« Open House Picks: Six Months Later Streetlevel: Park Slope's Little D Eatery For Sale »
January 16, 2009
Open House Picks
Park Slope
448 6th Street
Brown Harris Stevens
Sunday 1:30-3:30
$2,495,000 was $2,825,000
GMAP P*Shark
South Slope
237 14th Street
Warren Lewis
Sunday 12-2
$2,150,000 was $1,950,000
GMAP P*Shark
West Midwood
1409 Glenwood Road
Mary Kay Gallagher
Sunday 1-3
$1,290,000
GMAP P*Shark
Windsor Terrace
538 16th Street
Corcoran
Sunday 10-11
$949,000 was $949,000
GMAP P*Shark
We normally include four Open House Picks but, as has been noted in recent market reports, the number of listings is clearly dropping—we couldn't find a single compelling open house scheduled for this weekend that we hadn't already covered at some point. Interesting. Update: A reader pointed us towards the Glenwood Road listing so that now rounds out the foursome.
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/7989
Comments
Looks like the Bidding War at 538 16th Street went swimmingly.
Hello 14th Street, this is Realty speaking. Come back to me, come back!
Posted by: misterbubble at January 16, 2009 1:08 PM
448 6th Street is still priced too high. It's a beautiful house but the living room is small and narrow. Can you imagine paying $2.5 million for a house and then inviting your family and friends over to see it, but not being able to fit them all in your new living room?? It's also not the nicest block in Park Slope. Noisy hospital on the corner.
Posted by: bk14 at January 16, 2009 1:10 PM
Reality, that is.
Posted by: misterbubble at January 16, 2009 1:10 PM
14th St house was also recently discussed here. It sold very recently for 1.995 (the ask from last summer), but the buyer must want to unload it pronto but not as a flip since the new price would just cover the buying/selling fees. However, the price is delusional - already, this buyer was the only one willing to pay as high as 1.995 (already a stretch when it sold just before economy really tanked) and now that we're in a whole new world, he'd be lucky to get what he paid, or a small decrease in the 10% range (so, say, 1.8).
Posted by: Miss Muffett at January 16, 2009 1:14 PM
6th street BHS listing says $2,425,000
I still hate the kitchen!
Posted by: bayridgegirl at January 16, 2009 1:15 PM
Also, Mr. B, come on, you really can't find a 4th open house you've not covered? What about:
http://brooklynproperties.com/house187.htm
I think the price is ridiculous (it just sold for 1.4 very recently, so asking for so much more is absurd) but it's an interesting property to discuss...
Posted by: Miss Muffett at January 16, 2009 1:18 PM
Besides being narrow, 6th St layout is awkward - why on earth would I want to have kitchen on garden level and dining on parlor? What a shlep when I have dinner guests! I know this might have been the old-fashioned way to do things, but does not fit lifestyles of most people today. Price is still way too high.
Posted by: Miss Muffett at January 16, 2009 1:24 PM
6th Street was JUST reduced the additional $70K. That's why Brownstoner has it listed at $2.495 million.
Posted by: bk14 at January 16, 2009 1:25 PM
Last years WT prices are looking a bit silly now. There is no way George Costanza's parents could afford that place.
That's a grand stoop on the Park Slope house.
Posted by: dittoburg at January 16, 2009 1:28 PM
I lived on that block of 6th Street until last year, and I disagree - it's lovely. Lots of the owners have been there since the 70's and they take good care of the block. The hospital doesn't cause any undue trouble, though there are more trucks going down the street than usual.
I love the way that 14th street place looks, but I have the feeling there is some deception in the presentation about the carriage house. No bathroom, no kitchen, no photos.
It's another weekend for knuckle biting...if you're an owner. And it's about time.
Posted by: I came I saw I rented at January 16, 2009 1:48 PM
The 14th St carriage house is just a raw space, really just an outbuilding, so to turn it into anything habitable would take an investment. I suppose it could be attractive for an artist studio/musician, but not attractive enough to merit the delusional price (I wonder if the new owner had some arty aspirations for that building, and then realized they were financially in over their heads - it's a real head-scratcher...)
Posted by: Miss Muffett at January 16, 2009 1:57 PM
That Windsor Terrace house is very poorly staged. Too much clutter in the pictures.
Posted by: cwbuecheler at January 16, 2009 1:58 PM
Well, Brownstoner, you could start putting up some picks that are slightly more affordable. Last time I asked about this you replied that there was a problem getting addresses. I don't know. I've gone to broker websites and had no problems getting the addresses of all kinds of houses priced under $1M.
Posted by: Iris at January 16, 2009 1:58 PM
Anyone know what happened with the 16th bidding war a year ago?
Posted by: robod at January 16, 2009 2:34 PM
I like the HGTV House Hunter shows that feature young couples looking to buy houses in other parts of the country for less that 200K.
It really puts these crazy prices into perspective. I'm a diehard New Yorker, but is a house here really worth ten times more than in Minneapolis or some other perfectly nice mid-sized city?
When this housing bubble finally bursts, which it hasn't come close to yet in NYC, $2,000,000 for a clapboard row house in Park Slope will seem as crazy as somebody trying to hawk a stinky old pair of tennis shoes for $2,000.
Posted by: IronBalls at January 16, 2009 2:35 PM
IronBalls....see my first post in the Cobble Hill Sale thread below....I'm talking about people like you.
This isn't Minneapolis people.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at January 16, 2009 2:45 PM
Iris is right there need to be a larger price range shown. That's how to track what-you-get-for-the-money in Brooklyn. Connected to that it would be fun to see some other neighborhoods represented to mix it up a bit so we're not having the exact same discussions every time. How many times do we really have to discuss a Park Slope brownstone, a wood frame South Slope house, and an Archie Bunker house in WT? I'm having deja vu big time. Or even further, what if one house of the four were still in NYC but outside Brooklyn? Just for comparison. You could introduce little enclaves people might not be aware of. Like the cute wee houses in Sunnyside, Queens that have those park-like shared backyards, or the Victorians on Staten Island or a townhouse in the West Village. I know it's all about Brooklyn here but perhaps there are new ways to compare and evaluate the Brooklyn house market. Provide context.
Posted by: traditionalmod at January 16, 2009 2:51 PM
The house on 14th is a few doors up from our house. I thought 1,950,000 was an outrageously high asking price so cannot believe that they think that they can get another 200K. Especially given that the adjacent apt building runs along the full length of the backyard on the right side. So you basically have about 5-6 apts looking straight into your "private" backyard. I know that in Brooklyn privacy has different meaning than elsewhere, but it really gives you a fishbowl feeling when you are back there. Aside from that it is stunning on the inside, and would certainly welcome some new neighbors. :))
Posted by: Turtlejam19 at January 16, 2009 2:51 PM
True, but it's not ten times more desirable either . . . twice as desirable maybe.
When prices crash later this year or early 2010, they'll bottom at the point where monthly mortgage payments roughly equal equivalent market rate rent on a similar property.
Posted by: IronBalls at January 16, 2009 2:54 PM
Turtlejam, I saw the inside and I would not call it "stunning" - yes, parts of it are nice, but the reno looked a little rushed/cheap when you looked more closely.
Posted by: Miss Muffett at January 16, 2009 2:56 PM
What about this place - South Elliott btw Dekalb and Lafayette for under $1 million.
http://www.fillmore.com/view_details.php?WebID=826027
Posted by: fexleycb at January 16, 2009 2:57 PM
You must have a more discerning eye than me then. Cause I was a bit green with envy given that my house used to look like that on the inside, but went through at least two "rushed/cheap" renovations of its own before I bought it. Still I love her. No matter.
Posted by: Turtlejam19 at January 16, 2009 3:00 PM
I agree with Iris that a wider price range should be shown, but at the same time, em should forawrd on those reports to Mr. B if they look interesting. It is sometimes difficult to locate informaation about open houses in neighborhoods outside the Brooklyn Heights-Park Slope area. If there is an easy ay to find listings of open houses in Dyker Heights, or Flatlands, even taht information would be useufl. Absent a a good MLS system, the NY Times is sadly the monopolist for easy discovery of of open houses in Brooklyn. (For some reason, I find the Daiily News and Post classifieds too focused on Queens with comaprably fewer ads about Brooklyn.)
Traditionalmod's idea is not a bad one -- kind of a compare and contrast. It might shut poeople up about wanting to leave Brooklyn. The only downside is that would be v. difficult to find just one OH to use.
Posted by: Boerumresident at January 16, 2009 3:08 PM
Stop whining about featuring more affordable houses. This blog is mainly about BROWNSTONES, and the nice brownstones in Brooklyn, the ones worth discussing, are usually priced over $1 million--at least for now. Start your own blog if you want to discuss any old house.
Posted by: nyc87 at January 16, 2009 3:09 PM
Yep--definitely lots of complaining going on here.
Posted by: bk14 at January 16, 2009 3:18 PM
'This blog is mainly about BROWNSTONES, and the nice brownstones in Brooklyn, the ones worth discussing,'
So, I guess none of these houses should be featured.
Okay, 1/2 of one of these houses would be.
Posted by: bayridgegirl at January 16, 2009 3:25 PM
1/4.
Posted by: misterbubble at January 16, 2009 3:42 PM
You're right BRG--point taken. That came out the wrong way, in the heat of the moment. What I meant was that brownstones in Brooklyn are, unfortunately, kind of expensive, for now anyway. So, with the exception of some beautiful places in Bed-Stuy, which DO receive extensive coverage on this blog, most properties are priced above the $1 million mark. What can you do? Supply and demand.
Posted by: nyc87 at January 16, 2009 3:46 PM
I said 1/2 of ONE of the houses...so technically 1/8.
6th Street is not ALL brownstone!
Posted by: bayridgegirl at January 16, 2009 3:46 PM
Well then, NYC87 please explain all the extensive coverage of new, modern condos on this blog. A small, historic non-brownstone house priced under a million is a lot closer in its category to a brownstone than a shiny glass condo.
As for sneering at those who can't pay more than a million, are you serious? The only reason Park Slope is even worth living in and those brownstones have been saved is because in the 70's and 80's alternative culture people who were not rich starting investing again in that historic neighborhood when it was less fashionable and far less expensive. To now promote other neighborhoods with affordable historic houses to those who will fix them up and care for them is a good thing. It's called Preservation. And Preservation is actually the main theme of this website since you missed that.
Posted by: traditionalmod at January 16, 2009 3:47 PM
Brownstones....eh, overrated.
Give me a limestone anyday!
Posted by: bayridgegirl at January 16, 2009 3:53 PM
the way I look at it is the people look for 200k houses in whatever random city should be looking for a 1bedroom or 2bedroom here. So in reality it makes more sense that 1 and 2 bedrooms are priced around 200k.
Posted by: Santa at January 16, 2009 3:56 PM
The Park Slope house is lovely, I like the floorplan although those bay windows probably leak heat like crazy.
Posted by: sam at January 16, 2009 4:04 PM
Turtlejam,
Have you been able to find out the story on 237? The seller bought so recently. Did someone lose a job? Much as I love having nice big comps nearby, this one surprised me at the last closing. There is simply no comp over $2 mil for a Slope frame that I am aware of. This should go for $1.7 to an artist with a trust fund. The outbuilding would make a nice studio gallery.
Posted by: slopefarm at January 16, 2009 4:11 PM
"Brownstones....eh, overrated. Give me a limestone anyday!"
Seconded. I actually also prefer brick to brownstone. :)
Posted by: cwbuecheler at January 16, 2009 4:24 PM
'I actually also prefer brick to brownstone.
Seconded.
A Federal Brick [catcall whistle]
A Fedder Brick [gasping]
Posted by: bayridgegirl at January 16, 2009 4:33 PM
cwb - i also really like brick and also limestone over brownstones which i find depressing.
are we saying here tho, that there should be just a brooklyn oriented real estate site? there's tons and tons of condo info here all the time.
Posted by: wine lover at January 16, 2009 4:38 PM
wine lover - absolutely not. I like that this site covers a wide variety of real estate topics.
I do, however, wish that there was a bit more focus on stuff in the $350k-$600k range, due to my own personal budget being in that area.
Posted by: cwbuecheler at January 16, 2009 4:43 PM
I agree. I think there needs to be more lower priced houses in the 'Open House Picks', even if they're in far out Brooklyn.
At least it'll start some dialogue. And as most times happen, someone will post a comprable house, and the wheels keep turning.
I wonder what the percentage of houses in brooklyn are Brownstones (in the true literal sense)?
Posted by: bayridgegirl at January 16, 2009 4:51 PM
Ironalls, there's no law that prices have to equal rents in areas such as Brooklyn Heights. If there's a bunch of old geezers with millions from selling their UWS starter apartments who want to buy $5 million townhouses with all cash down, they will. It's supply and demand. It has nothing to do with rents.
Posted by: mopar at January 16, 2009 5:13 PM
IronBalls, there's no law that prices have to equal rents in areas such as Brooklyn Heights. If there's a bunch of old geezers with millions from selling their UWS starter apartments who want to buy $5 million townhouses with all cash down, they will. It's supply and demand. It has nothing to do with rents.
Posted by: mopar at January 16, 2009 5:13 PM
When you start making exceptions to fundamentals, things get f*cked up. When you start making extreme exceptions to fundamentals you end up with situations such as the one we're in. When you're still using these exceptions to fundamentals you're an ignorant idiot.
Posted by: cornerbodega at January 16, 2009 5:39 PM
hey traditionalmod-- I'm not sneering, and I didn't set the totally arbitrary $1 million threshold--the posters who were complaining above set that number. Brownstoner REGULARLY features brownstones under $1 million, the most beautiful of which are in Bed Stuy. Shit shacks, on the other hand, don't generate much interest or many comments, so why should they be featured here?
Posted by: nyc87 at January 16, 2009 7:59 PM
Mopar,
Nope, mortgage payments should roughly equal hypothetical market rent on an equivalent property.
Only in a bubble like this one are mortgage payments and rents so out of whack.
More proof the big NYC real estate crash has yet to materialize. . .
Posted by: IronBalls at January 16, 2009 8:07 PM
The 14th Street house is frighteningly overpriced in ANY market.
Posted by: Architerrorist at January 16, 2009 8:29 PM
As for the lower priced houses...even now, from what I can tell, anything under 300k is either going to be a typical studio or a sterile 1 or 2 br out in the badlands. An actual house under 500k? With a few rare exceptions (that brooklyn college brick job) it's going to be hacked up and remuddled, and in some godforsaken place like Brownsvile. Sorry, not interested.
Posted by: Bolder at January 16, 2009 10:13 PM
IronBalls, I agree with you on the rents should = mortgages on the whole, but I have noticed over the years that the value of property in very crowded places that have no more room to expand and that are full of jobs and rich people -- Paris, New York, Tokyo, Palo Alto, Stamford -- is worth more than that.
This has been the case in New York City for hundreds of years, if you consider that spaces did not open up until the subway circa 1900-1930, until 1950-1970, when people were fleeing to the suburbs. Now they are flocking back again.
The current fiscal crisis is a very serious one, equal or worse to the Great Depression. But a relatively small number of people in "prime" Brooklyn will be forced to sell (those who have lost their jobs and were living paycheck to paycheck), so prices will not go down as far there as in subprime Brooklyn. I predict price declines of 50 percent in subprime areas and no more than 30 percent in prime.
Posted by: mopar at January 16, 2009 11:27 PM
Mopar,
We'll see soon enough, but I'm sure the days of two million plus brownstone sales anywhere in Brooklyn are going to become rarer and rarer over the next few years.
Remember, ten years ago it was rare for a brownstone anywhere in Brooklyn to trade for over one million dollars. The recent insane price run-up coupled with the state of our local and national economy spell "C R A S H."
Of course "prime Brooklyn" will remain more expensive than less desirable areas, but it's still going to tank hard.
Our economy is crumbling and our government's solution is to double the national debt and throw hundreds of billions at it -- 99% of which will wasted and stolen.
All the government will achieve by its scattershot spending is to put off the big crash which is destined to happen when it simply can't afford to take on more debt or risk printing any more money.
We'd be better off if the government let failing businesses go bankrupt, let real estate prices hit bottom, and allowed our capitalist free market system to right itself on its own.
Posted by: IronBalls at January 17, 2009 9:40 AM
Not to mention that our politicians (both Democrats and Republicans) are so corrupt and utterly under qualified to make such massive spending decisions -- our country may be doomed because of their actions. Our children, their children, and their children's children will suffer for the Bush/Obama debt financed spending bonanza in the name of "saving our economy."
I also can't believe that we're about to get a Treasury Secretary that is a blatant TAX CHEAT.
I've been self-employed most of my life and I've never cheated on my taxes.
Only hardcore scumbags cheat on their taxes and despite how smart this guy Geithner is, or how good of a buddy he is with Obama, it sends a clear message to everybody in the US that there's nothing wrong with cheating on your taxes. Go ahead, do it, there's a better chance you'll get plumb government job. . . . what a load of bs!
Posted by: IronBalls at January 17, 2009 10:01 AM
All Spitzer did is pay for sex and he was forced to resign as governor!
Somehow cheating on your taxes is a "lesser crime" than paying for sex?
Posted by: IronBalls at January 17, 2009 10:11 AM
Agree, the run-up of debt puts us in danger of a truly catastrophic crash. But didn't Sweden or some country spend its way out of a similar credit crunch about a decade ago?
Posted by: mopar at January 17, 2009 3:37 PM
Did anyone go to 6th Street or 14th Street open houses? Impressions? Traffic?
Posted by: bk14 at January 18, 2009 7:29 PM
Tax cheats make me seethe. Just like people who don't clean up after their pooch and like people who drop litter.
None of those people should be secretary of the treasury.
Posted by: dittoburg at January 19, 2009 8:14 AM
Did anyone go to these open houses?
Posted by: broker at January 19, 2009 11:06 AM
According to the recent New York Times article, we all did.
Posted by: misterbubble at January 19, 2009 11:51 AM
I checked out the Windsor Terrace house. I am just starting to dabble in the possibility of buying, so this is my first open house and I haven't done much research yet. The location was obviously pretty nice, but the house clearly needed alot of work. The basement was unfinished, which is a shame seeing that it was quite spacious, and looks like at one point there was a nice bar down there that has somehow fallen into disrepair. There were also alot of cosmetic details throughout the house that could use some attention. I would expect a little more overall for the price...but as I said, I haven't researched much so perhaps that's what you will get for 950,000. Also, 4 bedrooms is a bit of a stretch considering one of them is quite tiny, and going through it is the only way to get to the fourth bedroom which was converted from a patio of some sort.
Posted by: kinetogenic at January 19, 2009 11:13 PM
Only Cocorean would say was 949,000 and is now 949,00 their properties never go down. They must be the Madoff's of the Real Estate Market
Posted by: hannible at January 20, 2009 10:47 AM
Latest Restaurant Additions
-
Le Barricou
added November 20, 2009 12:00 PM in Williamsburg -
Der Schwarze Kölner
added November 19, 2009 12:00 PM in Fort Greene -
Oak Wine Bar & Café
added November 18, 2009 12:00 PM in Williamsburg -
Mr. Wonton
added November 17, 2009 12:00 PM in Park Slope -
Casa Rosa
added November 16, 2009 12:00 PM in Carroll Gardens -
Cousin John's Café & Bakery
added November 13, 2009 12:00 PM in Park Slope -
Elote
added November 12, 2009 12:00 PM in Williamsburg -
Miracle Grill
added November 11, 2009 12:00 PM in Park Slope -
Phoebe's Cafe
added November 10, 2009 12:00 PM in Williamsburg -
Ruthie's
added November 9, 2009 12:00 PM in Clinton Hill, Downtown Brooklyn
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.