Open House Picks

way overpriced..bubble about to burst...brooklyn heights/park slope/ditmas park/bushwick all suck..AY sucks/rules..fuck you/no fuck you...bla...blah...blah

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 1:21 PM

4.4mm for 1,736sf house that looks like it belongs in a undesirable part of Queens?

Thanks for the holiday laugh!

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 1:22 PM

$2,500/sf for brooklyn heights....whoa

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 1:23 PM

aluminum awnings should be banned
as well as vinyl siding

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 1:24 PM

Brooklyn Heights house will sell for way above asking. The rest will go for under asking but will sell quickly.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 1:26 PM

I like 19 Garden Place.
Charming.
Nice block.
4.4 million WOW

I wonder if it will sell for that.
It may be a tad overpriced.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 1:26 PM

yeah just a tad
shoul go for 4.395 or so

insanity

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 1:29 PM

park slope place is a good deal.

looks nice.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 1:31 PM

What's that part of Bushwick like?

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 1:31 PM

What are the comps on Garden Place?
Is 4.4 million out of line?
The house could not be more appealing and
inviting. It is a little creamy cream puff.
Looks like something straight out of a little English village.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 1:32 PM

Only house that stands a chance at selling is the Park Slope one--but I think for 150K less.
It's cute and well-located, but it's 16.5 wide.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 1:32 PM

that part of Bushwick is slightly less ghetto than the other part of Bushwick

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 1:33 PM

The location of the Park Slope house is a little sub-prime, oops I didn't mean to use that term.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 1:34 PM

Garden Place is my favorite block in BH, but jesus... I guess it might go to someone with more money than sense but that price seems pretty absurd to me for such a small home. Probably an owner who isn't really motivated to sell - just wants to see if he can find anyone stupid enough to pay $4.4 mil for what is basically a glorified carriage house.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 1:37 PM

anything south of LIC is underwhelming

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 1:37 PM

Bushwick house is nice- and the added bonus is that the brick houses survive fires.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 1:39 PM

The taxes on that mini-tiny-Tudor in Brooklyn Heights are over $10K. So, you pay through the nose to buy it, and you keep paying through your nose to own it.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 1:41 PM

"anything south of LIC is underwhelming"

Thanks for yet another holiday chuckle!

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 1:42 PM

Bushwick house is near life cafe and goodbye blue monday. good spots. Also, it's practically in Ridgewood Queens.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 1:42 PM

Garden Place house is 16' wide. Lots of dough for narrow and small dollhouse.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 1:44 PM

brick 1st floor facade on ditmas house is unfortunate.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 1:47 PM

Do you really think that $10,000 taxes matters to someone who buys a 4.4 milllion dollar house? That seems pretty cheap actually.
I think the size of that house is just right. Big enough to be comfy but not a huge mansion. I'm sure the family who buys it already owns a huge mansion somewhere in the Island or in the Berkshires. It will go for above ask. It's perfection.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 1:53 PM

And 354 10th is 1) opposite the Mitchel Lama projects 2) very close to where the F enters/exits above ground and 3) is a whopping 16.67 feet wide.

Think I'll pass.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 1:55 PM

BUSHWICK made the open house listings!

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 1:57 PM

The Ditmas house is classic. What's not to love? It can become someone's labor of love to restore. I think the brick on the first story can be removed in an afternoon.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 1:57 PM

10th St is not Park Slope

Its south west upper Gowanus heights.

Where have you people been all week?

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 1:57 PM

Ditmas: I don't want to spend 1.2 M for a labor of love. Have a look at that kitchen...ugh.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 1:59 PM

DP house will go for ask or close to ask. Few family-sized properties for sale in that price range in the nabe. It might not be newly reno'd (in which case in would be listed at least 200k higher than this), but looks livable.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 2:00 PM

Yay Bushwick!

Where is Bushwick exactly?

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 2:00 PM

You people need some math lessons. The Garden Place house is 3500 sf. Just add up the dimensions on the floor plan, and ignore the nonsense in city finance's records that appear on property shark. That's $1250 psf. That's a little more than the larger townhouses on the street, but true single-families carry a premium that always brings out a higher PSF price - check the recent comps. People who can afford $4.4M care moer about having a true single family than the rental income that a large 2-family would bring. If you want to be picky, exclude the garden level and you still have about 2400 sf of livable space. As someone pointed out above, that's more than enough to be comfortable without being a mega mansions spread out over 4 floors (see the recent NYT article on the pros and cons of that lifestyle.) Definitely will go at or near ask.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 2:11 PM

Some folks are more about quantity than quality. Why is the Garden Place house too small to be worth 4.4 million? Do the rooms look small to you? Is there something mising? A ballroom? A billiards room? I have always admired this pair of houses. The one next door is, if anything, even nicer.
...sigh.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 2:12 PM

America is all about quantity over quality.

It's disgusting.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 2:15 PM

10th St PS house has been on the market for about a month now, maybe more. I went to the initial open house and was very disappointed. It sold only a few years ago for 700K and I think they are being greedy to ask so much now. The web site images are deceptive. While some parts of 10th St are nice, that particular block is not. The projects across the street are very ugly, and the house itself is small and not very well-done. Also, it's in the fringes of Park Slope. I'm amazed they are asking this much - I think they should be asking 1.1-1.2 max, and even that seems a stretch with the current market uncertainty.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 2:15 PM

The bushwick house is hands down, the best of the bunch. Compare it to the houses across Broadway in the Stuy that are going for around the same price...

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 2:15 PM

Methinks I smell some brokers seeding the comments today

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 2:17 PM

"Why is the Garden Place house too small to be worth 4.4 million?"

Because comps do not support the price. Not even close. That's why.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 2:18 PM

The the Garden Place house is really 3500 sq. ft., I withdraw my comment at 1:37 about it being too small at that price. I've walked by that house a million times with the dog and it is beautiful (and on an amazing block where there is very rarely anything on the market). Thos two tudors just ust always seemed rather small to me. But you are right, for a normal city-sized family no more than two kids it should be plenty.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 2:19 PM

I second the impression of 2:15 re: 10th St house being a disappointment. Sure, it looks OK in the photos, but these do not tell the whole truth. Blocks matter and this one stinks. Plus, the renters' apt on the ground floor is pretty icky. Also, kitchen layout on parlor floor is bizarre - it's in the middle of the floor when it would make so much more sense to have it all the way at back of house, where you have access to the deck. Can't imagine what they were thinking when they put the kitchen there, and it would probably be kind of expensive to move.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 2:20 PM

Hey 2:17-

I'm 2:15PM and I'm no broker. I'm a buyer currently living the North Slope, but looking for a house in Bushwick (because it's where I can afford and it's where my friends all live and hang out). Just happy to see the neighborhood I want to live in getting some Brownstoner action (and I like the house).

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 2:22 PM

I'm liking the Ditmas Park house too.

What do Brownstone readers know about the public schools affiliated with that part of town?

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 2:23 PM

moving from north slope to bushwick?

not heard that one before, but ok.

most people i know are moving out of bushwick as they get older.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 2:34 PM

The amazing thing about the Garden Place house is that it was designed in a very sophisticated way. It imitates an English cottage, and is supposed to look little from the outside. The small front door brings you in to a suite of very lovely, ample rooms. It is the opposite of a McMansion that attempts to look bigger from the outside than it really is.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 2:37 PM

DP house is small, needs a lot of work, and has less detail (e.g. no fireplace or mantels) relative to other houses that have sold for that price. Factor in the cost of renovating an ugly kitchen and three bathrooms, a new roof, restoring the hideous exterior, plus other cosmetics throughout.

Its value as a two-family is limited as the layout would be very unappealing. The lower unit has most of the details and backyard access but doesn't even have space for a proper bedroom. The upper unit would need a kitchen added plus substantial renovations to make the third floor usable (for example, there's a toilet smack in the middle of one of the bedrooms). I say it goes in the 900's or sits on the market forever at its current price.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 2:41 PM

"The amazing thing about the Garden Place house is that it was designed in a very sophisticated way."

Absolute horsehockey. It's small inside and out. It does not rate $2500/sf. Period.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 2:48 PM

The 10th street house is not on the "fringes of park slope" but the block is the pits. This is the problem: that block will ALWAYS be the pits no matter how gentrified the area becomes.

Half of the block is a weedy concrete wall fronting the F train, and the worlds most ugly project-prison-block looms over the rest of the block. Complete with dogs that bark all day from their balcony cages.

700k a year ago? I'd think twice even before paying that now because you're not going to catch any gentrification appreciation.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 2:51 PM

2:15, re 10th St.:

"It sold only a few years ago for 700K and I think they are being greedy to ask so much now. ... Also, it's in the fringes of Park Slope. I'm amazed they are asking this much - I think they should be asking 1.1-1.2 max..."

I will agree with you on the location and the ugly block, but...

1. Yeah, we all know nothing in Brooklyn has doubled in price since 2003.

2. Of course it's on the fringes! You think it'd be asking $1.495M in prime Slope?

I call $1.3M on this place.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 2:55 PM

BTW, the "project" you mention re: 10th Street is not a Department of NYC Housing Project.

It is a Mitchell Lama building, which has already filed paperwork to elect out of Mitchell Lama, paving the way for a renovation to market rate apartments.

So actually, the potential long term value in the 10th Street property is quite high.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 2:57 PM

I think the Garden Place house is fishing for those GS bonuses. And in this neighborhood on this block it will probably get one.

Lots of people like PS too and there's not much brownstone inventory in the neighborhood now, so 10th street appears to be fishing for someone desperate for a house in PS for less than $1.5 million. Not really getting what you're desperate for on that block with that house though...

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 2:58 PM

The rooms in the 10th Street house are small, the rooms in the Garden Place House are not small.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 2:58 PM

2:48, did you even read the comments above? It's not small. Nor is it $2500/sf. It's just not a brownstone mansion.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 3:00 PM

I think it's obvious most people don't read the other comments.

Everyone has their own agenda they want to spew, and most of it is total nonsense.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 3:03 PM

The 10th street house in ridiculous. Since when does this part of the slope go for over 700 sq. ft.? I was looking at a place on 12th street 2 years ago that was 18 ft wide, nicer than this place, and it went for 1.2 mil. 10th street will go for $500 sq. ft max. which comes out to $1.05 mil.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 3:04 PM

The Plaza is now getting $6400 psf.

This sounds like a bargain for a wealthy Wall Streeter.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 3:05 PM

I am sure the Park Slope place will go for at least 1.3 million.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 3:06 PM

Re: 10th St and the bldg across the street - I don't care if the Mitchell Lama goes private, it's still a butt ugly building no matter whose living there. In fact, that whole block is ugly. The "PS" blocks between 4/5th Ave are kind of dicey - some are OK, some are not, and this is in the latter category. I agree that the brokers/owners are preying on PS house owners who are simply looking for a house in the 1.5 range, but this ain't gonna cut it. If it was a really nice house, that would help, but it's small, awkwardly laid out, in need of work and simply on a crappy block.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 3:07 PM

Are there really dogs being kept in cages outside on balconies at the 10th street houses? If that's true, why don't you call someone from animal services and save them instead of allowing it to go on?

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 3:09 PM

3:06 - whoever buys PS house for 1.3 is overpaying. I agree with 3:04 that 1.05 is a more on target price. If the broker were smart, they'd price low and start a bidding war. Given the lack of inventory, if it were priced at 1.05, I do think a bidding war is possible - but then again, that block might be a deal-breaker for many people, regardless of a good price.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 3:10 PM

10 street is between 4th and 5th avenue. It's getting $1.1 million if they are lucky.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 3:12 PM

I hate square foot values.
It assumes that a square foot in a nicely laid out house is comparable to a square foot in an oddly laid out house.

Square footages are useful in construction. Sheetrock costs so much a square foot, so does granite and so does carpet. But in real estate sales, square footages are basically used to confuse and deceive.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 3:12 PM

see this?

http://www.nysun.com/article/68117

and you think 10th street is dicey?

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 3:13 PM

10 street house is right next to the projects! Gimme a break.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 3:13 PM

3:12....i agree with you. i'd rather have a nice 1200 sf home made with quality materials than a 2400 sf piece of crap.

but this is america. home to a disgustingly obese population who shop at walmart, eat mcdonalds 5 nights a week, and think walking up a couple flights of stairs is rigorous.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 3:16 PM

Yes, sq. ft. is used to confuse and deceive by realtors because they constantly exaggerate about sq. ft.. However, in this case the sq. ft is very clear, which is 2100 sq. ft., which is tini. $1.05 million max for 10th street.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 3:17 PM

"it looks to me like the asking is $2,289/SF which does seem like a hell of a lot of money to me."

Except that it is WAY over comps. Period.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 3:18 PM

there are no projects in park slope.

we've been over this.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 3:19 PM

I say the Heights house goes for four even.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 3:19 PM

It is ugly low income housing. It effects the value of real estate that is near it. It is a project.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 3:21 PM

Re 10th St Mitchel Lama

If it walks and looks like a duck......

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 3:22 PM

2100 square feet is not tiny,
gimme a break.
Who are you? JP Morgan?

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 3:23 PM

This house bears out the consensus on the recent Brooklyn Heights thread that the neighborhood is in fact not predominated by mega-rich bankers (who live in Connecticut) but instead by merely-very-rich lawyers.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 3:25 PM

10th street does offer a nice view and the clankity-clank of the elevated F train in the distance.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 3:25 PM

I agree about the price per sf comments, to a point. We own a lovely 3BR/2BA prewar condo, about 1200 sf, and while we looked at many, many apts (before buying) that technically had more square feet, our apt worked much better for us since the lay-out is extremely efficient and "flows" well and thus "feels" much bigger than many apartments with a lot of wasted space and problems like no storage (we have 5 generous closets). Still, there is a certain reality to square footage. While I think our apartment is great for now, we simply do need more sf for our growing family. But, I too would rather buy a more modest house with, say 1600-2000 of living space - if well laid out - than waste my money on 2500-3000 of space where space is wasted. Also I also agree that since measurements of SF are not standardized, it creates a lot of confusion. Many brokers have told us square footage amounts that seemed to contradict other methods of calculating. At the end of the day, the space has to be laid out well and things like light, efficient storage, flow etc. all factor into the value per square foot, in my opinion - not just the sf per se. That said, I also think the per sf prices on the Garden Place home and 10th street houses are ridiculous.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 3:26 PM

don't know much about that particular part of BH, but there are some pretty cracked out brokers posting on here today. GS people don't "have" to buy a place in BH. some "may" do so, but they didn't become so badass by being unwise with money. $2500 per square foot would buy some prime tribeca (which is way closer to the new building), or just about any other hot neighborhood in manhattan. i knew RE brokers were pretty clueless/delusional, but this takes the cake. my guess is that the place is at least $1mn overpriced.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 3:27 PM

If there are brokers seeding the comments today, I think it's working the other way too. Somebody out there is praying they can scoop up a house in Park Slope for an even $1M.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 3:28 PM

In vertical living, spread between three floors, and by brownstone standards, it doesn't get much smaller than 2100 square feet. Square foot envy will be a part of everyday life in this humbler.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 3:30 PM

I'd be happy to live in 2100 sf but not across the street from one of the ugliest buildings in the PS vicinity (and probably much of "brownstone" bklyn) and certainly not for that price. Hell, no.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 3:30 PM

BH ain't the plaza. that's like comparing a one of a kind 1930's formula 1 car with a 2 year old lexus. order of magnitude difference.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 3:31 PM

agreed, 3:28.

anyone who thinks that can get that 10th street house for 1.05 million is literally off their rocker.

that's the going rate for houses profiled on here in crown heights and bed stuy.

and anyone who says those neighborhoods are dangerous are BERADED on here.

10th street, while not the most beautiful block in the world is an excellent location near tons of great shopping/restaurants and the train.

and crime in this neck of the woods is probably 10% of what it is in either bed stuy or crown heights.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 3:32 PM

"BH ain't the plaza. that's like comparing a one of a kind 1930's formula 1 car with a 2 year old lexus. order of magnitude difference."

and the difference is $2500 psf to $6400 psf accordingly.

your point would only make sense, if the garden place house was asking $6400 psf.

as it stands now, you made no point at all.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 3:33 PM

"I'd be happy to live in 2100 sf but not across the street from one of the ugliest buildings in the PS vicinity (and probably much of "brownstone" bklyn) and certainly not for that price. Hell, no. "

um....the 2100 sf house being referred to is the brooklyn heights home which is 4.4 million dollars.

so you wouldn't pay 1.4 million for the same size home in park slope?

something tells me you don't have 14 dollars.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 3:36 PM

Does the neighborhood in that part of tenth street have a name? is it Gowanus? South East Brooklyn? It would be interesting to ask someone who has lived there for a while.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 3:36 PM

6400 vs 2500 is not order of magnitude. try more like 2.5x. point well made, 3:31. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_magnitude

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 3:36 PM

Just because a house is in Park Slope, which this one really is not, does not mean that it will automatically get more than 1 million. The 10th street house is small, located next to a project, and also very close to a very industrial neighborhood. It does not deserve to be valued at anything more than $500 a square foot, perhaps not even that much. It is ridiculous what you realtors try to pull on these boards. How far will you keep pumping up prices?

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 3:37 PM

3:28 - I'm one of the posters commenting on 10th St. Actually, my budget can extend to 1.5, possibly even more for the right house, but I'm seeking a good value, and this isn't it. Several friends of mine have bought in South Slope in the last year in the 1.3 range but on much better blocks/better schools, etc. So I don't think you should assume posters are seeding this to bring the price down to an even $1M. Unless the market gets jitters in 2008 (which is possible with all the uncertainty), that's probably unrealistic. I think this thread, however, is pointing out that this house may not go for an even $1M, but it's also way overpriced at 1.5. I'd say 1.1 is more like it.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 3:37 PM

It is Gowanus.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 3:38 PM

give 3:33 a break. he didn't become a broker b/c he was good at math.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 3:38 PM

So where is Bushwick more or less?
Part of it is in Queens right?

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 3:40 PM

That so-called project, which is really a Mitchell-lama bldg got the ok to opt out of the program, since it was built after the 1974 cut off. So there is a nice upside there.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 3:41 PM

3:32 = broker

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 3:41 PM

yes, and they will also be doing a renovation to the outside of that building, from what i undersatnd, 3:41.

some beautification and market rate apts in there, and that 10th street house will be worth 2 mil in 5-7 years.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 3:43 PM

The 10th street house in Bed Stuy or crown height would go for no more than $700,000.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 3:44 PM

When Mitchell-Lama opts out of the program, does that mean they can tear down the building, or do any other significant work? I actually like this part of South Slope but was bummed out by that hideous building which is undeniably ugly - even the broker conceded that, and it would depress me to live across the street from it. What do you mean by "upside" when they opt out? I think it's only an upside if it can physically be removed and/or look very different in the future. Is that the case? Then again, would that mean you'd be living across the street from a lot of construction?

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 3:45 PM

3:43 - how much beautification can they do? When I saw the house, that building was a real eyesore and much of that had to do with this out-sized scale. Really, how fixable is this - is it just a band-aid?

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 3:47 PM

So the Garden Place house is languishing?
24 weeks is a long time I guess, although it must take time to lure in those oligarchs.
I have a feeling several of the old timers on that street probably have the "4 Sale" sign ready to go in the hall closet if this baby pulls in 4.4 mil.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 3:49 PM

What is going to happen to Mitchell Lama is all a mater of speculation and I would imagine when we have a huge shortage of low income housing that it is not going to be that easy to switch over to market rate. And no matter what they do to that building it will always be big and ugly.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 3:49 PM

The Garden Place house looks like it belongs in Forest Hills. No thanks.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 3:51 PM

And that part of Gowanus will always be full of pollution and industrial. And 4th Avenue will always be a major two lane avenue with big trucks.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 3:53 PM

Where is The What when you need him, because the 10th street house is just craziness.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 3:55 PM

A lot of super-rich folks live in Forest Hills.
It is Money Central.

Of course it ain't no Tenth St and Fourth ave.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 3:58 PM

I'm 3:45 - While I like "south slope" I must confess it's because of the deals to be had there (and 10th St house does not seem to be one of them). Of course, I'd rather live in prime slope near the park if I could afford it. Another worry of mine is toxicity - since you are getting very close to Gowanus. Does anyone know of any environmental studies that have been done to measure that kind of thing? And what about 4th Ave - I know right now it's pretty gross but does anyone have a better sense of its future? I feel as though the brokers talk up the change that's underfoot but I also worry about how real that is, or how long it will take. I have small children and would worry about them being exposed to lots of toxins/pollution during the 10-15 years we're waiting for "change".

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 3:59 PM

Fourth Avenue is in Park Slope the way Myrtle Avenue is in Brooklyn Heights.

next to square feet, realtors love to have fun with neighborhood names the most.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 4:00 PM

There now that the truth is out there for all to know, now try to sell for that ridiculous price.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 4:03 PM

That Mitchell Lama building is seriously the ugliest building in all of Park Slope. So out of context with everything else in the neighborhood - the size, the elevated parking lot, the concrete and brown brick. It makes the Novo look like a treasure. On my way to the YMCA (a beautiful building a block away) I often look at it with the sun setting behind it and wonder how such a turd got built. Not trying to drive down the price. Just think this building is the neighborhood's worst eyesore. Anyone else think there's an uglier building bounded by 4th ave, PPW, Flatbush and the Prospect Expwy?

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 4:07 PM

Here's another problem with the 10th Street house - it's only 35 feet deep. Even if were on the most beautiful block in PS, that's a major downside. Yet another reason the price is absurd.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 4:07 PM

"Anyone else think there's an uglier building bounded by 4th ave, PPW, Flatbush and the Prospect Expwy?"

yeah, whichever one you live in.

just kidding.

seriously though...it's pretty darn ugly. but i don't think one ugly buildings brings down a whole neighborhood...or even a street. every neighborhood has a few ugly buildings.

it's only more noticeble here because park slope is so freakin beautiful.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 4:09 PM

4:07....if it were bigger and on a more desirable block of park slope it would be 3 million dollars.

why do you think you should get the same thing for 1/3 the price?

do you not understand the concept of "you get what you pay for"

this is what you get for 1.4 million in park slope.

just like that's how much it costs to get a 1 bedroom apt. in the west village.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 4:14 PM

4:09 - sorry but I disagree with the potential of one ugly building to mar a street. Buyers who are paying over a million dollars do not want to live next to the ugliest building in brownstone Brooklyn. It's just too damn depressing since you have walk by it and look at it constantly. Locations in NYC are well known for varying significantly from block to block and if you are going to sell a house on one of the crappier blocks in an otherwise beautiful neighborhood, you can't expect to price it as if were a typical nice block in that neighborhood. As others have pointed out, this house is small and near 4th Ave - that would be reason enough to ask for less. But the fact that they are asking this much across the street from this eyesore is pretty shocking.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 4:15 PM

"Anyone else think there's an uglier building bounded by 4th ave, PPW, Flatbush and the Prospect Expwy?"

Funny thing though...how many ugly buildings are there like this in ft. greene, prospect heights, bed stuy, crown heights and clinton hill?

what 4:09 says is true. if this is the ugliest building in park slope, that says a lot for the neighborhood.

i can think of 20 buildings this ugly in most other brownstone neighborhoods.

starting with "the real" projects.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 4:17 PM

guest at December 14, 2007 2:41 PM:

There have been homes in DP in exactly this sort of condition that of sold in the 1 million to 1.1 million range. This house will get close to ask. It may not be as big as some DP and PPS homes, but it is far from small (try heating it). Check the sales section of MKG website for comps.

There have been a few sales a notch under the 1 million mark (one house is a bungalow in need of much more work that this, as well as smaller, so not the same situation).

Houses dripping in detail with new renos have price tags starting at 1 million. Less expensive houses, and smaller houses, frequently have the most aggressive bidding - they are easier to heat and maintain. The larger, more lavish homes start at around 1.5, and these tend to need another 500k worth of work.

This house may be dated in terms of decor, but the house is in walking distance of Cortelyou road and in the catchment area of either 217 or 139. This house will sell for at or near ask. Remember all the nay saying about the house on Marlborough in DPW. Well, go look at MGK web site. It went to contract pretty darn quick.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 4:18 PM

Holy crap! If it is only 35 ft deep then the building could not possibly have more than 1700 sq. ft., unless there is an extension. But it says that the building has a 65 ft deep garden so no extension. So where could the possibly be getting the extra 500 sq. ft.. At 1700 sq. ft. this place is going for no more than $700,000.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 4:18 PM

According to google maps, there's a housing project 0.65 miles away from Garden Place. NO WAY will they get that price. And what's up with that name, anyway? Must be a broker euphemism. "Garbage Place" is more like it - only 0.28 miles to the garbage barges floating by on the oil-slick we call the East River.

Plus, whoever called that 2100 square foot matchbox a "humbler" sure is right. God, how embarassing to tell Tyler and Madison that they can't have a live-in nanny AND housecleaner because they only have 4 bedrooms.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 4:18 PM

re: 4:14's comment - oh jeez, here we go with the broker type perpetuating the myth of the 3 million norm. Check out some comps (and not just the exception, not the rule kind that brokers like to point out) instead of believing this garbage. 1.4 million in this part of Park Slope (not "prime") can certainly buy you more than this piece of crap.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 4:19 PM

"ugliest building in brownstone Brooklyn"

sorry man, but then you've never walked by marcy houses, gowanus houses, or any of the other horrible bombed out looking buildings in other parts of brownstone brooklyn.

this one is pretty darn ugly, but it gets a whole lot worse than this.

at least this one isn't a drug and crime infested pit like many of the other eyesores in the borough.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 4:20 PM

Sorry DP comment - I mean starting at 1.3 million... for smaller reno'd homes.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 4:21 PM

Yes accept people in other neighborhoods don't try to deny that they live next to the projects. They accept them for what they are. Projects.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 4:22 PM

Some major sock puppeting going on this afternoon re the 10th Street house.

Of course, since it's not in Clinton Hill I doubt Brownstoner will check the IP addresses on it.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 4:22 PM

1:39, thanks for the old chestnut about brick houses being superior in fires. Now the only thing we need to add to this thread is an argument whether the restaurants are better in Park Slope or Bushwick, and we're all set.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 4:29 PM

what is sock puppeting?

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 4:30 PM

4:17 -- I challenge you to identify anything as ugly as the 10th street bldg in Prospect Heights.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 4:30 PM

bushwick is so much better than park slope.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 4:31 PM

Prospect Heights is so much better than Park Slope.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 4:32 PM

The restaurants are way better in park slope, but the fires are way bigger in Bushwick. If you want to buy a house in Bushwick, it's better be a brick one. They bricks are also better at stopping bullets.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 4:36 PM

how could you possibly complain about sock puppeting when you are signed on as guest?!! Particularly when you most likely a realtor who is seeding the comments.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 4:36 PM

Yes, what is sock puppeting? Does that mean you're accusing brokers of posing as potential buyers and touting how great a house is and why it merits the outrageous price? I think that happens all the time on this list - no news there.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 4:41 PM

touche john ife, touche!

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 4:48 PM

For $100,000 less than the tenth street place you could have this...
http://www.corcoran.com/property/listing.aspx?Region=NYC&ListingID=970751&ohDat=12/16/2007%2012:00:00%20AM;

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 4:49 PM

Guests are better than people signed in.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 4:49 PM

Or for $400,000 less you could have this.
http://www.corcoran.com/property/listing.aspx?Region=NYC&ListingID=1069539&ohDat=12/18/2007%2012:00:00%20AM;

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 4:52 PM

Guests are people too.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 4:53 PM

I bought my sock puppet in Bushwick

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 4:54 PM

I socked my puppet in Bushwick

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 4:58 PM

In Brooklyn Heights, the rich bankers have their valets put their sock puppets on for them.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 4:59 PM

Re: 10th Street

The Mitchell Lama building puts out their garbage directly across the street, and a building that size throws aout A LOT of garbage. And they put their garbage out early in the morning the day before pick up. So two days a week you get to look at a mountain of Hefty bags.

Also, that block is the terminus of the B77 bus from Red Hook, so you have a bus passing by every 8 to 20 minutes depending on time of day, and then idling just up the block till it's tiime for their next run to Red Hook.

Pros are that you're less than a block from 4th Ave/9th St R and F trains, and around the corner from the Y.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 5:01 PM

And that area of 10th Street, in fact anything south of 9th Street and west of 6th Avenue, is South Brooklyn, not Park Slope.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 5:03 PM

4:49:

Yes, for $100K less you can have an equally small brick house in... Clinton Hill!

Clinton Hill now worth only 8% less than Park Slope according to Brownstoner commenters. Plus, the projects there are real! No weak-ass Mitchell-Lama bullsh*t!

LOL, oh mercy, that says it all

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 5:03 PM

I love the truth that is coming out on these boards today. Refreshing, like a cool tall glass of water.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 5:05 PM

Geez, that Clifton Place house is also nuts. May 2008 bring back sanity.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 5:07 PM

But the Clinton Hill house is so much nicer and Clinton Hill is so much cooler. And no truck and bus fumes and industrial pollution, and piles of garbage... shall I go on?

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 5:10 PM

Does anyone have an explanation for the missing 400 sq. ft. on the 10th street house?

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 5:10 PM

extension.

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

5:10-- actually, yeah.. you didn't get to the part yet about how most shootings are between people who know each other so don't worry about that.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 5:13 PM

Thank you for that John Ife. That is simply amazing. My mouth is agape.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 5:13 PM

nope, the garden is 65 ft deep. no extension.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 5:13 PM

extension.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 5:15 PM

cheatin', lyin' realtors?

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 5:16 PM

DAMN YOU REALTORS!

[shakes fist at sky]

WHY DID YOU MAKE BROOKLYN SO EXPENSIVE!!!

LOL

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 5:20 PM

Common the realtors selling this property, who I know are on these boards, should be able to answer the question about the missing square footage.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 5:24 PM

guest at December 14, 2007 4:18 PM:

And there have been homes in similar or better condition that have sold for less than 1 million so what's your point? And today’s market is not yesterday’s market, with jumbos over 7%.

Looking at MKG’s site for comps as you recommend, I see 718 East 18th Street at $1.19, which is a much prettier house both inside and out, and has been sitting on the market for a while. I see 271 Stratford, which was similar size and condition to this house except it actually has a beautiful fireplace/mantle plus fretwork selling for $985. Smaller houses may have aggressive bidding, or they may sit on the market for many, many months after numerous price cuts, witness 1407 Dorchester, which can't sell at $899.

500 Marlborough (which was pristine inside and out) may have went to contract after a few months on the market, but we don't know at what price. Even if, for the sake of argument, it went at ask (1.35), it had 11 stained glass windows, fireplace and mantles, pocket doors, etc. that blow away 466 Westminster. So after you spend 1.2 on 466 Westminster and then spend several hundred thousand to restore it, there's no way you're getting your money back because it's just a mediocre house.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 5:37 PM

What are the carrying costs on that Ditmas house? (Chime in seller/broker).

Have people seen it? I see things written like it needs restoration and the roof needs replacing- but is that just conjecture? You can't tell that from the listing. (Though the kitchen is obviously bad)

Yes the brick looks bad and the interior looks like it needs paint, but it doesn't look that bad. Don't know the comps, but if it's overpriced, someone will just offer lower, and it will eventually sell, right?

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 5:59 PM

Can brokers/realtors get in trouble for blatantly exaggerating square footage?

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 6:01 PM

"but if it's overpriced, someone will just offer lower, and it will eventually sell, right?"

That usually happens in real estate. Unless, of course, the seller is just testing the waters and has no real interest in selling.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 6:02 PM

WOOHOO...BROWNSTONER IN THE HOUSE!
(Jonathan...you *were* planning posting the link to this article, no? Gotta give the fans what they want!)

Here it is Folks!:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aAzGOK3UYne4

A Goldman Banker Moves to Brooklyn, Bloggers Go Ape: Joe Mysak

Commentary by Joe Mysak

Dec. 14 (Bloomberg) -- Who's moving in?

Perhaps no other question is as central to the future of our cities and towns. Some seem to think that the best way to achieve urban renewal is to attract young, single, artsy or gay people.

More often than not, though, the question about who's moving in is tied up with fear and suspicion, hostility and resentment. At one time or another, New Yorkers have worried about White People, the English, the Irish, the Italians, the Jews, the Blacks, the Puerto Ricans.

And now, at least one neighborhood in America is worried about the Goldman Sachs Group Inc. bankers.

You just knew it would come to this.

On Dec. 11, a blog about Brooklyn real estate and renovation called ``Brownstoner'' carried the following item: ``We got an e-mail a few days ago from a regular tipster who's always been right in the past so we're tempted to give him the benefit of the doubt this time around. While pointing us in the direction of a recent sale on Joralemon Street, he noted that the buyer happened to be a Goldman Sachs executive.''

The entry continued: ``This was, he claimed, part of a trend that's seen members of the city's most successful investment bank crossing the East River (more than usual) in recent months to buy a piece of the rock in Brooklyn Heights.'' Another broker told the blogger that he knew of at least two other recent deals involving Goldman bankers.

`Special Button'

The blogger, Jonathan Butler, an ex-banker and journalist who launched the site in October 2004, concluded: ``The only bank where bonuses are expected to rise significantly this season, Goldman bankers and traders are certainly in the best position to snap up those $5 million-plus houses. Think there's anything to this `trend' or has it just always been so?''

The item was posted at 9:32 a.m., under a nice little photo of, what else, a row of brownstone facades.

And then -- explosion. The ``Comments'' section, where readers write in offering their opinions, had 17 posts in the first hour, 70 items by noon. By midnight, 231 comments had been posted, at least ostensibly about Goldman bankers moving into Brooklyn Heights.

``There are usually a couple of posts a week that generate 100+ comments, but it takes a special button being pressed to clear 200,'' Butler said in an e-mail to me. He thought the response was close to a record.

Blame the Wives

Some people said they weren't surprised, that if Goldman bankers were going to choose any neighborhood in Brooklyn, they would choose the Heights because it has the best housing stock and is very close to Goldman's downtown offices, a subway stop or two away.

This being the blogosphere, of course, disputes arose.

Some commentators -- almost all of whom were signed in anonymously as ``guest'' -- said that Wall Street bankers don't take the train. ``When talking about these Goldman Sachs types car transportation is the only thing that matters. My father, who is 75, is one of them and I think you can count on one hand the times he has set foot on a subway or bus in his life.''

Others threw water on the entire notion.

``The reality is that 95 percent of Wall Streeters don't live in Brooklyn and only a few more live in Manhattan. The vast majority of Wall Street live in the suburbs of Westchester, Northern New Jersey and Long Island,'' said one reader.

Another observed: ``From what I hear, many of the execs would not mind living in Brooklyn but their wives absolutely veto the notion. It is seen as declasse and inconvenient by them.''

Most Annoying Neighborhood

One reader wrote that bankers also liked Park Slope. This resulted in a fierce rejoinder, one writer calling Park Slope ``the most annoying neighborhood in Brooklyn,'' while another asked ``why Park Slope tries to highjack every thread,'' or topic for discussion. One writer wrote ``park slope'' 44 times.

There were the inevitable comments on restaurants, or lack of them, and celebrity sightings, both real and imaginary: the actor Maggie Gyllenhaal, who lives in Park Slope, the journalist Jim Grant, who lives in Brooklyn Heights, and, inexplicably, television screamer Jim Cramer, who actually lives in New Jersey. The writer admitted the Cramer sighting ``sounds crazy.''

And then, as always happens on the Internet, it was over. Just before midnight, one person wrote, ``Brooklyn Heights is really beautiful,'' and at 1:36 in the morning another wrote ``Brooklyn Heights is actually kinda shabby.''

The Goldman Sachs/Brooklyn Heights storm had blown itself out.

(Joe Mysak is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.)

To contact the writer of this column: Joe Mysak in New York at jmysakjr@bloomberg.net

Last Updated: December 14, 2007 00:04 EST

[UPDATE: THERE WERE ACTUALLY ALMOST 30 MORE COMMENTS POSTED TO THE THREAD AFTER MYSAK, JR. STOPPED LOOKING AT IT...THE "Goldman Sachs/Brooklyn Heights storm had (NOT QUITE) blown itself out."

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 6:28 PM

It would be interesting to know how many people were actually participating in those 200+ comments.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 6:56 PM

"Park Slope is the most annoying neighborhood in Brooklyn"... That's funny.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 7:00 PM

Ha--my quote was featured.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 7:12 PM

I think the "most annoying" title should be shared between Park Slope and Cobble Hill.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 7:21 PM

I love how Williamsburg doesn't even figure in the most annoying list. I think it should.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 7:24 PM

I was quoted several times. i am the goddam wittiest sock puppet on this tinhorn blog.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 7:38 PM

Cobble Hill does not have the same need to highjack every topic of discussion. Nope the honor is entirely Park Slope's.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 7:40 PM

Where's Cobble Hill?

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 7:44 PM

Cobble Hill is where Park Slope wishes it was. Close to Manhattan.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 7:50 PM

Williamsburg is too peripheral to be annoying.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 7:51 PM

"where is Cobble Hill?"

I think it is near Bushwick.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 8:38 PM

We also saw the 10th st house and felt the location made it an absolute no-go. Sorry but the mounds of garbage bags outside the housing opposite are appalling. If this house were on a different street, maybe $1.3-$1.4. On this street, I have to say personally I would not buy it at any price (and we are actively looking in the $1-$1.5 range). They might find someone tempted at around $1.1 or so. There is no extension btw.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 10:30 PM

I just hope that all this Park Slope hatin' makes property values dip so I can scoop me up one of those brownstones.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 10:38 PM

I was in the house on 10 street last week,
The block is subprime, the house is subprime
and I own few of them in the area.
Terrible job on the last floor, they waisted a whole middle room for a lousy Jacozi as if space is very avaialble in these houses.
Bottom line I'd pay 1.15 for soemthing like that.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 10:57 PM

Slope house has a jacuzzi in it? Very strange.

Posted by: guest at December 15, 2007 12:02 AM

Not a great selection of homes at all--guess it's the calm before the holidays.

Posted by: guest at December 15, 2007 2:20 AM

Amazing that 10:57 is a "subprime" multiple home owner, with that spelling. I can understand getting jacuzzi wrong, but "waisted"? Do they teach anything in schools anymore?

Posted by: guest at December 15, 2007 8:35 AM

Yes, 10th street house has not extension, and is 1700 sq ft max. Minus the rental apartment you have about 1100 sq. ft. to yourself. Can you imagine trying to squeeze 3 bedrooms into that space. This place deserves no more than $500 a sq. ft., which comes out to $850,000 sq. ft.. Anyone who would pay more is throwing money away.

Posted by: guest at December 15, 2007 8:58 AM

Yes, 10th street house has no extension, and is 1700 sq ft max. Minus the rental apartment you have about 1100 sq. ft. to yourself. Can you imagine trying to squeeze 3 bedrooms into that space. This place deserves no more than $500 a sq. ft., which comes out to $850,000. Anyone who would pay more is throwing money away.

Posted by: guest at December 15, 2007 8:58 AM

Cobble Hill is Brooklyn Heights' weak little sister.

Posted by: guest at December 15, 2007 10:42 AM

8:35--you know, there are a lot of foreign-born homeowners in the US. Not everyone's first-language is English. Don't be a prick.

Posted by: guest at December 15, 2007 11:43 AM

cobble hill rocks
cobble hill rocks
cobble hill rocks
cobble hill rocks
cobble hill rocks
cobble hill rocks
cobble hill rocks
cobble hill rocks
cobble hill, cobble hill, cobble hill

Posted by: guest at December 15, 2007 4:15 PM

LOL, you idiots from cobble hill, clinton hill, park slope, fort greene are all exactly the same lame person living a mile or 2 away from your mirror image from a different neighborhood. And the fact that you attack each other is both pathetic and hysterical. And if I might psychoanalyze: self hate!

Posted by: guest at December 15, 2007 4:17 PM

Several friends have within the last few months bought houses in the South Slope for 1.3 that were much nicer than this 10th St house, on better blocks. We saw it and found it small and poorly done. Given the location, I agree that 1.1-1.2 tops is what broker should ask and they'd be lucky to get it.

Posted by: guest at December 15, 2007 5:23 PM

You aint dreamin your on brownstoner

Posted by: guest at December 15, 2007 6:07 PM

The Westminster Rd. house has no detail except for the 1 stained glass window and is is need of a kitchen and bathrooms. The bricked over front has to go and the 2 car garage,and rear porch leaves a tiny back yard on a 40' lot. The owner, who has had it for 25 years should be happy to get $950k for it. For a million plus there are nicer houses in the neighborhood. The broker, who lives nearby should know better.

Posted by: guest at December 15, 2007 6:45 PM

Don't knock the Ditmas Park West house. I have a similar house right nearby that's loaded with original detail, renovated kitchen, 3 1/2 bathrooms and all new electric and plumbing and roof, and no brickface. I'd guess mine is worth the $1.2 but if 466 Westminster goes above $1 million mine is worth more. Keep the prices rising for when I'm ready to sell. THANKS!

Posted by: guest at December 15, 2007 7:50 PM

if you don't understand bushwick do not move there. live in williamsburg and several neighbors weighed between a condo in prime burg vs. bushwick. neighborhoods matter. you can get a really decent place in a better spot.

Posted by: guest at December 15, 2007 8:03 PM

I do not like Cobble Hill.

Posted by: guest at December 15, 2007 10:05 PM

10:05, Cobble Hill returns the compliment. Happy Holidays.

Posted by: guest at December 15, 2007 11:52 PM

Clearly the realtor of the 10th street house in hoping that if they place it on the market for 1.5 mil they will get 1.1 mil, when in reality 1700 sq. ft. on that block is worth $800,000. Plus they will get a slap on the wrist plus more for lying about the square footage.

Posted by: guest at December 16, 2007 1:32 AM

1:32am - well, I think 800K for a house in even the fringes of Park Slope might not be realistic unless the market does have a pretty significant correction. But I agree that 1.5 is ridiculous and they would be lucky to get 1.1 for that block & size of house.

Posted by: guest at December 16, 2007 9:51 AM

Has anyone looked at the 466 Westminster house? How much work does it really need?

Posted by: guest at December 16, 2007 3:49 PM

Bklyn heights house was nice, but smaller than 3500 sq feet, and that's including the marginally usable space downstairs and on the top floor.

Interior is like a 1980s time capsule.

Posted by: guest at December 16, 2007 4:31 PM

I've seen 466 Westminster and it needs a lot of work. The kitchen and bathrooms all need to be updated. Every room needs a skim coat and the windows are old and need to be replaced. The floors are pretty but need to be sanded and refinished. The crummy siding and the bricked over porch need to be replaced. The broker says the mechanicals are good but it needs a new roof. As someone mentioned, the backyard is claustrophobic and there aren't many original details. It does have a nice homey feeling and could be cute once it's fixed up, but I think that it's way overpriced. There are much bigger houses available in that price range (for example, 109 Marlborough Road). I think it has potential but it should go in the mid-900's.

Posted by: guest at December 16, 2007 5:05 PM

Thanks 11:52. You still suck.

Posted by: guest at December 16, 2007 7:03 PM

We looked at Ditmas and just couldn't tolerate such teeny tiny bedrooms, which all the houses have there. I don't even know where we'd put our clothes, having such small rooms like in this listing. They're smaller than the bedrooms in our old apartment. There's barely enough room for one dresser and we need 4 dressers for my husband and me. We're hardly big clothes-horses either. Also the living rooms were tiny that we saw in Ditmas. Some strange proportions going on in certain eras or styles of houses. If you can't afford the huge grand houses in that neighborhood, IMO it's not worth it to be so far out and away from transportation living in tiny rooms. That was our decision anyway. We couldn't afford a $2-3 million house and those are the only ones I actually like in Ditmas.

Posted by: guest at December 16, 2007 9:29 PM

Hey 10th Street broker - you should maybe take some lessons from Townsley & Gay. They have now lowered their listing on 14th St (bet 4/5) to 1.595 - it started at 1.879, and frankly, I think it's still overpriced at 1.595 (FYI, this was a Brownstoner HOTD a few weeks ago, around Dec 6 I think). Like 10th St, it has a problem of being on a crappy block. Even though it is by far a much nicer house than 10th Street (which is a tiny dump by comparison), they've had to knock well over $250K off the initial ask due to the block, and my bet is that they'll have to lower still more before selling...

Posted by: guest at December 16, 2007 10:08 PM