« 105 Lexington Avenue Coming to Market Development Watch: 240 Atlantic Avenue »
February 4, 2008
Last Week's Biggest Sales
Here are the top five residential sales lodged in city records for Brooklyn last week. The Brooklyn Heights house (which appears to be a flip, though who knows) was by far the priciest deal:
1. BROOKLYN HEIGHTS $4,400,000
152 Hicks Street GMAP (left)
4,480-sf landmark townhouse; last sold in ’06 for $3.7 mil. Deal recorded on 2/1.
2. CARROLL GARDENS $2,094,000
136 Summit Street GMAP (right)
3,312-sf 4-story brownstone. Deal recorded on 1/28.
3. PARK SLOPE $1,995,000
427 10th Street GMAP
4-story, single-family home. Deal recorded on 1/29.
4. BOERUM HILL $1,916,000
394 Pacific Street GMAP
3,200-sf house in historic district. Deal recorded on 2/1.
5. DUMBO $1,750,000
100 Jay Street GMAP
Unit in J Condo on 32nd floor. Deal recorded on 1/29.
Photos of 152 Hicks and 136 Summit from Property Shark.
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/3752
Comments
so who's going to find us the last asking price on these places?
Posted by: guest at February 4, 2008 11:28 AM
How do the 2 houses for sale around the corner on Dean rationalize prices of $3.25M and $2.6 when the Pacific street place only got $1.9? Owners/brokers need to get a clue.
Posted by: guest at February 4, 2008 11:30 AM
Don't you mean 'Deed recorded' not 'Deal'.
Posted by: guest at February 4, 2008 11:36 AM
Strong prices. Demand is still there.
Posted by: guest at February 4, 2008 11:40 AM
Open houses....the three I went to yesterday in Park Slope were PACKED!
Posted by: guest at February 4, 2008 11:42 AM
394 Pacific took awhile but here is a comment about it from Forum last March
"Yeah. Nice bones and detail, but has a lot of issues, like only one bathroom in the upper triplex (on the top floor), ancient kitchens, and a weird layout in the parlor/ground floor, which is designed to pour light into the garden level, but does so at the parlor's expense. Even in this crazed market, given the need for a total renovation, I can't imagine it would fetch more than $1.6, and that might be stretching things. At $1.5, however, it would be a pretty good deal."
Posted by: guest at February 4, 2008 11:43 AM
the Carroll Gardens place is hard up against the BQE, and still goes for over $2M
Posted by: guest at February 4, 2008 11:46 AM
Three open houses in PS. I thought there was no inventory. Hmmm...
Posted by: guest at February 4, 2008 11:58 AM
You thought wrong.
There is no inventory on houses. Or very little.
There are still a few apartments for sale.
Or did you think there was literally not a single listing for sale in Park Slope, 11:58?
You might, in fact be the most moronic poster on here, if so.
Posted by: guest at February 4, 2008 12:02 PM
That CG place would have gotten at -least- 8 mil had Corcoran done the sale. I mean, its Carroll Gardens.
Fuhgeddaboudit!
Posted by: guest at February 4, 2008 12:03 PM
How is 427 10th a 4 story? Are they counting a finished basement?
Posted by: Johnny at February 4, 2008 12:06 PM
Brown Harris Stevens has 7 townhouses available in Park Slope right now. And that is just one realtor.
Doesn't seem like inventory is low at all.
Posted by: guest at February 4, 2008 12:11 PM
7 houses in a a neighbood of 65,000?
Yes, that's pretty low.
When I was looking in the 1990's, there were HUNDREDS of houses on the market at any given time.
So yeah, 7 is next to nothing.
Posted by: guest at February 4, 2008 12:13 PM
Looks like Townsley & Gay has another 7 for sale. Nope, no shortage here.
Keep pumping 12:13.
Posted by: guest at February 4, 2008 12:16 PM
65,000 townhouses? Really?
Posted by: guest at February 4, 2008 12:17 PM
No need to pump, 12:16.
The market does what it does, without you or me helping it along. Or sabatoging, as the case with you.
I went to 2 such open houses on Brown Harris Stevens' yesterday...both of which had very healthy attendance...
Posted by: guest at February 4, 2008 12:20 PM
11:58/12:11/12:16/12:17 = b.r.s.
bitter renter syndrome
Posted by: guest at February 4, 2008 12:24 PM
11:30 - not that this accounts for the vast difference in the asks, but it looks like the dean st. lots are bigger and the houses with more sq. feet than pacific. also, the pricier of those dean st. houses appears to be fully renovated (if you believe the ad), where as pacific needed a reno. and imo, dean is a slightly nicer block.
Posted by: guest at February 4, 2008 12:26 PM
12:24 = gbs (greedy broker syndrome)
or perhaps ghs (greedy homeowner syndrome)
Posted by: guest at February 4, 2008 12:27 PM
I went to several open houses over the weekend just like other people. Just because you show up does not mean you'd be willing to pay the ask or anything close to it. In one of those crowded open houses the agent said half the crowd was the neighbors just coming by to check the place out. Crowded open houses does not equal multiple bids at or over the ask.
Posted by: guest at February 4, 2008 12:32 PM
The very tight inventory accounts at least partially for the continued high prices. Nerves about the market mean people are holding off selling if they don't need to, thus keeping the prices at such high levels.
Posted by: guest at February 4, 2008 12:35 PM
The history on the Brooklyn Hts sale is that the seller of the $10 million Columbia Hts house bought that after she sold Col.Heights. She hated living there because of cazy neighbors, put it on the market and some poor sucker just bought it after 2 or 3 deals fell thru on it. All it takes is one chump and sellers price accordingly.
Posted by: guest at February 4, 2008 12:43 PM
11:43 has it right about 394 Pacific. (I am a neighbor.) I believe the house was purchased by an architecht who wants to make it his personal crown jewel. No significant detail is left inside, but the fundamental structure is sound. The deep backyards on the south side of Pacific are also very beautiful.
Posted by: guest at February 4, 2008 12:50 PM
per streeteasy, most recent asking prices
1) 4.4
2) 2.2
3) 1.995
4) no data
5) 1.75 (unit 32C)
Posted by: BrooklynLove at February 4, 2008 1:01 PM
So at least 3 of them sold FOR the asking price.
Sounds like a pretty healthy market to me.
That Park Slope place...10th Street for almost 2 million was a good price. Didn't know South Slope was commanding that sortof dough.
Nice to know.
Posted by: guest at February 4, 2008 1:14 PM
According to StreetEasy the Summit Street property was listed in August for 2.2m and was taken off the market in November. $2.094m is a damn good price for that place far away from the Subway and right on the BQE.
http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/96581-townhouse-136-summit-street-cobble-hill-brooklyn
http://www.corcoran.com/property/listing.aspx?Region=NYC&ListingID=1052521
Posted by: guest at February 4, 2008 1:54 PM
I was also shocked at the Summit Street price, as it isn't the ideal location, although not bad. The house, at least the owner's duplex was completely redone, as was the facade, but the back garden was small because some garage type building owned by an adjoining property sat on part of it (have no idea how that came to be). I don't think there have been many Carroll Gardens homes breaking the $2 million mark, and I was surprised this was one of them.
Posted by: guest at February 4, 2008 2:19 PM
418 Tenth street sold a fews months back for $1,975,000. If the house updated and well appointed it will sell quickly. I know first hand how much money and time it takes to renovate.
Posted by: guest at February 4, 2008 2:27 PM
427 is only 16 1/2 feet wide
Posted by: guest at February 4, 2008 2:39 PM
We saw 427 and it was BEAUTIFUL!!! It was the most high-end renovation I've ever seen in a brownstone. Felt like a super luxe condo in terms of how it was renovated, but had the wonderful space and backyard and high cielings of a brownstone. It had a gorgeous all glass extension and really high end kitchens and thats. Oh yeah, and it has a sort of double garden b/c the garden was in an L-shape and took the back half of the neighbors lot. So it was a full garden plus half of the garden next door. All landscaped. Pretty awesome.
And that is the ONLY reason in my opinion it got such a high price. (But worth it in my opinion also).
Posted by: brooklyn08 at February 4, 2008 2:48 PM
i agree about the low inventory. i bought a brownstone in cobble hill in 1997. at the time, i had seen 56 houses if memory serves - only looked in carroll gardens and cobble hill.
even if every condo gets built, we will not keep up with demand.
Posted by: guest at February 4, 2008 3:06 PM
"When I was looking in the 1990's, there were HUNDREDS of houses on the market at any given time."
We're at about the same stage as in '88 or '89 of that previous cycle. We're not in the 90's yet. Stick around my friend. The upcoming bottom will dwarf that of the 90's. Cash-hungry owners: Don't take your eyes off the exit. Plan your egress wisely.
Posted by: guest at February 4, 2008 4:02 PM
I've always been amused by the green windows and door on the house next to 152 Hicks. What would the the black-window-frame dogmatists say about THAT one?
Posted by: guest at February 4, 2008 4:02 PM
12:24 PM = f***'d buyer
Posted by: guest at February 4, 2008 4:08 PM
4:02:
You are an idiot. In 1988, interest rates were at 13%.
Comparing then to now shows your ignorance so clearly.
Posted by: guest at February 4, 2008 4:08 PM
Pacific St offer was accepted last March.
Posted by: guest at February 4, 2008 5:18 PM
10th Street is a nice house - impeccable renovation and true move-in condition, except oddly the central air was installed on the lower two floors only. The house went into contract at asking price after its first and only open house.
The '4-story' is a bit of a stretch - the top floor is a dormer (and doesn't stretch the full length of the house, if I'm remembering correctly) so doesn't have the useable square footage of the lower floors.
Posted by: guest at February 5, 2008 8:53 AM
"in 1988 interest rates were at 13%"
The 1980s boom happened while interest rates were at their peak; the crash happened after they began to decline.
Why does this make now different from all historical precedents?
Posted by: guest at February 5, 2008 10:20 AM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.