« Greenlight Bookstore Renovation Blog: Week 10 Open House Picks »

October 2, 2009

Open House Picks: Six Months Later

Comment: Are these sellers living in some other planet?
Open House Picks 4/3/09 [Brownstoner]
Previous Six Months Later Posts [Brownstoner]

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/11692

Comments

The Realtors forgot to flip the calendar to October 2009.

Posted by: brownjokester at October 2, 2009 12:44 PM

Brooklyn RE is tanking

http://therealdeal.com/newyork/articles/toppling-the-king

Posted by: bklplebe at October 2, 2009 12:47 PM

Can't even sing Meatloaf this time. The BH and CH houses look very overpriced. Don't know enough about the other areas to comment, except to say they have been on the market for 6+ months.

Oh, and Mary Catherine Gallagher is back.

Posted by: Brokedeveloper at October 2, 2009 12:51 PM

I was told that the MacDonough Street house sold 2 months ago.

Posted by: Amzi Hill at October 2, 2009 12:52 PM

Enjoyed reading the original comments from the thread in April. I suggested that the Lefferts Place folks list it just under a million. Still think that's good advice.

Posted by: wasder at October 2, 2009 12:55 PM

Lefferts for under a mil? That seems way too little for 5 floors of free market rentals.

Posted by: Brooklynnative at October 2, 2009 12:57 PM

lefferts sitting there at same ask looks odd. is it getting no action cause banks require 30% down or that owner would be forced to play landlord to too many tenants after pay 1.5M?

Posted by: more4less at October 2, 2009 1:01 PM

Numbers almost make sense already if you get that a good chunk of tax break on Lefferts (don't understand how that works). I love that street and those are amongst the street's best buildings. No way it goes for less than 6 figures.

Posted by: Brooklynnative at October 2, 2009 1:02 PM

Really surprised after that huge price cut on Pacific didn't do the trick.

Posted by: Brooklynnative at October 2, 2009 1:05 PM

"Comment: Are these sellers living in some other planet?"

No, they've bought the reflation trade along with everyone else. The sky's the limit!!

Posted by: MoneyForNothing at October 2, 2009 1:11 PM

Hey Bklplebe...

Wasn't it you yesterday who said no one is buying property and that everyone is sitting on the sidelines waiting...?

"Manhattan apartment prices fell for a second consecutive quarter, helping drive the biggest gain in sales in more than 13 years as buyers seized on discounts. The number of sales jumped 46 percent from the second quarter, the biggest third quarter increase since 1996. According to NYMag, sales surged from 1532 in the 2nd quarter to 2,230 in the 3rd quarter"

Not saying all is well in the real estate market (it's not) but your suggestion that people aren't buying property in this city is 100% false.

Posted by: 11217 at October 2, 2009 1:11 PM

The Pacific Street seller is a doctor, and I get the impression she is waiting for the market to adjust to her.

Its a nice reno, albeit lacking any original details. Solid income from the garden rental if thats your thing.

That would have sold at that price within a week 3-4 years ago - see 351 Pacific, next block over...retiring lawyer sensibly priced it pre-reno, professor bought it near *(or just over?) the ask before the month was over. But I have a feeling this one just isn't going to move until she gets realistic - and I sense that won't be happening anytime soon.

Posted by: BoerumHill at October 2, 2009 1:12 PM

Re Lefferts: As many people said before on the original thread the numbers just don't make sense. The people that could afford that place wouldn't want to have three rental units. I guess somebody buying this as a pure investment property might be able to make it work if they could buy it outright but as an owner occupied building it doesn't make sense. List it for 999,999 and then maybe you get a bidding war that ends at 1.1. That is what I am suggesting.

Posted by: wasder at October 2, 2009 1:12 PM

And thanks Broke Developer for making my Meatloaf refrain part of the "6-months later" lingo!!

Posted by: MoneyForNothing at October 2, 2009 1:15 PM

wasder, exactly. to drop 1.5M and to deal with 3 tenants - what, where is the joy or bragging rights of ownership?

Posted by: more4less at October 2, 2009 1:24 PM

Hey, WAIT A MINUTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Brown harris Stevens site CLEARLY states that the house on Pacific is a NEW LISTING. There it is in bright red text on their website, plain as day.

Now I can't imagine that they'd be gaming the listings on their site to suggest the property wasn't anything other than a new entry and reasonably priced to reflect today's economic sensibilities.

They must mean some other 411 Pacific Street in Brooklyn.

Posted by: MoneyForNothing at October 2, 2009 1:34 PM

First it is important to note that PRICES FELL.
Second, while the brokers will hype that sales volume is up 45.6% over 2Q09, the reality is sales have been dropping y-o-y for seven straight periods (1Q08 -34.3%; 2Q08 -21.8%; 3Q08 -24.1%; 4Q08 -9.4%; 1Q09 -47.6%; 2Q09 -50.3%; 3Q09 -16.0%). So, even with the counter-seasonal uptick in sales in 3Q09 it is still 16% lower than last year. Median prices of co-op resales (78% market share) have seen a full year of y-o-y declines (4Q08 -3.6%; 1Q09 -20.8%; 2Q09 -25.6%; 3Q09 -8.0%). Last paragraph from streeteasy...

http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/15082-3rd-quarter-numbers-are-in

Posted by: bklplebe at October 2, 2009 1:40 PM

The situation is pretty bleak from Manhattan but it is even worse for Brooklyn

http://therealdeal.com/newyork/articles/toppling-the-king

Posted by: bklplebe at October 2, 2009 1:43 PM

"Are these sellers living in some other planet?"

Nope. Still living on Planet Main Stream Media (Greenshoots!). You could just feel the 'hold on' mentality from the stubborn list price back to the cranium.

You see what happens to the 25% sold rate when 6 mos later doesn't stay the falling comp course? Today's low ball is tomorrow's high ball.

***Bid half off peak comps***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at October 2, 2009 1:45 PM

"First it is important to note that PRICES FELL."

Yes, Captain obvious. I'm pretty sure everyone is aware that prices fell. We are in a housing bust. Did you expect Manhattan to continue rising forever while the rest of the country has been in a downward spiral for the last 3 years?

You can spin it all you want. Yesterday you said no one is buying and today I'm telling you that you are wrong. 2230 people bought apartments in Manhattan alone in a 3 month period. (During what some of you claim is the end of the world, no less).

End of story.

Posted by: 11217 at October 2, 2009 1:46 PM

Bklplebe:

You know how we can tell you are crazy....?

Posting the exact same link to that story (which Brownstoner already highlighted earlier this morning, I might add) TWICE!

We saw the link when you posted it at 12:47.

Posted by: 11217 at October 2, 2009 1:48 PM

And a quote from the Real Deal article you have now posted twice (in addition to Mr. B already covering it today):

"Ultimately, he said the firm expects prices to drop an additional 5 to 10 percent."

OMG, the horror!! 5-10% further down? Bring out the National Guard!!!

Posted by: 11217 at October 2, 2009 1:49 PM

Speaking of that Real Deal link, it's interesting that we now have a score on rentals, -12%. How low will this go?

"Brooklyn's official motto may be 'Fuggedabout it' but the borough's real estate industry is not having an easy time shaking thoughts of double-digit price drops and troubled residential projects." - Sarah Ryley

LMAO!

***Bid half off peak comps***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at October 2, 2009 1:53 PM

"Today's low ball is tomorrow's high ball."

Right about now, I could use a highball

Posted by: MoneyForNothing at October 2, 2009 1:55 PM

We loved the Pacific St house when we visited a few months ago, but it still feel it is a couple 100k too high. Luckily we found something nearby. As for TRD article, it didn't really speak to the townhouse market. On the margins there may be some competition from unsold condo development, but I don't really think they directly compete for the same buyer group.

Posted by: stray bongo at October 2, 2009 1:56 PM

Speaking of that Real Deal link, it's interesting that we now have a score on rentals, -12%. How low will this go?

*Park Slope: "rental listing prices fell 7.4 percent."

*Dumbo/Brooklyn Heights/Carroll Gardens/Cobble Hill/Boreum Hill: "The area also saw one of the smallest declines in rental listing prices over the past year -- 4.7 percent"

*Red Hood/Gowanus/Windsor Terrace/Greenwood Heights: "Conversely, its median rental listing prices have declined the least during the same time period, by only $50, to $1,900."

Tell us more BHO...

Posted by: 11217 at October 2, 2009 1:59 PM

5-10 is the rosy, biased and self-interested opinion, 11217. "He" is quite vested and naturally overly optimistic. If even "he" says 5-10, expect 3 to 4 times that. Yeah, ultimately half off ("How convenient, BHO!").

***Bid half off peak comps***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at October 2, 2009 2:00 PM

"Ultimately, he said the firm expects prices to drop an additional 5 to 10 percent.

5-10% further down? Bring out the National Guard!!!"

Yeah right. You'll be lucky if it is 5-10%. Deutsche bank predicted 35%. I predict will be more.

People are so caught up in the bubble mindset that they forgot that the 3mil brownstone of today was 300K back in 95 in Brooklyn Heights. This is were prices are heading--don't forget this is the worst recession after world war.

Posted by: bklplebe at October 2, 2009 2:03 PM

Where is DIBS?

Posted by: Whuh at October 2, 2009 2:04 PM

Keep snapping, 11217. Say "cheese", market!

***Bid half off peak comps***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at October 2, 2009 2:04 PM

"Ultimately, he said the firm expects prices to drop an additional 5 to 10 percent."

OMG, the horror!! 5-10% further down? Bring out the National Guard!!!

Posted by: 11217 at October 2, 2009 1:49 PM
----------

Nicely done excerpting of a quote to support your perspective!!

I hope we can agree that something like 10% off on a 1.5 million dollar property is a lot of scratch. A horror for many folks to lose actually.

But is this the worst case? Let's consider the source of the quote:

"Robert Knakal, chairman of Massey Knakal Realty Services, which is marketing several distressed assets in Brooklyn..."

After giving sympathy his unfortunate last name (particularly for the lovely Mrs Knakal...) I, wonder if he has any reason to see the rosier side of the picture?

Deutsche Bank famously predicted 40% down from June levels this year, and many a Bull here laughed at it as imlausible.

So who's correct? Could it be somewhere in the middle, closer to the 20% I imagine. Now THAT'S a horror!!

While we're at it on price declines, I wonder how much sellers are conceding on closing costs and mansion taxes that don't show up in the sale prices these days.

Methinks a lot.

Posted by: MoneyForNothing at October 2, 2009 2:04 PM

BHO:

5-10% was the quote from The Real Deal article that Bkplebe has now linked twice because apparently he thinks it's so accurate.

I didn't make those numbers up.

Did you actually read the article? Because so far neither you nor Bklplebe seem to have understood a word of it.

Posted by: 11217 at October 2, 2009 2:06 PM

These sellers aren't crazy, they're on planet 2007. They haven't changed, but the market has. Manhattan is just a bigger and more transient market, so people have more data and adjust to changing conditions a bit faster.
If sellers/developers are listening, here is the best advice I can give: take your dream comp, the neighbor who got top price in your market and have a good look at your listing. Is it unique and wonderful, in a historic district, with all the details, the light, the top notch everything? Take 15% off the dream comp. Is there a bit of work, or is it located in an up-and-coming location (yes, I am talking to you 121 Lefferts Place and 624 Macdonough), take 25% off. If you're trying to hock new development condos (hello there, 65 Clifton, Verdi, Absolute and all your friends) in all the wrong places, the going rate will be $250,000 to 275,000 for a 1br, $300,000 to 399,000 for a 2br. If your loan is too big, check if you can go rentals. If not, do the neighborhood a favor and let it go back to your lender, so it can find the market and get occupied.

Posted by: Maly at October 2, 2009 2:06 PM

"Yeah right. You'll be lucky if it is 5-10%. Deutsche bank predicted 35%. I predict will be more."

Then why did you keep referencing The Real Deal article (which is the one who threw out the 5-10% number?)

Posted by: 11217 at October 2, 2009 2:07 PM

"People are so caught up in the bubble mindset that they forgot that the 3mil brownstone of today was 300K back in 95 in Brooklyn Heights."

Anyone in BH care to refute this claim?

I know really nice houses in PS were selling for a million in the late 90's, so I have a feeling this isn't true.

Posted by: 11217 at October 2, 2009 2:09 PM

"they forgot that the 3mil brownstone of today was 300K back in 95 in Brooklyn Heights"

This is what I'm talking about!!! It's a wrap!!!

Half off is generous.

Doctors, lawyers and teachers are still making the same. Bankers now work at Papaya's.

***Bid half off peak comps***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at October 2, 2009 2:14 PM

Either you have a short memory (stoner much?) or you were all riled up by ML. yesterday's HOTD asking 2.9 mio:

"Back in 1995 when we were expecting our first child, we looked at this house. It was a quirky place. Most everything was original including the plumbing. There were sinks in the closets in the bedrooms. The house was very narrow. The garden was not at all dark back then. For those who remember, before the theater there was a strip of boarded up storefronts on Court that ran the length of the block which was only one story high so there was plenty of light. Despite the quirks, my wife loved the house. If I remember right, the asking price was around $375k. I offered $300k and I think we agreed on something like $350k. While the contract was in negotiation, we found out about the potential demolition of the storefronts and construction of a large building on Court. We worried about living next to a construction site for what could be a very long period with an infant. So in the end we decided to pull out. Bought another place in the Heights instead. After watching how long the development took, we were glad that we decided to pull out. I heard that the people who bought the house had lots of problems when the contruction on the theater started and got involved in a law suit because of damage to the house. This was a good one to miss at the time. Though if the owners get close to their price, it looks like things will have worked out."

Posted by: intheshorts at October 1, 2009 4:05 PM

Posted by: antidope at October 2, 2009 2:17 PM

"Anyone in BH care to refute this claim?"

How about the guy from yesterday's house of the day. He offered 350k and accepted.

No sense of history, numbers or economics. Otherwise, best in pumping re.

Posted by: bklplebe at October 2, 2009 2:19 PM

Oh GTFOOH, 11217! You said "National Gaurd!". Knakal made those numbers up and you're in the same camp. Ya'll went from Team Bull to Team Reasnable (sneaky transition to Team Bear) and now you're well on your way to "shitting in the woods".

I understand the article. And so would Howard Cossel.

DOWN GOES BROOKLYN!!! DOWN GOES BROOKLYN!!!

***Bid half off peak comps***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at October 2, 2009 2:20 PM

So antidope,

Did houses (which now sell for 3 million) in general go for 300K in Brooklyn Heights in 1995 or was there an issue with this house?

I'm genuinely curious because I know my neighbor paid a little over a million for their house in 1998.

Either prices moved up a ton in those 3 years, or the North Slope was much more desirable than Brooklyn Heights in the 90's.

Posted by: 11217 at October 2, 2009 2:22 PM

11217,

I believe the $3m to $300k was a reference to the HOTD yesterday. You know, the one by the movie theater.

Someone said they bid on it in when it was listed at $350k.

Posted by: Brokedeveloper at October 2, 2009 2:23 PM

"The Real Deal article (which is the one who threw out the 5-10% number?)"

That wasn't Real Deal's take. That was Massey Knakal's take. Did YOU read? At least re-read the headline: 'Toppling The King'.

***Bid half off peak comps***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at October 2, 2009 2:24 PM

"Someone said they bid on it in when it was listed at $350k."

I know this might come as a shock, but I don't believe every word I hear on Brownstoner....

If you're saying that the going rate for townhouses in Brooklyn Heights was 300K in 1995, I will take your word for it.

Otherwise, I think that either there is misinformation or that the particular house in question was not the norm.

Posted by: 11217 at October 2, 2009 2:25 PM

So antidope,

Did houses (which now sell for 3 million) in general go for 300K in Brooklyn Heights in 1995 or was there an issue with this house?

I'm genuinely curious because I know my neighbor paid a little over a million for their house in 1998.

Either prices moved up a ton in those 3 years, or the North Slope was much more desirable than Brooklyn Heights in the 90's.

---

Nice backpedal.

Posted by: MoneyForNothing at October 2, 2009 2:25 PM

Not exactly direct comp for 11217, but the house I lived in in 1992 on Congress between Hicks and Henry sold in 1994-1995 IIRC for $750k. Definitely needed work. We couldn't believe our landlady got that much at the time.

Posted by: stray bongo at October 2, 2009 2:29 PM

the details are right there for you to read.

while i don't agree with bho's prediction, he is right that housing prices appreciated a ton over the approximate 10 year period.

one could argue that a portion of it was a catch up from the last housing slump in the early 90s, but I am not interested in splitting hairs. there was a major appreciation and the top has been taking off. that much is pretty definitive.

the real unanswered question is whether we are in a temp or firm plateau. no amount of cyber table pounding will answer that question.

Posted by: antidope at October 2, 2009 2:30 PM

The truly funny thing is that I don't give two rats asses how much prices are falling. I like talking about it for fun, but I couldn't give a crap.

I like trying to get to some real information though, and I also like to highlight facts. When BHO says that Brooklyn rents dropped 12% over the course of the year, he neglected to mention that all of the Brownstone neighborhoods we speak about here on this blog dropped half (and in the case of a large swath, 1/4th ) that amount (as I highlighted above).

Facts kiddos. Much better than your rants.

Keep trying to talk the market down though...I've gotta admire your tenacity.

Posted by: 11217 at October 2, 2009 2:31 PM

I still have a 1999 pamphlet from BHS where North Slope, Carrol Gardens, Boerum Hill, Fort Greene and Brooklyn Heights brownstones (FULLY RENOVATED) were listed in the range of $300K to $750K +/- (I'll have to post in the forum someday), well under a mil. Interest rates were higher then but nowhere near proportion to where prices went since.

***Bid half off peak comps***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at October 2, 2009 2:34 PM

"he is right that housing prices appreciated a ton over the approximate 10 year period."

Yes they did.

But what is not talked about nearly as much is the fact that many areas which have garnered huge increases (ft. greene, clinton hill, south slope, boreum hill, prospect heights, etc) are places that 10 years were nothing like the neighborhoods they are now.

The amount of gentrifying that has happened to some of these neighborhoods is astounding, in fact. In the last 10 years, Brooklyn has been put on the map so much that for a large subset of people, it is now their FIRST choice destination in NYC.

That was not the case 10 years ago, by and large.

Would you agree...?

Posted by: 11217 at October 2, 2009 2:34 PM

"the real unanswered question is whether we are in a temp or firm plateau. no amount of cyber table pounding will answer that question."

The lack of sustainable economic growth, increasing unemployment (263,000 jobs lost last month), decreasing wages, pronounced deleveraging of consumer balance sheets, lessening of appeal for housing as an "investment" option, lower appetite for risk, end to the 9-month stimulus prop-up and commensurate stock market contraction, potential removal of the increased "jumbo-conforming" loan limits and a constrained financial service industry facing a commercial loan meltdown on top of their other systemic problems might just provide a clue however...

But that's just a guess.

Posted by: MoneyForNothing at October 2, 2009 2:35 PM

BHO, Antidope, Bklplebe:

This article from the NYT from January 1997 does not seem to support your assertion about home prices in Brooklyn Heights in the mid 1990's.

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/01/31/nyregion/in-brooklyn-neighborhoods-market-for-town-houses-soars.html

"In Brooklyn Heights, where some brokers have been saying for years that prices had topped out, a big town house with a carriage house in the back sold in August 1995 for $2.75 million -- the highest ever for a Brooklyn Heights property, according to brokers there."

"Last July, the house at 213 Congress Street, a wide but unprepossessing brick row house in Cobble Hill, sold in one day for $1.075 million, a record at that time, after three would-be buyers pushed their bids higher and higher."

"Ms. Dulany said a four-story house with four apartments at 117 Bergen Street, between Hoyt and Bond Streets in Boerum Hill, sold recently for $430,000."

If you notice, the last property is in Boreum Hill...

Posted by: 11217 at October 2, 2009 2:39 PM

"the real unanswered question is whether we are in a temp or firm plateau. no amount of cyber table pounding will answer that question."

Math answers that question. You absolutely CANNOT have a plateau until Case-Shiller YOY passes back up through zero. It's still double digit blood shot red.

And, 11217 - I simply quoted the 12% figure from the article to celebrate that rental drops are now "on the board". We will keep score as the cameras keep rolling. Your snapshots will soon be outdated.

"I don't give two rats asses how much prices are falling"

Towel.

***Bid half off peak comps***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at October 2, 2009 2:43 PM

11217, the story is full of many many variables. you point to one long term trend. i agree it's important but not the only factor.

mfn, you really are a bandwagon rider...i bet when the market was booming you were bragging about all the great stocks you owned. i would run from you if i were invited to the same dinner party as you.

if you stopped to look and think about your list (instead of regurgitating what you are staring at on cnbc), you might recognize it would've been the inverse four years ago and there's no doubt in my mind that in 2-5 years we will see...here we go...sustainable economic growth, increasing employment, wages, releveraging (hopefully tamped), renewed interest in housing, higher appetite for risk...ah i'm getting tired but the point is...ah i'm reall tired of this

it's called a business cycle, fyi.

Posted by: antidope at October 2, 2009 2:46 PM

"Would you agree...?"

Hell naw! You can still "get it" in Fort Greene. "That I-pod is MY-POD!".

Seriously, it's better but the economy's taking us back to where it was or worse. The 80's were better times, economically. The social effects will only follow.

***Bid half off peak comps***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at October 2, 2009 2:50 PM

In the early 90s (90-95) brownstones (unrennovated) in Cobble Hill and Boerum Hill were going for $400K+. And most were unronnvoated. None had master suites or chef's kitchens or waterworks bath fixtures.

Posted by: BH76 at October 2, 2009 2:51 PM

I'm looking forward to the responses to the New York Times article I posted about Brooklyn Heights prices IN THE MID 90'S from Bklplebe and BHO...

Posted by: 11217 at October 2, 2009 2:51 PM

bho, where's zero? i'd like to understand your math but i don't get it. c/s is flat to slight uptick for 4 months. why do you insist that 12 months is holy grail? that is not a math equation but an unfalsifiable declaration of truth. seems conservative (and maybe appropriate for most new entrants) but effectively backward looking.

Posted by: antidope at October 2, 2009 2:55 PM

"This article from the NYT from January 1997 does not seem to support your assertion about home prices in Brooklyn Heights in the mid 1990's."

And things are rarely what they seem. Your data is for record prices "at the time". Not the median/average. Big townhouse with carriage house is supposed to be representative? C'mon, 11217. Dig a little deeper. And still, if I give you these record prices "at the time", they're still not too far outside my range (big house and horsey pen notwithstanding).

Leave the towel where it is - "I don't give two rats asses".

***Bid half off peak comps***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at October 2, 2009 2:57 PM

"most were unronnvoated"

What'd the renovated ones go for, IYHO?

***Bid half off peak comps***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at October 2, 2009 2:59 PM

BHO,

Notice BH76 said unrenovated houses in BOREUM HILL and Cobble Hill were going over over 400K from 1990-95.

Boreum Hill is a far cry from Brooklyn Heights, and already the homes were 100K over what Bklplebe was saying was the norm, for Brooklyn Heights in 1995.

You two have been PWNED!

Posted by: 11217 at October 2, 2009 3:01 PM

"Big townhouse with carriage house is supposed to be representative?"

Um, it sold for 2.5 million in 1995.

So you think a smaller one without the carriage house sold for 300K?

Jeez, you are digging yourself a hole there.

Posted by: 11217 at October 2, 2009 3:02 PM

WAIT!!!,

We in fact can quoth the Meatloaf for these places, I've got it:

"So don't be fooled, cuz none out of four ain't GOOOOOOOOD..."

Posted by: MoneyForNothing at October 2, 2009 3:15 PM

All of chest pounding today, no?

Anyway, I've just slogged through the comments above. I also was struck by the "$300,000" for a Brooklyn Heights townhouse in 1995. That sounded unlikely to me. I can't remember anything being at that price. But maybe there was. I wish I had known if there had been...Maybe I'd be "BrooklynPromenade" today.

As I remember, at that time, peopl were paying half a million dollars for houses that needed a lot of renovation in Park Slope. You might have found a Fort Greene standard brick rowhouse in 1995 needed a complete rehab priced at $200,000 give or take. In the better area Prospect Heights, the houses were going for $300-400+ around that time they definitely seemed to be approaching $500,0000.

By 1998-9, when Fort Greene started getting more and more "services" (the main one being the opening of the Atlantic Mall with Caldor, Pathmark, etc. in 1996). We were just starting the eventual tidal wave of restaurant opening...Anyway, by about 1998-9, a decent rowhouse that needed some work but was livable might have gone for nearly $600,000. In the last ten years, yes, that selling price has more than doubled while Fort Greene has become one of the "IT" neighborhoods of NYC (yes, there's been "gentrification" all over NYC but Fort Greene has seen stellar change). I'm sure the Fort Greeene house that sold just shy of $600,000 in 1999 would still sell for $1,700,000-1,800,000 today despite the downturn.

Posted by: BrooklynGreene at October 2, 2009 3:16 PM

"Keep trying to talk the market down though...I've gotta admire your tenacity. "

We don;t need to talk it down, it's doing a mighty fine job of it on it's own. Every sale below ask, and most listings not selling....

Those are the facts, not a rant.

Posted by: MoneyForNothing at October 2, 2009 3:17 PM

11217,
a cursory glance shows two th on market for mid to upper $5 mio; one in contract with asks in mid $4 mio.

no carriage houses.

add 10% for market drop (conservative) and you will see that the market has more than doubled in this time.

and we are not necessarily talking about the highest sales ever. maybe ringo or ml can pipe in.

for someone that claims to rely on data, you seem to prefer anecdotal notes.

Posted by: antidope at October 2, 2009 3:18 PM

Antidope:

Please see BrooklynGreene's post for even more anecdotes.

I never claimed that prices have not doubled, but I AM claiming that the average Brooklyn Heights townhouse did not sell for 300K in 1995. That's it.

Posted by: 11217 at October 2, 2009 3:21 PM

'dope,

Look at Jan 92 as an example.

MONTH, READING, FROM PEAK, YOY, REMARK

Apr-91 72.29 -15.49% -8.89% ACTUAL BOTTOM
May-91 72.63 0.47% -8.12%
Jun-91 73.50 1.67% -6.91%
Jul-91 74.39 2.90% -5.57%
Aug-91 74.90 3.61% -4.23%
Sep-91 75.06 3.83% -3.04%
Oct-91 75.01 3.76% -2.33%
Nov-91 74.84 3.53% -1.71%
Dec-91 74.74 3.39% -1.14%
Jan-92 74.59 3.18% 0.00% BOTTOM PICK
Feb-92 74.38 2.89% 0.94%
Mar-92 74.27 2.74% 1.92%
Apr-92 74.40 2.92% 2.92%
May-92 74.69 3.32% 2.84%
Jun-92 75.14 3.94% 2.23%
Jul-92 75.47 4.40% 1.45%
Aug-92 75.79 4.84% 1.19%
Sep-92 75.74 4.77% 0.91%
Oct-92 75.48 4.41% 0.63%
Nov-92 75.38 4.27% 0.72%
Dec-92 75.35 4.23% 0.82%
Jan-93 75.54 4.50% 1.27%
Feb-93 75.42 4.33% 1.40%
Mar-93 75.32 4.19% 1.41%
Apr-93 75.34 4.22% 1.26%
May-93 75.71 4.73% 1.37%
Jun-93 76.44 5.74% 1.73%
Jul-93 76.84 6.29% 1.82%
Aug-93 76.99 6.50% 1.58%
Sep-93 76.99 6.50% 1.65%
Oct-93 76.92 6.40% 1.91%
Nov-93 76.88 6.35% 1.99%
Dec-93 76.71 6.11% 1.80%
Jan-94 76.61 5.98% 1.42%
Feb-94 76.43 5.73% 1.34%
Mar-94 76.60 5.96% 1.70%
Apr-94 76.88 6.35% 2.04%
May-94 77.55 7.28% 2.43%
Jun-94 78.20 8.18% 2.30%
Jul-94 78.78 8.98% 2.52%
Aug-94 79.08 9.39% 2.71%
Sep-94 79.08 9.39% 2.71%
Oct-94 78.87 9.10% 2.54%
Nov-94 78.50 8.59% 2.11%
Dec-94 78.36 8.40% 2.15%
Jan-95 78.28 8.29% 2.18%
Feb-95 78.29 8.30% 2.43%
Mar-95 77.95 7.83% 1.76%
Apr-95 77.77 7.58% 1.16%
May-95 78.03 7.94% 0.62%
Jun-95 78.58 8.70% 0.49%
Jul-95 78.99 9.27% 0.27%
Aug-95 79.17 9.52% 0.11%
Sep-95 79.17 9.52% 0.11%
Oct-95 79.11 9.43% 0.30%
Nov-95 78.85 9.07% 0.45%
Dec-95 78.70 8.87% 0.43%
Jan-96 78.63 8.77% 0.45%
Feb-96 78.73 8.91% 0.56%
Mar-96 78.90 9.14% 1.22%
Apr-96 78.94 9.20% 1.50%
May-96 79.36 9.78% 1.70%
Jun-96 79.52 10.00% 1.20%
Jul-96 79.97 10.62% 1.24%
Aug-96 80.31 11.09% 1.44%
Sep-96 80.45 11.29% 1.62%
Oct-96 80.35 11.15% 1.57%
Nov-96 80.02 10.69% 1.48%
Dec-96 80.03 10.71% 1.69%
Jan-97 80.08 10.78% 1.84%
Feb-97 80.08 10.78% 1.71%
Mar-97 79.97 10.62% 1.36%
Apr-97 80.03 10.71% 1.38%
May-97 80.53 11.40% 1.47%
Jun-97 81.53 12.78% 2.53%
Jul-97 82.32 13.87% 2.94%
Aug-97 82.72 14.43% 3.00%
Sep-97 82.80 14.54% 2.92%
Oct-97 82.84 14.59% 3.10%
Nov-97 82.94 14.73% 3.65%
Dec-97 83.11 14.97% 3.85%
Jan-98 83.36 15.31% 4.10%
Feb-98 83.85 15.99% 4.71%
Mar-98 84.28 16.59% 5.39%
Apr-98 84.76 17.25% 5.91%
May-98 85.52 18.30% 6.20%
Jun-98 86.58 19.77% 6.19%
Jul-98 87.70 21.32% 6.54%
Aug-98 88.48 22.40% 6.96%
Sep-98 89.04 23.17% 7.54%
Oct-98 89.31 23.54% 7.81%
Nov-98 89.41 23.68% 7.80%
Dec-98 89.43 23.71% 7.60%
Jan-99 89.49 23.79% 7.35%
Feb-99 89.89 24.35% 7.20%
Mar-99 90.56 25.27% 7.45%
Apr-99 91.59 26.70% 8.06%
May-99 92.49 27.94% 8.15%
Jun-99 94.07 30.13% 8.65%
Jul-99 95.47 32.07% 8.86%
Aug-99 96.88 34.02% 9.49%
Sep-99 97.67 35.11% 9.69%
Oct-99 98.24 35.90% 10.00%
Nov-99 98.59 36.38% 10.27%
Dec-99 99.28 37.34% 11.01%
Jan-00 100.00 38.33% 11.74%
Feb-00 100.54 39.08% 11.85%
Mar-00 101.27 40.09% 11.83%
Apr-00 102.41 41.67% 11.81%
May-00 104.35 44.35% 12.82%
Jun-00 106.00 46.63% 12.68%
Jul-00 107.52 48.73% 12.62%
Aug-00 108.90 50.64% 12.41%
Sep-00 109.76 51.83% 12.38%
Oct-00 110.51 52.87% 12.49%
Nov-00 110.89 53.40% 12.48%
Dec-00 111.87 54.75% 12.68%
Jan-01 112.66 55.84% 12.66%
Feb-01 113.51 57.02% 12.90%
Mar-01 114.48 58.36% 13.04%
Apr-01 115.60 59.91% 12.88%
May-01 116.38 60.99% 11.53%
Jun-01 117.90 63.09% 11.23%
Jul-01 119.66 65.53% 11.29%
Aug-01 121.41 67.95% 11.49%
Sep-01 122.91 70.02% 11.98%
Oct-01 123.86 71.34% 12.08%
Nov-01 124.74 72.55% 12.49%
Dec-01 124.72 72.53% 11.49%
Jan-02 125.19 73.18% 11.12%
Feb-02 125.40 73.47% 10.47%
Mar-02 126.50 74.99% 10.50%
Apr-02 127.93 76.97% 10.67%
May-02 129.89 79.68% 11.61%
Jun-02 132.20 82.87% 12.13%
Jul-02 135.18 87.00% 12.97%
Aug-02 137.74 90.54% 13.45%
Sep-02 139.69 93.24% 13.65%
Oct-02 141.58 95.85% 14.31%
Nov-02 143.29 98.22% 14.87%
Dec-02 145.20 100.86% 16.42%
Jan-03 146.55 102.73% 17.06%
Feb-03 147.30 103.76% 17.46%
Mar-03 148.38 105.26% 17.30%
Apr-03 149.53 106.85% 16.88%
May-03 150.88 108.71% 16.16%
Jun-03 151.86 110.07% 14.87%
Jul-03 153.50 112.34% 13.55%
Aug-03 155.14 114.61% 12.63%
Sep-03 157.10 117.32% 12.46%
Oct-03 158.73 119.57% 12.11%
Nov-03 160.59 122.15% 12.07%
Dec-03 162.31 124.53% 11.78%
Jan-04 163.63 126.35% 11.65%
Feb-04 164.92 128.14% 11.96%
Mar-04 166.61 130.47% 12.29%
Apr-04 168.30 132.81% 12.55%
May-04 170.52 135.88% 13.02%
Jun-04 172.90 139.18% 13.85%
Jul-04 175.74 143.10% 14.49%
Aug-04 177.93 146.13% 14.69%
Sep-04 179.79 148.71% 14.44%
Oct-04 181.90 151.63% 14.60%
Nov-04 183.69 154.10% 14.38%
Dec-04 185.16 156.14% 14.08%
Jan-05 187.19 158.94% 14.40%
Feb-05 189.29 161.85% 14.78%
Mar-05 192.17 165.83% 15.34%
Apr-05 194.10 168.50% 15.33%
May-05 195.96 171.07% 14.92%
Jun-05 197.77 173.58% 14.38%
Jul-05 199.86 176.47% 13.72%
Aug-05 202.33 179.89% 13.71%
Sep-05 204.83 183.34% 13.93%
Oct-05 207.64 187.23% 14.15%
Nov-05 210.30 190.91% 14.49%
Dec-05 212.68 194.20% 14.86%
Jan-06 213.50 195.34% 14.06%
Feb-06 214.47 196.68% 13.30%
Mar-06 214.33 196.49% 11.53%
Apr-06 214.97 197.37% 10.75%
May-06 215.57 198.20% 10.01%
Jun-06 215.83 PEAK ACTUAL PEAK
Jul-06 215.25 -0.27% 7.70%
Aug-06 214.34 -0.69% 5.94%
Sep-06 214.09 -0.81% 4.52%
Oct-06 214.29 -0.71% 3.20%
Nov-06 214.24 -0.74% 1.87%
Dec-06 213.79 -0.95% 0.52%
Jan-07 212.78 -1.41% -0.34% PEAK PICK

YOY (last column) = year over year = change from same month last year. It's a mathematical equation: (P2 - P1)/P2 X 100%. Yes, it's backward looking but only by several months (9 and 7, respectively in the trough and peak of the data above). Whenever it approches zero the market turns. A nine month error in a stabilizing RE market is pretty damn good (look how much time you would have had to jump in before prices went out of control)! Why do you keep saying "12 months"? Yeah, there's 12 months in a year but it's the month-to-month behavior of YOY that matters, however long it takes.

***Bid half off peak comps***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at October 2, 2009 3:26 PM

So we're not hitting your exact 300K number in 1995, 11217. But we're in a very small ballpark. Average prices everywhere were well under a million when wages were not that much lower than they are today. Today, they want 3 million plus in Brooklyn Heights. You can only get us on Vernier Caliper details but not the gist.

***Bid half off peak comps***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at October 2, 2009 3:34 PM

That third column should read "FROM BOTTOM OR PEAK".

***Bid half off peak comps***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at October 2, 2009 3:36 PM

"So we're not hitting your exact 300K number in 1995, 11217. But we're in a very small ballpark."

300K and 1 million are not in the same ballpark.

Posted by: 11217 at October 2, 2009 3:38 PM

BHO,

You have ZERO facts to give us that Brooklyn Heights brownstones averaged 300K in 1995, and I've given you more than a few to illustrate that they were much closer to a million dollars.

As have other people here who are familiar with prices at that time.

Posted by: 11217 at October 2, 2009 3:40 PM

im still trying to digest bho data dump, back to him in a minute.

however, 11217, i know you read yesterday's hotd bc you had a hissy fit with ml, but apparently you skipped over the defects of the one $375k listing referred to: 1) next to massive new construction, 2) need major reno, 3) on very edge of bh (and practically on court st), just to name 3.

it's quite possible the same house without those 3 defects would sell for a buck.

Posted by: antidope at October 2, 2009 3:51 PM

Brownstoner, the Bed Stuy house is in contract. It says so on the listing.

Posted by: mopar at October 2, 2009 3:56 PM

"I know you read yesterday's hotd bc you had a hissy fit with ml"

I think you were reading the wrong thread, dude. ML accused me of being racist and then stormed out, not to be seen today. Take a look at his last post of the evening, if you want to see a hissy fit.

Posted by: 11217 at October 2, 2009 3:59 PM

Brownstoner, the Bed Stuy house is in contract. It says so on the listing.

Posted by: mopar at October 2, 2009 3:56 PM

ALLRIGHT!!!

Now we can formally request: "Enter Meatloaf......"

Posted by: MoneyForNothing at October 2, 2009 4:00 PM

Also,

This is what it says regarding Stratford Road:

09/21/2009
Listing is no longer available.

So it's not still on the market for whatever reason...

Posted by: 11217 at October 2, 2009 4:06 PM

11217, takes two to tangle and i'd argue you were fully vested that you weren't digesting the real estate component of the discussion. whatever.

bho, that's a lot of data to say not much. i have the same data set and i think i understand what you're doing but i stand by my question and comment. focusing on YOY simply means you wait for a year to roll off. kind of arbitrary. nothing wrong with it, it's a conservative way to go.

otoh, this data set does not align with what we've all seen in brooklyn, seems off by at least two years.

Posted by: antidope at October 2, 2009 4:08 PM

You need to read it again, then antidope.

It became very clear by the last post that Minard is not a very rational human being.

I'd say his desire not to come back on the threads today says something too.

As did the nearly 95% of people who agreed with me that a house next to that cinema should require a lower price than one not next to a cinema.

Posted by: 11217 at October 2, 2009 4:13 PM

market did not increase 10x per your rhetorical query. so then why ask the doomsayers to show you something that didn't exist?

Posted by: antidope at October 2, 2009 4:28 PM

I would not say that the State Street house was not listed at $4350K in 1995. As I recall, the house may have had structural problems and it was literally against what looked to be abandoned buildings -- a real eyesore. And no one knew what was going to go in the space (the owner of the lot on Court would not sell -- only lease). There was a house on Schermerhorn in only slightly beter shape. I recall someone buying a house in Boerum Hill (one of the small ones -- perhaps on Wyckoff?) in the late 90s for $375K and we all though it was crazy. But then you could get a one-bedroom coop in a FS building for $50K in 94-98. 1994-99 were the bad years....for real estate anyway.

Posted by: BH76 at October 2, 2009 4:38 PM

I meant $350K for State Street....

Posted by: BH76 at October 2, 2009 4:39 PM

Blah Blah Blah,

Predict all we want. The point is,

Prices are continuing to drop. Even after the latest stimulus-infused bull market.

Doesn't mean doom, just is what it is.

If you're a buyer, it means worth waiting, being very selective if not, and bidding aggressively whenever you offer.

No rational reason not to. There will almost certainly be more opportunities, probably at a lower price. Maybe not half, but lower.

Dunno about you folks, but spending less of my hard earned cash is something I generally look forward to when making a purchase.

Need proof the opposite is happening to change my opinion, not rants.

Posted by: MoneyForNothing at October 2, 2009 4:56 PM

Hey, any of you ever sold a house in NYC before? It can actually take 8-10 months to sell, even in a good market. I wouldn't predict the total collapse (a la BHO) quite yet.

Posted by: homey at October 2, 2009 5:20 PM

"It can actually take 8-10 months to sell, even in a good market"

Since we're in a particularly bad market, or more precisely, a particularly bad economy, I'd say that one fact doesn't bode particularly well for properties sitting on the market.

The fundamentals of the economy, despite John McCain's declaration, are still not strong, and are likely to slip once the stimulus wears off. We're shedding jobs and stagnating WITH 1.2 Trillion in gov't spending.

Sellers better get in front of the market, or, as is happening with most listings, they will fall behind, and play my favorite game, "price cut catch-up"

good night.

Posted by: MoneyForNothing at October 2, 2009 5:42 PM

The buyers of the McDonough Street have moved in this week

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

I sometimes wonder what many of the commentators here do for day jobs given the volume of comments. Usually, I'm working during the day and observe what's going on here in the evening since I am expected to focus on what I get paid for when I'm in the office. Any way, since it seems my memory is being called into question as to the availability of homes in BH in the mid 90s (since it appears many readers were in their teens or had less financial resources), I checked property shark for yesterday's HOTD. According to the site, a mortgage for $350k was registered on 7/18/95 after a deed was recorded on 7/6/95. So the sale price was probably high 300s. If I erred in my recollection of price, I think I was within the sampling error. House definitely needed work and I expected to spend money on that.

But for those who think there were no homes below a $1 million in BH, all I can say is you were not here looking. As a young professional making decent but not outrageous money then, our budget was about $500k. We saw houses all over BH and CH. Wasn't interested in PS so we didn't look there so I can't speak to prices there. What I do know is that the price I paid for the place I bought was about what the previous owner had paid in the late '80s as NY real estate had already done the rocket up then crash and burn and was only beginning the recovery in the mid '90s. That owner did better than the one who sold the State St HOTD as it looks like he paid at least $437,350 in 1986, again according to property shark. An example of the '80 exuberance.

About the $2.5mm high water price in BH in 1995, I recall that the highest trade in BH recently was something in the range of $20-25 million. So if you compare top end to bottom range of the brownstone market, you see a 7-8 multiple between then and now. Nothing too surprising there.

Posted by: intheshorts at October 3, 2009 11:46 AM

There were definitely houses for sale in brooklyn heights for less than 500k. However, everyone needs to remember that Brooklyn heights has a few parts.

Traditionally, lower Brooklyn Heights was significantly cheaper (in no small part due to its proximity to HOD). Since 2000, lower brooklyn heights and Cobble Hill have even out the prices somewhat so that northern Brooklyn Heights (the fruit streets) no longer command such a huge premium.

Posted by: slick at October 3, 2009 4:49 PM

To echo slick's point about how BH has changed, in the boarded up store fronts that were where the theater on Court is now, there was a prior theater. It showed porn. Anything on the east side of Clinton was viewed as on the edge of the Heights. That plus needing work could get you a house for less than $500k.

Posted by: intheshorts at October 3, 2009 5:15 PM

Intheshorts provides good info on BH.
He's no-nonsense and convincing.
Thank you, intheshorts.
I suggest you work less in the day and post more!

Posted by: Pigeon at October 3, 2009 8:23 PM

Did you see the Times this weekend? "Living In Beorum Hill, Brooklyn: Subway Lines Galore, But Who Is Leaving?" The BH house is in it. There goes the neighborhood.

Posted by: seeker at October 4, 2009 8:40 AM

Dear Brownstoner,
624A MACDONOUGH SOLD FOR THE ASKING PRICE OF 595k. Please double check your information before posting comments like "what were they thinking?"
Thanks for your kind consideration.
-A MacDonough St. resident

Posted by: jenmit at October 4, 2009 5:53 PM

« Greenlight Bookstore Renovation Blog: Week 10 Open House Picks »

October 2, 2009

Open House Picks: Six Months Later

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions