« Development Watch: Sunset Park H.S. Rising Fast Closing Bell: Organic Market Coming...Or(o) Not »
March 28, 2008
Open House Picks
Park Slope
865 Union Street
Townsley & Gay
Sunday 1:30-3:30
$2,550,000
GMAP P*Shark
Park Slope
303 13th Street
Warren Lewis
Sunday 2:30-5
$1,895,000
GMAP P*Shark
Ditmas Park
440 East 19th Street
Mary Kay Gallagher
Sunday 1-3
$1,390,000
GMAP P*Shark
Prospect Lefferts Gardens
73 Rutland Road
Corcoran
Sunday 12-2:30
$1,390,000
GMAP P*Shark
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/4351
Comments
that ditmas park house is overproced for this market. watch out for price cuts in te future.
Posted by: guest at March 28, 2008 1:29 PM
The Ditmas Park house already had a $200K haircut. It well sell at or very close to this price.
Posted by: guest at March 28, 2008 1:46 PM
The frame house in the Slope is a gem.
I really prefer these houses to the run-of-the-mill brownstones that seem so narrow and dark by comparison. 1.8 million is a hefty price tag though.
Posted by: guest at March 28, 2008 1:51 PM
"It well sell at or very close to this price."
OK, if you say so. You must know.
Posted by: guest at March 28, 2008 1:57 PM
I really, really love the 13th Street house. Looks very bright and airy.
I'm also a fan of all the woodwork on the Union Street house. It would be a fun one to make your own and try to brighten and modern it up a bit while still keeping all of the charming details.
Posted by: jerri blank at March 28, 2008 2:05 PM
I'm not in love with PLG, but that Rutland Road house is beautiful.
Posted by: guest at March 28, 2008 2:05 PM
My holy god, is that some purple wallpaper in the Union St. house! that being said, it looks to be in nice shape. Am I crazy for thinking the price seems not outrageous?
(ducking and covering my head....)
Posted by: guest at March 28, 2008 2:05 PM
Park Slope prices es need to be lower lower. New York Magazine say.
Posted by: guest at March 28, 2008 2:08 PM
very interesting and a sign of the market--the Park Slope Townsley & Gay house has not only been reduced by over $200K, but they're actually having an open house! Shocking! Townsley & Gay hardly ever holds open houses.
Posted by: guest at March 28, 2008 2:13 PM
Yeah, having an open house does sound like the end of the world.
Posted by: jerri blank at March 28, 2008 2:17 PM
Comment counter is off, comments missing, servers are maxed out and the What stopped cursing after it was discovered he's white.
Did the bubble burst?
Posted by: guest at March 28, 2008 2:18 PM
I wish the 13th St. house was half the price and on Carroll St.
Posted by: guest at March 28, 2008 2:38 PM
$1.9 mill for a small wood frame on 13th st btw 5th and 6th?!
good luck with that
Posted by: guest at March 28, 2008 2:39 PM
the 13th street house is great, inside and out, but I used to live on that block in an apartment and it's definitely not a $1.9 million kind of street
Posted by: guest at March 28, 2008 2:46 PM
Ditmas Park house is zoned for office space. Does a business really want to operate on a residential street like this?? And for almost $1.4million, does a family want a business taking up the beautiful ground floor? Or is this just how it is in this area and with these large houses?
Posted by: guest at March 28, 2008 2:48 PM
I have longed for that little 13th St. house ever since we lived in the Slope 20 years ago. And it looks as delectable on the inside as on the outside. In such nice shape, even though it is squashed in there, it should be worth at least half a million dollars. Seriously. I mean, doesn't that sound like a Nice Big Fat Price for a Quaint Little House: "half a million dollars"? That's what is so lovely and inspiring about any upcoming "crash" or "bubble bursting": Things could go down by 75% and still be outrageously pricey compared to anywhere else in the universe! Everyone wins except Satan! (or his minion who might've paid $1.7 million for this quaint little house last week...)
Posted by: Brenda from Flatbush at March 28, 2008 3:00 PM
Why should a house in one of Brooklyn's nicest neighborhoods cost "half a million dollars" when that's the going rate for ok houses in Seattle, Portland, Chicago, Boston, DC, etc.
You don't think proximity to Manhattan counts for anything???
Posted by: jerri blank at March 28, 2008 3:05 PM
At least 95% of the posts on this site are from people who're logged in as "guest". This means that someone reading the comments on this site will be reading almost everything in faded type. Now, I understand why the faded type is used for "guests". However, in my opinion it's not worth it.
The faded type is clearly legible, but over the long haul it is more fatigue-inducing than regular, darker type. So, Mr. B, do you really want to condemn your readership to slogging through so much faded type?
Just a thought. Again, I do understand why the faded type was introduced. I just don't think it's worth it. You're shooting yourself in the foot (and inducing eyestrain in your readers) as things currently stand.
At least 95% of the posts on this site are from people who're logged in as "guest". This means that someone reading the comments on this site will be reading almost everything in faded type. Now, I understand why the faded type is used for "guests". However, in my opinion it's not worth it.
The faded type is clearly legible, but over the long haul it is more fatigue-inducing than regular, darker type. So, Mr. B, do you really want to condemn your readership to slogging through so much faded type?
Just a thought. Again, I do understand why the faded type was introduced. I just don't think it's worth it. You're shooting yourself in the foot (and inducing eyestrain in your readers) as things currently stand.
At least 95% of the posts on this site are from people who're logged in as "guest". This means that someone reading the comments on this site will be reading almost everything in faded type. Now, I understand why the faded type is used for "guests". However, in my opinion it's not worth it.
The faded type is clearly legible, but over the long haul it is more fatigue-inducing than regular, darker type. So, Mr. B, do you really want to condemn your readership to slogging through so much faded type?
Just a thought. Again, I do understand why the faded type was introduced. I just don't think it's worth it. You're shooting yourself in the foot (and inducing eyestrain in your readers) as things currently stand.
At least 95% of the posts on this site are from people who're logged in as "guest". This means that someone reading the comments on this site will be reading almost everything in faded type. Now, I understand why the faded type is used for "guests". However, in my opinion it's not worth it.
The faded type is clearly legible, but over the long haul it is more fatigue-inducing than regular, darker type. So, Mr. B, do you really want to condemn your readership to slogging through so much faded type?
Just a thought. Again, I do understand why the faded type was introduced. I just don't think it's worth it. You're shooting yourself in the foot (and inducing eyestrain in your readers) as things currently stand.
At least 95% of the posts on this site are from people who're logged in as "guest". This means that someone reading the comments on this site will be reading almost everything in faded type. Now, I understand why the faded type is used for "guests". However, in my opinion it's not worth it.
The faded type is clearly legible, but over the long haul it is more fatigue-inducing than regular, darker type. So, Mr. B, do you really want to condemn your readership to slogging through so much faded type?
Just a thought. Again, I do understand why the faded type was introduced. I just don't think it's worth it. You're shooting yourself in the foot (and inducing eyestrain in your readers) as things currently stand.
At least 95% of the posts on this site are from people who're logged in as "guest". This means that someone reading the comments on this site will be reading almost everything in faded type. Now, I understand why the faded type is used for "guests". However, in my opinion it's not worth it.
The faded type is clearly legible, but over the long haul it is more fatigue-inducing than regular, darker type. So, Mr. B, do you really want to condemn your readership to slogging through so much faded type?
Just a thought. Again, I do understand why the faded type was introduced. I just don't think it's worth it. You're shooting yourself in the foot (and inducing eyestrain in your readers) as things currently stand.
Posted by: guest at March 28, 2008 3:07 PM
At least 95% of the posts on this site are from people who're logged in as "guest". This means that someone reading the comments on this site will be reading almost everything in faded type. Now, I understand why the faded type is used for "guests". However, in my opinion it's not worth it.
The faded type is clearly legible, but over the long haul it is more fatigue-inducing than regular, darker type. So, Mr. B, do you really want to condemn your readership to slogging through so much faded type?
Just a thought. Again, I do understand why the faded type was introduced. I just don't think it's worth it. You're shooting yourself in the foot (and inducing eyestrain in your readers) as things currently stand.
At least 95% of the posts on this site are from people who're logged in as "guest". This means that someone reading the comments on this site will be reading almost everything in faded type. Now, I understand why the faded type is used for "guests". However, in my opinion it's not worth it.
The faded type is clearly legible, but over the long haul it is more fatigue-inducing than regular, darker type. So, Mr. B, do you really want to condemn your readership to slogging through so much faded type?
Just a thought. Again, I do understand why the faded type was introduced. I just don't think it's worth it. You're shooting yourself in the foot (and inducing eyestrain in your readers) as things currently stand.
At least 95% of the posts on this site are from people who're logged in as "guest". This means that someone reading the comments on this site will be reading almost everything in faded type. Now, I understand why the faded type is used for "guests". However, in my opinion it's not worth it.
The faded type is clearly legible, but over the long haul it is more fatigue-inducing than regular, darker type. So, Mr. B, do you really want to condemn your readership to slogging through so much faded type?
Just a thought. Again, I do understand why the faded type was introduced. I just don't think it's worth it. You're shooting yourself in the foot (and inducing eyestrain in your readers) as things currently stand.
At least 95% of the posts on this site are from people who're logged in as "guest". This means that someone reading the comments on this site will be reading almost everything in faded type. Now, I understand why the faded type is used for "guests". However, in my opinion it's not worth it.
The faded type is clearly legible, but over the long haul it is more fatigue-inducing than regular, darker type. So, Mr. B, do you really want to condemn your readership to slogging through so much faded type?
Just a thought. Again, I do understand why the faded type was introduced. I just don't think it's worth it. You're shooting yourself in the foot (and inducing eyestrain in your readers) as things currently stand.
At least 95% of the posts on this site are from people who're logged in as "guest". This means that someone reading the comments on this site will be reading almost everything in faded type. Now, I understand why the faded type is used for "guests". However, in my opinion it's not worth it.
The faded type is clearly legible, but over the long haul it is more fatigue-inducing than regular, darker type. So, Mr. B, do you really want to condemn your readership to slogging through so much faded type?
Just a thought. Again, I do understand why the faded type was introduced. I just don't think it's worth it. You're shooting yourself in the foot (and inducing eyestrain in your readers) as things currently stand.
At least 95% of the posts on this site are from people who're logged in as "guest". This means that someone reading the comments on this site will be reading almost everything in faded type. Now, I understand why the faded type is used for "guests". However, in my opinion it's not worth it.
The faded type is clearly legible, but over the long haul it is more fatigue-inducing than regular, darker type. So, Mr. B, do you really want to condemn your readership to slogging through so much faded type?
Just a thought. Again, I do understand why the faded type was introduced. I just don't think it's worth it. You're shooting yourself in the foot (and inducing eyestrain in your readers) as things currently stand.
Posted by: guest at March 28, 2008 3:08 PM
At least 95% of the posts on this site are from people who're logged in as "guest". This means that someone reading the comments on this site will be reading almost everything in faded type. Now, I understand why the faded type is used for "guests". However, in my opinion it's not worth it.
The faded type is clearly legible, but over the long haul it is more fatigue-inducing than regular, darker type. So, Mr. B, do you really want to condemn your readership to slogging through so much faded type?
Just a thought. Again, I do understand why the faded type was introduced. I just don't think it's worth it. You're shooting yourself in the foot (and inducing eyestrain in your readers) as things currently stand.
At least 95% of the posts on this site are from people who're logged in as "guest". This means that someone reading the comments on this site will be reading almost everything in faded type. Now, I understand why the faded type is used for "guests". However, in my opinion it's not worth it.
The faded type is clearly legible, but over the long haul it is more fatigue-inducing than regular, darker type. So, Mr. B, do you really want to condemn your readership to slogging through so much faded type?
Just a thought. Again, I do understand why the faded type was introduced. I just don't think it's worth it. You're shooting yourself in the foot (and inducing eyestrain in your readers) as things currently stand.
At least 95% of the posts on this site are from people who're logged in as "guest". This means that someone reading the comments on this site will be reading almost everything in faded type. Now, I understand why the faded type is used for "guests". However, in my opinion it's not worth it.
The faded type is clearly legible, but over the long haul it is more fatigue-inducing than regular, darker type. So, Mr. B, do you really want to condemn your readership to slogging through so much faded type?
Just a thought. Again, I do understand why the faded type was introduced. I just don't think it's worth it. You're shooting yourself in the foot (and inducing eyestrain in your readers) as things currently stand.
At least 95% of the posts on this site are from people who're logged in as "guest". This means that someone reading the comments on this site will be reading almost everything in faded type. Now, I understand why the faded type is used for "guests". However, in my opinion it's not worth it.
The faded type is clearly legible, but over the long haul it is more fatigue-inducing than regular, darker type. So, Mr. B, do you really want to condemn your readership to slogging through so much faded type?
Just a thought. Again, I do understand why the faded type was introduced. I just don't think it's worth it. You're shooting yourself in the foot (and inducing eyestrain in your readers) as things currently stand.
At least 95% of the posts on this site are from people who're logged in as "guest". This means that someone reading the comments on this site will be reading almost everything in faded type. Now, I understand why the faded type is used for "guests". However, in my opinion it's not worth it.
The faded type is clearly legible, but over the long haul it is more fatigue-inducing than regular, darker type. So, Mr. B, do you really want to condemn your readership to slogging through so much faded type?
Just a thought. Again, I do understand why the faded type was introduced. I just don't think it's worth it. You're shooting yourself in the foot (and inducing eyestrain in your readers) as things currently stand.
At least 95% of the posts on this site are from people who're logged in as "guest". This means that someone reading the comments on this site will be reading almost everything in faded type. Now, I understand why the faded type is used for "guests". However, in my opinion it's not worth it.
The faded type is clearly legible, but over the long haul it is more fatigue-inducing than regular, darker type. So, Mr. B, do you really want to condemn your readership to slogging through so much faded type?
Just a thought. Again, I do understand why the faded type was introduced. I just don't think it's worth it. You're shooting yourself in the foot (and inducing eyestrain in your readers) as things currently stand.
Posted by: guest at March 28, 2008 3:09 PM
Well I hope they don't do this....
Buyers' Revenge:
Trash the House
After Foreclosure
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120665586676569881.html
The most practical way to ensure the houses are returned in decent shape, lenders and their agents say, is to pay homeowners hundreds or even thousands of dollars to put their anger in escrow and leave quietly. A ransom?
REO Management companies are paying former home-debtor to leave quietly and don't trash the crib.
The What
Someday this war is gonna end...
PS: These houses are not selling at the offering price.
Posted by: guest at March 28, 2008 3:10 PM
At least 95% of the posts on this site are from people who're logged in as "guest". This means that someone reading the comments on this site will be reading almost everything in faded type. Now, I understand why the faded type is used for "guests". However, in my opinion it's not worth it.
The faded type is clearly legible, but over the long haul it is more fatigue-inducing than regular, darker type. So, Mr. B, do you really want to condemn your readership to slogging through so much faded type?
Just a thought. Again, I do understand why the faded type was introduced. I just don't think it's worth it. You're shooting yourself in the foot (and inducing eyestrain in your readers) as things currently stand.
At least 95% of the posts on this site are from people who're logged in as "guest". This means that someone reading the comments on this site will be reading almost everything in faded type. Now, I understand why the faded type is used for "guests". However, in my opinion it's not worth it.
The faded type is clearly legible, but over the long haul it is more fatigue-inducing than regular, darker type. So, Mr. B, do you really want to condemn your readership to slogging through so much faded type?
Just a thought. Again, I do understand why the faded type was introduced. I just don't think it's worth it. You're shooting yourself in the foot (and inducing eyestrain in your readers) as things currently stand.
At least 95% of the posts on this site are from people who're logged in as "guest". This means that someone reading the comments on this site will be reading almost everything in faded type. Now, I understand why the faded type is used for "guests". However, in my opinion it's not worth it.
The faded type is clearly legible, but over the long haul it is more fatigue-inducing than regular, darker type. So, Mr. B, do you really want to condemn your readership to slogging through so much faded type?
Just a thought. Again, I do understand why the faded type was introduced. I just don't think it's worth it. You're shooting yourself in the foot (and inducing eyestrain in your readers) as things currently stand.
At least 95% of the posts on this site are from people who're logged in as "guest". This means that someone reading the comments on this site will be reading almost everything in faded type. Now, I understand why the faded type is used for "guests". However, in my opinion it's not worth it.
The faded type is clearly legible, but over the long haul it is more fatigue-inducing than regular, darker type. So, Mr. B, do you really want to condemn your readership to slogging through so much faded type?
Just a thought. Again, I do understand why the faded type was introduced. I just don't think it's worth it. You're shooting yourself in the foot (and inducing eyestrain in your readers) as things currently stand.
At least 95% of the posts on this site are from people who're logged in as "guest". This means that someone reading the comments on this site will be reading almost everything in faded type. Now, I understand why the faded type is used for "guests". However, in my opinion it's not worth it.
The faded type is clearly legible, but over the long haul it is more fatigue-inducing than regular, darker type. So, Mr. B, do you really want to condemn your readership to slogging through so much faded type?
Just a thought. Again, I do understand why the faded type was introduced. I just don't think it's worth it. You're shooting yourself in the foot (and inducing eyestrain in your readers) as things currently stand.
At least 95% of the posts on this site are from people who're logged in as "guest". This means that someone reading the comments on this site will be reading almost everything in faded type. Now, I understand why the faded type is used for "guests". However, in my opinion it's not worth it.
The faded type is clearly legible, but over the long haul it is more fatigue-inducing than regular, darker type. So, Mr. B, do you really want to condemn your readership to slogging through so much faded type?
Just a thought. Again, I do understand why the faded type was introduced. I just don't think it's worth it. You're shooting yourself in the foot (and inducing eyestrain in your readers) as things currently stand.
Posted by: guest at March 28, 2008 3:10 PM
Brenda:
You do know why home prices in NYC are so much higher than "anywhere else in the universe," right? Because more people want to live here than anywhere else. So a 75% drop makes sense only if:
* prices everywhere else drop 75% too
or
* something so ghastly happens that far, far fewer people want to live in NYC
Posted by: guest at March 28, 2008 3:15 PM
At least 95% of the posts on this site are from people who're logged in as "guest". This means that someone reading the comments on this site will be reading almost everything in faded type. Now, I understand why the faded type is used for "guests". However, in my opinion it's not worth it.
The faded type is clearly legible, but over the long haul it is more fatigue-inducing than regular, darker type. So, Mr. B, do you really want to condemn your readership to slogging through so much faded type?
Just a thought. Again, I do understand why the faded type was introduced. I just don't think it's worth it. You're shooting yourself in the foot (and inducing eyestrain in your readers) as things currently stand.
At least 95% of the posts on this site are from people who're logged in as "guest". This means that someone reading the comments on this site will be reading almost everything in faded type. Now, I understand why the faded type is used for "guests". However, in my opinion it's not worth it.
The faded type is clearly legible, but over the long haul it is more fatigue-inducing than regular, darker type. So, Mr. B, do you really want to condemn your readership to slogging through so much faded type?
Just a thought. Again, I do understand why the faded type was introduced. I just don't think it's worth it. You're shooting yourself in the foot (and inducing eyestrain in your readers) as things currently stand.
At least 95% of the posts on this site are from people who're logged in as "guest". This means that someone reading the comments on this site will be reading almost everything in faded type. Now, I understand why the faded type is used for "guests". However, in my opinion it's not worth it.
The faded type is clearly legible, but over the long haul it is more fatigue-inducing than regular, darker type. So, Mr. B, do you really want to condemn your readership to slogging through so much faded type?
Just a thought. Again, I do understand why the faded type was introduced. I just don't think it's worth it. You're shooting yourself in the foot (and inducing eyestrain in your readers) as things currently stand.
At least 95% of the posts on this site are from people who're logged in as "guest". This means that someone reading the comments on this site will be reading almost everything in faded type. Now, I understand why the faded type is used for "guests". However, in my opinion it's not worth it.
The faded type is clearly legible, but over the long haul it is more fatigue-inducing than regular, darker type. So, Mr. B, do you really want to condemn your readership to slogging through so much faded type?
Just a thought. Again, I do understand why the faded type was introduced. I just don't think it's worth it. You're shooting yourself in the foot (and inducing eyestrain in your readers) as things currently stand.
At least 95% of the posts on this site are from people who're logged in as "guest". This means that someone reading the comments on this site will be reading almost everything in faded type. Now, I understand why the faded type is used for "guests". However, in my opinion it's not worth it.
The faded type is clearly legible, but over the long haul it is more fatigue-inducing than regular, darker type. So, Mr. B, do you really want to condemn your readership to slogging through so much faded type?
Just a thought. Again, I do understand why the faded type was introduced. I just don't think it's worth it. You're shooting yourself in the foot (and inducing eyestrain in your readers) as things currently stand.
At least 95% of the posts on this site are from people who're logged in as "guest". This means that someone reading the comments on this site will be reading almost everything in faded type. Now, I understand why the faded type is used for "guests". However, in my opinion it's not worth it.
The faded type is clearly legible, but over the long haul it is more fatigue-inducing than regular, darker type. So, Mr. B, do you really want to condemn your readership to slogging through so much faded type?
Just a thought. Again, I do understand why the faded type was introduced. I just don't think it's worth it. You're shooting yourself in the foot (and inducing eyestrain in your readers) as things currently stand.
Posted by: guest at March 28, 2008 3:23 PM
Brenda is a mad fool, yo.
Posted by: guest at March 28, 2008 3:26 PM
brownstoner can you not block the idiot who is spamming your site
Posted by: guest at March 28, 2008 3:26 PM
I have to say that between the spammers, the What and the inability to post comments 7 times out of 10, this site has taken a bit of a downward spiral over the past couple weeks.
The quality of the site is suffering, and I'm finding myself spending much less time here.
The fact that the real estate market is tanking now means the site needs to be even higher quality in my opinion, because people (including myself) are becoming less and less interested in real estate right now.
If you want to continue this wonderful website, I think it would be nice to spend some time on bringing the quality level back to what it used to be.
All these commenting problems, spam and profanity are taking their toll on my interest in reading very often.
Posted by: jerri blank at March 28, 2008 3:38 PM
I'm going to have to check into bloghab. I'm getting way too worked up and angry over the fact that half my posts never show up, other peoples seem to double post, and the blind spammer has completely undercut his reasonable point by repetitively posting it.
Posted by: guest at March 28, 2008 3:43 PM
I also like the Rutland Road house. not cart wheeling over it though. seems to be missing excitement, even the new kitchen. in my opinion, the cabinets are already dated. also, the dark mill work could use a face lift to help the house pop. the bathroom is lovely. i think the price is right at least for this market but i could have sworn this house was advertised a few weeks ago for 1.345.
anybody know about the Rutland beauty a few doors away that's in contract? oh, and the Midwood Street house is also in contract. did they get their price?
Posted by: guest at March 28, 2008 3:48 PM
While I don't approve of the spammers tactics, s/he makes a valid point. Brownstoner is one of several real estate blogs I frequent. When I've been reading one of the others and the switch over to Brownstoner, it's tough sometimes. I actually moved a lamp right next to my monitor which seems to help reduce eyestrain. Still, it is a pain and I wish the spammer would be nicer so that the issue could receive a fair hearing.
Posted by: guest at March 28, 2008 3:50 PM
3:50, the point is this annoying spammer has already made the point 100 times in the last two days. We get it and I assume Brownstoner is trying to figure something out unless Brownstoner wants to continue losing people and interest, which, I agree with Jerri, is happining daily as a result of all the server issues.
(I actually don't even believe this spammer is the original poster to put up the comment, but rather some jerk with nothing better to do than try to f*** up this site)
Posted by: Biff Champion at March 28, 2008 3:56 PM
Brownstoner what about the 6 months follow up on HOTD? Many of us appreciated it.
Posted by: guest at March 28, 2008 3:57 PM
Brownstoner.com has totally "jumped the shark".
Posted by: guest at March 28, 2008 4:01 PM
13th street house price is a joke, right?
The cost is much higher psf than the far nicer house on Union Street.
Posted by: guest at March 28, 2008 4:01 PM
MKG is getting confused. Theres no such thing as a "formal" sitting room. The sitting room is for the household. The "formal living room" as she called the other room (sometimes called the drawing room) is the "formal" one - i.e. the one for recieving guests.
One just can't get the staff nowadays.
Posted by: guest at March 28, 2008 4:06 PM
faded type spammer - why don't you register so we can all enjoy your BS post in full deep black type.
Posted by: guest at March 28, 2008 4:11 PM
Brownstoner: Is there anyway to clean up that spam???
Posted by: guest at March 28, 2008 4:13 PM
Hey faded type guy you are not funny.
Posted by: guest at March 28, 2008 4:25 PM
Every time I try to post I get an error message.
Posted by: guest at March 28, 2008 4:27 PM
3:48, the 3 story Midwood limestone sold for just over 1M. The 4 story Midwood townhouse sold for just over 1.3. Haven't heard about 49 Rutland, but I do know that the realtor was fishing for offers (evidently the owners were getting anxious since it had been on the market for 5 months).
Posted by: guest at March 28, 2008 4:30 PM
I agree with the faded type comments above.
I disagree with the poster who "assumes" brownstoner is trying to fix this problem. He created the problem to begin with!
Posted by: guest at March 28, 2008 4:33 PM
Teh What is the blind poster. Cut it out What.
Posted by: guest at March 28, 2008 4:40 PM
The gray type does not appear to have lessened the number of posters who choose not register
The vast majority of posters to this web site still do not register, for whatever reason.
I would say it is an experiment that has not succeeded.
Posted by: guest at March 28, 2008 4:50 PM
Anyone know what's going on with the house on 72 Rutland Rd?
Posted by: guest at March 28, 2008 4:55 PM
The 13th Street frame house is a delight... I love it... but the asking price makes me light headed, get out the "salts"...
Convenient location too, even if it's not the most charming block.
Posted by: bren at March 28, 2008 5:49 PM
5:24 you are a child, whining for attention.
Go to your room and let the adults talk!
Posted by: guest at March 28, 2008 6:04 PM
how would anyone get a mortgage for 13th st. at a price so very far above any comps in the immediate neighborhood? quite unlikely especially in this market. $1.3 would be a more appropriate, though still high-side, price for a house that size, on that block (which is far from lovely as others have noted), in that condition.
Posted by: guest at March 28, 2008 6:11 PM
2:48, You couldn't open a factory or bakery in the Ditmas Park house but there are several Doctors who live in the area and have small practices in their homes. The price has been dropped and will probably now sell close to asking. It still has detail although it needs a kitchen and probably new baths.
Posted by: guest at March 28, 2008 6:35 PM
Get some normal damn type up in here!
Posted by: guest at March 28, 2008 6:39 PM
2:48, You couldn't open a factory or bakery in the Ditmas Park house but there are several Doctors who live in the area and have small practices in their homes. The price has been dropped and will probably now sell close to asking. It still has detail although it needs a kitchen and probably new baths.
Posted by: guest at March 28, 2008 6:58 PM
But unless a Dr buys the home and opens his own practice, I still don't think a family is going to want this. At least I wouldn't. At $1.4million, I want my own house, so would have to pay to put in new kitchen, take out old and do renovations/reconfigurations. And when was the price dropped? I thought this was a new listing?
Posted by: guest at March 28, 2008 7:25 PM
I hear you 7:25. But that is about what a fixer upper in the area goes for. If it were not for the recent slump, it would have probably gotten a little more. The area definitely doesn't appeal to everyone but there seem to be enough people (many ex-Park Sloper's and the like with growing families) who choose to fix-up a house out here.
Posted by: guest at March 28, 2008 7:55 PM
196 Midwood went for just over 1 mill? And I too thought the 73 Rutland Rd was listed at 1.345.
Posted by: guest at March 28, 2008 7:58 PM
just checked corc's site. 73 rutland is listed at 1.345. thought it was a bit odd to be higher when just across the street (& everywhere else in PLG) the price dropped significantly.
Posted by: guest at March 28, 2008 8:01 PM
"Teh What is the blind poster. Cut it out What."
First thing, I'm not the "Spammer". From day one I always sign my name. To the Spammer: You can use Cascading Style Sheets and set your Browser preferences. Read all about it here http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/. Please stop spamming this site, thank you.
The What
Someday this war is gonna end...
Posted by: guest at March 28, 2008 8:54 PM
I don't suppose anyone is reading this post thanks to spamming. But my realtor told me that the 4 story on Midwood sold for just above 1.2, not 1.3 as someone else wrote.
Posted by: guest at March 28, 2008 10:12 PM
Stoner, may I offer a suggestion? Instead of engaging in this neverending game of tit for tat with the spammer, why not just address the problem directly? I mean, isn't that the obvious solution here? Am I missing something? How hard can it be to fix whatever problem it is that's causing the text to be so light?
Posted by: guest at March 29, 2008 8:34 AM
But 8:34, it's not a problem, it's a feature. The idea was to make it easier to give credence to posts by registered users and [if you're so inclined] to ignore posts by unregistered guests.
I think this was a good idea [because of some really offensive anon.posts], but, since so many people [for reasons that escape me] choose not to register, many worthwhile posts are in gray. Perhaps the distinction could be continued with different color type, or different fonts for registered and unregistered posters. This would increase legibility and avoid eystrain.
Posted by: Bob Marvin at March 29, 2008 9:07 AM
9:07 how can you ignore unregistered users when the vast majority of posters are unregistered?
It may be a so called feature, but I for one think it is more of a problem than a feature.
If anything you should put registered users in gray type, since registered users are clearly in the minority.
Posted by: guest at March 29, 2008 10:22 AM
I have tried to register about 10 times but my email is never verified. I have no choice but to comment as a guest.
Posted by: guest at March 29, 2008 10:33 AM
My userid was verified, but after logging in two or three times I started to wonder, "Why bother with these additional keystrokes?" Seems quite pointless, really. True, there is the aforementioned 'honor society' sense in which IDs are important, but I don't care about that. I have an actual life outside of this blog.
Posted by: guest at March 29, 2008 11:15 AM
don't know why PLG always brings out the liars on this site.
the person commenting on RUTLAND does not know what they are talking about.
I know the owner of 49 RUTLAND got close to his price, and was never fishing for offers. just the opposite, he had offers for the full price that fell through.
the house is nicer than 73 RUTLAND and I agree about the reno being a bit uninspiring. But 73 is 100K less, so it should go soon too.
keep hating, guys!
Posted by: guest at March 29, 2008 11:19 AM
Whatever. Good luck with that chip on your shoulder, loser.
Posted by: guest at March 29, 2008 11:27 AM
But the owners of 49 are divorcing so maybe one or the other is tired of being bound together by the property not selling.
Posted by: guest at March 29, 2008 5:28 PM
5:28,
The property IS selling. It's in contract for close to the ask.
Posted by: guest at March 29, 2008 8:44 PM
I saw 49 Rutland months ago and then about 5 weeks ago I got a call from the realtor to see if I was interested and that the owner was negotiable. Someone may have come along and paid "close to ask" but that doesn't change the fact that the owner was getting desperate.
Posted by: guest at March 30, 2008 12:32 AM
the price on 13th street makes sense if the house is in ps 107. since it ain't in 107, it ain't worth that price.
Posted by: guest at March 30, 2008 12:50 AM
Stopped by the 13th Street open house this afternoon. Nice house on a nice block - it's not a uniform rowhouse block but instead a mix of frame, brick and brownstone houses with the random new condo development thrown in (one small one across the street, another big one on the corner of 5th Avenue). I understand why a poster upthread said it's not a $1.9 mil kind of block, but the block as a whole seemed really well kept with a true South Slope eclectic vibe.
I liked the house a lot. The owners have put in the amenities that count (central air, redone bathrooms, nice master bedroom suite in the refinished attic) and preserved the moldings, fireplaces and great wide-plank floors. It's not an elegant house and never will be, but it has a lot of cottage-y charm. I was not wild about the narrow stairs and hallways, which seemed very cramped given that this house is a 20-footer.
In terms of square footage, it's not a huge place at all - my husband thought the rooms felt too small and chopped up, but you get an illusion of more space than is actually there because each room has a dedicated function instead of, say, a living/dining room combination. Even if it's small, there IS a separate area behind the kitchen for an office, and a formal dining room, and two parlor-floor rooms for a formal living area and a more casual den/TV room.
The price certainly is aggressive given the square footage, but there is the appeal of a truly move-in condition one family, unique looking house, solid nabe.
Posted by: zeebee_in_bklyn at March 30, 2008 6:53 PM
I'd like to ask Bob Marvin (or anyone else who closely follows PLG) a few questions. 1) is there an accepted offer on 196 Midwood? (someone said there was in an earlier post) The ask was $1.15. I would consider offering $999 but I imagine they can do better. 2) Has an UNRENOVATED 2-story on Maple 2 ever sold for anything close to $1 mill, or just the renovated ones? Given today's market, how much would someone who WANTS to live on Maple 2 and likes PLG bid on an unrenovated (good mechanicals but needs all new cosmetics, kitchen, etc.) 2-story, with parlor floor--but not bedroom floor--extension. Any advice?
thanks!!
Posted by: guest at March 30, 2008 7:16 PM
13th street house is very pretty with a great vibe and I agree people pay a premium for move-in condition. I don't know anything about that block though.
The Ditmas house is really a $1.8 million house too once renovations are done. None of the new buyers in Ditmas who are spending well over a million will be putting a doctor on the parlor floor and where all the best details are. Hardly. You'll have to get a new C of O and move the living room and kitchen to the first floor where those rooms belong. Rip out everything on the 2nd floor and make those bedrooms again. Update all mechanicals. Pricey. So then you think where would you rather live for $1.8 million. South Park Slope or Ditmas.
49 Rutland is a stunner. I saw it. Very special house. Unique details. Open layout to the parlor floor like a loft which would be amazing for parties. Priced too high to start which hurt them. The price seems fine now though, somebody should take it.
Posted by: guest at March 30, 2008 7:25 PM
7;16, I believe you misunderstood my previous post: I said that the 3 story limestone on Midwood sold for just over 1 million--that is not 196 Midwood. It is on Midwood I, close to Flatbush. (Unless you're refering to another post, in which case never mind).
I know you're not asking me, but the answer is that no unrenovated 2 story on Maple II has ever sold for more than low 900's. Even in the last year some have sold for well under 900K. In my judgement the market has definitely 'softened' in LM, so for the house you describe I would stay under 900K.
Posted by: guest at March 30, 2008 7:34 PM
Boy, that's some nasty spam. The PLG house is pretty cool. Kitchen is sort of odd, in that there appears to be a big ole Wolf or Viking 48" stove there but cheapo cabinets.
Otherwise, the 13th St. house is my pick. Doesn't seem expensive for a unusual move-in place in that area.
The MKG house is just not attractive, IMO, and I have no idea how to make it so.
Posted by: guest at March 30, 2008 7:40 PM
The market has not softened in LM. Some sellers did aim to high. But there are new arrivals coming to LM constantly. If some unrenovated 2-story houses on Maple II sold for under $900K in recent months (news to me) that's still more than similar houses sold for previously. That's not called "softening" if prices are higher than a year or two ago. Values are not yet skyrocketing but that's okay. It's to be expected with the much-needed but still lacking amenities on Flatbush. Also the still (relatively) affordable prices are great because it's bringing people in the arts, media, design, architecture. It's nice.
Posted by: guest at March 30, 2008 8:01 PM
I don't know if 196 Midwood is in contract, but it isn't having open houses anymore (after only one or two), so I imagine it is. I think you could get the Maple Street house for around 900-950. Another house on the block sold for the mid nines recently (needing renovation). FWIW, there is a two story on Midwood II that has just gone on the market for the mid 800s (needs renovation). Your better deal might be there.
Posted by: guest at March 30, 2008 8:23 PM
Any information about 72 Rutland (prior HOTD)? I saw they substantially dropped their price.
Posted by: guest at March 30, 2008 11:00 PM
8:01, prices are lower than they were a year ago at this time. Last spring/summer the area was hot-- 60-something Midwood broke the record for the area and things were flying. The 3 story limestone on Midwood I--that was just resold for 1M a few weeks ago--sold for 1.15M. Houses got prices then that they simply would not be able to get now. Obviously, the entire market is far softer and the economy is tanking. It isn't really about LM/PLG. But the fact remains that the local market has softened.
Posted by: guest at March 31, 2008 12:14 AM
Are there pictures of the kitchens or baths anywhere for Union Street? Makes me wonder...
Posted by: guest at March 31, 2008 7:07 AM
12:14-
I heard 66 Midwood recently sold (Corcoran listing) - have you heard anything about it?
Posted by: guest at March 31, 2008 7:17 AM
I understand that 66 Midwood sold for about 1.3MM it needs quite a bit of work but is a beauty.
Posted by: LM at March 31, 2008 9:56 AM
Ditmas Park
440 East 19th Street:
"Exterior: Brick construction on first floor and the 2nd and 3rd floor has all been restored and painted with new cedar shakes on the 2nd floor".
I want to see proof that that all that brick is original to the house. The bulk of the houses in Ditmas Park are wood frame, and the brick is a newer add on. How do you "restore" brick that has been slapped on to a historic wood frame. Restoring would require removal of the brick.
Posted by: guest at March 31, 2008 10:05 AM
My realtor said that 66 Midwood sold for just over 1.2. It is a really gorgeous 4 story in the very best row of houses in the manor. But it certainly did need a new kitchen and bathroom.
Posted by: guest at March 31, 2008 11:08 AM
7:25pm
Your comment that 49 Rutland was priced too high makes no sense. If that's the case, why would it sell at or close to ask in a softening market? Obviously a beauty like it would probably sell high in any market. Also, I'm no expert but I bet 66 Midwood's getting closer to 1.3, even though it needed work.
I'm told that a few of the larger renovated houses on Maple I could get 1.3 or more, and a couple on Maple II that will easily go over a mil, including a few of the smaller brownstones on that block. 196 Midwood, small but renovated, is the one to watch.
Posted by: guest at March 31, 2008 12:24 PM
The Midwood street that needed reno sold for just under 1.2M.
Posted by: guest at March 31, 2008 12:35 PM
12:24 - actually if you read more closely I said 49 Rutland was "priced too high TO START" meaning I was talking about the price months ago when it was first put on the market at over $1.6 million. So obviously if it didn't sell for that it was a bit overpriced. I'm absolutely thrilled if it has now sold. Did it get $1.4 million? That's the last price I saw on it.
Posted by: guest at March 31, 2008 1:28 PM
7:16 PM,
Sorry--I almost didn't see your question, which was lost in all the "just a thought" nonsense.
I can't help with your specific price questions, but others who have already joined in seem more up on current sales data than I am [It seems like just yesterday that I was thrilled that LM prices hit $100 K, a few years after reaching such lofty heights in that other obscure fringe nabe called Park Slope]. However, in a market that is softening a bit most everywhere, what could you possibly loose by making a slightly low offer, on any house in any neighborhood?
As to houses on Maple II; many people don't realize how much they differ. True, they're all two story, but there are two basic types--the smaller Frank Norris designed houses, near Rogers Ave., identical to others near that street on Lincoln, Midwood, and Rutland, and the larger Axel Hedman houses, most of which have distinctive (but fake) red tile roofs. Most of the Hedman houses have sizable extensions, but some extensions are one story and others are two. Thus the Maple II Hedman houses differ greatly in square footage and, presumably, price.
Posted by: Bob Marvin at March 31, 2008 2:45 PM
7:16,
If you're talking about that century 21 listing, bid low. Those guys are crooks and probably hiding something. They'll lie right to your face.
Posted by: guest at March 31, 2008 4:21 PM
12:28
1.450 was 49 Rutland's original asking. As evidenced by the sale, the realtor never lowered the price.
Posted by: guest at March 31, 2008 5:53 PM
4:21--What is your experience with Century 21? Do tell. Thanks for the info. I'm a little wary myself...
Posted by: guest at March 31, 2008 6:15 PM
"Century 21" is just a franchiser. Any fool can buy a Century 21 franchise and appear legitimate.
Posted by: guest at March 31, 2008 6:28 PM
I'm talking about that particular century 21 franchise. they have a house for sale in plg for around 1.1 mill on maple if I remember correctly.
Posted by: guest at March 31, 2008 6:54 PM
yes, there is a house on Maple 2 priced around 1.05 (?). Anyone have experience with this particular Century 21, broker named Jimmy?? thanks.
Posted by: guest at March 31, 2008 8:46 PM
I heard that the maple 2 house had an all-cash accepted offer in the 900's. Anyone make it to the Midwood 2 house asking 850?
Posted by: guest at March 31, 2008 10:13 PM
So 49 Rutland finally sold? That place has been on the market since the beginning of time.
Posted by: guest at March 31, 2008 10:18 PM
What Midwood 2 house asking $850? Who is the broker>? thanks...
Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 10:19 AM
Corcoran is handling the Midwood 2 Bishop house asking 850.
Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 5:02 PM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.