House of the Day: 465 13th Street
The three-story brownstone just hit the market on March 11 but it’s already received an insta-price cut from $1,775,000 to $1,650,000. The house appears to have its details in place but it comes off as a far more modest pad than, say, last Thursday’s House of the Day at 601 6th Street. And while it’s…
The three-story brownstone just hit the market on March 11 but it’s already received an insta-price cut from $1,775,000 to $1,650,000. The house appears to have its details in place but it comes off as a far more modest pad than, say, last Thursday’s House of the Day at 601 6th Street. And while it’s a million bucks cheaper than the 6th Street House, the asking price is only about $50 per square foot cheaper. Given the difference in location, condition and grandeur, we’d argue that 6th Street is a more attractive deal. That said, on an absolute level, this is a decent way for some family to get an attractive brownstone in the Slope for not crazy money.
465 13th Street [Susan Breen] GMAP P*Shark
Mopar – sorry but I have to disagree with your analysis of NYC prices. Of course, NYC will always be expensive relative to other parts of the country. But there’s a difference between paying 500K for a 2-3 BR apt (what you would pay a few short years ago) and 1 million, which is where things headed in the past few years. Outside of NYC, 500K is still a HELL of a lot of money (even for a whole house!), and still way more than NYC apartments cost in the bad old days. But the heights things reached, especially relative to stable metrics like Case-Shiller, clearly were out of whack, and THAT is why prices must go down (a lot) further. Prices will STILL be very expensive, *even* after big chops – just not absurd and gravity-defying, as they have been until recently.
“A relative of mine who lives in Brooklyn Heights and who pulls in about 1.5 a year has dramatically altered his family spending, not because they lost that much but because they simply have no way of knowing what the near future will bring.”
That’s for sure. It’s hard to buy a place when the self-employed have the most job security.
MM niocely clarifies the point I was trying to make. I’m not arguing that there are not people with loads of money out there. But those who would have spent 4M on a house are now thinking about 3M or less. A relative of mine who lives in Brooklyn Heights and who pulls in about 1.5 a year has dramatically altered his family spending, not because they lost that much but because they simply have no way of knowing what the near future will bring. So what seemed like a reasonable splurge now seems completely irresponsible. I think the lower prices in Biggest Sales shows that–people’s spending habits have changed and that includes real estate.
It would be fun to think about how much healthier the NYC economy would be if real estate costs weren’t pushing EVERYTHING to the extreme limits of reality…
Salaries could be lower – a more diverse set of companies could set up shop here, not just financial services and not everything would have to be *shipped into* the city because the source could be in Brooklyn, not Jersey.
Potentially more disposable income – of course this depends on a bunch of things… but if your housing didn’t squeeze you dry, you could spend it on stuff. Maybe actually enjoy the city you are paying the ‘premium’ for.
I just can’t think a city is healthy when salaries in the $40,000-$65,000 range pretty much means you’re living paycheck to paycheck and being pretty frugal along the way. You can’t tell me that’s healthy.
CW, that house in Bed Stuy looks really nice. How terrible the agent didn’t show up to the open house. I remember you saying that. I think we might go see it — if the agent shows up.
Raleigh Durham is a fantastic place to live. I would love to live there. My boyfriend recently moved from there so we have ties to the area. However, it would only be possible if I changed my profession and took a big pay cut. I might even have to go back to school, and pay for it, and there’s no guarantee I’d find a job.
As for the rest of you, I find it comical that everybody here is going through big-city sticker shock. This happened years ago in the Bay Area. I disagree houses are overpriced here. I think they were vastly underpriced for 20 years because of the problems in the 1970s, and now they’re coming up to level.
good bones = gut reno. Add another half mil.
NorthHeights – sure there are some buyers with “fat wallets” but there are fewer and fewer of them, and those wallets are getting thinner. I’m a case in point. I have cash but simply cannot spend as much of it on real estate now. My budget has simply changed since: 1) job security (both mine and my husband’s) is a bigger question mark for everyone, and 2) other financial areas in my life portfolio (retirement, college savings) have taken a huge hit. I work for a nonprofit and we are seeing that the really hard year in terms of funding is not 2009, but 2010, when lots of cash will have dried up. Given the market conditions, all indicators point to buyers in NYC becoming more cautious (not less), and sellers more motivated. I suspect the “Biggest Sales” feature in the not-too-distant will start to reflect prices going down much further – though that said, that feature has always been by definition about outliers. Much more telling will be the Open House 6 months later feature, which as we have seen her, IS showing a clear market decline.
Some would say that something is worth whatever someone is willing to pay at any given time.
I’m sure these ideas have been argued to death on here . . . I just thought I’d represent the free marketers for a moment.
Yes, there is a NYC premium, but bear in mind that property taxes and commuting costs are much lower here than in the suburbs – so you have to factor that in.