Eh. Not surprising.

This "first-time buyer" stuff always annoys me. I bought a studio when I was younger, so now I miss out on lots of incentives when I want to settle down with a family in a house? Whereas others who rented a studio during the same period get those benefits. What's the logic in that?

Posted by: sdrubbins at August 11, 2009 12:20 PM in response to New York State's Mortgage Aid

Tributes to the missing Beastie Boys were popular this weekend. Coldplay closed out the festival - I'm not a big fan but it was nice to hear this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kw0VVRqlf3U

And, from the various shoutouts I heard from bands, it seemed like 90% of the people at All Points West were there from Brooklyn, so it's not entirely inapproapriate for this site. (Except when Tool played - that brought out a lot of people from Jersey. No comment on that one...)

Posted by: sdrubbins at August 4, 2009 12:45 PM in response to Closing Bell: Jay-Z's 'No Sleep Till Brooklyn'

coppermaven, I disagree. You might like to claim Smith St for the value it would impart to your digs, but it doesn't jive with the way the neighborhoods flow. Cobble Hill and Carroll Gardens are basically north-south neighbordhoods, follwing the Court St/Smith St commercial corridor. Boerum Hill is fundamentally an east-west neighborhood, following the Atlantic Ave/Schermerhorn St/Livingston St corridor.

At best, Smith St could be said to just barely touch the very edge of your neighborhood. But I really think it's fundamentally part of Cobble Hill.

(And, I've been there since the early 80s... it has nothing to do with restaurants.)

Posted by: sdrubbins at June 10, 2009 2:38 PM in response to Cobble Hill or Carroll Gardens?

I think The What is off his meds again. Dude: you can contribute to this blog with a few informative posts, you don't need to respond to every single comment left by every other commenter.

An important question is, what kind of financial problem are we looking at? And the possible answers fall into three broad categories: recession, depression, and dark age. Put simply, using rough orders of magnitude: are we looking at a year or two of economic hardship? Or a decade? Or a century?

Under the first possibility, everything's going to basically be okay, prices will be flat for a while but neighborhoods will continue to pull together and improve and make Brooklyn a great place to live (yes, I'd rather live here than Manhattan even if the city was cheaper). Prices will then start to appreciate, not like they did five years ago, but simply reflecting the value of the buildings and neighborhoods aorund here.

Under the second possibility, there's going to be a lot of pain, and rents will drop, and HELOCs will be frozen, and that all sucks. But, the kind of people who spend a million bucks on an apartment aren't the ones who will really suffer in a depression. My friend bought a condo at the height of the market and did everything wrong: bought new construction, paid top dollar, got an interest-only mortgage, etc. Now he's probably, technically, underwater. But he has a great apartment that he loves, and he can afford the payments. He's fine.

And under the third possibility, well... then we'll have plenty to worry about other than our investments, real estate or otherwise...

Posted by: sdrubbins at May 22, 2009 2:30 PM in response to 80 Dekalb Tops Out

> "Sorry, but you are going to have to do your own research."

Booooooooooo

Heh heh

Depends on condition and views etc but yeah in '95 this place probably traded for five figures.

Posted by: sdrubbins at May 17, 2009 4:17 PM in response to Co-op of the Day: 101 Lafayette Avenue, #17C

The choices aren't that stark. The guy can call the cops anonymously and lodge a complaint. The more such complaints there are about a dealer or building, the greater the chance that detectives will go in and deal with it - whether by observing sales, using an informant, or using an undercover officer, it doesn't have to involve this tenant at all. Even if it happens after the tenant moves away, it helps the police to have that bit of information, and could help new residents down the road.

Posted by: sdrubbins at May 13, 2009 12:01 PM in response to What To Do About That Pesky Drug Dealer?

Snark, from your handle I gather that you like to argue. But I'm not trying to argue with you. I only suggested from my own experience/observation and from listening to many other people who are better-informed than me, that studios and 1BRs will do better in this downturn *relative to larger apartments* - not that either type of apartment will do *well.* Everything's getting hammered, there's no doubt about that.

On the other hand, how much things get hammered is the question of the day. You're basically suggesting 40% declines, which is pretty bearish. A 30% decline prices this apartment at about $250k. A 20% decline prices it at about $285k. It depends on just how bad you think things will get. Fact is, in 2010 rents will still be higher than they were in 1995. Fulton St will still have more restaurants and fewer prostitutes than it did in 1995. The Griffin's board will still be a lot better than it was in 1995. Etc. It means this apartment won't be seeing 1995 prices. Real estate trends are what they are, but the particular building and the particular neighborhood matter, a lot.

Anyway, even if we see 40% declines in this recession - certainly a possibility, I'm pretty bearish myself, I predicted all this back in 2004 - it's a slow slide to that point, and we're not at the bottom yet. So even if the price of this apartment goes to $220k, I bet the seller could unload it right now for more than that.

Finally: I and others are very interested in what buildings you're following. I'd love to find one of these desirable $220k studios...

Posted by: sdrubbins at May 13, 2009 11:49 AM in response to Co-op of the Day: 101 Lafayette Avenue, #17C

snark, that's correct, larger multi-bedroom apartments tend to be more expensive on a per-square-foot basis than smaller studios and 1BRs. I didn't contradict that. My point is that prices of those large apartments swing more wildly with the market. In a pinch most people can downgrade by dropping a bedroom... but you can't downgrade below studios (at least not the people we're talking about, who can afford to drop a few hundred grand on real estate).

More relevant, the recent historic building boom has been made up mostly of large, expensive condos. And even now, they're still building more of them. They're not making any more studio and 1BR co-ops. So, in this particular downturn, the glut of larger apartments will cause prices of large condos to suffer more than prices of small co-ops.

And, if we're going to run numbers let's run numbers at 275k: with 50k down you could get a mortgage for about 1200/mo., making the total out-of-pocket cost about 1,850/mo. You then get to deduct about 14k/year, which would equal savings of about 400/mo.

This place would probably rent for 1400-1500/mo., which means the cost to buy is about equal to the cost to rent. Which means you build equity for free - not to mention any speculative returns on this nicely leveraged investment, some day when the market is better. Also note that mortgages are a nice hedge against inflation, which I understand might become rampant in the next year or so.

You don't have to like the price... I'm just saying this math is going to work for *somebody.* (That's assuming, of course, that the seller is smart enough to let it go for 25% below ask...)

Posted by: sdrubbins at May 12, 2009 12:48 PM in response to Co-op of the Day: 101 Lafayette Avenue, #17C

Also: note that snarkslope's linked apartment has a very similar floorplan, so I think I'm on point with my guess of 450 sq ft. Personally I'd rather live in the Griffin than in a building near Central Park even at the same price, but of course I'm not everybody. Nevertheless, it's a nice comp: similar size, similar maintanence, in Manhattan but no doorman (I expect they would mention that in the broker babble)... what kind of discount do you think it's worth? 20% gets you to $280k, 25% gets you to $260k. I expect closer to 280 gets the deal done.

saminthehood, methinks you underestimate the difference between living in 300 sqare feet versus 450 square feet. Every apartment has at least 150 or so square feet in kitchen, closets and bathroom. So just for living space, we're talking twice as much space compared with your friend's UWS studio.

Posted by: sdrubbins at May 11, 2009 3:27 PM in response to Co-op of the Day: 101 Lafayette Avenue, #17C

The studios in the Griffin range from 400 square feet (the ones with closet-sized kitchens) to about 520 square feet (the ones with eat-in kitchens and an extra closet). This one is in the middle of the range, with a decent kitchen and only two closets; I think it's about 450 square feet. A year or two ago, this might be worth $650-700 psf... so about $300-325k? Things are tougher for sellers, but prices of studios and 1BRs are holding up better than those of large apartments, and this building has some good parent-friendly intangibles, like 24-hour doorman and in-building laundry. (Not to mention, good resistance to fire!) I bet $275K would move it now.

By the way, the appraisal widget is in need of some tweaking. It's clear that some people aren't using it in good faith. $483k and $207k are completely unrealistic estimations. Why not adopt some simple measure like disregarding the five highest and lowest appraisals? I bet that would result in a much more accurate system.

Further, from the comments I'm not sure whether people use the widget to estimate what they would like to pay if they were in the market, or to estimate what they think the property will ultimately go for.

To the extent that it's not merely a system for wishful thinking, why not put it to the test? Just as we have follow-up "six month later" posts for open houses, why not put up posts comparing the Brownstoner consensus (such as it is) with actual sale prices. For that matter, why not compare sale prices with each user's estimate? If this sells for $275k on the dot, shouldn't people know that I got it right and the $207k guessers got it wrong, and respect my opinions that much more? Let people put their reputation on the line.

Posted by: sdrubbins at May 11, 2009 3:10 PM in response to Co-op of the Day: 101 Lafayette Avenue, #17C

Ditto! Brownstoner, it's a nice blog here but how about going back and updating these posts the next day??

It's like once something is posted there's a three hour window for comments and then people forget it ever happened...

Posted by: sdrubbins at April 28, 2009 2:40 PM in response to Foreclosures of the Week

It's not more expensive than the Heights. I think the problem here is that the broker is doing a half-assed job of presenting it.

(By the way, overheard a broker complaining about having to take pictures and market a mere rental... God forbid these people actually work for a living.)

In this building, at least at the 6th floor and below, the monthly maintenance is less than $1psf. So while it's not listed, I suspect this is a ~900sf apartment. It looks onto the street and is just higher than the surrounding houses, so the south and east exposures will let light in. And the building is in prime location, right between Fulton and Dekalb, near the park and all trains. Basically, this isn't a 1br for a value buyer. A value buyer could get a 2br for this price (squeezed into the same square footage). This is for someone who wants a lot of space but doesn't need two bedrooms.

That said, before you all think I'm some kind of shill, it's still way overpriced. It if was in perfect condition with a great renovation, I'd say $450-500k. As I suspect it is now, it's probably really worth $425-450k.

Posted by: sdrubbins at April 28, 2009 2:30 PM in response to Co-op of the Day: 101 Lafayette Avenue, #6A

This post is ow buried in Brownstoner, but this place got onto the Times "On the Market" this weekend (4/3/09). And what do you know, it is mentioned *multiple times* as being 16 feet wide.

At first I thought it might be a simple mistake (silly real estate reporter sees skinny house and just assumes 16 feet - that's what most skinny houses are). But the multiple mentions, and seeing here the the listing broker is the owner, makes it seem like outright fraud. (Or, well, false advertising... fraud in spirit).

It IS a nice house... I could see it being worth close to a million, minus the cost of putting a bathroom on the top floor... so call it $900k.

Posted by: sdrubbins at April 3, 2009 12:44 PM in response to House of the Day: 154 St. James Place

I was in the building when the fire broke out, above the fire, but managed to get past it and out. The smoke filling both stairwells was pretty horrifying to witness firsthand, but amazingly, there was barely any smoke visible from outside. I think the fire was sucking air through the window, and all the smoke was going into the building.

FDNY took a hose in through the stairs and fought the fire from the inside. That's why the glass is destroyed in the apartment windows, it was blown out from the water pressure.

The third floor looked terrible afterward, lots of soot. The smoke completely filled both stairwells at the time, and was so thick that it leaked out and filled the hallways at least three or four flights up. So I think it was a pretty intense fire. And it was raging a good five or ten minutes before FDNY got there. Given all that, it's actually pretty encouraging that the fire stayed within one apartment... i.e. even serious fires like this seem slow to spread in this building, so I still feel pretty safe.

And for the record, I keep my bicycle in my apartment.

Posted by: sdrubbins at February 25, 2009 12:31 AM in response to 10-Truck Fire at 101 Lafayette Saturday Night

Sorry, that was supposed to be paranoid right-wing "nuts," not "buts."

And while I'm here, another way to think of this is to consider the "tragedy of the commons." In a nutshell:

There's a small village, with 50 residents, which is shaded by 50 trees. Everyone enjoys the trees and the shade they provide for the whole village. One day, for whatever reason, the trees take one some specific value above and apart from the general value of their shade. Say a foreigner comes in and asks to purchase the sap of the trees, which is valuable where he comes from.

Who gets to sell the sap? This is not a hippie commune, there's money to be made here. The village residents start claiming trees as their own. They each take a tree and sell the sap. Some sell their tree to others, who then sell twice the sap, etc. Welcome to private property, and to capitalism.

But what if there's a drought, and the sap all dries up? The trees become valueless again. One successful entrepeneur owns ten whole trees, but what good are they to him? Why shouldn't the trees be "de-privatized?" Let them go back to being a communal resource until such time that they regain their sap and their value. Then, privatize them all over again!

The problem with socialism is it doesn't allow privatization when it's supposed to happen. As long as we do, then we don't have to worry about the government taking equity stakes in financial companies. (...not that aspect of it, anyway.)

Posted by: sdrubbins at October 14, 2008 5:17 PM in response to Quote of the Day

And, to MM: you're mostly, but not completely right that this is a cyclical correction. Things aren't perfectly cyclical, or the DOW never would have hit $14,000 to begin with. The economy can and does grow over time; we're not just bouncing up and down between set boundaries.

However, what you hit on, which the financial pundits seem not to have realized, is that this is a CORRECTION. It's one problem with all the bailout plans: everybody thinks we need to use the government to inject money and liquidity into the economy, so that there will be as much credit to go around as before, so that investments will reach their prior valuations, etc. But that's problematic.

Fact is, there was TOO MUCH credit sloshing around last year, too much cheap money, too many leveraged investments that were too easy to leverage. That's why real estate prices skyrocketed all over the country. RE just one example, but let's consider it: say the Feds inject more lending ability into the mortgage industry, allowing banks to lower rates, allowing people to afford more, increasing demand, pushing prices up, etc until we're back in the same situation that just bit us on the backside.

The same principle applies to the rest of the financial industry: we don't want our whole economy to grind to a halt, but at the same time we don't want to pour so much money into the pot that we go right back to where we were, only with even more foreign debt. By rights, we *should* go into a long recession. This economy needs to correct, not be propped up by taxpayer largesse. (Can we please pay for no more weekend retreats costing multiple times my annual salary for the misfeasant executives who got us into this mess??)

Posted by: sdrubbins at October 14, 2008 4:33 PM in response to Quote of the Day

People: this is NOT Socialism. Go look up what socialism means.

This is failing companies unable to continue operating because they cannot get short-term loans. They cannot get short-term loans because those organizations handing out the loans have stopped, because the valuation of... well, of just about *everything* is suspect. Financial institutions are unwilling or unable to lend because their assets have shrunk relative to their debt and their (risky, overvalued) extant investments.

What do you do if your roof falls in and you need $100,000 to repair it immediately, but you only have $10,000 in the bank? You take out a home equity loan. You get access to enough cash to get the repairs done, and the bank gets a share of the equity in your house as collateral.

The terms are different, but banks are basically getting access to quick cash in exchange for giving the government a claim on some of their equity. Their ratio of debt to assets goes down, they are able to cover some of the risk involved in giving credit, and so they do... and then businesses can get short-term loans again, people can get car loans and mortgages again, etc. American consumers do what they do best, and in a year or two the economy is healed. Then the government divests itself of the aforementioned equity, and uses the proceeds to pay down the trillion dollars of debt it took on to buy it in the first place. Capitalism goes on its merry way.

That is NOT Socialism. Socialism involves the belief that the central government should own and control X industry, permanently.

DISCLAIMER: the above description of our economic crisis is not by an economist, and not intended to be accurate. It's just a layman's portrayal, quick and dirty, to help explain why America is not and will not veer into Socialism, so the paranoid right-wing buts can take a deep breath and chill the heck out.

Posted by: sdrubbins at October 14, 2008 3:59 PM in response to Quote of the Day

Dude, don't change the C of O. I'm not a lawyer (well, I am, but not that kind) but I understand that you can have two units in a three-units building, but you can't have three units in a two-unit building.

So if you have a 3-unit, 3-story house, you can combine the top two and rent out the bottom one. later, if your family grows and/or you have more money, you can take over the bottom unit and combine it all into a single dwelling. After that, once the kids go to college and you don't need the space, you can turn a floor back into a rental. All without changing the C of O.

Also, if I'm not mistaken, changing the C of O will trigger a change in preoperty taxes, which will likely go up even if you're going to have fewer units. So it's just not worth it to do, under almost any circumstances.

Posted by: sdrubbins at October 8, 2008 4:47 PM in response to 3 Family to 2 Family C of O Conversion

Dave, Jean and Judy are the mild-mannered lesbian couple who buy the garden apartment in the brownstone, who consider it a long-term investment and like the neighborhood, and who are therefore comfortable buying even in this troubled market.

But oh they'll reconsider when Jason and Jim, recent college grads who blast their stereo at all hours, rent the parlor floor from its buyer...

Posted by: sdrubbins at October 8, 2008 4:37 PM in response to Quote of the Day

This is insane... with irrational fear like this, no wonder the markets are tanking.

Let's consider this: mortgage plus maintenance equals current rent. Renters' common refrain is that a down payment on real estate could be put to better use invested in stocks or whatever than in real estate... but here you'd be giving up half your down payment just for the privilege of remaining a renter. And with the way the financial markets are right now, with even some money market funds breaking the buck, it would be very difficult to make up the difference.

- So if you walk away, you have an apartment you're comfortable in, you have identical monthly expenses, you have 38 grand burning a hole in your pocket, and you give 38 grand to some jerk.

- If you go through with the deal, you have an apartment you've decided you would be comfortable in, you have identical monthly expenses, you're building home equity, and you have 76 grand in a solid, long-term, illiquid investment.

By my math, you'd have to be crazy in the head to walk away from this deal.

Posted by: sdrubbins at October 8, 2008 4:27 PM in response to Front Page Forum: Walk Away from Downpayment?

Without having sat down and thought it all through, this strikes me as wrong.

I guess, if the building is collateral for the underlying mortgage, then in case of default the bank would take possession of the building, but not the corporation and its shares. Shareholders would still have leases granting them the right to occupy their units.

Right?

By the way, this double-leverage aspect of coops makes me wonder why any developer would make condos. Tell me where I'm going wrong with this thinking:

John buys a four-story brownstone for X dollars; he spruces it up into four condo units, renovations that cost Y dollars; he then sells the units for a total of Z dollars. Profit=Z-Y-X.

Jane forms a corporation which buys a four-story brownstone for X dollars; the purchase of financed by a balloon mortgage for W dollars. So the cost of incorporation plus the down payment on the building equals X-W. Jane spruces up the building into four coop units, renovations that cost Y dollars. Jane then sells all shares in the corporation for Z dollars. The shareholders take on mortgages to buy their shares, and collectively own a corporation that takes the W dollars of debt from Jane. Jane makes a profit of Z-Y-(X-W).

Since X is substantially greater than (X-W), Jane's profit is W dollars greater than John's.

So the question is, why does anyone make condos??

Posted by: sdrubbins at October 8, 2008 3:47 PM in response to Quote of the Day

"...or the bargain one-bedroom for $840,000"

Ha

Mr. T is running through my head, growling "I pity the fool..."

Posted by: sdrubbins at September 25, 2008 4:10 PM in response to Checking In: On Prospect Park

Why not have things at the Prospect Park band shell?

Posted by: sdrubbins at September 25, 2008 4:07 PM in response to Closing Bell: Petitioning for Music

Umm, is that really 16 feet wide?? Looks more like 14 to me.

Posted by: sdrubbins at September 25, 2008 4:06 PM in response to House of the Day: 186 Washington Avenue

Seems pretty high - and extremely large! 1,400+ sq ft per floor? What, is the house 20' x 70'? Or are those square footages exaggerated?

Anyway, the ppsf seems high. Once you're in the range of a million bucks wouldn't you be better off looking at One Hanson or the Forte? Isn't the Forte selling for like $700-800psf?

I'm looking at selling my Fort Greene apartment soon, and was figuring on pricing it at about $600psf. Granted, it's a co-op, but is the difference really that big? Am I lowballing myself?

Posted by: sdrubbins at September 16, 2008 5:23 PM in response to Condos of the Day: 122 Fort Greene Place

You can absolutely do this. I'm doing my smallish (about 6'x8') bathroom for about 10k. None of the super high-end stuff, but who needs it? A shower stall or tub with sliding doors; a simple, small toilet; a sink and vanity; and simple, bright subway tiles all around.

I think the trick is finding a contractor first and letting them ghet materials, rather than starting with fancy fixtures from a retail place like NYKB and trying to find someone to install them. A good local contractor will know the best and cheapest places to get materials... e.g. I always use Mondial Tile, which is here in Brooklyn.

Don't have too specific an idea of what you want - i.e. these particular tiles or this particular sink. Don't try to control the process too much. For 12k your bathroom isn't going to be in any magazines. Let the contractor know what you generally want, and let them sweat the details. Quality of the installation matters more than the particular fixtures. If you just roll with things you can have a cheap, stress-free and beautiful result.

Posted by: sdrubbins at September 16, 2008 5:12 PM in response to Is it possible to renovate a 6 by 8 bathroom for $12,000?

Cramer is smart about the economy, but he's no expert on NYC real estate. NYC lags the rest of the economy by about two years. We may bottom around next summer, but that doesn't mean you should buy then. I predict that when prices here do bottom out (probably 10-20% off peak levels, vs. 25-50% down across the rest of the country), they will stay down ("plateau," if you will - but that really means something that goes up and the flat, whereas this will go down and then flat... more like a cnayon, or a cliff).

It'll be 2011 to 2013 before prices begin moving back up and threaten to move above last year's peak.

Of course, that's not so far off, so there's nothing particularly wrong with buying next summer, as long as you're not a flipper (i.e. not insane). So Cramer's advice is not terrible... it just won't look like a valley in the way Cramer expects it to.

Posted by: sdrubbins at September 12, 2008 2:59 PM in response to Housing Crisis Will End on June 30, 2009

DOW I'm bearish on the market... but I don't consider myself 'recruited' by you. You're trolling someone else's blog. Did it ever occur to you to instead create your own place for expression? Isn't that kind of the lesson of the last ten years - 'if you build it (and you have good content) they will come?'

Not trying to insult, and not trying to join in the bickering and name-calling. Just saying that there are a lot of success stories about people who made a name for themselves by (easily and at little cost) creating a compelling website. If your message resonates, it would likely be much more effective than trolling the Bstoner comments.

And btw, your message might well resonate. I and others are bearish on the market. Look at the recent Times piece about the guy - I forget his name now, but he's a doomsayer economist whom everyone thought was crazy five years ago, but whom everyone wants to consult now.

Just saying, your insights are diminished by all the invective around here.

Posted by: sdrubbins at September 2, 2008 8:28 PM in response to Open House Picks Open Thread

Cool - it's all good.

crochety & whacker: not saying 1985-1995 was ancient history or anything like that. Just a particular, culturally identifiable moment in the history of the borough (and city). I believe it's a noteworthy time because a) I came of age then; and b) that moment gave way to and laid the foundation for the Brooklyn (and NYC) of 1998-2008, which has been even more noteworthy and which is responsible for this very website (among other things).

For a more in-depth consideration of more ancient Brooklyn history, check out this 1969 piece by Pete Hamill in New York Magazine:

http://nymag.com/news/features/46992/

Posted by: sdrubbins at August 26, 2008 11:45 AM in response to The History/Mystery of the Hot Bird Sign

BkLove you miss the point. Young professoinal college grads mostly stayed in Manhattan back then. Seemed like everyone in Brooklyn was either a teenager, a 40-something, or elderly. Lots more thugs and street crime - you actually had to have some street sense when walking around, and if you wore Nikes or a Jansport bag you were a walking target. Hip hop culture, like me, was an awkward teenager that didn't yet know what it would turn out to be when it grew up. (I almost remember the exact week the whole baggy pants thing happened.)

Man, those were the days. (I haven't yet seen "The Wackness" - I really want to for the sake of nostalgia, but I'm afraid it might be terrible.)

Posted by: sdrubbins at August 25, 2008 3:24 PM in response to The History/Mystery of the Hot Bird Sign

God. Imagine the number of market-rate apartments in the city were doubled?? That would be amazing. Market prices might be almost reasonable.

Note especially, per the article, that many rent-stabilized apartments are *not* much or at all cheaper than nearby market-rate apartments. This suggests that the negative effects of rent stabilization outweigh the positive effects.

Sigh indeed.

Posted by: sdrubbins at August 25, 2008 2:54 PM in response to The Times Goes Rental

Ate lots of Hot Bird. It's a relic from a different era... Brooklyn was a lot of fun back then - not as many uppity 20-something Murray Hill transplants. (At least, that's how most new Brooklynites would seem to my then-high-school mind...)

These seriously should be landmarked.

Posted by: sdrubbins at August 25, 2008 2:47 PM in response to The History/Mystery of the Hot Bird Sign

I can has been imaging cheezburgr?

Posted by: sdrubbins at August 23, 2008 7:45 PM in response to Open House Picks

This sale

http://curbed.com/archives/2008/08/19/moonstruck_house_finally_sold_after_1m_pricechop.php

doesn't give me much confidence that the Willow Street listing will fetch five mil.

Posted by: sdrubbins at August 19, 2008 5:01 PM in response to House of the Day: 105 Willow Street

DIBS, I'll be the first to concede that different neighborhoods (and blocks, and buildings, etc) hit the plateau at different times. Bed Stuy and (somehow) Carroll Gardens continued to appreciate past 2004... other neighborhoods did not.

In fact the reason I noticed this is that by 2005 or so the value of my apartment had just about tripled, and I started to think about cashing in and moving to Carroll Gardens. But as I thought about it, and continued to think about it (it's not a decision I can make quickly), I became completely priced out of Carroll Gardens, while comps in my building did not move an inch (seriously).

Now I have no idea what do do. I might still cash out, to get peak price. Then maybe look in PLG or Kensington or somewhere. Or maybe rent for a while.

(Nothing wrong with buying at peak, by the way - as long as you can afford a place, and you love it, and you stay for a while, that's just fine.)

Posted by: sdrubbins at August 18, 2008 6:46 PM in response to Open House Picks

Why didn't it sell for so long? Umm, maybe because, as mentioned in the post, the asking price was more than 25% higher than its actual market value?

Sure, the August sale price is only $50k higher than the April asking, but that just shows that even the slashed sale price is not necessarily reflective of its market value - it's a classic case of a seller hoping to find just one buyer willing to pay a premium, because one buyer is all you need to sell a house.

The problem with that conventional wisdom is that it took more than four months to find that one buyer. Which suggests that a proper valuation of the house should actually be a bit lower than the sale price. I know that seems to violate basic economic principles - i.e. the principle that an item is worth whatever someone will pay for it. But the people who use that principle to claim that $2.25 million is the real value of this house fail to take into account the less-tangible (or less obvious, anyway) cost of having a house on the market for almost 18 months.

Posted by: sdrubbins at August 18, 2008 6:36 PM in response to 274 Clinton Street Sells for $2,250,000

DIBS: in the long term that's correct. As a property owner I love inflation - it makes my mortgage go away! But in the short term, I think that 1) a strong dollar means fewer European buyers of NYC properties; and 2) inflation means somewhat less disposable income for Americans who are shopping for real estate. Both of which reduce upward price pressure.

I'm not in The What's camp, claiming the apocalypse is coming. But I think prices went up more than they should have - the rent/own ratio got a little out of whack, and (this is really my pet peeve) people have assumed price appreciation based on misreading reports of average or median sales data. In other words, as more high-priced condos etc. came on the market, the average sale price went up, reflecting an increase in the average *quality* of homes on the market. However, brokers and sellers like to look at these figures in a vaccuum and assume that *individual* prices are increasing even when the quality of those individual homes remains the same. The upward pressure this puts on prices is artificial, and cannot continue forever.

I like to use my own building as a case in point. It's in one of the popular gentrifying neighborhoods that Brownstoner likes to focus on. It has lots of small, generally identical units and has seen lots of turnover in the past ten years, so it is very easy to find comps. Here's what I've seen (dislcaimer: it's anecdotal evidence from a particular building in a particular neiughborhood at a particular time, blah blah blah): from 1998 to 2004, prices skyrocketed. The value of my apartment more than quadrupled over that period. From 2004-2008, there's basically been no change whatsoever.

Not only have we hit a plateau, but we actually hit it a long time ago. And yet people have spent that time talking about how great the market is doing, how prices are still rising. I find that misperception to be somewhat worrying, and I suspect it will be corrected by the market.

(Then again I also understand that it's perilous to predict efficient outcomes in such a horrendously inefficient market.)

Posted by: sdrubbins at August 15, 2008 3:36 PM in response to Open House Picks

How can 147 St. James possibly ask that much? Especially when mentioned here right next the superior-in-every-way 31 So. Oxford? Crazy.

Strong dollar + rapid inflation + bankrupt banks (shouldn't that be an oxymoron?) + et cetera = this market is going nowhere. But, the people buying houses still have cash to burn.

So. Oxford will go for $1.8M
St. James for $1.55M

Posted by: sdrubbins at August 15, 2008 2:50 PM in response to Open House Picks

"...or somewhere along the BQE as it heads out toward JFK. You know, places where those of us who read Brownstoner really don't go"

Ha - you clearly don't go there, or you'd know that that BQE doesn't go to JFK.

Sorry to be so snarky and pedantic, just thought it was funny.

As I understand it, the Brooklyn Brewery brews its flagship beers upstate - I mean Brooklyn Lager and Brooklyn Brown Ale, both of which are brewed in massive quantities and have worldwide distribution. The other beers - pilsener, weisse, pennant pale ale, chocolate stout, etc - are brewed in smaller quantities at the old brewery in Williamsburg.

So WBer's question is on point: do they want to move and somewhat expand the Williamsburg operation, or do they want to bring the large-scale brewing down to Brooklyn? (Can't listen to the interview at work...)

Posted by: sdrubbins at August 6, 2008 4:45 PM in response to Where Should the Brooklyn Brewery Set Up Shop?

How could anyone possibly have a general dislike of granite counters? You can get hundreds of different colors/shades/patterns of granite; likewise marble, corian, tile, or whatever. If it's done right and it works, it's great; if it's done poorly, it's bad. E.g. the granite counters in my kitchen are beautiful. The marble in my bathroom is horrid. How can you have a thing against a whole category?

Brownstoner is weird sometimes.

Anyway, the comments are correct, this place is all about the block, not the house. Garden Place is one of the quietest, safest, richest, leafiest, family-friendly-est, quaintest blocks in the entire city. Plus, since the former owners of all the houses on the block were rich people who moved there for the same reason, you can be sure that any house there is in good shape. Maybe not to everyone's liking, as evidenced in the comments, but certainly well-maintained.

All that said, five years ago people would have said about this place "dude, it's on Garden Place, of course it's worth the $2 million asking price." People are starting to realize that, except for some discrete infusions of money into the city in that time, wages at all levels of the spectrum are basically the same. $4 million may not have *sounded* ridiculous last year... but it didn't sell. And this year it's starting to seem ridiculous again - starting to seem like it may have been ridiculous all along. There are stilll crazy rich people with cash to burn, but they're not quite as crazy as they were. I bet this goes for $3.5M, maybe a little lower.

Posted by: sdrubbins at August 6, 2008 4:29 PM in response to House of the Day: 19 Garden Place

The bike lane is basically a dedicated parking lane. So there's only one other place to ride a bike: in the street. Like, right in the middle of it. And reeeeaal slooooww... for some strange reason my legs always get real tired when I hit that stretch. I wouldn't like to be driving a car behind me during those times... poor fat, lazy drivers...

Posted by: sdrubbins at July 21, 2008 4:47 PM in response to Checking In On the Adams Street Bike Lane

Okay didn't realize it's five storied... because there are no windows on the front of the 5th floor (how lovely).

So the rentals are worth what, $6,000/month? $6,500? And the duplex is the equivalent of maybe a $800k condo, so call that about $5,500/month.

$12,000/month in mortgage payments means about a $1.8M loan. Take a nice round, chunky down payment, say half a million, and I'd peg the value at $2.3M. (That's not even taking into account taxes or maintenance costs...)

Of course you're investing in a house, you're paying into equity, blah blah - I own myself, I know all the rhetoric and rationales. Just saying, even being generous I don't see this being worth more than $2.5M.

Posted by: sdrubbins at June 12, 2008 3:09 PM in response to House of the Day: 241 Carroll Street

I don't understand the valuation of Carroll Gardens places. There was a house on 4th St. in Park Slope a few weeks ago, of similar size and with similar original details, already configured as a 2-fam. A block from Prospect Park and near the 2/3/5 as well as the F. The Brownstoner verdict? Would never go for more than $2.5M.

This is chopped into four apartments, who knows what the kitchens & baths are like, it's only on the F, not anywhere near a decent sized park, and it's in a flood zone. The verdict? "We could see someone bite at, or close to," $3.5M.

Not saying a 2-fam in the Slope should go for more than $2.5M unless it's truly exquisite; just saying, neither should something in Carroll Gardens. How did we get sucked into this seeming mass hallucination about 3+ million-dollar needs-TLC houses in that neighborhood?

Don't like the Slope? How about, say, Cobble Hill. It's a lot like Carroll Gardens, except 1) better school district; and 2) closer to, well, everything. Yet you'd never be able to sell a 4-fam house in Cobble Hill for $3.5M.

What, exactly, does Carroll Gardens have that makes people throw away millions of dollars to live there??

Posted by: sdrubbins at June 12, 2008 1:01 AM in response to House of the Day: 241 Carroll Street

No reason to think it won't go below asking? Umm, how about this reason:

http://www.brownstoner.com/brownstoner/archives/2008/06/red_nabes_lose.php

duh...

Posted by: sdrubbins at June 7, 2008 7:12 PM in response to Condo of the Day: One Main Street, #2K

And bike paths too - nice. This area has long needed a bike route north from GAP.

What, it's pretty well established that adding more traffic lanes doesn't do much to actually make traffic move faster. Most city planners these days are doing the opposite: having fewer, more intelligently situated lanes of traffic.

Consider Vanderbilt: you really don't need any more than one lane of traffice on each side, as long as that lane moves smoothly. How to keep traffic moving? Make separate turn lanes, so people driving straight won't be held up by turners. Also, with two lanes of traffic, they often have to merge around double-parked cars, which means slowdowns. With only one lane, it can move around a car without merging, which means it keeps moving.

Other examples are 9th Avenue from Chelsea to the Village, where they narrowed the avenue for bike and turn lanes. Or Broadway through Soho, where they narrowed the vehicla lanes in favor of more prominent bus lanes. Or DeKalb Ave in Fort Greene, which I believe has been cut down from two travel lanes to one. None of these changes has resulted in congestion; but they have made for improvements for bicyclists, buses, and pedestrians, respectively.

And, I don't AY is going to make much of a difference. Anyway, if it's necessary, they can widen the street again when and if that project is complete - in like 2035...

In the meantime, this is a very good thing for people in Prospect Heights.

Posted by: sdrubbins at June 2, 2008 4:19 PM in response to Traffic Islands for Vandy

I was walking down by the Canal last weekend. I like the area; went to school in Boerum Hill when I was a kid, and I think the Gowanus/CG border is a nice bucolic neighborhood. Also, I noticed a nice-looking condo-type development on Hoyt Street, with wood-panel walls (has it been mentioned on Brownstoner?)

Anyway, as much as I like the area, there's still this: the Canal stinks. The stench is horrible. Not as bad as in the 80s, but still horrible. Whatever they do with that water, it's still basically standing water - a canal to nowhere - with tons of toxic crap sitting at the bottom. I don't think that's ever really going to change.

Posted by: sdrubbins at May 29, 2008 3:09 PM in response to Marty Bikes For Gowanus, Sponge Park Gains Traction

Growing up and going to PS 29 the general thoughts back then was Cobble Hill went to Court. Boreum Hill started at Smith. The block in between was sort of nebulous and the dividing line between the two. Of course Smith Street was much different back then...

Things don't matter much these days, but I do remember going to school with kids who's parents wouldn't let them cross over Court St or go south of Sackett. There was a time when these neighborhoods were extremely insular and the boundaries really did matter. Not so much any more (although I do find myself falling into my provincial roots every now and then...)

Posted by: christopher at June 10, 2009 2:56 PM in response to Cobble Hill or Carroll Gardens?

You guys are quibbling about the border between Boerum Hill and Cobble Hill and in the meantime Park Slope is taking over everywhere!!!

Posted by: sam at June 10, 2009 2:58 PM in response to Cobble Hill or Carroll Gardens?

"I am not sure why you or anyone else would get 'really annoyed' about Smith/Court blocks designation.
And I never until very recent years ever heard any refer to those blocks as BoerumHill and mostly on Brownstoner - so not sure why you sale 'always'.
I have lived neighborhood since late 1970's.

Posted by: Petebklyn at June 10, 2009 2:05 PM"

When I moved to Boerum Hill in the mid-1980's, Smith St was empty storefronts, real estate offices and crack vials. I never heard any of the genteel folk in Cobble Hill claiming it then.

According to the Boerum Hill Association on their website, the borders are: Schermerhorn Street to Warren Street and Court Street to Fourth Avenue.

Posted by: coppermaven at June 10, 2009 3:51 PM in response to Cobble Hill or Carroll Gardens?

well -then there you have it. Whatever Boerum Hill Assoc. says it is - it is.
And tell me where the vacant storefronts between Atlantic and Warren were. Certainly there were no more then than now. And beside Hanten - which is still there - can anyone else come up with other real estate offices (not county than 10' wide tiny thing up near Atlantic) that existed on Smith? I doubt it.
I think memory is foggy. Can't say you never saw crack vials on Smith - but back then could find them about anywhere. It was a viable commercial street - just catering to a different demographic.
And remember we are talking north of Warren.

Posted by: Petebklyn at June 10, 2009 4:54 PM in response to Cobble Hill or Carroll Gardens?

To speak to Carol Gardens comment, I live on Douglass near Smith and I've always maintained that I live in Cobble Hill. It wasn't until a month or two ago that a Corcoran agent told me that they considered the street Boerum Hill. But before that border debates would often arise over whether Douglass or Degraw was the beginning of Carroll Gardens. Agreed that it depends on the person and the neighborhood they want to identify with...Personally, I just like that all three of these great neighborhoods are right outside my door!

Posted by: JBrklyn at June 10, 2009 4:58 PM in response to Cobble Hill or Carroll Gardens?

Thank you all for the postings. It seems all so clear now...

Posted by: basker45 at June 10, 2009 8:49 PM in response to Cobble Hill or Carroll Gardens?

Who cares ?

Posted by: bklyn14 at June 10, 2009 11:08 PM in response to Cobble Hill or Carroll Gardens?

If you've been here less than 20 years, you wouldn't get it, or care, no worries. It was obviously made a post cause it would spark heated debate among the long and medium timers.

Posted by: lifer at June 11, 2009 11:05 AM in response to Cobble Hill or Carroll Gardens?