tyburg - there are other OH this weekend, just do a search on the NYT. That said, I think a lot of sellers are waiting til after January to put their places on the market, given the upcoming holidays. I suppose sellers are hoping they get a boost from bonuses, spring, etc. though it's also possible (and/or likely) there will be continuing troubling/uncertain signs about the economy and prices will continue to head further south.

Posted by: Miss Muffett at November 20, 2009 1:55 PM in response to Open House Picks

Oh trust me, DIBS, I can be plenty emotional about this topic! (kind of like singing in the shower though - keep it pretty private). There is much that is awful about the topic in NYC, and I think that's really because there seems to be a bigger problem of a widening gap between haves and have nots, and also between haves and have mores. I am very conscious of my good fortune to at least be in the haves column, but feel a combination of anger that the have nots are so excluded, and horror that the have mores seem to be getting ever more and more (bank bonuses anyone?) while things are harder for all the rest. In other words, I can't really complain on a personal level, but I do feel a real indignation at some of these underlying economic forces. OK, off my soapbox now and back to work...

Posted by: Miss Muffett at November 19, 2009 2:19 PM in response to 150 Bond Finally Sells—For a Loss

Woo - people are riled up today. Taking my lunchtime break and skimming through and seeing my name here - what about Nouriel Roubini?

Wasder, it's true that I consider myself lucky and I don't think I'm smarter than others -- though I was thinking, for quite a while before the crash, that the market was unsustainable and was amazed by the brush-off, if not vitriol, I received in response to that attitude.

I think it's only human nature that real estate arouses such passions - especially in a city like NYC, it cuts to the heart of some thorny class issues. I know all too well how it can provoke envy, longing, anger, schadenfreude, etc. Some of this may be deserved, some not, and it's really hard to know since it's all so complex. Personally, I'm just waiting for that nice, modest home (but yes, in a prime area, albeit possibly in the fringes of said prime area) that I can afford for me and my family. I suppose the colorful outbursts make for theatrical fireworks on this blog, but I do wish folks could remain more civil (but maybe that's a fuddy-duddyish view?)

Posted by: Miss Muffett at November 19, 2009 2:06 PM in response to 150 Bond Finally Sells—For a Loss

Indeed I am busy today at work and will definitely not spend the next 2 hours posting. You know, 113 Garfield was one of the few PS houses I did NOT see the interior of, so I plead guilty to estimating a price based on not having seen it. Of course I'm sometimes wrong so no shame in that. I nonetheless feel confident in my bets having staked them out pre-crash and seeing many of those bets (which pre-crash were considered crazy) vindicated. 11217, I really don't get your glee in saying unpleasant things about me, but if that's what floats your boat, it doesn't really bother me. I'm too occupied with my family, work and house-hunting. Happy posting!

Posted by: Miss Muffett at November 17, 2009 1:42 PM in response to Last Week's Biggest Sales

BrooklynGreene! You still have not sold your place? What are you waiting for?

Posted by: Miss Muffett at November 16, 2009 10:51 PM in response to Extension of Higher Conforming Loan Limits a Boost?

Isn't the Prospect Avenue house right by the expressway? Wouldn't it be loud and polluted? I'm genuinely curious if this is the case (looks that way on map) - can anyone elucidate?

Posted by: Miss Muffett at November 13, 2009 1:13 PM in response to Open House Picks

Where are you getting info about 4th Street being on market for 1.89? Brooklyn Properties no longer has that. I thought the broker told me they are renting it out for now - they've tried to sell for a while now, initially at over $2mil but no dice. I actually saw the house a long time ago when they were asking more and it was narrowish with mediocre finishes. Does another broker have it now? If so, which one?

Posted by: Miss Muffett at November 13, 2009 12:44 PM in response to Open House Picks: Six Months Later

If even the broker says this needs a total renovation, you can be sure you need to spend well over 300K. It actually costs MORE when you're trying to preserve nice detail. All I can say is, we shall see (though broker has yet to explain why other places right around here are lingering)...

Posted by: Miss Muffett at November 12, 2009 2:42 PM in response to House of the Day: 540 4th Street

So broker, how do you account for all the renovated houses in the same area (park block or else 7/8 Ave - closer to 321/transportation) that are priced in the mid-2s (presumably, less than this house will cost when renovated) that aren't moving? Your confidence seems to assume nothing has changed since 2007-early 08.

Posted by: Miss Muffett at November 12, 2009 2:16 PM in response to House of the Day: 540 4th Street

Antidope, I looked up 113 Garfield on acris and it still lists the old owner so I'm still not getting how you have proof of the final selling price.

Posted by: Miss Muffett at November 12, 2009 2:02 PM in response to House of the Day: 540 4th Street

Antidope - where you getting the info about 113 Garfield? Property shark is not listing the final selling price.

Posted by: Miss Muffett at November 12, 2009 1:33 PM in response to House of the Day: 540 4th Street

I can't imagine this could be well renovated for less than 500K which would bring price to 1000/psf, which is bubble levels. There are a host of other homes right around this location which are lingering at price points well below that on a psf basis.

Posted by: Miss Muffett at November 12, 2009 1:28 PM in response to House of the Day: 540 4th Street

Stevieb - I must confess I've always avoided the brownstoner get-togethers. There is so much vitriol on this list (which I find alternately weird and slightly creepy) that I like to stay anonymous! Plus, with little kids and a demanding job, I'm usually home at night - working, resting, cleaning or taking care of life stuff, or looking at real estate listings while my kiddies sleep!!

Posted by: Miss Muffett at November 9, 2009 4:20 PM in response to House of the Day: 430 10th Street Revisited

Yeah antidope, why the meanness? I don't get why folks have to be so nasty on here. And OK, so MFN shared his financial info, but this is an anonymous list - very different than discussing that stuff point blank at a dinner party. What difference does it really make when we're all anonymous? Frankly, I find that kind of candor revealing, and appreciate when people are forthright.

Posted by: Miss Muffett at November 9, 2009 4:17 PM in response to House of the Day: 430 10th Street Revisited

Wasder, my understanding is that there is no tax issue if you sell your primary residence, as long as you don't make more than 250K per individual or 500K as a couple in capital gains. I believe you used to have to buy again within 5 years, but I think that's no longer even the case. With rents soft, and landlords eager to keep good tenants, I don't think families really have to worry very much about going from "rental to rental" in this climate. For me, money is much more of the essence if I can save a few hundred grand by waiting a bit longer to buy!

Posted by: Miss Muffett at November 9, 2009 3:55 PM in response to House of the Day: 430 10th Street Revisited

Stevieb, As many people on this list know, a key reason we sold our last property was that we wanted to live in a more "prime" public school district, so we are renting in one now, and have our oldest in that school. We have to be careful with our youngest - that is, she has no guarantee of a variance, so in looking to buy again, we have to choose to live in a place that has a decent back-up school in case she does not get into our older kid's school. Or, we could keep renting in our current place til she gets in, and then we're "free" to live anywhere (though we are also trying to understand the middle school issues, though it's hard to plan around DOE rules may change by time we get to that point).

Congrats MFN. I hear what you're saying about the long slog to find a place. I am still amazed by the ballsy asking prices on lots of places, but at least am comforted when the actual selling prices reflect things coming down. Prime hoods are still expensive, but the direction of the market is definitely continuing to head down, so I think potential buyers, especially those with cash, are in a good position. But yes, one must be patient.

If I knew NJ more, I'd consider it but for various reasons (read: husband) we are committed to Brooklyn which I don't mind since we are fortunate enough to at least be in the ballpark of being able to buy a house here, and I do like this city. But I can *totally* see why others would choose alternatives - there are great ones out there, and Jersey sounds like one of them.

Posted by: Miss Muffett at November 9, 2009 3:46 PM in response to House of the Day: 430 10th Street Revisited

I don't know the owner's personal circumstances - I can only speculate. The impression I got from visiting the house a few times was that he lived there himself with his family (there was some kid stuff around) and now has moved out, since the top unit is empty. Who knows why he's selling? There's another house being sold by Corcoran on 14th Street that's being sold mid-reno so looks like a distressed sale. And another Corcoran house (former HOTD on this list) on 13th St that's for sale that looks like it's not going to make back any money from what it was bought for in 2007 (and may very well lose money). Maybe all these sellers find they need cash now? I honestly don't know but it would seem that that's the case...

Posted by: Miss Muffett at November 9, 2009 2:19 PM in response to House of the Day: 430 10th Street Revisited

Rob, please don't drag me into the 11217 mudslinging - he is not posting as me! I remain baffled by the vitriol on this site. Can't we stick to discussing the houses? I actually feel kind of sorry for this house's owner. I think he's going to lose money. On the other hand, that's what can happen when you're too greedy - ask too much at the outset and you may wind up selling for a lot less than if you came out reasonable out of the gate...

Posted by: Miss Muffett at November 9, 2009 2:09 PM in response to House of the Day: 430 10th Street Revisited

I visited this house back when it was asking a lot more, and again very recently. I remember thinking last year that the owner was nuts for asking so much, and I think he really shot himself in the foot as now the house seems destined for death by many cuts - current price by the way has been cut another $30K. When I saw it recently, it looked worse as the furniture had been moved out but it looks worse for the wear (scuffed up, etc. ) and weirdly even smaller-looking. I think he made a mistake by using ground floor as a rental - it makes the owners unit feel very small and inconvenient (at well over $1mil!) to have to go up the stairs. I think he'd be lucky to make back the money he bought this house for.

Posted by: Miss Muffett at November 9, 2009 1:22 PM in response to House of the Day: 430 10th Street Revisited

Noklissa - if you have a really large loft, why do you want to sell at all?

Posted by: Miss Muffett at November 5, 2009 2:25 PM in response to House of the Day: 119 Fort Greene Place

The problem with these big long houses is all that dark, dead space in the middle, and the English basement is cave-like. At least in a 3 story townhouse (or better yet 4 story), you have more height to bring in some sun, and I think the shallower houses are preferable in that you don't have such a huge dark middle area that is kind of depressing.

Posted by: Miss Muffett at November 4, 2009 1:31 PM in response to House of the Day: 238 Windsor Place

I agree that the teachers union needs to be taken on, but I think there has been way too much emphasis on "teaching to the test". I also think the schools are failing in terms of overcrowding, and overall, I'm very disappointed about how little the famed Bloomberg management trickles down to the schools. The debacles over people not getting into their zoned schools would have been laughable if it weren't so scary. And meanwhile, developers have been able to build with abandon without the city providing adequate infrastructure (i.e. more schools) to support the new development - the 321 zone is a great example of this.

Posted by: Miss Muffett at November 4, 2009 10:26 AM in response to Election 2009: No Big Surprises in Brooklyn

CarrollGardened - I actually never go on the OT - today was just doing so since I was curious if people were going to talk about the election but another thread opened up about that. I honestly don't know how you all have the time to post on the OT all day - don't you have jobs? Speaking of which, I have to get to work so am signing off!!

Posted by: Miss Muffett at November 4, 2009 10:08 AM in response to Open Thread

Slopefarm, I was almost exactly one of the people you suggested. The little bit I tuned into the race, Thompson often seemed to be on the defensive. It was only when I read more about his endorsements that I felt I wanted to vote for him, but I think he suffered from a number of forces: 1) Bloomberg juggernaut of advertising and a general perception that he can "steer" the city well during moments of financial crisis: 2) lack of strong charisma; and 3) media playing up "slam dunk" probability of Bloomberg victory. I truly think the race could have done the other way if a small sliver of people like me did what I did at the last moment: voted for Thompson. I'm listening to mayor's reaction to the results and frankly, find myself more irritated by him since he's trying to spin things to his favor, instead of being humbled by the results and vowing to learn a lesson from them.

Posted by: Miss Muffett at November 4, 2009 10:05 AM in response to Election 2009: No Big Surprises in Brooklyn

I should also say that perhaps unlike others who voted for Thompson, I don't "hate Bloomberg with a passion". I have a lot of respect for him as a good manager, and do think he's done a lot of good things for the city. That said, I am disaffected by his policies on public schools and real estate development, and agree with Thompson that he is "out of touch" with many ordinary New Yorkers, and the city feels increasingly to be pushing out the middle class. So, there might have been lots of people like me who felt apathetic since they did NOT hate Bloomberg, but just assumed he would win.

Posted by: Miss Muffett at November 4, 2009 9:51 AM in response to Election 2009: No Big Surprises in Brooklyn

But a lot of would-be Thompson supporters (I speak from my own experience) barely tuned in since it seemed like Bloomberg had a lock on the election. The race was close enough that a pretty small amount of people like myself could have changed the election (and I only tuned in/voted at last moment...)

Posted by: Miss Muffett at November 4, 2009 9:45 AM in response to Election 2009: No Big Surprises in Brooklyn

tybur6, as I mentioned in Wed links, I think the abstentions HELPED bloomberg, not hurt him. I only voted at last minute when prodded by friends since it seemed Bloomberg had it in bag, but I wound up voting for Thompson. Other people I know (who would have voted for Thomspson) didn't bother to go. I know that's pathetic (and I feel strongly about voting so did manage to drag by butt to the polls) but sadly, I think it's the truth. I am disaffected by Bloomberg, and glad that he got the message that his policies on the schools, development, haves vs. have nots are alienating big swaths of the electorate...

Posted by: Miss Muffett at November 4, 2009 9:38 AM in response to Election 2009: No Big Surprises in Brooklyn

DIBS - not trying to time the market per se - we are actively looking but are not in a rush. We'll buy when we find a place we love at a price we feel comfortable with, but as I've said repeatedly (too much for some), I think prices still have further down to go. And even if the market stops going down, it certainly isn't about to shoot up anytime soon - don't see the fundamentals to support significant price increases. The idea of being "priced out" is the last thing we're worried about in this climate. The bigger challenge for us is simply inventory but that is slowly creeping up as old-timers seem to be accepting the "new normal" and putting their places on the market.

Posted by: Miss Muffett at November 4, 2009 9:32 AM in response to Open Thread

DIBS, your glee at the prospect of my getting priced out of the property market speaks volumes. And by the way, I could certainly buy a palace in your neighborhood.

Posted by: Miss Muffett at November 4, 2009 9:25 AM in response to Open Thread

I was thinking the same thing! I was amazed by how close the election was. I must confess I almost didn't vote since everything I heard made it sound like Bloomberg was a slam dunk. In the end, I voted for Thompson (largely due to his endorsements among public school community, as well as his proven record of good fiscal stewardship as a great comptroller, plus my frustration with Bloomberg's policies towards schools, developers and term limits - this despite the fact I was a former Bloomberg supporter), but only when prodded to do so. I wonder how many other people abstained and could have tipped the balance...

Posted by: Miss Muffett at November 4, 2009 9:11 AM in response to Wednesday Links

11217 - we may not disagree about the market placing a premium on north slope over center/south slope, but *I personally* don't - that's what I meant. I know some people hate the F, but it's never bugged me, and if I can save a few grand living further from the express trains, that's totally worth it to me.

Posted by: Miss Muffett at October 30, 2009 5:23 PM in response to Open House Picks

11217 - we may not disagree about the market placing a premium on north slope over center/south slope, but *I personally* don't - that's what I meant. I know some people hate the F, but it's never bugged me, and if I can save a few grand living further from the express trains, that's totally worth it to me.

Posted by: Miss Muffett at October 30, 2009 5:22 PM in response to Open House Picks

6th Street house has a very specific interior that some may like but others may be put off by (like me) - too fussy and kitchen is cave like. And why on earth did they paint part of staircase white? Ugh! Plus its 17' wide. I think at least a 10% price drop brings it in more reasonable territory but again, has to find a buyer that likes the current look or else is willing to spend the money to redo (kitchen, baths, etc.). Too pricey for me without rental income, and contrary to 11217's outlook, I don't place a premium on north slope blocks, though I suppose it's true that some others do. I'd rather save some money and buy a bit further south (i.e. center or south slope), and stick to a 3 story or else 4 story with a rental...

Posted by: Miss Muffett at October 30, 2009 5:09 PM in response to Open House Picks

Yes, I'm just wondering what it says about a neighborhood (PS) that is full of people with an unhealthy obsession with real estate? This is as much a critique of myself by the way....

Posted by: Miss Muffett at October 29, 2009 4:15 PM in response to Brownstoner 2009 Survey Results

Also, perhaps its too be expected that if PS is the hood Bstone readers live in more than any other one hood, it's also singled out for investment? Is PS just overly full of people obsessed with real estate?

Posted by: Miss Muffett at October 29, 2009 3:57 PM in response to Brownstoner 2009 Survey Results

Where did the number of "35" respondents come from?

And I agree with Pete that household income is quite different than individual income. Given that there are many on this site who are part of a couple, $100 is not as impressive (2 people making $50K) as making over 100K single-handedly.

Not very surprising results, but mildly interesting...

Posted by: Miss Muffett at October 29, 2009 3:55 PM in response to Brownstoner 2009 Survey Results

Wasder - you made your choice and you have pointed out here you are happy with it. Sounds like you love your home, got a pretty good deal, and can afford it. So, that's great! But I still think there IS an argument to be made for renting in this climate. I don't think that we are going to be renting "indefinitely" - I hope to buy sometime within the next few years - but if I have to wait a bit longer before finding something I like at a decent price, I really don't mind, when the market direction is stagnating at best, or more likely, continuing to drip down further. For us, school is a major piece of our decision too since we're renting in a good school zone, and maybe once our youngest is in school, we'll feel more "free" to buy anywhere (until that time, we're looking only in areas with very good public schools).

Posted by: Miss Muffett at October 28, 2009 4:54 PM in response to NYT: Housing Not Out of the Woods Yet

Joe if you are contemplating buying in 321 I would be concerned about the zone changing - and for that matter, other popular schools. Alas, the popular schools are getting more crowded and the prospect of rezoning is definitely under discussion. It's very thorny and complicated but I would be concerned too.

Posted by: Miss Muffett at October 28, 2009 2:14 PM in response to NYT: Housing Not Out of the Woods Yet

Wasder - I'm genuinely curious - what are you planning to do about school? You have little ones, I know, but are they school age? We already have our oldest in public school so probably don't want to buy too far from where we're currently renting (younger one may not get a variance) but every so often I think about a more radical change i.e. your neck of the woods, but what is the school deal there?

Posted by: Miss Muffett at October 28, 2009 2:01 PM in response to NYT: Housing Not Out of the Woods Yet

Wow Wasder, that's amazing that you don't know any renters with kids. I wonder if it has to do with the neighborhoods. For sure, tons of families rent in Park Slope because of the great schools. I imagine the same must be true of other neighborhoods with good schools i.e. PS29, etc. Maybe, if a neighborhood does NOT have great schools, the people that move there with kids have basically decided that they are moving there for the real estate opportunities and thus decide to buy - and then maybe hope the local public schools improve over time, or else they send their kids to private school?

Posted by: Miss Muffett at October 28, 2009 1:30 PM in response to NYT: Housing Not Out of the Woods Yet

With all due respect, Wasder, I don't think you can attribute the softening of the rental market to there being no takers since families would prefer to own. I hear what you are saying about the security that comes with owning your own home, but I also see that rents are relatively cheap these days and in this climate, I'm more nervous about spending a few hundred thousand dollars extra to buy, than I am spending a few years as a renter. I have kids, and many people I know with kids DO rent year to year - don't forget, NYC is still primarily a renters town. It's just that NYC is getting hit by all the bigger economic forces, and that's why rents are coming down, and prices on purchases too - albeit slower than initially predicted.

Posted by: Miss Muffett at October 28, 2009 1:18 PM in response to NYT: Housing Not Out of the Woods Yet

Yes, this is part of why I am patient. I think NYC has not yet bottomed out, and see no reason why prices would go up anytime soon. When we find a place we love that we can afford, we will buy but we are in no rush since reports like this are further confirmation that time is on buyers' side.

Posted by: Miss Muffett at October 28, 2009 11:59 AM in response to NYT: Housing Not Out of the Woods Yet

Well, I think the fact that all the members work there actually is a plus, since there is a sense of community that comes from that level playing field. I've had a few run-ins at the coop with the occasional bad apple, but I think that's all they are (as will be the case in any big group of people) - most folks at the coop are normal and nice, and just want good food, and good prices, and also like the community aspect to members all working together. I've shopped at coops where you can pay a membership fee and I actually prefer the PSFC, but that's me. Anyway, I do think many people complaining here are just blowing hot air based largely on myths, stereotypes and unfounded rumors. Not to say no one has ever had a bad experience there - I'm sure some folks have - but it seems that's the exception, not the rule (but an exception that I suppose is fun to write 2000+ word articles about).

Posted by: Miss Muffett at October 26, 2009 3:15 PM in response to NYT: Food Co-op Exile's Story Demands 2,000 Words

I can't read all these posts, but I find it funny how the coop arouses so much ire. It has its quirks, but offers great food at great prices and clearly does serve the community very well, given that it has 15,000 members, who are a diverse group (contrary to the beliefs of some people). I think people just like to rag on it but most of the people who do are not members, and tend to speak in broad-sweeping cliches that are actually very boring. Kind of the way people love to poke fun of Park slope without really knowing the community that well...

Posted by: Miss Muffett at October 26, 2009 2:54 PM in response to NYT: Food Co-op Exile's Story Demands 2,000 Words

I think they should price it well under 2 mil (say 1.5-1.6 tops) and be done with it. Even that would be a lot given the weirdness/ugliness of space.

Posted by: Miss Muffett at October 26, 2009 1:51 PM in response to House of the Day: 291 8th Street

This place has been on market a long time. That big bldg next door, plus drab renovation and no garden, make this very unattractive to me. The price seems very high.

Posted by: Miss Muffett at October 26, 2009 1:32 PM in response to House of the Day: 291 8th Street

Benson - I meant the gap between ask[ing prices] and sell[ing prices] is quite large in many cases these days. Is that clearer? I think many asking prices are based on comps that were during the bubble, and thus turn out to be much higher than what the properties sell for. That in turn, means that comps start to change over time. Example: Let's say a house, A, sold in 2008 for $2 mil. Then, house B which is similar (size, location, condition) to house A, goes on market in 2009 for $2mil also. But house B ends up selling say for 1.7. Then another house, C, which is similar to A and B, goes on market after B sells, so B is closest comp. So the correct ask for C might be, say 1.8 (anticipating some negotiation since very little, if anything, is going for ask these days). But in a deteriorating market, C may only wind up selling for 1.6. And so on. So, the comps get "re-set". I actually have lots of work today so hope this is clear enough for now - back to work!

Posted by: Miss Muffett at October 22, 2009 5:11 PM in response to Brooklyn Sales: Under a Million

Meant to respond sooner - busy day at work. Re: not putting in an offer on other WT house - my earlier post put too much emphasis on broker as reason we did not bid. Of couse, if we loved the house, we would have done so, regardless of the broker. But we did not love it, so maybe even if we had liked the broker we would not have bid. That said, we have come to realize that we will have to make compromises when we finally buy, but we weigh those compromises carefully. The WT house I saw had lots of compromises, and would only have been worth it to us at a much lower price. The broker indicated to us point blank she would not consider low offers, so we did not want to waste our time. Maybe if she had indicated some flexibility, we would have at least had a longer discussion about whether to put in a bid - or maybe we would have still decided it wasn't worth it.

Also, antidope - thanks for the correction. I did not notice how small this WT house was. The WT house we saw was bigger. Last I looked, the broker finally cut the price but since we really aren't interested in that house, I stopped tracking it.

Posted by: Miss Muffett at October 22, 2009 3:21 PM in response to Brooklyn Sales: Under a Million

WT house is interesting. We saw a house this summer on that block priced about the same as that initial ask (high 1.2) and the broker was adamant that "this is what houses here now cost". I remember thinking 900K was more like it, but didn't bother to bid since I was turned off by the broker. The gap between asks and sells (which is pretty big in many cases) is re-setting the comps - granted a bit more slowly than I had thought when the crash hit last year, but the direction is still undeniable and I'm convinced we have further down to go.

Posted by: Miss Muffett at October 22, 2009 12:16 PM in response to Brooklyn Sales: Under a Million

This is interesting in terms of countering the "boomlet" of optimism that was percolating at the end of the summer/beginning of fall.

Posted by: Miss Muffett at October 21, 2009 11:04 AM in response to Housing Starts 'Sputter' in September