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 know a couple who bought in 2008. A townhouse in Clinton Hill. $3 million. Not even one of the nice ones. In 2020 they sold for 20 x as much. To a junior associate at a Wall Street law firm making double what he makes today, but with a really good mortgage broker. He’s paying 15 x his monthly income in interest, but it doesn’t matter because he’ll just roll over the debt until he sells to a European.
The plural of fictional anecdote is — data. Trees do grow to reach the sky, at least if they don’t fall over. NYC is different, and it’s all because of the liberals at the NY Times.
“regressive” in a mathematical sense perhaps. But why should people pay social security above the limit for which they get no benefit from? Are you suggesting raising social security benefits available to those who paid in more also? Otherwise that wouldn’t be fair either would it?
People with incomes of 35K a year pay income tax per dollar earned than people earning 80K. How is that fair? Why should the dollar one person earns be worth 80 cents why the dollar the next joe earns be only worth 70 cents?
The only sense of fairness with taxes that people have is “if you are earning more than me not only should you pay a greater amount of tax, you should also pay a greater percentage of your income as tax.”
That has nothing to do with fairness.
3:43, you’re right. Because no one’s ever gotten rich investing in the stock market.
3:26 — I’m not sure about the “rich”. Perhaps they do pay more than others in social security.
However, people who actually have large incomes pay a lower percentage with each extra dollar they earn. And nothing at all on unearned income. That’s called regressive taxation and it is not fair.
renters are so stupid.
really. if this thread didn’t prove that, i don’t know what does.
they are in such denial it’s ridiculous. not to mention incredibly self righteous and bitter.
i know a couple who bought in 1996 for 400K and just sold in Jan. 2008 for 8 million. A townhouse on the upper west side. not even one of the super fancy ones.
please go back to playing with legos. this game is for the big boys.
if you think that from now on you are going to make big money on your 2% a year interest wamu account or the stock market, you are SADLY mistaken.
Westchester sucks. That’s why NYC rents are triple rents there.
Lots of people want to buy. That doesn’t mean lots of them are going to have enough income to convince bankers to lend them the money to buy over-priced property.
Buffett paid a modest and sensible price for his Omaha house. He bought his California property at the bottom of the last crash and sold at the top of the bubble. He is not the poster boy for faith-based-investing.
You need to invest to make money in investments. But that doesn’t mean — except for Dave — that by taking stupid uncompensated risks you will make money.
3:15 — I have some tech stocks to sell you. Also, some real estate in a really hot boom town in Nevada. And a nice house in a solid and beautiful area of Newark or Brooklyn c. 1967.
Long run, NY prices are basically flat with inflation, just as everywhere — just look at Shiller’s charts, the only actual evidence on this.
Of course, in the long run few people buy at prices that are double fundamental value. Those folks need to save a very long time to make up for their mistake.