69 St. James Sells For A Lot Less Than Originally Asked
69 St. James Place, a charming four-story brownstone in Clinton Hill, finally closed yesterday for $1,400,000. Versus the most recent asking price of $1,500,000, this sounds like a pretty standard discount. But the house actually started out on the market in June 2008 with a price tag of $1,995,000, and then suffered death by a…
69 St. James Place, a charming four-story brownstone in Clinton Hill, finally closed yesterday for $1,400,000. Versus the most recent asking price of $1,500,000, this sounds like a pretty standard discount. But the house actually started out on the market in June 2008 with a price tag of $1,995,000, and then suffered death by a thousand price cuts. Unfortunately, it looks like another example of a property (or owner) who was living in the past and couldn’t face reality. If the seller had just come out with an asking price of, say, $1,700,000 at the start of things, chances are the outcome would have been much better.
House of the Day: 69 St. James Place [Brownstoner] GMAP P*Shark
wasder i think the Fort Greene block is nicer, and state that BIG lived here and I am being negative? Um OK, maybe you are the one with the agenda? Do you live on this block?
BBB–Minard was saying that it used to be iffy (the merits of this statement I am not going to argue because I don’t know how far back he is referencing) and was surprised to hear others talking about how nice it is. Besides the generally unpleasant undertones of the word “iffy” in reference to the neighborhood in which I live it is an absurd statement. And all through this thread you have been pushing the conversation towards the negative on this street. Therefore I deduced you had some sort of agenda to push.
Snark–Least I can do. thank you for your (not in this case) generally excellent snark. We all have our roles to play…
wasder how do I have an agenda if I am in agreement with minard that saint james is iffy? Does everybody who does not agree with you have an agenda?
> I do, as this is the house I was referencing yesterday.
wasder – Thanks for your (reasonable, as always) comments.
Plus, as I recall, this place was set up as a one family, so if you wanted the rental income, you’d have to factor in the cost of adding a new kitchen, maybe a deck and fixing up the ground floor to be a rental, so add another $100K or so to your budget. All the more reason why it should have been priced more realistically to begin with so it did not languish on the market.
But hey, good deal for the buyers, and welcome. Good luck, it’s a great place and location imo.
I think that Jon is saying that they should have priced appropriately for neighborhood comps originally.
wasder, Jon is suggesting owner lost out
I had looked into this, the sellers had already purchased something else if I recall, I think overseas – though I may be remembering incorrectly – and this place was sitting vacant for quite a while. The buyers got a great deal due to the squeeze on the sellers here. I agree with Bstoner that if it was priced at $1.7 originally, it would have sold more quickly and at a better price. I personally would much prefer this location over busy Vanderbilt and Dekalb, and this is a much nicer house, but that is just my preference…