« Williamsburg Hipsters Aren't All Rich Kids After All Co-op of the Day: 30 Willow Place, #4 »

June 23, 2009

Last Week's Biggest Sales

biggest%20sales%20june%2023rd.jpg

1.BROOKLYN HEIGHTS $2,701,000
161 Hicks Street GMAP (left)
This 2,816-sf, 2-family was first listed for $3,500,000 last September, according to StreetEasy. By the time it was an Open House Pick in March, it was asking $2,950,000. The house last sold for $2,125,000 in 2003, according to Property Shark. Entered into contract on 5/1/09; closed on 6/4/09; deed recorded on 6/17/09.

2. BROOKLYN HEIGHTS $1,425,000
62 Joralemon Street, Unit 3 GMAP (right)
This 3-bed, 2-bath co-op was first listed for $1,995,000 last July, says StreetEasy. The price was reduced a couple of times, until it was asking $1,600,000 in November. The maintenance is $1,624. Entered into contract on 3/17/09; closed on 6/11/09; deed recorded on 6/16/09.

3. DUMBO $1,282,200
31 Washington Street, Unit 14 GMAP
Listing history/size of unit unkown. Average sale price in the condo is $1,531,000, according to StreetEasy. Entered into contract on 7/1/08; closed on 7/17/08; deed recorded on 6/18/09.

4. BAY RIDGE $1,110,000
637 Ovington Avenue GMAP
This 2-family brick house was listed for $1,250,000. Entered into contract on 3/26/09; closed on 5/15/09; deed recorded on 6/15/09.

5. PARK SLOPE $1,100,000
350 2nd Street, Unit 6F GMAP
A 1,700-sf, 3-bedroom, duplex condo, according to its listing. Entered into contract on 3/24/09; closed on 6/12/09; deed recorded on 6/18/09.

Photos from Property Shark.

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/10275

Comments

Despite the price reduction on 161 Hicks Street (#1), it still went for $959 per sf. Pretty decent, I would say. Anyone know the square footage of 62 Joralemon Street (#2)?

Posted by: Biff Champion at June 23, 2009 11:36 AM

Not only that, Biff, but it went for 575K over it's 2003 selling price.

Posted by: 11217 at June 23, 2009 11:39 AM

3 million is too much for a 2 family? Who would shell out 3 mil so your their tenants can move furniture and stomp on top of them like in the TV show "The Honeymooners"?

Posted by: Joe from Brooklyn at June 23, 2009 11:39 AM

Biff...aside from the one or two trophy houses that sold, what were most BH places selling at per square foot at the peak????

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at June 23, 2009 11:40 AM

PS place looks to be well bought. 1700 sf, 3 br, 2.5 ba, for 1.1 mil on 2nd St.? Even if it were a dumpy 4th floor walkup (which it could very well be), that's pretty decent for the buyers.

Posted by: Bolder at June 23, 2009 11:48 AM

don't know how I missed that one in the slope. that's right in my wheelhouse. anyone know how much it was listed for?

Posted by: joe_the_bummer at June 23, 2009 11:49 AM

11217, good point, although, at least until recently, we've seen places double in price over a 2 to 3 year period. Still, the owners must have been pretty happy with the price, I would say.

DIBS, I did a whole analysis back in the day when I was looking a few years back. Generally, I would say during the peak, the prices ranged from $700 per sf to $1,100 per sf. I believe most seemed to be around the $750/$800 per sf range. This doesn't count anything under 3+ bedrooms / 2+ baths. I have no idea what those typically go for.

I just did a current Streeteasy search using similar parameters to those used when I was looking and the average listing price is around $875 per square foot.

Posted by: Biff Champion at June 23, 2009 11:50 AM

Bolder:

When you consider that it's 2nd street between 4th and 5th Avenues, I think it's safe to say that 1.1 million for a condo means that the bottom has definitely not dropped out of the Brooklyn housing market quite yet. I agree though...not a terrible deal for the buyers, but still a huge price for anything below 5th, I would think.

Posted by: 11217 at June 23, 2009 11:53 AM

My numbers above look contradictory, but what I meant to say was most places I followed seemed to sell for around $750 to $800 per square foot. The $875 per square foot in my last paragraph is the asking price.

Posted by: Biff Champion at June 23, 2009 11:53 AM

Thanks. I would have thought that the psf prices were higher at the peak.

This is why I think the Adelphi St place is a bargain. Assuming you buy it for $750,000, that's $250 psf and after you put another $500,000 into it it's still only up to $416 psf. I bought my Bed Stuy place for $320 psf.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at June 23, 2009 11:55 AM

Sorry, last thing is that my estimates apply only to Brooklyn Heights. While I also was house hunting in Cobble Hill and Park Slope, the majority of places I saw were in Brooklyn Heights.

Posted by: Biff Champion at June 23, 2009 11:56 AM

Concerning the property on the right... Is the pokey uppy bit part of one of the units? Like a little cabana for a roof deck.

Posted by: tybur6 at June 23, 2009 11:58 AM

How could a house in Bay Ridge be on this list? It makes the Brooklyn Heights house seem like a bargain.

Posted by: Expert Textpert at June 23, 2009 12:01 PM

Avergage selling PSF prices for 1, 2, 3 family houses in Brooklyn Heights:

2003 $579
2004 $695
2005 $822
2006 $895
2007 $922
2008 $1000
Source: NYC DOF rolling sales updates

The trophy houses were selling from 33%-50% above the average in the boom years (2003-7), but the top sales in 2008 were only about 15% above the average.

Posted by: NorthHeights at June 23, 2009 12:02 PM

DIBS, my data is far from scientific; merely based on my ever-fading memory. Ok, so I went on to Trulia and here is their data for the area.

From March to May 2009, average price per square foot was $994. Three months prior was $909.

http://tinyurl.com/l6e4qj

Posted by: Biff Champion at June 23, 2009 12:11 PM

Thanks NorthHeights. I was looking around 2006, so the numbers seem close to what I was guessing.

Posted by: Biff Champion at June 23, 2009 12:13 PM

I looked at the 2nd street place (I have looked at a lot of places on that block in that development). I think it was asking pretty close to $1.5 million. Maybe $1.45. It's a really nice place if you are ok with the location. The roof deck is great, the building is actually pretty nice. I actually think this is the right price for this unit. I don't think the buyers overpaid.

Benson - I know we have discussed pricing in this development a couple of times. I think this represents a current mark for psf pricing. Bear in mind the added value from the roof deck, which is not present in the simplex 3-bed apartments with the mini balconies on each end.

Posted by: lechacal at June 23, 2009 12:17 PM

I saw the park slope place. it was really a great space. it had two functional balconies, and roof rights - THREE outdoor spaces!! it was two floors with an elevator that opened right into the apartment. I loved it and think it was originally asking around $1,299,000, if I remember correctly. The biggest issues I saw with it were it's location. It's off of fourth ave, and not too close to the subway. Also, even though it's a relatively new building, it looked a little run down. But don't get me wrong, I loved that place. It really felt like a big open space in a small building, which is rare in park slope real estate.

Posted by: bodhi_brooklyn at June 23, 2009 12:19 PM

2.7 seems "low" for prime Heights. Lot less than 100'?

Seems like Joralemon buyer got took. 1.425 for a COOP (flip taxes, rental restrictions?) on the south side of Montague towards the BQE? Must be HUGE.

Dumbo comp is waaaaaaaaay outdated and therefore useless.

I never speak on Bay Ridge.

Overzealous buyer (321 anxiety? even applicable? these guys are like syrian jews and synogogues) on 2nd. Restuarant row but still too close to gritty 4th for that price. And also too close to future full brownstone price.

Rock out, DIBS.

***Bid half off peak comps***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at June 23, 2009 12:25 PM

Maybe I would stand corrected by lechacal and bodhi about 2nd if I saw it (Elevator? Oh.). Or not.

***Bid half off peak comps***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at June 23, 2009 12:28 PM

BHO, the Hicks Street house is 16.5' wide (you can see in the pic it's two bays wide), which is quite narrow for Brooklyn Heights where the standard lot is 25 feet. (It's in a row of 3 houses built on two original lots.) The backyard faces the Love Lane garage-condo project. But those are about the only negatives.

From the pics, it looked to be a nice house with a new renovation. The seller did well for this market and the buyer has a beautiful house.

Posted by: NorthHeights at June 23, 2009 12:41 PM

I used to live at 160 Hicks--not sure if 161 is right across the street, but it may back onto the Love Lane Garage condo conversion. Not sure about that though.

Posted by: feral at June 23, 2009 12:44 PM

Holy simultaneous posts NorthHeights!

Posted by: feral at June 23, 2009 12:45 PM

bodhi - I'm pretty sure the original ask was closer to $1.5. I have all the sales literature in a file at home (every once in a while I like to pour myself a scotch, take out the file and see what ever happened to all those places I looked at).

BHO: This place really stood out. The elevator itself was a tiny little POS (and frankly I'm not a fan of elevators opening direclty into a home). The roof plus the amount of space was impressive. The location is real crap, but I think the $1.1 million price for 1700 sf reflects that. Who knows, maybe the buyers could have waited another year and gotten it for less than a million, but in my mind $1.1 million is close enough to the right mark that it doesn't make sense to wait for another 10% drop.

Then again it's been quite a while since I looked at this place and I'm sure my views were colored by what was going on in the market at the time. Maybe if I looked at it again I wouldn't be so sure of $1.1 milllion being the right price.

Posted by: lechacal at June 23, 2009 12:47 PM

"...and the buyer has a beautiful house"

Sugar coat for 'got bent'? Kidding.

***Bid half off peak comps***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at June 23, 2009 12:47 PM

We used to live in the block on 2nd st. It's a great condo and we sold ours very quickly 18 months ago. I've kept my eye on these places since we left and they tend to sell quickly even today. The pros to the building would be that it's still realtively new and so doesn't need much if any work. The upper duplex are spacious and well laid out. In terms of location - at 350 you're much closer to 5th ave than 4th and you dont hear 4th ave at all. Subway is 5 to 10 min walk. Personally I'd much rather be closer to 5th ave than say 7th but personal choice. 1.1m is decent for that spot and the maintenance is relatively low.

Posted by: 10thStreetReno at June 23, 2009 12:50 PM

"every once in a while I like to pour myself a scotch, take out the file and see what ever happened to all those places I looked at"

Nice.

"not a fan of elevators opening direclty into a home"

Me neither. Could you imagine a malfunction?

***Bid half off peak comps***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at June 23, 2009 12:57 PM

Using the 2nd street sale as a mark on psf value in that development, the 3-bed simplex units with the little balconies on either end (which I think are around 1200 sf) should be worth about $775k. Discount for lack of roof access and you have maybe $750k, which actually sounds about right to me based on the various units I have looked at in that development. I'm sure 10thStreetReno got out at over a million (probably asked more like $1.2 for starters? Or maybe $1.15?) but 10 months ago is a long time in this market.

Posted by: lechacal at June 23, 2009 12:58 PM

Yes...if more 3 BR condos in PS were priced at this ppsf (or even listed at a price that seemed negotiable to this price), I'd be happy. And I ain't talking 'bout those 2000+ sq. ft. duplexes where the "lower level" is a glorified basement.
2nd Street went in to contract FAST, within about a month of being listed. I'm sure the buyers and their lil' kiddies are very pleased.

Posted by: bkbornandbred at June 23, 2009 1:37 PM

bkbornandbred: You sure that place went into contract fast? Maybe it was an identical unit that I looked at back in the day that was asking around $1.5. Kind of doesn't matter though - I'm sure the place is the same as what I looked at and all of my comments still stand.

Also, I'm right there with you on the lower duplexes with the quasi-subterranean "rec room". Let's face it: brownstones just aren't supposed to go condo, and the big square footage numbers of those lower duplexes are never as impressive in person. If I had a dollar for every overpriced lower duplex condo conversion I had trekked through in the past few years.... well, I'd be able to buy 007 cocktail at the Tea Lounge and leave a decent tip.

Posted by: lechacal at June 23, 2009 1:43 PM

Also, are these really selling well today? I think I've seen various apartments in these new construction units on the market for a while now, lingering, and there's been a lot of talk about how the new construction condos are most vulnerable in this environment.

Posted by: Miss Muffett at June 23, 2009 1:51 PM

Please someone else respond to Miss Muffet.

I just don't have the strength.

Posted by: 11217 at June 23, 2009 1:57 PM

Hi MM: This development has been around for a few years now (maybe sold in 2004ish?) so they are in a different position from new construction (condo plan is effective, 100% occupancy, developer out of the picture, etc). That being said I think this development will be weighed down by all of the new construction around the corner on 4th Ave.

Posted by: lechacal at June 23, 2009 1:58 PM

i think there's a pretty big difference between being on 2d street and being on 4th avenue. setting aside aesthetics and the poorer reputation of the new condos on 4th in terms of construction, if the doe decides to rezone i think 4th ave would be vulnerable to being cut out of 321. no big deal for those who've already got their kids into 321, but would affect resale for sure.

Posted by: i disagree at June 23, 2009 2:11 PM

I keep hearing about the 321 re-zoning, which is gonna piss off a lot of people in new 4th ave devs. since that is a major selling point. Also, I don't think the sibling rule is still in affect...if 1 kid is already in the school, then they re-zone the area, when the next kid is ready to enter, s/he is not guaranteed a spot in same school.
I agree that being on a side street is a big diff. from being on 4th ave., esp. the "wrong" side of 4th, as most new devs. are.
It's frustrating that even in this market (supposedly a buyer's market), your 3 BR condo choices in PS are:
a) Your dream-come-true...STILL priced at $800+ psf.
b) A unit in a new dev. on Fringe Fourth or some other fringe area...that's 1200 sq. ft. or less. Now that's just insulting. Dr. Barry Sears himself would consider that Attachment-Parenting to the extreme.
c) A 2200 sq. ft. duplex, priced over 1.5M, that is half bomb shelter.
d) Some combo of the above, way over-priced AND in District 13.

Posted by: bkbornandbred at June 23, 2009 2:43 PM

2nd street orig sales are from 2002.
Sale price of this unit looks like 15% less than highest price paid for an 'F' unit in complex that was sold in 5/2007.

Posted by: Petebklyn at June 23, 2009 2:45 PM

lechcal, maybe you are right on the price of the park slope place. i know it was at least 1.3 mil, so it could have been asking more. as for elevators opening into the space, i, for one, think it's pretty cool! i really loved that place but again the location was the breaking point. though the ultimate price per square foot, and adding the outdoor space, seems fairly reasonable. I've seen some of the other units on this block that were asking around the same price, but were first floor units. I think this one was by far, the best laid out, and the best outdoor space. And my recollection was that it did sell quickly. The backyards on the units on this block tend to be broken out into a basement type level and then ground level, neither space being really practical or usable. and those units weren't as nicely laid out as this one. anyway, that's my two cents. i'm going to pour myself a cup of scotch and grab a bag of skittles. i'm off the soap box.

Posted by: bodhi_brooklyn at June 23, 2009 2:52 PM

bodhi, it sounds like we have similar views on this development. I have seen three types of units on this block:

- Upper duplex with roof right (ie the place being discussed in this thread) -- big, like the roof, nice layouts, plenty of space for a family.
$1.1mm doesn't sound off the wall.

- 3 br simplex with the two little balconies -- nice enough. Worth about $750k. Were selling for way way to much until recently.

- Lower duplex -- Crap. The "back yard" consists of an underground concrete box. Lower level is a half underground "rec room". Nice rental for a few college kids.

- All of the above: Crap location. Yes, it's not 4th Ave, but it's pretty damn close, and it's a big hike to the park. I don't want to live anywhere where I can get to the Gowanus canal faster than I can get to Prospect Park.

Posted by: lechacal at June 23, 2009 3:03 PM

The Bay Ridge home is a 1920's era building boom brick two family located near Stewart Ave., which in the aerial view appears to be a large driveway. Stewart Avenue as it exists today,is a remnant of a colonial era road that was much larger in the past. The house is close to the BQE cut/at 7th Ave., however the location is fairly quiet and the general area kind of sleepy, in my opinion. The price seems high for this style of construction. From the photo as well as the description , I am fairly certain that it is deviod of any original finishings/trim/detail. This is the sad case with most of these homes.

Posted by: Crescent Hill at June 23, 2009 3:09 PM

lechacal, lol. and ditto. i think i've read threads before where you talk about which area you are considering buying, and i think we have a similar area in mind for park slope..have you seen any good properties lately? seems that there is really no inventory. what's the fun of buying in a down market if there isn't anything good to buy!

Posted by: bodhi_brooklyn at June 23, 2009 3:31 PM

Lechacal and Bodhi:

Did you guys see this one...?

http://www.prudentialelliman.com/Listings.aspx?ListingID=1086916&rentalperiod=&SearchType=apartments&Region=NYC

Posted by: 11217 at June 23, 2009 3:36 PM

bkborn - i heard something to the effect that brokers (or maybe condo marketers?) aren't allowed to state which school zone they're in for this exact reason. the doe doesn't care - they've already had to move people around in manhattan zones and while it's creating a mess, they're still doing it. and yes, you're right about the sibling rule. basically, out-of-zone siblings aren't "guaranteed," they only get in after all kids in-zone who want in are in. seems fair to me but in a rezoning scenario...yuck. i wouldn't be surprised if they also try get rid of their current policy that allows kids to stay in their old school if they move out of zone. it is a rule that is at odds with most of the rest of the country and is ripe for manipulation. seems more of a problem in manhattan than brooklyn, but you never know.

Posted by: i disagree at June 23, 2009 3:49 PM

Nice one 11217, and no I hadn't seen it - do you know which street that is on?

bodhi, I'm out of the market for at least another 12 months. My current lease ends at the end of August and I needed to decide whether to buy or rent for anohter 12 months. I am not at all confident that we have hit a bottom yet, so rent it is. Also, I am at a place professionally where I really shouldn't be making any big financial decisions for the next 15 months or so (lots of uncertainty about future income level - both to the downside and the upside - and frankly a lot of uncertainty about what city/country I will call home 2 years from now). I will probably be ready to buy one way or another after my next 12 month lease is up, assuming I am staying in NYC.

In any event I am pretty sure that in hindsight I will be glad that I prevented myself from jumping too quickly on a modest discount to top of market prices.

Posted by: lechacal at June 23, 2009 3:56 PM

It's on Lincoln between 7th and 8th, I believe...

Posted by: 11217 at June 23, 2009 3:59 PM

And thus zoned for PS282 and not in my search area. Or what was my search area. Nice though.

Posted by: lechacal at June 23, 2009 4:03 PM

ID: With all this development, that seems like a fair "rule". However, whether they are allowed to or not, believe me when I tell ya that when you walk into a place with offspring in-tow, they cannot get "321" out of their mouths quick enough. I know, *SHOCKING* that brokers would do something they weren't supposed to.

11217: This listing cracks me up...I've seen it on StreetEasy listed with, seriously, 4 different brokers. All listings have to same pics and not one has a floor plan or listed sq. footage. Very suspect.

Oh well, guess I'll just have to wait until the people selling at the Ansonia Muse come back from Planet WTF.
Or this dude:
http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/429576-coop-135-prospect-park-west-apt-54-park-slope-brooklyn

Posted by: bkbornandbred at June 23, 2009 4:31 PM

Yeah, about Ansonia Muse - definitely on planet WTF. I can't even call some of the current listings overpriced. They're just...WTF?

Posted by: lechacal at June 23, 2009 4:38 PM

lechacal, good luck with whatever you end up deciding in terms of where to set up shop. as has been said many times before, its a confusing time to buy since no one knows what anything is worth. so i completely understand your perspective.

11217, I haven't seen that. looks nice though. i've been looking at real estate in park slope for the past year, mostly 2 and some 3 bedrooms with either outdoor space, or a newer development in the same primary zone lechacal was talking about. it's been fun looking but haven't seen anything worth committing to yet. after a year though, i'm beginning to wonder if my expectations are too high. anyway, thanks for the suggestion.

Posted by: bodhi_brooklyn at June 23, 2009 4:46 PM

"Maybe it was an identical unit that I looked at back in the day that was asking around $1.5"

Yep, there was another identical unit for sale in 2008 at the $1.5 point although by the time I saw it, it was in the $1.3 range. The other unit had some nice built-ins and a brighter feel to it that I liked better. All these units have ginormous master bedroom closets. On the unit I saw, the owners had already built the 800 sf deck on the roof and it was really wonderful. Quiet and oasis-like. It even had a sink! I don't know if it sold, or what it sold for.

A few months ago, I was at a party in one of these duplexes, and they are absolutely fantastic for entertaining. And this party was in winter, so we didn't even get to use the outdoor space!

We decided against, but since I know a person in one of these I won't badmouth them. To be clear, it wasn't anything "bad" that made us decide against--just not the right fit for our needs.

Posted by: bkrules at June 23, 2009 4:54 PM

I looked at the unit with the deck and the sink. Didn't realize they weren't all so well appointed.

Posted by: lechacal at June 23, 2009 5:01 PM

Bayridge close to Ask
Sliveresque house in the Heights
So much for a flat

Posted by: BrooklynGreene at June 23, 2009 6:05 PM

bkbornandbred: perhaps everyone's left this thread, but there are other 3BR condo options in 321, for example:

http://realestate.nytimes.com/sales/detail/253-NS90512228/usa/2B(040(BB173(A6-A7)))--1098-00-loc/3-beds/0-99000000-price/PRICE-HIGH-sort/120-p/3187-953412--253-NS90512228--2942-BL20225--46-1087625--44-1301758--1001-1682--354-3057--56-1024373--44-1514144--2942-BL20312-ls/160-t

FYI, this place came on the market pre-crash for $1.1+ and is now asking $879K. There are certainly others like this. Not huge, but efficient. And I'm sure you can get a big discount off even reduced ask, given how long it's been on market. There are bigger 3BRs out there, esp if you widen your search to PS107/39/10, and although I would not call the prices great right now, they are starting to have price cuts indicating that at least some sellers are letting reality begin to sink in...

Posted by: Miss Muffett at June 24, 2009 12:33 AM

bkbornandbred: perhaps everyone's left this thread, but there are other 3BR condo options in 321, for example:

Posted by: Miss Muffett at June 24, 2009 12:33 AM

« Williamsburg Hipsters Aren't All Rich Kids After All Co-op of the Day: 30 Willow Place, #4 »

June 23, 2009

Last Week's Biggest Sales

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions