NY Times article, living in Fieldston, the Bronx
Started by sloperaly
almost 14 years ago
Posts: 49
Member since: Aug 2007
Discussion about
I thought it vaguely amusing when I read this living in Fieldston the Bronx article in the NY Times this weekend. It says: "Resident Barbara Muhlfelder moved to Fieldston in 1979, when she and her husband, Tom, paid about $130,000 for a Gothic Revival-style home with three bedrooms and three baths. She estimated that her house was worth about $1 million now." Technically if she purchased with 130K that year and lived almost anywhere else in Brownstone Brooklyn, (also landmarked)her value would be in the multi millions, like 3+ mill... and she'd have been in a much more accessible area and could buy 3 of her houses by now. Most of BB was gorgeous even then and is “as beautiful now as it was 30 years ago” too.
Most of "Brownstone Brooklyn" was a shooting range in 1979. Perhaps they valued their family's safety over any potential payout 30 years later.
Uh yeah, what Matt said. Having grown up in the area and in the time referred to, it was not in the least comparable. about that time the NYT had put out a graphic of crime (by precinct I think it was). Black to white with shades of grey in between. 96th st. on the East side was stark in that it was clear white below 96th and one of the darkest shades above (no racist connotations intended). Much of the city was shades of grey, much of it darker. The only white areas were the UES, Manhattan Beach, a neighborhood or two of Queens and Riverdale.
Plus, the schools were good, the private schools were right there (and not as expensive as today as compared with wages) and the nabe (Fieldston) was pretty gorgeous though the road was quite pitted since it is a private community and the city was not responsible.
there are lots of things she could have done with a 130k in 1979 that would have gotten her a better return, not really sure why you zero in on buying a brownstone in brooklyn. In 1979 130k could have bought quite a nice place in manhattan, for instance. what a silly comment.
I think the OP misses the point that in 1979 Fieldston was "prime". One of the two nicest parts of Riverdale, which was at, a very unsafe time in NY, one of the few truly safe neighborhoods in NY. (Along with the UES and out of the way neighborhoods like Manhattan Beach.) The schools were decent and the private schools were plentiful and reasonable by today's standards. There were all the same options for travel into the city as there are now (subway, metro north, express bus) with the plus that you could use a car as well, traffic was not as bad then into the city as it is now. And anything in Fieldston is a reasonable walk to the subway.
As prime it just wasn't going to improve in price the way Brooklyn would. But it was quite livable.
Heck, I bet 130k would have bought a classic 7 on the UWS in some buildings. But in 1979 it would still be a while before the UWS was prime. Some blocks yes, but not as a neighborhood.
Keep in mind also that prior to about the mid-80s, one of the other reasons why NYC co-ops were so relatively "cheap" is because banks were not yet extending mortgages on them, essentially forcing most all co-ops to be cash purchases -- and greatly reducing the potential pool of buyers.
If I wanted to live in the suburbs that bad I'd move to a nice suburb. This tiny trapped nothing of a neighborhood holds little to admire other than it's close proximity to Manhattan and outragiously priced excellent private schools. Riverdale park has all the allure of a CSI crime scene.
Did I mention that it's walking distance to a low income shopping area?