Open House Picks

OMFG are they still trying to sell 86 Cambridge Place for 2.5???!!! Oh Man, this is going to be good.

The What

Someday this war is gonna end..

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

You go Clinton Hill, get that money.

Posted by: guest at February 29, 2008 1:21 PM

clinton hill house is nice looking.

for about half that price.

same with the plg houses.

no one with half a brain would spend more than 800k for a house in plg.

would they?

Posted by: guest at February 29, 2008 1:23 PM

Windsor Terrace house is also way over-priced. Love the neighborhood but those houses have been trading in the 1.2-1.3 range.

Posted by: guest at February 29, 2008 1:25 PM

CH house is overpriced, but it is also a 50 ft wide lot. I always hate how brokers don't discount for those short 75 and 80ft lots. If this lot if 250% the normal size, it should cost more.

Posted by: guest at February 29, 2008 1:31 PM

You know the Dow is down 243 points as of this post.

They'll get these prices.

Posted by: guest at February 29, 2008 1:34 PM

your girl is down on me for the 243rd time as this post.

Posted by: guest at February 29, 2008 1:38 PM

Why are windsor terrace houses are so incredibly homely and depressing on the inside. this one is definitely overpriced by at least 15%.

Posted by: guest at February 29, 2008 1:40 PM

windsor terrace house price is a joke. comparables are way less - I know because we've been looking in the neighborhood. someone is being greedy. I guess they are trying to capitalize on the recent article in the Times (though those people bought a house for under a million as I recall).

Posted by: guest at February 29, 2008 1:48 PM

1:40, because windsor terrace IS homely and depressing.

what do you expect from the neighborhood with the most registered republicans in nyc?

Posted by: guest at February 29, 2008 1:52 PM

They couldn't sell the Clinton Hill house for 1.6 mil so they raised to 2.3 mil. They couldn't sell at 2.3 mil so they raised to 2.6 mil. I guess we will be seeing 3 mil soon enough.

Posted by: guest at February 29, 2008 1:55 PM

The Cambridge Place house is not for me - too big, no real character except from the outside - but at $365 psf it's well within comps for Clinton Hill. With a 2 bed 2 bath apartment as part of the deal rental income probably is probably ok as well?

Posted by: guest at February 29, 2008 1:57 PM

The only reason that anyone would pay these prices is if they think the market will continue to rise, and they can sell it for more in the near future. Otherwise, it's cheaper to rent in a nice established neighborhood, rather than own in a fringe area.

Posted by: guest at February 29, 2008 1:58 PM

No Doofus, the only reason people pay those prices is becasue they can afford it.

Keep renting and keep in mind tomorrow is the 1st pay up or I will apply my $200 fee.

Posted by: guest at February 29, 2008 2:02 PM

says who, 1:58?

i just bought and pay less in mortgage than renting.

and i no longer make my landlord rich.

if you know you are staying in nyc long term, it doesn't make sense to keep throwing money down a toilet.

we all know most renters aren't saving money anyway. they spend it on $15 martinis and gucci bags.

Posted by: guest at February 29, 2008 2:02 PM

As opposed to when you buy something you have no time to drink $15 martinis because you are two busy fixing everything in the house. And with the Clinton Hill house you will be fixing things your whole life.

Posted by: guest at February 29, 2008 2:12 PM

I bought a coop in Windsor Terrace two years agao and have loved every minute of living there. It's lovely, quiet and family oriented. A breath of fresh air from working in and running around the city all week. Don't put it down just because it's not the type of neighborhood for you.
~R

Posted by: guest at February 29, 2008 2:37 PM

i cannot believe that anyone thinks that renting is cheaper. it is not! no way. especially if you have a decent income.

Posted by: guest at February 29, 2008 2:54 PM

I agree the Windsor Terrace house is way over priced. These house are wonderful but, most sell for 1.2 - 1.3. And, several months ago a house sold $1 mill in an estate sale.

Posted by: guest at February 29, 2008 2:56 PM

2:37 does the ~R at the end of your post stand for republican?

Posted by: guest at February 29, 2008 2:57 PM

Some houses take a lot more fixin' than others and this one will be revealing its little foibles more than most.

Posted by: guest at February 29, 2008 3:00 PM

The Windsor Terrace house is a dump. Fugly.

Posted by: guest at February 29, 2008 3:16 PM

Actually, renting is cheaper in this market. It wasn't a few years ago, and won't always be, but it is now.

Posted by: guest at February 29, 2008 3:29 PM

Prices aside (because they'll either get 'em or they won't):

1) Don't like the Parkside house - would take a lot of work to make this nice.

2) Midwood St. PLG house looks like a nice reno - love those marble sinks in the bedroom pass-thoughs, fireplaces. Though the kitchen may be small - hard to tell.

3) Winsdor Terrace place isn't ugly - just cluttered. I'd make some cosmetic changes and I could live in it fine.

4) Cambridge Pl. would be taking on a labor of love, even at 1/4 the price. I think old frame houses are more work.

Posted by: guest at February 29, 2008 3:38 PM

Sharon Burroughs-Clarke should give it rest on that Cambridge house. It was shown to me almost two years ago at the asking price of $1.6. The seller got greedy, pulled it off the market for a week and relisted for $2.6. And they are still in the clouds with that $2.6 price.
Wake the F up!!!

Posted by: guest at February 29, 2008 3:42 PM

When people don't put a place at market price, or close to it, they don't really want to sell. I think they have some psychological need to be in the market, but no real need, or interest, in actually selling. They like walking around then saying that the market is bad, when it isn't the market, but their price, that is.

Posted by: guest at February 29, 2008 3:46 PM

brenda:

a similar house down the street on parkside sold for $879K a little more than a year ago---these people want $400K more?

Posted by: guest at February 29, 2008 4:32 PM

30 Midwood Street is gorgeous, and I like the proximity to subway, park, restaurants, etc. $1.5 million seems like a crazy amount of money anywhere for a single-family, though.

Posted by: guest at February 29, 2008 4:32 PM

"i cannot believe that anyone thinks that renting is cheaper. it is not! no way. especially if you have a decent income."

Show us a rent vs buy calculation that supports your point.

Posted by: guest at February 29, 2008 4:33 PM

renting can definitely be cheaper especialy if you buy a money pit that requires hundreds of thousands of dollars of repairs and upgrades. And that then costs a fortune to heat, cool, light, clean, furnish, and maintain.

Not only can renting be cheaper but it can be much less stressful. Of course owning and restoring an old home is a labor of love. You do it because you enjoy it. otherwise you will have a bad case of buyers remorse.

Posted by: guest at February 29, 2008 4:43 PM

Brenda: PLG certainly has pluses. And it certainly has minuses. No matter how much you love it, 1.2 million to live on Parkside is simply insane. 30 Midwood is lovely. But last I saw the same house in the same row (unrenovated) could not sell for 1.1M. And the larger and just as nice house on Rutland has been on the market for months and months and months at 1.45. Right or wrong, these prices are not going to fly.

Posted by: guest at February 29, 2008 4:51 PM

I agree with Brenda. A house on same block of Parkside sold for $1.15M in September. Not a lot of work needed and nice rental income potential

Posted by: guest at February 29, 2008 5:02 PM

I'd like to show some love for the PLG homes, but I am familiar with both and they each suffer from serious structural defects, guaranteed to keep any buyer busy for a long, long time. So, under these circumstances, sorry...no love.

Posted by: guest at February 29, 2008 5:19 PM

I feel like I saw the Midwood St house on a PLG house tour a couple of years back. Anyway, if the decorative detail is anything to go by it appears to have had a recent and full-on renovation. 5:19pm: I have nothing vested in this (I'm just another brownstone owner, not even from PLG) but I don't like the idea of someone anonymously accusing a house of having "serious structural defects." Either come with specifics of the problem, or shut up. Else you just look like a malicious gossip. I mean, these folks are trying to sell their home which is probably their biggest asset. Put yourself in their shoes, why don't you?

Posted by: guest at February 29, 2008 5:34 PM

Well, 5:34, why don't you instead put yourself in the shoes of potential buyers. Should someone who knows something about these homes remain silent while buyers begin laying their money down. Gee, that would be great, wouldn't it. What exactly do you think this forum is for, anyway? And specifics? Get real. If someone does know something problematic about these homes and is concerned to alert potential buyers, they'll probably want to remain anonymous--which it might be impossible for them to do if they shared too many specifics.

I almost wonder whether you're the owner of one of these properties.

Posted by: guest at February 29, 2008 5:41 PM

Isn't this why people get homes inspected prior to purchase? I don't think it's right to generalize about every house in a neighborhood

Posted by: guest at February 29, 2008 5:52 PM

Regarding Cambridge Place house, the broker says: "This house represents 2 houses that were joined beautifully at the hip."

Can someone PLEASE explain that the hell that means?

Posted by: guest at February 29, 2008 5:52 PM

all these home are 500K overpriced.

Posted by: guest at February 29, 2008 6:10 PM

5:41pm: What you're saying, then, is that unsupported idle gossip is cool in your book? It really shouldn't be difficult to put a name to a problem w/o revealing one's identity. And if that's not possible, I'm gonna conclude 5:19pm's post is bs.

Posted by: guest at February 29, 2008 6:11 PM

i'm gonna conclude 5:19 is correct until proven otherwise.

no one was interested in these homes anyway, from what i could tell.

not at anywhere near these prices.

you can get a house in south slope for these prices. near services. and with less crime.

Posted by: guest at February 29, 2008 6:18 PM

Mrs. Limestone, what comps are those, I wonder? I think that if the WT house went for asking it would be setting a record price not only for that block but for the neighborhood. Keep in mind this house is deep in Windsor Terrace, it's not like it's "Park Slope". Even the pretty limestones on Sherman St. go for less than this (or did last year, and anyone who's paying more this year than last must have a very good reason or very deep pockets).

Posted by: guest at February 29, 2008 6:21 PM

Please, someone give me the rent v. buy calculation that shows it's cheaper to buy in Brooklyn these days.

I rent my apartment in Clinton Hill, a gorgeous, big place for about $25 a square foot in annual payments. The money I could use for a down payment on a brownstone in that neighborhood is generating around $25K a year in income (and that's with the stock market as bad as it is), so if you factor that in, I'm paying about $10 a square foot for the apartment. If I bought in the neighborhood, by contrast, my annual payment (taking into account tax benefits) would be, at a minimum, $30 a square foot, or three times as much. And that's not counting property taxes, renovation, etc. And with prices where they are, only a fool would count on any meaningful price appreciation over the next 5-10 years. So how does buying make economic sense?

Posted by: guest at February 29, 2008 6:22 PM

so you read and post on a blog that is 99% about home ownership, why exactly 6:22?

go enjoy your rental.

Posted by: guest at February 29, 2008 6:33 PM

My boyfriend and I looked at the Cambridge Place 2 bedroom rental in the back part of the house in early 2007, and they were asking $2500 per month. Bedrooms were small (maybe 10' X 12'), and so was the kitchen - practically no counter or cabinet space, and there was no dining area. We passed. Curious how that $2500 per month (or less by now) is going to put a dent in the 'ole $2.5 million price tag.

Posted by: guest at February 29, 2008 11:49 PM

6:22 you will always be a renter. I own six brownstones. How many do you own?

Posted by: guest at March 1, 2008 10:18 AM

"Anonymous "structural defect" revelations have plagued this site for quite a while. IMO they should be heavily discounted, BUT you ALWAYS get an inspection done for any house you're seriously interested in."

One of those anonymous revelations saved me a lot of grief and in all likelihood a lot of money last year. It concerned problems that wouldn't necessarily come up during a routine inspection, and I'm grateful to the person who posted it.

Posted by: guest at March 1, 2008 11:13 AM

I assume, 11:13, that the anonymous revelation you received about a "structural defect" had some degree of specificity to it. Especially since it "concerned problems that wouldn't necessarily come up during a routine inspection." In other words, if these problems would have escaped a professional inspector, how else would you have known what structural grief you successfully avoided?

Posted by: guest at March 1, 2008 11:45 AM

Simple, 11:45. I had no specific information at all. Just a 'red flag' that made me very paranoid. I talked to my inspector about it, who came to share my worries, and he consequently did a more thorough inspection than he normally would. Granted, I also paid him a bit more, but in the long run it was worth it, and that anonymous post on this blog was a great help.

Posted by: guest at March 1, 2008 1:01 PM

People say "you will always be a renter" like it's an obviously bad thing. But this is exactly what I'm asking: how does it make more economic sense, at this point, to buy? Why should renters feel like they're somehow messing up when it seems pretty clear that buying is just a mistake?

Obviously, this wouldn't have been true five years ago, when the economic calculus was clearly in favor of buying. But housing prices in NYC have risen much much faster over the past five years than rents have -- no one's rent in Brooklyn has gone up 200% since 2003, while plenty of people's homes have. So the question is: why should someone buy now? Just saying: "you'll always be a renter" isn't an answer. Nor is "I own six brownstones." If you bought those six brownstones in the late 1990s or, even better, in the late 1980s, more power to you. But it's not relevant or interesting when the question is: should you buy now? I think it's pretty safe to say that if you'd bought six brownstones in 2007, you wouldn't be all that happy right now.

Posted by: guest at March 1, 2008 1:10 PM

so 1:10...if prices are low now, wouldn't it make more sense to buy now than to wait and pay higher prices when they start rising again in 18-24 months?

because that is the predictions, you know.

or do you prefer to buy when the market is at the top??

and for the record, most homeowners i know in new york...whether they've "made" 200% or 2% are a lot happier knowing they have the piece of mind to stay put, not deal with a landlord, do as they please to their apartment and know that they will pay the same amount for the next 30 years.

piece of mind goes far in this crazy city for some.

maybe not you. but lots.

buying was the best thing i ever did for myself.

and my future for that matter.

Posted by: guest at March 1, 2008 1:21 PM

Prices are not low now -- they're sky-high. For prices in New York to return to anything like their historical norm -- in terms of price-income ratios or price-rent ratios -- home prices will end up staying still for at least five years. So why would I want to give up hundreds of thousands of dollars -- literally -- when I'll be able to buy at roughly the same price five years from now? Piece of mind -- well, I guess for some that's worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. But I'm not even convinced ownership does bring piece of mind -- if something breaks, I don't worry about it, because the landlord takes care of it. Daily maintenance -- landlord. Dealing with the city, with sanitation, etc. -- landlord. I can guarantee that if you took a survey of renters and owners, many more owners would say they were stressed out.

Posted by: guest at March 1, 2008 3:21 PM

because in those 5 years you've waited to buy there are two things at play:

1. you're paying thousands to a landlord
2. what if they stay still for 4 years...you will have missed the lowpoint and not even known it. this is not an exact science. might be 5 years. might be 3. might be one.

like i said, clearly renting is for you. it is not for 70% of the american population, but in this city you are in the majority so if it works for you, keep at it.

all i said, was that i'm a lot happier now. stuff breaks...that's life. it's not a big stress when there are people starving, dying, at war.

i can handle getting a new fridge.

Posted by: guest at March 1, 2008 3:28 PM

I wasn't the one who brought up stress -- you were, saying it was more stressful to rent than to buy. I think that in most circumstances that's crazy -- particularly in a renter-friendly city like New York.

As for the thousands I'm paying to my landlord, they're going to be much much less than the thousands I would otherwise be paying to the bank. And if you factor in the tens of thousands I'll be making every year in investment income on the $300K I would otherwise have to shell out as a down payment, there's little doubt renting is going to be far far cheaper.

I'm not saying you made a bad decision to buy. I am saying that people on this thread -- and in many other threads -- who insist that there's "no way" renting in this market is cheaper have absolutely no idea what they're talking about. With housing prices as high as they are -- after five years of historically unprecedented price appreciation -- renting is, in almost all cases, the economically sensible thing to do.

Posted by: guest at March 1, 2008 3:42 PM

The whole rent vs. buy argument is laughable. I regularly get applications for apartments from lifelong renters now in their forties and even fifties who have been paying below market rent for years and now are forced to pay market rents because they never bought a house. Perhaps the money they saved all these years makes it worth it to be looking to rent some dumpy apartment when you're fifty years old. What a joke.

Posted by: guest at March 1, 2008 3:55 PM

No person who aspires to any sortof wealth in their lives will be a lifelong renter. Financial freedom (not bound to a landlord) is part of the American dream. One in which I'm happy to be a part of.

Tell me how many of the richest people in the U.S. are renters and get back to me.

Posted by: guest at March 1, 2008 5:19 PM

Being bound to the bank is hardly any freer than being bound to a landlord. In fact, it's much less free -- ask the millions of Americans who are now underwater on their homes, and can't move because because they can't find a buyer for their homes.

Tell how many of the richest people in the U.S. have a mortgage on their homes and get back to me. Tell me how many of the richest people in the U.S. rent out part of their homes to other people and then get back to me. Tell me how many of the richest people in the U.S. bought their homes at the top of the market -- which you guys are recommending people do -- and then get back to me.

As for the "dumpy apartment" idea -- what a joke. Brooklyn is full of beautiful apartments to rent, precisely because there are so many overly indebted owners who have to rent out part of their homes in order to pay the mortgage.

Five years from now, you will have paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in interest to the bank, tens of thousands of dollars to the state, and your homes will be worth slightly more than they are today. If you think that's the way to get rich, more power to you.

Posted by: guest at March 1, 2008 5:26 PM

Actually, let's listen to what the richest (or maybe second-richest) man in the U.S. actually has to say about the current housing market:

"Just about all Americans came to believe that house prices would forever rise. That conviction made a borrower's income and cash equity seem unimportant to lenders, confident that house price appreciation would cure all problems. Today, our country is experiencing widespread pain because of that erroneous belief."

Oh, but I forgot -- Brooklyn is different. No need to worry, then.

Posted by: guest at March 1, 2008 5:33 PM

Did I say that?

Posted by: guest at March 1, 2008 7:34 PM

Many of the city's top land use attorneys rent. They have country places for the weekends, but they rent in the city. These are very wealthy people.
Buying right now in brownstone brooklyn is an option only for the most affluent. For the rest of us renting is the only option because the price of real estate right now is grossly inflated when compared to what 98% of the population earns. Sure, if you own six brownstones already you can buy and sell to your heart's delight. But how many people are in that category? I have said this before and I believe it: Brooklyn is nice but it's not that nice. Brownstones are nice, but you better buy it cheap because they are money pits. For the current prices I would expect an immaculate luxury villa with gardens and a three car gararge. These cramped, thoroughly bourgeoise houses are just not worth this much money. They are cookie-cutter stair masters built for ordinary families. I love these old piles more than 99% of the population but I would never pay these ridiculous prices.

Posted by: guest at March 1, 2008 7:52 PM

Open houses today are DEAD!!! At two I went to, selling brokers actually said, unsolicited, that the prices were negotiable.

It appears after a busy January that the Brooklyn market is beginning to feel some pain - open houses have slowed down considerably and there is a major glut of condos just starting. Hold your breath, folks, it's gonna be a tough run.

Posted by: guest at March 2, 2008 2:54 PM

2:54 = bitter renter who spent the day crying in bed after taking a vicodin.

it's ok dude. open houses in bensonhurst don't count.

good try though.

keep posting on all the threads though. really doesn't make you sound crazy or desperate to be able afford something.

Posted by: guest at March 2, 2008 7:16 PM

Hey Fucktards the NIKKEI down 442 (-3.25%). We are in crash mode. I think very soon the gates of hell are going to open. Open houses are fucking empty.

The What

Someday this war is gonna end..

Posted by: guest at March 2, 2008 8:11 PM

whats a nikkei?

Posted by: guest at March 2, 2008 8:55 PM

dunno, someone in my building is selling their coop and i came downstairs to a steady stream of people. went to a townhouse OH and it was similarly steady. wouldn't call it dead by any stretch.

Posted by: guest at March 2, 2008 8:55 PM

went to four OHs today. traffic was okay, not great. definitely lighter than january - by a mile. busiest OH had 10 sign-ins, and we came in at the end.

Posted by: guest at March 2, 2008 9:09 PM

Holy shit the what! Anyone interested in 6 brownstones?

Posted by: guest at March 2, 2008 9:33 PM

Windsor Terrace has more registered Republicans than Staten Island?? Or Bay Ridge? DOUBT it. Staten Island is known to be the most Republican borough in NYC. Just because people in WT have bad taste doesn't necessarily make them Republicans.

Posted by: guest at March 2, 2008 9:57 PM

i went to an open house in park slope was was the 45th person on the sign in sheet.

guess you all live with no traffic live in less desirable neighborhoods.

Posted by: guest at March 2, 2008 10:28 PM

people we really need to just work with each other...... The whole "in 5 years" statement is the silliest thing ive read all weekend

5 years from now the majority of homer owners in the city will have 25 yrs left till keeping all the $$$$$ collected from rent

thats like super sweet retirement cash. no?

well umm.......email me if you need some new digs. we can maybe do business sounds like ur a good tenant.

Posted by: guest at March 2, 2008 10:58 PM

i've got 20 years left till i have zero housing costs, 10:58!!!! you bring up an excellent point.

i sure as hell don't want to be a renter when i approach my 60's when health problems start creaping up.

i'll have paid off my house by the time i'm 60.

if not sooner as i usually pay a little more on my principle each month.

Posted by: guest at March 2, 2008 11:09 PM

"the NIKKEI down 442 (-3.25%)"

Oh shit! The DOW and the 11,000's are gonna reunite this Monday afternoon.

Posted by: guest at March 3, 2008 12:33 AM

"i went to an open house in park slope was was the 45th person on the sign in sheet."

That wasn't an open house. That was an HIV clinic. You're on the wrong messageboard.

Posted by: guest at March 3, 2008 7:35 AM

"Oh shit! The DOW and the 11,000's are gonna reunite this Monday afternoon."

12,258.90. Forgot that the President's Working Group on Financial Markets (b.k.a. Plunge Protection Team) was WORKING over the weekend to shore up that 12,000 "floor".

Crackheads are no longer accepting dollars from begging and mugging victims. All proceeds must be paid in Euros or Gold at the appropriate exchange rate.

Posted by: guest at March 3, 2008 4:57 PM