oro-100709.jpgThe 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]


What's Your Take? Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

  1. To be a good mayor of NYC one needs to be a semi-tyrant.
    This isn’t a little town in the country where you can build concensus around lunch at the local diner.
    The best thing about Bloomberg is that he is beholding to no one and the worst thing is that he is beholding to no one.

  2. I think the logic goes the other way. the weathier a public servant is, the harder it is to bribe him. you think bloomberg cares about $10K in an unmarked envelope from a developer? nope. but you’ve got wise-guys in the DOB scamming as hard as they can to get their income up from 40K to 90K. You WANT the rich guy running the city.

    anyway — back to the point. streeteasy shows 750/ft for the listings in the Oro. 25% sold in 2 years? how can these experts not see the meier building selling for 600/foot? they must have patient bankers.

  3. No no, you are mixing the issues (and your point)

    You said BLOOMBERGS spending has distorted democracy, Bloomberg is running a self-financed campaign – this is practically the OPPOSITE of Congress being “bought and paid for” and the giveaways in legislation such as Medicare Part D.
    The issues raised their is quid-pro-quo or “pay-to-play” (of which Bill Thompson has much to be ashamed of -if not indicted for), ie. the allegation is – we (big money interest) finance your campaign and then when you get into office, you give back to us.

    Bloomberg’s spending is NOTHING like that.

    So I ask you again….How is Bloomberg spending his capital (in this case $) to further his political aspirations any different from Thompson spending his capital (in this case political connections and relationships) to further his?

  4. Oh, wow, fsrq, if you are unconcerned about how money distorts democracy, you really haven’t been paying attention.

    How campaigns are financed is the single biggest issue facing American democracy.

    On the specific local situation, do you think it’s healthy to have a mayor whom no one dares criticize because he is extremely rich and powerful, and because so rich, will continue to be very powerful after he is no longer mayor?

    On the broader question of money and democracy, have you noticed that Congress is a bought and paid for subsidiary of corporate America? Ever taken a look at the Medicare Part D legislation? Big pharma bought themselves a real nice piece of real estate right there. Wait until health care “reform” passes — you’ll see some gigantic bennies for the insurance industry there.

    Democrats, Republicans — they won’t be different enough until we truly reform campaign finance.

  5. “It’s a serious distortion of democracy”

    How may I ask?

    Bloomberg spent his whole life (up till 2000) working in business, he amassed his money legally, and now he is using the product of his life work ($) to advance his political aspirations?

    Bill Thompson has spent his whole life working in politics, he has amassed political connections through his work. He is now using this product (political connections) to advance his political aspirations.

    Whats the difference? why is it ok for Thompson to use the connections and relationships he has (while working for the people I might add), but it is not okay for Bloomberg to use his money?

1 5 6 7 8 9