You should tell your brokers over at the Montague Corcoran office to put a new ink cartridge in their printer. The text that accompanies the image of your project on the street window ad is not legible. D- for effort.

Posted by: ITM at October 8, 2009 11:56 AM in response to Inside Third & Bond: Week 104

14 TH's sold for an avg $2,580,000, or $626 psf. A 5,500 sq ft townhouse at $3,500,000 equals $636 psf. So on a psf basis not much of a difference. That said, there is definitley a disconnect btwn suggested price, location, current market conditions and use (ie a single-family townhouse). A three family - owner duplex with two floor-thru rentals might be a better fit for this location.

Tricks73 or anyone else - what type of discount would you be looking for in exchange for signing a pre-construction contract? If you were given the opportunity to customize the finishes in conjunction with doing a deal at a price you felt was appropriate and reflected current market conditions would you be willing to make a deposit and sign a contract, pre-construction?

Posted by: ITM at October 5, 2009 2:56 PM in response to Optimism on State Street

BHO - across the board? Really?
From TRD piece:
"The largely landmarked district comprised of Dumbo, Brooklyn Heights, Boerum Hill, Carroll Gardens and Cobble Hill had the smallest median sales price decline over the past two years, at 7.5 percent. The area also saw one of the smallest declines in rental listing prices over the past year -- 4.7 percent." "New development didn't dominate the market, so as a result you didn't have as large of a drop," Miller explained.

How will these neighborhoods catch up to those that have already experienced significantly greater declines in price? Is volume a factor in these thinly traded, no-new-supply, landmarked districts? These same neighborhoods experienced the least amount of appreciation during the run up. I am sincerely interested in how you see your across the board half off peak scenario playing out.

A claim of half off peak for all sub-markets, landmarked or not, infers that there is no distribution of adjustments. Only a data set containing one point of data would fit that model.

Posted by: ITM at October 2, 2009 1:05 PM in response to TRD Takes Brooklyn's Pulse

From NYS Dept of Labor website:
"Over the last 40 years, there have been seven distinct recessions (including the current economic downturn) in the U.S. and New York State. Recessions in New York have tended to be significantly longer than their national counterparts. This trend has become more pronounced over the past 20 years. The last three recessions in New York State (dating back to 1981) have averaged more than 2½ years in length, while the last three national recessions have averaged less than one year in duration."
Markets with unconstrained and excessive supply, such as Williamsburg, will not fair as well as substaintally built out and established landmark designated districts such as Brooklyn Heights, Cobble Hill, Fort Greene, etc.

Posted by: ITM at October 2, 2009 11:54 AM in response to TRD Takes Brooklyn's Pulse

Lender and/or equity participant (AIG) must be applying significant pressure to developer. Watching a number of these high profile developers speak at industry get togethers over the past 12 months I have been amazed at the steadfastness of their pricing and optimistic outlook for absorption at the current asking prices. Lender sees the writing on the wall, why not the developer? It must be hard for developer to accept that they may have been wrong with their sales strategy and that they are not bigger/stronger than the forces of the market.

Posted by: ITM at August 18, 2009 3:11 PM in response to Price Cuts at One Brooklyn Bridge Park

25 Willow Place
Not much to reuse on this property other than the facade and party walls. Eventhough it was acquired at a significant discount to original ask, $1,300,000 works out to about $325 psf based on a potential rebuilt envelope of approx 4,000 sf. Deduct $75 psf for the reusable structure in-place and you get $250 per buildable sf. This seems high to me as land was trading for no more than $225 FAR in the Heights at the top of the market two years ago.

Posted by: ITM at August 4, 2009 1:50 PM in response to Last Week's Biggest Sales

I am all for transparency and credibility, it is one of the few equations that can solve the confidence issue. And I believe both of those important variables are not very real at the moment as it pertains to the process that has taken place. That said, the impression I walk away with after reading the posts above is that the seller, which is effectively the MTA, the public and the majority of posters on this piece did not get enough in exchange for giving FCRC the right to build over the rail road tracks. Even though Extell may have offered more total $s does anyone actually know enough about the particulars of their offer so a conclusion about what the comparable value to the public might be? What I find interesting with this episode, considerate of the market transformation that is occuring, is that the "public" (represented here by the majority of posters) thinks their asset (the rail yard) is worth more than the buyer does. This is obviously counter to the position the majority of posteres take when it comes to the evaluation of the privately owned condos, co-ops and townhouses that appear on this site and are subjected to the "reader appraisal" test. That's all I am saying.

Posted by: ITM at June 25, 2009 2:41 PM in response to MTA Ignores Fiduciary Duty, Approves Revised Yards Plan

As BK RE Vet points out - no demand. No demand, lower price. MTA probably does not want to even see the value an appraisal would yield as there is a high probability that it MIGHT be lower than the deal that is on the table.

BXGRL - I am only refering to the Atlantic Yards real estate.

bkn4life - I think your math is wrong - $100 psf not $10. That said, the comparable measure is buildable sf, not the property's two dimesional size.

Posted by: ITM at June 25, 2009 11:51 AM in response to MTA Ignores Fiduciary Duty, Approves Revised Yards Plan

On a conceptual level - if real estate assets of all types, including land, have significantly depreciated in value over the past 24 months and will most likely continue to lose value over the coming months/years why would this particular asset behave any differently? Today, sellers of real estate are constantly being berated in on-line forums such as this one for not making adjustments in their expectations (on average the Brownstoner appraisal widget indicates a 30% discount to asking). Why is everyone now suggetsing that these sellers (MTA) hold to their prior expectation?

Posted by: ITM at June 25, 2009 10:58 AM in response to MTA Ignores Fiduciary Duty, Approves Revised Yards Plan

BRG - Unit is located in "mews" behind the building that is depicted in photo above. This is hard up against 20 Henry development site. Take a look at patio photo on broker site - this unit resides in bldg to the right in photo. I think you wlak down alley way to left (east) side of front bldg to access the "mews."

Posted by: ITM at May 28, 2009 1:13 PM in response to Co-op of the Day: 80 Poplar Street, #1R

As a guide, look at Miller Samuel reports for Manhattan. Includes co-op and condo transaction data back to 1999. About four years ago housing units in certain parts of Brooklyn were trading at about a 15% discount to average Manhattan deals.
Manhattan
1999 $400 avg psf
2002 $575 avg psf
2008 $1,200 avg psf

http://www.millersamuel.com/reports/pdf-reports/MMR08.pdf

Posted by: ITM at May 27, 2009 4:10 PM in response to Finding Historical Price Per Sq?

I don't think balconies are allowed on the 2nd floor.

Posted by: ITM at May 1, 2009 10:08 AM in response to It Came From 4th Ave!

One of the most intriguing aspects of this story for me is the construction budget number - $12million. That works out to about $200 psf in aggregate for rehabing the existing bldg (46,000 sf) and constructing the new bldg (14,000 sf). That is so far from a realistic number. Why would an experienced developer use that number and why would AIG and BNY go along with it? Even if the market had continued to move up with end-user pricing covering the additional hard costs required to complete the project why start out at such a low number? What was the developers strategy here - to have the quity partner fill in the blanks? You can't even build rental product for $200 psf. To think that $200 psf would get you a high-end condo finish is not rational.

Am I wrong to assume this was not possible from the get go? Anyone out there build high-end condo product as a rehab/new construction for $200 psf?

The most likely way for this project, like the many others that are in a similar state throughout NYC, to ever be completed is for some other entity to finish the job by first buying out the equity participants at a significant discount. Once completed, this property will most likely have to be placed into service as a rental property until such time the market allows for selling the units as condos or co-ops. Unfortunately for the adjacent neighbors, this could take quite some time to play out. I don't see developer putting in more cash in this market and I am pretty sure AIG is all out of house money to play with.

Posted by: ITM at April 15, 2009 12:16 PM in response to Equity Partner Sues Developers of 20 Henry Street

Ringo - I have some desk space available for rent in Dumbo. Semi-private (four walls with a door opening but no door) 64 sq ft (8' x 8') office with L-shaped desk, shelving, corkboard, two file cabinets and chair. Use of copier, fax machine and conf room included in rent. Give me call if you are interested, 917-568-6525.

Posted by: ITM at March 31, 2009 3:05 PM in response to Cheap Office Space?

DIBS and Snappy - In my statement above I was operating under the assumption that the contract was void as the buyer was unable to close and the developer declared them in default. I was not viewing it from a perspective of ongoing litigation were the deposit funds were still being held in escrow. I understand that is what the story states but it was not clear to me that that was the same scenario you were both discussing above. My apologies for not following your question and answer exchange correctly.

bxgrl - I think DIBS's first post sums up the lesson to be learned here. I am not trying to be disingenuous, I am just trying to be rational. Moving forward with a non-contingent (mortgage) contract with only a pre-approval letter from a bank is like walking the high-wire without a net. Macro economic conditions did conspire against many like these buyers, but to suggest that the buyer be absolved from all responsibility in the matter is a bit much.

I am pretty sure the buyer in this case had other options at their disposal and not all developers were offering non-contingent contracts. While I, as a seller, proposed non-contingent contracts I was, on occasion, willing to remove the contingency if other particulars of the deal met with my approval.

Also, the developers lender probably required non-contingent contracts.

Posted by: ITM at March 23, 2009 11:48 AM in response to That's Me In The Corner, Losing My Deposit

DIBS - you said: "Yes, Snappy...up to the size of the deposit. If they contracted to buy it at $950k and put up $95k, they, theoretically would get money back as long as TB sold it for more than $855k. TB may have thrown in other fees that would get taken out as well."

I am invloved with the development of "for sale" residential real estate and have never heard of a former buyer, one that walked away from a deposit, having any claim to future seller/developer income. Is this what you are stating? If so, would you be able to provide me with a sample of contract langauge that provides for such a claim? Thanks.

Also, your statement that "the developer made them sign contracts" is a little over the top. Developers never force buyers to do anything they don't want to. Contracts are always entered into by two willing and able parties.

Posted by: ITM at March 23, 2009 11:08 AM in response to That's Me In The Corner, Losing My Deposit

Does anyone have any feel for what the appropriate price is for new, finished, condo or 1-2 family space in this location, approx 18 to 24 months from now?

I am guessing approx $750 psf. Anyone think that is high, low or approx right?

Posted by: ITM at March 13, 2009 5:00 PM in response to 110 Amity Price Revealed, Buyers Circling

IZ - this is not Brooklyn Heights. This is the fringe of Cobble Hill and abuts a hospital complex. Henry Street is heavily trafficked, especially in the evening.

"Going for"? Recently closed sales are the only relevant comparable and even then they should be adjusted down. Are you aware of a closed transaction that has land priced at over $300 per buildable sf? Only the best lots in Manhattan were able to achieve such prices when we were at the top. We are now on our way down with a very long way to go.

As you can see by the current owners ploy, developement profit is all in the land - the difference between what was paid upon entry into a project and what was achieved upon sale to the end-users represents the developers profit. Logically it follows that if land is trading for more than it did in the past then the price the end-user will be willing to pay must be higher than it was in the past. Who is going to make the case that finished product will be worth more two years from now than it was say last year? I would like to hear it.

Posted by: ITM at March 13, 2009 4:40 PM in response to 110 Amity Price Revealed, Buyers Circling

I believe 166 was developed by the long time owner of the property, as opposed to 20 Henry which was recently acquired by the current owner/developer. I believe 20 Henry was acquired for approx $20,000,000, or $17,000,000 for the exist bldg and $3,000,000 for the adjacent land, based on a $200 psf FAR estimate. $17MM works out to about $371 psf. As you might have noticed, the developer will be very hard pressed to sell at a profit because his entry price was so high. 166 developer may have a better chance at a profit but sales activity is stopped dead. Those foru contracts are summer 2008 deals. No activity since then. Maintenance is very high and I don't think a J-51 abatement is being pursued. These are two of the reasons why asking prices are lower than at 20 Henry.

110 Amity property is currently priced just below the transaction numbers for 20 Henry, which were achieved at or near the top of the cylce.

Posted by: ITM at March 13, 2009 4:22 PM in response to Checking In On 166 Montague Street

Current owner/developer may be testing market at his point of indifference - to develop or to sell. I would be more than surprised if they achieve a price anywhere near these asking numbers.
"Townhouse Lots"
4,231 sf at $1,400,000 equals $330 per FAR
4,013 sf at $1,250,000 equals $311 per FAR
3,925 sf at $1,210,000 equals $308 per FAR
3,850 sf at $1,175,000 equals $305 per FAR
These FAR numbers are far in excess of the highest of high land comps. Land in this location will probably end up being priced around $150 per buildable sf when all is said and done.

Exist bldg
14,243 sf at $4,500,000 equals $315 per FAR
as Patio points out above, this property in its current condition is actually worth less than the land it occupies.

We are in the early innings of a major asset repricing cycle. Early players in this game usually get burned bad. Most probable end-user price to consider for this location and property type is less than $750 psf. Buying land at $310 per FAR doesn't work. Winner of this auction most likely an entity with no local development experience.

Other red flags:
"approved plans" - approved by what entity?
Is a variance required for Lamm property due to it's proximity to the lot line. It does not comply with current residential requirement of 30 ft setback.

Posted by: ITM at March 13, 2009 4:01 PM in response to 110 Amity Price Revealed, Buyers Circling

Sam - what do you know about my race or socioeconomic standing?

My only objective on this matter and others I may chime in on is to point out that things are not always as they appear and that the back story to almost every event in this dense urban environment is much more complicated and intresting then one might think.

Anyone want to get into disecting all of the players (lawyers, politicians, etc.) in the Dock Street issue? It might not be a surprise to some but the personal agenda's of many of the players (and I am not talking about the developer) override the interests and agenda of the public that they are elected by and apppointed to serve.

Posted by: ITM at January 15, 2009 4:35 PM in response to CB2 Gives Thumbs Up to Dock Street

Sam - as I said, I read the report card and the explanation of how the grading works. I have listend to numerous presentations of the reports. Did/have you? My analysis is my own and based on the facts. Your analysis is based on pure speculation. The grade relates to a rate of change calculation where a certain grade improvement is scored relative to a different grade's improvement. Notice I said improvement. For example, a class that scored a D last year and a B this year would get a good grade (~ B) for the improvement. A class that scored a B+ last year and an A- this year would get a poor grade (~ F) for improvment as the rate of change (improvement) is less.

It might be a good idea if you conducted a little more due diligence before making such speculative claims. Do you even know what the underlying assessment scores were for PS8?

Posted by: ITM at January 15, 2009 3:45 PM in response to CB2 Gives Thumbs Up to Dock Street

BK RE Vet - the assumptions you have made based upon your observations about the demographic composition of Brooklyn Heights are not quite right. For example, most of the families that live in the Heights disappear on the weekends to their second homes - hence so few people around.

Why do you think the Heights would go nuts if PS8 were improved? Who wouldn't want free and convenient educational options in their neighborhood? There are two other private instituions in the neighborhood already that are 5 times the size of PS8. Why would a public school option not be welcome?

Posted by: ITM at January 15, 2009 3:16 PM in response to CB2 Gives Thumbs Up to Dock Street

Sam - disclaimer: I am not affiliated with PS8 in any way. The grading system used by the DOE relates to the rate of change in performace of a particular grade in a particular school in comparision to other comparable grades at other comparable schools. The comparable set of schools that was used this year was poorly chosen. The grading system is overly complicated and applies disproportinate weight to components that don't get to the educational capabilties of each child. You should really read the entire report and the paper that explains the grading system. I have. I would like to hear if your opinion changes once you have digested all the facts. You usually have some constructive commentary on this site but you are way of base with your claims related to PS8 performance and by association what that particular school should be entitled to.

I am indifferent to Dock Street bulk and use variance issues. I do believe however that the placement of a school there is not in the taxpayers best interest. The school and preservation issues should not be linked in any way. I am also indifferent as to what properties the taxpayer currently own that the DOE/SCA improves.

The point that I am trying to make is that there is significant existing unused taxpayer assests that could be put to use in addressing the middle school issue. It is beyond irresponsible for the DOE/SCA to not properly evaluate the assets and options they have in hand before they allocate funds and make a verbal commitment to take space in a private development, especially a development that is going to leverage the DOEs commitment to get their contentious project approved. The DOE is not acting in the best interest of all taxpayers by committing to this project. It's actions are only benfiting a singe private entity at the expense of the taxpayer. They should not have participated in this project at this level at this time.

Benson - while I do not disagree with the logic behind your idea that flexibility should be the goal and therefore a leased space is in the DOEs best interest. I am not sure the developer would interested in a "come and go" as you please arrangement with any of its tenants, especially one that would be using so much space.

Posted by: ITM at January 15, 2009 2:55 PM in response to CB2 Gives Thumbs Up to Dock Street

Benson - your statement, "It is an effective way to leverage the private sector to save the public some money." is incorrect. There are already under utilized public assets (under built schools and land) in the vicinty of this proposed project. If the School Construction Authority chooses not to develop these under utilized assets and insteads chooses to improve a raw space (the Dock Street) they are further extending the taxpayer. They are NOT, as you say, saving the public money. While the conceptual lease obligation for the DOE is something like $1, the improvements cost is substantial. The DOE/SCA will not be able to capitalize these improvements to the same extent that they would if there where to make similar improvements to schools and the land the taxpayer already owns.

BK RE Vet - "Heights is lowest per unit occupancy part of BK by far . . "? It would be helpful if you provided us with the back up data for that claim and be more specific about school age children component of the occupancy number. Thanks.

Posted by: ITM at January 15, 2009 12:34 PM in response to CB2 Gives Thumbs Up to Dock Street

This quote from the article struck me as one of the most relevant: "Like Mr. Johnson, bloggers are expanding the idea of what constitutes a neighborhood: it's not just a place, but also a constellation of views and opinions." As a reader of Brownstoner from day one and an occassional poster, I believe one of greateast challenges of this website (from a business viability perspective) is how will Mr. Butler manage to keep the constellation of views and opinions from being reduced further than it has over the past 18 months. Inclusiveness is evolving into exclusiveness.

Posted by: ITM at January 12, 2009 2:49 PM in response to NYT's Look at Blog Commenters

Snark
the RP-5217NYC form (page 7 in deed docs) states full sale price as $4,189,000.

Posted by: ITM at December 23, 2008 1:43 PM in response to 135 Joralemon Closes for 30% Below Original Asking Price

Propertyshark has the building at 2,550 sq ft.
$4,200,000, or $1,650 psf.
PSF number may be a record for a single family home in Brooklyn Heights.
Does this sound right?

Posted by: ITM at December 23, 2008 11:18 AM in response to 135 Joralemon Closes for 30% Below Original Asking Price

At $3.3million that is $330 per buildble sq ft. $330 per FAR (incl a foundation) is way above market. Original purchase price of $1.2million or $120 per FAR is closer to market (asuming market price for land could be determined with a significant degree of certainty today). Looks like current owner has taken down a $2.5million mortgage, which would equate to a $250 per FAR number. That would be a very healthy get in this market. I am curious to see who will lend on such a project and what the debt to equity ratio will be.

Posted by: ITM at December 10, 2008 4:26 PM in response to Development Watch: 348 Sackett Street

BH76 - who advised you on the past and present suggested asking price? Was it a broker from one of the major brokerages?

Posted by: ITM at December 3, 2008 12:22 PM in response to Refi Wave on the Way?

Biff - i think we have covered this once before but i think it is worthwhile to discuss again. Do you think that some units are actually in contract? I do not see any indication on Halstead or Streeteast that some of the units are indeed in contract. At some point in the past Streeteasy did indicate that 5 or so units were in contract, but no longer noted as such on their website. something irregular going on here.

Anyone able to confirm that units are actually in contract? Thanks.

Posted by: ITM at December 1, 2008 12:57 PM in response to Update on 20 Henry

Anybody know why Streeteasy is no longer showing the units that were previoulsy noted as "in contract" as such?

Posted by: ITM at December 1, 2008 11:48 AM in response to Update on 20 Henry

Plummet? As far as GC's go, downward movement in price ends when one or more of the competing entities (gc's and/or their subs)is no longer solvent. While it is reasonable to expect operators to lower their margin expectations in order to stay in business there is a floor comprised of on-going obligations such as leased office space and equipment that at some point caps the reduction in management fees and material costs.

Posted by: ITM at November 14, 2008 11:26 AM in response to The Future of Construction Costs?

It looks like these rentals are by unit owners, not the developer. The listing brokers may even be the owners. If so, maybe they were looking to flip or hold as investment. Asking monthly rent does appear to cover mortgage cost of the unit, without deduction for expenses. "Bulk of buyers" may not be wall street types.

Posted by: ITM at November 7, 2008 12:20 PM in response to Rental Reductions at One Brooklyn Bridge Park

DOWS&P -
"-25 to -50 percent price drops from their recent peaks"
Is this a Brooklyn wide estimate or are you talking about specific local markets?
Also, just to clarify, you think condos and coops that reside in buildings that are in landmark districts will do worse than the 1 to 3 family homes (bldg types used in IBO study) they share the same street/location with?

Posted by: ITM at November 4, 2008 6:05 PM in response to Last Week's Biggest Sales

brownie77 - I side with you.
DOWS&P - From my post yesterday re OBBP:
A 2003 study by the NYC Independent Budget Office concluded that although prices for historic properties have at times increased less rapidly than for similar properties outside historic districts, overall price appreciation from 1975 through 2002 was greater for houses inside historical districts.
Significant finacial turmoil over the period noted above. Any reason you feel this will not be the case going forward?

Posted by: ITM at November 4, 2008 3:44 PM in response to Last Week's Biggest Sales

It is probably safe to assume that a buyer of a $10MM house understands what value is and how it might be protected. A 2003 study by the Independent Budget Office concluded that although prices for historic properties have at times increased less rapidly than for similar properties outside historic districts, overall price appreciation from 1975 through 2002 was greater for houses inside historical districts. While some may value being part of a neighborhood and some may not, the important concept to understand is that a community with an active, organized and established voice such as the Brooklyn Heights Assocation is a major contributor to real estate value stability. Landmark district, low crime, minimal graffiti, etc. all yield a better quality of life. Being part of the BHA is not very glamorous voluntary work, especially considering the occasional bashing the association administrators take on this blog and others, but those that do are very appreciated by those who understand the impact this organized voice indirectly has on the value of their homes. Unfortunately, OBBP isn't now and will never be part of a neigborhood. This project along with others of this type will suffer more as the knowledgeble buyers will seek the security of stable real estate investments. Views alone do not provide for price appreciation.

Posted by: ITM at November 3, 2008 1:54 PM in response to Tough Times at One Brooklyn Bridge Park

Dave - I happen to know that the owner is NOT a casualty of Wall Street. As opposed to the asking price comps (which are not comparables by the way) you provided above, do you know what the closed sale comparables are in this particular part of Brooklyn?

Posted by: ITM at October 21, 2008 4:19 PM in response to House of the Day: 22 Remsen Street

Dave - Same listing broker for Cobble Hill and 22 Remsen properties. Why do you think she would advise setting price the way it is? Also, do you believe there is a correlation btwn pricing and sellers need to move or not? What might you be able to divine btwn these two properties and their respective asking prices?

Posted by: ITM at October 21, 2008 3:47 PM in response to House of the Day: 22 Remsen Street

What are the comparables for this type of property? Anyone have any insights?

Posted by: ITM at October 21, 2008 3:28 PM in response to House of the Day: 22 Remsen Street

brg - that is not an eased edge, it is a bullnose.

Posted by: ITM at October 21, 2008 2:17 PM in response to House of the Day: 22 Remsen Street

When renovating a property of this vintage it is very hard to restrict spending to $500,000 (or $125 psf) as entire systems (plumbing, heating, electrical, etc) typically need to be replaced. Also, if windows are single pane and in need of repair what is the sense in putting in a new energy efficient heating/cooling system. While the bones may be in good condition that is not where the real expense lies. It is in the systems and finishes. $225 psf minimum is where you start when pricing these type of renos.

I believe this property backs up to the 12-story Standish rental bldg to the west. Not alot sun getting into this rear yard.

Posted by: ITM at October 14, 2008 2:47 PM in response to House of the Day: 156 Hicks Street

Don't know for a fact, just speculating. It all seems a little irregular to me. Looks like insiders/investors are trying to set price bar real high. $1,300 psf for pre-construction pricing of rehab project? They haven't even begun the rehab project yet. $1,100+ psf for pre-construction pricing on the new bldg? There isn't even a model unit. Considerate of the current economic situation I find it very hard to believe that real buyers are willing to put down a deposit for housing that is priced way above anything else in the immediate neighborhood and expect that it will be that value when the project is complete, 12 to 18 months from now. Especially when the finished product only exists as an artificial image. More reasons to be pessimistic about the legitimacy of these units really being in contract with anyone expect insiders/investors. No indication on Halstead site that this project is on the market. Why would they release just a few random units for sale? Where did these buyers get their mortgages from, assuming some of them required mortgages, for product that is not supported with comparable sales?

Posted by: ITM at September 15, 2008 6:55 PM in response to Condos in Contract at 20 Henry Street

Biff - you weren't passed over, I don't think any of these units actually sold.

Posted by: ITM at September 15, 2008 2:25 PM in response to Condos in Contract at 20 Henry Street

Does anyone know if the offering plan has actually been approved for this development? You know what is strange - StreetEasy doesn't show any other units as Active Listings. Did they just release these four units and get them in contract right away, at the end of August, in this current credit crisis environment? That would be really impressive. Especially at the prices that are indicated.
#7CS $1,300 psf
#4BN $987 psf
#3CN $1,101 psf
#3AN $1,155 psf
That is some really impressive sale pricing. Something doesn't seem right here?

Posted by: ITM at September 15, 2008 1:38 PM in response to Condos in Contract at 20 Henry Street

Certainly doesn't make any sense as an investment property as the per unit rent would have to exceed $3,300 (only 9 units as 2F has no kitchen) to provide appropriate amount of debt coverage on loan, after expenses. Average unit size in the building is 410 sf, which is below the avg market size for studios (approx 475 sf). Newly minted owners of former Watchtower properties - 6,8,10 Clark St and 169 Columbia Heights aren't even asking that much rent for their studios. Colleges looking for dorm space, like Brooklyn Law School, have recently paid in the $500 psf range for Watchtower properties. Most likely not interested at $950 psf. So it looks like broker and owner are positioning it as a single family conversion. No single family conversion property in Brooklyn Heights has traded any where near $950 psf. This needs at least a 30% haircut in order to move as a single family conversion and a minimum 50% reduction in price in order to appeal to an investor. Maybe since the Watchtower deals with all cash they are not in tune with the on-going and worsening credit crisis the non-tax-exempt masses are dealing with.

Posted by: ITM at August 18, 2008 3:29 PM in response to House of the Day: 105 Willow Street

Thanks Biff, I missed that one. Building any size annex on the PS8 site would be one way to utilize existing tax payer resources. Building out the as-of-right envelope would be the highest and best use of tax payer resources. Putting a public school inside a private development is the least efficient use of tax payer resources and a subsidy in the form of additional profit for the developer of the project.

Posted by: ITM at July 30, 2008 3:33 PM in response to DOE: It's Time to Examine Dock Street

Biff - what is your source for Judy Stanton's advice?

Posted by: ITM at July 30, 2008 2:10 PM in response to DOE: It's Time to Examine Dock Street