House of the Day: 41 St. Marks Place Revisited

this is a joke. this house will sit and sit and sit untill the price is reduced a a realistic amount.let's check back in a few months.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 1:28 PM

is this even park slope or gowanus?

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 1:31 PM

I don't know about all that, but the broker is cute.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 1:34 PM

The kid comes with the house. That is why the price is so high.We wanted a girl. Got a boy. So now we will just bundle everything together,sell it all, move and try again. We hear that Ditmas Park homes are good for breeding girls.Wish us luck.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 1:39 PM

nice rent rolls on those places.

think it'll sell for around 2.4

hot area. like it over there a lot. really close to the best of 5th avenue and a million trains.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 1:41 PM

The broker may be cute, but between the abominable photos and equally abominable text ("lovingly" garden? rent roll is $95k "per annul"?), this is worse than the worst Cragslist ad and not only won't help sell this house for whatever it may actually be worth, but has most certainly already hurt it. Owner, if you're reading this, get another broker!!!!

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 1:41 PM

Awesome -- it comes with a ghost child! He appears at the end of the hallway, in the mirror in the bathroom, and pokes you in the eyes when you're sleeping.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 1:42 PM

That map is of Tribeca

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 1:50 PM

Don't forget it is priceless to be so close to that "no pork halal" chinese food place.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 1:50 PM

This is not a nice area, with a big drug problem. Price will have to be reduced again, more drastically. This will not sell until under 2MM, and if market keeps dropping, then significantly under 2MM.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 1:50 PM

This is 2 blocks from the new Ethiopian place opening up and 2 blocks from the new Babeland and Gymboree. Also 2 blocks from the new Flight001 and Alchemy.

Sounds like a nice area to me.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 1:52 PM

what would be the realistic price then?

I own a similar house in central Park Slope zoned for PS107. I think that my house is in better shape and has more bathrooms, but still comparable.
We want to refinance and appriser will come next week to our house. What do you think we will get?
Also, I think that apartments are rentented way below market in this listing. do they have WD and DW in each apartment?

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 1:55 PM

I guess the broker or owner has been visiting this site.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 1:55 PM

If you use the numbers the broker provides, and assume a 2MM mortgage, it's significantly cheaper to rent the place than to buy it. Forget about the half a million down payment (which is a lot!) -- Your 2MM mortgage alone will cost you over $8,000 a month after your tax write-off. If you get about $5,000 back in rent then you're looking at a net payment of $3000 a month -- the same as the rental cost for the owners unit. But - if you own it, then you have to pay to insure it, heat it!!, clean it, pay taxes, shovel the walk, etc. Much better deal to rent it.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 1:57 PM

Wrong side of 4th for that kind of scratch. Keep chopping.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 1:58 PM

you didn't factor in the tax deduction, 1:57.

after that, it's actually much cheaper to buy this place.

your math is off. bigtime.

and then when you want to sell in 20 years, you'll make a hefty profit instead of pouring even more thousands of dollars into the drain better known as your landlords wallet.

new forbes list of 400 richest people came out today.

i bet none rent their homes.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 2:00 PM

hey I might know somebody in the market for a kid/house two-fer. do you think all the vaccinations are up to date? it can really mess up the appraisal if that stuff isn't in order.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 2:03 PM

she ain't $2M cute

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 2:04 PM

The broker is the owner's daughter and she has to pay her commission split back to him. That's her kid Dmitri too

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 2:08 PM

And only 2 blocks from the hooker stroll on 3rd Ave.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 2:09 PM

3rd avenue in 5 years is going to be one of the hottest areas in nyc.

mark my words.

the next avennue b.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 2:11 PM

Actually 2:00, it is after taxes.

On a 2MM mortgage at 7% you pay 11,666 per month in interest.

Assume that you are in the highest tax bracket, and you take a deduction for all of the interest (if you make it a one family you can do that -- if you keep it as a rental, you can only write-off the percentage of interest allocated to what you live in, which is a significantly smaller write-off). So, your deduction is about $4000 as a one-family. If you keep it configured as is, then your deduction is about $1400.

So, after taxes, your interest payment alone is signficantly more than what the rental cost is.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 2:12 PM

I would be very surprised if they get more than $1.5 mil.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 2:15 PM

Bunch of frustrated comedians here today, huh?

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 2:18 PM

Again, i am asking, what would be the realistic price?
No, I do not own that house.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 2:21 PM

If the inside is in solid condition, and you could make the basement liveable space, I think a realistic price is around $1.5 million.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 2:24 PM

2.2 million

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 2:24 PM

You can't deduct all the interest on a $2 million mortgage, whether it's a one-family or not. You can only deduct interest on the first $1 million of the mortgage. So the deduction, if you're in the top bracket, is around $2000 a month (assuming $5800 in in interest on a $1 million mortgage). So your monthly interest payment, after taxes, is around $9500 a month. Add another $5000 a month for paying down the cost of the principal.

It's fascinating that 2:00 pm is on here shooting his mouth off about other people's math and insisting that this house is a great buy when he has absolutely no clue of the actual economics of buying a house, since he thinks you can deduct interest on all $2 million. Of course, this helps me understand the bubble of the last few years: tons of people like 2:00 pm, ignorantly thinking they could afford far more house than they could, and no brokers honest enough to tell them otherwise.

With the numbers on this house, the only way you'll make a hefty profit when you sell is if home-price appreciation vastly outpaces its historical norm in NYC. Given how absurdly high home prices went between 2002 and 2007, that seems decidedly unlikely. There are more price cuts in this home's future.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 2:28 PM

3rd Ave has a hooker stroll???

Where and what time? Im just curious for research purposes of course.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 2:32 PM

I don't like this end of St Marks... I like St. Marks closer to Flatbush and the Propsect Hts side much better. Ft. Green place is better for at this price...

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 2:43 PM

Houses on Wyckoff Steet right by the projects (which is the same street as St. Marks, only down in Boreum Hill) have sold for 1.5-1.7 million lately.

No way this place goes for less than that.

This place will fetch at least 2 million.

Sorry kids...people want to get into Park Slope these days more and more.

I know you don't like to hear it.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 2:46 PM

I'm just curious: Do any owners actually look at the listings for their properties? I would be furious if I was paying 6% of $2MM+ to such an incompetent broker.

This place needs to get chopped $600k more and even then it is still overpriced. It's gonna be a fun time watching the real estate market over the next few years. 25+% drops in non-prime areas (this listing is in one of them) followed by years of stagnation. These idiot brokers are certainly working hard to earn their place in the bread line this year.

Repeat after me: "It's not 2006, it's not 2006, it's not 2006..."

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 2:47 PM

This location isn't Park Slope. A similar house in the Center Slope would go for a lot more.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 2:51 PM

If the broker gets their price, I think its safe to conclude: "Then the terrorist win."

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 2:52 PM

2:47...

So does it need a price drop because it's overpriced or is the market tanking?

Those are two very different things.

You say it's overpriced by 600K but is that because of the market or is that because this particular house is way overpriced by an incompetent broker, as you say?

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

An overpriced house in a b location is not the same as a market on the verge of collapse.

Especially not when houses on St. Marks near 6th and 7th are routinely selling for 3 million dollars. Or on Lincoln Place for 250K over ask.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 2:53 PM

Don't give your house to a broker who knows nothing about selling houses. Elliman does not have a presence in The Slope. Too many brokers---- biggest culprit is Corcoran, overprices their listings. Mass marketing at its worst!

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 2:53 PM

If the garden is so "lovingly," I wonder why there aren't any photos of it.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 2:54 PM

Aaaalllgghhhhh.

I'm so tired of hearing about that thing on lincoln going for 250 over ask. enough already. this house is in no way related to that. difft neighborhood, difft price point, difft house.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 3:05 PM

2:53

It is overpriced because the market over the last few years has made everyone think that their grossly over-inflated home prices are the norm. It is not worth $2.45MM and will NOT sell at that price. The broker and the seller are idiots because they remain ignorant to the fact that most of the buying public knows that these places are not worth these high asks. They are idiots because they labeled this listing as "PRIME Park Slope", skew facts left and right, and have a "lovingly" listing that a third grader could write.

Buyers right now are not rushing to get into the game for fear of being priced out. They are weighing options carefully and doing their homework. For a broker not to think so is insulting. In 2006 you would buy a place in Bed-Stuy that the broker labeled "Clinton Hill" because it is "close enough" and the buying frenzy was enough to lead one to believe that their's could be the "next" neighborhood. The uncertainty in the housing market now will certainly not support the speculative bubble pricing that brokers are trying to cram down our throats.

This home and hundreds of others like it are going to languish on the market until sellers come back down to reality and until their huckster agents stop trying to convince them that real estate is still coming up roses just to get a listing.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 3:06 PM

"So does it need a price drop because it's overpriced or is the market tanking?"

Yes and yes.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 3:08 PM

If the rent roll is $95,000 as the broker contends, then it is break even if that is the total cost outlay to own a year, right? Otherwise, you just subsidize your renters, or you pay more to live there than you would pay to rent.

If you figure costs (heat, taxes, maintenance, etc.) are around 15,000 year, then you clear about $80,000 year.

So, $80,000 a year is the interest on a mortgage of about 1.2 million (after tax write off).

Sincere there are also closing costs, and adminstrative head-aches with owning, plus having to shovel snow, risk it going unoccupied for a month here or there, the cap for the price would be 1 million, as figured against the rent roll as a fair market indicator of current value.

If people pay more than 1 million, then they are counting on it appreciating, which is risky in this market.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 3:12 PM

hal,the children's musuem is miles away from this home.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 3:12 PM

Prudential Elliman has a lovely office on 7th Avenue.

How is that not a presence in the Slope??

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 3:15 PM

This is an ugly house with a lousy interior on an ugly block (the houses have no front yards or setbacks -- they open directly onto the street, resulting in a drab, charmless streetscape). On the positive side, it's very convenient to 5th Ave shops and restauarants and the subways. I'd peg it at $1.5 - $1.6m.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 3:28 PM

We assume the dillweed stuck on Lincoln Place getting 250 above ask is a broker, and probably is, but some of the cheerleaders here could also be recent buyers looking at negative equity, should prices dip. "Bitter renter" is on target, but no less than "panicked debtor."

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 3:30 PM

If Prudential Elliman thinks that 3rd Avenue is "Prime" Park Slope, they don't have a presence in Park Slope. This house isn't even in "sub-prime" Park Slope. It's in down slope.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 3:37 PM

3:12 did the value calculation correctly, but too optimistically. Repairs also cost money. And an investor should expect to earn something on the investment, not just break even. And in this market, investors should be paid for assuming risk, not the other way around.

A rational investor would peg the value well south of $1m.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 3:39 PM

The broker says the rents are $2500 for a 1200 sq ft apt.

On a square foot basis that is identical to the rents at the Schermerhorn Street studios yesterday. Yesterday, the consensus seemed to be that Schermerhorn was a give-away to the lower classes and a threat to western civilization, let alone property values, even though the immediate neighbors are two parking lots, the MTA and the jail. Is Prime Detention Center that much nicer a neighborhood than Prime Park Sloped?

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 3:47 PM

2:00 pm you are an idiot.

2:12 pm you may need to tweak your calculation for the fact that all the interest in only deductible for mortgages up to $1.1 million...so for your 2 million mortgage, you can take the interest expense deduction on the first 1.1 million, the interest on the other 900k is not deductible.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 3:50 PM

"new forbes list of 400 richest people came out today.

i bet none rent their homes."

I bet none made their money buying overpriced rentals in Gowanus.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 3:53 PM

OOOOh -- Forbes 400 list members are moving to Third Avenue! Now the neighborhood is really going to jump!

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 3:59 PM

good comeback, 3:53.

rent all you want. you can still make money in other ways, sure.

but renting your primary residence is just foolish.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 4:00 PM

What's "subprime" Park Slope?

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 4:03 PM

If renting is half the cost of buying -- which it is in BH and this house in Prime Park Slope -- why is renting foolish? Paying double is never a good investment move.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 4:03 PM

doesn't matter if you are paying double.

it is going into equity which you will then sell later. hopefully at a higher price. in nyc, your bets are good that 20 years from now, this house will sell for 5 million. that's the way these things work.

instead of throwing money into a landlord's pocket.

like i said..no wealthy person in the world does not at least own their own home.

it's digraceful to suggest otherwise.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 4:08 PM

Anything that can get an 80% LTV mortgage only if the appraiser is on drugs or the take is "sub-prime".

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 4:10 PM

It IS foolish to rent long term rather than to buy a place that costs less, with your mortgage deduction, if your income is stable, than to rent long term would cost you.

But it is NOT more foolish to rent long term rather than buy a for MORE than it would cost to rent a comparable space. Just doesn't make sense to do that.

Sure, you can say, that in the LONG RUN, that you will have some appreciation. But most people don't want to have to count on staying put for 10-12 years to break even (possible in a down market), or longer. Even if I plan to stay put, I want the option to sell at some small profit if I choose to move for all the reasons people move (family size changes, health issues, job or romance related relocation, nasty high rise building nearby makes me live in construction site area and then blocks my view, whatever.)

And anyway, that appreciation (when compard to paying rent) needs to take in the increases expenditures over the years of repair and renovation, higher insurance than renters pay, real estate taxes paid, lost interst income on money put down, etc. Not saying buying can't be a very good thing (did it and did well with it), but it isn't the obvious choice for everybody in every situation or every market that some people make it out to be. It doesn't take brains to see that, given the mortgage meltdown in this country.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 4:14 PM

We bought our place in 1995 for 150K on the Upper West Side.

And sold it in 2007 for 1.8 million.

I'm not interested in renting.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 4:19 PM

Wealthy people, if they know what they are doing, know the difference between investment and consumption -- and that primary residences are a tax-sheltered form of the latter, not the former.

If you sell the house in 20 years for $5m you will barely break even in nominal terms. You'd do better in T-bills, and then you wouldn't have to live in Gowanus for the next 20 years. Do the math.

That's assuming that in 20 years you can find someone who believes that it'll be worth $10m 10 years later, or badly lusts after the Gowanus lifestyle. Otherwise, you'll find that it is worth its rental value, which in 20 years, if rents go up 5% per year, should be just about $2m.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 4:25 PM

4:19 -- you could take your 1.6m, buy this place, live in one floor and cover your mortgage with the rent from the other two.

Or you could buy 8% bonds, giving you $10500/month income, rent the floor through, and still have $7500/month left over.

Why is buying better?

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 4:29 PM

because it's not renting.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 4:33 PM

4:33 if you have a mortgage, you too are renting. Renting from the bank

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 4:40 PM

4:19 - If this house goes up 12 times in the next 12 years, as yours did in the last 12, it'll be selling for $29.4 million or about $300,000/month.

For $300000 per month, don't you think the prospective purchaser will want to actually be ON the New Park Avenue, not just a block away?

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 4:43 PM

Can't wait till this sells, so you all can shut your traps.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 4:57 PM

In 1995, no way this house was worth as much as 4:19's UWS apartment. It's gone up far more than 12 times. Extrapolate the trend -- in 20 years, it'll be worth more than Switzerland. Surest route to the Fortune 400 I've ever seen. I'm bidding over ask tomorrow.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 4:58 PM

Safer than paying 2.5m to invest in negative cash flow on Third Avenue? I've got some CDOs I got cheap from Citibank I could offer you.

And, to make 4:33 happy, I'll sell them to you outright, so you own them. I'll even lend you up to $1.6m of the entire purchase price at 8% if you give me that $1.6m in UWS profits as collateral. Interest is different from rent, you know.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 5:06 PM

if you buy and hold for at least 10 years in new york city, you will make a profit.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 5:08 PM

I am still waiting to hear more about these hookers on 3rd ave...

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 5:26 PM

If you buy and hold NYC hookers for 10 years, you'll make a profit. But you have to hold them in the right way, or you'll just get kicked.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 5:35 PM

Based on current rents, this building is worth about $1m (see 3:12). If you pay $2.5m, you have to get the rents up 2.5 times to break even, then more to cover your losses until then, then more to make your profit. Say you triple the rents to 7500/month/floor, so the building is worth $3m.

Now, all you have to do is find someone earning 52 * 7500 = 390k / year who wants to spend 1/3 of their income to live in a one br apt on Third Avenue. Who likes looking at hookers, but doesn't mind not being able to afford them after paying the rent. And who doesn't want to buy, because renting is always better.

Once they've rented, you can sell it to them for $5m, because renting is bad, and they can try to find the person earning $800k who wants to live there.

See how it works? We all get rich. In 10 years you can always sell for a profit. Guaranteed. Ask the people who bought in Fort Greene in 1948.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 5:44 PM

Perhaps if out schools taught better math and finance skills, then not everybody in this country would so easily belive this crap that it is ALWAYS better to own. It clearly isn't when you do the math (or just read the news.)

We have a long way to go in improving education here. SIGH. But it is badly needed, as those who work in the finance industry, who did know exactly what they were doing, end up running roughshod over the people who don't get the math, but who fall for believing the propaganda "you should always own your home."

And it isn't just the poor suckers in forelosure who are affected by people believing this highly touted myth - we are all paying for it, and it is far from over it.

I saw this industry up close, and this credit mess we are in now is no surprise to anyone in the finance world. It was clear everyone in the finance industry was just taking their profits while they could, the inevitable future meltdown and credit and banking crisis be damned.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 5:46 PM

cream pies anyone?

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 5:47 PM

5:44 = person who thinks if he waits another year, he'll be able to get that brownstone on PPW for 250K.

new report today says that 15.9% of homes in America will be worth less a year from now than today.

You think those will be in Brownstone Brooklyn??

Nope. They'll be in Riverside California, Bumfuck Florida, Mesa Arizona and Las Vegas, Nevada.

Not Park Slope.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 5:54 PM

@5:44 -- sarcasm, yeah. But people making 390 thou are a dime a dozen. That's just 2 associates or one Elliman broker. You don't know how much money there is in this city and how many people like looking at hookers.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 5:58 PM

Read the report again. That's not what it says.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 6:00 PM

PPW=3rd Ave

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 6:03 PM

Ah yes, the old "can't happen here" delusion.

From MarketWatch: Citing the Case-Shiller index, Seiders noted that home prices nationally have fallen nearly 10% from their peak in early 2006 and that prices were declining at a 19% annual rate in the fourth quarter. "The downward momentum was building at the end of the year," he said.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 6:05 PM

The people saying they bought their apartment in 1995 and sold it in 2007 for a 12X gain are no different from the people who bought AOL in 1995 and sold it in 2000 for a 1000X gain. They're assuming that the future is going to look like the past, and they're assuming they made a great decision instead of realizing that they just got incredibly lucky.

In any case, what they're saying has nothing to do with reality. We're not being asked today to pay 1995 prices. We're being asked to pay 2007 prices, which are absurdly high. And there is no way that we are going to see the same appreciation over the next ten years that we've seen over the last ten (or over the last five). Just because it made sense to buy in 1995 doesn't mean it makes sense to buy today.

If you bought property in New York in 1987, you had to wait at least a decade until you were back to even, if you take into account inflation and maintenance. Prices today are much higher -- in relation to rent, underlying incomes, etc. -- than they were in 1987. There is no way that it makes sense, from an investment perspective, to own. Renting is and will be for the foreseeable future, cheaper and more economically sensible.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 6:17 PM

Right you are, 6:17.

One nit: actually, if you bought a two-bedroom coop in park slope in '87 you had to wait until '97 to be back to even (sell for exactly what you paid) even NOT taking anything else into account. In '96, you would have sold it for 20-25% less than you paid.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 6:23 PM

we bought in 95 and sold this past year with a hefty profit.
and i'm not into buying.
the real estate advance of the 90's and 00's is not going to happen again - not for a long time.
if you want to hold onto your property for 20 years or 15 yrs - then yes - you'll make money - but also invested wisely _ money makes money .. without the huge headache - of all this - i am passing for now on buying and have this great feeling of cash in the bank - growing nicely and now worrying if another terrorist attack will happen outside my window like it did in 2001. we cant predict anything - and having that cash security is priceless!!!!

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 6:40 PM

Also, you can get less then 7% today.
As I mentioned we are refinancing and locked at 5.125 for low 1M+ from Alpine mortgage that we found on bankrate.

Look at today's offering:

http://www.bankrate.com/brm/rate/mtg_ratehome.asp?params=1200000,NY,2&product=224&points=1&pType=a&refi=1&pct=0

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 7:07 PM

Who cares, pay your mortgage and buy what you can afford. All wil be right with the world soon.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 7:19 PM

if you had bought aol and NOT sold in 2000, but are still holding onto it, you are taking a major loss.

aol is about as worthless as a house in mesa, arizona right about now.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 7:21 PM

And inflation is even more priceless.

so, seriously: how much this house is worth?
And how much a house in Central Slope similar to this is worth.

Also, I do not think the person who mentioned one bedroom apartment read the listing.
I think it is either 2+ or 3br, depending on layout.

If this house is similar to ours ( and the size 1200sf is similar) then each rental is 3br plus den, kitchen and living room, plus you have a big "storage room" (which we legally converted to half bath+laundry and closet).

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 7:25 PM

I will try not to forget to post our appraisal number next week and you will try to remember to check this thread.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 7:28 PM

"so, seriously: how much this house is worth?"

$672,893.27 and not one penny more.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 8:33 PM

Oh The What, you are just spreading gloom and doom. Don't you know that if you buy this house today it will be worth over 20 million in the next 10 year run-up? Oh wait, since its in Park Slope ir will be closer to 40 million. Oh what the hell 100 million. It's PRIME. It's the East New York houses that will be 20 million and after all those hipsters turn Billyburg into the next West Village you wont be able to touch an old woodie for less than 100 million. After all this is NYC and we are immune to the rest of the country's economy problems. Look at the Great Depression. NYC were still making a killing on Wall Street even when everyone else was working for a nickel a week. I mean here now, our wages are going up at the same rate they have over this past 10 year run up and we are all filthy rich now. I know mine have gone up over 10 times which is the same as the inflation of the house prices. I was making 40K as a teacher and now I'm making 400K. Don't be so negative ;-)

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 8:40 PM

you think it's so funny, 8:40.

those houses that people bought on the upper east side in 1985 for 1 million dollars are selling them now for 45 million.

i believe one sold for 53 million.

not that crazy that in 20 years, park slope homes will be selling for 10 million or more.

this is nyc. as gas prices rise to $4 , then $5, then $6, do you have any idea how many more people are going to want to live in the greatest city in the united states?

think about it.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 8:55 PM

It's a nice pipe dream, but no matter how expensive gas gets, jobs are not going to magically appear in New York to allow people to live here.

Think about it.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 9:05 PM

they will move here.

the world is moving towards urbanism.

everyone in china is moving as close as possible towards cities. same in india.

europe has done it for centuries.

we are behind and have seen just a start of it over the last 10 years.

every person i know seems fed up with the burbs. if they could, they'd move here.

or seattle. or san francisco.

no one WANTS to move to long island or danbury anymore.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 9:22 PM

It doesn't matter if they WANT to live here. If there are not jobs for them, they WILL NOT BE ABLE to live here.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 9:25 PM

Even though you (and I) think this is the best city in the country, everybody else in the country is not clamoring to live here. It is sheer vanity to assume that.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 9:28 PM

China. Now there's a model of modernization to follow.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 9:35 PM

new york will create more jobs.

no, not everyone wants to live here.

but a lot more people than we can accommodate now, want to live here.

that's a different situation than 95% of places in the united states.

with the housing meltdown, you aren't going to see people clamoring to live in once desirable places where the only thing going for it is a 3000sf house with no trees, 12.5 miles from your respective "city"

phoenix, riverside, las vegas, miami, sarasota, atlanta, sacramento. places like this have 3 years worth of properties on the market to sell.

there is becoming a smaller group of cities looking to build for the future and make room for more people. bloomberg is doing it because he's smart and he knows the way the word is moving.

the age of the internet is bringing people towards this increasingly urban style of living. people in the burbs are CRAVING human contact. talk to them. you'll see what i mean. they may not necessarily all want to live in new york city, but they like the idea of it. it gets them thinking and it inspires them to want to do more. live more, do more.

places like new york thrive because people here want more out of life than others. it can be an inspiration. it is for many of the 8.25 million of us that are here. most of us came from all over the world. that does make this place special.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 9:37 PM

Well all of you dreamers who think think that prices are going to continue onwards and upwards just as they have in the past few years, and very few compared to the history of NYC where they never appreciated like this before (and even went down a few times), better run right out and buy up every single house on every single realty site as well as every FSBO so you can be the next billionaires. 52 million in 23 years is over 2 million a year in appreciation for just one property. I can give up my day job if I can make 2 million a year! Shoot, if its that simple banks and investment firms should be out buying all they can and just holding them empty. If you can make this kind of appreciation consistently without fear of a downturn because this is NYC where there is no way it can happen, then you better go do it. Otherwise, reality checks in and you realize that one property was a historic mansion on the park and was not a regular occurrence, and no-one is going to give 53 million for a plain old rowhouse in a crime filled Brooklyn neighborhood. Too bad Walmart already patented the slogan watch for falling prices as that will be the real estate motto for the next several years. But by all means, go right out and buy them up tomorrow if you think otherwise. I'm sure the banks and appraisers are right there with you thinking the same thing.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 9:47 PM

What is Bloomberg doing? Besides banning smoking and transfacts, what has he accomplished?

The World Trade Center is still a hole. The 2nd Avenue subway is over budget and delayed by three years already. The Fulton transit hub is over budget and being scaled back. The 7 train extension isn't happening. The subway stations are largely filthy and trains are at capacity.

He has done nothing to improve the infrastructure of the city. His PlaNYC 2030 blather is nothing but a few speeches and powerpoint presentations.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 9:53 PM

"with the housing meltdown, you aren't going to see people clamoring to live in once desirable places where the only thing going for it is a 3000sf house with no trees, 12.5 miles from your respective "city""

Yep, nothing there but their jobs, families, friends, lives, connections, and regional loyalty.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 9:57 PM

the jobs will be the next thing to go.

that is the only thing keeping them there.

people move around a lot more these days.

it's the way of the world.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 10:04 PM

True, the jobs will go.

But they won't be created here either.

Think back to 1989 when New York lost 10% of its jobs.

You know, the last real estate crash.

But of course, it's different this time.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 10:23 PM

we will create jobs in green energy if people are smart.

it will be the largest new source of economic expansion of the next decade, in my opinion.

just like internet jobs and finance jobs were created during past 20 years.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 10:35 PM

green energy is a great idea but it won't make that kind of green. solar is already tanking on wall street.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 10:49 PM

I hope Park Slope moves to China.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 10:52 PM

biofuels, wind, hydro, there are still many options.

so much still needs to be developed.

it's time to stop saying we can't.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 11:04 PM

"biofuels, wind, hydro, there are still many options."

Exactly, And all of which will preclude the necessity of people moving to the cities.

Quite the opposite, actually.

I don't think they'll be building those windfarms in Prospect Park. Or planting Long Meadow with switchgrass.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 11:22 PM

We bought our last joint in Manhattan in 2004 for 1.8. Sold it 2.5 years later for 3.

I, too, am not interested in renting.

Yes, maybe there are many situations where your monthly costs are lower as a slave to landlords. But you're never going to be able to engineer a nice ROI, which is actually pretty easy if you just buy smartly and decorate reasonably well. Piece o cake.

Posted by: guest at March 7, 2008 2:58 AM

Back to this house, I find it amusing that after they dumped the original PDE agent and replaced her with an equal genius, they updated (too generous to say "corrected") the listing copy from:

"It has full basement but it needs to renovate and it exits to the sweet lovingly garden."

to

"It has full basement exits to the lovingly garden."

(Props to the poster on the January thread for noticing this.)

Posted by: guest at March 7, 2008 12:35 PM