, but....no.

"Open class warfare"..?! Okay, how about shut up and supersize my fries and shake you fucking retard. Chop, chop!"

Sure, where you want to meet me. I'll Supersize your fucking face, you fucking retard.

The What

Posted by: guest at October 8, 2007 2:23 AM

There is no stripped wood and crappy Home Depot fans in St. Marks. 2.8. Nah.

Posted by: guest at October 8, 2007 7:10 AM

It is good brokers advertise on this site soi they can reach out to prospective buyers like theWhat.

Posted by: guest at October 8, 2007 7:12 AM

I went to see the MacDonough house and it is very nice and that area is changing fast. It has offers according to the open house chatter, make an appt. to see it before it's gone.

Posted by: guest at October 8, 2007 7:56 AM

pump and dump, baby, pump and dump

Posted by: guest at October 8, 2007 9:59 AM

John Cassidy (assuming it's actually you): Describing real-estate bears as having been "silenced" for having wrongly predicted a crash in 2004 or earlier is a little self-serving, no? Isn't it valid to say that they've been called out for *actually having been wrong*?

I'm not a real-estate Pollyanna, and I would not be surprised if prices plateau, dip or even crash from where they are now. But when one is making prognostications aimed at investing or timing a market, come on! It's not enough to be right *eventually*. If you cashed out in 2004 expecting prices to crash below the 2004 levels, you very likely made a bad decision--like Dean Baker, the patron saint of the real estate bears, famously did. He may well be right that a correction is coming (in his D.C. area it's already there, really), but by acting when he did he experience significant "opportunity loss" and would now need a pretty substantial collapse to come out ahead. That may happen, but he'd be in better shape had he waited until, say, 2006.

Of course, you could counter, rightly, that individual homeowners should not try to time the market at all, but if so, that goes for bears as well as bulls.

Also--trying to characterize a home purchase you're ambivalent about as something your wife pushed you to do? Classy.

Posted by: guest at October 8, 2007 10:07 AM

you don't seem to have read mr. cassidy's article very carefully. perhaps you should give it a second gander before you critique.

Posted by: guest at October 8, 2007 9:45 PM

Dear the What

Eat your own ass out, retard.

Posted by: guest at October 8, 2007 11:34 PM