« Condos of the Day: 536 Henry Street Streetlevel: Lots of Doings on Vanderbilt »
January 16, 2008
House of the Day: 535 1st Street Revisited
After Corcoran failed to move it back in 2006 first at $3,500,000 and then at $3,100,000, the limestone mansion at 535 1st Street in Park Slope has just come back on the market for another try with Douglas Elliman. The asking price? $3,675,000. The princely pad is 4,420 square feet large, but we're not sure why something that failed to sell 18 months ago would now sell for 20% higher in this market. A the very least, it wouldn't hurt to have some interior photos to look at. (There is one on the old HOTD link below.)
535 1st Street [Douglas Elliman] GMAP P*Shark
House of the Day: 535 1st Street [Brownstoner]
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/3532
Comments
WTF?? And no interior pics?
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 1:34 PM
you also have it categorized under clinton hill....
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 1:35 PM
Too funny--wishful thinking or freudian slip?
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 1:37 PM
When these things happen, it is not a sign of a changing market, it is simply the sign of a seller who is either testing the market or is in no rush to sell.
Whether they get 3.6 million or 2.9 million for the place, they will be able to buy a perfectly lovely mcmansion in ft. lauderdale when the time comes, so don't come on here saying that the market is crazy, these people are crazy, etc.
Last I checked, America was a free country and if they want to list this house for more than it was listed in 2006, more power to them.
Doesn't mean anyone has to buy it.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 1:38 PM
This place is too cheap to accidentally file it under "Carroll Gardens".
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 1:39 PM
1:38's feelings were hurt.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 1:42 PM
1:28 - does that mean you're actually asking $2.9M?
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 1:53 PM
sorry - 1:38 not 1:28
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 1:53 PM
I'm allowed to have a view about the home without being the seller, 1:53.
To automatically jump to such a conclusion means your brain is the size of a sweet pea.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 1:55 PM
^I think it means they'll take $2.9m. Hmmm....
Let's see, a 16 footer in Carroll Gardens or a limestone mansion on 1st street & the Park? Tough one.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 1:56 PM
Ewww, the place has white windows. How gross. Who would want that?
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 1:56 PM
doubt you can afford either, 1:56.
and your little arrow up thing is lame, btw.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 1:57 PM
This looks like a beautiful property. I really wish there were some interior pictures. I can't imagine why there wouldn't be. And please don't say that buyers at this price point don't care about pictures--that's nonsense.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 1:57 PM
IF this place were in Carroll Gardens it would be going for 5 million.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 1:58 PM
1:56...or shall i call you moron.
The house for sale is the one with the black windows.
Or would you not be able to live next door to a house with white windows either??
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 1:58 PM
1:56--it's the one with the black windows, next to the brownstone.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 1:58 PM
Elliman just wants to show Corcoran that they are better at what they do. (Gotcha-Gotcha)
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 1:58 PM
Sellers/ brokers have clearly lost their minds
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 2:00 PM
Elliman IS better at Corcoran at they do.
So is Brown Harris Stevens, in my opinion.
Corcoran a distant 3rd in the Brooklyn Townhouse market.
Elliman and Harris Stevens have both either expanded their Park Slope office or added a brand new one, while Corcoran still occupies that dumpy office on the corner of 7th Avenue.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 2:00 PM
Without seeing the inside, this looks a lot more worthy of someone's $3M than some of the other junk out there.
21 feet wide. . . park block. . . 4100 legit square feet. .. .These are bigtime numbers
Not saying it's a bargain, but they're not smoking crack like the Carroll Gardens places.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 2:00 PM
Ewww, who would want to live next to a place with white windows.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 2:00 PM
2:00...
Why is that? Because you think one of the most architecturally significant homes in Park Slope, right next to the park should be 200K so it fits into your budget??
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 2:01 PM
White windows are historically accurate for limestones!
I have a photo postcard of our very same limestone block in Lefferts Manor from the turn of the century right after they were built, and all the windows are WHITE. Not black or anything dark.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 2:02 PM
Someone is incredibly defensive. Do yourself a favor and refrain from commenting any further, lest you do yourself a great disservice by alienating potential buyers.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 2:02 PM
Ewww, it has a white cornice. Who would want to live in a place with a white cornice.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 2:02 PM
Difference is, this place requires a lot or work.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 2:04 PM
I actually do think it's a relative bargain, given all other comps I've seen listed in Brownstone Brooklyn.
Seriously.
2 million and change for Clinton Hill crap. Nearly 3 million for Caroll Gardens house half this size, 2 million for Prospect Heights and a million for some Bed Stuy stuff...
Yeah, this seems like a fine price. Now whether there are the buyers right now, that is another story altogether.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 2:04 PM
I agree that I'd much rather blow my $3+ million on this limestone near the park than on the 3-story brick shack on 3rd Place. No comparison.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 2:04 PM
Take this house across the river to the Upper East Side and we're talking 15 million.
GORGEOUS old house and location.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 2:06 PM
2:02, try telling that to the LPC. Not that this place is landmarked, but according to LPC there were never any white windows in Brooklyn, even on Limestones. White windows will lead to unhappiness and a swift kick in the bumm!!
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 2:08 PM
Park Slope real estate market is soft. This ain't selling
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 2:09 PM
White is too prissy for New York.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 2:11 PM
You all are REALLY dense, aren't you.
This is known to be the slowest time of year for Real Estate.
I thought everyone knew that.
A market with little (practically zero) inventory in the middle of January and prices above 3 million is soft?
OK.
You know best.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 2:12 PM
There is nothing like a stately mansion.
The yo-yo pricing another subject.
Posted by: Ysabelle at January 16, 2008 2:13 PM
Ok, ok. Here's my research AND a perfect comp.
527 1st Street, the same style limestone right down the block, closed for $3.025 million in September 2007. However, it was only 16.5' wide. It was listed with Townsley & Gay (at a higher price) for a while, and it's still on their website in case you'd like to see the interior pictures: (there's no direct link, so just scroll down to "Finest Limestone Townhouse" # 108)
http://www.townsleyandg.com/
So, if this one is 21' wide and needs some work, which I will assume from the lack of pictures, how much should it fetch? I'm sure the pricing is negotiable, if they are serious about selling.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 2:17 PM
Look at the Corcoran 2007 report. Park Slope is soft.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 2:17 PM
Only 2 bedrooms were "soft" 2:17.
I'm not an idiot.
Townhome prices have continued to rise.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 2:19 PM
Most people don't take their real estate reports on an entire market based on a single brokerage firm, 2:17.
You really need to be a little more informed.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 2:20 PM
Planet earth is soft.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 2:22 PM
$3.0m this year. 2.5m next year.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 2:23 PM
38 comments and only one with any considered insight or useful information (2:17). Welcome to brownstoner!
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 2:26 PM
I don't really see how a 16 foot house and a 21 foot house are perfect comps.
It's perfect in the sense that I think this house should sell for much, much more than a 16.5 foot home.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 2:28 PM
Features on a house that are pre-landmarking are grandfathered in, 2:08. Old photographs are acceptable as proof.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 2:28 PM
"$3.0m this year. 2.5m next year."
Yup, perhaps.
And also perhaps 5 million in 2013.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 2:28 PM
biscuits and coffeecake anyone?
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 2:30 PM
"And also perhaps 5 million in 2013."
Which will be $2m Canadian.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 2:33 PM
"I don't really see how a 16 foot house and a 21 foot house are perfect comps.
It's perfect in the sense that I think this house should sell for much, much more than a 16.5 foot home. "
NO KIDDING! Maybe if you had read my post more carefully, you'd have seen that I was making that exact distinction. It IS a perfect comp in the sense that you can derive a price from the sale because it's the SAME strip of limestones on the SAME street. So, if a 16.5' footer went for $3.025, I was asking what a 21' wide one should go for???
Also, there is no indication of the state of the interior. At least Townsley & Gay went all out with their photos. Why are there no photos here?
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 2:36 PM
Why do people hate white windows so much? We currently have brown ones in our apt (in a turn-of-century townhouse), and need to get them replaced, and I'm tempted to get white, which I prefer over brown. Is that some huge faux-pas and if so, why?
Posted by: housesearcher at January 16, 2008 2:36 PM
Go back to the Carroll Gardens thread, you barista.
The Corcoran report is based on the city's numbers. Park Slope was soft across the board relative to other brownstone neighborhoods.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 2:36 PM
Even with a photograph you will never convince the LPC that there was ever a white window in Brooklyn. Light gray, maybe.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 2:36 PM
2:36, funny how my neighborhood is CHOCK full of white window buildings that were approved by LPC in the last few years. Get over it.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 2:39 PM
2:36...this is for you...
The Corcoran Group's Brooklyn regional vice president, Frank Percesepe, talked to The Observer about some of the trends that pushed the average price of an apartment up 8 percent in the borough in 2007, according to the firm's year-end market report.
"If you look at the numbers, there is nice, mature growth in all neighborhoods," he said.
The report covered the neighborhoods of Brooklyn Heights, Cobble Hill and Carroll Gardens, Boerum Hill, Fort Greene and Clinton Hill, Park Slope, Williamsburg, and Bedford-Stuyvesant.
"If the price of a two-bedroom in Park Slope dropped a little," Mr. Percesepe said, "it's because inventory went down not because the market was performing badly."
Park Slope:
The average price of a three-bedroom condo rose 11 percent in 2007--the biggest increase of any condo size--to $1.145 million compared to $1.033 million in 2006.
Two-bedroom condo prices dropped the farthest in 2007. The average price dipped from $687,000 in 2006 to $677,000 in 2007, while the median price dropped 4 percent to $637,000 in 2007.
The average price of a studio condo rose from $254,000 in 2006 to $256,000 in 2007.
The average price of a one-bedroom condo rose 3 percent year-over-year, to $444,000 in 2007.
Townhouse prices rose 8% year over year.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 2:42 PM
2:36
You are dead wrong.
Or would you like me to have the person sitting next to me (from LPC) write that for you?
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 2:43 PM
"and I'm tempted to get white, which I prefer over brown."
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 2:49 PM
2:43,
Yes please.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 2:54 PM
Just so happens that I also have someone from LPC sitting next to me.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 2:57 PM
I don't get it - all over the news are reports that housing is at last set to decline or at least flatten in NYC, and they *raise* the price? There is economic doom and gloom all around - how is this price hike justifiable? Or the original price, for that matter? And how much do comps really matter if they are from the peak of the market when the market has changed?
Posted by: housesearcher at January 16, 2008 3:02 PM
"If the price of a two-bedroom in Park Slope dropped a little... it's because inventory went down not because the market was performing badly."
Does that sentence make any sense?
Shouldn't low inventory push the price UP? Unless - of course - gasp - the market is performing badly?
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 3:02 PM
Low inventory would push the prices down, because there wasn't enough inventory to keep up with the amount of people interested in purchasing 2 bedrooms in the slope, so the numbers were off a little.
Makes perfect sense to me.
The price trended down because of a low number of sales from low inventory.
I'm lookin for a 2 bedroom in the slope now and have seen very little of quality around.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 3:05 PM
White windows! Black windows! Why is it always about black and white on this site? ;-)
Posted by: GHB at January 16, 2008 3:09 PM
Hmmm, I'm still not seeing how a low number of sale pushed down prices of individual sales.
I think it's the market talking. Prices are headed south.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 3:10 PM
Price goes up when it is in high demand and there is only a limited supply. Thus, if there were a low inventory and high demand the prices of 2 bedrooms in Park Slope should have gone way up. Even if there was a low inventory and low demand priced should have been stable. But prices went down, which means there must have been hardly any demand, causing sellers to lower their asking prices until there was demand.
It is economic 101, it is not that difficult to understand.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 3:14 PM
"Prices are headed south."
Hasn't this been the news for about 6 months to a year now?
You make it sound like you are bringing new news to the table.
Yes, prices are headed down. In some parts of the U.S. they are down drastically.
So far, Brooklyn and Park Slope have been very lucky and only seen minor drops. Maybe more to come, and we will all live.
Can you tell me what your point is, though?
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 3:14 PM
That Park Slope is soft.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 3:16 PM
Clearly Corcoran Group's Brooklyn regional vice president, Frank Percesepe, is not the brightest broker.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 3:20 PM
The point is that it seem unlikely that a house that did not sell at $3,100,000 is now going to sell at $3,675,000.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 3:21 PM
Park Slope sucks! Suck it, slopers.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 3:21 PM
If Park Slope is soft (which it very well might be) that only means that every other neighborhood in Brooklyn is softer.
With perhaps the exception of Brooklyn Heights.
Too many jealous people on this thread who wish they would have bought last time Park Slope was "soft"
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 3:21 PM
3:21...
it's because the ONE area of the market that is flourishing in nyc (besides studios) are the extremely high end properties.
i'm guessing the broker is trying to latch onto the fact that the most expensive of properties continue to do well, even in this softening market.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 3:23 PM
Not in Park Slope.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 3:26 PM
Brownstoner:
I remember this house from the 1950's.
What's labeled "bedroom" on the second floor should actually be the "parlor" or living room, with the ground floor given over to the "entry hall" (with stairs)and dining room.
Houses like these often had two floors of "public rooms" -- that's what made them grand.
Nostalgic on Park Avenue
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 3:27 PM
Park Slope is soft but kittens are softer.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 3:28 PM
The broker was trying to latch on to his brain but he couldn't find it so blurted out something that made absolutely no sense.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 3:29 PM
I love kittens.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 3:30 PM
Pet my kitten.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 3:35 PM
Guess this house isn't as overpriced as the 16 footer in Caroll Gardens from yesterday.
The comments seem so tame today.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 3:37 PM
HOLY MOLY!! I am going to be sick to my stomach. Corcoran just listed 329 President Street, a 16' footer that is only 2 1/2 stories, at $3.6 million! THESE RIDICULOUS LISTINGS (which I have to think are FAKE!) are what make a limestone like this, on one of the best blocks in Brooklyn, a fucking deal! A steal even! Can you imagine asking the same amount as this mansion for a short and skinny piece of crap on President & Hoyt???? I need a shot of tequila. Or four.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 3:41 PM
That actually is the most beautiful block in Carroll Gardens in my opinion. The houses are gorgeous. Still seems overpriced though.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 3:47 PM
While it is sometimes interesting to see listings - it is much more useful and probative to see SALES
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 3:49 PM
3:41 - where did get the address? I was wondering if 329 was the one that Corcoran just llsted but thought probably not since the four story ones comped at around 1.6-1.7 a year ago. I thought the owner bought it for his daughter to live in. Can't wait to hear the gossip on the block about that price.
I wonder what 304 is asking - that is also for sale.
Maybe Corcoran knows something we don't know. And it is a great block - the Daily News did a feature on its residents over the summer.
I gotta mix up some Kool aid.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 3:56 PM
3:56--I got the address from Streeteasy. Just do a search for sales in Cobble Hill since that's what they're classifying it as.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 3:58 PM
3:47pm: oh, i see what you did there!
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 4:00 PM
Seriously 3:41, because one listing is gross overpriced doesn't mean another less expensive but still grossly overpriced property is a deal.
Nice try, though.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 4:07 PM
3:56 - Thanks.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 4:08 PM
Is it over yet?
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 4:15 PM
3:49 is right. The final sales price is all that matters, and the one on this house will be lower than asking, and the one on that Pres St. house will be about 1/3 of asking.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 4:21 PM
I don't think this listing is "grossly overpriced", just a bit overpriced given its pricing history. But, it's a limestone mansion pretty much on the park. Meanwhile the President street listing price mentioned above is absolutely laughable.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 4:25 PM
Most of you sound like you hope that these people will get 1/3 of their asking price.
And you know what that will mean for the U.S.?
A depression that will make the Great One look like a circus.
So keep that in mind as you toil away in your mom's basement wishing you had jumped inot the largest housing boom in history.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 4:26 PM
I agree with you 4:21 that President St. will go for 1/3 of asking but I would just like to know what type of pricing game Corcoran is playing in Carroll Gardens.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 4:28 PM
4:26, not really. It depends on what property you're talking about. This limestone is overpriced by maybe $250-350K, if indeed it needs work on the inside. That's not 1/3.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 4:34 PM
4:28--I think Corcoran is playing a game with their last 3 listings. It's a cartel-like effort. But in this market, and with less expensive and much larger homes in virtually every brownstone neighborhood (except Bklyn Hts), they can dream on.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 4:37 PM
"Most of you sound like you hope that these people will get 1/3 of their asking price. And you know what that will mean for the U.S.? A depression that will make the Great One look like a circus."
The country will go into a depression if the owners get only 1/3 of their asking price on a house in Brooklyn??
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 4:39 PM
I think Corcoran is now being run my the mob.
That is really the only viable reason to me why these Caroll Gardens properties could be priced so outrageously.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 4:40 PM
"And you know what that will mean for the U.S.?
A depression that will make the Great One look like a circus. "
That is pure hyperbole, of course! If an asking price is exponentially inflated, and the listing does not sell for that implausible sum, that is natural, and not a sign of a crashing market. I am referring to the Carroll Gardens listings, and NOT this particular HOTD.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 4:40 PM
"The country will go into a depression if the owners get only 1/3 of their asking price on a house in Brooklyn??"
OH COME ON!!
People say EVERY property listed on Brownstoner is overpriced by a million.
IT'S ABURDITY AT IT'S WORST!
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 4:41 PM
I think the diasters at Citibank and other big banks are going to seriously impact high end sales in Brooklyn. I would definitely NOT buy anything right now - I think this is going to be the biggest recession we've seen in decades.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 4:42 PM
Corcoran also is marketing new condos on 3rd and the F/G train. Asking 1.2 - 1.4. It makes their three houses look like bargains. The sellers should know better.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 4:42 PM
Guess what...a 2 bedroom in Park City, Utah costs 600K.
Same price as a 2 bedroom in Park Slope, Brooklyn.
So when you think everything on here is overpriced, trying looking at what happened throughout the rest of the country over the last 8 years as well.
You all live in a NYC bubble.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 4:43 PM
As a buyer who is looking in every major brownstone neighborhood in Brooklyn, and who has seen many houses and knows her comps, this limestone does seem to be relatively inexpensive compared to some high-priced duds I've seen all over Brooklyn. It's still out of my range, but the price is not surprising at all. However, if they couldn't get their price last year, I can't imagine they'll get it this year. And the lack of pictures does probably mean it needs work. But, if you discount that from their asking price, you're still better off with an architecturally significant limestone house right off the nicest park in NYC than with a 16' wide dime-a-dozen brownstone on a nice but unremarkable street.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 4:46 PM
"I would definitely NOT buy anything right now - I think this is going to be the biggest recession we've seen in decades"
THOSE ARE THE EXACT SAME WORDS UTTERED AFTER 9/11
Heard them a million times that fall.
Glad I didn't listen.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 4:47 PM
We can bicker until doomsday about prices, but keep these two things separate in your little 'stoner heads: what one flush sucker will pay today is never an indication of what an asset is actually worth. Just because housing bears have been wrong for a decade, doesn't mean they'll be wrong forever. (Cf. Henry Blodget.) For those of you who think that low inventory softens prices, the following won't make much sense. But real estate prices unmoored themselves from fundamentals only when it became profitable to package a mortgage and re-sell it, bundled with a million others, to credulous Asian central bankers. The Brooklyn RE market is very, very illiquid; it is tied as much as anything to seller psychology. Prices may be sticky for a long time going forward, but not forever. You now need to put actual money down, and pay out an honest, fixed rate on a real mortgage. Do any of you joker-broker midnight tokers know anyone in finance? If so, you know you are f***ed going forward. I'll meet anyone at President Street at midnight New Year's Eve '09 and then we'll talk about "comps."
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 4:47 PM
OMG 4:40--that's it. I think you're right. Seriously.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 4:48 PM
"You now need to put actual money down, and pay out an honest, fixed rate on a real mortgage."
For the 75% of us who live in NYC co-ops, we ALWAYS had to put down real money.
So the real question is...do YOU know anything about finance?
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 4:49 PM
4:28 It is not just Corcoran. Before that it was Douglas Elliman that had two properties on the place streets that everyone thought were vastly overpriced. So now it is two different firms and 4 different properties. I guess time will tell how overpriced these places are.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 4:50 PM
Everyone said those two Lincoln Place townhomes were severely overpriced and they are no longer on the Corcoran site.
They weren't for sale for more than a couple months...
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 4:54 PM
4:54--the two Lincoln Place houses you mention were taken off the market. They didn't sell. (the ones that were owned by the same guy).
There was a third Lincoln Place house that did sell.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 4:56 PM
4:54--128 Lincoln Place is in contract. But 104 and 108 did not sell and I believe were taken off the market.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 4:59 PM
that's interesting, 4:56.
i think i know someone who bought one of the said lincoln place homes.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 4:59 PM
4:47 - I certainly didn't here those words after 9/11. There was SUCH a different climate then - there was only a small dip in the housing market and consumer spending didn't go down at all. And there wasn't this gargantuan subprime mortgage disaster screwing up the banks. I think you're naive to think our current economic situation is analogous to that period.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 5:09 PM
"And there wasn't this gargantuan subprime mortgage disaster screwing up the banks"
NO, but there was the issue that everyone and their mother wanted to LEAVE NYC!!!!
So yes, they were different issues then and now, but everyone I talked to in November 2001 said that buying real estate in NYC was foolish and that prices were about to tumble bigtime.
They did not, and some of us made out like bandits.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 5:12 PM
5:09...
oh yeah...and there was also the largest attack of HUMAN LIFE on American soil in 2001.
I can see how you think bank problems are more important than that, but personally I was a lot more "worried" in the fall of 2001 than I am right now at this very moment.
I'm not naive, I just know things are taking a course that was much needed.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 5:15 PM
"there was the issue that everyone and their mother wanted to LEAVE NYC!!!!"
Except nobody did.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 5:19 PM
The point of the matter is that very few people thought it a good idea to buy NYC real estate in NYC.
Those who decided to go ahead and do it anyway, were richly rewarded.
Now the rest are here fighting about how much everything is overpriced.
WHAT DID YOU EXPECT??!
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 5:21 PM
Hmmm... everyone I spoke to in the months following 9/11 actually thought the opposite--they all said to buy now, buy now, buy now, because prices were dipping and people were scared, etc. I'm sure they weren't the only ones thinking that, and that's why prices dipped a bit, but didn't sink. I agree with 5:09 on this one.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 5:21 PM
meant in 2001....not NYC...
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 5:22 PM
5:09 = 5:21
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 5:23 PM
I did. And now I wish I was back in beautiful Carroll Gardens.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 5:24 PM
In 2001, you could buy a studio in CG for 60K. I know. I looked at a few.
Same thing is at least 300K now.
Crazy.
So when people freak out that prices are going to dip a bit (they say 15% tops) keep in mind how much even people on the low end of the buying spectrum have "made" just in a handful of years.
Multiply that appreciation times 10 for the townhouse market and you can see why a lot of us don't really care or mind if prices dip.
They will be back eventually.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 5:27 PM
yo DOPES kENNETH gOLDSTEIN WORKED FOR cORCORAN WHEN HE HAD THE LISTING AND NOW WORKS FOR doUGLAS eLLIMAN.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 5:27 PM
Wrong 5:23 - and thank you 5:21 - I would like to add that what happened after 9/11 is that everyone bought second homes out of the city just in case they needed to quickly flee - which actually indicated a continued confidence in the housing market. I started looking at houses upstate in 2000 and in 2001 there was a HUGE surge in the prices - so 9/11 actually created a boom in the second home market - positive developments that we are not seeing anywhere now.
p.s., I do know some people who didn't buy because of 9/11 but they were timid out of towners who had just arrived and didn't plan to stay long term.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 5:30 PM
"I think Corcoran is now being run my the mob.
That is really the only viable reason to me why these Caroll Gardens properties could be priced so outrageously. "
This is true.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 5:33 PM
I'm not trying to be snarky, but I can't for the life of me figure out what your point is, 5:30.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 5:33 PM
I did not know that about co-ops. Because I've never debt financed a real estate purchase; never had to. I'll leave it to you to guess why.
Anyhow, down payments are only part of the picture. Gone forever are teaser rates, re-sets, ARMs, the whole yadda.
If this were a liquid market, we could design derivatives that forced brokers to put their money where their mouth was: i.e, a right, or option, to buy back properties two years after a sale at the same sale price. Who among you little Corcoran beetles would do that for me now on one of these CG buildings? Then we could talk deal.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 5:43 PM
5:30 - i am just talking to myself.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 5:46 PM
I bought a kitten in 2005 and sold it last month for 5 times what I paid.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 6:36 PM
I clone my dog and sell off the carbon copies for 100x the value of the mutt. It's a cute dog, people think it's an exotic breed.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 6:47 PM
Can I pet your kitten?
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 7:12 PM
hmmmm 5:43, my first guess is that you're a professional PRICK and business has been very good.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 7:58 PM
pretty much nothing going at below 3 mill on this block anymore. that cherry popped in these parts years ago. have a look at the sales data.
Posted by: BrooklynLove at January 16, 2008 8:30 PM
This is a mansion for 3.6 million. It is a formal house that will cost a great deal to run. You will need live-in help.
The house in Carroll Gardens, for 2.4 million is a family home that does not require a family of ten to fill it. It could use a cleaning person once a week. And it is on a much quieter, more private seeming street.
I would not want a house this large. I don't want to end up like Norma Desmond in Sunset Boulevard. However, a more intimate, less formal, more manageable brownstone is extremely appealing. Some of us have lived in big houses, They suck the life out of you, I have experienced it. Some of you I think have no idea what running a house like this entails.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 9:05 PM
you're not very smart, 9:05 if you think you NEED live in help to run a 4200 sf home.
if that's the case, there are millions of homeowners out there in the burbs who better get on the stick.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 9:27 PM
5:09=5:21=scared broker who keeps posting defensive posts on these threads. I get the feeling more and more that brokers/owners are freaking out about the market at last turning and just don't want to face reality. I'm an owner by the way whose property has doubled since I bought 5 years ago, so don't chalk this up to a bitter property-hunter who missed out - it's just that the writing on the wall is pretty clear, and we can wish it ain't so but that won't change anything. Great depression, I strongly doubt, but significant recession - wake up and look at all the papers - it's pretty hard to avoid...As for those who say, gee just look at the last 5 years, things will just rise rise rise again, my feeling is that there will be significant correction and we will not see such a housing bubble again for a long time. Over the long term, housing is a perfectly fine investment since we all do need to live somewhere, but don't expect anything close to the returns of the past decade. And I certainly would be in no rush to buy now on the cusp of the market becoming a buyers market...
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 9:32 PM
i'm eager to hear the explanations when this place sells for a mint before we hit spring.
this block is untouchable. wrong place to be making your bubble pleas.
same shit every 10 years, and wrong to a greater degree each time.
Posted by: BrooklynLove at January 16, 2008 10:30 PM
"The house in Carroll Gardens, for 2.4 million is a family home that does not require a family of ten to fill it."
Not sure what CG house for 2.4 you're talking about. The ones we've covered recently on HOTD and on this thread were $3.6 (for a 16 footer), $3.495, and $2.8 (for a 16 footer).
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 11:31 PM
Brooklynlove is right. This is not just any ol' brownstone, people. It's a limestone mansion on 1st Street. Have you seen the kind of crap that's listed in the $3 million range? This place at least is special.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 11:38 PM
4200 sqf in the burbs is still gigantic.
Posted by: Santa at January 17, 2008 8:41 AM
Sorry folks, we are still seeing deals at record or near record prices. And I'm in no way affiliated with this listing at all.
Posted by: guest at January 17, 2008 9:38 AM
Nah, you would not need live-in help in a house like this, as long as your wife was chained to the vacuum, the mop, and the kitchen sink.
Posted by: guest at January 17, 2008 10:17 AM
Oh please. Then that applies to nearly every house covered in HOTD since they're all 3000 sq ft+.
Posted by: guest at January 17, 2008 11:35 AM
To the brokers: you really need to get some interior pictures. If the details are as nice as you describe, you need to show that. What are you getting the 6% commission for? I can afford this place, but I'm at a mature point in my search where I don't bother anymore with listings that don't have any interior pictures. It's just a red flag. You're doing a great disservice to your clients.
Posted by: guest at January 17, 2008 12:09 PM
they're not posting interior pics b/c they don't need to to sell this place.
Posted by: BrooklynLove at January 17, 2008 12:47 PM
If they don't need to sell this place, why has it been on the market twice in the last year, at different prices each time. Why bother then?
Posted by: guest at January 17, 2008 12:53 PM
you missed the second "to"
Posted by: BrooklynLove at January 17, 2008 2:37 PM
I think there should be a HOTD every day!
Posted by: guest at January 17, 2008 4:39 PM
the price just got reduced to 3.4m
Posted by: dandel at February 27, 2008 6:40 PM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.