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
3:54,
I agree with your feedback. However, I think my 1997 price of $500K (wow, came a long way since then) is conservative for Clinton Hill and should offset the array of different results.
Where’d you buy and for how much?
All of you MBAs, real estate moguls, people earning over $600k per year…where do you find the time to sit on a blog all day and argue with each other? Shouldn’t you be out, like, earning money or something?
You guys can argue all you want, but at the end of the day this house is a steal. The details in the brownstones on 3rd street are unmatched. Even putting 500,000 into this house you end up with a pristine house, on the prime street, for under $2,000,000.
Are there really hundreds of listings for true brownstone or brick row houses languishing on the market?
I agree that many of the houses in gentrifying neighborhoods have much of the upside potential already reflected in the current asking price. But if you are buying a home in which to live for many years and can afford it, a market downturn, unless accompanied by a drop in rental prices, or massive layoffs, does not mean that much to you.
No one knows when a price drop will come, or how much the drop will be, but it will obviously come one day. If you are buying a house now and expect to flip it for a profit in the near term you may be in for a surprise.
I think one need to differentiate between speculative buyers and those buying a home in which to live/raise a family.
Anon 2:57… without arguing your 50% drop theory, you are seriously cherrypicking your starting point for comparison. I bought in 1997 too, and so I remember that was very nearly the nadir of the last housing trough. (The absolute bottom was maybe 1995.)
You will get very different figures if you calculated 4% annual inflation from the last real-estate peak (1989) than if you calculate them from the near bottom (1997).
Gee not only is 3:38 PM a fourtune teller, they are a sexist for assuming that 3:26 PM is a “Mr.”
And if: You can’t prove anything that’s going to happen in the future” then why keep insisting on 50%, why not 38%, 53% or some equally unsubstantiated number? If you going to pull a number outta your butt, then expect for people to question it.
I won’t be “chucked” out of any meetings because I don’t go to meetings.
I own buildings and I make all the decisions myself. Once in a while I talk on the phone, of course.
You can’t prove anything that’s going to happen in the future, Mr. MBA.
Just like most mutual funds underperform index funds, your charts and calculations are worthless.
As a long term real estate investment, Brooklyn is fine. But I’d hold off buying in the next year or two, charts and all.
3:26,
Back up:
http://www.youdovoodoo.com
http://www.thehousingbubbleblog.com
http://www.natefind.com (reduced brooklyn listings – note days on market)
Circa 1987,
“40% price chops (after inflation adjustments) ain’t gonna happen.”
They did.