Last Week’s Biggest Sales in Brooklyn

I'm glad to find out that Berkeley Place sold. It was a great house, really beautiful and full of detail. Just needed some work. I saw it when it was listed at $2.7. Beautiful house.

Posted by: guest at January 29, 2008 11:16 AM

Who is paying almost $1000/sqft in Bay Ridge? Seems shady to me...

Posted by: guest at January 29, 2008 11:16 AM

The Tompkins Place house seems like a deal when compared to the insane prices a few blocks south. It's a beautiful block.

Posted by: guest at January 29, 2008 11:19 AM

Note that all of these required fairly substantial price cuts to move (though the sales prices were still healthy).

Posted by: guest at January 29, 2008 11:26 AM

202 Prospect Place sold for $2.1 million, not 2.2 million

Posted by: guest at January 29, 2008 11:27 AM

I agree with you 11:16. Berkeley Place is a really beautiful house...I saw it as well. That block is especially gorgeous also.

Looks as though they got a pretty good deal on the place. It needed some work, yeah, but it's got the potential to be a real gem. Lots of original details left.

And just up the block is where that one over the summer sold for 3.4 (nearly perfectly renovated) so clearly, with some smart renovations, the new owners of this place should feel lucky.

Posted by: guest at January 29, 2008 11:29 AM

I think the Berkeley house should be a reality check for the Park Slope fixer-uppers that are asking $2.8+ and that have been sitting for a long time without price cuts (like St. Johns Place house). It's pretty hard to top the Berkeley location and the house had loads of nice detail, but the math wasn't adding up at $2.7.

Posted by: guest at January 29, 2008 11:40 AM

Also, 11:40...you have to keep in mind that some people are more able to wait things out for the right buyer and be more apt to get a higher price, if they don't really NEED to sell, like a lot of these people.

I say that because 207 Berkeley sold very quickly because the guy died and the wife wanted to get the place sold as quickly as possible. The sign was up for less than 3 weeks.

So yes, it sold for less than the other fixers, but they were also HIGHLY motivated.

Not everyone needs to sell fast and they can hold out for the right buyer, if they feel that is in their best interest.

Posted by: guest at January 29, 2008 11:58 AM

How is it in anyone's best interest to have that unsalvagable mess at 52 berkeley sit on the market for a year? They just finally lowered the price from 2.8 to 2.4. It;s still too high. It doesn't come close to having the original detail of those up closer to the park and it never did. Sitting and waiting can indicate stubborn refusal to face reality as much as it indicates a lack of need for fast cash.

I also so the one at 207 and it is going to cost the buyers every cent of that discount to get that place back in shape. It had amazing detail left including those cool round radiators. However, the glass was literally falling out of the front windows. Everything needed real time-, skill-, and cost-intensive restoration, not just a cosmetic cleaning.

Posted by: guest at January 29, 2008 12:32 PM

Nothing shady about the Bay Ridge property. Go to the location and do a 360. Mansion with lots of property on a hillside overlooking the Narrows and acres and acres of parkland.

Posted by: guest at January 29, 2008 12:36 PM

I wasn't justifying those high prices, 12:32, just merely commenting that if a house is on the market for a year with little to no price cuts (finally we now see one at 52 Berkeley) they probably are in an ok enough financial position to sit on it, if they choose. I'm not saying that it's smart, but if they REALLY wanted or needed to sell, they probably could cut the price to 2 million and sell it in a day.

And I'm guessing they'd still make a hefty profit.

Posted by: guest at January 29, 2008 12:38 PM

207 Berkeley didn't sell in 3 weeks, though. When I saw it at the end of September, there was no sign outside anymore, but it was still on the market. I followed the listing and it was later re-listed in the NYT at 2.575 and soon after that the listing disappeared. I know the owners were motivated, but it didn't sell in 3 weeks. And it did need a ton of work.

Posted by: guest at January 29, 2008 12:43 PM

Oh yeah--I totally forgot about 52 Berkeley. It's been on the market so long that I don't even register it anymore. I guess they're not really interested in selling. That price is nuts for what it is.

Posted by: guest at January 29, 2008 12:45 PM

Haters. WHen these properties are worth $5m NEXT YEAR, you'll all be the ones wishing you had jumped at the opportunities.

Posted by: guest at January 29, 2008 12:46 PM

I agree...I do think think these North Slope homes will be worth 5 million.

But probably in 10 years.

Not one.

Posted by: guest at January 29, 2008 12:50 PM

Whoa. When I saw the picture and headline in the above posting, I first thought it was that Cobble Hill $8.7 million listing, and that it had sold at that price. Guess not.

Posted by: guest at January 29, 2008 1:06 PM

Why are houses selling so far below the asking price? When many of these houses were listed as a HOTD, people were genuinely analyzing the house based on teh asking price? Is the market really starting to turn that much?

Posted by: guest at January 29, 2008 1:20 PM

because they are ASKING prices. people shoot for the moon with their asking price, knowing that they will take far less.

you need to look on the selling prices.

all of which are pretty healthy here. don't see any reason to speculate from these listing that the market is turning...even though it is.

2.35 million for a fixer upper? that's no bargain.

Posted by: guest at January 29, 2008 1:24 PM

"they can hold out for the right buyer, if they feel that is in their best interest"

They fail to realize that they will never see 2007 prices again (real terms) before they die. By 2010, they shoulda coulda woulda. They will be chasing their paper equity into the ground.

Posted by: guest at January 29, 2008 1:53 PM

I don't agree with that 1:53.

Nor do most economists.

The latest worst case scenario I've heard is that by 2013, we should be back to 2006 (top of the market) prices.

And then things should start to accelerate beyond that due to demographic changes that will include many people looking to enter the housing market at that time.

When you say "in their lifetime" you are assuming that all of us homeowners in Brooklyn are 70.

I'm 30 and I will definitely see prices at that level in the next 60 years. (real terms!).

Posted by: guest at January 29, 2008 2:00 PM

I think 2:00 is referring to the same economists who assured us the subprime crisis was contained.

Posted by: guest at January 29, 2008 2:26 PM

Those economist are refering to NPV's (Net present value), which means in 2013, the house will be worth the exact same as it is worth in 2006. Nonetheless, there will still be 5 years of inflation during that period. What the economists are actually predicting is that 2013, will only be the start of a recovery, not the start of another unprecedented increase in housing values.

Posted by: guest at January 29, 2008 4:08 PM

Economists are idiots, they know virtually nothing about what is going to happen. Your opinion as a layman is just as good as theirs.

Posted by: guest at January 29, 2008 5:12 PM

Park Slope sucks and this sale proves it. Suck it, slopers.

Posted by: guest at January 29, 2008 6:45 PM

Can someone estimate what we should expect to offer for a 4-floor "regular" townhouse in prime Fort Greene that needs a real reno? Like 350K/fl (i.e about 1.4m for a 4-story townhouse)? Does this sound low or about right? I mean, a lot of blah but livable regular houses have hit 2m and above and the big houses have sold for 3m-plus.

Basically, by “prime” I mean anything south of DeKalb and west of, say, Clermont, like a couple blocks to the A/C. By "real reno" I mean, new everything like windows, electric, heat/hot water systems, bathrooms and kitchens but the bones are decent with some details still intact…maybe new interior woodwork around windows and some new doors, whatever.

We have looked at a couple of places and don't want (can’t afford) the really big houses like on South Portland and the park. And we don’t like the smaller ones on Carlton between Greene and Layette…saw one and its “garden” floor was really only a cellar with windows. We’re more in the market for an in-between sized brick rowhouse like on Lafayette or something.

The backyards in most of FG are not that deep like they are in Prospect Heights but really, it is more the convenience to all the trains in FG and the feel of the neighborhood we like. Truth is, we live here now and don't want to leave.

Are all prices in prime FG near the trains well north of 1.6 even for places that, frankly, need a real reno?

Your thoughts on:

Is it worth dropping 2m on a basic double-duplex or owner-duplex-plus-two-rentals in prime FG that is in "okay" shape, not needing major reno but needs freshening up?

Are the ones that need full renos going for 1.5m or more?

Is the nabe going to remain “golden” or at least stable through this downturn?

We don't want to lose a bidding war again!

Posted by: guest at January 29, 2008 7:28 PM

11:16 am about whos paying a 1000 dollar a sq foot in bay ridge. just another brownstoner whos never set foot in my neighborhood willing to comment on it. have you ever been to shore road. do you realize that its one of the nicest addresses in all of brooklyn. do you how rare nice homes come up here. did you look at he comps for the neighborhood. no just another implied bay ridge sucks comment and how can it be so expensive. believe it or not there are nice neighborhoods outside brownstone brooklyn. my question is why more people havn't discoved bay ridge from third avenue to the shore. and please i know all the shortcomings...."not ethically diverse" meaning liberals of all creeds who think and act the same. (am a liberal). and ues the commute sucks. but why bed stuy over bay ridge, what is it, the restaurants, shopping or good public schools you don't like. its certainly not for everyone but what place is. all i ask at least visit the place before you comment on it.

Posted by: guest at January 29, 2008 8:39 PM

oops one more thing. paying 650 thousand for a 2 bedroom 800 sq foot dump apartment in the NOVO. now that sounds shady to me!

Posted by: guest at January 29, 2008 8:41 PM

Hey 8:39--I'm not 11:16. I just Property Sharked the Bay Ridge house to see what it looked like, and I have to say that considering the monstrosities you are flanked by, the price is outrageous. Sounds like it's one of those Gravesend-type deals but with another sector of the population. The houses on either side of this poor house really kill it. It's a travesty.

Posted by: guest at January 29, 2008 8:50 PM

Actually, the house itself is also pretty ugly. Seems like it's been substantially altered and modernized in a bad way. I had no idea that nouveau-riche NJ-style McMansions were selling for $2+ million in Bay Ridge.

Posted by: guest at January 29, 2008 8:55 PM

Ditto 8:39 pm. I grew up in Bay Ridge and my dad still has his store on 3rd Avenue. It's such a nice neighborhood. Good schools, shopping, restaurants, many amenities. I don't understand why the neighborhood gets such negative comments on this website, since most of the people who come to this website are not born and bred Brooklynites and have probably never even ventured out to the neighborhood.

Posted by: guest at January 29, 2008 8:58 PM

i am 8:39 i didn't look at the house or property shark but i think it also has an inground pool to boot. i will agree there are more then too many houses that get ruined in a mc manshion style way but there are also many that still are very nice and on the older side including mine built in 1925. my point is so many people on this site judge bay ridge and other neighborhoods that they never been to. i personally love park slope and go out there but i like my block in bay ridge as it is clean and quiet. you know we even have this park that overlooks new york harbor.not everybody thinks it necessary to live within walking distance to some crappy overpriced brunch place or boutique that sells nothing i need or want. and when i do want those things i can always come there or go to the city and get them. actually if i think about it we have those type of places in bay ridge too! overall in truth i like the people in brownstone brooklyn better but that doesn't mean i wouldn't trade where i live right now and can't enjoy both at the same time.

one last point 8:50, that house may have two monstrosities on either side of it but at least it looks over New York harbor not pep boys like the NOVO!

Posted by: guest at January 29, 2008 10:30 PM