Price on Former HOTD Slashed Almost 20%
Thanks to a reader who brought to our attention the fact that the price at 899 Union Street has been slashed $500,000 in the aftermath of last month’s post questioning why the house was priced $300,000 more than a very similar house in better condition down the block. Don’t get us wrong, though: This house…
Thanks to a reader who brought to our attention the fact that the price at 899 Union Street has been slashed $500,000 in the aftermath of last month’s post questioning why the house was priced $300,000 more than a very similar house in better condition down the block. Don’t get us wrong, though: This house is a real beauty in a prime location. We’d be surprised if it didn’t move quickly at this price. It’s also interesting to look at in comparison to yesterday’s HOTD on St. Marks for $2.3 million.
899 Union Street [Corcoran] GMAP P*Shark
Does Not Compute on Union Street [Brownstoner]
Oh brother! You’re misreading me completely. I said nothing about Brownstoner’s personal real estate pursuits whatsoever. Frankly, that’s none of my business.
Yes, I do think that this site is interested in undermining the trajectory of the Brooklyn market – why else have they initiated a gazillion threads stating that particular properties are “overpriced”. That’s not neutral language – so it’s naive to call it mere dessimination of information for the good of the free market. It’s pushing an agenda of price containment and using this blog to further that agenda.
I merely question the value of such agenda. Why is that so pernicious?
Hey Ed Expletive,
Here’s the sum total of what you have, “contributed” to this thread. Basically you’ve accused Mr. B. of trying to undercut the value of Brooklyn properties. And then insinuated it was so that he could then afford to buy a brownstone in Brooklyn. This, DESPITE THE FACT THAT HE OWNS A BROWNSTONE IN BROOKLYN!
You just don’t make one lick of sense. I mean, that’s even ignoring the deeper substance of what you’re saying which is that the housing market is better off with less information. That markets would function better the less people knew. AND it ignores the reality of this entire blog. Mr. B. does not post things vindictively. He posts things that interest him, and, by the amount of traffic, I guess interest others. But it’s never malicious. And if you want to impute any sort of agenda I would say, if anything, it is the promotion of Brooklyn Brownstone living, not the degragation of it.
Sorry you asked? Or do you have some other smart-assed comment to make, pendejo?
—————————–
I wouldn’t be proud in the least if I used my clout as a frequently read blog to help devalue Brooklyn.
What has been gained, really?
Posted by: Ed at May 16, 2006 01:09 PM
Is there room for lower-middle-income folks in Manhattan?
Posted by: Ed at May 17, 2006 12:20 AM
If you want to afford an area that has become prime real estate, you have to start looking for middle-income housing.
The solution is not devalue brownstones.
Posted by: Ed at May 17, 2006 12:23 AM
Who is the troll who keeps addressing me personally with trashy, empty comments? I know I probably read you to filth in the past for co-opting my identity, but would you mind trying to contribute to this blog in a valuable way please?
Posted by: Ed at May 17, 2006 03:52 PM
Stop, Ed. Let it go already- we don’t need anymore threads being ruined or people dropping out because we can’t stay on topic.
“Your comments on this thread have been empty, vacuous, and devoid of reason. They deserved no better in reply.”
How about backing your argument, pendejo.
Ideally,(and sadly, probably not in this reality) most neighborhoods would be a mixture of incomes and occupations, especially in Brooklyn. The most vibrant neighborhoods are those with a variety of all kinds of people with all kinds of occupations. I don’t think we as adults or especially as children are well served by being around nothing but rich people, or nothing but poor people, or nothing but whatever income in between. The same goes for racial, ethnic and religious groups. When the world works right, we all learn so much from each other, and all benefit.
On the flip side, when we feel that we are entitled to whatever we want, including neighborhoods, just because we have money, and our *I have mine, screw you, there’s always East New York* attitude is the song of the day, we’ve really gotten off the path.
I never have said, and don’t believe, that we can all live where we want- that’s absurd. As is linus’ rather obnoxious “Goodness Committee”. To say that teachers, firefighters, cab drivers, and thousands of other kinds of workers should have the opportunity to either stay in or move into more central parts of Bklyn, should be one of those Duh! moments – so obvious that one shouldn’t even have to say it. There shouldn’t have to be set-asides, or special buildings, or laws passed, or some kind of housing apartheid. There should be quality housing, both old and new, for high, middle and low income levels available in most of Brooklyn. I don’t see that happening, but that should be a goal to work for, not a further excuse for the status quo.
I guess I don’t see too many cab drivers making a job out of rescuing people. I’ve been thrown out of too many cabs because they didn’t feel like crossing the Brooklyn Bridge to be sympathetic.
Ed,
p.s. Don’t put up nonsense posts and they cry foul when you get nonsense in return. It really does smack of the children who killed their parents and then cried mercy on the court because they were orhpans.
Ed Ed Ed,
Your comments on this thread have been empty, vacuous, and devoid of reason. They deserved no better in reply.
But to contribute to the debate, in the discussion on teachers/firemen/police officers/etc. being priced out of markets, I read some time ago about a hitch that developed once it came out that a developer had misrepresented. Apparently he had received a special zoning waiver from the city to build larger housing under the condition that some or all of it (I forget which, but it was a defined %age) be sold to teachers. And then once he obtained his permit, he built large, and sold to whoever wanted to pay.
So, the city is attempting somewhat to deal with the issue. There was also a bit about inclusionary zoning a couple of years back that I’m not sure where exactly it went. Also, New York does offer new teachers up to $14,000 to defray housing expenses.
However, before we do turn all maudlin, it does bear keeping in mind that neither police officer nor firefighter is as dangerous of a job as being a cab driver (you can look it up). But nobody ever makes noises about honoring them or worry about what part of town they get shuffled off to.
But, the broader point about affordable housing is a meritous one and a salient fact that makes the housing market pricing definitely seem out of whack. That, for all the brouhaha over housing as an investment and a market and your livelihood if you’re a broker, at the end of the day housing is a place to live. And if your places to live are too expensive for the people who you have to live there, then you’re going to have a problem.
Linus- I don’t think that Brower Park was saying anyone deserves to live wherever they want. But they are saying that there has to be some way of being fair- no one wants to live in a falling down apartment with roaches and the ceiling hanging down, in a neighborhood that is marginal, and lacking amenities. But as gentrification spreads, it seems the folks with money seem to think on they deserve to line in beautiful neighborhoods and tough on the rest of us. We should just get out the way quietly, without complaining, so as not to hurt your property investments. Which are driving us out. Somehow there has to be a middle ground. And as far as firefighters, cops and teachers- we all depend on them. They deserve more money, but some kind of housing program set up for them would be good too. Amalgamated Housing was originally set up for teachers, and one of the buildings was going to be for firefighters. The City used to do this to help them. And they deserve it.