Multiple Price Cuts for Heights Houses

Why is a price chop at Middagh Street surprising? The exterior of that house has been badly beaten with the ugly stick. They need to chop again and chop like they actually want to sell the place.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 10:12 AM

Love Lane is way overpriced. Directly across the street from years of construction on the Love Lane Mews with nothing else of aesthetic value on the whole street? No thanks. For that money you can be on Willow, Garden, Columbia Heights even.

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

Add to this list the beautiful house at 30 Orange, which started out months ago at $3.2 million and is now at $2.9 million.

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

Three very bland houses. Love Lane house has the best exterior out of the three, but the interiors on all are so boring. Take away all the furniture and all you have is walls in the most expensive neighborhood in Brooklyn.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 10:21 AM

Add to this list the beautiful house at 30 Orange, which started out months ago at $3.2 million and is now at $2.9 million.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 10:23 AM

Agreed. The Middagh house is next to the firehouse and has a terrible layout. The 'carriage house' is a wood-frame
garage and nothing more.

These three properties were priced too high to begin with and now they're stuck. Start yer choppin'.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 10:25 AM

except for the rare 5-8 million house in brooklyn heights, i see houses in park slope selling for more than in brooklyn heights these days, overall.

anyone know why that is??

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 10:29 AM

@10:29 my guess is brooklyn heights, while beautiful, is a total snore. restaurants & other neighborhood amenties are only very "meh".

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 10:35 AM

I have to say that the house on the left looks like its straight out of my neighborhood - Greenpoint.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 10:37 AM

here we go... boring.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 10:39 AM

Funny thing is everyone comes out when the Houses drop in price but yesterday when the Houses that Closed were shown, nobody says a word.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 10:45 AM

Yep, 10:35, this exactly where BH is in the neighborhood life cycle and where PS is going. Evetually a neighborhood becomes very homogeneous and only people with lots of cash can afford it and then it's very nice and very dull.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 10:46 AM

Something about Brooklyn Heights seems to have lost it's luster.

People seem to really be craving a neighborhood where the services, shops, boutiques, bars and restaurants are all within walking distance.

Brooklyn Heights doesn't really have that. It's mainly for the old money types or those that really seem to spend most of their time in Manhattan.

Personally, if I'm going to spend 3 million, I want to be able to live in an all inclusive neighborhood. Otherwise, might as well go to Greenwich.

See my point?

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 10:47 AM

10:46...One of the main reasons Brooklyn Heights is dull though is because it is lacking in bars and restaurants.

Park Slope will always have 5th and 7th Avenues, even if they go through their ups and downs. It will also always be right on a park. I'm not saying it's better (and no, I don't live there) but it does seem that people these days seem to be preferring it over Brooklyn Heights, as prices come to be more in line with one another...

The ONLY real benefit I see about BH is a 15 minute closer commute.

But many in Park Slope probably don't leave their neighborhood much on the weekends as whenever I go there it feels like you could never leave, if you didn't want to.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 10:50 AM

The only thing more boring and dull than Brooklyn Heights is crashing thud of another stupid Park Slope hijacker. That's nice that you like your neighborhood, but must you insert it into every thread? So boring and predictable and self-involved.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 10:59 AM

"The ONLY real benefit I see about BH is a 15 minute closer commute."

It's only 15 minutes closer if you're going to the financial district. If you are going to Canal or above, it's faster to take an express train over the bridge from BH, PH, or north slope.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 11:05 AM

I'm not a prospective buyer for any of these -- all way out of our price range. That said, I'm interested in the Middagh Street place because we looked at it -- or the lower half of it -- in the fall of 2005 (children of a long-term owner were looking to do short term rental until the upper duplex lease was up so they could sell, if I'm rembering correctly). It's hard to tell from the photos exactly how much renovation was done -- the first "parlor" floor looks to be significantly changed, the kitchen in particular (assuming that's the lower duplex kitchen), but it's possible the bottom floor only got some carpeting and paint (it had a very 70s rec room thing going in 2005). This is a long way of saying that I'm wondering how much money was put into the renovation. According to Property Shark, the place last sold for $2,395,000 in May of 2006; I wonder how much of a profit the current owners will be making if they sell now. I think calling the garage (it was a three-car garage when I saw the place) a "carriage house" is a serious stretch.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 11:10 AM

Plenty of apt inventory available at $700psf; rentals are priced as if the buildings were $500 or less.

Why bother buying when you can rent at a much lower price?

Townhouse fetish is so 2005

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 11:11 AM

OH MY GOD - it is virtually impossible to discuss brooklyn heights without a sloper getting into a twitter about how slope is better. You know what? BOTH neighborhoods attract the most conventional newcomers to the borough - people who wouldn't ever consider other brooklyn neighborhoods - and thus BOTH have a vaguely more irritating feel to them than the other popular brooklyn neighbs.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 11:13 AM

I was the person talking about Park Slope and BH.

I live in Carroll Gardens. I was simply stating my thoughts on the two neighborhoods and answering someone's question about why I think Park Slope is becoming more desirable than BH.

You don't need to agree.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 11:15 AM

10:59 and 11:13 -

you are no better for criticizing park slope than those who support it, you realize...

if you didn't care, you would ignore it.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 11:17 AM

but you're not biased though...right biff?

it's ok to support your own neighborhood, as long as it's not park slope i'm finding out here...

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 11:22 AM

"Why bother buying when you can rent at a much lower price?"

To answer this idiotic question that someone writes in response to every house for sale ever discussed on this blog: because when someone buys now and pays the mortgage for 20-30 years, they will have a place to live during retirement. At that point you will be on the street because you thought you were saving by not buying, but you will find you have higher rent and no more income. Buying is forever, the mortgage is not.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 11:30 AM

fair enough biff.

all of brooklyn is great, in my opinion.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 11:32 AM

11:17 - Park Slope is fine. It's the boorish insertion of Park Slope into every thread that is annoying.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 11:33 AM

Brooklyn Heights is a lot like Boston. Don't get me wrong -- I like Boston, and grew up there (Go Sox!), but I left because I had to keep checking my pulse to see if I were still alive.

No juice, was the issue.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 11:36 AM

I too am sick of the Park Slope is better than X in every damn thread. It's weird!

(and I do love that Park Slope is now a shorter commute than BH.)

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 11:37 AM

Wow Biff...that's a really nice thing to say about pride of neighborhood. I'd have to agree with you on that.

I also have a sneaking suspicion that most of the comments on here made about Park Slope are people just trying to get a rise out of people. I don't think most of them probably even live there.

Just a hunch.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 11:40 AM

"It's only 15 minutes closer if you're going to the financial district. If you are going to Canal or above, it's faster to take an express train over the bridge from BH, PH, or north slope."

Are you on crack? Or have you not looked at a subway map. There are several express trains taking you to canal and beyond faster than any train coming from PS. I know, I lived in both areas.
In fact in just as fast or faster for me to get Canal & above on the A express from my new place in Bed Stuy than it was from place in PS.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 11:50 AM

I take the Q at 7th Avenue in PS and I'm at Canal in 15 mins, door to door. 20 to Union Square.

Can't beat it.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 11:58 AM

Most neighborhoods already have or will be getting better amenities, and I WAY prefer the restaurants in Williamsburg which clearly have the superior chefs (though I wouldn't live there). Dining in Park Slope is all mediocre family-casual blah. (Please don't mention Al Di La in response, it's totally overrated). But of course Park Slope offers things the other neighborhoods don't have. Park Slope is great. It's just not "The Best".

Why does your neighborhood have to be "The Best" for you to enjoy it? This is that hyper competitive elitist thing people love to bash in Slopers.

Anyhoo. Regarding the topic of the thread, HUGE difference between price drops going from overpriced to still above recent comps, which is what's happening here, and going from market rate to below market which is not the case here. As usual Brownstoner posts a topic worded in a way to whip everyone into a frenzy. And you all fall for it.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 11:59 AM

I'll preface this by saying that I live in Prospect Heights, but I don't find Al Di La overrated at all. Zagat doesn't either, it would seem. I love the food and the service is excellent. I think it rivals Batali's Lupa in Soho anyday. I'm also a fan of Moim, Oshima, Barrio, Ghenet and Alchemy in PS.

Just my two cents.

Continue on with the Park Slope bashing if you must...

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 12:12 PM

11:58 is right, the only subway even worth thinking about in Park Slope much less taking in the morning to work is the B/Q at 7th Ave. The best PS area to be in is North Slope, or in Prospect Heights, right around that stop. Subway options are as important to think about as any other factor in buying real estate for parents. People want to spend that extra 30 minutes with their families at home, not on the train. If your commute is longer you end up having to curtail the time you spend at the office, which can be detrimental depending on your work environment and bosses.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 12:15 PM

I still say Al Di La is overrated, 12:12. I have never had a meal there I thought was genius. I was not "bashing" Park Slope. Where did you see that? I see that I said "Park Slope is great".

As for the other restaurants sure they're okay. Just okay.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 12:21 PM

Oh whatever, the creators and writers of Sex and the City are all gay men writing what they imagine women to be. Which is totally inaccurate. Fun to watch, but inaccurate.

Secondly, they are going with the Brooklyn jokes of ten years ago. SO dated. They should have made this movie the year after the show ended. Now it'll just be a lot of attractive but wrinkly middle aged ladies with dated tired jokes shot in soft focus so we don't see how old they've become.

(Love these actresses - just think it's dumb to shoot a film several years later and try to pick up where it left off ages upon ages ago).

That said of course I'd rather have a huge pad on Park Avenue! But we had $1.5 million to spend not $10 million.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 12:27 PM

Park Slope isn't the "best" of anything in brooklyn.

BH is prettier and Williamsburg has better bars/restaurants.

Why brag about somewhere that is mediocre at both?

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 12:30 PM

"Are you on crack? Or have you not looked at a subway map. There are several express trains taking you to canal and beyond faster than any train coming from PS. I know, I lived in both areas."

Once you put down the pipe and look at the subway map, you will see that the N train doesn't have to stop repeatedly in lower manhattan. It goes straight from Atlantic center to canal. That makes it faster than the A. Countless people know this and choose to live in north slope and also boerum hill/prospect heights which I also mentioned but you all choose to ignore.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 12:35 PM

I think these are all really nice properties that will sell quickly once the right price is reached. Brooklyn Heights is more sensitive than most areas to the ups and downs of the Financial sector. Right now, that sector is a little on edge.
Whoever redid the house on Middagh, missed the boat on the facade. They got bad advise from the staffers at the Landmarks Commission. That facade is really ugh-ugly. A shame, with a little design help it could have been gorgeous. Hopefully the next owner will have the courage to stand up to the staffers, ask for a hearing, and re-do the facade properly.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 12:36 PM

other than the liberal arts graduates, is there really anyone else that has this outright craze for park slope? it seems more like an extension to a college campus than a proper neighborhood.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 12:37 PM

I lived in the Heights for 5 years and used to think the commute was covenient (I work midtown east and took the 4-5 train). Then I moved to Boerum Hill and started taking the D or N. In hindsight, the commute was hellish. I save 20+ minutes each way (that over 170 hours a year - or over 7 days) by taking the N or D trains that feels less like a cattle car. Can also use my cell phone while the train is going over the bridge.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 12:39 PM

No one seems to realize that the lack of bars/restaurants in BH is actually considered an advantage by many, as it stops all the riff raff/poseurs from invading and walking the streets to go to said restaurants and bars. Heights residents do fine with the limited choices we have. Montague Street caters mostly to the weekday lunch crowd anyway.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 12:43 PM

sex and the city; the movie picks up five years after we left off. you know that picture of the baby charlotte saw? that baby is now 5 years old.

people on here will write about ANYTHING -- as long as the have no real info

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 12:44 PM

Brooklyn Heights has better manners, I will say that. It is a little like the Upper East Side whereas Park Slope, is more like the Upper West Side, with all those in-your-face types. Other sectors, such as Williamsburg I suppose, pride themselves on their bad manners. Whatever floats your boat.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 12:44 PM

I just moved from Williamburg to Park Slope.

I'm very happy with my decision, to say the least.

It's a JOKE to say that Park Slope is a college campus. Park Slope is one of the most established, mature neighborhoods in Brooklyn.

Ever been to McCarren Park or Bedford Avenue?

It's like going to the Quad at Amherst College.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 12:46 PM

11:30. I could buy any of these properties. I'd rather pay 3-4k in rent and save the other 10k/month (which I do). I can invest that in plenty of other assets that are likely to outperform real estate.

Long term, my income and local real estate prices are highly correlated. renting is a natural hedge.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 12:47 PM

12:39 people don't realize what a nice thing that is in daily life to be able to call from the bridge. It makes it easy to ask if there is anything that one has to pick up from the store on the way home. Saves endless headaches of running back out once you get home.

How did the train thing become about park slope vs brooklyn heights when the comment was actually about boerum hill, prospect heights, and the north slope?

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 12:48 PM

I'd take the Upper West Side reference over the Upper East any day of the week.

I can honestly say that I love ALL of NYC EXCEPT the Upper East Side. If I never have to go there again, it would be too soon.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 12:48 PM

"11:30. I could buy any of these properties. I'd rather pay 3-4k in rent and save the other 10k/month (which I do). I can invest that in plenty of other assets that are likely to outperform real estate."

That's great for you. So why again are you posting on a thread about homes for SALE??

The renters thread are over there ------>

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 12:51 PM

i've lived in UES, UWS, BH, PS and now Williamsburg.

All areas are just fine for different reasons.

But there isn't an area more rude than PS.

It's like a cult. residents spend all their time trying to "convert" you to agreeing that it's better than manattahan, better than every other brooklyn neighborhood. (and will drop it got voted one of the best neighborhoods in the country)

Well the LES just got voted one of the best neighborhoods in the country by Forbes, so you don't need a green park and ornate brownstones to be a great neighborhood.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 1:00 PM

Oh but I love the townhouses on the UES on the quieter streets. So pretty. I'd take one of those in a heartbeat. The UWS is like a suburban mall. Not appealing for me. Too many chain stores. Bland.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 1:00 PM

12:48 Oh my gosh, I'm sure the residents of the Upper East Side are simply crushed. Perhaps black and purple bunting may be in order.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 1:01 PM

"Well the LES just got voted one of the best neighborhoods in the country by Forbes"

I'd love to see the link to that...

A google search came up with nothing on that topic, other than an article by Forbes about how much the lower east side real estate has appreciated from a poverty stricken tenement neighborhood to expensive condos.

Made zero mention of best neighborhood.

But prove me wrong...

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 1:07 PM

"But there isn't an area more rude than PS."

how is an area rude?

you sound like a total moron.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 1:08 PM

Boerum Hill is clearly the best neighbourhood in all of Brooklyn. No doubt, son.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 1:10 PM

"and now Williamsburg." - Sorry to hear that.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 1:11 PM

He said why, 1:08!

Try reading the WHOLE post.

You might not agree with the guy but he totally said why he thought that. Dummy.

Oh and by the way you are hilariously proving what he said, about Slopers being like a cult and needing to convince everyone PS is the best neighborhood on the planet. You didn't even need to read the rest of the post, your eyes when right to the insult and you fixated on it and steam blew out your ears.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 1:13 PM

1:08 learn a new word besides "moron". you are constantly calling people "total morons".
I recognize your writing style.
I would guess you live in Park Slope?

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 1:14 PM

Did anyone else notice that the entire article and thread from yesterday on the new Ice Cream place in Prospect Heights has been removed?

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

"Once you put down the pipe and look at the subway map, you will see that the N train doesn't have to stop repeatedly in lower manhattan. It goes straight from Atlantic center to canal. That makes it faster than the A. Countless people know this and choose to live in north slope and also boerum hill/prospect heights which I also mentioned but you all choose to ignore."

Look at that map again. The A isn't the only train stopping in BH

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 1:19 PM

I understand what you're saying 1:13, but I still don't see how an "area" can be rude.

I can see how people in an area might be rude, but calling a neighborhood rude is simply ignorant. No two ways around it. It's like saying, I dislike (insert any race here).

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 1:20 PM

1:14. thank you for paying such close attention to me.

i'm flattered.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 1:22 PM

anyone actually SEEN any of these houses??

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 1:37 PM

These are really nice houses. The one on Willow Place is fabulous. If they are having trouble selling, I think it bodes ill.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 1:55 PM

I only see one price cut, $3,500,000 to $2,745,000. Where's the other two? The sets quoted look exactly the same. I'll scoot a little a closer to my moniter and get back to you.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 2:03 PM

"11:30. I could buy any of these properties. I'd rather pay 3-4k in rent and save the other 10k/month (which I do). I can invest that in plenty of other assets that are likely to outperform real estate."

That's fine, but I'd like to know where you're finding an entire Brownstone to rent. There are very few of them, and the prices I see are way more than $3K-$4k per month. I bought a house so that my kids could have there own bedrooms + a playroom and so parents and in;laws could visit and stay in a guest room instead of sleeping on an air mattress. I don't care whether I make money on my house (though clearly I hope not to lose). Our quality of life is better and I'm willing to pay for that.

Just don't think it's fair to compate a $3-$k rental to an full house like any of those above.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 2:09 PM

2:09, you are exactly right.

3K in Brooklyn Heights will get you a nice 1 bedroom.

Not a 5 bedroom, 2 or 3 bath home with a garden, 4 fireplaces and room for in-laws, friends and total quiet from any neighbors.

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

"11:30. I could buy any of these properties. I'd rather pay 3-4k in rent and save the other 10k/month (which I do). I can invest that in plenty of other assets that are likely to outperform real estate."

If you are making 14K a month and don't own your own home, I think that's pretty stupid.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 2:19 PM

You can't rent any house for $3-4K. Certainly not in BH, or the other expensive neighborhoods. Really good point, 2:09. The very rare and few houses ever available for rent are way higher than that.

For $3K you get an apartment.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 2:19 PM

How much would a house like the one on Willow Place rent for? $9,000 a month?
I know a couple who are renting a beautiful
brownstone in Greenwich Village for 10,000 a month. and it is in the nicest residential part of the Village. Wonder what Brooklyn Heights would command?

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 2:39 PM

Biff I am going to report you to your employer STOP BLOGGING and get back to work.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 2:43 PM

I live in BH and walk to work over the Brooklyn Bridge. Come days I take the water taxi (altho it doesn't save me time). But either way, it makes my days so much nicer. Wouldn't change it.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 2:43 PM

but it seems most people on here buying brownstones end up renting out two or three floors - so they only live in the equivalent of one apartment anyway. lame.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 2:52 PM

2:52 - bitter renter paying for someone else's mortgage. lame.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 3:15 PM

i never got the draw of buying a 3 million dollar house, and live in a small duplex apartment. Sure, part of your mortgage is paid, but you deal with the hassle of having tenants, none of the services you would if you bought a co-op in a historically significant neighborhood.

I've been in plenty of brownstones, and they tend to lack light (unless they are on a corner)

You may ask why i am on a website called "brownstoner" if i don't like brownstones. well i do like them. i just can't see how it's a superior way to live.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 3:15 PM

2:52:

I have a brownstone (5 floors) and do indeed rent out 3 of the 5 floors. I live on 2 of them. A nice 3 bedroom, 2 bath duplex with dining room, living room, garden, etc.

Factoring in the rent that my tenants pay, my housing costs are zero. Well, I take that back, I'm MAKING about 1000 a month to live in a duplex in New York City.

Thanks for getting that rent in on the 1st!!

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 3:18 PM

"i just can't see how it's a superior way to live."

no one ever said it was. it is superior for those of us who choose to do so.

you go do your thing and we can do ours.

see how this country works??

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 3:19 PM

2:09 here again.

My house is a single family, so landlording is not an issue. I like having the entire house for the family now, but expect that the potential income from renting out an apartment or two would look really good 10-15 years from now. In that respect, I sometimes lament not buying a multi-family house. As your mortgage balance gets paid down over time, the rental income keeps growing and you get to the point where you literally have no cost for your housing. That's very attractive at retirement time.

With regard to tenants, it can go either way. I guess owner's can get tenants from hell. On the other hand, I know I rented a duplex in a Brownstone for 10 years and that my landlord and I got along great. It was nice to have someone to look after our respective places when either of us was away on vacation etc. I kind of miss that. We get house sitters now instead.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 3:46 PM

"but it seems most people on here buying brownstones end up renting out two or three floors - so they only live in the equivalent of one apartment anyway. lame."

Yeah...someone else paying your mortgage is really lame.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 3:57 PM

The idea of having a tenant in your home is a good one. Helps pay for things. Some one else to look over things, etc. The problem recently is that these houses have become priced like income-producing properties making tenants a necessity rather than an option. That's what I don't like. When you absolutely need a tenant to make ends meet, not just to make things a little easier, I think the formula is off. You are then sort of trapped in another job (landlord) or you will go broke. That is very differnet from the posters who claim that their entire morgage is covered by the rent. They must have bought their house years ago when it made sense. Today, these houses are financial albatrosses for all but the very wealthiest among us.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 4:07 PM

4:07 is right. Larger brownstones in Park Slope are now priced so high that you are way better off financially to buy a smaller house or a condo, and not have a tenant. How much does $3,000 rent per month really go towards the mortgage loan to buy the nearly $1K per square foot rental duplex? The math doesn't make sense.

I really think either prices will slow down and level off soon, or there will be a transition towards the big brownstones going one-family again and selling to much more wealthy people than the average (and already well off) Park Sloper we see now. Those really high income bracket people don't do tenants. They aren't into it.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 4:20 PM

I don't want anyone else living in my house thats for sure! Might as well go condo if you can't afford the mortgage.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 4:28 PM

3.18 - I don't rent, and I don't let parts of my own house to strangers. But you go ahead.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 4:29 PM

I agree with everyone to say that these price cuts reflect really aggressive pricing more than weakness in the market. I live nearby, and almost choked when I saw the $3.1m asking price for the Orange St. house -- with gut reno necessary? Are you kidding? The others seem similarly overpriced -- I think sellers have a hard time letting go of 2005 pricing, and that they may not recover on their reno costs. I'm just happy not to be selling now.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 4:30 PM

Hey 3.18 - you kids must love living in your mini-sized house inside the real house. How darling.

But at some point you'll need to grow up.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 4:41 PM

prices are still too high in certain areas, but in other areas prices have dropped, and are dropping, quite a bit. The all important regional economy is key, as are lifestyle trends. If it suddenly becomes uncool to live and raise your children in crowded, gritty, urban neighborhoods, fasten you seatbelts for a wild descent. On the other hand if affluent people continue to think that it is simply fabulous to live in town then things will stabilize and even improve.
People think of real estate as a rock soild investment but its vsluation is really dependent on a variety of human factors that we just cannot predict.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 4:50 PM

"Hey 3.18 - you kids must love living in your mini-sized house inside the real house. How darling."

My boyfriend and I (no kids) are just fine in our 2000 square feet. You know...especially since we are living for free and all. That 1000 a month extra comes in mighty handy also.

We own a brownstone now worth 3 million and don't pay a dime in housing costs.

I know you're jealous but your feeble attempts to belittle it really have no bearing on me.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 4:59 PM

4:59
you sound like a real creep.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 5:02 PM

4:50...

I would say that the enviroment and soaring gas prices are going to have a lot of impact on your comment.

It isn't just about what's cool or uncool anymore.

It's about the fact that New Jersey's taxes (just an example) are outrageous and gas will probably be $7 a gallon in 3 years. Not to mention that prices in some areas of NJ have fallen so far that they probably will not recover in our lifetime.

How long are you willing to contribute to the demise of the planet, exactly?

It's a question a lot of people are hopefully asking themselves right now.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 5:02 PM

That would be "envious" not "jealous".

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 5:02 PM

Actually I think 4:41 sounds like the creep.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 5:03 PM

Every time I drive upstate I get three strangers into the car to pay the gas costs. Not that I need it of course. But I'm driving for free!

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 5:04 PM

I have empathy for those who have become part-time landlords to help pay the mortgage and property taxes.

Keep your heads up, things will pick up soon.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 5:12 PM

I have empathy for anyone who rents.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 5:16 PM

5:02, do you really think that communities in NJ will become unsustainable while we, here, in the center of this incredibly energy-dependent metropolis will be just fine? Every bottle of milk, every loaf of bread, every leaf of arugula we buy has to be trucked in and make its way through all sorts of traffic. air conditioning loads alone in the summer will burn out the thickest undergorund cables. IN the burbs if there is a power outage you barbecue, in the city, apartment dwellers have no elevators or water, the subways would not run, the traffic lights would go off.
At least in NJ you could grow your own vegetables and keep a few chickens.
This city is the most environmentally unsustainble place on the planet. it is entirely artificial. and it runs mostly on coal-powered generation. Not only are the streets choked with traffic but underground electric trains are using coal-generated energy at an incredible rate. It is ridicuous to be so smug. NYC is not environmentally friendly and it never was.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 5:18 PM

I'm guessing you are just trying to rile people up, 5:12, but you have empathy for people who own multi million dollar homes and are having them paid for by renters while living in duplexes 3 times the size of most new yorkers, but you don't have empathy for the renters who are paying these people to own homes while wasting away all their money??

umm...ok.

you sound like a whackjob.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 5:19 PM

5.19, I have sympathy renters, but I doubt many renters are "in over their heads". You're missing my point.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 5:26 PM

5:18, people living in New York City have a FRACTION of the carbon footprint of those living in the suburbs. You are really, REALLY misinformed.

You think millions of people travelling by mass transit is worse than ONE person travelling in a car times millions??

You think the millions of people living in 500 square feet are worse than those living in 3500 sf??

You are INCREDIBLY dellusional.

Judging from most of the people I see in New Jersey, you are going to need to raise chickens and BBQ full time to keep those stomachs full.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 5:30 PM

you have no point

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 5:31 PM

Its so seedy being a landlord, but I know -people have to make ends meet.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 5:34 PM

All of the richest people in the world are landlords. Think before you speak.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 5:45 PM

so those middle eastern princes who buy buildings in nyc for 400 million and rent them out are people having to "make ends meet?"

5:34 wins for most idiotic post of the day

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 5:48 PM

5.54 - you have to be kidding!
Though you may be correct, I heard Warren Buffet rents out his downstairs to an Akron plumber, and Bill Gates stables have been converted into a studio that he advertized last week on craigslsit. That extra $1500 comes in handy.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 5:51 PM

Having to spell it out for the idiot at 5.48 - we're talking about renting to people in their own houses.

Before jumping into the converstaion, read the context of the discussion. Try again.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 5:54 PM

5.48 = delusions of grandeur - thinks that his renting out of two floors in Crown Heights gets him invited to the Sultan of Brunei's yacht party..

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 5:56 PM

5.45 - thats think before you WRITE.

Please follow your own advice.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 5:58 PM

everyone on this thread rents except 4:59.

some of you might even rent FROM 4:59.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 5:59 PM

I don't think we talking commerical landlords here - thats a business.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 6:01 PM

6.01- you don't seem to get that some of us (I know for a fact I'm not alone) wouldn't never dream of renting out part of our homes. Can you honestly say you've never met such a person?

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 6:04 PM

I think its probably a question of the rich and the old money, vs the merely affluent/new money crowd.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 6:10 PM

Brownstoner should do a survey, find how many owners rent out floors in their house. I bet its low in PS, higher in other nabes.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 6:12 PM

In England we call people living in your own home "lodgers". Funny business.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 6:15 PM

The parsimonious realtors have figured out every penny to be made from each spare square foot and have added it to the sale price of every brownstone as if it were a bed and breakfast inn instead of a home. There are no middle class homes left in NY only income producing properties. New Yorkers only have themselves to blame for allowing profits to come before family, privacy, or happiness. NYC is basically venal, money-grubbing, and dishonet. I belive this has been true ever since the Dutch Colonial days.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 9:34 PM

i thought nyc was for lovers?

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 9:58 PM

I’m not sure why Brownstoner repeatedly touts 72 Middagh as such a great renovation (maybe to kiss up to the Corcoran broker-owner?). Though I disagree with the poster who thinks the way they did the facade was to appease LPC – I think they simply did a touch-up so they could do a reno on the cheap, which is consistent with the cosmetic changes they made to the interior, where they left the awkward layout intact. This was an investment property, folks, hence minimal renovation and sky high asking price.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 10:14 PM

New Yorkers have always been, to a point, dellusional. The idea that this horribly polluted, dirty, and energy-guzzling city is "green" is ludicorous. If we all lived more spread out (as the founding fathers intended) we could grow our own greens, not rely on 24-hour electric train service, and best of all, cut our dependence on the mendacious politicians and their operatives.
I say be true to the spirit of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Don't trust the government. Forget about buses and subways -they are the most inefficient energey users. Look to a prosperous future. Be independent. Place the old New York political machine into the same dust bin as the soviet union, and join me in saying: "good riddance to bad trash"

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 10:37 PM

i take it you work for the auto industry, 10:37?

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 10:53 PM

"as the founding fathers intended"

Oh yeah...awesome idea...let's live our lives as those who lived hundreds of years ago did. Sounds brilliant. Screw science, screw the industrial revolution and the technology age, just do as the founding fathers said.

Can you say Sheep?

Grow a brain, dude.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 10:55 PM

10:37 - do you also advocate slave ownership? Jefferson did. And he slept with them.

Go to bed, you need some sleep.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 10:55 PM

10:55, Thomas Jefferson had a thirty-year relationship with the half-sister of his wife. By all accounts, she adored him and was devoted to him in life and after he died. They had, I think, four children.
You can feel superior to Jefferson if you wish, but you are really nothing by comparison. Is there anyone in the world who adores you and is devoted to you as Sally Hemmings was to Thomas Jefferson? You are a nobody with a low IQ. People like you are a dime a dozen.

Posted by: guest at May 21, 2008 11:21 PM