Is it just me, or does anyone else here find it fascinating to read old posts on places like this that were featured here months to a year ago.

I totally love it!

I particularly like dropping a little prologue entry when the places finally sell....or languish as the case may be.

You'll also notice how many more posts there are on average a year ago for the same house...posts dropping just like units sold year-over-year LOL!!!

Posted by: brandedmatt at June 8, 2009 2:22 PM in response to House of the Day: 540 16th Street

exactly M4L, the price per SF is insane if this is even close to 1400SF...one family living here, you're talking 700/SF at best, puts it under a Mil.

It's a cute block, and near the train, but all the houses on this street are really crowded feeling to me, and it's Windsor terrace...nice nabe, but you're a long trek to most services in south slope.

For comparison, look at this place offered by WL as well...it's been sitting for months now, no takers at $965K. I saw it, a lovely house, just too small/ small room sizes. It''s probably not 1400SF (much narrower). But much better location, nice house and only 1,100 in taxes a year!

If this ain't moving at $965, where's that put this?

http://www.warrenlewis.com/cgi-bin/re/re_show.pl?re_command=show&ID=6806

Posted by: brandedmatt at June 8, 2009 2:15 PM in response to House of the Day: 540 16th Street

I'm just trying to determine how many of the posters on the PLG place were paid for their efforts. They put the "Shill" in "Case Shiller"

Oye vey!!!

Posted by: brandedmatt at June 8, 2009 9:27 AM in response to Open House Picks

"UGH"?

Boo Hoo, overpriced buildings that aren't worth what people are asking. As someone w/ the resources and credit rating to buy a townhouse, but the sense not to overpay for an inflated asset, I say "hooray"

Pity the owner who overpaid and extended themselves to buy a place in the last 2 years.

Certainly not the person 4 years ago who paid 60% asking price and thinks they should double their money. Seem to be a lot of those these days.

Please. It's economics 101.

Posted by: brandedmatt at May 8, 2009 1:10 PM in response to Open House Picks: Six Months Later

NP tybur.....just tryin to keep it in perspective for people who were responsible, saved a lot of money for years, have no debt and just want some space to raise their family in.

There *should* be a serious premium to live here. No dount about it.

But somewhere along the way we lost all sense of proportion when someone who has the finances, credit history and job to afford that premium is asked to take enormous risk to purchase a reasonable townhouse.

Posted by: brandedmatt at April 10, 2009 2:30 PM in response to Open House Picks: Six Months Later

"No Good News" for who...sellers who either bought years ago and are unrealistically in the black, or bought too late and foolishly overpaid.

Please.

What's this horsebleep about feeling bad that prices are coming down to sustainable levels that ordinary dual 6-figure income earning families can consider.

Barf.

Posted by: brandedmatt at April 10, 2009 2:09 PM in response to Open House Picks: Six Months Later

Sorry, meant that for the 6-months later post....

Posted by: brandedmatt at April 10, 2009 2:06 PM in response to Open House Picks

Brownstowner: "No Good News" for who...sellers who either bought years ago and are unrealistically in the black, or bought too late and foolishly overpaid.

Please.

What's this horsebleep about feeling bad that prices are coming down to sustainable levels that ordinary dual 6-figure income earning families can consider.

Barf.

Posted by: brandedmatt at April 10, 2009 2:03 PM in response to Open House Picks

forgetting that trying to appraise a house based on a few photos is basically economic soothsaying, I think if we accept that the appraisal widget is more "popular vote", to get an accurate read, it should automatically remove the top 2 and lowest 2 prices entered to remove what (at least on the high end) are entries added just to skew the number.

Making it require login is probably more work than the B folks would want to undergo right now, this at least makes a slightly more statistically accurate read of the gweneral public's take

Posted by: brandedmatt at April 9, 2009 1:36 PM in response to House of the Day: 316 Cumberland Street

When i do make an offer, it's at 20% below value minimum, so yes, no harm in making an offer at what I *believe* fair value is. That said, all it takes is one buyer to set the price.

however, the person who commented: ""this is overpriced because most New Yorkers can't afford it" doesn't hold water." makes no sense to me:

The house is only worth what the buyer says it is ultimately. The owner has no power in this equation. So while yeah, it only takes 1 buyer, if most people can't pay the price in aggregate, then unless you find that 1 person it's priced above what it's worth.

There's a sucker born every minute. And I may be one thinking prices are 20-30% above fair value.

But as buyers, we are asking to take on ENORMOUS risk at these prices. Dual income to support 5600 a month? Better hope that both jobs are solid as a rock, that you have at least 6 months of mortgage payments saved plus living expenses, if not more, and no measurable debt.

Posted by: brandedmatt at April 8, 2009 2:30 PM in response to House of the Day: 489 16th Street

I also find it nauseating that the Corcoran rep will tell you it's Brazilian Tiger Wood(s) to your face, when close inspection tells you it's not.

Nice people and all, but stop lying to me.

Posted by: brandedmatt at April 8, 2009 2:00 PM in response to House of the Day: 489 16th Street

I'm deadly curious how many people who comment on home values are people actually looking to buy, who have the financial ability to purchase places. And how many are people just commenting for sport.

As someone who is looking and is fortunate enough to consider this sort of place, I think this speculation on the value of these places, which benefitted from financial engineering of the most historic proportions is ridiculous.

Seriously. 1.6 million dollars in the worst economic crisis of the last 100 years? One that only hit NYC really in October of last year?

I'm not dumping my hard earned cash and risking my family's financial future to pay 50-100% premiums on places people bought 3-5 years ago just because Alan Greenspan told them houses were the next growth stock.

5-6% annual historic price appreciation. In a healthy economy.

People have truly lost their minds.

Posted by: brandedmatt at April 8, 2009 1:58 PM in response to House of the Day: 489 16th Street

I saw the wood floors in person. I'm no expert, but if you walk to the basement, they chip where the floor ends before the stairwell, and indeed, they are not gorgeous wood throughout.

The place is very nicely done, but it looks like a Lowes showroom.

And I reiterate: 1.5M for a house that sold less than 4 yrs ago for $925K, and for this, you get to live in Windsor Terrace. Are we serious?

Posted by: brandedmatt at April 8, 2009 1:46 PM in response to House of the Day: 489 16th Street

I saw this place. very nice, but looks like someone went nuts at Lowes and purchased every finishing in the book. That said, 1.6M in Windsor is nuts...prices in general are nuts, and I am amazed people believe collectively this is worth 1.24M dollars.

It was bought in the middle of the bubble for 950K! We're in a massive recession, which should preclude a 50% increase in home value in 3+ years. Seriously.

The floors BTW are very pretty, but not real, they are high-quality laminate.

Posted by: brandedmatt at April 8, 2009 1:31 PM in response to House of the Day: 489 16th Street