Open House Picks

Re: Ft. Greene Place--Corcoran says "and the ground floor tenants will remain in place." Sounds like rent-stabilized tenants. Also, they should find a more appealing way to word that. It sounds aggressive.

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 1:19 PM

338 4th Street in Park Slope is 17 ft wide. Brooklyn Properties had it first as an exclusive and it was listed at $2.4 million for about 3 weeks. Guess they got no action on it. This week it popped up at $2.4 with BHS. Yesterday, or the day before, the price was lowered to $2.195 with both brokers.

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 1:24 PM

The prospect heights place is a wreck, but it already has multiple offers. Don't know what the brokers are tying to pull there. They've had offers for weeks. They say they're negotiating, but it goes to open house every weekend...

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 1:26 PM

Saw 498 Bergen at its first open house a few weeks ago. Very cute, but small and kind of dark. No yard, just a tiny sliver of outdoor space. It's right next door to what appears to be a meth clinic. But, you're also across the street from the precinct, which could be good or bad.

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 1:27 PM

i like the park slope house a lot.

i also really love the small bergen street house. really cute and well done it looks like.

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 1:27 PM

The PLG house needs a 300-500K price cut.

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 1:30 PM

I don't get the price on the PS property at all. Their lot is 16'8" wide and according to the floor plan the internal rooms are only 15'6" wide - this house is tiny. I used to live on this street between 5th & 6th and while it's a nice block I really think anything over $2m is a streeeeeeetch. We now own a 22 footer (x 50) in Cobble Hill and even if this gets $2m my appraiser must have under appraised my house mid last year.

Anyone here prepared to pay $2m+ for this PS property?

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 1:38 PM

Regarding 1:26: how long does a buyer wait after making an offer, before withdrawing it or moving on? I would not wait for weeks after making an offer. What's the protocol there? Anyone?

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 1:39 PM

ummm....1:38....you haven't been here very long, have you??

NO ONE here is every prepared to pay more than 2 cents for a brownstone. anywhere in any neighborhood.

every house is always said to be outrageously overpriced, they rant about it endlessly, then it turns up sold weeks or months later near to asking price and then everyone disappears and never says another word about it.

that's how we play here.

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 1:41 PM

here's an example for you 1:38 from the sold thread(and this house ALREADY SOLD FOR 2.08 MILLION)

****
86 Garfield Place was a dump. Looked like a cheap abused rental townhouse inside. I don't think it even had it's top pediment intact. Vinyl windows, needed lots of work.

Surprised in went for over $2 million but as I own nearby I'm not complaining.

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 1:43 PM

Well, 1:41, I'm in the market, have been looking for months, and would not pay $2mm for that 16 footer in Park Slope.

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 1:44 PM

BHS has that other narrow house on President Street for $1.895, it's one story less, but it hasn't moved yet either.

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 1:47 PM

"Anyone here prepared to pay $2m+ for this PS property?"

Nope, not a chance. To darn small for that price, and the upper triplex has two kitchens, is kind of a waste of limited space. Looks like it was converted from four units into two, but not very well.

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 1:47 PM

498 Bergen:

Soup Kitchen or similar function runs regularly on the block

Dep of housing services two doors down.

HIV/Methadone Clinic Next Door

Precinct Across the STreet

Bergen Street Rush Hour Traffic

Atlantic Yards will really be across the street (so the AY people have every right to kvetch on this one)

All the work in the place looks like it was done by the owner, and doesn't seem to be to code.

That park is not well lit, but full of dudes at night sitting at the tables.

950 is a lot to live with all that for a 1200 square foot apt.

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 1:48 PM

Those of us with vision can see through bad decor and poorly chosen paint colors but I can't understand why for the life of me brokerages firms who are getting hefty commissions, do not stage homes or use architectural photographers to get the snapshots for their websites. At least tell the owners to clear away the cluteer. In a slow market or if there are similar homes in the area up for sale, it could make all of the difference in getting your asking price. I would think that these firms would have someone on staff specifically for this purpose. I have seen FSBO places that show better.

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 1:53 PM

1:43 86 Garfield sold at $642 psf and so at that comparable this is valued at $1,925,000 which is probably getter closer to its' value.

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 1:56 PM

Every one of them has major/minor/major objections and are uniformly overpriced by at least 20%. Worst is the Bergen Street place which is a paste-over job. PS house is typically high on itself, and PLG is another example of a trailing neighborhood trying to price like the big boys. As for FG, who knows and who cares. Opinions on first three houses is FIRM.

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 1:59 PM

The park slope place seems nice in the photos, if kind of small. But, a reality check on the cost shows that it's far overpriced. Putting 20% down, you'd have a mortgage payment of about $12,500 a month (yes, you'd get some back at the end of the year, but not that much). You'd have rental imcome of about $1800 for the less than 600 square foot one bedroom. So, aside from the cost of heating and maintaining the place -- mortgage payment alone -- you'd be looking at over $10,000 out of pocket every month. That's a lot.

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 2:00 PM

No bed Stuy property this week and last week. Mr B are you making a statement? nothing worth seeing there?

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 2:05 PM

Folks, the evidence is piling up. Park Slope house prices are too high and the product is stagnating. Sellers are believing their own PR too much. Guess what: the property market grind is snagging brownstones too.

Anybody paying close to ask on these things will not get out in the black for at least five years and maybe closer to seven. That's just to break even.

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 2:05 PM

The fort greene house seems like the worst of the bunch. In order to move in, three units need to be converted to one. How long will that take? ten months? the ground floor tenant is protected so expect no rent from him without a court order. So you pay 1.46 million for a house you will only partially own until the renter dies and you will need to sink about 400,000 dollars and a year to make the top floors livable. A heavy lift.

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 2:10 PM

133 Maple was listed in August for 1.095 (it was featured on accrossthepark.com:

http://acrossthepark.typepad.com/atp/real_estate/index.html

Strange that 4 months later it is still for sale and is now asking 200K more. What is with that???

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 2:10 PM

What product is stagnating, 2:05??

There are about a dozen brownstones on the market in Park Slope. If that.

You noticed the words SLIM PICKINGS in brownstoner's own words today?

Where is all the inventory you speak of?

I certainly don't see it.

Anyone expecting to get a nice house in Park Slope for under 2 million is dellusional.

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 2:12 PM

here is the across the park link:

http://acrossthepark.typepad.com/atp/2007/07/craigslist-tidb.html

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 2:13 PM

It's not strange at all. Like I said, the Maple St. house is an absolute dump on the INSIDE.

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 2:15 PM

PLG is a dump. Period.

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 2:17 PM

2:12, Practically every brownstone in PS selling right now is going well under ask. Yeah, limited inventory is always the ringer. Next spring, though, when 10 more come on the market, just watch how fast things move then. What, you think your brownstone is so special that it's impervious to the forces of nature?

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 2:21 PM

Last week I did a little informal research on previous HOTDs. Of the HOTDs I looked at, about 65-75% of these were still on the market up to 6 months later.

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 2:24 PM

I just don't think you should only be looking at strictly asking vs. selling prices. Some people like to reach for the stars, but it doesn't make their selling price any less impressive.

Garfield Place sold for over 2 million and was a small 3 story house needing work. Even though the ask was 2.3, that doesn't make the 2.08 million any less impressive to me.

Asking prices are just that.

Two homes on my block have sold for 3 million plus in the last few months.

I look around and still see VERY little inventory.

So no, I don't agree with you, 2:21.

I think people are still listing their houses high, and they are accepting what are still quite high prices for these homes. I think there is a slight softening...don't get me wrong.

But I don't think the sky is falling.

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 2:27 PM

Key word: softening.

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 2:29 PM

In Park Slope, as everywhere, the days of taking the latest comp and adding 10% are over. Except that in PS selling still think their brownstone turds are made of gold.

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 2:30 PM

Calling these buildings 'homes' is so pretenious.

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 2:33 PM

What would the FG house be worth (approx. 3050 sq ft., some details by the looks of it, and opposite FG park) if it were a one family or a triplex with garden rental? Just curious what kind of a discount it's trading at for the RS tenants and the necessary renovation/conversion?

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 2:35 PM

The inventory is very limited but so are the credit-worthy buyers. We are in the doldrums right now. Few are listing, fewer are buying.
In 2 to 3 months we will see where this market is at. Right now very little is happening.

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 2:36 PM

The FG house is also right opposite Brooklyn Hospital--the hospital is closer to the house than the park.

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 2:36 PM

Not being that familiar with the neighborhood, does anyone have anything substantive to say about PLG? Is it really that bad? The Maple Street house looks to be really overpriced, but at $900K to $1M it would be pretty attractive. Sure, you have to see beyond the hideous interior, but the house looks like it has potential at a much lower price point.

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 2:39 PM

I know three couples that have excellent credit and good incomes but were denied jumbo mortgages. Sellers take note. Don't be so greedy, and accept a good offer if it comes your way. Don't play chicken.

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 2:40 PM

2:40. Believe you on the three couples. Any more anecdotal details you can share with us? (equity size they were trying for, income/loan size, credit score range?)

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 2:44 PM

I'm assuming you are being sarcastic, 2:33.

They ARE homes.

I know 75% of people on here look at them as an ATM, but I don't see how referring to them as homes is pretentious.

I think the opposite.

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 2:45 PM

The Park Slope people are the worst: condo prices throughout the borough are falling, houses in marginal neighborhoods sinking fast, everything is contaminated...but not our precious PS 'homes'. You're gonna feel it like everyone else. You will.

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 2:47 PM

Just to show you how wrong people are on this site, this is a comment (one of MANY MANY) on August 21st of the 86 Garfield Place home that just sold for 2.08 million. Mr. Joist, where are you now??

*****
This is a modest house, no way it sells above $2 million. Go to Zillow and look at the 5 recent comps on 2nd street between 5th and 6th avenues (most in the $1.4 to $1.6 range).

Yes, deeper building and renovation and details may explain the difference but that is a big price for that type/width of building in that part of the Slope (not a park block, etc.).

BTW, I love 5th Ave ... IMO, so much better than 7th!

Posted by: Mr Joist at August 21, 2007 3:00 PM

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 2:50 PM

2:39, I've been looking and checked out PLG. Prices last year and before seemed reasonable for the park and train access, but the area has some big negatives. I hate the idea of not being able to put in a rental if I want. There are also limited services in the area. The worst part though was the feeling of segregation - the whites live in these cute little houses on the 'residential' streets and the blacks live in the rental (subsidized?) apartment buildings on the busy border roads.

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 2:52 PM

http://curbed.com/archives/2007/12/07/full_novo_park_slope_splendor_finally_revealed.php

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 2:52 PM

"The Park Slope people are the worst"

True, but they're just as bad as those in FG, CH, CH, etc. Everyone thinks they're sitting on gold and wants to cash out big time.

Regarding condos: I've seen a few Park Slope pre-war condos trying to get $1000+/sq. ft. and languishing on the market for MONTHS. I guess people just don't really need to sell. I can't explain it.

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 2:54 PM

'Home' connotes a kind of kitschy, warm-and-fuzzy meaning for what are buildings with rooms in them. Notice that co-ops, condos, apartments are never 'homes' on this site? Always houses, preferably brownstones. Those are the 'homes'.

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 2:56 PM

I'm confused.

Why do the Park Slopers get bashed for asking 2 million for this house but one can ask 3 million for a place in Clinton Hill or even more outlandishly...1.6 million for Crown Heights or Bed Stuy?

EVERYONE is trying to make a buck.

If you really think it's only Park Slope, you need to take another look.

The Park Slope house listed here looks to have more value for what you get than any of the other listing, in my opinion.

None of the other three even remotely look like a good prospect.

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 2:57 PM

2:54 We sold a 900 sq ft 2 bedroom co-op with an attic of 195 sq ft (defined as non habitable space but used as the master bedroom (making 3 bedrooms))and an 100 sq ft terrace for substantially more than $900k as a FSBO.

And what's more we sold it in under a week.

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 3:01 PM

3:01 - Pre or post credit crunch?

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 3:05 PM

Of course they will tell you pre.

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 3:08 PM

I'm so happy you got out! Lookie here! Man the stories are getting now!

Decoupling' Debunked as U.S. Collapse Infects World
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601014&sid=aUs1KMhofeRg&refer=funds

And remember I said that Pension Funds, 401k Plans and Retirement Funds was going to get slam. Well here is the writing on the wall.

Law Firm Alleges WaMu Failed To Adequately Monitor 401k
http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/200712061944DOWJONESDJONLINE001221_FORTUNE5.htm

See dumbasses, It's just about over. So keep talking about 1 Million dollar homes in the hood, they with be worth shit next year.

The What

Someday this war is gonna end....

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 3:08 PM

3:01 here

Sold in early 2005 (and the market continued to climb until very recently) so on the face of it I don't think $1,000 psf in late 2007 is necessarily over the top - you need to look at it on a property by property basis.

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 3:10 PM

I for one think you're right The What. Some of the limpwristed, trustfund-inheriting readers of this blog are about to get a stark dose of reality crammed down their throats.

The Wherefore

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 3:11 PM

Asset prices (sorry, 'home' prices) are a function of interest rates. When rates bottomed, prices topped. We're stagnating now and may for a long time. 2005-2007 is in the rearview mirrow.

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 3:15 PM

PLG has a first rate propaganda arm, but I can't imagine anyone with full information wanting to live there.

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 3:16 PM

rates are going down now. . . wouldn't that be a sign there could be a bounce back soon?
just asking!

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 3:24 PM

i sold my 300 sf studio in north slope in 2007 fsbo for 339K.

is that more than 1000 psf ?

oh, and i bought it in 2006 for 240K.

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 3:24 PM

3:01, your space sounds like it was premium 2-3BR. I'm talking about 500-600 sq ft. STUDIO apartments trying to get $1050-1100 sq.ft. It's obscene.

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 3:25 PM

3:24. Treasury rates have gone down but spreads for mortgage assets have gone UP (as have spreads for practically any risk-based asset). Mortgage rates and treasuries/LIBOR don't always travel together.

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 3:28 PM

The reason that 86 Garfield sold for that price is because it is close enough to Fourth Avenue that a developer will be allowed to build up. That is not a reasonable comparison to other townhouses.

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 3:32 PM

1:41, 1:47, 2:12 - not sure if you're all the same person, but as the NYT pointed out last Sunday, buyers and sellers are currently in a stand-off. Buyers (and of course the credit crunch) are causing a real shift in market sentiment but sellers don't want to believe it, and want to keep seeing the gains of the past 10 years continue indefinitely. Well, the market is cyclical and we're heading for a down cycle. What short memories people have - hello, remember the late 80's/early 90's? There are price cuts happening people. The only thing fueling the PS market now is lack of inventory but eventually, since some people will have to sell due to deaths/divorces etc, more will come on. Or maybe sellers will give up and decide to cash out before things go down further. I'm amazed by how incredibly greedy sellers have become! As for this week's houses, the PS house looks really narrow, and I suspect they are trying to cash in on 321 zone, but that's another thing that's changing - parents (I know, I'm one of them) are concerned about that school's overcrowding. I'm not sure I'd want to send my kids there frankly, so the premium placed on 321 RE is simply not worth it IMO. Bergen looks like a piece of crap, and I'm shocked that PLG is asking so much - sorry, but that neighborhood is not so great. I have friends who bought a big house there after living in PS and now wish they could return to their smallish PS apartment! I find 1:41's comments particularly obnoxious since in fact, some houses do not sell or only sell after a significant price cut - plus, the market is changing! 1:41 is another one of those types that is in total denial about this. No, the sky is not falling - it probably won't be an all out crash, but the run-up of the last few years has been phenomenal and a correction is due!

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 3:35 PM

You're an idiot, 3:32.

The Garfield HOME is between 5th and 6th and I'm pretty certain the family who bought it doesn't intend to build anything on top of it.

Good try, though.

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 3:35 PM

Anyone who thinks that things must sell for what they sold for a year ago, please contact me, I have some shares of Countrywide for sale.

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 3:36 PM

Re: 3:01, 3:10 - I'm amazed. I'm an owner myself of a beautiful 3BR/2BA pre-war condo with storage and outdoor space in Center Slope (though we're seeking to upgrade to a house) and no less than Corcoran, which prices aggressively, told me in evaluating our apt that 900/sf is a pretty high-end price, based on comps - and this was this past summer when the market was, I think, at its peak. So blithely stating 1000/sf seems a little nutty to me. I must say, I'm torn in saying this. As an owner, I of course want to sell high, but I think things are just getting immoral and ridiculous. I'd be happy to sell our home for 900/sf - where the hell people are getting 1000 sf is beyond me.

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 3:45 PM

Mr. Joist:

Last I checked, 2.08 million is $80,000 dollars above 2 million. Not 8,000.

In any case, you were dead wrong. As were 99% of the posters on that thread who said it would never sell for above 1.8 million.

Yours was just the first one I saw. Nothing personal.

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 3:46 PM

2:56, where do you live? Do you live in an apartment? When you're leaving work, do you say: I'm going to my apartment. Or do you say "I'm going home."

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 3:51 PM

I heard both Lincoln Place townhouses in Park Slope are in contract.

They are no longer listing open houses for either house. In fact, if you do a search for Park Slope townhouses on Corcoran, only TWO are showing open houses for this weekend.

The rest are most likely under contract, which in this day and age takes a little while to complete before they list it on the website...

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 3:53 PM

3:45- I'd probably be interested in buying your place- That's what we're looking for when we sell ours. We intend on staying in the slope whether the market goes up or down, because that's where we've made our home and that's where our friends are...

And you know what- once the market goes down, it will go up again at some point. In the meantime, you have to live somewhere, and it might as well be a place you like.

For what it's worth--Corcoran just advised me that I should be selling for less then 800/square foot on a nice apt on a landmark block in the north slope (with it's own outdoor space).

The market is where the market is. If you sell lower than you'd want, you'r probably also going to buy something cheaper than someone else wanted to sell if for. Unless you've put your whole nest egg into a mortgage you can't afford, then it's really a wash.

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 3:59 PM

3:46 and 3:53 - things change. Talk all you want about sales in the recent past, that does not mean things will continue to sell at outrageous prices in the future. I sense a defensive broker/seller lurking in this thread.

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 3:59 PM

3:51 - I live in a refrigerator box on a park block. I don't work, but if I did, I would say, "I'm going home."

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 4:02 PM

Corcoran is smart.

They know that keeping properties selling as quickly as possible (this keeping inventory at incredibly low levels) are what will save the nyc housing market.

They ain't stupid.

And their commission on a 1 million dollar place vs an 800K place is really insignificant.

They just want to sell as fast and as many as possible.

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 4:02 PM

3:59 - 3:45 here. Not to turn this into a private conversation between us, but FYI, our place might command more $/sf since we live in a condo (albeit prewar with the charm of most coop places without the headaches) and common charges are only $200/month. This evidently is extremely attractive to buyers - it was to us when we bought this place and still is! My point is that, as someone who is both a seller and a buyer, since we're looking to trade-up, I think I have a pretty objective opinion on the market. I really do think the run-up in prices of the last few years has been pretty crazy, but then, I suppose that for people like us, we get sucked into having to ask for a ton of money since it's the only way we can trade up. But I for one would be happy to see prices calm down so that we can get more space for our growing family and sell our lovely apt to a nice young family. I'd also hate for PS to turn into a neighborhood of only rich people which is the direction it's been heading in, unless there's a correction...

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 4:06 PM

I've never EVER heard of a 3bed/2bath with 200 a month common charges.

Sounds fishy.

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 4:10 PM

4:06- 3:59 here. All good. Again- I'd be interested to check it out. Our own place hits the market next week, and we're looking to stay in the slope, and will likely not wait around and rent to see what happens to the market. Center Slope 3BR with 2Baths and outdoor space is what we're seeking. So I don't know how to get in touch, but I'm happy to contact whatever broker you're retaining if you're that far along.

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 4:13 PM

4:10 - the reason the commmon charges are so low is that in a condo, these don't include things like homeowners insurance (which each unit can choose individually), and taxes are also extra. Still, the monthly charges are much lower than many coops. Actually, some of the new developments also have low common charges too but they also tend to be shoddy post-war construction boxes. There's nothing fishy about low common charges - they are listed in the offering plan which all buyers can read.

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 4:16 PM

The two corcoran properties are in the top three most viewed properties in Corcoran right now. B-man. You should get paid for that.

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 4:19 PM

4:13 - 3BR/2BA PS owner here - we aren't putting our place on the market til we find a house so maybe the timing won't work out - it really depends on when we find one. But we do have a few house leads so who knows, it could happen soon. How do folks connect on this list without announcing their contact info to the whole list - moderator, any suggestions? Can we do this through you?

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

4:13 and 4:20 you're making me feel like I need to avert my eyes. Get a room and stop with the PDAs.

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 4:28 PM

I've seen the PS place and though it's been a few weeks, I don't remember it feeling narrow. I had forgotten it wasn't 20'. What I do remember is that the garden facing rooms upstairs were so bright that they had a lot of plants thriving up there. So, unlike many narrow 3 story places, it didn't feel dark and cave-like at all. That's always my complaint with the 3-story federal type houses.

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 4:32 PM

The PS place will sell for this price.

No question.

It's a lovely home in a lovely neighborhood.

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 4:34 PM

right 4:28, you only like to watch when it's nasty.

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 4:34 PM

Agree with 4:34 PS place should sell, 2.4M they were asking a couple of weeks ago was unrealistic.

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 4:38 PM

"Man the stories are getting now!"

"And remember I said that Pension Funds, 401k Plans and Retirement Funds was going to get slam"

"So keep talking about 1 Million dollar homes in the hood, they with be worth shit next year."

Someday The What's illiteracy is gonna end...

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 4:45 PM

the what is dead to me.

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 4:49 PM

I live in PLG, and love it. That said, the Maple Street house is priced for what the three story houses in the Manor sell for. This two story should be priced in the high 900s. It has some bad paint choices, and if the kitchen and baths are in bad shape it should be priced lower.

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 4:53 PM

i know for a fact you are wrong, 4:58.

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 5:04 PM

really, 5:04? Because we're looking to rent and I've had agents offer me apartments in both those townhouses in the past 2 weeks, and been in to see one of them, where I was given the exact info I shared above. Maybe something's changed since then? Are we talking about the same places? 104 and 108?

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 5:10 PM

Oh my god, I am shocked by the Fort Greene place - what balls! It looks like a dump, is small, and has tenants. Good luck - sheesh!

And PLG place is also ugly and that neighborhood is questionable at best - what are people thinking? Stop being so damn greedy people! The days of irrational exuberance are over!

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 5:16 PM

people have a right to try as hard as they can for top prices.

stop being so naive. you will do the same when you sell.

if the owners of garfield place believed all you morons (IT WILL NEVER SELL FOR OVER 1.8!!!) they'd be 300K poorer.

now they are sittin pretty.

believe it or not, YOU are not what dicates the market.

the market is.

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 5:19 PM

104 Lincoln Place: two units available for sale, 1 for rent.

108 Lincoln Place: One unit available for sale, one for rent.

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 5:20 PM

5:19 = defensive broker flipping out that market is changing & clinging desperately to the past...

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 5:28 PM

i'm 5:19.

never worked in real estate a day in my life.

what else you got?

love the bitter rants by people who don't know what the eff they're talking about.

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 5:31 PM

Excuse me, 5:19, I think you're the one who sounds bitter - "what the eff"? Clearly you have a stake in hoping the market stays high (broker? seller? owner?), or else you need some anger management work.

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 5:34 PM

looks nice...

http://curbed.com/archives/2007/12/07/park_slopes_heritage_shows_its_fischer_to_the_nabe.php

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 5:34 PM

I'm not 5:19--you could be a broker, maybe not, the thing about these anon posts is that we'll never know. So everything is taken with a grain of salt...

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 5:35 PM

2.1 million.

not a penny less.

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 5:55 PM

"2.1 million. not a penny less."

Four all four properties as a package deal.

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 6:13 PM

The price on that PS will come down further. Too narrow.

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 6:15 PM

bergen st location is the WORST. Cops parking everywhere all over the pavements - yeah, like, thats ever going to change. Traffic coming into the area from all locations and how about the car horn chorus when the yards project starts to truncate streets.

And mortgage rates did go down for a few weeks but go check out the 30 year bond now - it has jumped every day for the last 5 days as prospects for the size of the rate cut drop..

All of these places probably need jumbos. Go check out what kind of rate lock you can get on a jumbo if you still thinks mortgages are getting cheaper.

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 6:59 PM

there is so much uncertainty now. people are going nuts. fasten your seat belt, this ride is just beginning!

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 8:03 PM

That PS house, 321 school or not, is incredibly narrow. Even at its widest, it's like 13' of interior width. It's like 3 railroad apts. stacked on top of each other. I love brownstones and PS, but for 2 mil plus, this isn't the one for me.

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 8:57 PM

Johnife, it's probably the same person who randomly said the facade was crumbling on that $3.2mil Park Slope house, which is completely ridiculous, since the facade is perfect.

Brokers are getting desperate nowadays and are competing with each other as if we were nearing the apocalypse.

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 9:13 PM

"there is so much uncertainty now. people are going nuts. fasten your seat belt, this ride is just beginning!"

Funny, that is exactly what a friendly broker (from a big name firm) told me today, after a few shots of whiskey sour.

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 9:18 PM

Broker here. I see lots of deals being made for asking price or above if the property is priced right. The issue is the same old chestnut, there's not enough good inventory. That's been true in brownstone Brooklyn for over 20 years for desireable properties. Many people may be sitting on the sidelines, but the fact that there's so little on the market isn't hurting sellers as long as they are realistic about pricing. I am turning down unrealistic sellers right and left. If they aren't serious I don't want to waste my time. Perhaps other brokers will try to smoke them out. Not me. There's real deals being made for the sensible on both sides.

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 10:17 PM

"I have a sneaking suspicion that the cited comments above are from a area broker who makes a habit of making unfounded and probably untrue allegations regarding listings that compete with his/her own."

No offense, but by airing your "sneaking suspicions" here without any substantiating evidence, aren't you committing essentially the same offense as the person who's the object of your suspicions? By generating rumors that are either pro or con this property, you're doing a real disservice to potential buyers who read this blog.

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 10:29 PM

Well said, 11:20!!!

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 11:37 PM

LOL!!! 11:20, you just distilled the very essence of this site. Hilarious.

Posted by: guest at December 8, 2007 12:08 AM

11:20 - The crucial issue is price - or in other words, it's about the price, stupid. So of course, properties will sell - IF PRICED PROPERLY. I think 10:17 is the real one speaking reasonably. It's not that everyone on this site is a "sicko" talking about how things won't sell at all - often the discussion is about WHY something is not priced properly - either because it's too small, in a poor location, in bad condition, etc. I don't see why that makes people "sickos". The real estate market is just that, a market and like other markets, it is subject sometimes to irrational exuberance and corrections. We are now headed for a period of correction. That does not mean the sun stops rising and falling, that people stop buying/selling homes, or that folks aren't doing their research. On the contrary, I think a good number of people on this list (myself among them) are precisely the ones doing the research (I know comps like the back of my hand at this point) and are offering commentary based upon this research. Sure, there are some bad apples on this list, but don't dismiss all of us by saying we are doing a disservice to the properties by pointing out real flaws. It's not that we don't want to buy - we do, at the *right price* and unfortunately, sellers right now tend to be unrealistic - hence the price cuts that we are seeing. Why are you being so defensive?

Posted by: guest at December 8, 2007 12:19 AM

Not true, 12:33. Go through enough of the archived HOTDs and Open House Picks and you'll see many sell for less than asking, others for over asking, and yet others are just taken off the market. This blog is about real estate. If you don't want to talk about the market, property characteristics, comps, and price, don't read it.

Posted by: guest at December 8, 2007 1:13 AM

The PS house is listed as a rental for Feb with Corcoran. See here: http://corcoran.com/property/listing.aspx?Region=NYC&ListingID=1129470&ohDat=12/10/2007%2012:00:00%20AM;

Seems weird to me, but then I think that the rental agents on this one are incredibly untruthful (personal experience).

Posted by: guest at December 8, 2007 6:47 AM

Er, that's:
http://corcoran.com/property/listing.aspx?Region=NYC&
ListingID=1129470&ohDat=12/10/2007%2012:00:00%20AM;

Posted by: guest at December 8, 2007 6:52 AM

"maybe talk about the amenities of the house instead of how narrow it is.

that can't be fixed! THAT'S HOW IT WAS BUILT. "

Sorry, 10:22. But the width of a house IS something people will talk about because, like it or not, the wider the house, the higher price it can command. So the width of a brownstone is a legitimate topic of conversation.

Posted by: guest at December 8, 2007 11:02 AM

6:52 is right--check it out. The Park Slope house's upper triplex is for rent with Corcorcan. And yes, those two brokers are the worst of the bunch.

Posted by: guest at December 8, 2007 12:15 PM

Link for 338 4th Street rental:

http://corcoran.com/property/listing.aspx?Region=NYC&ListingID=1129470&ohDat=12/10/2007%2012:00:00%20AM;

If that link is too long and doesn't work, try shortened link:

http://tinyurl.com/3dfx6g

Posted by: guest at December 8, 2007 1:13 PM

The Ft. Greene Place property is a good price if you can deal with the garden rental problem. But, it's a GREAT location and priced appropriately. Someone will get a gem. Ft. Greene Place is a beautiful street with beautiful 20 Foot Wide Brownstones.

Posted by: guest at December 8, 2007 1:34 PM

Wow, 10:22am and 11:20pm from last night seem to be the same person - probably an owner of one of these houses. You need to get a thicker skin. We are owners now of a lovely, large apt that we aim to sell to buy a house so we are both buyers and sellers and thus can see both sides of this issue (critiquing a property). When we sell, I fully expect that some people may critique the heck out of our apt, but do I care? Not really, as long as one person loves enough to buy it. But when it's time to sell, I will be smart enough not to expect a totally unrealistic price - I think overpricing is one of the things that leads to so much critique. If something is priced more realistically, buyers understand that yes it may be narrow, not the greatest street, whatever, and the price reflects that. Some sellers in this market really have simply gotten too greedy and then act incredibly indignant when buyers are more selective and have a frank discussion of a house's cons (and pros) for the price point established.

Posted by: guest at December 8, 2007 1:37 PM

rental tenant of FG house is a rent controlled tenant.
the broker told us that she is elderly and lives alone, but has a boyfriend. the truth is that her son and grandson live there, and the son is the drug dealer of fort greene. there are at least 4 beds in that garden apartment. so glad (for the purchasers) that the deal fell through. everyone needs to know the story on this house. they will definitely outlive the owner of this house.

Posted by: guest at December 8, 2007 1:46 PM

Re: Ft. Greene Place. That is amazing. Isn't it illegal for a broker not to disclose that there are other tenants in the apartment besides the elderly woman? So the son & grandson can live there until they die, even if they are not on the lease. People should know that in a rent-controlled or stabilized apartment, as long as you received bills and mail for at least 5 years (I think) then you are a legal tenant.

Posted by: guest at December 8, 2007 2:06 PM

"i'd like links for the park slope rentals."

Type the address into Streeteasy. That will give you links to the rental listings.

Posted by: guest at December 8, 2007 2:45 PM

There aren't any comps in Leffers Manor for a 2-story house this size in this condition that support asking $1.3 million for it. The owner of Maple Street house is an elderly woman who got promised heaven and earth by some desperate rinky dink Century 21 broker. Sad. We live in PLG in a similar size house. But ours cost under a million. If you're looking at spending a million, you can get a studio apartment in Manhattan, or a faux-3BR in Park Slope (2 teeny bedrooms and an interior room with no windows some broker is trying to call a bedroom). I did look at those types of PS condos but was completely depressed by them. We love NYC but didn't grow up here. We grew up in large houses. The idea of living an entire life in a 1200 square foot condo with no yard would be torture. To each his own, but that was our reasoning and we're really happy with our choice.

Posted by: guest at December 8, 2007 3:59 PM

1:37 is right. Aiming for the moon is a seller's perogative, but be prepared for heavy critique and debate when you price a property well over recent comps.

Posted by: guest at December 8, 2007 4:03 PM

The upper triplex of the house on 4th St. has been for rent for months, and it is currently listed with every broker on Seventh Ave (not just Corcoran). The owner will take whichever comes first, a sale or a rental.

Posted by: guest at December 8, 2007 5:04 PM

Hello 4:23 defensive seller - markets change, and that's the variable you keep forgetting. The market has experienced an incredible rise in the last 10 years, and there is a strong sentiment among many stakeholders today (including realtors and some sellers I know who have a "get out while the getting's good" mentality) that we may have just passed the peak. So I think insisting on what happened with Garfield is kind of pointless - that was a few months ago and things CHANGE. Again, go ahead and price your property however you want, and you're right, if one person buys it, more power to you, but it's a fact that some properties are lingering without price cuts. And overpriced properties draw more critique.

Posted by: guest at December 8, 2007 5:14 PM

if someone buys it, it's the right price.

This is the stupidest thing written in this thread.

If you are a buyer, you can definitely pay too much and regret it later.

People overpay for things all the time.

The buyer's remorse sets in later.
And in yerms of real estate and cars, that remorse can last for years.

Posted by: guest at December 8, 2007 8:40 PM

Speaking of buyer's remorse, wonder if Thursdays HOTD folks are feeling it - they're the ones who are trying to flip a house on 14th bet 4/5 Ave and the consensus of the thread was that they were asking WAY too much, had overpaid when they bought and now may have to take a loss. What a difference a few months makes...

Posted by: guest at December 8, 2007 8:59 PM

Wow, that's amazing that the 4th Street owner is listing this as a rental with Corcoran and as a sale with other brokers (to cover tracks) - talk about desperate! No way will this sell for that ask, will have to be substantially less. And if someone does buy for close to ask, I pity the sucker - I think the point about buyers' remorse is an excellent one as anyone who pays close to 2 mil for this house is a fool.

Posted by: guest at December 8, 2007 9:07 PM

But the real remorse will come to anyone who buys a house with a rent-regulated tenant with younger relatives living there as well. That is like buying into mandated philanthropy for the next forty years.

Posted by: guest at December 8, 2007 9:12 PM

9:12, but at least that particular mandated philanthropy comes with access to drugs to help numb the pain.

Posted by: guest at December 8, 2007 9:18 PM

9:12 - what house are you talking about that has rent-regulated tenants? Is that a house that's been mentioned here?

Posted by: guest at December 8, 2007 9:18 PM

The house with rent-regulated tenants is the one on Ft. Greene Place. See previous comments (especially @ 1:46 pm) as well as the listing description itself.

Posted by: guest at December 8, 2007 9:23 PM

Whatever- these places all blow no matter what you all say. Bottom of the barrel. Soup Kitchens, drug dealers, rent controlled tenants, narrowness, 2MM for pink rooms. Over a million for places in Lefferts (which is a fine hood, but truly not worth the million right now)

If someone had a nice place on the market at a good price it would really stand out. (You all would still complain, but that's what this blog is for)

Posted by: guest at December 8, 2007 11:21 PM

Hello still-defensive-and-angry seller at 10:58. And you seem to have a distorted perception of buyers (drooling over all the "loaded" buyers you want to in turn drool over your house), since I think the ones who are really loaded are probably buying bigger, nicer properties than the kind that are saddled with various issues (i.e. narrow dimensions, poor renovation, whatever). There is a wide swath of more discriminating buyers - like me - who can afford close to 2mil (albeit with rental income) but we are not so "loaded" as to not care about when or at what price we buy. Yes, the real estate market, in the long run, goes up, but don't forget that when adjusted for inflation, that does not always mean as much as people think. In fact, there have been economic studies that show that real estate is not always the great investment people think it is. And I also agree with you that, as a result, people (provided they are seeking to live in the house) should ultimately be seeking a HOME, not an investment. Yet, you simply cannot deny that there are moments when markets - whether real estate, the stock market, Dutch tulips, whatever - are simply overvalued, and saavy buyers who have capital, but have to make careful choices about how to use, are not going to blindly plunk down $2mil if the market is overheated and the house does not seem to merit it. You seem to be oblivious to the very real market shifts that this city has experienced in the past, during which corrections made a big difference for many buyers i.e. those in the mid-late 90s who (like people who buy low in the stock market) got a great value instead of pissing away much more of their nest egg that they could have put towards other life choices. Really, stop the bitter rants. I am an owner, not a renter, so am not speaking from a position of bitterness, just realism.

Posted by: guest at December 8, 2007 11:28 PM

Another sign of a turning market:

The tone of the "buy now, prices will always go up" posters on this and other websites is increasingly angry and defensive.

Posted by: guest at December 9, 2007 9:27 AM

Exactly, 9:27. It was uncertain for a while because prices did keep going up the last couple years despite all the worrying and fretting. But all signs point to serious economic problems for the country in 2008 and beyond. However for those who bought what they could afford and didn't overextend themselves, and plan to stay in the house long term, it won't matter to them, they'll ride it out.

Still, I can't believe in all this mortgage mess, there are people pushing buyers to stretch so much and overpay, simply out of Park Slope hype and mania. If they can't afford something, they can't afford it. Period. Don't make fun of them for simply being responsible about their investments. A certain school district doesn't justify making your family cash-poor for decades. Your kid gets to go to a good school for 5 years sure, but never gets to travel to Europe or get out of the city in the Summers. And probably has to pay for his own college, too.

Posted by: guest at December 9, 2007 11:32 AM

Tom Gee is right. We live right smack in the middle of Lefferts Manor, in a house, and about 1/3 to 1/2 the homeowners on our block are middle and professional class black people, and the rest are middle class and professional white people. Some of the white homeowners are international too, French, German, Turkish, Brazilian. So it's diverse and interesting. The newer homeowners moved to Lefferts Manor from Park Slope and areas of Manhattan, mostly. That's what I can share about the makeup of our block, for those who want to hear the facts.

As usual on Brownstoner, there are **experts** on neighborhoods who have never spent more than an hour at an open house in that neighborhood. If even that! If you are curious about Lefferts Manor and PLG, feel free to talk to people you see on the sidewalks when you visit. People will answer your questions honestly and be helpful. That said, I do think this Maple Street house is priced quite high. Don't know what's going on there.

Posted by: guest at December 9, 2007 11:42 AM

Also, the coops and apartment buildings in PLG surrounding Lefferts Manor attracting more and more young artsy white and asian people. Their numbers are increasing seemingly on a weekly basis, from what I see on the subway platforms going to and from work.

Posted by: guest at December 9, 2007 11:48 AM

See the recent sale at 50 Lefferts profiled in the NY Times -- apartments in this building, when they do become available, get snapped up right away, by all types of people. It's a great building, with super residents and a wonderful location.

Posted by: guest at December 9, 2007 11:59 AM

For ten years we've been hearing about how PLG will soon stop being the armpit of Brooklyn, and yet it's still the same cesspool it's always been. PLG sucks. It has sucked for a long time. It will continue sucking until long after we're all gone. Face reality.

Posted by: guest at December 9, 2007 12:07 PM

I went to PS open house. There were very few sign-ins and noone there when I went, so I find it hard to believe there were already 2 offers (is that still the bitter seller lurking?). Plus, even the broker conceded that she did not think it was priced right - she said the other broker (it's a co-broke) did not advise the owner well. The house has almost no detail, needs a lot of updating, and has a totally overgrown backyard. It has been tenant-occupied for years, and shows it. While the width of 16.67 is to me not necessarily terrible (this is not an atypical width in more modest PS houses), the houses of this width do much better with 3 windows on front and back, not 2 which make it feel more narrow. As for sunlight - it was overcast today so was very dark. I think 1.8 is a stretch. By the way, the NYT had a big article today about the difficulty of predicting "value" when home prices have plummeted in so much of the country. So for the very defensive seller on this list, it really is silly to keep pointing to things that happened in the past few years since that is not necessarily a predictor of the near to mid future.

Posted by: guest at December 9, 2007 4:35 PM

Back-to-back open houses at the 4th St house is really stupid -- having two brokerages competing against each other like that is bound to be counter-productive for the seller.

Posted by: guest at December 9, 2007 5:00 PM