House of the Day: 475 4th Street
This two-family brownstone at 475 4th Street in Park Slope just hit the market for $2,995,000. It’s a gorgeous house in move-in condition with tons of original woodwork (and no recessed lighting!). It also feels like it’s priced as if it were a year ago. Frankly, we’ve got no idea how this will fly. It…
This two-family brownstone at 475 4th Street in Park Slope just hit the market for $2,995,000. It’s a gorgeous house in move-in condition with tons of original woodwork (and no recessed lighting!). It also feels like it’s priced as if it were a year ago. Frankly, we’ve got no idea how this will fly. It certainly is a nice enough place that a potential buyer could fall in love and just have to have it; on the other hand, we wouldn’t be surprised to see it ultimately fetch a couple hundred grand less. What do you think? There was an open house yesterday. Did anyone check it out?
475 4th Street [Brooklyn Bridge Realty] GMAP P*Shark
A few doors down, a similar house with center stair, in admittedly gut-reno (most details intact but little else worth salvaging,) sold for $1.7 just a few months ago.
The school across the street definitely factored into the price.
I purposely saw that one at 3pm on a weekday to see what the scene would be like. It was pretty rough. It wasn’t what ultimately turned me off to the building, the scale of the reno was, but I could see that being a major factor for a bidder of a nearly 3 million dollar property.
So, what’s with the anti-recessed lighting thing? I have no preference for or against them, but I don’t really get the disdain. Is it that they appear too modern, and people want to live in a house that looks like it did in the 19th century (clashes with original details)?
“(having sold some properties at the height, we can afford a house in the 2mil range) . . . The thing that gets me is that I bet the original buyers bought this for far, far less, so even if they sold for 2 mil, they’d probably be making a *very* nice profit.”
right, it’s fine for YOU to maximize your profit when selling a home, but not anyone else. or did you deliberately leave money on the table when you sold?
2:43–
So in other words, you are “a potential buyer for this kind of house”–except you don’t have enough money. So they should lower the price. Because they’ll probably make a big profit anyway! Otherwise they’re greedy!
LOL, CLASSIC Brownstoner post. Thanks for making my day.
Thank you 3:12.
Greed doesn’t come into the equation of what a house is worth. Except on Brownstoner.
I don’t know why people get so angry when they see asking prices they consider to be above market. Either a property is overpriced, in which case the seller needs to adjust their expectations, or it isn’t, in which case buyers need to adjust THEIR expectations.
“For a guy with over a million bucks in the bank, you sure are stupid.”
You just described most people on this blog, sadly.
2:43 said: “The thing that gets me is that I bet the original buyers bought this for far, far less, so even if they sold for 2 mil, they’d probably be making a *very* nice profit.”
I HATE when buyers make this nonsensical point. A house’s current market value and the owner’s basis are completely unrelated!!! Aaaaarrrgh!!!
Google’s stock is currently at $585. So if I bought my shares in 2005 at $200 I should be willing to sell my shares at less than $585 compared to someone that bought it yesterday at $572? No, of course not. BOTH sellers demand $585, the CURRENT market value.
You can argue all day if it’s WORTH $585 but don’t make foolish points like this.
For a guy with over a million bucks in the bank, you sure are stupid.
peak was summer 2005 except the prime areas( Park Slope and Brooklyn Heights). People who are overextended and purchased since then ae gonna get hurt
“I imagine you are talking about the house on Lincoln that closed in December or January? That means this house went in to contract at te height of the market…correct me if you are referring to another house.”
exsqueeze me??
if a home closed in jan. 2008, it means it probably went to contract in nov. 2007.
is THAT what we are saying the peak is now??
NOT 2005, as has been suggested here one million times.
interesting how the peak keeps getting later and later…
very interesting…