« A Third Candidate Enters District 35 Council Race Bed Stuy BID Gets OK From City Council »

March 30, 2009

Short Sale at The Washington

The economic crisis has worked its way all the way to The Washington Condos at 35 Underhill in Prospect Heights. Blogger Set Speed spotted a short sale in the buiding: the 1,156-square-foot two-bedroom, two-bath unit is asking $569,000. We weren't able to figure out what the current owner paid for it, but it appears that the listing started out asking $675,000 last August. The current price tag comes out to less than $500 a foot. Deal?
35 Underhill Avenue [Douglas Elliman] GMAP
Short Sale at 35 Underhill [Set Speed]

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/9042

Comments

not the nicest block, but given the size of the apt and low maintenance, not a bad deal at 569k.

Posted by: bktycoon at March 30, 2009 10:24 AM

Sorry to ask what is likely a stupid question, but I really am not sure. A short sale is when the seller owes more to the bank on the home than what they are selling it for, right? If that is correct, do they have to get the bank's permission to sell short or do they just sell for less and then continue to owe the bank the difference?

Posted by: InsertSnappyNameHere at March 30, 2009 10:29 AM

here you go Snappy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_sale_(real_estate)

Posted by: the chicken at March 30, 2009 10:42 AM

Thanks, chicken.

Posted by: InsertSnappyNameHere at March 30, 2009 10:45 AM

The bank has to approve of the sale after the buyer gives the offer. If the bank says no, then the deal is off. The owner has to revise the asking price.

And no, you don't own the bank the rest of the mortgage. They usually will go to short sale in order to prevent forecloser which they expect to be more costly in this situation.

Posted by: crimsonson at March 30, 2009 10:46 AM

Thanks, crimson.

Posted by: InsertSnappyNameHere at March 30, 2009 10:59 AM

looking at Propshark, I see the only 1156 sq ft apt in this bldg sold 1/11/07 for $474k. (apt #B2H)
Does not mean not a 'short sale' because in theory person could still have taken out more liens then he paid for initial purpose. Yet, I think a marketing ploy by agent to get someone to think they are getting a deal.
Most apts in this bldg sold for less than $500 sq ft but some were in high 500's.
But - not a sign of bad market (if this is same apt) if 2 years ago bought and now ASKING 20% more than paid.

Posted by: Petebklyn at March 30, 2009 11:01 AM

this is 1990 all over again.
things started to mprove by 1993 as I recall.
I almost lost my shirt.
I know what folks must be going through now.

Posted by: sam at March 30, 2009 11:06 AM

This person is underwater because the fools @ Citibank keep lending him money. He purchased in Jan 07 for $474K, taking one mortgage for $379K(80%) and a second mortgage for $71K(15%). At this point the 'homeowner' only had 5% in the game.

A year passes and 'homeowner' takes out a Line of Credit. Citi in their infinite wisdom determined that the property appreciated almost 45% in 1 year and approves homeowner for a $222K LOC. The homeowner pays of the second mortgage, leaving them with a cumulative debt of $601K.

How much are they asking.... $599K? Some short sale.. I guess we've gotten to a point where 'short sale' and "SELLER EXTREMELY MOTIVATED" are the new hot marketing terms for brokers hawking properties.

The bigger picture is, Why are we bailing out people who participated in behavior like this. Bank and homeowner alike.

Posted by: Colonel Steve Austin at March 30, 2009 11:21 AM

Spot on, CSA.

***Bid half off peak comps***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at March 30, 2009 11:27 AM

"Deal?"

More than half a million to live in a condo on a mediocre block surrounded by auto body shops, storage places, and crappy fast-food restaurants, within realistic daily walking distance of exactly one (local) subway line?

No, I don't think that's a deal ...

Posted by: cwbuecheler at March 30, 2009 11:31 AM

cwbuecheler, you're about 50% accurate in your description.

the condo is one block away from vanderbilt, which as far as i know, has no fast food places. it's also two blocks away from GEN restaurant, one of the better authentic japanese places in brooklyn.

the C is 1.5 blocks away. the Q at 7th ave is within realistic daily walking distance, about 8 minutes or so.
one could even argue the 2/3 at grand army plaza is within walking distance on a daily basis.

Posted by: ltjbukem73 at March 30, 2009 12:15 PM

As far as I'm concerned this place is worth somewhere between $200k and $300k. This is a perfect example of the type of property that is getting decimated by what is going on right now.

Posted by: lechacal at March 30, 2009 12:29 PM

Not only do we bail them out but we forgive them the tax obligation on the "income" from the short sale.

Posted by: IMBY at March 30, 2009 1:19 PM

lechacal - agreed completely. This should be a starter condo for a young professional couple: people earning like $60k apiece or whatever. They get a nice place, but are sacrificing location a bit.

Instead it's priced at a level where the couple would need to be making well over $200k/yr combined to realistically afford it. Absurd.

Posted by: cwbuecheler at March 30, 2009 1:26 PM

actually, the 2/3 is on Bergen and Flatbush.

Posted by: wine lover at March 30, 2009 1:30 PM

hey, it is still priced 20% over purchase price. (2 years ago).
"starter condo for a young professional couple: people earning like $60k apiece or whatever. They get a nice place, but are sacrificing location a bit." -- I would think by your logic that 85% of NYC is sacraficing location and 'starter' props. 'starter' for a couple who what? will be in top 5% income eventually.

Posted by: Petebklyn at March 30, 2009 1:36 PM

ltjbukem73 -

I have friends who live on Bergen and Vanderbilt and I myself live in Park Slope. I'm over in Prospect Heights a lot, and know this specific block. The Q is not what I'd consider a reasonable walk from this condo, when it's freezing cold out. There's no way the 2/3 is either.

I've been to GEN several times, and it is indeed good. Also, yes, the shops on Vanderbilt are above fast-food quality. I was referring more to the stuff on Atlantic. Pacific street in that stretch is also a wasteland, and Dean's not much better. Washington's pretty ugly in that section too, tho there's a pretty great beer store hidden over there.

Far as I'm concerned, this price is crazy overinflated. I wouldn't pay $600k to live on Underhill at Pacific. At $400k I'd start thinking about it. At $300k, I'd consider it the "deal" Brownstoner was asking about.

Posted by: cwbuecheler at March 30, 2009 1:42 PM

Pete - that was kind of my point. A couple making $120k/yr is making GOOD money and still would struggle to afford this place. That's ridiculous.

People seem to forget that just because a small percentage of Manhattan professionals make like five hundred grand a year, doesn't mean that most of New York does.

Posted by: cwbuecheler at March 30, 2009 1:48 PM

As a potential condo purchaser,the comments on this post have been "spot on". Must be giving speculators and realtors nightmares! Keep up the good work! Will reality and realty ever coalesce?

Posted by: sjtmd at March 30, 2009 3:20 PM

cwbuecheler -

i'd say the Q/B & 2/3 are walking distance as i do it everyday from this location. Its actually easier to get to those trains than having to wait the same amount of time to simply cross Atlantic & Fulton. Not to mention its only a 15 minute walk to Atlantic Station.

And on those cold days you speak of, the walk is of course faster.

Posted by: underDeanstreet at March 30, 2009 4:18 PM

I've been in the building a couple of times. Compared to most new constructions, it's a gem. Well built, well maintained, peaceful setting, nice extras.

But... the location is rough. Crossing Atlantic to wait for the C on a dank platform isn't fun. And walking the half mile (your can verify - Google Maps) to the B/Q or 2/3 is dreary even in the best of weather.

Atlantic Ave is indeed horrible with little hope of getting better, and even the immediate surroundings down Washington or Vanderbuilt leave much to be desired.

Long story short: it feels like an oasis once you're there, but the getting there ain't pretty.

The asking price would be fine if it were halfway closer to the park, but it's tough to justify given the unfortunate spot.

And you'll be taking a lot of cabs if you live there. Guaranteed.

Posted by: zuzubird at March 30, 2009 5:06 PM

That actually brings up the question of what prices should be be based upon a reasonable portion of income.

Where does a couple making 120k deserve to live? 80k? 150k? 200k?

Posted by: slick at March 30, 2009 6:27 PM

I'm surprised at the shock, since all of those people have been priced out of gentrified Brooklyn for at least the five years.

Posted by: Heather at March 30, 2009 8:36 PM

saw the unit. pretty nice, but not worth nearly close to the ask in my opinion. don't see how they are trying to sell it for 20% more than 2 years ago given the market changes, especially as this is supposedly a short sale

Posted by: uncledunkel at April 1, 2009 11:20 AM

We've been in that building too. Seemed like cookie-cutter finishes, do you agree? Also, what do you think all the other current residents paid $ per sq.ft, especially those in those controversial duplex apartments?

Posted by: rcb at April 18, 2009 10:14 AM

« A Third Candidate Enters District 35 Council Race Bed Stuy BID Gets OK From City Council »

March 30, 2009

Short Sale at The Washington

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions