House of the Day: Stealing Third?
This house on 3rd Street between 7th and 8th Avenues is still showing up as a “New Listing” on the NY Times even though it closed yesterday! As it turns out, it’s been quite a long road for the sellers on this one. The house was first listed last April, and had an accepted offer…
This house on 3rd Street between 7th and 8th Avenues is still showing up as a “New Listing” on the NY Times even though it closed yesterday! As it turns out, it’s been quite a long road for the sellers on this one. The house was first listed last April, and had an accepted offer quite quickly. Then the buyers backed out of the deal in July and the owners were back to square one. It’s been listed this go-round at $1.7 million but, in a dose of reality for current market-watchers, the number on the signed contract yesterday was $1.425 million. Sounds like a steal to us.
3rd Street Townhouse [Brown Harris Stevens] GMAP
Of course it’s a steal…for the sellers.
It is the steal of 2006 or even the beyond. I’d buy dozen in that price.
If anyone knows about similar deals let me know.
The “look in the mirror” comment was meant to say your just like everybody else. Please don’t take it as some sort of an insult — none was meant.
Agree, 50% may be excessive but a big correction is likely on its way.
Anon 10:14, if you really think brownstone owners are somehow different from owner of other types of housing and will simply “not sell” instead of lower their asking prices, you know absolutely NOTHING about basic economics. You’re not special. Look in the mirror.
A house is only worth what someone else is willing to pay for it. In this case it was $1.425. End of story.
As inventories build this will only get worse. Maybe a 50% drop is unlikely. But 25/30% is by no means out of the question.
the house has no backyard. It is right up against a smelly fish store and a dry cleaner.
It was impossible not to have heard about this house unless you are working with the brokers who do not co-broke. It sat on the market for months. I think it had a deal and then that deal fell apart. Great house, not so wide, needs a complete reno in my book. If you are willing to do work you can get a house that costs less. What they used to call ‘sweat equity’, remember that quaint term?
If that price is accurate, seller’s brokers are incompetent, and the buyers are the luckiest persons to buy in PS in the last 10 years.
Where Mr. 50% is severely flawed in his/her arguments is this – the only way the market would ever drop that much is if people actually did agree to sell, period. They do have a choice, you know. And what the heck is their incentive? Okay maybe those going bankrupt, and old people who have lived in a townhouse all their lives and won’t lose money selling at a big discount. Which would comprise like what, 1% of the current Park Slope townhouse residents? Everybody else would hang in there. No matter whether there’s divorce, changing jobs, etc. they’d never sell for less than they owe for their mortgage. It’s absurd to even suggest it. Even now the only response a lot of sellers are having to the softer market is to lower the price a little and then they say “forget it” and take it back off the market. Someone was telling me a friend of theirs did that this week. We almost did that and then we just got an offer. People are not going to be giving away well-located property for nothing. These townhouses were big investments for people. If they have to wait several years to sell then that’s what they’ll do. Most people make this kind of purchase intending to live in it all their lives anyway. It’s how they justify the expense. The only reason there were so many townhouses on the market before, is people saw a “why not?” opportunity and sold. But now it’s become “why on earth should I sell?”. There’s just no reason to sell.