House of the Day: 69 St. James Place

Honestly....I think the house looks beautiful and the location is ok...(not great, but fine) and I think the price still seems very, very high.

It's not that I've totally changed my tune and think prices are going to completely tank, but I do believe that prices in these fringe areas are still way out of whack. I just don't think this location warrants these kind of prices.

I think someone would rather buy a smaller place in a more prime area than spend this amount of money for a house in an ok location.

My guess...1.6

Posted by: 11217 at January 5, 2009 1:28 PM

Looks like a beautiful house, and I really like the location. It says it's a legal 2 family but currently configured as a one family. If this were configured as a 2 family with an upper triplex and garden rental, with a deck to the back garden off the garden floor, it probably would have sold already. At this price, I think it looks very attractive, but we'll see.

Posted by: 1842 at January 5, 2009 1:29 PM

11217, I don't think this is a "fringe" location at all, but hey, that's me. I agree with your overall reasoning, but don't agree with your assessment of this location.

Posted by: 1842 at January 5, 2009 1:32 PM

It's not that I'm down on Clinton Hill at all, but I do believe it has perceived and very real "fringe" location aspects to it. I also think that living in a neighborhood makes you a bit blind to some of those things. In my case, also...

I think that 1.75 million for a house not close to GOOD transportation to Manhattan and multiple blocks to many basic services does make it a bit fringe-like. That's not to say bad, but just a bit off the beaten path.

Just my personal opinion. Although I love Brooklyn and wouldn't want to live in Manhattan again, I do enjoy feeling connected to it...both physically and in terms of the urban qualities that Manhattan life (and some Brooklyn neighborhoods) affords...shops, restaurants, dry cleaners, bars, a gym, grocery stores all within spitting distance.

This home is close to the great things in Ft. Greene, but it's not in Ft. Greene. I think it's priced as if it is.

Posted by: 11217 at January 5, 2009 1:49 PM

I also think the term "fringe" needs to once again be readjusted now in these new times.

2 years ago, anything went in terms of fringe because people were so eager to grab up property as if it were a fire sale.

Today, I believe the fringe has moved closer. There are people who once again consider Bed Stuy, Clinton Hill, Crown Heights, Bushwick etc. fringe. It's all relative and now that I say it, it's actually a horrible term since everything could be considered fringe to someone else. Park Slope is still fringe for many Manhattanites.

But you see what I'm saying, I hope.

I think the borders of what we consider "fringe" in Brownstone Brooklyn have closed in a bit, just as prices have.

Maybe not in your mind, but in the mind of potential buyers...

When you can get a house in Park Slope for 2 million now, the pool of buyers wanting to pay 1.75 million for one in Clinton Hill becomes smaller. And this is not AT ALL meant to start a neighborhood war. I realize that tons of people would not want to live in Park Slope, even if they gave away houses, but just using that as an example because it's what I know best...

Posted by: 11217 at January 5, 2009 1:55 PM

You used the term marginal, donatella...and I absolutely agree that the word marginal does not fit Clinton Hill.

I suppose in my mind I equate "fringe" with the fact that more often than not, it's a neighborhood which is not a destination neighborhood.

By that I mean...I don't hear people saying...I'm DYING to live in Clinton Hill. I hear them say they want to live in Carroll Gardens, Cobble Hill, Park Slope, Ft. Greene, and when they realize how expensive those places are, they expand their search to places like Clinton Hill.

To me, that makes in fringe, but I'll quit it. The house is stunning and not everyone feels like I do, clearly.

Posted by: 11217 at January 5, 2009 2:09 PM

Agree that prices will drop across the board, but the fact of the matter is that places like Clinton Hill and Crown Heights appreciated over the last decade in part because of a seeming built in price increase for gentrification that has yet to be seen.

The fact that houses in Crown Heights ask 1.3 million is obscene. Especially when 10 years ago they were selling for 300K. Crown Heights (most of it) is not a 1.3 million dollar house neighborhood. It's wonderful, it has glorious architecture in parts, but I simply don't think it's worth that kind of money...YET.

10 years ago, a nice house in Park Slope cost over a million dollars and it was already a flourishing and vibrant neighborhood. The price increases in the more "prime" neighborhoods don't seem to have appreciated at the rate that the fringe locations did in my opinion.

And they were appreciating based on a perceived future gentrification that now seems to be standing still or possibly even moving backwards as we move forward. People bought homes for 2 million dollars in these areas because they thought Myrtle was going to be just like Smith Street in a couple years.

As things were going, maybe they would have. But Franklin Avenue is not going to be anything like 5th Avenue anytime soon, and I believe the newer arrivals are not thrilled about it.

(And yes, I realize some don't want anything to replicate Smith or 5th, but again I'm making generalizations and using examples I'm familiar with).

Posted by: 11217 at January 5, 2009 2:24 PM

You're kidding, right? (C and G are as close as you could ask for.)

I personally don't consider the G "Good" transportation (to Manhattan as I originally said) but I didn't realize the house was so close to the C.

I stand corrected, although I still think it's fringe.

Posted by: 11217 at January 5, 2009 2:27 PM

You make a good point, wine lover.

I have a lot of friends in Clinton Hill and the one thing I hear constantly is that women there don't like to walk alone at night. I have two MALE friends who were brutally attacked in Clinton Hill over the last year. And I mean teeth knocked out brutal.

While crime happens everywhere in this city and it happens even in the best of neighborhoods, I do think in those terms alone, Clinton Hill is fringe.

I've never heard a woman where I live talk about not wanting to walk around at night (even though the dangers there still exist)

Posted by: 11217 at January 5, 2009 2:40 PM

I also think Clinton Hill has some of the most beautiful architecture in the entire city...

Posted by: 11217 at January 5, 2009 2:41 PM

I agree, gkw....As I look around me in Park Slope...it's the people who came in and bought their houses on the "cheap" 10/20/30 years ago who have worked so hard to make the neighborhood what it's become...not the people who have come in and paid 2 million for a house in the last 5 years.

I'm sure there are (many) exceptions to that rule, but just as the middle class are the backbone of our country, they are also the backbone of our neighborhoods...

Posted by: 11217 at January 5, 2009 2:59 PM

If the house sells for $999,000 I'll have wished I bought it...!!!

If I had the money, of course.

Posted by: 11217 at January 5, 2009 3:07 PM

It's not that anyone is saying Clinton Hill is undesirable, I don't think...It's that it's undesirable for this price, that's all.

I think most of us are actually kinda agreeing with you.

Although given the 20/30 minute wait times I've encountered on the G, that's really the problem, not the locations to which it stops/doesn't stops.

Posted by: 11217 at January 5, 2009 3:10 PM

Gee wiz, sorry to start such a heated debate. The biggest downside to this location in my opinion is the walk to the C train, though you could just take the G two stops to Hoyt and change to an A or C. If you work in downtown Manhattan (e.g. Canal Street and lower), it is a very quick commute (20-25 minutes door to door), midtown, you start to push 45 mins.

With the large Underwood playground around the corner on Lafayette and Washington for young kids (if you have them), Choice, the new pizza place, the Senegalese restaurant (Le Grand Dakar), Still Hip, Choice Greene Market, corner bodega etc. all within a couple of blocks, along with nearby higher end restaurants like Locanda Vini e Olii (not to mention all of the Fort Greene places that are within walking distance), I like the location. Plus you have the Flea a few blocks down Lafayette on Sundays if you like that sort of thing. I agree that places selling for close to and sometimes over $2MM in this part of Clinton Hill in the past couple of years to be surprising and not necessarily sustainable, especially now, but I think this is a good spot and for the right price will make someone happy. A good long term place to be which will significantly increase in value over the long term as well. The single family layout and 20 by 40 foot dimensions (a tad on the small side, especially the depth) detract a bit. Painted woodwork, well that's subjective, and often the woodwork in earlier brownstones was painted because it was old growth pine, not a hardwood...

Anyway, good luck to the owners and any buyers...

Posted by: 1842 at January 5, 2009 3:34 PM

I'm not taking the blame, BRG.

Not this time, anyway.

Posted by: 11217 at January 5, 2009 3:39 PM

And I stand by the fact that I think Clinton Hill is fringe, Dave.

But I don't use that term to instigate a neighborhood war.

I'm simply stating my opinion.

And I disagree that anyone here is riled up except for "getaclue" who clearly has some major issues he/she needs to deal with.

I think that the comments have all been pretty informed and courteous.

Posted by: 11217 at January 5, 2009 3:51 PM

BklynCynic - pricing may or may not be off a bit, hard to tell now. Not sure there are too many places that are in truly good shape in Park Slope that are sub $2MM now either. I just took issue with the fringe statements. Pricing is another issue altogether and without actually seeing the interior, kitchen, baths etc., I don't know. Plus no rental income either...

Posted by: 1842 at January 5, 2009 3:55 PM

Fair enough 11217. I disagree with your opinion, especially considering how small both Clinton Hill and Fort Greene are, but hey, life's short and plenty of people seem to like the area. I just wish everyone security and happiness in the next year, including all the amenity providers in the various neighborhoods (sounds like a PC term of nefarious people, lol), and hope that things don't get too bad for everyone before things settle down and we as a country get back on track.

Posted by: 1842 at January 5, 2009 4:00 PM

Wasder,

Brownstoner also pointed out 2 weeks ago (perhaps via the NYTimes?) that Manhattan prices have dropped 20% since September, yes?

Since this is not only Brooklyn, but considered not prime Brooklyn (can we at least agree on that?) or not "blue chip" Brooklyn maybe, wouldn't it stand to reason that this house should be trimmed by at least that amount too...?

I really appreciate you and your comments (and your love of your neighborhood is awesome) but I think you are a bit blind to what's happening.

I bought in 2006 and if I needed to sell right now, I'd FULLY expect to mark down my place by 20% MINIMUM. Fringe or not.

Things are that bad.

Clinton Hill is awesome, but it's still Clinton Hill. The people who bought a lot of these homes were wealthy and coming from Manhattan.

Posted by: 11217 at January 5, 2009 4:14 PM

Hey Wasder, you made me think of something when you wrote about how "others may want more excitement". In terms of the feel of neighborhoods -

Clinton Hill and Fort Greene (except for the blocks of FG close to the intersection of Fulton and Lafayette) will probably always be a bit more quiet than other areas because of the way the main avenues/commercial streets are spread out. The primary commercial strips are Myrtle, DeKalb (both of which are well developed and continue to do so in terms of amenities etc.) and Fulton Street (which is developed in FG, but has a way to go in Clinton Hill before it is fully utilized). Even assuming Fulton is fully developed, the streets of Clinton Hill and much of Fort Greene are predominantly residential with block upon block of houses. I personally like this, but what it means is there is quiet feel and one has to walk a few blocks from most locations to get to the commercial streets, unlike say Park Slope where 8th, 7th, 6th, 5th and increasingly 4th Aves are commercial strips. Anyway, random thought. Happy New Year.

Posted by: 1842 at January 5, 2009 4:16 PM

No, NYC prices have drops 7.5%. 20% was the national average.

Posted by: 1842 at January 5, 2009 4:18 PM

1842:

12/16/08 at 04:37PM
Manhattan home prices down around 20%

Jonathan Miller
By C. J. Hughes

The most rosy-eyed brokers said it couldn't happen here. They said Manhattan was a different beast, and that its supply of apartments was kept in check by the island's rocky shores, so demand for those units would always be strong, and prices elevated. They pointed out Manhattan's sales prices hitting an all-time high last spring, months after the national housing market began collapsing, as a sign of its fundamental resilience.

But it turns out they may have overstated things.

As anecdotal evidence about fall sales seeps out, well before brokerage reports about fourth-quarter transactions are released, evidence is mounting that not only have Manhattan housing prices slipped, they have done so by around 20 percent, which is a much more precipitous plunge than expected.

"Both residential and commercial real estate markets have softened substantially since the last report, most notably in Manhattan," said the edition of the Federal Reserve Board's "beige book" that came out earlier this month.

The report, which looks at market conditions in various cities eight times a year, found that "the prices of Manhattan co-ops and condos are reported to have fallen by 15 to 20 percent since mid-summer, though it is hard to get a clear handle on prices due to thin volume. Much of the recent activity is reportedly from desperate sellers."

Jonathan Miller, president of appraisal firm Miller Samuel, which provided data for the Fed's analysis based on contract prices after a series of confidence-shaking bank failures and federal bailouts, said the drops are somewhat unsurprising. Prices historically fall after sales volume slows, and volume has ebbed considerably in recent months.

Indeed, sales have been off about 28 percent for the first three quarters of this year, versus the same year-ago period, Miller said.

"A drop in transactions always precedes a drop in prices, because it leads to [an] increase in inventory," he said. "It's really a canary in the subway."

And no sector of Manhattan seems immune, including high-end units, or those priced upwards of $10 million, which had previously propped up the market's average prices, brokers said. Prices of resales, as opposed to new development, which had shown some resistance to price dips, now also seem to be slipping, brokers added.

Of course, many of those contracts won't close until this winter, so the data is in many ways a preview of what brokerages will announce in April, after the first quarter closes.

When they are revealed, the market could deteriorate further, said Noah Rosenblatt, who publishes the Web site UrbanDigs, and who in November concluded that prices were down 20 percent from their 2007 peak, based on his own anecdotal reporting from his real estate business.

That downward pressure will result because potential buyers will suddenly have useful hard-and-fast yardsticks by which to base their offers. Once they realize a co-op in a particular Upper East Side high-rise sold for 20 percent lower than its $1 million asking price, at $800,000, they might submit a lowered bid, too.

"Just like in the derivatives market, there will be price discoveries, and new benchmarks will be set," Rosenblatt said. "It could create an adverse feedback loop."

Not all brokers are convinced that sales prices have slipped so far. Some also say that the market may have bottomed out in late November, as open-house attendance seems to have crept up since then, in historically quiet December.

And although end-of-year bonuses for Wall Street workers, who make up a quarter of most brokers' clients, could be off as much as 50 percent this year, they will still be handed out, leading to some hope for January.

Posted by: 11217 at January 5, 2009 4:49 PM

Dinobot, yes, I would definitely only consider living four short blocks away in FG and never consider this location (I'm being saracastic) - Isn't this getting a bit silly? What's up, people got the Monday blues? ;-)

Posted by: 1842 at January 5, 2009 4:50 PM

11217 - well I stand corrected if Rosenblatt's anecdotal evidence is correct, then there already has been a steep drop - hard to tell now. I feel like I haven't seen those drops yet, but I would imagine we'll see them going forward.

Posted by: 1842 at January 5, 2009 4:53 PM

Considering that I feel as though a year ago or two ago, most "experts" said we were in for a "soft landing" with regard to housing and the economy, I now tend to agree more with the higher figures.

There has been a lot of denial out there feeding this thing.

Posted by: 11217 at January 5, 2009 4:58 PM

Wasder...we're pretty much coming to a close on this one and I'm probably beating a dead horse, but I feel as though Clinton Hill will in fact drop more than other areas, just like the "fringe" areas of Los Angeles, San Diego, Phoenix etc have dropped more than the more prime areas.

Look at Riverside, CA and Gilbert, AZ as examples. Drops of 40-50% while Los Angeles downtown has seen half that. Same with Phoenix.

You know I love Clinton Hill, but I stand firmly that I believe prices there rose too fast and too much, when compared to other areas of Brooklyn. As I said...Park Slope homes have doubled in the last 10 years while those in Clinton Hill have more than quadrupled. In some cases, even more.

I don't think that the gentrification of the neighborhood equates with the price increases. I think it's a tremendously better neighborhood than 10 years ago, absolutely. But I don't think it's a 1.5 - 2 million dollar a house neighborhood. I just don't.

Either way...this will all pass, and you don't need to worry because it sounds like you bought for the long term. In the end, I believe Clinton Hill will continue to improve, and that's really all that matters. I'm really just speaking about today. This price, this house, this location and this economy...today.

Posted by: 11217 at January 5, 2009 5:17 PM

"for what it's worth, it's VERY easy to get to midtown from Clinton Hill. The G to Court Sq., then the E/V to 53rd and Lex/5th etc... 30 minutes tops. Much faster than from PS"

I guarantee you I can get to 57th and 7th via the Q train at 7th Avenue (a 3 minute walk from my house) faster than you can get there from Clinton Hill. It's 7 stops from my house with no transfers. 6 to 42nd Street.

I also think I could probably get to Midtown on the 2/3 (also a 3 minute walk from my house) faster than you could taking the G, switching to the E, switching to the A.

You are also not factoring in wait times (which for the G can sometimes be horrible) and the fact that on weekends, the G is downright spotty.

No way you are getting from this house (including a walk and wait times) to 53rd and Lex in under 30 minutes.

Not a chance.

But I digress...

Posted by: 11217 at January 5, 2009 5:39 PM

many years ago, I could get to court sq. from FG/Clinton Hill, door to door in 20mins, so 53d and Lex in 30 is possible... Haven't done that in yrs.

Posted by: 1842 at January 5, 2009 5:45 PM

Amzi,

One house in Park Slope sold for 8 million plus. And it was a mansion.

Most seem to sell for 2 - 3 million, give or take.

Which is exactly why I don't think anything in Clinton Hill can get away with asking this much.

It's not a deal, when for MOST people housing has always been about location, location and location. Cardinal rule of real estate.

Whether you want to believe it or not, in MOST people's minds who want to spend 2 million on a house, Clinton Hill is about a location, loca.

Posted by: 11217 at January 5, 2009 6:23 PM

Thanks for your opposing viewpoint, pierre. I do understand that not everyone feels like I do. What is fringe to me is not fringe to you...certainly plausible.

As for your last sentence, I still consider myself VERY bullish on NYC real estate. I'm just bullish for the long term. I can see how you might have gotten the impression that I was just bullish period, but that's because I bought my apartment for the long term, have no interest in selling, and don't so much care about what things do over the next couple years as it pertains to my home. I pay less than rent, so I'm good.

With that being said, I was always aware of the potential for a significant housing price decline and I recall saying that I hoped my own neighborhood would become more affordable so that more people like me are able to buy something.

I think I got pigeon-holed for being so bullish in part because at the time of the Lehman collapse the tone of the blog changed and it seemed like it was the bulls against the bears. If I have to choose, I'm naturally very optimistic by nature, so I did what was most comfortable...I spoke more optimistically.

And then I just got too argumentative because some people seemed to want to be negative just to be negative or who almost seemed to not like Brooklyn anymore because prices were off, which just threw me even farther into the bullish column. That's how I saw it anyway...

Posted by: 11217 at January 5, 2009 10:14 PM

I apologize if I've offended anyone in the past.

I don't really take this all so seriously, but find it very enjoyable and slightly addictive.

Great blog. I'm not a blog person at all, and this is the only one I have to read with any sort of consistency.

Posted by: 11217 at January 5, 2009 10:20 PM