According to previous brownstoner comments on this place, the owners run a rental scam on this place.

See the earlier links about this place.

Posted by: metaphase at November 16, 2009 1:01 PM in response to Doings at the Dilapidated 7th Ave & 2nd St Building?

I'm not sure why this house is getting all this love and adoration here.

It must be something not visible from the few bad pictures and the floorplan. It doesn't have a bath on the main/parlor floor and only has one bathroom per bedroom floor. The laundry is all the way in the basement, rather than on the bedroom floors. (Yes, at this price, you probably have your housekeeper do the laundry, but it would still be a lot easier to throw things in the laundry if your kid gets sick or during the heavy spit up faze of any infant.)

And you have to deal with the nightmare car and foot traffic between PPW and 321 twice a day.

Posted by: metaphase at September 16, 2009 1:43 PM in response to House of the Day: 591 2nd Street

Problems with the initial calculation:
1. maintenance costs on a building +$1K/month
2. utilities costs +$0.5K/month
3. money lost investing your $300K downpayment. @5% (historically pretty conservative) that's $15K per year lost.

So you're back up to $6K/month to live in whatever you can buy for $1.2 million, if you have $300K down.

Posted by: metaphase at May 14, 2009 1:10 PM in response to Refinancing: How Sweet It Is

16ft wide and badly in need of extensive reno (2 bed, one bath, fridges in the dining rooms, and that looks like linoleum flooring, folks). $1.7M? Seriously?

There was a fully renovated place on 10th St. between 6th and 7th Avenues, a great block, that went on the market for $1.6M a couple months ago. It was the same size. Come on people, you can do better.

Posted by: metaphase at April 29, 2009 9:29 AM in response to House of the Day: 475 8th Street

South slope house has been on the market for about a month already, so not exactly going fast. No contract noted on the website (betancourt is pretty good at noting in contract properties).

Posted by: metaphase at April 17, 2009 3:27 PM in response to Open House Picks

"If you can afford a place go out and buy one. Interest rates will go up someday and then you'll all be SOL."

Yeah, if you buy with cash, you will be SOL because rising interest rates will depress real home values further.

Posted by: metaphase at April 1, 2009 10:26 AM in response to Case-Shiller Continues to Tank

Oops, I meant ps 107.

Posted by: metaphase at March 23, 2009 4:33 PM in response to House of the Day: 465 13th Street

It's across the street from ps 109, and its tiny school yard (filled all day, rotating classes in and out). If that sort of noise is your thing, I'd say at least 20% off is about right.

Posted by: metaphase at March 23, 2009 4:30 PM in response to House of the Day: 465 13th Street

Well, I disagree, and we will probably by a house largely in cash at some point. There is clearly a point at which rising interest rates depress real home values in excess of the gain you get from a lower interest rate. The price and rate changes at which these cross depends on your situation (how much down, how much borrowed). Mopar, don't say things are absurd if you aren't actually in the situation and have run the numbers. I guess you are just trying to be inflammatory.

Posted by: metaphase at March 13, 2009 6:22 PM in response to House of the Day: 557 7th Street

I concur with Aisling on the ridiculousness of considering low interest rates to be a good thing for your home value. For a cash buyer (which many of the bulls claim make up or will save the mid-to-higher end brownstone market), you want to buy when interest rates are HIGH, because home values are depressed by high rates and home values will rise as rates come down. Many people here say that these brownstones are affordable because people put down a lot of cash for the purchase. The more cash you have down the more high interest rates are in your...interest.

Haley

Posted by: metaphase at March 13, 2009 1:18 PM in response to House of the Day: 557 7th Street

Why would you buy this 17th st house that needs a complete reno for 1.5M when this was on the market a couple weeks ago fro 1.6M?

http://www.betancourtrealestate.com/index.cfm?page=details&id=1927

It was fully renovated except for the kitchen, and was on 10th st between 5th and 6th. It's now in contract.

I just don't understand why overpriced crap gets featured on this site. Is it to try to drive prices up further by making people think that stuff like the 17th st house is a "good deal"?

Posted by: metaphase at March 4, 2009 2:21 PM in response to House of the Day: 216 17th Street

Dibs etc, thanks for point out my mistake reading those columns and the brownstone definition.

I still think it's ridiculous to discuss these numbers given the sample size. I mean, if you look at the breakdown, 2-family brownstones still -9% from the previous year quarter. But 1-families were up 55%? Not really believing that, casting all of the subsets into doubt.

Posted by: metaphase at March 3, 2009 9:55 PM in response to Brownstones, Co-ops Outperformed Condos in Q4

As an aside, brownstoner summarized that report dead wrong.

Median sales prices for Brooklyn townhouses are NOT up. Median sales prices for brooklyn brownstones are down, with 2 families showing a 9% median price decline.

I'm not a raging bear, but fallacious reporting really irks me.

Posted by: metaphase at March 3, 2009 2:52 PM in response to House of the Day: 365 Parkside Avenue

Brownstoner made a hash of summarizing the report.

No where does the report that brownstone prices in northwest brooklyn increased 12%.

The report does say that overall brownstone median prices increased 12%. BUT this is the quarterly increase from Q3 to Q4. The year over year prices are down.

Brownstone median price is down 2% year over year, with 2 families showing a 9% median price decline. The overall price decline for all brownstones was buffered by median price gains in the 3+ family brownstone category (investment properties largely). Regardless, these number are from a total n = 60, which is subject to serious noise.

Posted by: metaphase at March 3, 2009 2:50 PM in response to Brownstones, Co-ops Outperformed Condos in Q4

"Perhaps you might want to set foot in one of those 2 three family brownstones. Don't forget to add the cost to gut those and rebuild into something worth paying for..."

Yeah, but there was a nice fully renovated single family brownstone for 1.6M down this block between 6th and 7th Ave that is now in contract. And all of the brownstones in question, multi or single family, are have more above grade square footage than any of these units from 1.3-2M.

I think the prices are ridiculous. But perhaps it is a different niche than the townhouse market.

Posted by: metaphase at March 3, 2009 9:00 AM in response to Checking In On The Iroquois

ps. no way you can fill in all those holes with woodfiller and have it look good. I once tried something similar. Looks horrible and doesn't blend in.

Posted by: metaphase at February 27, 2009 8:30 PM in response to Should seller remove wallpaper?

I don't think it's appropriate to do the work before you close. Basically they would be ripping apart their apartment (walls and carpet) and you could still walk away before the close (albeit without your deposit). Generally the seller's lawyer will keep them from doing buyer-directed work before the place is in fact bought.

You could ask, but I doubt you would get a yes from the sellers.

You could ask for a discount, but you really should have factored this into your offer already.

Haley

Posted by: metaphase at February 27, 2009 8:28 PM in response to Should seller remove wallpaper?

Actually it was an open house pick, but same difference. Someone on that thread said that they thought it was worth about $1.5M and people jumped all over them.

Posted by: metaphase at February 23, 2009 6:15 PM in response to House of the Day: 356 1st Street

This was featured as a HOD in NOVEMBER at $1.75M:

http://www.brownstoner.com/brownstoner/archives/2008/11/open_house_pick_220.php

Posted by: metaphase at February 23, 2009 5:58 PM in response to House of the Day: 356 1st Street

There are only two rental units, not three, if the floorplan is correct (there's no kitchen on the first floor). And to use the garden and first floor as a duplex, you have to use the common hallway to get between the two floors of your "duplex". Also, you only have two bedrooms unless the basement is well finished and someone wants to sleep with the boiler.

I'm not commenting on the math, just that it wouldn't be exactly fun to schlep up and down the common stairway to get to bed.

Haley

Posted by: metaphase at February 18, 2009 1:35 PM in response to House of the Day: 55 Cambridge Place

DIBs, not if you have kids or really do want to garden (e.g., grow lettuce, strawberries, etc).

Posted by: metaphase at February 11, 2009 4:20 PM in response to House of the Day: 599 5th Street

It always makes me sad to see a backyard butchered like this, no matter how nice the resulting kitchen is. How many people would really rather have the extra interior space when there is already completely unused basement space rather than a large yard?

The yard dimensions in the floorplan include the outdoor corridor, so it's really more like 17ft x 20 ft. Sure, naysayers can just say "go to the park", but you can't eat breakfast next to your flower beds or plant a whole garden in the park. And I say that as someone with a cramped 20x20 yard.

Posted by: metaphase at February 11, 2009 3:48 PM in response to House of the Day: 599 5th Street

It always makes me sad to see a backyard butchered like this, no matter how nice the resulting kitchen is. How many people would really rather have the extra interior space when there is already completely unused basement space rather than a large yard?

The yard dimensions in the floorplan include the outdoor corridor, so it's really more like 17ft x 20 ft. Sure, naysayers can just say "go to the park", but you still can't eat breakfast next to your flower beds or garden in your backyard. And I say that as someone with a cramped 20x20 yard.

Posted by: metaphase at February 11, 2009 3:47 PM in response to House of the Day: 599 5th Street

Looks tiny and it has a carport, not a garage (see the floorplan).

Haley

Posted by: metaphase at February 10, 2009 1:29 PM in response to House of the Day: 296 Degraw Street

The 14th St owners must be completely delusional. I'd feel sorry for them if it wasn't just so bizarre that they feel it makes sense to list it at that price.

Haley

Posted by: metaphase at January 16, 2009 1:19 PM in response to Open House Picks

I think the kitchen is, if not hideous, pretty ugly. I agree with the 80s-look comment. Just because they spent a lot of money recently to make it look ugly doesn't change that.

Posted by: metaphase at December 3, 2008 3:51 PM in response to House of the Day: 505 1st Street