nice but narrow

Posted by: ontheparkway at August 10, 2009 3:44 PM in response to House of the Day: 66 Clifton Place

does anyone know what the technical definition of "start construction" is?
if he wins the case, what would stop the rat-ster from sticking one shovel in the ground and then going back to the current non-activity for a couple of years till he can squeeze even more cash/subsidies from the taxpayers?
that would be right up his alley

Posted by: ontheparkway at August 10, 2009 11:39 AM in response to A Turning Point for Atlantic Yards

also wanted to mention that this is definitely not the nicest part of Prospect Lefferts -- I always heard people call this Prospect Park South.
It's close to the train and the park and the location could be fine for many folks.
But it's still on the edge of things, which in this market could definitely make it a riskier investment (ESPECIALLY for a first floor apartment).

Posted by: ontheparkway at July 29, 2009 2:07 PM in response to Co-op of the Day: 416 Ocean Avenue, #12

Great building. . .but given the verbiage in the listing, i think it's going to take a lot to make it anything worth living in.
Also keep in mind that up till 2006 the nicest apartments on high floors were selling for way under what they want for this wreck.
A couple of them sold at bubble-fueled peaks. . in the last couple of years but i would disregard those as comparisons.
Think the hassle/expense of new kitchen new bathroom new everything // /then you have a dream pad on the first floor mostly facing a shaft. ..

Posted by: ontheparkway at July 29, 2009 1:52 PM in response to Co-op of the Day: 416 Ocean Avenue, #12

you need a parking space because the place is a crazy walk to the F train. . .

Posted by: ontheparkway at July 28, 2009 2:25 PM in response to Condo of the Day: 1 Tiffany Place, #5C

Price is OK but I'd want more of a discount for crappy layout. . . your main living space is a narrow dark ground floor.
The whole point of living in Bed-Stuy would be to get a grand space, which this ain't, for half off or more what you would pay elsewhere.

Posted by: ontheparkway at July 22, 2009 2:22 PM in response to House of the Day: 176 Bainbridge Street

I might be alone here but I would definitely stick with one of the big companies, ESPECIALLY in this market.
It might seem like a waste of money but there are a lot of buyers out there who only look at a few companies. I guess the stamp of approval from corco or bhs gives them confidence.
I know plenty of people disagree, but I sold my place last year and i know the buyers never would have stepped up to the plate for a noname broker or FSBO.
Makes no sense but go figure.
I am all for trying to knock them down 1% or so, though.

Posted by: ontheparkway at July 22, 2009 11:38 AM in response to 6% Broker Fees Still Happening?

I think it's a great idea. . but. . .
I'm sure you won't get separate mortgages, for the good reasons others mention.
I also think you ar run into problems with 3 people involved.
What if one person wants to redo the facade for $200K becuase it really needs doing, but the other two don't have the dough right now?
Or one person wants to hold out for a higher rent on one of the units but the others need to get some cash flow?
It's not that simple even if you are all friends.
Also make sure to write down what happens if one person wants/needs to get out of the deal.

Posted by: ontheparkway at July 21, 2009 3:39 PM in response to Tenancy in Common and Mortgage

I wonder if the rogers couple is related to the writer. . .

Posted by: ontheparkway at July 20, 2009 4:48 PM in response to It Pretty Much Sucks to be a Seller Right Now

The rutland road place did well to get $1.05M, which was a big haircut from the $1.4 they started at . . .
It's significantly smaller/less grand than other LM houses that sold for that range this spring.
At least they didn't lose too much money from what they paid for it a couple of years ago.

Posted by: ontheparkway at July 7, 2009 10:13 PM in response to Last Week's Biggest Sales

we know it's a fab pad but .. .
could one of the owners' pals fill the rest of us in on the weird blue floor that the realtor opines is "seamless"?

Posted by: ontheparkway at July 2, 2009 2:30 PM in response to Co-op of the Day: 201 Clinton Avenue, #15E

In other markets, the cost to own is now significantly lower than renting.
Still not so in NYC.
I'm no psuedo-expert like you guys, but that would indicate that prices still have a way to go down.
Why buy if you can rent the same place for less, and not tie up/risk your money?

Posted by: ontheparkway at July 1, 2009 11:36 AM in response to Case-Shiller: Beware the Head Fake

The MTA is a public agency. Even most of Ratner's paid shills know that.
Bxgirl, it's possible that it's getting tougher to defend this deal as it gets worse and worse.
Remember, when Ratner started this thing, it was supposed to
1>be the best deal for the MTA (turned out to be $250M worse than the Extell deal)
2>create a huge financial boon for NYC (city budget guys now say it's a loss)
3>bring world class architecture to Bklyn (I didn't like Gehry's design, but the new arena is way worse. even backers say it's a barn)
4>create tons of affordable housing (wanna bet this'll ever get built?)
5<line bruce ratner's pockets and he spreads the wealth to his pals and "community partners" (still on target with that).
I could deal with any of this except giving away public property for pennies.

Posted by: ontheparkway at June 25, 2009 11:47 AM in response to MTA Ignores Fiduciary Duty, Approves Revised Yards Plan

Where are all the pro-Ratner shills who said this is a great deal because the MTA gets $200K a year to rename the Atlantic Ave. station--and lambasted anyone who disagreed?
Can you imagine if the school system decided to deal with a particular contractor even though they submitted a bid several times worse than a competitor?
Or if the NYPD wanted to buy mercedes squad cars because they decided in their wisdom that benzes were best?
Illegal, right?
Why is this any different?

Posted by: ontheparkway at June 25, 2009 11:07 AM in response to MTA Ignores Fiduciary Duty, Approves Revised Yards Plan

"the deal that the MTA made with Ratner is irrellvant"

fsrq,

I nominate this for the single most brain dead statement ever made about Atlantic Yards.
No one would be arguing about a $200K a year deal for anything if it weren't for the $200M fleecing that Ratner pulled off.
The point is what the public gets and what the public gives up, not whether Barclays or Ratner claims to be paying this tiny slice.
If you don't get that, i can't help you.

Posted by: ontheparkway at June 24, 2009 3:57 PM in response to More Naming Rights for Barclay's

fsrq
Again, please read what people are saying.
Here's the deal--Ratner gets a nearly $200M break from MTA. He pays back $4M spread out over 20 years for these dopey naming rights.
You think that's a good deal?

Posted by: ontheparkway at June 24, 2009 2:16 PM in response to More Naming Rights for Barclay's

They had no takers at $799K. So they spruced it up and tacked on a very un-crashlike $180K to the pricetag.
Nice block and nice house.
But I'm not seeing that as being a winning strategy.

Posted by: ontheparkway at June 24, 2009 1:40 PM in response to House of the Day: 212 Midwood Street

i disagree,
Bxgirl and anyone with a head are complaining becasue the public got ripped off, big time.
The MTA is giving Ratner a property that was appraised by the MTA at $200M for $20M plus his promise of paying some additional amount over time (don't hold your breath for that. why not just get the spineless board to change the deal again, like he just did?)
Also, they allowed him to renege on the previous deal and build a railyard that is worth $100M less than what he previously agreed to do.
In exchange, he coughs up $200K a year for Barclays signs in the subway station.
This from the same geniuses that turned away $150M up front last year for the same land.
And you have the cojones to defend the deal. What a joke.

Posted by: ontheparkway at June 24, 2009 1:30 PM in response to More Naming Rights for Barclay's

No way Ratner pays anything close to $100M. Not in 10 years, not ever.
He is the master of bait and switch. As soon as he puts a shovel in the ground and gets his bonds OK'd, he'll start whining for a better deal.
The spineless idiots at the MTA and the shills on this blog and elsewhere will agree because "we have to build something."
What a joke.
Remember, the reason the MTA turned away Extell's $150M up front was because the arena was supposed to be such a gem and a moneymaker.
That has now been debunked -- but the MTA still wants to give away public property for pennies on the dollar.

Posted by: ontheparkway at June 23, 2009 1:32 PM in response to MTA Finance Committee Approves New Ratner Deal

Maybe they could sell some of the apartments if someone took 5 minutes to pull up the weeds that have quickly taken over the supposedly landscaped areas in front.
Doesn't bode well for the overall management of the place. . . but what do you expect for a mere $2M?

Posted by: ontheparkway at June 23, 2009 12:36 PM in response to Apartment for Rent at Meier's OPP

Not getting why anyone would want to pay $560K when they could rent the same place for $2,400 -- check the website.
Your monthly expenses are lower and you don't have to stress out about buying and selling.

Posted by: ontheparkway at June 17, 2009 8:20 PM in response to Condo of the Day: 44 Cheever Place

Congrats to the sellers for getting a good price . . . in a tough market.
I don't blame them for not wanting to deal with the lunatics who claim to have lost out on the deal then posted their tale of woes about the gutters and whatever.
Maybe the seller or their agent realized those poeple weren't serious.
Anyway, what kind of serious buyer changes their mind about Crown Heights and decides to move to Connecticut. . they probably were going to punk out at the closing anyway when no one wanted to clean out their gutters for them.

Posted by: ontheparkway at June 15, 2009 12:29 PM in response to 1094 Park Place Finally Sells

i've never bought a cupcake in my life

Posted by: ontheparkway at June 8, 2009 4:49 PM in response to Streetlevel: Closing Time on Metropolitan Avenue

I just wonder what anyone is smoking that they don't see the beauty and grace in the Maple St. house.
Obviously, buyers just don't want to pay this much in PLG these days, so they may have to settle for less.
Doesn't mean it's not a gorgeous place. Would have sold in a day for 1.4 before the crash.

Posted by: ontheparkway at June 7, 2009 8:37 PM in response to Open House Picks

Thanks more4less for the breath of sanity.
This is why the market is so soft. no one in their right mind with that kind of money would plunk it down on a potentially depreciating asset like a 3M house.
Better to live large now, bank your cash and see what happens in the next couple of years.
Why would you want to pay more every month to take a chance on a shaky market?

Posted by: ontheparkway at May 26, 2009 2:37 PM in response to House of the Day: 243 Kane Street

PLG buyers are balking at crossing the $1M mark. . . it could be a while before prices get back to there, for all but the nicest and biggest homes.
Not a knock on the nabe -- it's just the new reality.

Posted by: ontheparkway at May 21, 2009 3:20 PM in response to Brooklyn Sales: Under a Million

Wow.. . i know there'll be nay sayers but i'm pretty speechless

Posted by: ontheparkway at May 21, 2009 1:10 PM in response to Condo of the Day: 555 Washington Avenue, #1A

This is a perfectly fine block, but not anything like the nicest lefferts blocks nearby.
Also these frame houses don't seem to sell well, especially in this market when you could buy a primo limestone for about hte same price

Posted by: ontheparkway at May 18, 2009 5:55 PM in response to House of the Day: 207 Fenimore Street

Ironballs is right -- if you don't already own, it's still a bad deal right now.
Mr. B is right to refi, but wrong to think it means the market is hitting bottom.

Posted by: ontheparkway at May 14, 2009 2:22 PM in response to Refinancing: How Sweet It Is

You have to pay taxes on the rent, right, Stoner?
Since you are placing yourself in an effective 28% bracket (you say you get $1,000 tax break on $3,500 mortgage), that means you should add $440/month. Now you are up to $4K or so a month.
Deal is sounding less great, even if you can find your 4-story dream home at that price (I think 3-story is more realistic, but whatever).
Plus, by this logic, get ready to watch the value of your place tank when rates rise even modestly back towards (still historically low levels) of 6% or a bit below.
Then, by your rule of thumb, the next round of folks looking to buy places like yours will need to pay way under $1 million to make their numbers add up the same way yours are doing.
You may still have your monthly expenses set, but you may wind up sitting on an incredibly shrinking asset.
Food for thought. . .

Posted by: ontheparkway at May 14, 2009 11:35 AM in response to Refinancing: How Sweet It Is

i never get the point of cutting asking price by such a token amount. . .
to me, it sends a signal of weakness, without the wow factor of a bigger cut that might actually get a deal done.

Posted by: ontheparkway at May 12, 2009 12:35 PM in response to Price Cut at 355 Degraw Street

I know there's going to be nitpickers, but this is definitely a good deal. . .
we all complain about the crazy prices every day -- this will definitely get asking price, even in this market.

Posted by: ontheparkway at May 7, 2009 1:41 PM in response to House of the Day: 100 St. Mark's Avenue

bigger question is why 'Stoner is wasting our time with it

Posted by: ontheparkway at May 7, 2009 1:19 PM in response to Condo of the Day: 70 Washington Street, #9G

on the crooke place, is it just me or is this place definitely going to wind up rentals?
prices might seem ok until you realize that you could rent a nice place around there for less than carrying costs. . .

Posted by: ontheparkway at May 7, 2009 1:06 PM in response to Brooklyn Sales: Under a Million

I'd pay $3,000 for the rental. Forget about the 2-1/2M though.

Posted by: ontheparkway at May 6, 2009 2:12 PM in response to House of the Day: 433 Pacific Street

Nice enough place, but I'm not feeling the parlor floor envy either.
Pretty sure the floor nazis are going to be up in arms about the plank floors, too.
No parquet--no $2.5M, right?

Posted by: ontheparkway at May 6, 2009 1:35 PM in response to House of the Day: 433 Pacific Street

it's not that it's wrong, it's just really niggly.
if someone think this is a great deal (which it ain't), it's a deal because of the space or location or one's view of the market.
whether the parquet lines up isn't really the biggest deal. neither is the door in the bathroom in the co-op, your other beef du jour.

Posted by: ontheparkway at May 5, 2009 1:43 PM in response to House of the Day: 481 4th Street

bay ridge girl, you seem to have a lot of beefs

Posted by: ontheparkway at May 5, 2009 1:31 PM in response to House of the Day: 481 4th Street

you guys can really waste a lot of time on nothing. .. this place has a $700K pricetag on a 1-plus bedroom place with ten hallways and you are going to go back and forth for the next three hours about the door or no door on the bathroom. . .

Posted by: ontheparkway at May 5, 2009 1:26 PM in response to Co-op of the Day: 225 Park Place, #2G-H

great building, great location. horrendous, crappy, awful layout that couldn't work for anyone.
basically you're paying for hallways galore, plus 2 dressing rooms, a sitting room and a foyer.
the usable space is basically a smallish living room and a nice-sized bedroom.

Posted by: ontheparkway at May 5, 2009 1:01 PM in response to Co-op of the Day: 225 Park Place, #2G-H

not arguing with you, tradmod, just pointing out that it's not a turnkey situation

Posted by: ontheparkway at April 30, 2009 3:06 PM in response to House of the Day: 216 Maple Street

Could be true about the doc's office, but not as easy as an apartment. . .in any case, you'd still need to spend plenty on reno to get a doctor's office and i'm not sure any docs would be lining up to rent it.
It's amazing, but 99% of LM residents think the sing;e-family rule is great.
They don't realize it costs them bigtime when they try to sell since it keeps folks like CW out of the nabe.

Posted by: ontheparkway at April 30, 2009 2:54 PM in response to House of the Day: 216 Maple Street

This house has the same drawback with the bottom floor in the corner house at 218 midwood. . what are you going to do with the space?
you're paying for wasted square footage that's all chopped up.
It would cost you to make it useful and you can't legally rent it out.
Also wouldn't want crappy carpeting on the entire top floor, but i guess that's not a deal breaker.
There are plenty of choices in this price range right now in PLG> . . . .so why not wait for even better deals?

Posted by: ontheparkway at April 30, 2009 2:32 PM in response to House of the Day: 216 Maple Street

we should all go over there, ring the buzzer and ask how much do you want for this apartment and what is the monthly maintenance.
how else are you supposed to get in touch with these jokers?

Posted by: ontheparkway at April 28, 2009 1:50 PM in response to Condo of the Day: 320 Washington Avenue, #1B

T-E-A-R-D-O-W-N

Posted by: ontheparkway at April 22, 2009 2:09 PM in response to House of the Day: 65 Prospect Park West

Thanks finance guy, definitely food for thought.
I know there are a few ways to crunch the numbers but if you aren't counting on appreciation, NYC prices are still way way too high compared to rents, even counting the tax deduction.

Posted by: ontheparkway at April 21, 2009 4:37 PM in response to Co-op of the Day: 75 Henry Street

Hi finance guy,

So people in NYC should never pay more for an apartment or townhouse than what it would cost to rent the same unit, taking into account tax deduction?
That tells me people have been overpaying even before the current bubble and the market still has third or more to correct.
Not saying you're wrong, just seems that people may always want to pay a premium to control their space and keep a lid on their longterm costs.

Posted by: ontheparkway at April 21, 2009 4:08 PM in response to Co-op of the Day: 75 Henry Street

from what i understand, the 4-story at 82 Rutland also went for around $1M, about 200K less than original price.
so prices are still dropping, but are not off the cliff for nice houses at the right price.
contrary to what tybur says, a lot of folks still think $1M is a fair price for a place this size and (MUCH more importantly) in this kind of condition and location.
in any case, that's what the market says (even now), regardless of what he thinks

Posted by: ontheparkway at April 15, 2009 12:18 PM in response to 208 Midwood Sells for $995,000

Nice enough, I guess but I'm giving the price a massive thumbs down. . they should be happy with 1.2M if they can get it.
I'll stay out of the flooring debate, which I'm sure can rage for days

Posted by: ontheparkway at April 8, 2009 1:43 PM in response to House of the Day: 489 16th Street