Last Week's Biggest Sales
Sweet premium on the Prospect Heights house. Aside from that, however, it was a pretty sluggish week, with no sales over $2 mil. 1. PROSPECT HEIGHTS $1,820,000 401 Park Place GMAP (left) Asking $1,695,000 when we had it as an open house pick in early March. 2,495-sf, 1-fam house. Deed recorded 6/19. 2. BOERUM HILL…
Sweet premium on the Prospect Heights house. Aside from that, however, it was a pretty sluggish week, with no sales over $2 mil.
1. PROSPECT HEIGHTS $1,820,000
401 Park Place GMAP (left)
Asking $1,695,000 when we had it as an open house pick in early March. 2,495-sf, 1-fam house. Deed recorded 6/19.
2. BOERUM HILL $1,725,000
233 Dean Street GMAP (right)
House originally listed in January for $1,750,000, according to Street Easy, and went into contract in mid-May. 3,780-sf, 4-fam. Deed recorded 6/18.
3. PARK SLOPE $1,485,000
172 Sterling Place, Unit 7 GMAP
3-bed, 3-bath last sold for $1,485,000 almost exactly a year ago, according to Street Easy. Deed recorded 6/17.
4. PARK SLOPE $1,400,000
70 8th Avenue, Unit 1 GMAP
3-bed, 2.5 bath originally listed for $1,595,000 last September, according to Street Easy. Deed recorded 6/20.
5. BOROUGH PARK $1,325,000
1552 55th Street GMAP
2,640-sf, 2-fam house. Deed recorded 6/20.
Photos from Property Shark.
You are comparing new housing to 100 year old brownstones?
ooookkkkk
Re equilibrium = construction price.
Of course, equilibrium can easily be BELOW construction costs indefinitely (e.g., Grand Army Plaza, 1930-2006). But if prices are above construction costs, builders will build more until supply=demand=costs. That’s just Econ 101.
Re equilibrium = construction costs. Builder’s normal profit should be included as a construction cost.
Land is harder: in a bubble, land values inflate, too (see Lloyd George). Mason Mint paid $500, if I remember correctly. As the bubble pops, land costs should drop to reflect their next most profitable use rather than speculation (parking lot? community garden? rent-controlled wreck?).
Still, 2:10’s numbers, which are not far off, suggest about $600 / sft to build new housing. That suggests a drop of about 1/3 from current sales prices in the fancy neighborhoods. Otherwise, it’ll continue to be profitable to build more.
2:19
True.
I don’t have the link, but there was a vanity site for the property by a broker from Heights Berkeley . Something like 708thave.com
When we went to see the apt, the ask was $1.695mm. The apt. was already on the market for several weeks and already reduced. The broker, a younger guy, was giving us his math for a $2mm valuation. He readily admitted that he didn’t know how to value the unit and said to “make an offer”.
2:03 – nope. no rent control/stabilization.
“The original ask for $1.9mm.”
Not true. Please show us.
I don’t know how one of the posts can come to the conclusion that equilibrium = constuction costs. Any developer who builds a house is going to need to buy land ($150-200 per buildable foot) incur soft and hard construction costs (say $350 psf combined) and will expect to make a profit (say 20%). On average, if developers don’t expect profit, they won’t build the house.
Anyone know if any of the tenants in the Dean Street house were stabilized or controlled. Curious to know if the closing price was impacted by anything like that.
The 3BR on 8th Ave in PS is not a large apartment — maybe 1400 sq ft — and its finishings and fixtures were not top of the line (or even “upscale”). It is also not zoned for 321.
Its value was driven by (inflated by?): a) outdoor space, b)architecturally significant building, c) low maintenance. Still, I thought it would ultimately go for $1.1 or $1.2mm.
Bear in mind, $1.5mm was the latest asking price. The original ask for $1.9mm. And it lingered on the market for months.
In other words, this sale is not a sign of a “healthy” market, but a slightly more rational market.