Open House Picks

The price on that Dean street house is just silly given that it's basically only 2 stories high and the location is far from ideal. The layout is very awkward. I'd be surprised if they even got 1 mil for this place.

Posted by: Miss Muffett at October 31, 2008 2:06 PM

How much would it take to renovate St. James? My back of the napkin calculation is 500K minimum since it seems it's basically a wreck (they repeat "estate condition" several times) with some detail that is expensive to restore. Location also is not great. Given the more pronounced softening of market in more fringe areas, I suspect this price is too high.

Posted by: Miss Muffett at October 31, 2008 2:16 PM

Boerum Hill - 7 years ago, 4-story 20' wide brownstones in prime park slope were selling for $999 (I know friends who purchased these). 7 years may feel like an eternity now, given the unprecedented price rises of these years, but really, that house on Dean street is very modest to say the least. If we had a correction that brought us to, say 2004 levels, which is *not* that extreme, I could easily see it selling for 1 million or even far less. I think a lot of sellers/brokers are in total denial that such a correction could happen but it's happened before and under far less severe economic circumstances than we're facing now, so why couldn't it happen now? I think it easily could.

Posted by: Miss Muffett at October 31, 2008 9:50 PM

Or, Knickerbocker, maybe you should buy in 2010. Perhaps houses won't on that block won't be 325K, but I would not be surprised if they were closer to 1 million.

Posted by: Miss Muffett at October 31, 2008 9:51 PM

Oh please traditionalmod, I probably wouldn't buy that Dean Street house regardless of price - we don't like it. And you flatter me if you think I have any power to "panic sellers" - how on earth can I, an anonymous individual on a blog, possibly do that? That's just silly. I don't need to panic anyone anyway - as the stock market has been showing us, there's plenty of panic around already. And I agree that Brooklyn may have gotten nicer in the last few years, but not as much as the price increases would suggest. Believe me, I've lived here for years, saw our last place more than double in price and believe me, things had not changed **that** much (and actually, many people now worry about the Atlantic Yards effect on much of "prime" Brooklyn, more croweded schools, etc.). Say whatever you want, but you sound to me like you're just in denial and can't stand when I assert that a significant correction seems highly likely, if not inevitable. I'm happy to rent for several years if need be, since the cost of our rent will be more than made up for the savings on the houses we're seeing already getting price cuts - which are just beginning.

Posted by: Miss Muffett at November 2, 2008 7:24 PM

"Why are you comparing this market to 2004? Demand for historic Brooklyn houses have only gotten higher and the typical buyer more wealthy since 2004. Appeal of the suburbs has decreased further. Amenities have WAY improved on many streets in Park Slope including those around the Dean Street house. 5th Avenue is night and day it's so different. Schools have continued to improve. You often compare two completely different markets in different eras or years"

Again, Traditionalmod - to suggest that the market in 2008 is that different from 2004 seems a bit disingenuous to me. Fifth Ave has been improving for many years so it's not like the difference in 4 years warrants price doubles in real estate. The typical buyer of late may have been more wealthy but in many cases, that wealth was on paper - either stocks or real estate, and stocks have already gone down, and real estate is going down, so that wealth is evaporating. Add to that growing job insecurity and I bet you many potential buyers do not feel anywhere near as "wealthy" as they have in recent years. I also think there may be significant anxiety about the direction of NYC in the years to come as budget cuts take their toll, and I can tell you from experience that there is a lot of concern about school crowding, overdevelopment, etc. The thing that is craziest about your line of attack is that you suggest that what I'm talking about is so radical and it really is not - what was radical was the double-digit price climbs, year after year, of the last few years. This is typical bubble behavior, and bubbles, as we are seeing now, DO burst. Sure, the Dean Street sellers may not want to sell at 999K and maybe they won't have to right now, but an identical house this time next year may indeed have to - and furthermore, that would still be a decent price since chances are the people who bought these houses paid MUCH less, and will still be making a tidy profit.

You twist my words when you say I am "desperate to buy within next 6 months" - that is totally untrue. If anything, I am settling more comfortably into my very modestly priced, nice rental (yes, there are plenty that DO exist, even in prime areas). What I've said is that we are not "waiting" for the bottom - since, if we see a house we love, and we can afford it, we will buy it, even if the price has a bit more to go downwards, since we intend to stay for life in our next home. That said, we're not stupid, and we simply refuse to pay an astronomical price when the market is clearly moving in our favor. As I've said before, many of the houses we've looked at subsequently had price cuts of well over 100K (and this, before the real financial meltdown began) so why on earth would we pay, say 1.5 mil for something that will probably be at least 100-200K less next year, if not more? The discounts are just beginning.

Folks like you seem to have amnesia - don't forget that in the last NYC real estate bubble/crash (late 80s/early 90s), prices went down a LOT, and took many years to recover.

Posted by: Miss Muffett at November 2, 2008 8:57 PM

Boroughbred - I'm NOT talking about Nevins Street, I'm talking about Dean St house. So, if you think a 2million house could credibly sell for 1.7 (which has been happening), then why is a house asking about 1.5 selling for 1million so insane? You say "no one is going to sell at a loss" and that is precisely what is happening all around the country. I also don't care what others say, since the market will speak for itself, but what it is currently saying is that properties that are priced too high linger, and then suffer price cuts.

Posted by: Miss Muffett at November 2, 2008 10:16 PM

Woops, correction - the Dean street house is "only" asking 1.425, (so significantly under 1.5) so I don't think 1 million is as crazy as you suggest.

Posted by: Miss Muffett at November 2, 2008 10:17 PM