Prices Drop at the Oro Tower
The Oro, a condominium tower in Downtown that reached completion as the real estate boom went bust, is now cutting its prices by up to 25 percent to boost sales. Since the building’s marketing campaign launched two years ago, only 90 out of the 374 units have closed, reports Crain’s. The publication lists a studio’s…
The Oro, a condominium tower in Downtown that reached completion as the real estate boom went bust, is now cutting its prices by up to 25 percent to boost sales. Since the building’s marketing campaign launched two years ago, only 90 out of the 374 units have closed, reports Crain’s. The publication lists a studio’s current price as $295,000, while another three-bedroom goes for over $1 million, and Street Easy has an active one-bedroom listed for $539,000; you can see all of the listings here. What’s interesting is that in the Crain’s article the developer says that he has no interest in converting the empty units to rentals, as other buildings have done to remain afloat. “Oro has always been a condo building and we intend to keep it that way,” he said. Nevertheless, there are two active rental listings on Street Easy, a studio for $1,800 per month and a one-bedroom for $2,850, suggesting that a couple of the original buyers are feeling a little more open-minded on the rental question.
Condo Prices Slashed 25% at Big Brooklyn Tower [Crain’s] GMAP
Work Resuming at Oro Part Deux? [Brownstoner]
Oro at 306 Gold Street [StreetEasy]
I wonder too, but construction techniques today seem more streamlined. Although considering the Empire State Building went up in a little over a year, the old fashioned way, I have to wonder why with even the latest construction techniques and materials we take far longer and do it not as well.
In the interest of trying to complete construction projects before the r/e bust, I’m wondering how much attention was paid to structural safety and the overall quality of such construction. Some of these places went up pretty fast..hmmm.
you have to take another 10% off of Oro prices for the stupid name. If the boom had lasted another year, we’d be watching “The Dinero” go up. Two years and we’d be evaluating floor plans in the “The Check it, Homey”.
I am really torn on the mayoral issue. There’s a lot I like about Bloomberg and think he’s done well, and a lot I don’t. The term limits thing pissed me off, like ENY. For that reason I think he has been screaming raw ambition. People in power want to stay there. Thompson I really don’t know that much about and I need to do more research. One ting I do know- whomever we put in office is going to have to be strong, not weak or wishy washy. If we could only meld the two candidates 🙂
wow still 750 a foot. think they’ll sell?
southbrooklyn, what are those “obvious reasons” that we’re not supposed to want a rich guy in power? I’m not suggesting a House of Lords here, come on. Even if you don’t like some of the things Bloomberg does, why do you question his motives? Do you think he is in office to make his friends rich? That’s one I hear a lot about Corzine, Paulson, etc. If he wanted to make them rich, he could literally write them a check. He owns the entire city budget deficit 6 times over.
So why did he want to become mayor? I mean, he doesn’t scream “raw ambition” to me the way, say, Spitzer did. Does he to you? Is he such an ego maniac that he has to be in the public eye? No, of course not, he was actually a rather private businessman. If there is any ulterior motive, maybe he wants to run for president. otherwise why would he subject himself to NYC politics? Except one thing: maybe he actually wants to make a difference in the city and truly thinks he’s the best man for the job. So he wants to win the race, big deal. Give him the benefit of the doubt.
The equivlency is that – people gave/invested (ALOT) money with Bloomberg because they saw him as a good manager and someone whom they could trust….
you seem to be ignoring the fact that Bloomberg EARNED the money, just like Thompson earned union support or the backing of party officials.
Its not a question of “monetizing” relationships (these relationships are hardly “personal” in the conventional sense anyway), its a question of what measurement of success, credibility or power you use.
In politics you dont (or at least shouldnt) measure ‘success’ by dollars, you measure it by support/endorsements. In business you measure ‘success’ by dollars. Both are “capital” just one is money and the other is political and I dont see why spending one is ok and the other is not.
Or put another way, if Randi Weingarden was running for Mayor, would it be wrong for the teachers to campaign for her and man phone banks (or give $)
fsrq, not sure why you are harping on this question that you think is so brilliant — I don’t understand the equivalency you are making. Do you monetize all your relationships? But okay, here goes.
Let’s just say for the sake of argument that Bill Thompson has spent a career working hard in public service and in the course of that work has built up many relationships with many people who now know and trust him to do the right thing. Thus, they are eager to see him elected mayor and work hard for him.
Seems pretty different to me from buying an election.
If you are saying that Thompson uses political connections to make FINANCIAL promises then you are talking about corruption.
In arguing against a campaign system that encourages rich people to buy political office, I am in no way endorsing political corruption.
southbrooklyn –
AM I not asking a legitimate question??? I am trying to engage you in a reasonable discussion yet you just ignore the issue (why?), I know you want to discuss $ in politics “in general” and we might agree on its corrupting influences “in general” but I am trying to discuss a SPECIFIC issue which is…
How is Bloomberg spending his capital (in this case $) to further his political aspirations any different (or worse) from Thompson spending his capital (in this case political connections and relationships) to further his?