Residential Sales in Brooklyn

Wow, PS 2BR went for $55K more than list. Housing slump my butt.

Posted by: guest at November 5, 2007 12:06 PM

here we go again--these recorded sales reflect purchases made months ago...before the crunch.

Posted by: guest at November 5, 2007 12:08 PM

It was on the market for 5 months--not exactly snatched up in a hot market.

Posted by: guest at November 5, 2007 12:09 PM

I cant beleive the PS one either! A big 2 BR, but still, over a million bucks is impressive!

Posted by: guest at November 5, 2007 12:09 PM

no matter how you slice it, 12:08....

over ask, is over ask.

and actually you have no idea when this sold/closed.

Posted by: guest at November 5, 2007 12:10 PM

Comments on the FG house? Is this sale price a little on the low side?

Posted by: guest at November 5, 2007 12:14 PM

Yeah, both the 500K and 1.3 million seem like odd numbers to me.

I thought even a shell in 2003 would have been a million in Ft. Greene.

What's up with that place?

Posted by: guest at November 5, 2007 12:17 PM

The evidence is in your face, no housing slump in bklyn so all u nay sayers, just jealous morons.

Posted by: guest at November 5, 2007 12:21 PM

"you have no idea when this sold/closed"

Yeah, coulda been as far back as 2006.

Posted by: guest at November 5, 2007 12:24 PM

The Ft. Greene house sold at about where Ft. Greene houses SHOULD be priced.

Posted by: guest at November 5, 2007 12:26 PM

Streeteasy says the PS place sold 07/27/2007, before the credit crunch, FWIW.

Posted by: guest at November 5, 2007 12:31 PM

Streeteasy also says: 04/17/2007 Listing entered contract.

Posted by: guest at November 5, 2007 12:34 PM

As per StreetEasy, the above PS condo CLOSED on 7/27/2007 people, WELL BEFORE this mess. And obviously it went into contract well in advance of the closing date.

Posted by: guest at November 5, 2007 12:34 PM

"The evidence is in your face, no housing slump in bklyn so all u nay sayers, just jealous morons."

I only agree with the first six words you said.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aFMLlE4u40eE&refer=home

Your equity's going bye bye. Cash out now while you still can. You'll never see 2007 prices in real dollars again.

Posted by: guest at November 5, 2007 12:39 PM

"CLOSED on 7/27/2007"

Where are you 12:10?

Posted by: guest at November 5, 2007 12:41 PM

sooo nothing sold in Oct or Nov because of the mess. who u kidding?

Posted by: guest at November 5, 2007 12:47 PM

the bitter renter trolls are back in full force today.

Posted by: guest at November 5, 2007 12:50 PM

Who made that claim, 12:47? The point is that sales are down, way down. Prices will follow.

Posted by: guest at November 5, 2007 12:51 PM

Where are the stats that sales are down in Park Slope and Ft. Greene, 12:51?

I'd love to see them as I know others would as well.

Posted by: guest at November 5, 2007 12:54 PM

Despite all the trends, still, the sale of a 20x100 apparently viable 3-family on Clermont does not make sense. Houses are currently in discussion right now in FG for 1.9 and 2.somethings...houses that need work or at least freshing up. What shakes with this one? Might a buyer agreed to leave tenants in place who pay low rents? Is the only available apartment (if there is one) the top floor instead of a lower duplex?
Questions abound.

Posted by: guest at November 5, 2007 12:56 PM

"the bitter renter trolls are back in full force today."

Yes we are. And so are the bitter bagholders.

Posted by: guest at November 5, 2007 12:59 PM

Citywide, 12:54 PM. Citywide. Sales in Park Slope and Ft. Greene are up? Year over year?

Posted by: guest at November 5, 2007 1:03 PM

Just for the record regarding the Park Slope property, an 1,188 sq. ft. condo in the unit just above this one sold for $939,000 or $790.40/sq.ft. on 7/30/07. No idea why the other one went so much above asking.

Posted by: guest at November 5, 2007 1:08 PM

Did the FG house sell for 1.3 b/c it's near Fulton and not Lafayette?

Posted by: guest at November 5, 2007 1:10 PM

price on theFG house seems low..

R/C tenants??

Posted by: guest at November 5, 2007 1:14 PM

Even though the PS place slipped in before the credit mess, how much, really, would the price have dropped? Maybe to ask. still, you're talking about buyers with at least 105k in cash on hand at closing, so they probably aren't a subprime risk.

Also, contrast this to the co-op of the day. Seems like a fair comp, but i guess this isnt' a walk up.

Posted by: guest at November 5, 2007 1:24 PM

It is crazy to me that people still claim there is no downturn in the market. Listings aren't selling. Prices are getting slashed on several properties in PS. Things are definitely changing. I personally don't believe there will be a crash or anything dramatic. But prices are definitely coming down. How much? Probably not too terribly much - maybe 10% max? But still- coming down...

Posted by: guest at November 5, 2007 1:49 PM

I don't see prices coming down yet in Park Slope on quality stuff.

The crap, sure.

It's been like that since way before the credit crisis.

Posted by: guest at November 5, 2007 1:54 PM

1:54 - I have seen several price cuts on beautiful places- really lovely homes. Prices are definitely coming down.

Posted by: guest at November 5, 2007 2:03 PM

So maybe they were overpriced, orginally?

This is not an exact science you realize.

If a broker jacks up a studio to 500K, and then it sells for 400K is that considered "prices are coming down" or is that considered the price was ridiculously high to begin with.

Posted by: guest at November 5, 2007 2:10 PM

2:10 - Yes and yes.

Posted by: guest at November 5, 2007 2:21 PM

anyone have info in the FG house?

i mean i only see listings for like 2M, and some are even floating into the >3M range

why so low on this one?

Posted by: guest at November 5, 2007 2:52 PM

Yes, all you researchers out there...or gossip hounds...did the FG house really sell for 1.5? And if it did, why so much lower than one would expect in FG for a 100 ft deep lot? Are there issues with this property?

Posted by: guest at November 5, 2007 3:11 PM

Thank you Shahn! This explains things!
FG/TGL

Posted by: guest at November 5, 2007 3:58 PM

Shahn,
So, the tenant is rent-free for life?

Posted by: guest at November 5, 2007 3:59 PM

ah, that makes sense re the FG place. probably still be a decent deal, if tenant is fairly low maintenance and the owners have easy access to and use of the garden...

Posted by: guest at November 5, 2007 4:01 PM

If you look on ACRIS, it seems that the old woman has a $300,000 mortgage on the place that hasn't been satisfied, and the only mortgages that have been satisfied is a $100,000 private loan of some sort and a mortgage to Chase:

http://a836-acris.nyc.gov/Scripts/DocSearch.dll/ViewImage?Doc_ID=2007102500935004

http://a836-acris.nyc.gov/Scripts/DocSearch.dll/ViewImage?Doc_ID=2003060300132002

There isn't a new mortgage yet according to ACRIS, just the deed. If this is all there is, then the new buyers paid $1,350,000 in cash, and kept the $300,000 mortgage in place. $1,650,000 is not a bad price for this place at all, although I can't find any documents that say what the deal is with the tenant.

Posted by: guest at November 5, 2007 4:29 PM

If she is who I am thinking of, I believe she grew up in the building and used to own it.

Posted by: guest at November 5, 2007 4:39 PM

If she is who I am thinking of, I believe she grew up in the building and used to own it.

Posted by: guest at November 5, 2007 4:40 PM

That's her.

Posted by: guest at November 5, 2007 4:46 PM

So thanks to the NYTimes' lousy reporting, lack of research, they managed to put it out there that a 4-story in FG with a 100' deep lot went for 1.35 when a little research shows there is at least another 600K involved.
HHhhhh!

Posted by: guest at November 5, 2007 5:10 PM

you really think the NYTimes is responsible for researching the thousands of real estate listing on their site??

maybe you should channel some of that energy into seeing that our president is responsible for his research on wmd's instead.

Posted by: guest at November 5, 2007 6:04 PM

6:04,
5:10 here. I agree with you in part. Still, the NYTimes' failed to see that the "sale" price did not represent a straight sale but carried a debt that the new owner assumed. That IS part of the transaction. I guess it's just not something that is disclosed and easy to obtain from whatever sources they use...or course, they should always factcheck what they put out there.
Speaking of WMD...the NYTimes wasn't too great on that one either and doesn't compare in any way to the actual cost of a house in FG... Sad...in fact, the Times was integral to justification based on false information.
Hhhh...

Posted by: guest at November 5, 2007 6:19 PM

Am I losing my mind? Where does the Times say anything about the Fort Greene place?

Posted by: guest at November 5, 2007 7:05 PM

No you're not losing your mind...it's just been a long day.

The source for the info (residential sales) is off the NYTimes Residential Sales in the Region page per Brownstoner.

Posted by: guest at November 5, 2007 7:13 PM

Right, but when I look on the link - all that I see is the Park Slope referenced apartment, not the Fort Greene referenced brownstone.

Posted by: guest at November 5, 2007 7:26 PM

7:13 here,
True...I looked at the link as well and didn't see the FG listing. That's why I wrote "per Brownstoner"...wanted to lay the blame...but maybe it was off a previous listing?...benefit of the doubt. Seems the researcher on this thread confirmed some of the money picture on this property.

Posted by: guest at November 5, 2007 7:37 PM