« Brooklyn's Own Tiny House Movement Open House Picks: Six Months Later »

October 17, 2008

A Couple of House Sales

Here are two sales worth mentioning: The 2,100-square-foot house at 469 Sackett Street closed on September 26 for an mansion-tax-avoiding price of $999,999; the awning was thrown in for free. Over in Victorian Flatbush, the Mary Kay-listed tudor house at 340 Marlborough Road (featured as an Open House Pick in August) closed for $1,190,000 recently after just one week on the market; the asking price had been $1,250,000. Reasons to cheer or data from another era?

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/6734

Comments

whether you cheer or not is matter of perspective. You want to buy cheer if prices come down - if want to sell cheer if prices up.
$999k is cheap price for Sackett St - those size houses in such condition have been selling for like $1.2m.
And it is 'mansion' tax avoided by getting for under $1 not estate tax.

Posted by: Petebklyn at October 17, 2008 11:58 AM

"mansion-tax-avoiding price of $999,999". Funny line.

Posted by: Biff Champion at October 17, 2008 12:27 PM

Am I crazy or does the Marlborough house seem like a bargain?

Posted by: Back40 at October 17, 2008 12:29 PM

It is a bargain if compared to prices six months to one year ago. This house on Marlborough was only the market for one week. The writing was already on the wall when this house was put up for sale so it appears as though the sellers took the first reasonable offer. Smart move on their behalf. Great deal for the buyers.

Posted by: Chaka at October 17, 2008 1:34 PM

The Marlborough house has killer curb appeal, but its' proximity to busy Cortelyou and the train noise from across the street probably reflected in the price.

Posted by: manofelt at October 17, 2008 1:51 PM

Rumor has it that it was an all cash offer. I know the husband works in the financial sector, so maybe he could see the writing on the wall. Also heard that the owners priced the house higher than their true "ask", assuming they would be low-balled in this market. Guess the plan worked.

Manofelt, I live in the neighorhood, and I have to disagree with your repeated stance that the train noise is loud, Cortelyou is too close, etc... I don't think, for most other buyers or residents that this would be an issue with this house. The train noise is hardly - if at all- disturbing - on that side of Marlborough and being close to Cortelyou (without being actually on it) is usually considered a big plus. Obviously not to you, but I really don't think that's the reason this house sold below ask. I think the real reason might be that a) the house is smaller than the majority of other homes in the neighborhood b) the owners were motivated c) and they were offered cash (if that's true).

BTW, have you found your dream home yet? It's your market, afterall.

Posted by: Architerrorist at October 17, 2008 2:07 PM

Wow, that Sackett price does, to me, signal a shift in the market since we've seen several similarly-sized houses on that block over the past year that were all priced 1.3+.

Posted by: Miss Muffett at October 17, 2008 2:18 PM

Oh, and the Sackett houses I'm talking about all needed lots of work (as I assume this one does)...

Posted by: Miss Muffett at October 17, 2008 2:18 PM

miss muffett - how do you know that sackett wasn't "priced" at $1.3? and do you know what the ones you saw sold for? remember, it's the closing prices that matter, not the asks, when talking about market shifts.

anecdotally, when we were looking in late 2006/early 2007, those places were asking $1.1 max. and i don't know what they sold for, since once we had one look at that depressing neighborhood we put it out of our minds entirely.

Posted by: i disagree at October 17, 2008 2:26 PM

I Disagree - I actually did not go back to look at the sales prices for Sackett, since I, like you, decided I didn't like the hood that much, so have not bothered to track closing prices there. And sure, I suppose this house may have hit the market at 1.3, but if that's the case, the closing price is very far from ask, and that still indicates a shift in the market - those kinds of gaps between ask/close just didn't happen in the boom, or only very rarely.

Posted by: Miss Muffett at October 17, 2008 2:33 PM

So true Architerrorist. As I posted in today's thread about Ditmas Park the local train doesn't even pick up much speed with the stations being only one block from each other and although you can hear the express rumbling through, I wouldn't see it as a deal breaker. Being close to Cortelyou is a definite advantage. It has become the main street so-to-speak.

Posted by: Chaka at October 17, 2008 2:36 PM

manofeit... you're nuts. the train is below grade and behind the houses on the OTHER side of the street. And cortelyou would be almost non-existent from this house... it's the 4th house in. (not that cortelyou is even that noisy)

Posted by: tybur6 at October 17, 2008 2:37 PM

the past year hasn't really been "the boom," since prices have softening for a while now, but i know what you mean.

also, from our friend google: "Property at 469 Sackett Street transferred ownership on May 6, 2008, according to records from the New York Department of Finance. Records show this transaction had no cash consideration, which may indicate a transfer of ownership from parents to children, or another such cashless transaction." wonder what's up there.

Posted by: i disagree at October 17, 2008 2:37 PM

Actually I Disagree, we've been looking at stuff for several years now, so we might have seen Sackett stuff earlier, so probably during the "boom", depending on how you define it. And I know people say prices have been softening for a long time now, but while we did start to notice it happening here and there in 2007, most prices still stayed very very high in prime areas, and up until very recently have remained very high. It's only very recently that we've started to see real price cuts on the more outrageously priced places...

Posted by: Miss Muffett at October 17, 2008 2:45 PM

To put things in perspective, I looked at a house on Sackett in 2003 that sold for $750K.

Posted by: Boerum Hill at October 17, 2008 2:53 PM

I dunno, I stood in front of the house and heard the train clearly.

I came back a few days later to see if it was a fluke--it wasn't.

One caveat, I do not want to give the impression that it is super loud, a la the Blues Brothers apartment. But it is noticeable and for a million plus bucks I don't want to hear it.

Posted by: manofelt at October 17, 2008 3:04 PM

Boerum Hill - this is exactly why I think we're due for a correction since prices shot up so high, so fast. For prices to shoot up from 750K to 1.3+ (practically double) in 3-4 years is not sustainable. Even if those 1.3 houses went back to the 900s it would mean that prices had still had a healthy rise overall, removing the craziness of, say 2003-06. I'm not saying the correction will happen overnight and no one knows the extent of what will happen period, but clearly, prices had an unbelievable rise for a few years there!

Posted by: Miss Muffett at October 17, 2008 3:12 PM

For a million dollars plus some people wouldn't want to have their house attached to their neighbors house, or have a back yard the size of a small bedroom. I guess it is a matter of different strokes for different folks.

Posted by: Chaka at October 17, 2008 3:22 PM

"For a million dollars plus some people wouldn't want to have their house attached to their neighbors house"

Tell that to everyone who owns a brownstone in Brooklyn Heights, Park Slope, Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens, etc. etc.

Posted by: Biff Champion at October 17, 2008 3:30 PM

Not meant to offend, Manofelt, but I seriously think you should start thinking about looking at houses in the 'burbs. A true New Yorker would adore the fact that the subway is a hop, skip and a jump and that restaurants, supermarkets and Duane Reade are in spitting distance. Although none of it is actually on your doorstop.

You still haven't answered my question... what about that dream house?

Posted by: Architerrorist at October 17, 2008 3:58 PM

Biff, that's Chaka's point. One person's negative is another's positive. At least in this case.

Posted by: Architerrorist at October 17, 2008 4:01 PM

Biff, I think that was her point.

Posted by: Back40 at October 17, 2008 4:02 PM

That was precisely my point Biff. There are far more people willing to pay over a million for homes with what I would perceive as minor incoveniences in order to live in our wonderful city.

Posted by: Chaka at October 17, 2008 4:02 PM

MKG sold a house during the previous year's boom on that side of Marlborough for around 1.4, btw.

Posted by: Architerrorist at October 17, 2008 4:02 PM

Chaka, apologies and thanks Architerrorist and Back40 for slapping sense in me. Mea culpa, the head's still slightly fuzzy from last night. Slower than usual today.

Posted by: Biff Champion at October 17, 2008 4:09 PM

re sackett: the recent cashless transfer plus mansion-tax-avoidance-pricing of this sale suggest to me that this sale may not have been an arm's length transaction. doesn't necessarily mean the price is out of whack, but i think you'd need more to say this is representative.

i don't think anyone's doubting that we're due for a correction. but when talking about what kind of prices might be reasonable to settle down into, you can't just assume stasis of intrinsic values. lots of homes were renovated during the bubble, lots of neighborhoods were improved. not just in our perception of them but in actual services and urban landscape, because homeowners worked directly to enhance them and in some cases got the city to do the same. i'm talking about things like better schools, playgrounds, street trees, planted medians, etc. other amenities (restaurants, cafes, wine shops, bakeries) that appeal to homeowners have improved as well. obviously, with less cash floating around, this might not all be permanent, but some of it will be.

haters of the gentry, please note that i'm not trying to say the "new" people in the neighborhood are responsible for this, or that they're any better than whoever was living there before.

Posted by: i disagree at October 17, 2008 4:41 PM

Oh Architerrorist, you and your taunts. No house yet, but don't worry I have time.

Are either of the houses beside yours for sale?

Posted by: manofelt at October 17, 2008 6:17 PM

Depends... What's your budget ;)

Posted by: Architerrorist at October 17, 2008 6:34 PM

Seriously, though, Manofelt, what about:

http://www.marykayg.com/html/0531.html

Posted by: Architerrorist at October 17, 2008 6:44 PM

Maybe because I saw it pre renovation, I just didn't like it. The reno quality is not great.

Evidently, others agree--it doesn't seem to have much action on it.

You'll say I'm too picky, but I'm in no rush--and so far I'm glad I've held off.

Posted by: manofelt at October 17, 2008 7:35 PM

For 1.2m I expect someone from Mary-kay's office to blow me also.

Posted by: Xander Crews at October 17, 2008 8:04 PM

$1 mil is worth a LOT more than it did 6 months ago. Relatively speaking, these bk house prices are not even close to the value of the new "dollar"...

Posted by: cornerbodega at October 17, 2008 8:44 PM

I have not seen the new kitchen in that house, either, Manofelt, although if I remember correctly there was no kitchen and they had to start from scratch.

I will say this -

That house will go for a relative song... And it has much more third story living space than the Tudor, even with all it's curb appeal. It's a lot of house for the money. And nary a subway train or a school in sight.

No, not a broker...

Posted by: Architerrorist at October 18, 2008 11:38 AM

« Brooklyn's Own Tiny House Movement Open House Picks: Six Months Later »

October 17, 2008

A Couple of House Sales

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions