« Co-op of the Day: 60 South Oxford Street, #5A Streetlevel: Food for Shakespeare's Sister? »

July 13, 2009

House of the Day: 111 Clifton Place

As much as the seller would like to claim this house at 111 Clifton Place is in Clinton Hill, it ain't; but it is only a few feet from the borderline. That's the least of her problems though: The major one is the asking price of $1,385,000. The seller bought this place back in 2005 for $599,000. Now we all know that prices certainly aren't any higher now than they were in 2005, so even if you give her $400,000 in credit for the renovation (which we suspect would be overstating the issue), that only gets you to $999,000. More evidence that she's barking up the wrong tree: This was unsuccessfully listed for about the same price back in the boom times of late 2007. So how could it possibly sell for that now?
111 Clifton Place [Corcoran] GMAP P*Shark

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/10543

Comments

Insane price, even if it were in the heart of Clinton Hill and not just outside of it. The fact is that this house is only 2100 square feet. Even in the boom a house of this size on the best block of Clinton Hill wouldn't have sold for that amount.

Posted by: wasder at July 13, 2009 1:18 PM

I would also say that this is one time that I would pick a price lower than the widget allows.

Posted by: wasder at July 13, 2009 1:22 PM

I would put 600,000 in on the widget if I could

Posted by: brickoven at July 13, 2009 1:24 PM

Someone asked about Mexican tiles in the Forum last week and a few people commented that it might not be good for resale. Here are two perfect examples in this kitchen & bath.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at July 13, 2009 1:27 PM

Wasder, same sentiment on the price. I put in $750k before realizing widget cut it off at 865k.

for 750k, I would consider buying it. 2100 is a good size for a 1 family setup. it's actually a decent looking place. Location is OK but the price is delusional

Posted by: more4less at July 13, 2009 1:33 PM

Pretty little house. I like it (I even like the Mexican tile!) and as I recall the block is fine. But yes, way overpriced, and since it's been on and off the market (mostly on) for ages now I suspect the owner isn't willing to go much lower. People can be awfully stubborn about the magic sell number in their head.

Posted by: gidgetgoesbrooklyn at July 13, 2009 1:37 PM

Agreed that the widget range is showing its limitations on this one!

Posted by: brownstoner at July 13, 2009 1:38 PM

M4L--as we have discussed before I am not usually one to undercut the widget so that is saying something about the unreasonable expectations of this seller.

Posted by: wasder at July 13, 2009 1:38 PM

Except for the Mexican tile (especially in the bath), it looks like a nice little house. That said, the asking price is delusional.

Posted by: CarrollGardened at July 13, 2009 1:41 PM

if seller doesn't "HAVE" to sell, guess no harm sitting patiently waiting for that 1 rich sucker to bite.

Posted by: more4less at July 13, 2009 1:44 PM

Comments on this house as filtered through my weekend reading:

Deutsche Bank housing report outlook from June '09 calls for current-to-trough loss of 42% in NY, equalling 50% total peak-to-trough. And that's assuming we don't over-correct here, which is natural.

Basis for measure is simple affordability as measured by mortage amount/property value equalling no more than 40% of median income. NY peak affordability, meaning the least acceptable calculation, dates back to 1998—shockingly, the year after banks began pushing exotic mortgage products in 1997.

NY owns the highest remaining percentage of outstanding subprime and Alt-A mortgages nationally at a whopping 13.8%.

Rest of nation, in most speculative or run up markets, will see declines of 50=70%, mostly california and florida. We're 2+ years behind the curve on deleveraging/depreciation.

So why do we think "NY is different"? NY is so desired, yes?

OK, agreed, we're special. But we are also ground zero for the financial disaster that originated (pun intended) this crisis, which has only been glossed over with trillions of taxpayer dollars. From 2005 until now, fully ONE-THIRD of NY (Manhattan) homes were purchased by foreigners. That currency trade has died along with Europe's economy.

The Ask/Bid spread between sellers and buyers is of cavernous proportions, and only one thing is going to change that: painful capitulation.

Meanwhile, our economy is going through a massive knee-jerk, but needed reaction to becoming a nation of savers, with consumption being reigned in, and the US consumer (fully 70% of our GDP) going through the same painful deleveraging the world must endure without our spending to keep it afloat.

My friends, the macro-trend here is gruesome.

Sorry to lay this heavy load on you my Clifton Hill abode, but methinks you, along with brethren have a lot of trouble ahead.

Agree with BrownstonesHalfOff's sentiment (as does Deutsche Bank apparently): "bid half off peak comps", and while I may disagree with What's tactics, he's fully spot on that the "mutant asset bubble" will wreak havok on those who are not in cash, awaiting opportunity.

The pricing widget and pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey appraisals do nothing more than reinforce "closer to the mirror than they appear" valuations of NY real estate. Buy at your own risk, real estate is not sport, and as of now, it's a bad investment.

Posted by: MoneyForNothing at July 13, 2009 1:55 PM

there is an awesome new show starting on thursday night on HGTV called Real Estate Invtervention. it's about people who price their houses too high and refuse to accept reality. it should be good!

*rob*

Posted by: PitbullNYC at July 13, 2009 2:00 PM

Prices are down everywhere but on Brownstoner.

Posted by: Minard Lafever at July 13, 2009 2:09 PM

We looked at this place pretty carefully before buying our place in Clinton Hill. It's a cozy little house, nicely decorated and finished, and it appeared to be in very good shape. The tile wasn't our taste, but whatever, not a big deal to change.

The biggest problem with the house was its size. The 2nd floor is very cramped -- there are no closets, no storage, and only one bathroom. The "Garden Floor" -- a generous characterization of what I would call an English basement -- has space, but low ceilings and no light. The back yard is very small, and faces a big fence with barbed wire (commercial use).

Bottom line, given that so much of the area is in a basement, it's hard to see this selling for more than 350 or 400/sq ft. Same ballpark as what everyone else is saying.

Posted by: josh59x at July 13, 2009 2:10 PM

Post checking out the flr plan and reading above posts, I just now realize the 2100 sq ft includes the basement footage. 750k was too generous. at 1400 sq ft, 550-575k at most

Posted by: more4less at July 13, 2009 2:16 PM

LOL JOSH, wow youre description sure sounds like an almost 1.5 million dollar property

no closets :-/
no storage :-/
one bathroom :-/
no light :-/
barbed wire backyard fence :-/
cramped :-/
low ceilings :-/

jumping crackerjacks people with money are bonkers

*rob*

Posted by: PitbullNYC at July 13, 2009 2:16 PM

rob, you hit the nail on the head.
People with money are bonkers.

Especially young people with money.
There are fewer of them around this year though.

Posted by: Minard Lafever at July 13, 2009 2:23 PM

i am sorry to harp on such a tired subject, but MR. B- who is the authority on where Clinton Hill ends? Who says Classon, and why? It just seems to me that common sense would tell us the Bedford-Stuyvesant is BETWEEN BEDFORD AND STUYVESANT, no?

Posted by: blowfish at July 13, 2009 2:29 PM

Inventory not moving, delistings and relistings, price cuts and lack of access to credit = pile of dog doo-doo. Take a sniff.

Posted by: MoneyForNothing at July 13, 2009 2:42 PM

$1.3 mil is ridiculous, but why would it be less than $900,000. Are fully renovated townhouses going for under a million in Clinton Hill now? Does two steps from the border equate to a $200,000 price cut?

Posted by: bedstuy11216 at July 13, 2009 2:45 PM

This place has an 18x32 floorplate with an english basement. Not a garden floor. not even 1200 sf above grade. Its an absolutely insane price that nobody will ever go for.

Posted by: Frederick Law Homestead at July 13, 2009 2:50 PM

blowfish...do you work at Corcoran? or did you just buy from them?

Only the Clinton Hill side of Classon has "one day a week" alternate side parking. The trash pick up schedule/the police precinct are two other dividers. Also, the Pratt Campus stops at Classon. The Nuns on the Bed-Stuy side of Classon say they are in Bed-Stuy.

Posted by: Art Salt at July 13, 2009 2:53 PM

1967 Bedford Stuyvesant was everything from Washington to Howard... That said this is a very nice house that should be in the 500K range

Posted by: Amzi Hill at July 13, 2009 2:54 PM

C'mon, guys. It's one block from the G train! With recent service upgrades, it's an easy commute to your job at the 99 cent store in Kensington.

Posted by: slick at July 13, 2009 2:55 PM

I didn't think these little two stories count as "townhouses"...I thought it was formerly "worker housing."

Posted by: Art Salt at July 13, 2009 2:55 PM

Clinton Hill use to end on Washington from what I understand but Corcoran has pushed it out.

Posted by: brickoven at July 13, 2009 3:00 PM

Yeah, that "garden floor," that is THE problem here. If it's not a proper garden floor, then everything is skewed.

I like the house. I like that the owners put in what they liked, not what was resellable (luckily only tile, though tile's not so "only"....). It's a nice SMALL house. It should be sold and priced as such.

But these things are complicated and emotional. We don't know the story here.

Posted by: Nomi at July 13, 2009 3:01 PM

The so-called worker housing is smaller than this, narrower and no question that the basement is a basement.

Posted by: Nomi at July 13, 2009 3:03 PM

I assume you're joking, but Corcoran didn't even know where Ft. Greene was on a map when the Clinton Hill historic district was carved out of Ft. Greene and Clinton Hill. My wife and I have an old map where the neighborhood is called Adelphi, just like at the Fulton Ave. post office.

Posted by: Art Salt at July 13, 2009 3:20 PM

The Adelphi Academy was once very famous. Now the old buildings serve as the architecture school for Pratt.

Posted by: Minard Lafever at July 13, 2009 3:36 PM

blowfish, Bed-Stuy is so named not for its borders, but because two separate neighborhoods (Bedford and Stuyvesant Heights) began to be referred to by a combined name around the 1940s and 50s.

The area around this block is notoriously drug-riddled and seems to have a shooting every other month. If the seller keeps trying to hold out, they'll be lucky to get $600,000 for it this time next year.

Also, for what it's worth, I don't think the "rich" would even consider buying on this block. I seem them getting suckered into the Toren or one of the waterfront digs in Williamsburg, but $400 per square foot (which is what this would be lucky to go for) is, sadly, hardly what goes for "rich" in New York.

Posted by: kimcheater at July 13, 2009 3:47 PM

Overpriced or not, I adore the renovation! I'm a big fan of Mexican tile too, so there!

Posted by: rh at July 13, 2009 4:51 PM

On a strictly tile-basis, I also have to admit the tiles are kind of nice...sorry...just me.

Well, even though the renovation looks very nice in the photos and they right by the G-train which, yes, *does* get you to places you need to go...or to stations where you can change trains, the price they have on the house is too high.

At this point, if they're serious about selling, be it a family or a flipper (or whatever you call it), they should price the house at or below the total of their costs and try to get their original investment out in the best shape they can (i.e. a net loss but not a total loss). They'll certainly never get the asking price or even slightly below that.

Unfortunately, lots of people got wrapped in the frenzy and overpaid for houses in Bed-Stuy the last bunch of years. I was upset when one of our friend's kids took the plunge. I told them to wait a couple of years because everything had been run up too high. It was awfully apparent at the time. Maybe it was easy enough to get financing and there was so much hype people were truly operating under some sort of suspended logic during the "boom".

Posted by: BrooklynGreene at July 13, 2009 7:26 PM

« Co-op of the Day: 60 South Oxford Street, #5A Streetlevel: Food for Shakespeare's Sister? »

July 13, 2009

House of the Day: 111 Clifton Place

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions