Multiple Price Cuts for Heights Houses
Not even Brooklyn Heights, the bluest chip in the borough, is proving immune to the pressures of a weakening market. Exhibit 1: Three of the lower-priced houses on the market in the area have recently had to undergo price reductions in their bids to find buyers. The most surprising of these, in our opinion, is…
Not even Brooklyn Heights, the bluest chip in the borough, is proving immune to the pressures of a weakening market. Exhibit 1: Three of the lower-priced houses on the market in the area have recently had to undergo price reductions in their bids to find buyers. The most surprising of these, in our opinion, is 72 Middagh, a 3,450-square-foot former school house with its own parking that recently underwent a pitch-perfect renovation. This one started out three months ago at $2,995,000 and was just cut to $2,895,000. The historic colonnade of 47 Willow Place was not enough to reel in a buyer at the initial asking price of $3,450,000, so after just five weeks, it too had its price trimmed to $3,200,000. These two cuts follow the unsuccessful efforts of a succession of brokers to unload the suburban-modern carriage house at 43 Love Lane. Brown Harris Stevens, Stribling and Halstead gave it a go for most of last year, starting at an original asking price of $3,500,000. Coldwell Banker took over in February at $2,995,000. With no better luck, they cut the asking price to $2,745,000 at the end of April. Where’s the bottom on this stuff?
72 Middagh Street [Corcoran] GMAP
47 Willow Place [Corcoran] GMAP
43 Love Lane [Coldwell Banker] GMAP
House of the Day: 43 Love Lane [Brownstoner]
HOTD: Love Lane Buyer, Wherefore Art Thou? [Brownstoner]
House of the Day: 72 Middagh Street [Brownstoner]
House of the Day: 47 Willow Place [Brownstoner]
Hey 3.18 – you kids must love living in your mini-sized house inside the real house. How darling.
But at some point you’ll need to grow up.
I agree with everyone to say that these price cuts reflect really aggressive pricing more than weakness in the market. I live nearby, and almost choked when I saw the $3.1m asking price for the Orange St. house — with gut reno necessary? Are you kidding? The others seem similarly overpriced — I think sellers have a hard time letting go of 2005 pricing, and that they may not recover on their reno costs. I’m just happy not to be selling now.
3.18 – I don’t rent, and I don’t let parts of my own house to strangers. But you go ahead.
I don’t want anyone else living in my house thats for sure! Might as well go condo if you can’t afford the mortgage.
4:07 is right. Larger brownstones in Park Slope are now priced so high that you are way better off financially to buy a smaller house or a condo, and not have a tenant. How much does $3,000 rent per month really go towards the mortgage loan to buy the nearly $1K per square foot rental duplex? The math doesn’t make sense.
I really think either prices will slow down and level off soon, or there will be a transition towards the big brownstones going one-family again and selling to much more wealthy people than the average (and already well off) Park Sloper we see now. Those really high income bracket people don’t do tenants. They aren’t into it.
The idea of having a tenant in your home is a good one. Helps pay for things. Some one else to look over things, etc. The problem recently is that these houses have become priced like income-producing properties making tenants a necessity rather than an option. That’s what I don’t like. When you absolutely need a tenant to make ends meet, not just to make things a little easier, I think the formula is off. You are then sort of trapped in another job (landlord) or you will go broke. That is very differnet from the posters who claim that their entire morgage is covered by the rent. They must have bought their house years ago when it made sense. Today, these houses are financial albatrosses for all but the very wealthiest among us.
“but it seems most people on here buying brownstones end up renting out two or three floors – so they only live in the equivalent of one apartment anyway. lame.”
Yeah…someone else paying your mortgage is really lame.
2:09 here again.
My house is a single family, so landlording is not an issue. I like having the entire house for the family now, but expect that the potential income from renting out an apartment or two would look really good 10-15 years from now. In that respect, I sometimes lament not buying a multi-family house. As your mortgage balance gets paid down over time, the rental income keeps growing and you get to the point where you literally have no cost for your housing. That’s very attractive at retirement time.
With regard to tenants, it can go either way. I guess owner’s can get tenants from hell. On the other hand, I know I rented a duplex in a Brownstone for 10 years and that my landlord and I got along great. It was nice to have someone to look after our respective places when either of us was away on vacation etc. I kind of miss that. We get house sitters now instead.
“i just can’t see how it’s a superior way to live.”
no one ever said it was. it is superior for those of us who choose to do so.
you go do your thing and we can do ours.
see how this country works??