« Condo of the Day: 125 North 10th Street, #NPHD StreetLevel: Design Store Replaces Design Store on Smith »
September 30, 2009
House of the Day: 233 Garfield Place
We absolutely love this house at 233 Garfield Place that just hit the market. In fact, we'd rather buy a place like this that has all of its architectural details in place but is a little rough around the edges than a similar place that's been too fancied up. Assuming the former was priced at a sufficient discount to the former, of course. And that's the question here: This three-family place is beautiful but it's been in the same family for 60 years and so may not appeal to people who need brand new kitchens and bathrooms. Given all that, is the asking price of $2,500,000 realistic?
233 Garfield Place [Heights Berkeley] GMAP P*Shark
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/11649
Comments
The GMAP links to Propertyshark.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at September 30, 2009 1:15 PM
brownstoner, exactly. there's a ton of us that feel the same way. but @ 2.5M, not sure if there's any discount at all - ie how much would a move-in version cost? 3.2M?
Posted by: more4less at September 30, 2009 1:17 PM
Although I've seen a pinkish stone elsewhere, I assume the facade is painted. The architectural detail looks great. No floorplan :)
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at September 30, 2009 1:18 PM
the pink bubblegum house!!!! ugh i want that SO badly. what a welcome thing to behold in a long line of beiges, browns, bone, tan, etc.
*rob*
Posted by: Butterfly at September 30, 2009 1:19 PM
I suspect that with a new heating system, this house has up-to-code bx wiring and probably copper plumbing as well. If so, this will sell very close to ask.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at September 30, 2009 1:20 PM
I'll miss the pinkness once the new owner inevitably tones this place down.
Posted by: DitmasSnark at September 30, 2009 1:21 PM
PINK HOUSE!
Posted by: Santa at September 30, 2009 1:22 PM
Someone switched to decaf? Lots of typos and transposed links and numbers today.
I really like this house just the way it is, old style. Even the pinkish facade is kind of cheerful.
Posted by: Maly at September 30, 2009 1:24 PM
The ask? Ehhh...don't know.
The house? I'd take it in a heartbeat if I had the funds.
This is so gorgeous. I like it when the don't touch the kitchens and baths. I'd much rather make the design choices myself instead of settling for someone else's ideal.
Needs more floorplan though.
Posted by: TownhouseLady at September 30, 2009 1:25 PM
Funny how b-stoner dont object to this house being "out of context"
hypocrites
Posted by: fsrg at September 30, 2009 1:25 PM
Floor plan please? One of my pet peeves. Ahem.
Given that we know not the width of the place, nor the total square footage, nor the shape it is in, beyond that it has a "fairly" new boiler and has been in the same family for 60 years (another big *ahem*), nor the situation with the current tenants in place, I am hard pressed to comment.
But I will :)
For 2.5 million bucks: It is about as far from a subway stop as one can get in the slope, and is not on a park block. The room pics appear fairly narrow, leading me to think this might be under 19 ft. wide, no pics of kitchen or baths, meaning they are probably complete re-do's, wall-to-wall carpet all over the place which might mean the hardwood floors are complete re-do's, no working fireplaces or even descriptions of mantels, and finally, no description of or image of a garden. I think the asking price may be semi-delusional.
Posted by: Nokilissa at September 30, 2009 1:27 PM
Looks like a fun project, and a place where one could live while fixing up to your own personal taste as you go. I'll guess 2.2 million.
Posted by: 11217 at September 30, 2009 1:28 PM
Nothing has been done to this house's mechanicals for years and you'd need to redo absolutelt everything (as well as removing that pepto bismol paint all over the place). Not going to happen for over $1.8 million, and even that's stretching it.
Posted by: babs at September 30, 2009 1:29 PM
This house used to have a wrought iron fence around the stoop area that was painted lime green and white.
Posted by: SJ at September 30, 2009 1:29 PM
I rescind my comment about the mantles. You can see them in several pictures. Doh!
Posted by: Nokilissa at September 30, 2009 1:29 PM
That color is wild. I like it but they might get complaints. People are uptight.
Posted by: JHRiggs at September 30, 2009 1:29 PM
stfu fsrg.
Posted by: Oleg at September 30, 2009 1:30 PM
"People are uptight"
especially people with taste
Posted by: dittoburg at September 30, 2009 1:31 PM
"It is about as far from a subway stop as one can get in the slope"
It's really just a 5 block walk up 8th Avenue to the 2/3 at Grand Army Plaza. I'd say a 5 or 6 minute walk, tops.
Just a couple more blocks up 7th to the Q train...
7 minutes, maybe...?
Posted by: 11217 at September 30, 2009 1:31 PM
Did this place have a green painted brownstone next to it at some point? That was my favorite when I was a kid - made my mother go past it every day when she walked me to school.
Posted by: nycdelisauce at September 30, 2009 1:33 PM
Definitely needs a little more discount to counteract the renovation factor. 2100000.
Posted by: wasder at September 30, 2009 1:33 PM
The house looks great beautiful woodwork.. The price is so far above me that I can't comment on that.
Posted by: Amzi Hill at September 30, 2009 1:35 PM
Wow... Good will crowd today. I'm surprised by the price estimates so far. Even at the height of the market, a completely renovated and gorgeous brownstone or limestone on a park block, with an extra FLOOR, was going for 2.9 million, and if absolutely perfect, at 3 or just over.
This looks like it needs a good deal of tender loving care, and we don't even know what the tenant situation is, what the layout is, or even how big it is.
This seems like a 1.9 to me. But I could be wrong.
Posted by: Nokilissa at September 30, 2009 1:37 PM
3,264 sq. ft...19 X 45 on a 19 X 75 lot, Nokilissa
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at September 30, 2009 1:37 PM
A 2.5 ask price for a building in ParkSlope, 3 million dollar sales price on a coop in BK heights. The numbers are all over the place. It's amazing.
Posted by: jack slade at September 30, 2009 1:38 PM
C of O is for 4 family and taxes are only $2,688.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at September 30, 2009 1:40 PM
This might crack the $2m mark, but just barely.
Posted by: DitmasSnark at September 30, 2009 1:41 PM
2.5 Million is semi absurd.
I'm sure someone will pay more than it's worth, and the block is fantastic, but we're back to the elusive"die-hard landlord wannabe looking to live with 2 tenants and cash to burn" syndrome.
At 25% down, you need $700K minimum down to get going after all costs and taxes are factored in. Before ANY renovation occurs.
113 Garfield, which was an awfully nice home in it's own right (only 3-stories, a legal 2 used as a 1), and in much better shape, with fully updated mechanicals (you know this 60-years-in-the-family home likely does not) was last listed at $1.675M when it went into contract a month or so ago.
I imagine it went for $1.575 or so.
Not exactly a comp b/c of differences of 1 floor and this being a 3-family, but reasonable enough to say this is pretty damn pricey.
Posted by: MoneyForNothing at September 30, 2009 1:41 PM
The bubblegum house is for sale?!? Did the owner pass away? I know he's a neighborhood institution.
Price seems high for a three family needing major mechanical work.
And for any buyers out there - I had a terrible experience with this brokerage firm. In dealing with them on one property for which I was a serious buyer, I found them to be incompetent, careless, lazy, tellers of one lie big enough to matter, and not at all knowledgeable about a property they were supposed to be 'representing'. Let your watchwords be Due Diligence and Good Attorney.
Posted by: zeebee_in_bklyn at September 30, 2009 1:47 PM
"Even at the height of the market, a completely renovated and gorgeous brownstone or limestone on a park block, with an extra FLOOR, was going for 2.9 million, and if absolutely perfect, at 3 or just over."
Just to clarify, a house up the block from me closed at 3.4 at the height of the market, and in 2007, a house on my block sold for 2.75 million and was subsequently remodeled from top to bottom (I saw the place and it was ROUGH before the remodel). I'd say they've dropped at least 500-700K on the reno and it's stellar.
One other note...I saw that the rental last rented out for $2100 in 2008, just fyi.
Posted by: 11217 at September 30, 2009 1:54 PM
I remember this house was in the news a couple of years back. It's on a landmarked block but the owner had been painting it pink for so long it was grandfathered in. He had just painted it again, pinker than ever, the neighbors got all hysterical and it made the tv news. The owner couldn't give a rat's ass what his neighbors said, bless his soul. I love people like that. I think it's ugly, but I prefer brownstones painted white or a soft green so I don't like the landmark rules about them having to be brown. I'll be glad when the new owner puts a fresh coat of paint to cover up that ugly pink.
Posted by: Brooklynnative at September 30, 2009 1:55 PM
zeebee, where does it say it needs major mechanical work???
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at September 30, 2009 1:56 PM
This is the famous pink house. Did the old gentleman pass away? He kept it that color becuase his departed wife selected it when they first moved in. Even the Landmarks Commission gave him a pass -those softies!
Posted by: Minard Lafever at September 30, 2009 1:57 PM
This doesn't look pink enough to be the famous pink house.
I thought that one was brighter pink, but maybe it's the photo...
Posted by: 11217 at September 30, 2009 1:58 PM
The owner is still very much alive. He was in every real estate office on Seventh Ave last week -- guess he went with the one that gave him the highest ask and the lowest commission (because they don't co-broke). And actually the pink pre-dates landmarking on the block so it was grandfathered in.
Posted by: babs at September 30, 2009 2:01 PM
hmmm, 3 family (or maybe 4). I hope it has locked mail boxes for the tenants or I'm deducting $100k.
Posted by: Petebklyn at September 30, 2009 2:04 PM
DIBS, sorry about that - got that upthread and not from the listing, which I misread, though "fairly new boiler" makes me skeptical since I've dealt with this broker.
Posted by: zeebee_in_bklyn at September 30, 2009 2:11 PM
11217, what do you think is the mkt price for a move-in ready version of this? Considering the massive renov estimates people throw around on this blog, the 2.5M ask looks way overpriced if there's tons to renovate
Posted by: more4less at September 30, 2009 2:16 PM
Okay, 11217, you have some good info, but your block is arguably the best block in the neighborhood, and I'd need to be reminded of that listing (the one that closed at 3.4). And just because someone remodeled from top to bottom a home that closed for 2.75 - in 2007 - doesn't mean they needed to. This house needs it.
I don't know. As someone who has seen no less than 100 brownstones in and around Park Slope since early 2007, who has thought seriously about several, and who has made a few offers, I can say that this feels like a tough sell. And at least a half a million over-priced in the condition it is likely in.
And for what it's worth, I am a brisk stroller, even with a stroller. It takes me 10.2 minutes to walk to the Q at 7th from 2nd and 8th ;)
Posted by: Nokilissa at September 30, 2009 2:17 PM
"fairly new boiler" makes me skeptical since I've dealt with this broker.
Yes, just read the glowing recommendation for the broker a few threads above???
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at September 30, 2009 2:17 PM
Aside from bathrooms and kitchens, the remodelling costs look to consist primarily of floor sanding and wallpaper stripping. bathrooms can be remodelled for $8-20,000 depending on fixtures & tiling. The Addition of a bathroom will be much more and the much-desired ensuite bathroom will run more as well.
Wish we had floorplans but apparently the broker isn't very good.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at September 30, 2009 2:22 PM
"11217, what do you think is the mkt price for a move-in ready version of this?"
I'd say 2.5 or so.
Which is why I guessed 2.2 million with the thought that it might take a few hundred grand to get it back into pristine condition in the new owners taste.
2.2 might be a tad high though, although I'd think it could potentially crack 2 million, although we are entering a slow period now with cold weather coming...
Posted by: 11217 at September 30, 2009 2:22 PM
I don't pretend to know pricing variations that well in PS - but to me this is pretty prime PS territory(and the landmark area too?) - whether someone finds it too far from subway or not.
So I would be surprised if a 3200 sq ft house on a block like this has sold recently or will in near future sell for less than $2m unless a real dump. This is probably real livable just not having bourgeois modern kitchens and baths.
Posted by: Petebklyn at September 30, 2009 2:24 PM
Like this house.
2.5 must be too high, but I don't see how people are guessing without square feet or a floor plan. I see Dave found sq ft through secret society means (don't answer that; I know it's available), but most "appraising" have no idea. You people have to take this responsibility more seriously! For shame.
In other news, MoneyForNothing, you bring the worst out in me. Maybe in real life I'd fall madly in love with you . . .
Posted by: Nomi at September 30, 2009 2:25 PM
Now that I think about it, that Berkeley Place house sold for 2.2 recently. I know some here thought it needed some renovations (people didn't like the kitchen, I recall) but arguably Berkeley is a tad more desirable than Garfield, so I might adjust my guess to 2 million.
Posted by: 11217 at September 30, 2009 2:25 PM
Square footage and dimensions are on propertyshark.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at September 30, 2009 2:32 PM
pivoting off 11217's $2M estimate, I'm guessing another 200k discount for the time & hassle of renovating so guessing 1.8M
Posted by: more4less at September 30, 2009 2:33 PM
Berkeley is a much better block in my opinion because a lot closer to the subway.
Posted by: Brooklynnative at September 30, 2009 2:46 PM
No fan of the pink and while the wood work is amazing doesn't anyone else think it makes the place look a bit dark. Perhaps just crap photos. Great location and could easily go for near ask although in truth if I was looking to lay down that sort of money I'd be looking far more closely at comps to really back that comment up.....
Posted by: 10thStreetReno at September 30, 2009 3:02 PM
i seriously doubt it nomi, but that's a funny thought.
just guessing, but you don't seem the type to fall for someone who likes to publicize how big their savings account is....
Posted by: antidope at September 30, 2009 3:02 PM
LPC didn't go soft here. House was grandfathered because it was pink before landmarks law was enacted. LPC can't order a grandfathered brownstone to be unpainted. Re fsrq, I see no inconsistency in loving this house while objecting to new construction that pays no respect to the size, shape, design, and setback of surrounding houses. This one is contextual in every way except the color. Not everyone loves the pink, but novelty and context can coexist. It's also been that way forever.
Posted by: slopefarm at September 30, 2009 3:14 PM
And per LPC, it now must remain pink in perpetuity.
:-)
Posted by: Bklnite at September 30, 2009 3:21 PM
You should see some of the monster show stuff that was grandfathered into the Greenpoint historic district (yes, beleive or not, there is one).
Posted by: dittoburg at September 30, 2009 3:22 PM
I seriously hope the new owners don't tone down the color... if they don't like pink, they should go with something else. It's seriously awesome.
Oh, but crap... Slopefarm said above that it has to be pink or something boring. Damn.
Posted by: tybur6 at September 30, 2009 3:25 PM
Because it was "grandfathered in" as pink does not mean that it has to stay that way. It can be returned to the original brownstone.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at September 30, 2009 3:28 PM
property shark has a handy comp search tool...
Looking for 1,2 & 3 family houses would result in some higher comps, but narrowing to nearby recent 3 family sales:
Number of properties found: 1 Median price: $2,200,000
Low price: $2,200,000 Median Price per SF: $524
High price: $2,200,000 Median Gross SF: 4,196
Value of subject property at Median Price per SF: $1,710,336
-
Address Zip code Distance Borough Date closed Sale price Gross SF Price/SF
213 Berkeley Pl 11217 0.23 Brooklyn 8/28/2009 $2,200,000 4,196 $524
Posted by: Bklnite at September 30, 2009 3:34 PM
love the pink, but ive found that that specific area is park slope is very cheap when it comes to putting free stuff out on their stoops. i dont think ive ever seen anything out on stoops for free. so just for that's a big minus for me.
*rob*
Posted by: Butterfly at September 30, 2009 3:45 PM
Landmarks didn't go that soft. The house has an outstanding violation for installing non-complying aluminum windows in 2002.
http://archive.citylaw.org/lpc/permit/2006/026641.pdf
Posted by: cm at September 30, 2009 3:57 PM
Right DIBS... that's the problem. It has to be boring, or stick with the pink. The landmark folks don't have any humor in them, do they?
Posted by: tybur6 at September 30, 2009 4:02 PM
tyburg -- I honestly don't know if it must be pink or if they are free to paint any color. I do know they repainted about four years ago and the pink was really amazing. And I am sure DIBS is right that LPC would not object to a return to brownstone. But it is such a fun local landmark, I'm rooting for it to stay pink, even though I have to put up with a Henry Mancini earworm every time I pass it.
Posted by: slopefarm at September 30, 2009 4:02 PM
CM... The HORROR!! :-)
Posted by: tybur6 at September 30, 2009 4:03 PM
Would LPC really allow a repaint, pink or not???
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at September 30, 2009 4:19 PM
I think the issue was that the house had been painted pink for as long as anyone remembers but then, a few years back, the owner re-painted a far more shocking shade of pink and the neighbors went berzerk. He swore that it was the original color his wife had picked out in 1963 or whenever and that the old paint had "faded" over time. He could have been right, who knows? anyway the Landmaks Commission wisely decided to give him a pass. Removing the pinkness will cost around $20,000 -not including the cost of re-pointing and masonry repair afterwards. A lovely house for someone with deep pockets because it will need a lot of work. I don't think it is possible for it to break through two million in this market.
Posted by: Minard Lafever at September 30, 2009 4:23 PM
I just checked: there are some brownstones in good condition in prime park slope asking 1.6mil. So I don't think this can fetch more than 1.4mil right now.
However the owner and ad seems somewhat peculiar and it smells a "death with thousand chops" case. So it might be much less. Ignore.
Posted by: bklplebe at September 30, 2009 4:26 PM
I know I know... people that buy houses like this have a couple million dollars burning a hole in their pockets....
But, at 20% down -- it's an $11,000 per month mortgage! That's just plain crazy. Or about $130,000 per year just for your monthly payment... not including taxes or maintenance or fuel.
Yowzers!!! Who has this sort of money and can I have just a little?
Posted by: tybur6 at September 30, 2009 4:28 PM
..also, in re-reading the write-up I don't see the magic phrase: "delivered vacant". If there are elderly tenants in there, they're as stuck to the house as the pink paint.
Posted by: Minard Lafever at September 30, 2009 4:28 PM
Ugly depressing house.
Posted by: billyboomer at September 30, 2009 4:30 PM
tyburg, Very few people have this sort of money and fewer still with any desire to buy a pink house in Brooklyn.
Posted by: Minard Lafever at September 30, 2009 4:32 PM
Tyburg:
I think you might have missed this article I posted earlier today...
43,000 people in NYC make over $200,000 grand a year.
There are maybe 100 brownstones for sale in Brownstone Brooklyn.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/rise_in_nyc_rich_club_nDlTIL5cn79sDPvhv4woiI
Posted by: 11217 at September 30, 2009 4:43 PM
maybe john cougar is interested in following bjork to bkln?
Posted by: antidope at September 30, 2009 4:46 PM
With the rental, this place is $9,000 a month (before the tax deduction) which is totally doable for a couple making 400K yearly.
Only takes one buyer to make a deal happen.
Posted by: 11217 at September 30, 2009 4:48 PM
you can't afford this house if you make only $200,000 a year.
wait, what do you mean by 200,000 grand? 200 million?
Posted by: Minard Lafever at September 30, 2009 4:49 PM
"Only takes one buyer to make a deal happen."
You forgot the qualifier "fool".
Because a non fool buyer who makes 400K will rent a duplex in the same neighborhood for 4-5K while they wait for the inevitable price chops which wlll bring their cost of owning to 5K/month (as much as their rent). Meanwhile they will save for downpayment and focus on their 400K business instead of playing landlord.
Posted by: bklplebe at September 30, 2009 5:06 PM
Good thing this world is filled with so many fools, then Bklplebe, cause I see people buying these houses on a regular basis, no matter what you pronounce to be true on Brownstoner.
Imagine that!
Posted by: 11217 at September 30, 2009 5:08 PM
"you can't afford this house if you make only $200,000 a year."
Never said that. I think very few single people buy brownstones. They are mostly couples (with or without kids) and the article I just posted shows that there are 43,000 people in NYC who make over 200K a year.
400K a year (a couple) could afford this house.
Posted by: 11217 at September 30, 2009 5:10 PM
"43,000 people in NYC make over $200,000 grand a year. "
-----------------------
I'm one of them (when my business is doing well). And you know what. Even at the $250-$300K a year my family might make, these places are seriously out of reach.
Plain and simple, $1M+ 1350SF condos and $2M brownstones do not make sense and are generally unsustainable if you consider a person such as myself "upper-middle class" for NYC? (God, upper class in NY you gotta pull in 400K+ a year I guess?)
And even at the $200-250K threshold, a monthly payment on an "average!" $1.6M 2-family home is a relatively risky proposition.
Consider (and I'm not trying to boast here, just make a point) I suspect most people like me in the magic $200K+ a year threshold, who are doing well by most standards:
--Aren't sitting on $550K non-retirement in cash in a ready to go.
--They don't carry zero debt service.
--They don't have zero large monthly payments.
--They don;t have a contingency sale to make in order to purchase a new home (ie, renters)
Yet I have all these things and even a "modest, poor-man's" $1.6 Million dollar 2-family home makes little to no financial sense. Nor do the 1+ Million dollar, 2BR condos I see.
The payments are just absurd and would add so much stress to your life it's not worth it.
So I have no clue what someone might pay for this thing, but I'm going to venture that you're looking at a very small pool of buyers, particularly ones w/ this sort of scratch and financial wherewithal looking to do a massive renovation and be landlords.
Either lots of people like me are going to cave in and take on large financial risk because we want to own in Brooklyn, or the multi-family brownstown market will forever become an uper class phenomenon that high-wage earners like myself who would like to be a landlord will never attain.
Or, more likely, the slow, gradual sapping of strength from the market, and the continued number of deals done below ask will continue until well-to-do working people can afford to live in the community.
Posted by: MoneyForNothing at September 30, 2009 5:11 PM
"400K a year (a couple) could afford this house. "
That's quite an assumption that there are a plethora of couples where both people draw 200K+ a year.
And as a family that if my wife were working instead of raising our daughter, would be a very nice annual family income, this 2.5 million dollar home makes little to no sense.
A 2 million dollar home is pushing it.
And you better bet I ain't paying to massively reno the place, including mechanicals if I'm laying out that sort of scratch. There's just no way.
2 million bucks, that sh*t better be in top-notch condition.
Posted by: MoneyForNothing at September 30, 2009 5:16 PM
"They are mostly couples (with or without kids) and the article I just posted shows that there are 43,000 people in NYC who make over 200K a year.
400K a year (a couple) could afford this house. "
A couple as in "a couple of households"? Amazing.
Posted by: bklplebe at September 30, 2009 5:16 PM
"That's quite an assumption that there are a plethora of couples where both people draw 200K+ a year."
I never said there was a plethora...in fact I said it takes just one.
Buyers for these brownstones are, in fact a very small pool of people, but to suggest that rich people in NYC will no longer want to drop 2 million on a large home in a great neighborhood seems rather naive to me.
Posted by: 11217 at September 30, 2009 5:19 PM
I agree that even if you make $400,000 a year, this house, at two-plus million dollars plus repairs, is out of reach. This baby requires someone who got a windfall. either an inheritance or a huge bonus and who can plunk down two million cash. Those folks can be very picky.
Real estate has reached a high level of unaffordability in certain parts of Brooklyn. And keep in mind that this isn't a pristine 2 million dollar house that you just move into. It is a mess that will require a year or two and tons of money to make presentable. Pretty incredible when you think about it.
Posted by: Minard Lafever at September 30, 2009 5:21 PM
Let me explain:
The NY post article talks about 43000 households not "people" so it will take a couple of households to buy the ridiculous (because of price not pink) brownstone.
Posted by: bklplebe at September 30, 2009 5:22 PM
You're right Bkplebe and Minard.
No one in NYC spends more than 2 million on a house anymore.
What was I thinking??
(meanwhile looks at last week's biggest sales thread...)
Posted by: 11217 at September 30, 2009 5:25 PM
"I never said there was a plethora...in fact I said it takes just one. "
----------------------
A buying party of one tends to have an awful lot of negotiation leveredge when bidding on a home (and a pool of better quality alternatives with similarly low bidder pools).
Points to a downtick in prices if you ask me.
Unless these people are this wealthy, but too dumb to know they are a rare breed indeed.
So it may only take one, but it'd have to be an incredibly stoopid one at that.
Posted by: MoneyForNothing at September 30, 2009 5:26 PM
i actually agree that this house is out of reach for the MFNs of the world. As distasteful as he is, the math does not work for most anyone paying with an 80% LTV mortgage, esp in this unclear economic environment.
however, what he fails to consider is that just about everyone buying a TH is trading up. the 10 yr mega real estate run up in NYC benefitted those who were in at the beginning, but unfortunately disadvantaged those that were not. even with the recent sell-off.
if you look at sales of TH most clear ACRIS with mortgages of 50% or less of the deed price.
another factor may be transfer of wealth (famous trust fundees).
Posted by: antidope at September 30, 2009 5:27 PM
And just for clarification, Bkplebe, (although you wouldn't think I'd need to clarify such a thing) if 43,000 households in NYC make over 200K, you do realize that dare I say thousands (maybe tens of thousands) of those make in the millions per year.
Just because they make over 200K, doesn't mean it's $200,001 dollars per year.
Do you people live in a hole and not realize that people across the bridge are still dropping 5, 10, 20, 30 million dollars for houses and apartments...?
Posted by: 11217 at September 30, 2009 5:28 PM
We have to assume anyone buying a 2 million dollar home is coming from another home and this isn't their first home purchase, no? Or at least the majority of them...?
If they bought a home or apartment in NYC anytime before let's say 2004 or 05, they are probably sitting on quite a bit of equity in which to put into these brownstones.
Can we at least agree on that?
So yes...400K combined income with a prior sale (seemed obvious to me that a large majority of 2 million dollar homes are most likely selling something else) would be just the type of buyer this seller would be looking for...
Posted by: 11217 at September 30, 2009 5:31 PM
"however, what he fails to consider is that just about everyone buying a TH is trading up. the 10 yr mega real estate run up in NYC benefitted those who were in at the beginning, but unfortunately disadvantaged those that were not. even with the recent sell-off."
You fail to realize that people who own are those who cannot sell or need to consider lowering their price significantly before buying. And those who bought in the 90s or earlier have no problem lowering their prices. That's why NYC RE is tanking.
Posted by: bklplebe at September 30, 2009 5:37 PM
"As distasteful as he is..."
Man, now dope, that one hurts.
I'm just givin you the straight dope, from the perspective of (I think) a relatively rational buyer of means, with a little macro-economic flair and you have to go and piss in my cheerios.
I'm taking you out of the will.
Posted by: MoneyForNothing at September 30, 2009 5:41 PM
"That's why NYC RE is tanking."
**
On a seasonally adjusted basis, home prices in San Diego were up 2 percent in July; Los Angeles rose 1.2 percent; and San Francisco increased 2.9 percent. New York rose 0.9 percent, while Minneapolis, the best-performing city, was up 3.1 percent. Without the adjustments, which is how Case-Shiller numbers were reported until recently, the increases were all somewhat greater.
Posted by: 11217 at September 30, 2009 5:42 PM
bkl you're not firing on all cylinders.
for your edification, the vast majority of "people who own" are comfortably enjoying their homes, neighborhood, borough and city. selling, price adjusting or not, is occurring only on the margins. and yes these transactions determine price today.
where's the tank? i know i know: it's coming just watch.
Posted by: antidope at September 30, 2009 5:43 PM
There was, and probably still is, a large pool of people in New York with $500k to drop and with enough income to float a $9,000 mortgage. 2 Years ago, the culture in the city was such that if you had the money and the income level, that is what you did. You bought as much house as you could "afford" and grew into it, both in terms of family and income.
Now, many people want a cushion. They are not as confident they will continue to take in $20k gross a month forever, and maybe that $500k is down to $350k. If you have a high paying job, it is scary to think that you would have to trade down if you ever lost it.
The pool of potential buyers for $2m Brownstones and $1m condos is wayyyy down. The sales will still happen, but any uptick in supply is going to do some damage to the market.
If for some reason the economy starts to really grow, not just level off or stagnate, then things can change.
Posted by: Brokedeveloper at September 30, 2009 5:45 PM
Of course those who bought the last few years and the developers are those who will hurt the most. There will be a lot of pain before the market corrects. No wonder credit is cheap; no one wants it to buy ridiculously overpriced/unaffordable properties needing renovation and landlord waste of time.
Posted by: bklplebe at September 30, 2009 5:46 PM
That 43,000 number doesnt seem surprising at all. Perhaps I feel that way because I'm a professional, and many of my friends, classmates, and friends of friends, etc travel in professional circles. But it boggles my mind how many people I know who earn over $200K. And they seem to marry eachother! Lawyer marries doctor. Consultant marries ad exec. Banker marries VP of sales. And so on and so on. And that doesnt take into account family money, foreign money etc. There are plenty of buyers out there who can handle a purchase like this.
Posted by: saminthehood at September 30, 2009 5:50 PM
"On a seasonally adjusted basis, home prices in San Diego were up 2 percent in July; Los Angeles rose 1.2 percent; and San Francisco increased 2.9 percent. New York rose 0.9 percent, ...."
you are not the best in interpreting data. The uptick was in all NYC area that includes properties sensitive to the first time buying where the 8k applies. Unfortunately the CS condo index for NYC decreased despite the fed, gov and bank never seen before support actions. Look it up.
Further, it is not the month to month change but the year to year one and this is about -10%. Most important however is the fundamental analysis of unaffordability which shows clearly where things are heading. Open your eyes to what moneyfornothing says.
Posted by: bklplebe at September 30, 2009 5:55 PM
"Further, it is not the month to month change but the year to year one and this is about -10%. "
So let me get this straight...your idea of "tanking" is down 10% year over year...?
Is your alter ego brickoven? Or perhaps cornerbodega...?
Cause you don't make much sense, dude.
Either that, or you need to do some homework on the definition of a tanking real estate market.
Up .9% month to month (no matter how you want to spin it) is NOT a tanking market. It might not be good, and it might be worse in NYC than the NYC metropolitan area, but TANKING it is not.
Posted by: 11217 at September 30, 2009 6:01 PM
"...maybe that $500k is down to $350k."
Well put, because this is my number exactly as one of the people in this situation. Leaving 200K in cash for potential lean times ahead is a must.
I suspect the majority of people in my position are thinking similarly.
Let's also not forget that the last 6-9 months represent a serious reflation trade financed by stimulus rolled off the printing presses in unprecedented quantities.
We've hooked up electrodes to the dead frog to twitch it.
Everyone has seen how the economy responds when there's over a trillion dollars in stimulus, primarily aimed at the finance industry here in NY.
Nationally, it's been accompanied with zero in the way of job or wage growth. The stock market is up, nothing else. The sustainable fundamentals of financially healthy Americans are not coming along for the ride. It's a trade.
What we don;t know is how it responds when it ends, and rates rise.
Both soon to come...
Posted by: MoneyForNothing at September 30, 2009 6:01 PM
For somebody who bought a 1mil property last September with 100K downpayment and now costs 900K with similar expectations for next year, this is TANKING. Unfortunately, it all depends where you are looking from and obviously your point of view is advantageous.
Posted by: bklplebe at September 30, 2009 6:10 PM
"Is your alter ego brickoven? Or perhaps cornerbodega...?"
Many people here lack the imagination to believe that there are more than a handful of people who see that re is a losing proposition.
Incidentally it is an honor to be confused with legendary pioneers such as what, bho, brickoven, cornerbodega etc who sacrificed their time illuminating us :)
Posted by: bklplebe at September 30, 2009 6:16 PM
bkl-
you previously conflated the entire real estate world (537p) with your own personal problema (610p).
instead of saying nyc real estate is tanking, it would've been more accurate to say your personal balance sheet has tanked. hopefully for you, you don't need to convert your paper loss to the real thing.
good luck and try to enjoy your home.
Posted by: antidope at September 30, 2009 6:17 PM
Incidentally it is an honor to be confused with legendary pioneers such as what, bho, brickoven, cornerbodega etc who sacrificed their time illuminating us :)
Posted by: bklplebe at September 30, 2009 6:16 PM
ROTFLMMFAO
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at September 30, 2009 6:56 PM
Apparently, IB, you were late to the party. You were not a "legendary pioneer" and therefore not responsible for bklplebe's "illumination."
Posted by: slopefarm at October 1, 2009 11:43 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.