The prices on this house and 17 Prospect Park West will say an awful lot about what first-rate properties in Brooklyn might expect.

Posted by: cgguy at November 25, 2008 12:31 PM in response to 135 Joralemon In Contract. Finally.

Probably more than double -- so, $800,000, maybe even a million. And not to everyone's taste. And selling at perhaps the worst time since, say, 1995-1996. I'd say this time around, it will be even worse than 1995-1996, because it's not as if the bid-side has just dried up, I think people are looking for significant cuts. All of a sudden, we're in a different world, it looks like. I don't know what these folks' situation is, but if they get an offer in the high 2s, they should take it and run. Brownie is right, $4 million has a 2007ish feel.

Posted by: cgguy at November 24, 2008 6:59 PM in response to House of the Day: 566 1st Street

How much do you think they spent on the reno?

Posted by: cgguy at November 24, 2008 6:10 PM in response to House of the Day: 566 1st Street

I think most of the people who read Brownstoner, most (but not all, to judge from some of the comments), love brownstones, the idea and history and layout of brownstones. We want them in as near to original condition as possible, and mourn their long, slow-motion destruction. If you want different designs, kitchens in parlors and all the rest of it, my advice is: Look elsewhere. Don't bother with brownstones.

Posted by: cgguy at October 16, 2008 4:07 PM in response to House of the Day: 132 St. Marks Avenue

Maybe there's a lesson to be learned here, and that is, if you're going to restore a house with an eye toward a someday-big resale, you had better get it back to as original condition as possible. This house probably qualifies as ``move-in condition,'' or as near to it as most of us would deem possible, and yet there are still all sorts of complaints. I for one like the original design with the kitchen/dining room on the first, garden, level, and the two parlors as two parlors. And I don't like the design of the bookcases here. I wonder if the owners renovated it entirely to their own taste (``this is the house I'll die in'') or did they renovate to re-sell? Does anyone know?
Too, the longer I try and turn back the tide on more than 100 years of wear and tear and 50 years of minor architectural vandalism, the more I think that a house in truly move-in condition, one where I didn't have to think about odd pieces of cast-iron, missing curved doorbells, and mismatched knobbery, let alone the history of linoleum and the history of electricity on display, the more I think a house in ``move-in condition'' would cost, uhmmm, $4 million.

Posted by: cgguy at October 16, 2008 2:53 PM in response to House of the Day: 132 St. Marks Avenue

i think it's 2 units, so each one has two floors

Posted by: cgguy at October 16, 2008 11:07 AM in response to 45 Third Place Not Moving

I think someone is renting the lower unit.
What a disaster!

Posted by: cgguy at October 16, 2008 11:03 AM in response to 45 Third Place Not Moving

This is a clear winner. I can't imagine them having any problem getting their price.

Posted by: cgguy at July 21, 2008 1:56 PM in response to House of the Day: 586 4th Street

Do you really think that NYC real estate prices are going to drop by 50%? Be serious. In order for that to happen, nobody would want to live here any more. I don't see that happening, do you? And when prices drop, they don't drop across the board, but in spots. Anyone who believes in some massive dislocation in Manhattan/Brooklyn real estate prices is living in fantasyland.

Posted by: cgguy at July 6, 2008 6:17 PM in response to The Biggest Sales of '08, So Far

Do you people love hysteria? Come now. Prices in the nicest houses in the most desirable neighborhoods may drop a bit, but they're not going to fall off a cliff.
Until people all decide that the city of New York is no longer where they can fulfill their ambition, the city's real estate market will remain vibrant. The most amazing comeback of all was staged in the 1970s, when everyone thought NYC was finished and white flight was at its height. Remember that? Everyone was moving to the suburbs, remember? How possibly did the city survive? It wasn't a very attractive place, and yet, despite all odds, and really nasty amenities, the city survived, and thrived.
So sure, overpriced real estate in crappy areas is going to decline. The nutty excesses will be wrung out of the system, but that's what the aftermath of a bubble is all about.

Posted by: cgguy at July 4, 2008 6:34 PM in response to The Biggest Sales of '08, So Far

So this is an almost $2 million house? How much do you think you'd have to spend for a house that can be described as charming, visually appealing, or distinctive? Even now, a glance at various realtors' sites seems to indicate: $4 million to $10 million. What do you think?

Posted by: cgguy at June 30, 2008 4:14 PM in response to House of the Day: 430 10th Street

3:40, what house do you mean with a ``significant discount off the market price''?

Posted by: cgguy at June 27, 2008 5:02 PM in response to Schloss Connelly In Contract

That's obviously a very special property. If it went for the ask, it means anybody who is expecting the top houses in prime areas to take a significant haircut is dreaming.

Posted by: cgguy at June 27, 2008 10:36 AM in response to Schloss Connelly In Contract

So there's JC's place, and then I look at the Amity Street listing at Brown Harris Stevens. $4,995,000! Now maybe it won't go for that, but I think 3:13 has a point. How much ``give'' is there in the prices at the top end, I wonder.

Posted by: cgguy at June 26, 2008 5:52 PM in response to House of the Day: 712 Degraw Street

If I recall correctly, Connelly wanted double the price she paid in, what was it, 2003? Or more than double....

Posted by: cgguy at June 26, 2008 2:54 PM in response to House of the Day: 712 Degraw Street

I see Sotheby's says Jennifer Connelly's 17 Prospect Park West is under contract. Any bets on what IT went for?

Posted by: cgguy at June 26, 2008 2:32 PM in response to House of the Day: 712 Degraw Street

6:03 raises some excellent points. Wall Street, globally, has lost 83,000 jobs, according to Bloomberg, with maybe 20,000 of those occurring in NYC. And, sure, the Fed is likely to raise rates rather than lower them. If there is pain for the next, what, year and a half, how much in percent do you think Brooklyn prices have to come down from the absurdist levels we still see on the major realtors' web sites? Is it, look at those prices and knock off 20%? 25%?

Posted by: cgguy at June 11, 2008 6:26 PM in response to House of the Day: 241 Carroll Street

Not sure why all that crap repeats to bust up posts, but 8:58 sounds right on the money. Over $2 million seems a real stretch for this property. Hope springs eternal, it seems.

Posted by: cgguy at June 10, 2008 9:17 PM in response to House of the Day: 520 11th Street

$2 million and not even a decent floorplan or interior photos?

Posted by: cgguy at June 9, 2008 1:42 PM in response to House of the Day: 491 1st Street

Almost $2 million sounds a bit steep for something that is going to need substantial work. As for the BQE, come on, at night, with the windows open, it sounds just like the ocean.

Posted by: cgguy at June 5, 2008 2:03 PM in response to House of the Day: 192 President Street

It was something like mid-morning, and he, prob. 35-40, was wearing a suit and tie, carrying small briefcase, believe he took a car service back. I seem to recall the conservatively dressed wife went back with the broker, but am not certain. I said ``Wall Street.'' Perhaps I should just have said, ``professional.'' Most people dress casually today. Dressing in a suit and tie sort of marks certain occupations: securities firm employees (bankers, traders), lawyers, certain doctors. After that, while some people may wear suits, it isn't required.

Posted by: cgguy at May 5, 2008 2:01 PM in response to Condos of the Day: Price Cuts, No Love for 45 3rd Place

If the house was still intact, I bet you could get $2 million for it. Chopped up like this, I couldn't imagine these units going for more than $1 million per, could you? Maybe more like $750,000, $800,000? I live just down the block, and maybe a month ago saw people who might have been looking at it, Wall Street types, but they evidently didn't bite.

Posted by: cgguy at May 5, 2008 12:48 PM in response to Condos of the Day: Price Cuts, No Love for 45 3rd Place

You can get a sense of who lived in your house and what they did by consulting the census records at the new york public library. That should also give you an opportunity to date the construction of your house, at least roughly. As for kitchens, most brownstones had what looks like a tallish fireplace there, which I gather acted as a flue -- the stoves were placed in there, jutting out from them. You can see this in old photos. Most of those ``fireplaces'' have been removed. Also keep in mind that most brownstone kitchens didn't have banks of built-in cabinets tacked on the walls. People used Hoosier cabinets and similar cupboards.

Posted by: cgguy at April 3, 2008 11:38 AM in response to House History

If this piece of ornamentation ran between an archway, I think you'd call it a spandrel. You can buy this kind of thing in seveal of the antique shops on Atlantic Avenue. It looks like the builder put it in somewhat whimisically, as another piece of ornamentation.

Posted by: cgguy at March 27, 2008 11:10 AM in response to WHAT DO YOU CALL THIS THING?

I would say that yes, most brownstones are in need of renovation. Unless you're talking about the mansions in the Heights and Park Slope, most brownstones weren't built for the wealthy. Consequently, most of them were lived in hard, and went for long periods where maintenance was neglected or deferred. In the 1930s and 1940s, most people weren't thinking of pristine renovations. In the 1950s and 1960s, people were thinking of ``modernizing'' and labor-saving devices. The 1970s was a special period of travesty all its own.

That being said, I think most posters here tend to do work on their houses over time, rather than buy, and then spend a year and a half and hundreds of thousands of dollars on the perfect restoration.

Posted by: cgguy at March 16, 2008 6:30 AM in response to Do brownstones usually need renovation?

Thanks. I may take a drive out to Scranton. The key thing about this project is that we're talking about the tops of two newel posts from, I don't know, the 1860s? The 1880s? The parts aren't being made today, so I either have to find an old pair, or have a foundry take a mold and cast replacements. All the ``ironworks'' in Brooklyn just want to weld, and weld with existing pieces they can order from a book, or a website.

Posted by: cgguy at February 8, 2008 5:51 PM in response to Finial for a Gate