« Tea Lounge Closing and Unopening Co-op of the Day: 55 Pineapple Street, #7H »

October 6, 2009

Last Week's Biggest Sales: Bay Ridge on Top

lwbs%2010-6-2009.jpg
1. BAY RIDGE $1,900,000
8025 Harbor View Terrace GMAP (left)
In its listing, this 3,274-sf one-family house was described as being in "the Beverly Hills of Bay Ridge." It was asking $2.3 million. Entered into contract on 6/28/09; closed on 9/18/09; deed recorded on 9/28/09.

2. BAY RIDGE $1,570,000
7801 Narrows Avenue GMAP (right)
This house sold under foreclosure pressure, according to Property Shark. Two foreclosure auctions on the 3,074-sf, single-family house were scheduled this year. Entered into contract on 7/6/09; closed on 9/16/09; deed recorded on 9/30/09.

3. BAY RIDGE $1,300,000
120 85th Street GMAP
This 3,190-sf house was listed for $1.49 million. Entered into contract on 9/18/09; closed on 9/18/09; deed recorded on 10/2/09.

4. PROSPECT HEIGHTS $1,300,000
50 Plaza Street East, Unit 11 GMAP
Size of this unit, which is in one of Prospect Heights' most prestigious co-ops, is unknown. Property Shark says the unit last sold for $960,000 in 2004. Closed on 9/3/09; deed recorded on 9/29/09.

5. PARK SLOPE $1,265,000
133 Sterling Place #5A GMAP
If StreetEasy's info on this unit is accurate, it commanded far less than what the sponsor was fishing for: The 1,758-sf condo in the Vermeil was originally listed for $2,300,000 in January '07 and last asking $2,100,000. Sale included a parking spot. Entered into contract on 3/20/09; closed on 6/4/09; deed recorded on 9/28/09.

Photos from Property Shark.

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/11743

Comments

quote:
"the Beverly Hills of Bay Ridge."

ugh. Brenda dont think so.

*rob*

Posted by: Butterfly at October 6, 2009 11:36 AM

Even at the current sales price, the PS place sold for $720 psf. The asking prices at The Vermeil were ABSURD! Even at the peak of the bubble. 1.265 mil for a 3 bedroom is a huge price for a PS apartment, in my opinion.

It looks to me as though there are only 4 units left for sale. If that's really the case, I'm impressed.

Posted by: 11217 at October 6, 2009 11:40 AM

and FYI i meant Brenda from 90210, not Brenda from Flatbush. tho something tells me brenda from flatbush dont think so either.

*rob*

Posted by: Butterfly at October 6, 2009 11:46 AM

11217,

I'm getting 719 sq/ft for the condo. If you net out, say, $75,000 for the parking space, its more like $680 sq/ft. Still not bad, but that has to be quite a bit down from peak.

Given this pricing, I'd be surprised if anyone were willing to pay more than $550 sq/ft for 4th Ave "stuff". Probably means the Meier stuff needs to be at $750 or less to move.

Posted by: Brokedeveloper at October 6, 2009 11:50 AM

11217, sorry realized you put in $720...my bad eyes read $770 first time through.

Posted by: Brokedeveloper at October 6, 2009 11:51 AM

a place in 309 3rd sold for 700/ft a few weeks ago according to a broker selling another unit in the same building (I know, we'll see at closing time). the ugly 4th ave location seems to be offset by the good school zone. 133 sterling is in a weak one.

Posted by: joe_the_bummer at October 6, 2009 12:00 PM

So I think when you compare those two locations, you need to make an adjustment if it's a 3+ BR, since the buyers are more likely to be families. That berkely carroll tuition is a 5000/month nut for two kids, you know.

Posted by: joe_the_bummer at October 6, 2009 12:03 PM

50% off peak ask. means nada. thanks for pre-empting the idiot brigade, 11217.

what does $700/sq ft mean? let me paraphrase, 'toopid buyers.

really, it's just a matter of waiting til these condos go for $300/sqft, right?

Posted by: antidope at October 6, 2009 12:13 PM

B'developer, we were hearing earlier 120k for the ones @ one brooklyn. 75k for a parking spot? is that the going rate for covered parking in the slopes now?

Posted by: more4less at October 6, 2009 12:27 PM

joe: i think you're right that ps 321 certainly can grab a premium, but i think a lot of buyers (or, at least, buyers who opt out of the 321 zone) don't really translate it into monthly dollars quite like that. people, even those who buy apartments for $1.3 million, have widely variant approaches to schooling, particularly in the early years, so they may not demand as much of a discount as you seem to be implying.

Posted by: i disagree at October 6, 2009 12:32 PM

here are two crude ways to value a parking spot, starting with the 450/month price at union street (incl tax):

A. how much more house do you get for $450 addional mortgage payment: you get about 80K assuming 5.5% 30yr fixed

B. what is the value of a 450/month perpetual cash flow stream. the formula for a perpetuity is (pmt/ir). You get about 97K, assuming the same 5.5% interest rate.

Anyone paying over 100K living in the north slope should have rented a spot.

Posted by: joe_the_bummer at October 6, 2009 12:39 PM

JTB- don't forget to subtract the monthly maintenance you still have to pay on your "owned" spot. also, 450 is top dollar. i'd say 25-50 depending on maintenance.

Posted by: antidope at October 6, 2009 12:43 PM

J bummer, your math just re-ignited my regret not buying cobble hill condo where wife (then g'friend) over-ruled me in buying it and the 2 parking spots (ie it was 16-20k each). why did I give up wearing the pants so early - ie wasn't even engaged yet?? Arhhhhh!!!!!!!

Posted by: more4less at October 6, 2009 12:45 PM

thanks idisagree. I don't mean to say that people are pricing in 5K a month to cross school zones -- clearly they're not. That would account for an extra million dollars in price. I'm just saying that the 4th ave gap ought to be smaller for 3BRs than for smaller apartments.

Posted by: joe_the_bummer at October 6, 2009 12:48 PM

antidope -- take off 5-10K from the break-even, then. m4l sorry about the pants

Posted by: joe_the_bummer at October 6, 2009 1:05 PM

Does anyone know anything about the Plaza Street place?

Posted by: ilovebrooklyn at October 6, 2009 1:06 PM

Since they have only sold about 5 spots at One Brooklyn by my estimation, I'm guessing they overpriced them. By the way, you can rent a space there for $200/month. One of the best values in the Heights.

Posted by: Brokedeveloper at October 6, 2009 1:07 PM

if you can rent a space for 200/month then whoever priced them at 120K seriously needs to find a new career.

Posted by: joe_the_bummer at October 6, 2009 1:17 PM

J bummer, the 200/month is a limited time special - ie get some cash inflow vs. waiting for more nibbles on the 120k sales. 200 is a good price in tons of hoods and is ridiculously cheap at that developmt

Posted by: more4less at October 6, 2009 1:22 PM

joe: that makes sense, relatively speaking.

Posted by: i disagree at October 6, 2009 1:42 PM

oh. thanks. you saved me a rant on how the average real estate buyer has no idea how to value any asset, and in a housing environment of historically high price/rent ratios, the greater fool theory explains nearly all of the buying participation, and here was an example of people paying an extra 40K to put a sign with their name on their spot, as if they were sponsoring a seat at the Met, etc. So ok, they are paying 20K for that sign.

There are some foolish buyers out there. the sterling place might not be that bad of a deal, but folks are believing that a single sale establishes "where the market is". that's only true if the normal level of volume clears the market. these sales are not good data. the market is too thin.

Posted by: joe_the_bummer at October 6, 2009 1:42 PM

Joe,

Here are the 3 most recent sales for 133 Sterling (these were sold after the one listed above) so I think it gives a pretty good idea of what's going on at this development at least...(they are all 3 bed/2 bath with around the same square footage as the one above...)

09/04/2009 #4G $1,250,000

08/28/2009 #3B+ $1,209,000

07/10/2009 #2B $1,010,000

Posted by: 11217 at October 6, 2009 1:52 PM

5-10k sounds totally arbitrary. why don't you use the actual monthly maintenance to get to real cash flow before you calculate. don't forget to include your daily/annal tips!

also the real estate market is always made up of "the average real estate buyer," right?

also also NY is always a high price/rent ratio environment even if you believe it will compress further, in absolute terms NY will be high price/rent.

so all you're really saying is anyone buying now looks foolish. and that will be the case until volume returns.

or am i missing something?

Posted by: antidope at October 6, 2009 1:54 PM

Prices were rising much faster than rents from 1995-2007, so I would bet we are at a much higher price/rent ratio than normal. I remember doing some calcs in the late nineties where it actually made short term financial sense to buy. I haven't seen a calc that actually works in favor of buying at least 5 years, despite historically low interest rates.

This widening of the gap has been driven by expectations that both were going to keep going up and that owning would provide a long term way to fix costs (mostly). With price (and rent costs for that matter)sentiment split, it would makes sense that this gap will narrow, if not reverse. Perhaps rents will start to rise with recovery and meet prices in the middle. We'll see.

Posted by: Brokedeveloper at October 6, 2009 2:06 PM

i wouldn't buy as an investment unless i got 50% off peak price/rent ratio. that i will agree with bho.

single family's and seasoned coops / condos are subject to compression, but i don't think i'd wait for that kind of discount (mostly i think we're not going to see it). no rush but i think within 6 months i'd be comfortable that the economy / ny is on firm enuf ground to buy.

Posted by: antidope at October 6, 2009 2:18 PM

Apt 5A at Vermeil was last asking $1.5m but included a spectacular rooftop terrace that was bigger than the apt itself...

Posted by: tricks73 at October 6, 2009 2:37 PM

brownstoner you have F'd me for the last time, letting me post on yesterday's login and then F-ing me over with "submission error" when I write the longest one of the day. F this.

Posted by: joe_the_bummer at October 6, 2009 2:46 PM

Some food for thought. The "Elan" next to McDonald's on 1st St. and 4th Avenue, per ACRIS, just had it's second recorded sale. Apt. 5C which is 3 B.R. went for about $555/S.F. A bank in Smithtown L.I. has done the financing here and for apt. 5B. All other occupied units appear to be rentals since they have no recent recorded sales. I see this building from my residence on 2nd St. so am wondering how most folks could possibly purchase given the fact that most lenders need a 50% threshold of sales to qualify. There is a $14 million construction loan outstanding so it appears that lender doesn't yet want this loser in its portfolio to manage and sell. If a real fire sale happens I might jump in. Sad state of affairs on 4th Ave. with construction activity at the new building at Carroll St. now shut down for months as well.

Posted by: MarionG at October 6, 2009 2:48 PM

antidope, the 5-10K was crude but not arbitrary. I used the same perpetual cashflow model (C/r) with your 25-50/month maintenance suggestion.

crap. my long (lost) argument said that low volume indicates lack of a clearing price, and since we know the direction of prices already, it's clearly the sellers that need to capitulate. buying now is funding losses for sellers, and yes, foolish.

only the marginal buyer matters, not the average one, and there's a big difference. The parking spots are a clear example, and a great illustration. If 25 had sold and not 5, we could have confidence in the price. There is no 6th buyer at the price of 120K. How far back is #6's price? who knows? they have to sell it to find out. The inventory matters, the timing matters, the rental price matters, and probably a lot of other things matter that can't be known, but what's clear is that the price for spot #6 is lower than the price for spot #5.

so...the smaller the sample, the weaker the connection to the real price for the rest of the inventory. Look at the flood of volume in California. Now that's a bottom. When you see volumes go way up here, then it's a bottom, and no sooner. and I'm not talking about "higher than second quarter of 08" as the RE industry is proudly reporting. I mean above normal for the last decade.

Posted by: joe_the_bummer at October 6, 2009 3:02 PM

i think we'll agree to disagree on the state of the market. i do agree volume is very thin. and that that's important.

fyi, my 25-50 was a guess at full price (not monthly maint) of a spot wo making any calcs. 25K-50K that is. I would strongly urge anyone considering buying a parking spot to do the math jtb outlined based on actual cost to park minus all costs associated w ownership. i have seen $100/mo "maintenance" on spaces. doing the math is not pretty then.

Posted by: antidope at October 6, 2009 3:12 PM

antidope what's your reasoning for being bullish? always interested in good args....

Posted by: joe_the_bummer at October 6, 2009 3:23 PM

i. start with, the conviction of the masses make me doubt the masses.

ii. every negative has a counter argument; most important is the current difficulty in attaining financing; banks now appear to be surviving and i believe it is a matter of time until jumbos re-open (and i see no rising i rate environment over the period required for banks to recapitalize).

iii. we went over the biggest cliff i've seen in many many yrs of market watching. yet re prices appear to be plateauing.

iv. why o why a plateau? is the same as why such low volume? i think there is a huge almost immeasurable amount of equity in ny real estate built on the back of 60 years of post ww2 economic growth. only the very margin is feeling the need to sell, everyone else is de-listing and waiting, enjoying bkln/ny.

v. finally i think arguments that prices have to revert to a certain year are absolute nonsense.

vi. just like when it looked like there was no way to lose in RE (see 2006, with hoi polloi flipping condos) it can reverse. we could be on opposite side of the coin.

vii. finally finally i do believe in nyc and nyc is different than anywhere else in the us and that has changed for the better in the last 20 years.

viii. finally finally finally i believe in the power of stupid buyers.

not sure that'll convince anyone, but there you have 30 minutes of my barstool conversation.

Posted by: antidope at October 6, 2009 3:36 PM

btw, that rant does not make me bullish just not bearish. let's take a look again in 6 months.

Posted by: antidope at October 6, 2009 3:37 PM

"volume is very thin"

Shadow inventory is thick like Serena. An uptick in volume precedes capitulation.

***Bid half off peak comps***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at October 6, 2009 3:53 PM

parking spot way more convenient and valuable than stated above vs. renting. one problem in the slope is that there are so few spots to rent! i was at the place on union for years and sometimes it would take forever to get my car. it's a hassle. having to first go to your place, unload car, then drive over to lot where you have to wait to even park it, is of course, do-able, but not fun. i would put a premium on having a spot where i lived.

also, down the road, could be a big income producer if needed, or just make the sale of your place more attractive.

on the whole though, to many buying a parking spot might not really be a financial decision as much as something people just want to have.

Posted by: wine lover at October 6, 2009 3:56 PM

I'll sign up for i, iv, and viii.

I don't think jumbos open up. the non-agency mortgage securitization market will be on a respirator until investors want to put their money at risk to securitized pools of jumbo loans. that happens after prices stablize, not before.

as far as reverting to a certain year, I think you have to ask why the values are double, say, 2004 levels, and if you can't answer it, reversion is a totally legitimate argument.

Posted by: joe_the_bummer at October 6, 2009 4:00 PM

if you talk in ratio terms i am with you, but we are talking price/rent or price/income, specifically price/income with respect to the multi-million dollar home buying ny subsegment. i think that group of buyers expanded at virtually the same pace as the market price rises (minus 20%?). would love to see data. absolute price returns to 2004? why not 2003? why not 1492? what's the metric.

btw, u r correct re investors etcetera, but in the meantime banks will start writing and holding the paper and make nice margins to earn back lost capital. then early next year with national price stabilization (you will see 6-9-12 months of flat c-s by then), rmbs secondary market already snapping back ... and away the investors go. file this and shove it in my face in March.

ttfn.

Posted by: antidope at October 6, 2009 4:09 PM

"huge almost immeasurable amount of equity in ny real estate built on the back of 60 years"

Myth. They've refinanced up to peak comps and now they're snorkeling under the surface. It wasn't just a purchase boom.

***Bid half off peak comps***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at October 6, 2009 4:13 PM

really though who knows?

i started commenting in this space in march/april when i felt the negative / bear view was monolithic and didn't reflect actual reality but rather a thoughtless groupspeak that pointed to an unavoidable depression. thank goodness that view is at least delayed if not totally avoided; at best, it was just plain wrong.

Posted by: antidope at October 6, 2009 4:14 PM

"finally i think arguments that prices have to revert to a certain year are absolute nonsense"

Quite the contrary. The year is merely a label for a particular average or mean. In '01 Clinton Hill brownstones went for about seven hundred and fitty grand. We goin' back there yonder. Please explain why that doesn't make sense.

***Bid half off peak comps***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at October 6, 2009 4:19 PM

Do it do it do it, finally finally finally.

Posted by: Thread Hijacker at October 6, 2009 4:56 PM

I think I really like Antidope (I'm not sure of the name though...where did you drum that name up from?).

At least you're honest and not chest-pounding. It seems you're open to the idea that things are much worse than they appear but your arguments are well-reasoned and I like that.

BHO is needlessly nasty. Frankly, if the sky really IS falling, than why not be kind to everyone? No point going around slapping people. Okay, okay. So the sky is falling. We're all going to lose it and no one will be saved. The system is in collapse and we'll all be scratching the bare earth for a bite to eat in a couple of years so let's browbeat everyone and make them pointlessly miserable on the way down. Sure.

Look, if "it" happens, it happens and all the hilltop yelling and nasty side comments won't make any difference.

Goodnight All!

Posted by: BrooklynGreene at October 6, 2009 7:23 PM

« Tea Lounge Closing and Unopening Co-op of the Day: 55 Pineapple Street, #7H »

October 6, 2009

Last Week's Biggest Sales: Bay Ridge on Top

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions