Last Week's Biggest Sales
A couple interesting sales of large condos in historic brownstones this week. 1. BROOKLYN HEIGHTS $4,500,000 42 Garden Place GMAP (left) Four-story, two-family, 3,420-sf brownstone in the Brooklyn Heights Historic District. StreetEasy shows the pricing history was thus: Listed for $4,950,000 in September; price reduced to $4,600,000 in December; went into contract in February. Deed…
A couple interesting sales of large condos in historic brownstones this week.
1. BROOKLYN HEIGHTS $4,500,000
42 Garden Place GMAP (left)
Four-story, two-family, 3,420-sf brownstone in the Brooklyn Heights Historic District. StreetEasy shows the pricing history was thus: Listed for $4,950,000 in September; price reduced to $4,600,000 in December; went into contract in February. Deed recorded 4/29.
2. DUMBO $2,240,000
100 Jay Street/J Condo GMAP (right)
Another big closing at J Condo, which has made it into the top sales roundup a couple of times in the past few months. Sale was of unit 31A. Deed recorded 5/2.
3. COBBLE HILL $2,050,000
249 Degraw Street GMAP
This 4-bed, 3.5-bath, 2,780-sf condo was marketed as a four-level loft. Per StreetEasy, the property went on the market in October and was listed at $2,450,000; it went into contract in January. Deed recorded 5/2.
4. COBBLE HILL $2,000,000
37 Tompkins Place GMAP
It appears that someone wanted this two-floor, 4-bed, 2-bath, 1850-sf condo pretty badly: StreetEasy shows it being listed at $1,750,000 in late February and going into contract within a few weeks. Deed recorded 5/2.
5. CLINTON HILL $1,725,000
282 DeKalb Avenue GMAP
This Romanesque Revival house was asking $2,200,000 when featured as a House of the Day in November. A commenter on the thread last fall more or less hit the nail on the head: “I would fear that this place is extremely dark inside because there is a building right next to it. I could see $1.75 at max.” Deed recorded 4/29.
Photo of 42 Garden from Property Shark; photo of J Condo by the real janelle.
I’m fine with removing the social secuity cap, as long as you make all other federal taxes flat taxes too. Thats fair right?
“if you are earning lots of money you are getting more of the benefits the government provides”
If you earn 100K (35% tax bracket, hauge NYC and city taxes and health insurance costs) with a kid and rent in NYC, like many do, you are getting considerably less benefits from the government than someone earning 25k with a kid in NYC who basically pays no tax and gets EIC and medicare access.
Go ahead and explain your pulled-out-of-your-hat theory how the person on 100k gets more?
And why is it “of course its fair” that those people should pay a greater percentage? Its not fair, it plain flies in the face of the idea of fairness that different people should be treated differently.
Oh, I didn’t realize that fairness is the same as brute force.
Oh, you’re right, 4:03. That’s how Buffett made all his money, by listening to Daveinbedstuy and the guy whose friends sold their $8 million townhouse. He wasn’t foolish enough to think he could make money by investing in the stock market.
Why are the posts that make the least sense the quickest to call others stupid/idiotic/liberal/bitter? Is this a general blog phenomenon or something special about Brownstoner?
3:53 what are you talking about? I thought Warren Buffett became the second richest guy in the world by buying a house in Omaha.
scrapping the social security cap would amount to the biggest payroll tax increase in memory. The amount of political donations it would generate to subsequently push through privatization or contracting out of the social security system would be millions because people earning over 100K would have so much to lose. Sure remove the cap, but before long say bye bye to ss as you know it now. I know a bevy of liberal professionals who are aghast that Obama even mentioned the idea, they’re all voting for Hilary.
Actually, if you are earning lots of money you are getting more of the benefits the government provides, especially the conditions for making all that money. And if you are making lots of money in NYC, you are getting governmental money rather directly, though the regulation that makes the financial markets possible and the subsidies and bailouts that keep it afloat, and through the trickle-down from the genuine welfare queens who extract their percentage as the money flows through Wall Street. So of course you should pay more, in both absolute and percentage terms.
In any event, there is that little free market aspect of diminishing marginal utility. The billionth dollar of salary is never going to be worth as much as the first. That’s why the overpaid guys whine so much about how much more they need to be subsidized to work a full day.
Let’s follow 3:43’s brilliant logic: because his friends got really rich buying near the bottom of the market in 1996 and selling at the top of the market in 2008, everyone should therefore buy at the top of the market.
Sensible advice. Of course, if 3:43 is right, and the period from 1996-2008 tells us what’s going to happen in the future, his friends’ townhouse is going to be worth $160 million in 2020.
Makes you wonder why they were stupid enough to sell it this year.