« Inside Third & Bond: Week 50 Development Watch: 93 Nevins Making Progress »
August 21, 2008
House of the Day: 540 16th Street
This charming Arts and Crafts house at 540 16th Street in Windsor Terrace started out as a FSBO asking $1,550,000 before it moved to a small, local broker and got a new price tag of $1,499,999. Now Brooklyn Properties has the listing and is offering the one-family house for $1,350,000. It's a charmer, to be sure (kitchen and bathrooms aside). Think the new asking price is reasonable?
540 16th Street [Brooklyn Properties] GMAP P*Shark
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/5965
Comments
I tried to check this out last weekend and nobody was there for the scheduled open house. I think friends of mine looked at this a long time ago and there were family issues among the sellers and the deal fell through. It seems priced kind of high to me, but I don't seem to understand Windsor Terrace pricing!
Posted by: WTbound at August 21, 2008 1:07 PM
No pictures of the basement apartment? Must be dark down there. Bathrooms need updating. Not a fan of the wallpaper.
Posted by: 11233 at August 21, 2008 1:11 PM
Would a bank appraise this at 1.35?
It is basically a 3-bedroom, 1-bathroom house, with an extra bath and bedroom in the basement.
Posted by: sam at August 21, 2008 1:13 PM
Where is the floor plan? The place seems small.
It is certainly livable, but the buyer might still be interested in some renovation. (I would start with the green wall paper in the dining room. *Blah*)
Given the current market condition, it is doubtful that they can get the asking.
Posted by: muffin at August 21, 2008 1:18 PM
So... with 15% down, that's probably $6700 to $7000 a month, eh? The old calculation was that you should spend 1/4 of your income on your housing. So, that's would figure to be over $300,000 a year salary.
This is just a question... Is this the income of the households moving into Windsor Terrace? Or is there something amiss?
Posted by: tybur6 at August 21, 2008 1:19 PM
Brooklyn Properties is as overpriced as Corcoran, but they rarely have the goods. Their website, like Warren Lewis and Aguerro, is useless -- no floor plans, inadequate information, and so forth. The price is over by at least 10% for this market.
Posted by: househunt at August 21, 2008 1:28 PM
tybur6, speaking from experience, I can tell you that some potential purchasers for this kind of house are relying on cash for this kind of house (or any house, for that matter) so are not necessarily pulling down huge income. That said, buyers will lots of cash may start to dry up due to overall softening of market (with coops/condos suffering a lot now). Plus, those potential buyers who do have cash are getting picker, due to general souring of the market - hence the price cuts. As a potential buyer myself in this price range, I can say that it does seem that the price is high given the size/location/need to update.
Posted by: Miss Muffett at August 21, 2008 1:30 PM
Nobody who lives in Windsor Terrace makes over $300K a year, that's more like Park Slope salaries. I don't know where brokers get off trying to sell properties at these prices. Are they imbeciles or just plain ignorant. I hope every broker at Brooklyn Properties commits suicide at the end of the year when they don't make a single dime off of commissions. A-holes!!
Posted by: turcod at August 21, 2008 1:35 PM
Sam, I would love to see a bank's appraisal as well. Lets see: charming middle class single family townhome; 1 block from Prospect Park; above average Brooklyn working class / middle class neighborhood. $1.350 mill seems high to me, I would list it at $999K and would let the bidding war begin.
Posted by: qis4quincy at August 21, 2008 1:39 PM
I suppose it depends on how the "bones" are but that could be a sweet house with just a little bit of vision. This architectural style really lends it self to restoration b/c of the simple lines. The really ugly stuff is just cosmetic.
Am I the only one who really likes the tufted green couch?? :)
Posted by: Mrs. Limestone at August 21, 2008 1:39 PM
The inglenook fireplace is interesting. Is it original?
Posted by: dittoburg at August 21, 2008 1:41 PM
The thing is, it seems like every house on the market in WT is overpriced - or does that mean this is the market? I saw a corcoran place around the corner from this one asking 1.7 or something, another BP place asking 1.2 needed ridiculous amounts of work...I don't get it. I would think that these houses would be going for 900-1 mm range, given their relation to South Slope and those prices. Are they selling at these prices?
Posted by: WTbound at August 21, 2008 1:42 PM
turcod: You could not be more wrong. There are many people in WT making more than $300K/year.
Posted by: Mrs. Limestone at August 21, 2008 1:42 PM
This house is 17x38. Each floor is 646 sq. ft. Total house is 1,292 sq. ft. = $1,044 sq. ft.
With the basement (if windows are not 50% above grade, sq. ft. is not traditionally calculated in house area) = 1,938 sq. ft. = $696 sq. ft.
Too expensive!!!
Posted by: bayridgegirl at August 21, 2008 1:44 PM
So... miss muffet... What you're saying, the brooklyn housing market is basically for buyers that just sold off their last NYC property that appreciated 120% over the last 4 years? (and/or just have a trust fund or inheritance etc.)
It's sort of disconcerting. The way the price tags have skyrocketed in Brooklyn, there's no room for a first-time home buyer anymore. Well, unless you make $300k or more like I described above.
This is crazy, no? I think it is.
While I'm not someone who thinks home ownership is a necessary things, the market has a crazy impact regardless of whether you own or rent. It would be IMPOSSIBLE for someone to rent a unit with a "reasonable" rental fee if this is the mortgage they're carrying.
Posted by: tybur6 at August 21, 2008 1:45 PM
Mrs. Limestone, if your making over $300K a year and living in Windsor Terrace I suggest you seek psychiatric counseling immediately. Why would you not choose to live in a prime Brooklyn neighborhood like Cobble Hill instead??
Posted by: turcod at August 21, 2008 1:51 PM
(Oh, by the way, I know this is a one-family... no rental units. It was a general comment -- though it's nothing out of the ordinary to rent a whole house)
Posted by: tybur6 at August 21, 2008 1:52 PM
"there's no room for a first-time home buyer anymore"
Just you wait.
Posted by: DOW8000SP800 at August 21, 2008 1:54 PM
Turcod, because a small $1.3 million house in Windsor Terrace goes for $2.8 million in Cobble Hill/Carroll Gardens... and then even the $300k per year person is priced out of the market. :-)
$300k a year and can't afford a modest home. CRAZY!
Posted by: tybur6 at August 21, 2008 1:54 PM
tybur6 - I'm not saying there's no room for first-time home buyer anymore, but it's true that it is hard to have your first property be a house given the recent run-up (and even before). Our first property was an apartment since it did not seem to make sense to try to buy a house first thing. Actually, I think we are heading towards a market that *will* have more room for first-time buyers to get in - esp since apts are softening so much - say with a nice 2 BR in a decent neighborhood. Granted, it may take a lot of time to get the kind of appreciation we've had recently, but as one starts to earn more money, eventually the idea is that you can trade up (and possibly there are other sources of money that could come along, i.e. inheritance, etc.).
As for the other WT properties that Corcoran has on the market - I saw one (for 1.6) and even the broker admitted that it was WAY overpriced. No way will it get this price - I guess it's people trying to ride the last wave of the recent boom, but the wave has crested already...
Posted by: Miss Muffett at August 21, 2008 1:55 PM
tybur6, your absolutely correct. Its sad to see real estate prices drive away so many creative individuals trying to make it here. The culture of this city is slowly draining away. However, I guess this is the evolutionary destiny of most great cities.
Posted by: turcod at August 21, 2008 2:02 PM
tybur6 at August 21, 2008 1:45 PM is spot on.
Corcoran (of all sources) on Windsor Terrace:
Median Household Income: $38,986
Average Household Income: $49,080
Posted by: DOW8000SP800 at August 21, 2008 2:06 PM
Why do so many people assume that the "culture" and "creativity" of the city lies so much with "first time home buyers" aka young people?
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at August 21, 2008 2:09 PM
Corcoran has a section on Park Slope too:
Median Household Income: $60,125
Average Household Income: $81,345
Obviously this data is not true to form!
Posted by: WTbound at August 21, 2008 2:10 PM
I think Mrs. Limestone is right. There are plenty of couples with 'regular' jobs in Tech or Banking or Business or Consulting- office jobs- that are probably pulling in $300K/year combned and they're living in places Windsor Terrace and plenty of other Brooklyn neighborhoods that people on this block would not consider prime. I bet these 300K folks will also tell you that they don't feel rich, and that they wanted to stay in brooklyn and that this was the neighborhood they could afford.
Folks in the more prime BK neighborhoods who are actually paying mortgage are probably pulling closer to 250-300 per person per couple- front office bankers, traders, lawyers, etc...
Posted by: Park Place at August 21, 2008 2:13 PM
If you are looking to buy in this area you will find out that the same house on windsor sold for around 1.4 mil listed by warren lewis, 2 houses around howard place (same style house) sold recently for 1.35 so I don't think 1.35 is far from the selling price. If you think you can by in other "better" area then fine do it I would too - but I haven't seen a whole house for sale in those areas for less than 1.4.
As far as someone looking at this house awhile ago with family problems that was the house next door - it had a contracts for north of a mil but had never gone to closing - will issues
all of these house have extension for the kitchen
Posted by: Bette at August 21, 2008 2:14 PM
This is a nice house. It is like the waitress' house in "as good as it gets" was that the name of the Jack Nicholson movie?
Hollywood wanted to show a typical place where a nice, hardworking, waittress single-mom lived. one who, as I recall, could not get proper medical care for her little boy. They picked a block like this.
Whether it is true or not, this kind of block resonates "working class" and yet how many working class families can aford a 1.3 million dollar house? Thats's a lot of tips for a waitress.
Posted by: sam at August 21, 2008 2:16 PM
Park Place... How could you possibly "feel rich" making $300k if you have to spend $1.5 million on a house?
All the housing prices do is make rich people feel "not rich" and people with modest/middle incomes feel like their living on the brink every day. Folks with lower than modest/middle incomes... sorry, I guess you had "good run."
Everyone making less than $250k or so should move to New Jersey (but not Jersey City or Newark... think farther!) Oh, but please commute everyday a couple hours to be our policemen and firemen and garbagemen and postal workers and nurses and store clerks and middle managers and janitors and all the rest. We need you! (But don't live here.)
Posted by: tybur6 at August 21, 2008 2:23 PM
I much prefer the house from the inside (arts and crafts) as from the outside (1930's Queens).
Posted by: dittoburg at August 21, 2008 2:23 PM
Wasn't Archie Bunker's House kind of Arts and Crafts inside? That house would probably be listed for 1.9 million today.
I think they only had one terlet too.
Posted by: sam at August 21, 2008 2:29 PM
tybur - Not true, you can move to Staten island and pick up a house just like this for a much more reasonable amount.
Posted by: dittoburg at August 21, 2008 2:30 PM
Other areas in Brooklyn are lovely and everyplace has their benefits but I love this neighborhood. Im fortunate to be able to afford to live here - Im not settling. Cobble Hill and Park Slope are great but I have no desire to live there. Regardless of whether I could afford to live elswhere, Im quite happy here. I hope everyone feels the same way about where they choose to live. Whats the point of living in anywhere at any price if you feel like you're just waiting to move out to greener pastures? Seems like a very unsatisfying way to live out your life.
The idea that ALL families select Windsor Terrace as a lesser alternative is a falacy. Im sure there are many people that do that but there are just as many people who select this area because they prefer it. As anyone who lives here knows, there are a lot of advantages that people too busy holding their nose up are missing.
Posted by: Mrs. Limestone at August 21, 2008 2:31 PM
"$300k a year and can't afford a modest home."
Sure you can. It's called an apartment.
That said, the going price on these houses is $900k to $1m. This will need to come down to reflect that.
Posted by: SnarkSlope at August 21, 2008 2:31 PM
Bette - just a reminder that comps shift in a down market, as prices soften, so even if other houses sold recently for close to this amount, doesn't mean this one will sell for close, if prices are indeed starting to suffer declines that in some cases approach double digits...
Posted by: Miss Muffett at August 21, 2008 2:33 PM
I very much doubt that many of the potential buyers for Windsor Terrace housing stock are making $300k or above per family. Some are, of course, but probably not many. Let's face it, Windsor Terrace is a neighborhood for people who can't afford Park Slope but still want to be in the area. Sort of like Prospect Heights. At any given price point, if the same thing were available in the Slope proper, pretty much anyone would choose to live in the Slope. The Slope has become hugely popular over the past few years, and a lot of overflow of people who can't afford Slope prices is moving into WT and PH. Thus the incredible run-up in prices in those neighborhoods while the marginal buyers stretch themselves more and more just to live in an "almost the Slope" neighborhood.
Even in the Slope, I think there are lots of buyers in the $1 million to $1.3 million range who are making less than $300k a year and have just stretched themselves absolutely to the maximum to afford what they bought. It used to be possible to get financing for this sort of thing, but no longer, which explains a lot of the current softness in the market. All of a sudden only people who can actually afford those prices are credible buyers, and there just aren't very many of them.
I sort of feel sorry for the poeople who are now trapped in PS apartments they bought in the past couple of years with eroding equity, but I can't say they shouldn't have known better.
I have previously made my views clear on the direction of prices in the Slope. Prices will fall, and a fair amount. It will take two or three years to hit a bottom, and we won't see 2007 prices again until about 10 years from now.
Posted by: lechacal at August 21, 2008 2:45 PM
I think we will see 2007 prices in about 5 years. That is more the normal NYC cycle.
Posted by: sam at August 21, 2008 2:49 PM
Believe me, there are plenty of families in WT making 300k or more. My former boss and his wife, for one of them...
And yes, i think any potential buyer for this house (or any other property in brooklyn save a spec condo) is going to put down 30-50% cash.
But, I agree that a declining market is going to keep those people on the sidelines. Why would you make what looks like a bad bet?
As for this little charmer, it just seems like they're still 10% too high, mostly because unless your style is Country Living magazine, you're going to want to drop some dough on a cosmetic renovation. And I like WT, certainly better than most of the south slope.
Posted by: Bolder at August 21, 2008 2:49 PM
I live in this neighborhood and make well over $300k. My wife and I also looked at this house a couple weeks ago as we are in the market to buy and prefer the area to south slope due to the access to the park.
As for this house, it was listed by a broker out of Staten Island. I Don't recall the name but it wasn't Brooklyn Properties when we saw it.
The place is owned by an older couple who said they have been there over 30 years. Their Daughter and Son-in-law live in the basement (along with a couple of kids).
Although the place has some charm with original ceilings, fixtures, floors, etc.. it needs some significant work. It's also very small with no bathroom on the main floor. Bedrooms are small with hardly any closet space (in fact they were using a small bedroom as a closet).
The basement could be used as a separate rental as it has its own entrance, but it would need to be totally gutted and redone. Back deck needs some work too as the wood is starting to fall apart.
It is a bigger projeect than my wife and I would consider, especially at that price.
Posted by: Ogie Oglethorpe at August 21, 2008 2:49 PM
$1K/sq ft is in the luxury category for coops and condos. And yet here is the kind of working class house that many of us grew up in going for more than that! That is what does not make sense! And from what I have seen in my building, coop prices have not begun to soften yet (well-established coops are a better financial risk than new condos).
Posted by: BH76 at August 21, 2008 2:50 PM
A lot of home buyers get financial help from family.
Posted by: MR at August 21, 2008 2:53 PM
"I think we will see 2007 prices in about 5 years. That is more the normal NYC cycle."
So you are considering the recent run up in prices as also normal? When things overshoot on the way up, don't they tend to overshoot on the way down as well?
Posted by: SnarkSlope at August 21, 2008 2:57 PM
BH76 - ask brokers, many will tell you prices on coops/condos have indeed begun to soften. Every broker I've spoken to has said as much. Houses were doing OK in the spring, but now seem to be starting to feel the softening too...
Posted by: Miss Muffett at August 21, 2008 2:57 PM
I must admit, just looking at the picture at the top and being told that people are expecting to get 1.35 mill for this twee little place is sobering. Things did get crazy at some point.
Posted by: dittoburg at August 21, 2008 3:01 PM
among the many screwed-up features of american culture are the notions that (i) everyone should own a home, and (ii) that home should be a house. there's nothing wrong with renting, and the responsibilities (financial/emotional/sweat) of home ownership are not for everyone. i fail to understand the view that it should be easy to purchase a house in a densely-populated city. first-time buyers and yes, even young families, do just fine in apartments. in fact, most of the city's wealthiest people live in apartments. houses in nice areas are expensive because they are relatively rare.
it is regretful that the american dream has brainwashed so many into believing that an inability to own a house in new york city is some sort of tragedy.
Posted by: z at August 21, 2008 3:04 PM
I think there is more softening in the townhouse market than in the co-op market.
Posted by: sam at August 21, 2008 3:06 PM
My husband and I make 300K a year and would love to be able to afford a house in Windsor Terrace. I don't think we'll make enough from the sale of our coop to get a big down payment, though.
Posted by: wishinone at August 21, 2008 3:12 PM
Z;
There was an excellent essay in today's NY Sun which basically made the same point that you did in your post.
http://www.nysun.com/opinion/homes-haven-or-prison/84313/
Posted by: benson at August 21, 2008 3:13 PM
I perceive an anti-WT bias on this board. Perhaps I'm just sensitive to it because I live there. I'm not really sure what the problem is. Where I live is only 1 F stop past Park Slope. A few blocks from the park. Quiet and friendly. Very nice housing stock. I park right in front of my house almost every day, I circle the block looking for a space maybe once a month. A few of the folks I've met there since moving include a professional musician, a doctor, a writer with a new book out...
The restaurants? Not great. The bars? Pretty bad.
Is that really the entire quality-of-life issue? Seriously, the bars and restaurants in PS are pretty bad too.
Posted by: MR at August 21, 2008 3:14 PM
lechacal--
Hard to believe, but I can assure you there are many folks who would never live in Park Slope regardless of income.
Posted by: tinarina at August 21, 2008 3:24 PM
MR, I don't think there's an anti-WT bias - it's just that this house is overpriced. Plus, the reality is that PS is widely considered more desirable due to it being closer to the city, having more amenities, arguably nicer housing stock (though granted, South Slope is a very mixed bag). That said, as with people, it's hard to paint with a broad brush. There are blocks of WT - like Sherman - that are every bit as beautiful as some of the nicest ones in PS. There is also the school issue, since a lot of people prefer PS schools (321, 107, 39) to WT (154 and others) though of course some individuals may beg to differ. Any "market" reflects trends, but this does not mean that some people may indeed prefer WT - it's just not what the overall market reflects.
Posted by: Miss Muffett at August 21, 2008 3:26 PM
I make $500k a year and I'm struggling to survive in WT.
Posted by: turcod at August 21, 2008 3:27 PM
Yes, understood. For almost every social rule there are exceptions. But I stand by my statement that PH and WT tend to be magnets for people who want to live in the area and can't afford Slope prices.
Posted by: lechacal at August 21, 2008 3:27 PM
lechacal-
Probably in about the same proportion to the people who want to live in Manhattan but settle for PS.
Posted by: MR at August 21, 2008 3:31 PM
turcod, are you being serious? Do you have a few kids in private school or something? I think the salary numbers that people are throwing around are not representative of the median family incomes for either PS or WT. I think there is a decent amount of trust fund money and other wealth in the Slope, but I don't think there are a ton of highly paid professionals (some, of course, but not too many in the range you just mentioned).
Posted by: lechacal at August 21, 2008 3:32 PM
MR - Sure, to a point, but I think the Slope has its own attractions apart from affordability that distinguishes it from Manhattan. The same isn't really the case for WT and PH.
Posted by: lechacal at August 21, 2008 3:35 PM
lechacal, turcod is joking/lying -- see his prior comments in this thread.
Posted by: z at August 21, 2008 3:36 PM
...meaning of course that WT and PH don't have a lot of attractions that distinguish them from PS. I think they are better viewed as more affordable versions of PS without the good schools. PS isn't just a more affordable version of Manhattan - it really is different.
Posted by: lechacal at August 21, 2008 3:38 PM
Z - got it (averting eyes, blushing).
Posted by: lechacal at August 21, 2008 3:40 PM
The parking in PS is diabolical. WT must have an advantage there. Based on Benson's time cost theory from the food co-op thread, most car owners spend about 300-500 bucks a day just trying to find a slot.
Posted by: dittoburg at August 21, 2008 3:40 PM
lechacal-
Like what?
I don't know much about PH, but I've lived in PS and WT. The big attraction in those areas is the park in my opinion. There are certainly more restaurants in PS, but there isn't a single one that I actually miss. I miss a lot of the ones from Carroll Gardens, where I also have lived. But are we really talking about restaurants, bars, shops? Is that what you're talking about? I'm not being snarky, I really want to know.
Posted by: MR at August 21, 2008 3:44 PM
MR - Of the three (PS, WT, PH), I think PS has the highest concentration of services, restaurants, bars, good schools, etc. They are all close to the park (although I really don't like having to navigate GAP from PH). I guess I just view PS as the primary neighborhood of interest these days and I think it is accurate to say that, at the same price point, most people would choose PS over the other two. If I'm wrong it's not the first time and won't be the last.
Posted by: lechacal at August 21, 2008 3:50 PM
Can you get lobster rolls in WT?
Posted by: dittoburg at August 21, 2008 3:52 PM
Dittoburg;
I think in this case, the money spent through time looking for parking is going to be peanuts compared to the loss of equity in the coming correction!
Posted by: benson at August 21, 2008 3:54 PM
lechacal-
You are probably right for a majority of people. But I also think a majority of people, if they could take their PS living quarters as is (floor-through, duplex, brownstone whatever) and move it in it's entirety to any area of Manhattan they would.
The real question is about the relative pricing. Is it worth the premium the market makes you pay in PS? I don't think so. I think the amenities of PS are vastly over-rated. That includes the restaurants and schools.
As for me, I'd take my location in WT over Manhattan or any part of PS that's below 8th ave. Leaving resale price aside, of course.
Posted by: MR at August 21, 2008 4:09 PM
PS has a combo of elements -- none of which alone makes it THAT much better than PH or WT but taken together add up. In my opinion they are:
- Number and variety of restaurants and bars. Sometimes it is not just about absolute quality but the ability to have 10 different kinds of cuisine in easy distance.
- Proximity to park
- Proximity to transportation / Manhattan
- Number and variety of other services (hardware, drug stores, grocery/delis, watch repair, shoe repair, coffee shops, kids classes, yoga/pilates/gyms, etc)
- Quality of schools
- Quantity and quality of architecture
- Lots of tree lines, pretty streets
- probably other things I am not even thinking of
It's not that PS is hugely better in every one of these areas but being a little better many of them makes it potentially a better neighborhood overall.
That said, for any individual, depending on whether these things matter in your personal life you either consider PS better or not.
Posted by: pmmtenement at August 21, 2008 4:22 PM
Why does everything have to be a comparison of who's got more? It's gotta be obvious each area appeals to residents for its own reasons so why make it a face off contest between one neighborhood or another? It's insulting to people who actually like Windsor Terrace & Prospect Heights. Different strokes for different folks.
Posted by: lurker in the mist at August 21, 2008 4:41 PM
MR -- WT is pleasant but for a working couple w/ or w/o kids, the inability to pick things up on the way home from the subway (whatever it is you want), at any time, is a quality of life issue. There just isn't enough time in the day. When we looked in WT years ago, it was still full of the old single earner households(teachers, fire/police, city workers, etc.) who worked regular hours and had a spouse at home during the day with the kids. Normal in that fifties way. It just couldn't work for us.
Posted by: BH76 at August 21, 2008 4:44 PM
"When we looked in WT years ago, it was still full of the old single earner households(teachers, fire/police, city workers, etc.) who worked regular hours and had a spouse at home during the day with the kids."
Luckily those folks have decided to sell their places for $1.5 million or more and made the area uninhabitable by teachers, fire/police, city workers, etc.
They're in Jersey and Long Island now... commuting. Oh, I guess I made that point already. :-)
Posted by: tybur6 at August 21, 2008 4:49 PM
Here's my personal take on your list:
-Number and variety of restaurants and bars. Sometimes it is not just about absolute quality but the ability to have 10 different kinds of cuisine in easy distance
Point conceded, although the ratio of bad restaurants in PS is as high as anywhere I've ever lived. The actual number of decent restaurants in PS is fairly low. WT dining sucks (thank goodness for delivery).
- Proximity to park
PS not better than WT
- Proximity to transportation / Manhattan
PS worse than WT (one extra subway stop to Manhattan vs most of WT being closer walk to the actual stop)
- Number and variety of other services (hardware, drug stores, grocery/delis, watch repair, shoe repair, coffee shops, kids classes, yoga/pilates/gyms, etc)
PS marginally better than WT. WT & PS have drug store, deli, shoe repair, coffee shop. Kid classes, yoga, are in nearby SouthSlope. Gym situation much better in PS. Co-op in PS. Butcher in WT. Fish store in PS. Movie theater in WT. Grocery store in WT (not in some parts of PS).
- Quality of schools
PS Overcrowded.
- Quantity and quality of architecture
Slight advantage PS
- Lots of tree lines, pretty streets
Advantage WT. Seriously. Have you been to Sherman, Windsor, and 16th st?
- probably other things I am not even thinking of
People in PS say this a lot.
Look, PS is nice. Sounds like you live there and like it. You should. There are other great things about other hoods too. I think folks on this board tend to downgrade areas that they don't know anything about.
Posted by: MR at August 21, 2008 4:52 PM
Park Slope is just a more a beautiful neighborhood than Windsor Terrace. It is more affluent and it has better subway access. There is nothing wrong with Windsor Terace it just does not have the beauty and sophistication of Park Slope.
Posted by: sam at August 21, 2008 5:08 PM
If a big bird picked up my Clinton Hill brownstone and put it Manhattan... I would sell it, take the cash and move back to FG or CH. I like PS but if a large bird dropped my house in PS, again, I'd be grateful for the slight uptick, cash out and move back to where I actually want to live.
There will be plenty of people that feel this way about WT.
Posted by: Aussie at August 21, 2008 5:09 PM
Is PS really that much better that it is worth paying double a house in WT? I mean, can't bars and restaurants open up in WT?
Posted by: A Guest at August 21, 2008 5:12 PM
slopejacked
Posted by: dittoburg at August 21, 2008 5:32 PM
Wow, I can't help reacting to Lechacal's vapidity!
"Let's face it, Windsor Terrace is a neighborhood for people who can't afford Park Slope but still want to be in the area. Sort of like Prospect Heights. At any given price point, if the same thing were available in the Slope proper, pretty much anyone would choose to live in the Slope" -lechacal
While Park Slope is lovely, I think it is this sort of ignorance that people choose not to live there. Not everyone is a lemming and not everyone prefers a "TONY" neighborhood. I would take budding PH over PS any day. I like being on the pulse of things and would rather not be run over by those angry rule-bound stroller mommies!!
Posted by: treehouse at August 21, 2008 5:49 PM
strollerjacked!
Posted by: 11233 at August 21, 2008 5:58 PM
I lived in WT. The people were incredible friendly; neighbors would get off their stoops to help one another with heavy lifting or groceries. In the end I moved because i couldn't look them in the face knowing I was part of the problem, paying $3600 in rent and helping to drive out local family businesses.
I'm 25 and under the impression that's young for this board... but Park Slope has a serious negative stigma. It's decidedly uncool and full of uncool people. It's all very 2005.
Posted by: claudegueux at August 21, 2008 6:51 PM
Claude... let me react with the typical response found on this board.
$3600/mo rent?! That sounds VERY reasonable. After all, that's what the market set as the going rate. In fact, how did you possibly find such a CHEAP apartment? I pay $7300 /mo plus $2300 maintenance for my co-op in Brooklyn Heights. This is a very good example how it's possible to rent an affordable home. Not sure what the problem is. Could you give me your old landlord's number so I can get this place as a second home in case I have out-of-town guests?
ya see... on this board, it's perfectly acceptable to refer to annual rent, mortgages and maintenance fees that exceed the average person's salary as "affordable" "reasonable" "in-line with the market" and "a steal!" ok, that last one is an exaggeration. :-)
Posted by: tybur6 at August 21, 2008 7:04 PM
Just looking around Brooklyn and seeing what kind of house you can get elsewhere for that money makes Windsor Terrace unsustainable. A similar house can be had in Ridgewood for $500K. It's the same kind of neighborhood. For $1MM you could live in Ditmas, or that great house on Lincoln Road in PLG that you all hated. You could get a real limestone in Sunset Park or Bensonhurst. You could get a mansion in St George. You could move to Hudson Heights... so many better options.
I'm not knocking Windsor Terrace, I think it's cute. But the prices are absurd.
Posted by: Heather at August 21, 2008 7:22 PM
We must adopt claudegueux! (did you really move because of that?)
I've never lived in WT but I think it's utterly charming and a neighborhood I would much prefer living in to PS. Nothing against PS- before it was discovered by the trendy set I loved it. It had a cool, bohemian artsy vibe that just isn't there any more.
There's no need to denigrate a neighborhood you didn't choose to live in. "Better" is relative. PS offers more of what you personally want, fine. Nothing wrong with that. You don't need to argue the point by dissing WT or PH. WT and PH works for others.
Posted by: east river at August 21, 2008 7:32 PM
Dittoburg:
No but you can get a Lobster Roll in Red Hook. Even been to Fairway?
Posted by: BrooklynIsHome at August 21, 2008 8:35 PM
Yes, that was largely why we moved. to a block in boerum hill where we probably have the lowest income.
tybur: i was addressing the normative comparisons between the two 'hoods, not whether this board's methodology for evaluating a property was reasonable. your out-of-town guests can sleep on my pull-out sofa.
Posted by: claudegueux at August 21, 2008 9:01 PM
I have lived in WT my whole live (except for college in Boston) and I think it is crazy that people are spending these kind of prices on these houses but that being said I think it may go close to asking.
Although these houses are on the small side I think they are very charming...some more than others. As someone previously posted a number of homes on fuller and howard have sold recently for 1.3-1.5 range.
And to agree with Mrs.Limestone I like the green sofa!
Just to weigh in on the PS/WT debate.... I know that when I was growing up people didnt even know where WT was... I would have to explain that we were between PS and Kensington - but this was before South Slope, Greenwood Heights and other neighborhood names existed. I think that the reason people know where WT is now is because it has been marketed and described by NY times and others as a less expensive alternative to PS.
In the end each neighborhood has its charms....I personally grew up and now recently bought my own home in the southern part of WT. I have a detached frame 2 family with a driveway and garage... my parents 1 fam is detached with a long driveway and 2 car garage.... these things are not possible (or very very rare in PS).
It comes down to that most of WT was built for lower income farmer families in the late 1800s (at least the detached homes that I have lived in) and PS was built for a much more affulent group of families but this means you can find larger lots in WT (expecially southern WT)...some with detached garages!
I feel like when I am in my parents back yard that I am not in the city at all....that is a positive for me - but it maynot be so for everyone....I think it is worth the drive or long walk to keyfood or church ave to pick up essentials...but that is just my humble opinion.
Posted by: katiem633 at August 22, 2008 7:26 AM
Totally agree with many of the posts that most people live where they want to and enjoy the aspects of their nabe which are important to them. Pricier nabes are usally pricy for a reason, like proximity to Manhattan and proximity to other people with whom people identify or want to identify. But plenty of people don't live in the most expensive places their money could buy. If you're bashing other people's preferences it comes off like you are trying to convince yourself you made the right choice.
Posted by: jawbreaker at August 22, 2008 9:18 AM
Nice post katie. Whether or not the house makes financial sense, the comparisons and elitist attitudes re WT are a downer. At least we didn't have gary cooper calling WT residents losers because they may have to walk up a whole 5 steps to the porch.
I love WT and wish I had the bucks to buy this lovely little house. I'd pick it over PS anyday, because it appeals more to me for a variety of reasons and not because it's better than PS (or any other neighborhood). Just because it's different.
Besides- it ain't that hard to get to PS or Smith St.to shop or eat. But when I'm home, I want a quiet neighborhood, a roomy space, and a different way of living that doesn't include being trendy, frenetic and desperate to show prove cool my neighborhood supposedly is.
Posted by: lurker in the mist at August 22, 2008 9:22 AM
It's only a downer if you care what other people think.
Posted by: jawbreaker at August 22, 2008 9:24 AM
Discussions about neighborhoods always end up being so defensive which is a shame. Clearly, each person may feel differently about different areas, and they all have their pros (and cons). But there's a reason in real estate that one says "location, location, location". Crown Heights has gorgeous homes, and many love the community, but for a variety of reasons (one can debate endlessly whether they are just or not), the marketplace reflects that that neighborhood is, for many people, less desirable than say Fort Greene. Since this blog often is to discuss the merits of a house *relative to* its price (maybe the HOTD should have a subtitle "It's the price, stupid"), I think it's fair to talk about the value of a neighborhood relative to overall market dynamics. One could also talk about fashion in the same way - is a $200 pair of jeans from a fancy designer really better than a $50 pair of Levis? Many would say not, but it's about a marketplace that has a lot of complex factors. Anyway, I like WT just fine, and this house has its charm, but I still think it's way overpriced.
Posted by: Miss Muffett at August 22, 2008 9:57 AM
Can I agree with Lurker AND jawbreaker at the same time?
Perceptions, erroneous or otherwise do affect us. People reading the blog want to know about neighborhoods and far too many posters write about places they've never lived, let alone set foot in. And that's fine except for insisting people see WT as a make do option for those who can't afford Park Slope. Judging from the posts there's ample evidence that those who live in WT love it and want to live there, not in Park Slope.
I take what people write here at face value. Why would I not believe you if you say you prefer WT to PS? Should I insist you couldn't possibly like it more than PS because I like PS better?
Posted by: east river at August 22, 2008 10:08 AM
Mis Muffett- you are correct of course. What I dislike so much in these discussions is the argument that someone couldn't possibly want to live in WT (or Crown Heights or Bed-Stuy or PLG...)instead of Park Slope. That's the part that pushes my buttons.
"Let's face it, Windsor Terrace is a neighborhood for people who can't afford Park Slope but still want to be in the area. Sort of like Prospect Heights. At any given price point, if the same thing were available in the Slope proper, pretty much anyone would choose to live in the Slope"
Grrrrr.I wouldn't dream of telling anyone they're an elitist fool spending that much money to live in Park Slope.If my preference is WT that should be respected. I don't even live in WT, but similar things are said about my neighborhood.
That said, prices in NYC for housing are over the top everywhere (I think this is where What will jump in).
Posted by: east river at August 22, 2008 10:45 AM
"Turcod, because a small $1.3 million house in Windsor Terrace goes for $2.8 million in Cobble Hill/Carroll Gardens... and then even the $300k per year person is priced out of the market."
As somebody pointed out which seems to have been missed in the WT vs. PS squabbling, this house is 1,292 square feet.
So actually yes, you can buy a 1,292 square foot house in PS/Cobble Hill/Carroll Gardens for less than $1.5 million. Park Slope isn't more than $1K per square foot these days, is it? The problem is not price but that you can't find a house that small there. The houses in Park Slope are $2.8 million because they're large, 3-story and 4-story brownstones. Of course they cost more.
Posted by: traditionalmod at August 22, 2008 11:09 AM
I am a 4th generation WT lady. I didn't grow up in WT but I live here now and am keeping the family name alive. I love WT and love it more than PS b/c it has that small, local community feel. We all have block parties and talk to one another and I just think it's a much more communal feel than PS.
As I always say to people about WT - you have everything you need to live your life in PPW, but you can walk 5 blocks to PS and buy yourself a $4 cupcake, it's the best of both worlds.
Posted by: bloomie at August 22, 2008 2:21 PM
Wow, you could get the same house in Bay Ridge for 7-800K, do your own customizing for about 50-75K and have home that is much nicer than this.
Posted by: premadas at August 24, 2008 2:36 PM
Latest Restaurant Additions
-
Le Toukouleur
added January 8, 2009 12:00 PM in Bedford Stuyvesant -
Hibino
added January 7, 2009 12:00 PM in Cobble Hill -
James
added January 6, 2009 12:00 PM in Prospect Heights -
Abistro
added January 5, 2009 12:00 PM in Fort Greene -
Wing Wagon
added December 30, 2008 12:00 PM in Prospect Heights -
Babouche
added December 29, 2008 12:00 PM in Park Slope -
La Maison du Couscous
added December 23, 2008 12:00 PM in Bay Ridge -
Sotto Voce
added December 22, 2008 12:00 PM in Park Slope -
Pedro's
added December 19, 2008 12:00 PM in Dumbo -
The Moxie Spot
added December 18, 2008 12:00 PM in Brooklyn Heights
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.