I've seen this place, and it is a HAUL up the stairs. Not worth $700K. Probably not worth $600K in this market. Nice place, but the walk-up and the layout are tough.

Don't recall a water view, either, but it was a few years ago ...

Posted by: JKB at November 4, 2009 1:29 PM in response to Co-op of the Day: 32 Willow Place, #9

I've seen this place, and it is a HAUL up the stairs. Not worth $700K. Probably not worth $600K in this market. Nice place, but the walk-up and the layout are tough.

Don't recall a Manhattan view, either, but it was a few years ago ...

Posted by: JKB at November 4, 2009 1:28 PM in response to Co-op of the Day: 32 Willow Place, #9

I'll comment. This post seems to typify the city today - half asleep ...

Posted by: JKB at October 23, 2009 1:28 PM in response to Open House Picks: Six Months Later

I'll comment. This post seems to typify the city today - half-dead ...

Posted by: JKB at October 23, 2009 1:28 PM in response to Open House Picks: Six Months Later

Just got a place by-owner with no fee in Brooklyn Heights (off Craiglist, where there seemed to be a ton of Prospect Heights listings).

Just saw on Craigslist that another established broker active in Cobble Hill, Boerum Hill and Carroll Gardens is saying 'my fee is always negotiable.'

But I do agree with people who say:
a) you have to be willing to walk away if a broker is inflexible; and

b) Carroll Gardens landlords/brokers are in dreamland. There have been stale listings there for MONTHS that won't drop their asking rent or list incentives with reduced broker's fees.

All in all, I'd definitely try to negotiate the fee, at least a little. If you absolutely LOVE the place, though, then you have some soul-searching to do.

Posted by: JKB at August 31, 2009 5:24 PM in response to Negotiating Rental Fees

I-balls, you've described me perfectly (although I imagine your idea of 'big assets' is bigger than mine - I'm a cheap date like that).

If prices don't come to me, I'll be happy to continue renting. The insanity is just beginning to wane.

Posted by: JKB at August 29, 2009 12:29 AM in response to Open House Picks: Six Months Later

DIBS, nice! Great for you, great for your block. You're definitely the right kind of owner.

Congratulations.

Posted by: JKB at August 14, 2009 2:30 PM in response to DIBS Refinishes His Facade

"Also--even for others in declining market and it declines further....doesn't it become easier to 'trade up' when prices are even lower'. Such as: right now someone would need extra $250k to get something better suited...if prices drop 20% then need only extra $200k (yes assuming that their current property is paid for)."

Assuming that their property is paid for is a BIG assumption. And how is it a gain for someone to get a place for $200K cheaper when they have to sell their place for that same amount less?

But, yes, anyone who doesn't need to sell right now probably shouldn't. Problem for the market is that more and more people will need to sell as more time passes thus driving prices lower.

So anyone who can't wait indefinitely is potentially going to have a harder reckoning later than they would if they just bit the bullet and cashed out now.

We're looking to rent - gasp! - and we've been offered a number of places where people really want to sell, but they're looking to rent their places out for some indefinite period until the market comes back.

Over time, that gets harder and harder to do, I imagine. And the shadow inventory builds and builds ...

Posted by: JKB at August 14, 2009 2:20 PM in response to Open House Picks: Six Months Later

I agree with Miss M. that sellers who take their properties off the market trying to wait for return-to-peak pricing are probably playing with fire.

Of course no one knows for sure, but my opinion is that those sellers better have a LONG time to wait. Years. Maybe a decade or more.

Posted by: JKB at August 14, 2009 1:45 PM in response to Open House Picks: Six Months Later

I'm a soccer player in the neighborhood who loves playing games at Cadman Plaza. I'm also sensitive to the fair use of space and to the little kids and their parents who want to play in the park.

A few points:
1) Yes, little kids can play in other places - the natural grass areas, the north side, playgrounds, DUMBO, etc. The soccer games just can't do that. Is the south side better for certain things? Yes. But, as other posters have noted, you can do lots of things - whiffleball, frisbee, general horsing around - in other areas.

2) I agree that the soccer players should try to be accommodating to other people who want to use the park. I generally play Saturday morning, which is a game that's fairly mellow, adult and makes a point of leaving 1/3 of the south field free for families. Honestly, there aren't usually that many family groups wanting to use the field between 9 a.m. and noon on a Saturday, and this seems to work out fine.

3) I don't agree that small groups of little kids and their parents have some kind of inherent right to demand use of the entire field when there are 20-30+ other people who want to use it. If you want insurance that no soccer ball could ever hit your child, I think that's an unreasonable expectation in a mixed-use park like this.

I know the soccer players can be jerks sometimes, and I doubt this problem will have a resolution unless some authority steps in. My two cents is that tense co-existence is probably going to be the reality until more fields open up.

Try to talk it out, folks. If that doesn't work ... fume?

Posted by: JKB at August 13, 2009 12:34 PM in response to Closing Bell: (Astro)turf War

Across the board discounts, some off of pretty reasonable original asks. Not bad.

Posted by: JKB at July 16, 2009 11:42 AM in response to Brooklyn Sales: Under a Million

"Factory orders were +1.2% and expectations were for +0.9%."

Great. I see some sun through them storm clouds, doesn't mean I'm going to the beach!

Posted by: JKB at July 2, 2009 11:06 AM in response to Housing Market - Where Are We?

Dave, I think it's a little early to be calling a 'trend.' Sure, the short-term number of contracts signed are up and the inventory numbers are down (slightly). No reason to discount that.

But if you look at Urbandigs' commentary, as well as his own inventory numbers, he doesn't think this will be sustained. And contract signings alone don't account for dropping inventory. Using UD's own charts, there are still more properties being put on the market than being taken off through contract signings.

So, a number of properties are being pulled without being sold. I'd still count those as outstanding inventory.

Positive news? Yep. A trend you can depend on? I doubt it.

UD puts a lot of weight for May-June on increased 'confidence' on both the buy and sell sides. Today's job report (and subsequent drop in the markets) can't help but shake people's confidence in near-term recovery.

UD says it's way too early to call a bottom in Manhattan real estate. all things considered, I agree.

Posted by: JKB at July 2, 2009 10:02 AM in response to Housing Market - Where Are We?

And at Be@Schermerhorn - where they're lucky to sell anything right now, your friend should DEFINITELY be able to negotiate away the transfer taxes.

Posted by: JKB at June 30, 2009 4:57 PM in response to Transfer Tax/New Construction?

C'mon, no one is commenting on the fact that a magazine called "High Life" is recommending Bushwick as a great place to visit?

Most of the Bushwick denizens I know epitomize the spirit (and fact) of high life.

Posted by: JKB at June 26, 2009 12:52 PM in response to Closing Bell: Bushwick is 'New York Cool'

Agreed, brickoven. No upward price pressure, rents falling. It's a perfect storm of burgeoning affordability.

We're doomed!

Posted by: JKB at June 26, 2009 12:47 PM in response to Rising Inventory Bad News for Burg

Great details and light. Location Ok vs. anywhere else in the Heights. Layout, however, is a big, big drawback.

I think they make a mistake calling it a 2 BR. You'd REALLY have to twist things around to make that work.

Posted by: JKB at June 23, 2009 2:42 PM in response to Co-op of the Day: 30 Willow Place, #4

"Basically, we are back to normal."

Guess that depends on what your normal is. Corcoran's numbers show decreasing inventory, but UrbanDigs' widget shows new listings consistently outpacing contract signings (albeit more slowly than two months ago ...).

UD's numbers also show dipping inventory, but that can't be accounted for by contract signings, regardless if more are happening or not. In other words, some of the properties disappearing from the inventory count are simply being pulled from the market, not sold.

My feeling is more deals are happening (at lower prices) but that inventory is still going to increase. With new developments releasing units and 'patient' sellers becoming less patient, there will continue to be downward pressure on prices.

I'd argue that that will continue to be the new normal going forward. Prices aren't going to stabilize, nor are they going to go up.

Posted by: JKB at June 18, 2009 1:24 PM in response to Corco: Signed Contracts Up, Inventory Down

Typical Corcoran "make-the-market" pricing at its best. Without a major price drop NOW, this thing will sit there and sit there and sit there ...

Posted by: JKB at June 8, 2009 1:08 PM in response to Co-op of the Day: 96 Luquer Street

"Here's where you have to start to question how low prices can really go"

I'm confused. Are you suggesting that the scenario you describe puts some sort of floor under prices (meaning there's a minimum level below which the market won't go because it's so cost-effective to buy at, say, $1.2 million)? That $1.2 million is some sort of sweet spot because of the availability of $730,000 to $934,200 of conforming financing?

Or are you saying max conforming loan limits (and the unavailability of HELOCs, etc.) will put downward pressure on prices because there aren't that many buyers with the wherewithal (or motivation) to put $270,000-$450,000 down on a $1.2 million brownstone in Clinton Hill?

Honestly, the scenario you present seems to make a good case for either argument, depending on the circumstances of your hypothetical buyer.

Posted by: JKB at May 14, 2009 11:14 AM in response to Refinancing: How Sweet It Is

Another thumb's-up for the new feature, Brownstoner!

As for the Novo -- I think that place went for what it's worth. Maybe even a little more than it's worth.

Posted by: JKB at April 2, 2009 2:09 PM in response to Brooklyn Sales: Under a Million

Jesus, I read this entire thread just to see how it turned out. DIBS, lechacal, wasder, I'm just so thrilled that you gave us a happy ending. ;)

Posted by: JKB at March 20, 2009 11:08 PM in response to Open House Picks: Six Months Later

Not having seen this place, I think it's possible someone would pay near the asking price for it. The view and location are real wild cards (i.e. someone might just pony up for the view, in itself).

Would I pay this price? Not a chance.

Posted by: JKB at March 17, 2009 1:30 PM in response to Co-op of the Day: 160 Columbia Heights

What's next? The curbs are too high? Some people really want to have problems.

Posted by: JKB at December 15, 2008 4:25 PM in response to Closing Bell: Keeping Quiet in Park Slope

re the Williamsburg sale -- what's up with 6A? It sold significantly higher than previous sales or current asks in its building.

Any theories as to why?

Posted by: JKB at December 9, 2008 2:52 PM in response to Last Week's Biggest Sales