Slopers Sweet on 4th Avenue?

Has more to do with the gravitational pull of the Gowanus Canal than anything else.

Posted by: guest at March 20, 2008 9:22 AM

Queens Blvd? - that is mainly a commercial strip, The biggest problem with the "new" 4th Ave is actually the lack of retail.

When are you people going to recognize that for the vast majority of people the look of a building on the outside is far less important then what the living area looks like and possibly what the view looking out is. How many times a day and for how long does the average resident actually see the architecture of their own building

Posted by: guest at March 20, 2008 9:56 AM

Interesting that it says the majority are people already living in the slope who are buying as an investment. I wonder how long they will hold that investment if prices fall, or whether they will be renting them out at amounts that cover their costs?

Posted by: guest at March 20, 2008 10:07 AM

When are you people going to realize that the way a building looks on the outside effects the overall desirability and property value of the neighborhood.

Posted by: guest at March 20, 2008 10:21 AM

All development sucks

Bring back the crime wave of the 80s and early 90s.

Vacant lots rule.

Screw the rich.

Anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot.

Posted by: guest at March 20, 2008 10:25 AM

There weren't many vacant lots on 4'th avenue, most were tear downs.

Posted by: guest at March 20, 2008 10:33 AM

There weren't many vacant lots on 4'th avenue, most were tear downs.

Posted by: guest at March 20, 2008 10:33 AM

i really like 4th avenue.

it's edgy.

Posted by: guest at March 20, 2008 10:46 AM

Yes 4th Avenue will soon become the Queens Blvd. of Brooklyn.
The aging hipsters of today will become the alterkockers of tomorrow, and will get mowed down by cabs just like they do on the Boulevard of Death.

Posted by: guest at March 20, 2008 10:53 AM

Put together a development proposal, run the numbers, find investors, buy the land and build something beautiful. Make it happen. Developers are just people like you, and they are mostly using other people's money to get stuff done. If you can find a way to buy and build and create beauty, and also proft, you will get investors. What you are witnessing now is either that people tried hard and couldn't fit beauty into the numbers, or that they weren't as good as you could be at it- give it a try!

Posted by: guest at March 20, 2008 11:10 AM

$th Avenue is hardly the the Park Avenue. Looks for like Houston Street in the 70's. And the Novo is one of the ugliest creations ever. There's only one reason that building ended looking the way it does—cheap construction. Good luck to the poor souls who bought in that thing. I give it 5-7 years before it falls a part.

--Slope Real Estate expert

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

well, gotta trust 11:20. they are a Slope Real Estate expert.

Posted by: guest at March 20, 2008 11:41 AM

Brooklynnative - not defending it but I think the grates you are talking about are on the Crest not Novo and they arent blowing vents for A/C - the 1st floor is a garage and I believe the vents are just for that (i.e. no blowing or fans associated) - again not that I think it is attractive or smart (should have been retail).

Posted by: guest at March 20, 2008 12:19 PM

Why didn't developers put up architectually significant buildings and then try and charge $1,200 a foot.

That would have made more sense for 4th Ave.

Posted by: guest at March 20, 2008 12:58 PM

I don't agree, 12:58.

4th is still a major truck route. It's not quite ready for that kind of building just yet.

Maybe in another 5-10 years...

Posted by: guest at March 20, 2008 1:05 PM

I don't see why it's implausible that half the buyers come from the Slope. 4th Avenue is not the sort of place you'd want to buy if you're coming from Manhatttan and have a typical vision of "Park Slope" in your head.

But, if you already live in PS, realize that you can't afford that typical vision of beautiful Park Slope--but lke the neighborhgood and want to stay in the area--then you're likely to be familiar and comfortable enough to make a practical decision to settle for 4th Avenue, even if you don't love the street.

Not defending the buildings but that seems the most likely explanation to me.

Posted by: guest at March 20, 2008 1:08 PM

So can't charge $1,200 a foot, can only charge $700-$800. So why all the complaining about 'architectual shitboxes.'

It's moronic.

Posted by: guest at March 20, 2008 1:14 PM

I think the fact that so many people are coming from Park Slope is a testament to how people really love the neighborhood.

I know of very few neighborhoods where a smiliar situation would arise.

Park Slopers are nothing, if not loyal and enamored with their neighborhood so I've come to realize.

Personally I've chosen a much smaller place close to 7th Avenue, but I can definitely see how someone would choose a larger space down here by 4th. The whole neighborhood is great, as far as I'm concerned. Such diversity in architecture, people, vibe, retail, etc. all within a a few dozen blocks.

Posted by: guest at March 20, 2008 1:15 PM

Well its too late to do anything about it now; about 5 yrs too late. why dont we just suck it up and go with what we got. buy them and it 3 yrs you will be graced with every person from the UES (via ohio) thinking that paying 1.5x what we payed is the best deal they have ever seen.

Posted by: guest at March 20, 2008 1:24 PM

In 3 yrs no property in NYC is going to be worth 50% more than it was in 2007, if your up 10% it will be a miracle

Posted by: guest at March 20, 2008 2:07 PM

10% will be great.

3.3% per year.

that's a percent more a year than a savings account.

Posted by: guest at March 20, 2008 2:10 PM

just saying it is what it is..

Posted by: guest at March 20, 2008 3:00 PM

just saying it is what it is..

Posted by: guest at March 20, 2008 3:00 PM

unfortunately there is a market for it. However, I think you are right about affordable housing (mid income) but maybe we are the only ones who see things that way.

Posted by: guest at March 20, 2008 3:02 PM

2:10
What kind of gangster ass savigs account do you have?

Posted by: guest at March 20, 2008 3:10 PM

any major bank right now...chase, ing, wamu, etc offer 2.5% on their savings accounts.

you can thank the fed for that.

Posted by: guest at March 20, 2008 3:26 PM

Yea, I have been getting 2.5% on 70k. just moved it over to wamu's online savings at 4%.

Posted by: guest at March 20, 2008 3:56 PM

just watch out for that slippary slope!

Posted by: guest at March 20, 2008 5:00 PM

Basic supply and demand:

Supply: Sale prices are roughly double or triple construction costs, except on Willow Place, where they are four times higher. Capitalist entrepreneurs will predictable seek to profit from this gap by creating new expensive units in Brownstone Brooklyn -- new construction, conversions, renovations, offing bitter renters, expanding boundaries, new neighborhoods, etc.

But, no, that can't be right. Supply is fixed, because they aren't creating new land and no one builds brownstones any more.

Demand: As prices go up, the number of people who can afford them based on salary drops. As real estate drops in the rest of the country, the number of people who can afford them because they sold some other overpriced crap drops.

But, no, that can't be right. Demand is infinite. For every new unit, a new sucker will appear, willing to pay more than everyone has ever paid in the neighborhood, because they know that in 3 years they'll be able to sell for 10% more. After all, in the long run, real estate always goes up, just as it did in Tokyo in the last 30 years and Brooklyn from 1930-1970.

Since supply is unchanging and demand is infinite, ALL houses in Brownstone Brooklyn are underpriced by definition. You bitter renters and self-satisfied owners should borrow as much as Bear Stearns, ooops, Citibank, will lend you and buy everything in sight.

Lose the serf mentality and give me your money. After all, I got here first and I bought at a price that made sense, and now I want to cash out and move somewhere more fun.

Posted by: guest at March 20, 2008 6:38 PM

Aargh! Commentators like 12:58 (who's being sarcastic - a lot of people on here don't seem to get that) and 1:14 drive me up the wall.

Listen, just because a building is inexpensive does NO mean it has to be aesthetically offensive. Don't believe me? Check out these buildings built as affordable housing:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119876732563552709.html#SCHIFF

Posted by: guest at March 20, 2008 8:19 PM

All development sucks
Bring back the crime wave of the 80s and early 90s.Vacant lots rule.
Screw the rich.

Ok:
Give me you address and I I will come over kick the shit out of you and take your stuff.
Talk is cheep A=hole

Posted by: guest at March 21, 2008 1:53 PM

Put together a development proposal, run the numbers, find investors, buy the land and build something beautiful. Make it happen. Developers are just people like you, and they are mostly using other people's money to get stuff done. If you can find a way to buy and build and create beauty, and also proft, you will get investors. What you are witnessing now is either that people tried hard and couldn't fit beauty into the numbers, or that they weren't as good as you could be at it- give it a try!

Well said!!
Say it again!
Say it loud!

Posted by: guest at March 21, 2008 2:01 PM

Hey 6:38 PM--

Let me guess, you are definitely a white dude, but i bet you were a women's studies es at vassar.

and, you work in publishing, or you are an admin.

and you parents pay your rent.

right?

Posted by: guest at May 22, 2008 9:51 AM