65 central Brooklyn condos in or near financial distress

Interesting article, nyc10022 thanks for the addition.

Not trying to brew an ongoing argument but why W'Burg was not listed as a neighborhood in distress?

I would like to see a list of all 65 developments.

fyi!

http://curbed.com/archives/2009/08/28/survey_65_brooklyn_buildings_send_out_an_sos.php#reader_comments

how is one hanson on that list i thought they were at least 70 percent sold. has the developer been lying?

samadams,

From stories I've heard, developers will continue to lie.

fyi!

"Not trying to brew an ongoing argument but why W'Burg was not listed as a neighborhood in distress?"

W'Burg not listed because:

"Assemblyman Hakeem Jeffries has counted around 65 market-rate buildings in his district (District 57, which includes Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, Bedford-Stuyvesant, Crown Heights, and Prospect Heights) that are "financially troubled or on the verge of distress."

Plus, NY magazine did a cover story on the WB distress... so it would be a bit redundant.

> From stories I've heard, developers will continue to lie.

Developers have been lying quite some time.

2 years ago, 110 livingston was "100% sold". Was a lie, they had more apartments to offer and ended up having to rent some out. And its not the first or only building.

Pretty much par for the course.

good catch, though, mutombo

fyi!

http://www.brownstoner.com/brownstoner/archives/2009/08/raining_on_the.php#comments

nyc10022,

What NY magazine did a cover story on the W'Burg distress?

I applaud Mr. Jeffries for his efforts.

Mutombonyc

Wow, what a GREAT find! Thanks!

nyc10022 & Fayek,

Thanks a million :o).

From the NYT:

"Update | 1:31 p.m. Assemblyman Jeffries’ office now says that the list of buildings referred to below is NOT a list of financially troubled buildings but a simply a list of new market-rate residential buildings in his district, some of which are troubled. More details soon."

Huge whoops.

Yeah, big whoops whoops. The developers who paid him off are pissed that their troubles were noted. Now he's begging them for mercy and "correcting" himself.

bjw does certainly know about backtracking!

is the richard meier development on the list?

bjw, there's also a strong likelihood that someone leaked the list, and they're trying for some damage control.

"The list of properties includes a number of high-profile new developments, such as the glass-wrapped, 30-unit condo at 525 Clinton Ave., dubbed The Collection; and the 63-unit Isabella at 545 Washington Ave. in Clinton Hill. Both developments are completed but unoccupied, according to the survey. There are 10 active listings at the Isabella, according to Streeteasy.com, while there are no sales listings at The Collection.

The Collection is in early stages of being foreclosed upon by their lenders, while the Isabella is completed and remains vacant, according to Mr. Jeffries. Karnusa Equities, the developer of The Collection, and the OL Washington, the developer of the Isabella, could not be reached immediately for comment. "

Yes, no trouble here! Ignore what I said!

Toren is on the list.....150 Myrtle

ouch!

the truth may or may not be somewhere in between. crain's published an update, obviously at the request of the assemblyman's office. i still think it was a cya act.

The list of 65 residential buildings included properties that are financially sound but struggling to sell out remaining units. That was misstated in the original article published Aug. 27, 2009.

aboutready, it is certainly possible, but just dismissing that out of hand is a bit paranoid, no? There's no doubt some (most?) of those are in trouble, but there's no real way to confirm that. Sometimes people do make reporting errors, and in the internet age, it doesn't surprise me that those errors spread pretty fast and become "truthiness." That's the whoops I was talking about, though nyc seems to have taken it a bit more personally.

The Meier development is not on the list, but it seems to be outside the area being highlighted here. This really does seem to be a list of all the developments in the area.

I have emailed Andy Newman from the local at the NYT and this was his reply!

THE LIST IS WRONG. disregard it. It's a list of new residential buildings in Jeffries' district. Nothing more, nothing less. The Crain's story we linked to was totally wrong.

Andy

On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Fkohn wrote:

Andy,

I am curious if this list has been verified and is credible...If it is..Thanks a million for the great contribution!

I will now add the local to my daily reading regiment!

Faye Kohn

fayek, that makes me more suspicious, not less. it's inconsistent with Crain's correction. crain's may or may not have gotten it wrong in the first place, but then they posted a correction. and it indicated that all of the buildings were tagged as having difficulties selling, if not being on the verge of collapse.

bjw, it would be almost all of the developments listed, so it is unlikely that they are all collapsing. but Toren, for example, was included and it isn't usually included in the neighborhoods listed. i don't have the wherewithal to check and see if some of the listings cross over into other neighborhoods, but if it does it would increase the likelihood. and what about 1 GAP? isn't that in prospect heights? and i don't see it on the list. but who knows.

aboutready

Given the dynamic of the economy I was "not" surprised by the number 65 condos in trouble! any condo selling out in this market is an ENIGMA!

Seems like the media trying to mitigate the story.

i was only surprised because if you added up the number of listings for the neighborhoods you got about 65. but some, of course, haven't started selling, and i didn't think about that. i was only thinking that at least a couple of developments in those areas started early enough to have done OK. silly me.

any condo which began closings this year and is 60% sold is pretty much a miracle, regardless of location.

aboutready, yeah, it's tough to know. 1 GAP is Prospect Heights, but I don't see anything here that's east of Washington. Most of this looks like Crown Heights, Clinton Hill, and Bed-Stuy I think.

Nice article guys. Thank you. So there is a big chance many of these units will turn into affordable housing and all these neighbourhood will start deteriorating. Pretty sad but that's what happens with over capacity.

i had some issues with the cutesy be@ concept. but really, what self respecting person buys in a new development that's named "hello living." and they did 9 of them. someone with a large collection of hello kitty items to display?

http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/building/904-pacific-street-brooklyn

"the truth may or may not be somewhere in between. crain's published an update, obviously at the request of the assemblyman's office. i still think it was a cya act"

i think thats it.

I have a feeling this was also his targets list for "sell me some cheap apartments". Even if something isn't about to have its loan come due, I'd still consider mostly unsold troubled in this market.

and it's not on the list. and it's in the 'hood.