Overpricing Not Working in Carroll Gardens

These still have a long way to go before they sell.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 11:20 AM

keep chopping. lets see where they are in another 3mths time. I say another 20% reduction.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 11:24 AM

I think these prices are more in line. 131 Summitt street very similar to these homes just sold for 2.1 mill and these have better quality. With the up and coming very fast PS 58 I think the market could support these prices easily. Also there has been a huge influx of French buyers in Carroll Gardens bringing the Euro with them.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 11:26 AM

these will still not sell. needs to come down much more

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 11:28 AM

is anyone else bored by real estate?

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 11:29 AM

This is a total embarrassment for Corcoran. 329 President and 78 3rd Place are the worst offenders--605K and 795K price drops soon after listing. Insane. Absolutely unprofessional and reckless brokers.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 11:30 AM

11:26 is the brokeryest broker that ever brokered.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 11:32 AM

Yes, beautiful blocks, but these houses were over priced and may still be. We'll see.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 11:33 AM

11.26 - in line for chopping?

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 11:34 AM

Love the French. They are so hot.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 11:34 AM

Love the Euro.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 11:35 AM

These prices did a huge disservice to Carroll Gardens. I know two young families from Manhattan who were looking for houses in CG, PS AND FG. I sent them the links when these houses were originally listed and they were so grossed out by what was going on with the clearly absurd pricing, that they've decided to stop looking in Caroll Gardens altogether.

One of them ended up looking at a place on Lincoln Place in North Slope yesterday they liked a lot. They may make an offer.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 11:36 AM

If you check the Brownstoner recent sales in Carroll Gardens there have been a few sales that have gone way over asking price. 29 2nd street went for $170k over asking. 277 President street went for 2,050,000 and it is a complete Gut job.So although Corcoran Is the Evil Empire I think Higher Prices In Carroll Gardens and Cobble Hill are the Norm.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 11:39 AM

Sorry mistake. House was 136 Summitt street $2,094,000 sold. 1/28/2008

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 11:41 AM

11:38...I think you're full of it.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 11:43 AM

There is no 11:38.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 11:46 AM

Everyone here is full of it.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 11:48 AM

None of these will sell for over $2.5m. Carroll Gardens just isn't worth that kind of dough. People look to Carroll Gardens for relative bargains, but the $3m townhouse set just isn't going to buy anything that far south of Brooklyn Heights or West of 6th Avenue.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 11:48 AM

what so evil about corcoran? if thier stock is too pricy for you... just go to foxtons or beg the owner on the side for a break.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 11:51 AM

How do we know some of these inital prices weren't the seller's price. There have been homes in the area that have sold in the low $3M to mid $3M area. COuld be a case my house is as good as those houses when it really isn't.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 11:54 AM

329 President is a narrow and short house, with one of the ugliest Home-Depot renos I've seen in a while. The price is so fantastical that I can't imagine it was ever meant to be taken seriously.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 11:57 AM

I heard from some neighbors that two of the houses have accepted offers. Not sure of the price though.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 11:58 AM

I hate to bring it up, but in the past year, retail on 7th, 5th and 4th Avenues in Park Slope has EXPLODED.

If I'm paying 3 million for a house, I'd much rather be there, with 100 restaurants and shops outside my door, a huge park and a few great schools.

Smith Street is getting kinda gross again. Too many chains and boarded up stores.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 11:59 AM

11:58 = liar

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 11:59 AM

11:48 the comps in the area say differently. There are two houses on Degraw, one that went for well over 3 mil and one that went for just under 3 mil. And it is ridiculous to talk about all of these houses in the same breath. The square footage of the 1rst place house is well over 5000 sq ft so at 3 mil it would be going for less than $600/ sq.ft., which is actually a bargain compared to North and Center Slope.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 12:07 PM

with these bargain basement prices, I'm going to bring a tray-full of caviar dipped in golden truffle dust for snacks!

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 12:09 PM

Did someone say snacks?

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 12:11 PM

Would you pay $18,000 a month PER FLOOR to rent one of those places? Because that's what it works out to in INTEREST only, AFTER YOUR TAX DEDUCTION. The prices are simply absurd.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 12:15 PM

Love the discussion on comps and what places sold for in the last 1-2 years. Hey Bears Stearns traded at $170 in 2006....It's a steal at $100.....then again, maybe not

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 12:16 PM

11:58 = angry renter

check ACRIS in a few months.

BTW your rent is due on the 1st of the month not the 6th.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 12:17 PM

12:15 - your math is a little off.

the mortgage payment on the entire house is not 18K a month.

loser. just because you write something, you think people will believe it??

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 12:17 PM

I'm cravin some Park Slope talk.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 12:19 PM

12:07 - not to quibble here, but I think of Degraw as Cobble Hill not Carroll Gardens. And regardless, those houses you refer to sold well before people realized that the credit crunch was actually going to have a real effect on NYC housing prices over the medium (as opposed to short) term. No way you get $3m for anything south of Warren Street now (except, admittedly, houses that clock in at over 5000 sq feet of which there are very few).

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 12:20 PM

Keep waiting sideliners.. there's like a handful of homes left for sale in parkslope north. By the time you get off your ass you'll be buying in bushwick.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 12:21 PM

park slope north is the best area of brooklyn, in my opinion. anything from flatbush to garfield and 5th avenue to the park is money.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 12:22 PM

12:21 Don't insult the sideliners. Who else is going to buy your overpriced crap home from you ?

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 12:23 PM

is it over yet?

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 12:28 PM

If your not in a hurry to sell why not ask for the world, some knucklhead might pay it.

BCCG

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 12:30 PM

Will there be cupcakes with those truffles?

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 12:31 PM

12:23 can you save your 2 cents for April's rent?

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 12:31 PM

12:21 - I'll keep waiting and growing my liquid personal wealth. Meanwhile your only real asset will plunge in value and I'll pick it up (or one just like it) for a large discount a year from now.

My patience won't force me to buy in Bushwick you dipshit. At the worst case scenario, I'll buy a year from now at the same price I could have bought today, without having really lost anything (my rent is way cheaper than mortgage interest and maintenance costs would be).

So why shouldn't I wait? Sitting on the sideline is only a bad call if an asset is appreciating. Unless of course you learned personal finance from your real estate broker.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 12:31 PM

We keep on talking about Park Slope but nobody seems to be biting! Hmmm.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 12:33 PM

"There's a handful of homes left for sale . . ."

Yeah, this will never change. People never move, people never decide that it's time to cash in on their overinflated asset, people never lose their jobs (not even when Wall Street is imploding). The fact that owners are still deluded enough to believe that their home values are going to hold up even as investment banks fail and the economy heads into recession is absolutely astounding. Were you here in the late 1980s/early 1990s? Do you remember what happened to home prices? And that was after a run-up that was much smaller than the one we've seen in NYC over the past four years. If you own a home right now, it's worth at least 20% less than you thought it was in November. Maybe that doesn't matter. But if I was suddenly worth $400K less than I was four months ago, it would make a difference to the way I acted.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 12:34 PM

I agree about the north slope. But you guys have to admit that Carroll Gardens is really nice. I was on 7th ave in the slope the other day and Let me tell you there was a lot of the Element walking up and down there right around let's say 3pm. I dont see that in Carroll Gardens/ Cobble hill. But then again they are all for that right?

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 12:38 PM

Hey, 12:31, why don't you just shut up? We can pay our April rents without thinking. In fact, we can afford our rent from now until 2150 with no problem, because our rents are a lot cheaper than any mortgage/tax/maintenance would be. And if we decide we don't like our apartment, or we want to move, we just go. We're not sitting on an asset whose value is dropping by the day. We're not paying $50K a year in interest to the bank. We don't have to worry about dealing with troublemaking tenants -- hell, we don't have to waste our time reminding our tenants to pay up, the way you do. We get to live in wonderful brownstone apartments for about 1/3 the price of what it would cost to buy them. But I guess that's somehow not financially sensible.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 12:40 PM

12:31 good idea Rip Van Wrinkle keep on dreaming and I'll keep on chipping away on my mtg. By the time you wake up you'll be in Staten Island. Bushwick is too good for you actually.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 12:41 PM

12:21 do you have access to a newspaper, radio, tv? Perhaps you are unaware that the run up in asset values over the last few years was fueled by unprecedented cheap debt, lax lending standards, and lots and lots of leverage...these were and are unsustainable. Bubbles overshoot to the upside as well as the downside...and as with gravity - what goes up must come down. Hopefully you bought pre-bubble and have no need to sell in the next few years. Otherwise you might want to stock up on the vaseline.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 12:42 PM

"I'll keep waiting and growing my liquid personal wealth"

where...in your 3% interest-bearing ING account??

LOL.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 12:42 PM

I was in Park Slope and then I pulled down my pants and pooped. heh heh. So then it was Poop Slope. heh heh. I love Poop Slope.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 12:44 PM

Anybody wanna get a cannoli?

Those chocolate ones at Monteleone's?

FUHGEDDABOUDIT!

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 12:44 PM

12:40...

have fun renting when you are 70 years old.

i'll have paid off my house 10 years prior to that already.

i think they've projected that 1 bedrooms by that time should be renting for $10,000 per month.

enjoy it.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 12:45 PM

my only quibble with 12:40's post is the phrase "headed into a recession". I believe economists have finally accepted that we are officially in a recession.

Bear Stearns is just the first to go. And do you think that anyone at JPM or Bear Stearns is getting a bonus for '08? Hmmm....they better not considering my tax dollars saved their sorry asses. That takes a whole bunch of people out of the market. Just waiting for Lehman Bros and UBS to go next.

and by the way,GREENSPAN just said that we are facing the worst financial crisis the US has seen since World War II (which, by the way, is code for the Great Depression, which he can't bring himself to say).

If I needed to sell right now I would cut a deal very fast.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 12:45 PM

Leave the gun. Take the cannoli.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 12:46 PM

"If I needed to sell right now I would cut a deal very fast."

And that is why you rent and we own.

Have fun in 5 years when prices have skyrocketed again and you're living in East New York.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 12:47 PM

12:42, mr. "liquid personal wealth" is clearly a drug dealer.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 12:48 PM

can you people talking your financial apocalypse take it somewhere else so that we can have a good ol' park slope carroll gardens rumble.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 12:49 PM

"And if we decide we don't like our apartment, or we want to move, we just go".

Get a load of these renters.... so you're in full control? yeah ok.

"In fact, we can afford our rent from now until 2150".
That's great news glad you prepared. Your grand kids will be renters.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 12:49 PM

Stupid renter.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 12:51 PM

12:47 There are fundamental relationships between income and asset values and carrying costs etc. that have held throughout history. The last 5 years saw a massive disconnect in these relationships signaling a massive bubble in real estate. People like you seem to believe that somehow things are different this time and try to rationalize the disconnect. I have news for you - It is not different this time (it never is). Prices will not be skyrocketing anytime soon.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 12:54 PM

Common, anyone wanna rumble?

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 12:54 PM

Renters are so stupid!!!!!! Owners ROCK!!!!!

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 12:55 PM

Dumb renters on this site do me a favor don't buy

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 12:55 PM

Park Slope rules, Carroll Gardens drools.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 12:55 PM

So what if our grand kids are renters? You say that like it's a bad thing. Until prices fall sharply in Brooklyn, renting is going to be the economically sensible thing to do. And renting in NYC almost always means living in a much nicer place than you'd live in if you bought -- unless you're super-wealthy. Housing prices have risen much faster than rents over the past five years -- that means, by definition, that it's cheaper to rent today than it was in 2002. It also means that in terms of the income they're getting from their renters, landlords are poorer today, not richer, than they were five years ago. That's really a good recipe for keeping housing prices up -- spend more on your mortgage, make less on your rents.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 12:55 PM

Yeah! Don't buy. You're dumb. And Park Slope is great!

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 12:57 PM

Anyone who is commenting that "sideliners" are missing out, the day after the 5th largest bank in the U.S. went bust, cearly has no idea how fragile the economy, including real estate is right now in the United States.

If a bank can be purchased at 1% of it's value 2 weeks ago, what makes you think your overpriced brownstone can't lose 20-30% this year?

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 12:57 PM

New York is different from Las Vegas, Tampa, Phoenix and Sacramento.

In case you didn't notice, most here live on an island.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 12:58 PM

"If a bank can be purchased at 1% of it's value 2 weeks ago, what makes you think your overpriced brownstone can't lose 20-30% this year?"

Thank you. That's just what I was going to say.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 1:00 PM

"If a bank can be purchased at 1% of it's value 2 weeks ago, what makes you think your overpriced brownstone can't lose 20-30% this year?"

Because you can't live inside a bank.

Unless it's been turned to condos.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 1:00 PM

I guess I shouldn't buy in Park Slope then.

Now what am going to do with my money?

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 1:01 PM

hey 12:55 Im a firm beliver in the food chain. keep renting please

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 1:02 PM

In case some of you idiots don't realize it, a lot of people how once had money invested elsewhere may actually LOOK to real estate to buy now. It's already happening in some of the weaker markets. People are coming in and snatching up properties right and left.

Real Estate might be something people look to right now for a place to invest. Even with the price fluctuations, there is still room to buy properties, fix them up and sell for a higher price.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 1:03 PM

fuck you house owner with all your tax bills and maintenance charges.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 1:03 PM

12:55 owners better hope for alot of stupid renters. Current owners are locked into their homes that they won't be able to sell, so the stupid renter is your only hope for liquidity at your asking prices...or maybe the renters are smarter than you think and you may actually not be able to sell until the price drops so that the after tax mortgage carrying cost and asset appreciation is more in line with rental carrying costs and the opportunity cost of the capital....needless to say without the expectation of meaningful growth in asset prices, the prices being asked can not be justified....and the prospect of increasing asset prices is in part governed by earnings, which have failed to keep pace. Look at the futures contracts for NY etc. and you will see that the market is betting that prices will fall, not rise.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 1:04 PM

Wait! What about all of the condos in Carroll Gardens? They don't seem as overpriced, but yet they are taking forever to sell. Does the same fate await those too?

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 1:05 PM

Even if it prices come down. It will never be in line with "real incomes" because these areas are not for working class people anymore. People need to understand that they will never be able to afford these areas. People who think otherwise, may as well wait for Park Avenue to come down to a level that a mid-level manager can afford.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 1:06 PM

considering i bought my house for 600K and it's not valued at approximately 2.6 million, i'll be ok if it loses a little value.

thanks for all the concern, but i'd love to know how many renters here have that kind of asset lying around.

better bust out those baseball cards, kids.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 1:06 PM

"Because you can't live inside a bank."

What does this have to do with anything? If housing prices can rise 20-30% a year in the absence of any change in fundamentals, which is what happened in Brooklyn between 2002-2007 (no meaningful increase in population, only minor increases in average income, etc.), then obviously they can fall 20-30% in a year. You may not feel the pain if you don't sell, but that doesn't mean it's not there, as you'd find out as soon as you tried to get rid of your home. You're sitting right now on a depreciating asset, one you're paying for with piles of borrowed money. No doubt you're doing the right thing.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 1:07 PM

All this time I thought I was being smart owning my house and now I see that I am in for a long hard road of misery and suffering. That will show me for trying to own something. I'm just a stupid owner. Gotta go fix the leak in the roof.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 1:09 PM

i'm sending my rent check late this month. really late. what are you going to do about it? you're so over-leveraged, you can't live one month without the cash flow. a new stainless fridge should oil the gears...

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 1:10 PM

I just saw a renter in double parked zip car trying to rent out the ground floor at the Chase bank on 7th ave.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 1:10 PM

I suppose everyone thinks that home prices in Beverly Hills, Honolulu, Cambridge, Greenwich Marin County will all be selling home for 200K soon also.

You know there are expensive areas, and there are not expensive areas. Boom or bust, New York City is still expensive, so if you are waiting for a bargain, you missed that train 7 years ago.

New York in that time has become a world city with tourism at an all time high.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 1:10 PM

1:06 It isn't worth 2.6 million until someone gives you 2.6 million for it.

And by the way, I am a renter and have assets far in excess of your 2/2.6 million pre-tax, pre-fees unrealized gain.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 1:10 PM

Wow, the ignorance on here mixed with feelings of invincibility based on prior gains made in real estate.

please, while your at your park slope coffeehouse, pick up a wall st journal...it's getting scary out there.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 1:11 PM

"considering i bought my house for 600K and it's not valued at approximately 2.6 million, i'll be ok if it loses a little value."

That's awesome -- congrats. Are you really okay with the fact that if you tried to sell it right now, you'd get closer to $2 million than $2.6? Are you really OK being $600K poorer than you thought you were? And are you really OK with the fact that your home isn't going to rise in value for another five years or so?

If so, you're a better man than I am.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 1:11 PM

"i'm sending my rent check late this month. really late. what are you going to do about it? you're so over-leveraged, you can't live one month without the cash flow. a new stainless fridge should oil the gears..."

You CAN'T possibly be ignorant enough to think someone who bought a 2 or 3 million dollar house is pining away for your measly 2000 bucks a month to pay their mortgage.

Most of these people paid all or mostly cash.

You are REALLY dellusional.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 1:12 PM

yes most of them are investment bankers with piles of cash. oh shit......

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 1:13 PM

"And by the way, I am a renter and have assets far in excess of your 2/2.6 million pre-tax, pre-fees unrealized gain."

If you have that much money and don't own property, you are the most idiotic person on this blog. How long did it take you to save that money and why in god's name didn't you take some of it in 2001, buy a place and quadruple your money??

Lord you are not very smart.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 1:13 PM

It's convenient that you live in the garden rental, 1:10--short trip to the concrete tomb in the basement...

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 1:15 PM

"That's awesome -- congrats. Are you really okay with the fact that if you tried to sell it right now, you'd get closer to $2 million than $2.6? Are you really OK being $600K poorer than you thought you were? And are you really OK with the fact that your home isn't going to rise in value for another five years or so?"

i NEVER in a million years would have guessed my home would be worth this much 11 years later. NEVER. so no, i don't care at all. i never had the money to begin with, i've almost paid off my mortgage and i could live off the proceeds, even if i did sell for a 2 million fire sale.

how many people do you know who have a million plus bucks in the bank??

not many considering 57% of the u.s. population has less than 10K saved for retirement.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 1:16 PM

"New York in that time has become a world city."

Yeah, because in 2000 no one thought of New York as a "world city." What kind of idiot are you? This is exactly the kind of self-justifying nonsense that people came up with to explain why Cisco was worth $500 billion in February 2000. And it's just as idiotic today as it was then.

Nothing meaningful has changed about New York since 2000 in terms of its public image, appeal to tourists, population, safety, etc. Housing prices didn't skyrocket over the past seven years because New York changed. They skyrocketed because we were in a housing bubble. If you were lucky enough to buy early in that bubble, congratulations -- you won the lottery, and you should be very happy. But all you did was get lucky. And if you bought late in that bubble (anytime after 2006), you're going to be underwater for a long time to come.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 1:17 PM

"yes most of them are investment bankers with piles of cash. oh shit......"

Funny, because whenever the conversation is about Park Slope, people say NO ONE on wall street would ever consider living there.

According to you, Greenwich is the only place that will be in trouble.

Which is it? The story changes on your mood or mood enhancing drugs.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 1:17 PM

While all you owners are sitting on sinking ships, I've been buying GOLD and am now worth 8 gazillion dollars. Plus I have four wives, five Maybachs and a putting green in my sauna. All while I'm renting in your Brownstone, you cockturd! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHHHHAAAAAHHAHHBHBBBIEOWJOJSODIDVJDSOIFJSDOFIJSDOJ VBBBBBBWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHH!

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 1:18 PM

I just saw Maggie Gyllenhaal reading a copy of the WSJ at Gorilla Coffee, sobbing uncontrollably.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 1:19 PM

Maggie goes to Ozzie's.

Nice try though.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 1:20 PM

I'm a renter who has a million+ bucks in the bank, precisely because I didn't throw away 30% of it on a down payment in the last couple of years, like all you owners have been counseling me to do. And my money is real, not notional. It's not locked up in a single asset. I don't need anybody else to be willing to spend $2 million on an overpriced house for me to get it.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 1:21 PM

12:38 - what exactly do you mean by the "Element" comment in your post:

"I agree about the north slope. But you guys have to admit that Carroll Gardens is really nice. I was on 7th ave in the slope the other day and Let me tell you there was a lot of the Element walking up and down there right around let's say 3pm. I dont see that in Carroll Gardens/ Cobble hill. But then again they are all for that right?"

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 1:22 PM

"I'm a renter who has a million+ bucks in the bank"

If you had taken even 500K of that in 2001 and bought a 1 or 2 bedroom somewhere, you would have tripled your money.

Like most of us here did.

So thanks for playin, but you lose.

I've got a 3 million brownstone AND a million bucks in the bank.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 1:23 PM

he's a troll, 1:22.

please don't feed it.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 1:23 PM

A million plus with 317 a credit score. will get you a P.O. Box in Parkslope.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 1:25 PM

Maggie goes to Ozzie's? I just lost all respect for her. What a rathole.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 1:25 PM

Unless you have Euros, Mr. Renter, you don't have SHITE.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 1:26 PM

I love how all the renters come on here and talk about how much they are in control and how much they LOVE renting.

If that's the case, why are you reading and posting on a blog which is primarily concerned with buying/rehabbing/renovating brownstones?

I'm confused.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 1:26 PM

Hey fucktards!! That telephone pole up your asses looks uncomfortable!!! The Bear Sterns CEO got up om CNBS and said "everything is fine" and "no liquidity issues" and look what happen! LMMFAO! Ya''ll are fucking finished, gone and kaput. This weekend you lost 20% of the value of you house, condo or whatfuckingever. Keep it up stay in denial, it make the pain from the pole feel better.

Cognitive dissonance

Cognitive dissonance is a psychological state that describes the uncomfortable feeling between what one holds to be true and what one knows to be true.<---- Hey Bubble Heads

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

ROTFFLMMFAO RIP Mutant Real Estate Bubble!!

The What (Reporting from the eastern front)

Someday this war is gonna end......

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 1:27 PM

I love Ozzie's. Saw Mags there last weekend.

The one on 7th.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 1:27 PM

so much traffic on this thread... i think we should just order several buckets of wings, a couple kegs and some porn.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 1:27 PM

I didn't have $500K in 2001, 1:23. That's my point -- if you had the cash then, you won the lottery. But the fact that buying was the right decision in 2001 -- or 2002, or 2003 -- doesn't mean buying is the right decision today. That's the whole point of the argument on these boards -- owners keep insisting that it's always the right time to buy, because housing prices in NYC can't take a serious tumble and will always come right back, while the rest of us (the sane ones) understand that because of what happened between 2001 and 2006, buying today is idiotic. So, by the way, is not selling, since your house is going to be worth significantly less 5 years from now than it is today.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 1:29 PM

As was finally determed on Friday thanks to a number of those sluething around, THE WHAT IS A BROKER IN THE BURBS DESPERATE TO TRY SCARE PEOPLE IN BROOKLYN INTO BUYING SOME PIECE OF CRAP SPLIT LEVEL.

PLEASE IGNORE HIS POSTS. HE HAS BEEN BLOCKED MANY TIMES AND USES OTHER COMPUTERS AT THE REAL ESTATE BROKERAGE.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 1:29 PM

1:27, as long as you throw in some gay porn, i'm in!

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 1:30 PM

Go back to you basement rental in your McMansion in Hemstead. You know nothing about us here in Brooklyn. Fraud!

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 1:30 PM

"I didn't have $500K in 2001"

You didn't have 500K in 2001, but you have a million now??

Yeah, right.

Keep lying. No one here believes a word of it.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 1:30 PM

1:13 I rent a very nice apartment in a west village brownstone that thus far has met all my needs, so I haven't looked to buy. I view real estate as a place to live not a means to wealth (historically it is not an overly attractive investment). I have found many other places (besides real estate) to make money and have done so.

I'm a partner in a private equity fund and my investors (for whom i have made alot of money) wouldn't agree with your comment that I'm not very smart.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 1:32 PM

"your house is going to be worth significantly less 5 years from now than it is today."

problem with your theory.

most of us bought houses (espeically brownstones, which are labors of love) to live in for 10, 20, 30, 40 years.

not 5.

and in 20 years, i guarantee you my house will be worth double what it is today.

and i guarantee you will still be renting when i'm 60 and have paid off my house.

don't buy now. sure...wait.

maybe wait till you're 65 when a 1 bedroom costs 3 million, then leave the rest for your family to deal with after you're gone.

sounds like a plan.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 1:35 PM

1.26 - yes, you seem very confused. nevermind.

1.10 "Beverly Hills, Honolulu, Cambridge, Greenwich Marin County" and Carroll Gardens I suppose. Yes, it fits right into the list. Good point.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 1:35 PM

"I'm a partner in a private equity fund and my investors"

Wow things are worse than I thought if you have the time to be posting here on brownstoner at 1:30 on one of the worst days in financial news in over 4 decades.

You are a partner in a private equity firm and rent??

Kinda sad.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 1:36 PM

wow people are in serious denial.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 1:36 PM

1:32 = Phineas "Bear" Stearns, from his ledge.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 1:37 PM

1:30, is there any other KIND of porn?!

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 1:37 PM

1:35, Park Slope is on the list for sure.

Maybe not CG.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 1:38 PM

1:37...not to me!

glad we're on the same page.

wanna hang?

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 1:38 PM

You pathetic owners may WISH that your houses won't be worth 500K max in five years, but wishing won't make it so. Read the paper. Watch the Telly. It's happening. This shit is exploding and you will all be lucky to have a bed in a homeless shelter in five years. Mark my words, everyone in the world who bought in the past five years will probably be dead in five years. And they'll take an average of 6 people down with them. This is the apocalypse plain and simple. End Times. I mean, can't you see? There is no coming back from this. Humanity is fuckkkkkked.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 1:40 PM

"You didn't have 500K in 2001, but you have a million now??

"Yeah, right."

Is this really so shocking? That's seven years -- you don't think someone working on Wall Street or in consulting can save $150K a year, if they're renting? Believe me, they can and do.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 1:44 PM

1:40 you are asinine.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 1:44 PM

"most of us bought houses (espeically brownstones, which are labors of love) to live in for 10, 20, 30, 40 years.

not 5."

the nail in the coffin!

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 1:46 PM

No would would buy a brownstone to live in for 5 years. These are family homes. Most of my Park Slope neighbors say they want to live in their house for the rest of their lives.

You people who call for the end of the world and declining home prices for a couple years really have no bearing for most homeowners out there.

I did not buy my home as an investment. That wasn't even on anyone's radar in the 90's. I bought to live in my own place and not have to pay rent and deal with sudden increases in my housing prices.

It just so happens that my meager apartment purchase turned me into a millionaire on paper.

Fine with me, I wasn't expecting it and certainly don't think I deserve it. I was just lucky, like many many other people were.

Anyone who bought before 2000 is sitting on enough appreciation to last them the next 5 recessions.

Sorry, but it's true.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 1:51 PM

1:44, enjoy your speedy demise.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 1:51 PM

You'll need that million bucks you saved from now buying to last you through the next 2 years without a job.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 1:52 PM

1:35. You are a moron. No current renter cares what your house will be worth in 20 years. I don't see anyone here questioning whether, in the long run, owning real estate is a good idea in the abstract. The argument here is whether it makes sense to buy in NYC TODAY. And frankly, no, it does NOT.

I think what scares the owners on this board is that the realization is finally creeping into their thick skulls that their home is only worth what someone else is willing to pay for it. And now that the myth of ever-increasing NYC home prices has been punctured, no one is going to pay $3m for your Carroll Gardens townhouse. People who bought houses in NYC from 2005-today are really no different that the morons who pumped all of their money into internet stocks in 1998.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 1:53 PM

I saw plenty of people at open houses for 3 million dollar homes in Park Slope yesterday, 1:53.

Plenty.

People like you who see one little snipit on the television about a bank and think that others aren't making money now are just stupid.

I got a life changing raise on Friday...the same day Bear Sterns went under.

There is no basis for your stories.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 2:01 PM

It seems to me there's a war here between (1) renters waiting for the market to plunge and (2) people who bought for high prices in the last year or two, who want it to stay up.

Why don't you stop fighting and agree to hate ME instead?

I bought in Park Slope in 1999. Now I live in my house for not quite a third what it would cost me to rent it. Inflation makes my mortgage payment cheaper every year. Oh, also, I rent the garden apartment out, and that goes up every year.

Now excuse me while I ululate with joy:

ULULULULULULULULULULULULULULULULULULULULU

Ah, that felt good. OK, continue.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 2:01 PM

you have to love them real estate brokers!

Gallows humor, realtor greet Bear's stunned staff

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Shocked Bear Stearns (NYSE:BSC - News) employees trudged into work Monday morning desperately seeking clarity on their futures.

The fact that the first person they met on entering their headquarters in midtown Manhattan was a salesman hawking cheaper apartments did little to lift their mood -- an ironic twist, perhaps, given that it was risky speculation in the housing market that got the bank into trouble in the first place.

"I've been at Bear for 11 years and I want to vomit," said a Bear Stearns employee, who described himself as a partner, as he entered the striking seven-year-old octagonal building two blocks from Grand Central Terminal.

To add insult to injury, someone had taped a $2 bill to the revolving glass doors at the 46th and Vanderbilt Avenue entrance -- some gallows humor on the bargain-basement $2-a share price JPMorgan Chase (NYSE:JPM - News) paid for Bear Stearns.

"Where is the $2 bill?" joked one employee, "I might need that tomorrow!"

At the Madison Avenue entrance, Ray Schmitz, a Realtor with Coldwell Banker, was betting that with the value of their stock options in tatters, Bear's employees might soon be looking to trade their luxury homes for something a little easier on the budget.

"You have to go where the business is," Schmitz said as he handed out business cards. "A lot of these people are going to lose their jobs, and most of their wealth will have been in share options. They're soon going to be looking for a cheaper place to live."

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 2:02 PM

Most people in Brownstone Brooklyn, or looking to buy in Brownstone Brooklyn do not work in the financial sector.

While those jobs may affect others in the long run, what just happened with Bear has absolutely no bearing on 99.99% of the population at this time.

So those of us making 700K plus in other fields, don't really care what is happening right now. I'm pretty sure they'll still be needing film producers during the recession.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 2:04 PM

"I got a life changing raise on Friday...the same day Bear Sterns went under."

Love it! You are the same person who without fail brings up a "raise" every couple of weeks. This board is anonymous. People bullshit left and right.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 2:06 PM

Or maybe just more people are getting raises, while you sit there and write stupid comments on brownstoner while at work, 2:06.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 2:11 PM

From my experience, Wall Streeters typically were spending 5 million-ish for homes over the last few years. So if they are scaling back, I'm guessing we aren't talking about 350K studios, but probably more like...oh...I don't know...million dollar condos in Brooklyn or perhaps 2 and 3 million dollar Brownstones for the ones who will still land on their feet...

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 2:12 PM

2:01 - I've seen plenty of people that I know from my neighborhood at open houses over the last couple of months.

Plenty.

But none of them are actually looking to buy.

None.

Anecdotes about open houses do not prove that there are buyers out there willing to pay these prices. That's like arguing that Bear Stern's stock is healthy because a lot of people checked Google Friday for the lastest news on Bear.

Glad you got a "life changing raise." Does that mean, if you were a first time buyer, you would now feel safe buying a grossly overpriced asset? If it does, then you must work in media or some other sector where financial literacy is not required.

I also got a raise this year, and a very healthy bonus. But I'm not pissing a large part of my savings away on a down payment that will be wiped out in year one, with only a slim chance of those losses being recouped in years 2-5. I may actually buy some real estate this year, but it will be a vacation house in Vermont not an overpriced co-op in Brooklyn.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 2:13 PM

"People who bought houses in NYC from 2005-today are really no different that the morons who pumped all of their money into internet stocks in 1998."

Is that you've been repeating to yourself? So im curious, who told you that little statement.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 2:14 PM

"but it will be a vacation house in Vermont not an overpriced co-op in Brooklyn."

You mean the same Vermont where prices are falling faster than in Las Vegas? Sounds like a great investment.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 2:15 PM

"I saw plenty of people at open houses for 3 million dollar homes in Park Slope yesterday, 1:53."

I've been waiting for this post -- every open house in Brooklyn, apparently, is always packed. Odd that almost nothing is selling, though, unless it's going to the Syrians and Russians in Manhattan Beach.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 2:16 PM

yes, 2:04. 99.9% of the population makes over $700k and is in film and cool stuff like that. only 0.1% works on wall st. and they don't buy in brooklyn anyway, right? right?

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 2:16 PM

"While those jobs may affect others in the long run, what just happened with Bear has absolutely no bearing on 99.99% of the population at this time."

Another classic -- sure, Wall Street imploding has absolutely no bearing on what happens to real estate prices in prime Brooklyn neighborhoods. How delusional are you?

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 2:17 PM

If Vermont were in Park Slope it would be so much nicer.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 2:18 PM

Now THAT 2:18, I will agree with!

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 2:20 PM

Yes -
In Vermont prices have at least fallen significantly enought that a buyer might be able to see the bottom. And in Vermont I can negotiate a price that is in line with economic reality. Perhaps more importantly, Vermont sellers there have not deluded themselves into thinking that Francoise and Friedrich are going to coem to town with suicases full of Euros to prop up their home price. And a real house near a good ski mountain is just as sound and investment in the long term as a shitty co-op in Park Slope.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 2:20 PM

I don't want to be whattish-and I'm a person who co-owns multiple properties and is thinking about buying more, with my partner--but it really does seem that we're fucked at the moment. If banks start to go under, and we see a real crash, there's no way RE in Brooklyn or anywhere else will stay this high. There are multiple interlocking factors that make it unlikely, and there's no guarantee of prices returning to the previous high, or of that price ratio even making sense in relation to income. I do think RE might appear to be a more relatively stable asset. The greater point though is this--is the entire UNITED STATES stable enough to justify it? Brownstone World is not, after all, a planet.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 2:21 PM

Vermont is a poor man's Berkshires.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 2:22 PM

Have fun spending $200 in gas each way from Vermont!!

I'd rather fly to Europe.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 2:23 PM

2:04 During the last big recession in '91, film production slowed down considerably in NY and LA. This is going to be much bigger.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 2:24 PM

So far all the banks have been holding off on the layoffs for fear that it would be perceived as a sign of weakness and potential damage their credibility/standing ala bear....but the axe is set to swing and massive layoffs will be announced. Any talk of real estate being immune and prices sustaining is utter crap with no factual basis.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 2:28 PM

2:24...I'm locked into a 10 year contract with a 12% raise each year.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 2:28 PM

keep renting, 2:28.

cause that means if you rent, you don't lose your job....right?

only homeowners lose their jobs?

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 2:29 PM

Renters will be the first poor suckers to lose their jobs actually. No boss wants to let go of 35 year old Dan with a wife and new baby.

They'll get rid of know it all 24 year old Spencer before that happens.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 2:31 PM

JPM's firing half of Bear's employees. Do we still think this isn't going to make a difference?

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 2:31 PM

2:28 good luck with those infomercials. Say hi to Don Knotts.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 2:33 PM

7,000 employees, most of which lived in New Jersey or Connecticut.

It might hurt a tiny bit in Brownstone Brooklyn.

But the burbs are in big trouble.

Prices in the burbs are about to sink another 20% on top of the already 15% drop.

Brooklyn will do fine. As has been said many many times before, no one on Wall Street would want to live anywhere in Brooklyn besides Brooklyn Heights.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 2:34 PM

Sideliner Spencer, That's 100 percent right! Think and feel Vermont. Erase Parkslope from your mind/wallet and go in peace.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 2:41 PM

Yeah, it's handymen and deli owners who are paying $3 million for properties in Carroll Gardens.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 2:42 PM

Park Slope is the Vermont of Brooklyn.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 2:43 PM

2:29 you are truly an idiot.

who would you rather be -
a renter who lost his job and at best can handle the manageable monthly rent (probably out of the savings they didn't sink into the down payment on a new home)while he/she looks for another job or at worst can walk away from a lease and lose deposit or pay a break up fee to move to a more affordable place

or an owner who stretched to buy and has a large mortgage (and depleted saving since it was sunk into the down payment)which needs to be serviced (not to mention taxes and maintenance fees etc)while he/she searches for another job or tries to sell the place.

homeownership by definition is a tighter commitment and adds friction to labor markets etc. because homeowners can't just pick up and leave without much more significant financial consequences.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 2:44 PM

WHO in their right mind thinks that what is happening will not effect brooklyn real estate? I feel like I'm reading the rants of people locked in some kind of delusional state. Our economy is imploding, and I for one - who made money in a real estate transaction in the 2001-2006 bubble and then laid it down for a house in brooklyn last year - am feeling very very traumatized. Granted, I did NOT think I was making some kind of investment with huge returns, and thank god! bought a mild fixer upper in a great location and NOT a condo OR something in a fringe area, but still - things are looking very grim. those who are still bullish and smug must be people who bought many years ago or simply not following the economic news at all.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 2:53 PM

Most business owners would fire the renter. Then discuss new tile ideas for the kitchen/ bath with home owner.

Sucessful business owners do not rent unless they suck at business or just work in the city and live elsewhere.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 2:57 PM

i love how when bonuses were good the past few years, it was a boon to brownstone brooklyn as more and more streeters move in, pushing expectations ever higher. now, when layoffs are setting in, they all live in CT or NJ and have absolutely no effect. which is it? btw, i am a streeter and i rent in ps. can't afford to buy there...

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 3:01 PM

when i say can't afford, i mean can't justify

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 3:01 PM

3:01 what is wrong it you? You have the means and yet you rationally evaluate the situation and do the financial math before making a decision. Don't you realize that real estate is the only way to get wealthy even when the financials don't pan out. Prices always go up by double digits. Jump in, buy already.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 3:06 PM

To answer the question, who would be better off if they lose their job...a renter or an owner??

Uh....definitely an owner would be better off. 80% of NYC housing are co-ops, where one must show at least 6 months to a year of savings after paying the downpayment.

Secondly, if I'm renting and I lose my job and my lease expires and my landlord raises the rent (which they do every time) means I now have MORE to pay with zero income. Whereas, with my mortgage the payment is the exact same for the next 30 years.

And btw, no one with a 2 million dollar house doesn't have saved 6 months worth of income for a rainy day or job loss.

Trust me.

The people you are referring to, who would be in most trouble should they lose their job are homeowners living paycheck to paycheck in 200K houses (see suburbs of dallas) or renters.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 3:10 PM

I just got a text message from God he is making more land in 400 yrs. So there's no need to buy now.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 3:11 PM

god texted me too. he says the baby boomers are dying off in the next 10-20 years.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 3:13 PM

3:10 Ok, if you say so

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 3:13 PM

3:13 thanks for the laughs. i almost fell off my chair

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 3:14 PM

God text messaged me to point out that no additional housing has been built in the last 400 years on the land he created in Brooklyn, and the high price areas are just as big as they were 2 booms ago when Joralemon & Hicks was a red-light district.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 3:17 PM

I have enough in savings to carry me through 3 years of mortgage payments.

You all should be setting up ING accounts instead of arguing over who's the most fucked.

www.ingdirect.com

tell em i'm your friend. we each get a few bucks.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 3:17 PM

http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/14/news/economy/krugman_subprime.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008031705

pretty good artcile about what might happen down the road.

There is alot of delusion on this board. If you have bought recently, prepare for some negative equity. If you bought in 2001 and have a million in equity, prepare to lose 20% of that. I take no joy in that, but we are approaching rough times.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 3:18 PM

Hm, my God has a different message: "Lots of land in the 'burbs available for redevelopment, but NY is different, and anyway now that Wall St is in trouble, the collapse of the high end in Manhattan will definitely increase demand in BK as people downsize"

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 3:18 PM

Ever wonder why ING is paying such high interest rates? If you have enough in their account to pay 3 years of mortgage on a $3m house, you should.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 3:21 PM

They invented multi-storey housing in the 1800s. You need to get a quicker texter.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 3:30 PM

Geez!

No one, not even Brownstoner know-it-alls, can predict how bad it will get and when the bottom will be. Everybody’s circumstances are different. Some will suffer a lot, some less so, and some will be better off. And what’s with all the ad hominem attacks?

Based on last year’s Brownstoner reader survey, I suspect that most of those who read and post here will not suffer in any terrible, long-term, way. Certainly some will have to change short term expectations. A handful may have to move back home until they can find a way to recover.

The guy who wants to buy in Vermont? He’s doing what works for him. Ditto the film producer who rents.

Those who will suffer the most however are already at the low end of the scale and are not reading Brownstoner or moving cash to get another half percent. As bad as it might get, I doubt many of Brownstoner’s readers will end up counting change for a slice of pizza or waiting in bread lines.

Count your blessings.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 3:30 PM

3:18...the best quote of that article....and i think the most accurate...

"Maybe it'll turn out that all this Wall Street stuff is just less important than we think it is."

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 3:37 PM

STOCK MARKET IS UP OVER 115 POINTS.

ON SUPPOSEDLY THE DAY OF RECKONING.

GOOD ONE, THE WHAT.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 3:43 PM

3:37.....

you pick out one line out of a whole article to support your stance?

How about 40-50% declines in highly overpriced markets? (brooklyn? check!)

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 3:45 PM

JP Morgan is Gangster!

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 3:47 PM

3:45...They didn't say Brooklyn. Not once.

They mentioned Las Vegas and Miami.

If you think those two have anything in common with Brooklyn, you are even more moronic than I thought.

They also said 1/4th of homes by the end of all this will have depreciated to the point of oweing more than your house is worth.

So you think that out of that 1/4th of the u.s. that that means the greatest city in the u.s.??

I don't think so. I think it means la, miami, shitlanta and tampa.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 4:02 PM

This thread was supposed to be about how overvalued and overpriced Carroll Gardens is. Until some people, obviously CG residents or brokers for these houses, managed to turn the thread into a debate about buy vs. rent so we would stop talking about how ridiculous CG prices are.

Buy what you can afford and plan to live there long enough to be worth it. Otherwise rent, which is not a terrible thing to do if you are saving money instead of spending it. Not enough people who rent have a substantial savings. And you can't do both - not buy and not save. Okay got it? Simple. Debate done.

As for Carroll Gardens which is the true topic of this thread, $3 million for a 2-story plus garden level is retarded. That's more expensive than Park Slope and please set aside the crack pipe, there is no comparison between the two neighborhoods. I don't live in Park Slope so it's not out of self-interest that I say that. I say that because I'm not a clueless idiot.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 4:03 PM

The tWhat = ghetto ass punk bitch from Lodi NJ. tWhat a fucknuckle

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 4:04 PM

Parkslope is doper than crack.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 4:06 PM

Park Slope is one of the most desirable neighborhoods in New York, and dare I say, the United States.

Prices there will hold steady.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 4:09 PM

Cmon just say it: it's one of the 10 best neighborhoods in the US as voted by Rinky-Dink Magazine.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 4:17 PM

Well Ok, it's rated top 10 neighborhood in the country by the American Planning Association. It's not a magazine though, it's a very prestigious organization. VERY prestigious.

And was voted one of the top 10 most eco-friendly neighborhoods in a separate award.

Park Slope recycles more than any neighborhood in NYC.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 4:22 PM

i see they recycle emails as well.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 4:24 PM

I'm the one of those who identified The What for being a white broker from the burbs, and I don't mind hearing what people from Jersey have to say about brownstones. Why not? The problem was he always posed as a Brooklyn broker and real estate expert claiming he was the better person because he had a registered name blah blah. When in reality nothing he said about himself was true and he had a major personal, self-serving agenda in everything he said, trying to drive people to the suburbs. Creepy.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 4:26 PM

Funny, 4:24. It's true. I'm a Park Slope fan but please people, no more trotting out the top-ten rating thing. It goes from being prestigious to pathetic when it's overused. Like nobody else is saying anything good about Park Slope so you keep having to reference being in the top-ten.

Also think about it. Being in the top-10 means there are 9 other communities around the country that are pretty nice too. What keeps someone from moving to those places instead if you all show yourself to be so annoying?

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 4:30 PM

Because those places are not in NYC, 4:30.

If you'd like to go to the bible belt thumping, Huckawbee and bush loving, SUV driving, $4 a gallon gas areas, please be my guest.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 4:33 PM

Here are the other neighborhoods on the American Planning Organization's top-ten list. We assume if making the top-ten means Park Slope is the only acceptable place in Brooklyn, then it should be equally acceptable to live in Pittsburgh, Buffalo or West Urbana:

Chatham Village in Pittsburg***Eastern Market in Washington, DC***Elmwood Village in Buffalo, NY***First Addition in Lake Oswego, Oregon****Hillcrest in San Diego****North Beach in San Francisco***Old West Austin in Austin, Texas***Pike Place Market in Seattle***West Urbana in Illinois

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 4:34 PM

"prestigious"

Oh dear.

Assuming your not a grasping 24 year old, please make an appointment with your therapist re. self-esteem ASAP.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 4:36 PM

Also the neighborhoods on that top-ten are considered BY SUBMISSION. Via application and marketing.

See here:
http://www.planning.org/greatplaces/

So it means Park Slope applied for the honor then was selected. A little different than an organization being the one who identifies the neighborhood as being one of the best, based on their own independent observations.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 4:36 PM

Omg....North Beach and Pike Place are AMAZING!!! Old West Austin is really beautiful as is Lake Oswego. Been to Hillcrest once, it's awesome and West Urbana is a great area too. Not been to Chatham Village or Elmwood.

Park Slope is in GREAT company!!!!

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 4:38 PM

Are you talking about 4:22 with your post, 4:36? You should say so. Otherwise it's really confusing.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 4:39 PM

Carroll Gardens should apply next year.

Then when they don't win, the goombah mafia can kill off the board of the American Planning Assoc.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 4:39 PM

Party like it's 1989.

Party like it's 1929.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 4:39 PM

200

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 4:40 PM

God just texted me and said Parkslope is heaven!

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 4:41 PM

And every year there is another top ten list of best places in America so there are actually hundreds of best places in America. The funny thing is that every one in Brooklyn knows Park Slope for just one thing. How incredibly annoying it is.

Do people in Park Slope realize that there are famous people living all over Brooklyn. But most other neighborhoods have the decency to give their celebs some privacy and the confidence to not have to make lists of celebs to tout their neighborhoods.

Park Slumpers are nothing but real estate pumpers and celebrity humpers.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 4:43 PM

Guess the point I was trying to make went way above your head, 4:33.

I'm not the one who keeps waving around that list bragging about Park Slope. They aren't bragging about being in NYC, are they? Nope. They feel superior to the rest of NYC. And they're bragging about being on that list. Soooo.....we were just really taking a good hard look at that list and seeing how "prestigious" it is to be included with Pittsburgh. If you put yourself and this list out there so loudly then people will scrutinize it.

I think Austin and Seattle are fantastic place to live, actually. We just prefer NYC and can't make a living outside NYC.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 4:44 PM

I haven't been following the saga regarding the What very closely; the posts became so annoying that I thought he or she was just using Brownstoner to therapize him or herself.

Can someone tell me just exactly how we know he or she is a broker from Lodi, NJ? How would anyone one this thread be able to find out information like this?

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 4:44 PM

Holy Crap! Chatham Village in Pittsburgh! I'm originally from Pittsburgh and would never want to be compared to Chatham Village.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 4:45 PM

To the idiots that are comparing Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Austin, Seattle and PARK SLOPE. Which of these things is not like the other??

This wasn't a best CITY list. It's a neighborhood list.

At least if you are going to critique it, don't compare Park Slope to Austin. A NEIGHBORHOOD in Austin won. Not the city. Not Pittsburgh...a NEIGHBORHOOD in Pittsburgh.

Get it now??

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 4:49 PM

"Holy Crap! Chatham Village in Pittsburgh! I'm originally from Pittsburgh and would never want to be compared to Chatham Village."

No, you're not.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 4:50 PM

yes I am.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 4:52 PM

who was Carroll?

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 4:53 PM

Owning a house is great.
Occupying a house with a jumbo mortgage that has you in debt up to your eyeballs is not so great. It is risky. If you lose your job and the housing market goes down (those two things happen together a lot) you can be left bankrupt.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 4:56 PM

most people on here don't give a rats ass if their property values go down.

it's really the renters that are all bent out of shape about it.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 5:00 PM

OK - this one takes the case. A thread purely about CG got completely hijacked once again by the top-ten sloper nut. Too much.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 5:16 PM

I own 4 and I'm not a bit worried.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 5:16 PM

ignorance is bliss

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 5:21 PM

well if you own 4 houses you shouldn't be worried. If you own 4 mortgages, thats a different thing.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 5:22 PM

prices will continue to go up long term so anyone who does not buy is beat.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 5:24 PM

by 2012, my brownstone will be worth 6 million.

PRIME SLOPE BABY!!!!!

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 5:26 PM

Are you kidding? By 2012 your Prime Slope will probably be worth about what it is worth today.

Sorry Baby.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 5:33 PM

Yep 4 mtgs aswell. packed with tenants. Im not worried.

living in fear and on someone else's dime is not healthy.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 5:33 PM

In 2020, my brownstone will be worth 6 million.

PRIME SLOPE BABY!!!

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 5:48 PM

Buddah just beeped me and said texting is OVER.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 5:52 PM

Anyone who thinks NYC real estate is not affected by market conditions is delusional.

I'm feeling very comfortable with cashing out of Manhattan a few months ago and renting (oh, i bought in 98)

I just makes no sense to buy now. If any of you guys have a decent 2 bedroom rental in the slope off the 2/3 let me know.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 5:56 PM

I've got a 2 bedroom 2 blocks from the 2/3.

Just rented is last week though. $4200 bucks.

God I love this city.

That's more than my mortgage for the WHOLE HOUSE!!!

Glad I bought in 99!

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 6:02 PM

I can haz townhouse?

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 6:02 PM

you've got tenants paying your mortgages - so you're living on someone else's dime. Please be consistent.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 6:04 PM

yes buddah just beeped me too and said come home and roll him up.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 6:05 PM

lets give them some of their own medicine....

why would someone pay 4,200 for a 2 bedroom in park slope when they can live ANYWHERE else!?

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 6:14 PM

6:04 can I please lower your rent?

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 6:15 PM

I'd rather pay someone's measly mortgage than have negative equity.

Bragging rights on Brownstoner may be important to some, but I'll be fine.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 6:20 PM

6.15 - you can if you like but I don't rent.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 6:23 PM

6:02,

Darn that would have suited me just fine.
5,000 is my limit, which is the interest i earn per month from my sale.

Keep an eye out for me though

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 6:24 PM

$4200 for 2BR in Park Slope?

I call BS.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 6:28 PM

being a small time landlord is such a seedy job. yuck.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 6:39 PM

Bring back motherfuckin' BEEPERS!

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 6:45 PM

"being a small time landlord is such a seedy job. yuck."

Is that why this blog is filled with so many assholes?

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 6:54 PM

Renters are losers! YOu are just paying the owners mortgage. Losers!

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 6:58 PM

yes--that's exactly why.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 6:58 PM

It's a seedy job because they need to deal with seedy renters.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 7:01 PM

i think it's seedy to buy a house and rely on others paying your mortgage.

that's why i converted my brownstone to a one family.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 7:05 PM

i live on 3 floors of my brownstone, and the 2 bedroom duplex literally pays my mortgage.

how is that seedy?

i call that smart.

you all wish you had that situation.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 7:33 PM

$4200 for a 2 bedroom in North Slope?? That's a pretty good deal, if it's high end and large.

I rent out 4 one bedrooms on Berkeley Place for $2000 bucks each. And they are small....500 sf.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 7:35 PM

Can we just all agree that renters are the scum of the earth and owners have golden ten foot cocks?

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 7:50 PM

the gays always have to interject sex into everything...

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 8:02 PM

you know what keeps the world goin 'round, 8:02?

sex.

you might want to try to get some.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 8:11 PM

I thought Park Slope kept the world goin 'round.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 8:59 PM

"Can we just all agree that renters are the scum of the earth and owners have golden ten foot cocks?"

Why?- it's the other way around. Seriously- what's the big deal if someone would rather rent than buy? What are you people? House Nazis? Jeesh. I rent and I am happy to do so. It's my choice. I like brownstoner because I love old houses- in case some of you haven't noticed there is a forum about old houses and fixing them up on the site too. So tough sh*t if I rent and read brownstoner. If all house owners are like you people I can only wait for the renters concentration camps you seem to be plotting to build. If owning a house is the only reason to respect someone, you have some pretty damn shallow lives. Spitzer owns. So does Bush.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 9:07 PM

sex and real estate are inseperable.
God invented eal estate for sex, or vice versa.
We humans are like those birds who make nests in order to attract the lady birds in order to have sex.
sex = real estate.
that, and viagra, may account for the current bubble.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 9:16 PM

9:07, if you hate home owners so much, why do you pay his/her mortgage with your rent.

You are a fucknuckle.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 9:34 PM

Bubblehead.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 9:58 PM

Ed Koch rents.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 11:25 PM

Yes, Spitzer, Bush and Koch do all own.

You know what else they have in common??

They are all wealthy.

No wealthy person I've ever met rents.

Period. End of story.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 11:43 PM

I don't hate homeowners unless they as dumb as you, 9:34. Nor do I insult them except when they are as pigheaded, small-minded,shallow or money-grubbing as you. It doesn't bother me to pay rent to live in a decent place- I happen to have a great landlord. I respect their choices and they appreciate good tenants. Owning a home os not for everyone but if you don't understand that, it's your problem, not mine.

Obviously you don't have the mental capacity to understand the real estate system in its entirety or much about society. Being a homeowner doesn't do anything for you but make you a homeowner. You aren't Einstein (you do know who that is, right?), You aren't Picasso, you aren't anyone except a guy with a bunch of bricks- some of them in your skull.You only proved my point since calling me fucknuckle was your best shot. Hint: that probably impressed them in 4th grade- doesn't work with adults.

11:43- if you don't get it, well, you just don't get it. so they're wealthy? Bush ruined the country and Spitzer just blew his career and marriage out the window. Or were you too dumb to get my point? Why am I asking- of course you are.

Posted by: guest at March 18, 2008 12:38 AM

Question the CG Cornice Snatcher. Perhaps he/she/it also took the grocery store.

Posted by: guest at March 18, 2008 1:43 AM

Heath Ledger rented and he was rich. So do zillions of other rich folks.

One of two things are going to happen soon.

1) Townhouse prices in Brooklyn tank.

or

2) Rents in Brooklyn skyrocket

Either way, despite current economic maladies, eventually the price/rent ratio will even out -- economics 101, baby!

Posted by: guest at March 18, 2008 2:48 AM

Heath Ledger rented. And look what happened to HIM!
He DIED!
If you rent, you DIE!

Posted by: guest at March 18, 2008 8:12 AM

7.33 - thats seedy. yuck.
other people living in your house..

You do that because you need to, not because you want to.

Posted by: guest at March 18, 2008 8:47 AM

8:47 stfu about what you do with your 1 story stable conversion. you shouldn't play both sides.

Posted by: guest at March 18, 2008 9:07 AM

11:43 Excellent point! All the wealthy people in the world are only wealthy because of the house they own! Brilliant insight and analysis! You are an idiot. Go get a government loan so you can get some education.

Posted by: guest at March 18, 2008 9:29 AM

9.07 - sorry to irk you so much, but having others live in your house for financial reasons is declasse.

Posted by: guest at March 18, 2008 9:36 AM

11:43 Warrent Buffet - Net Worth $62 Billion. - lives in the same house in the central Dundee neighborhood of Omaha that he bought in 1958 for $31,500, today valued at around $700,000. How the hell is he worth $62 Billion if his house is only $700,000? I thought buying a house was the only way to amass wealth? WTF???? Get a clue!

Posted by: guest at March 18, 2008 9:46 AM

Here is what Buffet and Munger were saying about real estate back in 2005 (when it was obvious to most smart people that a bubble was in full swing)

On real estate

Buffett: "A lot of the psychological well being of the American public comes from how well they've done with their house over the years. If indeed there's been a bubble, and it's pricked at some point, the net effect on Berkshire might well be positive [because the company's financial strength would allow it to buy real-estate-related businesses at bargain prices]....

"Certainly at the high end of the real estate market in some areas, you've seen extraordinary movement.... People go crazy in economics periodically, in all kinds of ways. Residential housing has different behavioral characteristics, simply because people live there. But when you get prices increasing faster than the underlying costs, sometimes there can be pretty serious consequences."

Munger: "You have a real asset-price bubble in places like parts of California and the suburbs of Washington, D.C."

Buffett: "I recently sold a house in Laguna for $3.5 million. It was on about 2,000 square feet of land, maybe a twentieth of an acre, and the house might cost about $500,000 if you wanted to replace it. So the land sold for something like $60 million an acre."

Munger: "I know someone who lives next door to what you would actually call a fairly modest house that just sold for $17 million. There are some very extreme housing price bubbles going on."

Posted by: guest at March 18, 2008 9:53 AM

Children, not one person on this thread said the only way to get rich was to buy a house.

The fact is Warrent BROUGHT a house 1958. He does not rent .

Posted by: guest at March 18, 2008 9:54 AM

yes, and buying is to be recommended at all times without regard for market conditions. The fact that the biggest real estate bubble has just popped makes buying at the peak a sound financial decision. Please!

Posted by: guest at March 18, 2008 9:58 AM

9:54 am - Clearly 11:43pm was implying that there was some sort of miracle causation between home owning and wealth,rather than just the obvious correlation (Duh - people with money tend to own assets including real estate). The fact is that most everyone on this planet is a renter before they are owners and often times renters after they own as well.

Posted by: guest at March 18, 2008 10:04 AM

He brought it from where? Was it mobile?

Posted by: guest at March 18, 2008 10:12 AM

It is mobile. Warrent is Warren's poor brother.

Posted by: guest at March 18, 2008 10:19 AM

"The fact is that most everyone on this planet is a renter before they are owners and often times renters after they own as well."

I disagree with your "fact" but if that's what keep you going then more power to you.

Posted by: guest at March 18, 2008 10:28 AM

Warrant. What ever happened to them?

Posted by: guest at March 18, 2008 10:32 AM

10.28 - I doubt thats what keeps him going - unlike some of the owners on here his self-esteem and justification for existence isn't coextensive with owning some bricks and windows. (or renting them from the bank as maybe)

Posted by: guest at March 18, 2008 10:38 AM

rent from a bank?

So if your hipster buddy lends you 100 bucks for a $200 pair jeans... does your buddy own the jeans?

Posted by: guest at March 18, 2008 10:46 AM

Can he foreclose on the jeans? If so, yes.

Posted by: guest at March 18, 2008 10:49 AM

10:28 You are an Ass.

Yes, everyone pops from the womb along with the house they own - very painful deliveries. People graduate college and immediately buy. How stupid are you?

Warren bought in 1958. He was born in 1930...so do the math...he must have rented at some point.

Posted by: guest at March 18, 2008 10:50 AM

perhaps he lived with his mommy

Posted by: guest at March 18, 2008 10:54 AM

renting after age 35 means you are a loser.

Posted by: guest at March 18, 2008 11:07 AM

No 10:54 "he must of rented" and I'm an ass. Everyone and their mother rents. We even rented America from the Natives and our founders stopped paying rent. We are all squatters. Long live the serfdom!

Posted by: guest at March 18, 2008 11:09 AM

Yes, Susan, Warren and babies were all living on mommy's couch.

1950: (20 years old)

* Buffett enrolled at Columbia Business School after learning that Benjamin Graham and David Dodd, two well-known securities analysts, taught there.

1951: (21 years old)

* Buffett discovered Graham was on the Board of GEICO insurance at the time. After taking a train to Washington, D.C. on a Saturday, Buffett knocked on the door of GEICO's headquarters until a janitor allowed him in. There, he met Lorimer Davidson, the Vice President, who was to become a lasting influence on him and life-long friend.[21]
* Buffett graduated from Columbia and wanted to work on Wall Street. Buffett offered to work for Graham for free but Graham refused. He purchased a Sinclair gas station as a side investment, but that venture did not work out as well as he had hoped. Meanwhile, he worked as a stockbroker. During that time, Buffett also took a Dale Carnegie public speaking course. Using what he learned, he felt confident enough to teach a night class at the University of Nebraska, "Investment Principles." The average age of the students he taught was more than twice his own.

1952: (22 years old)

* Buffett married Susan Thompson.

1954: (24 years old)

* Benjamin Graham offered Buffett a job at his partnership with a starting salary of $12,000 a year. Here, he worked closely with Walter Schloss.
* Susan had her first child, Howard Graham Buffett.

1956: (25 years old)

* Benjamin Graham retired and folded up his partnership.
* Buffett's personal savings are now over $140,000.
* Buffett returned home to Omaha and created Buffett Associates, Ltd., an investment partnership.

1957: (27 years old)

* Buffett had three partnerships operating the entire year.
* Buffett purchased a five-bedroom, stucco house on Farnam Street for $31,500.
* Susan was about to have her third child.

Posted by: guest at March 18, 2008 11:11 AM

Buying in 2006 or 7 means you're a loser. literally.

Posted by: guest at March 18, 2008 11:19 AM

yawn

Posted by: guest at March 18, 2008 11:40 AM

Bitter renters who don't like the "smugness" of the owners of this site and check out Rentersarelosers.com. Post away your losers.

Posted by: guest at March 18, 2008 12:43 PM