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.
Dave, you constantly chatter on on these boards about how much you know, and how only you understand the markets, and so on. Yet when it comes to the stock market, you seem to think that because the stock market has been down for a year and a half, that makes it a bad investment going forward, when of course it makes it a much better investment. You’re recommending that people buy real estate at the top of the market. You’re saying things like “NYC has become a magnet” for the rest of the US, when in fact population growth in the city has been minuscule — well below half a percent a year — since 2000.
You keep talking about the currency trade as if no one else understands your brilliance. I understand that if you buy property when the dollar is 1.5 to the euro, and the dollar strengthens, you’re richer even if the property doesn’t appreciate — but you only reap the benefits of that when you convert the dollars back into euros — by selling the property. And the question was, and is, where is the infinite supply of buyers for $2 million Manhattan condos coming from?
Dave, everything you say about Brooklyn real estate is exactly what people said in January of 2000 about technology stocks: things are different this time, history doesn’t matter, only people who don’t understand economics are afraid to invest, the bears are just bitter about having missed the boat. So again, keep believin’. You know and everyone else doesn’t.
I am well aware that 2:37 is an idiot. And I agree with you Dave…I wish people would be more fiscally responsible at a young age also. It has to do with upbringing, I think. My parents taught me well.
I do not expect that Social Security will last until the time that I retire, so I’d like to take that into consideration now by trying to create a financial base for myself as I get older.
I think it’s terrifying to think about living here (or anywhere) in old age and still be renting and be subject to yearly rent increases on a fixed income. People who rent always give the excuse that they are socking all that extra money they’d be spending on a house into their savings instead.
And you know what I say to that…YOU’RE LYING! Most renters, if they had enough saved would buy a place, but the fact of the matter is that most people in this country do not save anything. Owners included.
So I don’t buy the argument that renting means you have all this extra money saved. Where is it then? The only people I know who have money are ones who either own a house, are saving up to buy a house, or the remote case of someone who really does save and plans to be a lifelong renter (very rare).
Owning a home has allowed me the opportunity to become MORE fiscally responsble, not less. It put me on a budget where I know each and every month (for the next 30 years if I like, that I will never pay more than 1300 a month. Now, of course I will move to a bigger place one day, but you get the point…). Owning property has enhanced my life by feeling more a part of the neighborhood and city and it also makes me feel proud to have accomplished it.
2:04 won’t catch Warren Buffett buying condos that are priced at twice fundamental value. He sells at those prices.
2:13 — if you want to get hired by those Europeans for a clerical position, you’ll need to learn the difference between subject and object. “Us Americans” are going to be subjects of the educated and treated like objects.
Sorry 3:04…wrong again…the only thing that would ever stop people from buying is if the mortgage deductibility goes away. If you want to have a discussion on that you’d better get to sleep early before you say someting ridiculous again
The problems with Social Security — mainly that the tax supporting it is unfairly capped out so that the rich don’t pay their share — was caused by people like Dave and his heroes.
Save a little, gamble a little, luck into a bubble and think that your affluence is all because you deserve it and no one else does.
2:43 is happy to give his savings away because he calls it “equity” and thinks it is going to grow. But chances are better that it will shrink.
When enough people actually read their Econ books instead of calling other people idiots, there will be fewer willing to make 2:43’s decision.
And that will really be better for the country, because it means that real estate will be for living in instead of buying and selling; prices will come down to a level that reflects the actual costs of building; we will be able to have conversations about architecture instead of prices, and so on.
“But at a certain price point, the suburbs start looking like a better deal.”
Not for the growing number of people who give two rats asses about the environment, it doesn’t…
Gas has doubled in the past 7 years also.
Do you see people not buying that anymore either??
Where’s the car price to gas ratio here? Seems a little out of whack also, but life keeps on truckin.
Pun intended.
At the **peak** of the last boom it cost, after-tax, essentially the same to buy as rent. Now — it costs double.
So, rentals will convert to owner occupied and rehabs and new condos will go up, until supply meets demand meets costs meets alternative uses.
Rents have to go up or prices come down until they are equivalent and no higher than production costs. That’s what equilibrium means in Econ 101. Right Dave?
Urbanization or safe streets can’t rescue this market. Rents already reflect the attractiveness of NYC. For rents to go up more, either NYC needs to become more attractive, or incomes need to go up. But at a certain price point, the suburbs start looking like a better deal.