Brownstone Brooklyn - 38% of Prices Cut, 11% Decline

Where are most of the brownstone buying pool employed? Or most of Park slope for that matter?

Eddie doesnt mention that the "price chops" are drops off of hugely overinflated asking prices. I am currently in the market for 2 brownstones. It is true properties that I am looking at have decreased asking prices. Bur if you the littlest research you will find that all sellers are looking at trememndous properties.

Take for example 31 prospect park west. Originally listed at $3.2, currently listed with Corcoran at $2.6 million. Now all the naysayers will say "holy crap this guy is losing his shirt, this is an example of losing money in real estate" But if you look the current owner bought in 2004 for $1.4 million, he put in $200K in rennovations and stands to make a $1million profit.

So yes Asking prices are coming down on brownstones but owners who didnt buy in the last 6 months are still making huge returns and not losing money.

They're all real estate brokers.

> who didnt buy in the last 6 months are still making huge returns and not losing money.

Wait, but you said prices would be up 15% in the last 6 months. So, was that a backpedal I just read?

actually eddie I said end of FY 2009 there will be a 10-15% yoy.

I also called a 15% YOY increase from Spring 2007 to 2008. And I was correct.

Eddie, take a look at the actual data. In ALL of Brooklyn, there are currently only 55 townhouses listed (those with addresses), and the blurb mentions such ridiculous stats as "Six of ten listings in Prospect Heights have been marked down." This is a pretty tiny sample size, and when you consider that most of the townhouses are in Clinton Hill, Bushwick, Crown Heights, Bed-Stuy, East New York, and Midwood, well, your theory that "'prime' Brooklyn had its last leg knocked away" amounts to a bit of wishful thinking. Prices might well come down - they just haven't yet.

> Prices might well come down - they just haven't yet.

Actually, they have... check the last market report. Brooklyn sales prices are already down.

For once I agree with petrfitz...a price drop from a crazy high is nothing. It would have to drop 50%, which is never going to happen, for it to mean real estate is in trouble. The people who bought after '02 are the people getting hurt but anyone who bought before '02 is sitting pretty and will continue to do so.

Hmmm... first it was "buy now, be priced out forever". Then "well, if you bought before 2006". Now, its "only people who bought after 2002"!?!?!?

We kidding with that?

"RE is a great investment, but only if you bought SIX YEARS AGO".

Now, THAT is backpedalling...

Eddie - do you know the difference between drop in asking price and decrease in value of the home? If you bought for $1.4 million, and ask for $3.2 but settle for $2.6 million, there is a dramtaic drop in asking price but the value of your home has increased dramatically. This is especially true for the brownstone market where prices are hard to comp.

Anyone who has bought a brownstone before 2007 is sitting on a fortune. I also think that very few who have purchased even in the last 6 months have "lost" any value.

Again for Eddie's sake I will repeat - a drop in asking price does not mean a homes value has decreased, in almost all cases the homes value has increased.

"Anyone who has bought a brownstone before 2007 is sitting on a fortune. "

And now its before 2007. Wow, the years keep getting lower and lower.

Soon it will be "NYC RE is a great investment... as long as you bought before the Indians".

now THAT is backpedalling...

"Actually, they have... check the last market report. Brooklyn sales prices are already down."

I have checked - this isn't exactly accurate: http://www.prudentialelliman.com/NYCPhotos/retail_reports/BMO_2Q08.pdf

Average sales price for the whole borough is barely up, 2.4%, while median sales price is down a whopping 1.9%. Number of sales are way down, of course, which is a good indicator that prices will fall in the future. As I said, they really haven't yet; as of now, things look pretty flat, though certain parts of Brooklyn are certainly doing better than others. BTW, I don't particularly love these reports - they are from brokerage houses after all, but we obviously don't have too much other good data to lean on.

Those percentage changes were YOY, just to clarify.

Eddie - "the years keep getting lower and lower" comment. My 2007 number was the first I stated and it is based upon 40+ properties I have looked at and researched in my current endeavors in purchasing brownstones.

Wouldn't it be nice if real people could actually afford a floorthru in a Brooklyn townhouse again?!

petrfitz, I actually mostly agree with you here. Do I think many Brooklyn townhouses are currently overpriced? Very likely. But Eddie posted a highly dubious article and hypothesis, as he probably got a little eager about any potentially negative news out there, as is his wont, but somebody has to hold his feet to the fire when the data's questionable. Of course, I feel very much the same way about anyone trying to extrapolate that things will be up 15% YOY in '09 as well.

Pete, you're lying based on what was even in this thread...

"owners who didnt buy in the last 6 months are still making huge returns and not losing money."

then...

"Anyone who has bought a brownstone before 2007 is sitting on a fortune. "

You jumped back quite some time in just a few posts...

And I'm not even talking about the times since then when you said things would be going up...

Eddie it must suck to wake up every morning and be so fearful that you cannot even think of one way to make money. Why do you hang out on RE boards and try to convince the rest of the world that no one is making money in RE. The fact of the matter that a majority of people who are selling in NYC now are making huge amounts of money.

All your nit picking and manipulation wont change the fact that you are paralyzed and dont know how to make money in RE. It makes you feel better about yourself by naysaying and trashing others.

So, I see, you were proven wrong and now you're trying to change the subject.

GOT IT. And all you have left are personal insults.

> It makes you feel better about yourself by naysaying and trashing others

Wow, this coming from SUCKERPETE.

I love it! ROTFL.

> The fact of the matter that a majority of people who are selling in NYC now
> are making huge amounts of money

So, you are now recommending that everyone sell?

Doesn't that make you a bear....?

Eddie, what is your deal?

bjw makes the best commnent here -- that most of the brownstones are in Clinton Hill, Bushwick, Crown Heights, Bed-Stuy, East New York, and Midwood.

And I bet if you looked at what folks paid for a Bed-Stuy brownstone in 06 versus what they could sell it for now, you'd find that a lot of them are underwater.

People who bought in better areas in that time period did do very well, it's true, but most townhouse sales over the past few years took place in much riskier areas.

The Bushwick, Bed-Stuy, Clinton Hill, Crown Heights townhouse stock is still probably overpriced. Those values will keep falling. So too maybe will values in Prospect Heights.

re: Clinton Hill: I was chatting with a friend at the gym, a young woman in her 20s. She and her roommate live in Clinton Hill but are moving to Manhattan as soon as their lease runs out.

They are paying Manhattan prices for a neighborhood that she described as "still a ghetto." She said there are projects down the street and she occasionally hears gunfire from there at night.

Clinton Hill is overpriced. Attractice housing stock, all by itself, does not a strong market make.

yawn.

Thanks GraffitiGrammarian, I'm not really eager to have another drawn-out argument with EddieWilson (see the other thread here), but this was just sloppy posting. I'm a bit surprised he hasn't defended himself here, but it's just impossible to vouch for this data, unless you want to claim that those neighborhoods are "prime" Brooklyn. Jennifer Connelly's Park Slope townhouse is in contract for over $8m, which is nuts, but hey, it happened. I looked pretty hard at purchasing a multi-unit brownstone in Brooklyn last year (mostly Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens, Fort Greene, Boerum Hill - I was clearly priced out of anything nice in the Heights), but the numbers just didn't work out. I actually do think prices will soften a bit at some point, but to say it's already happened is disingenuous. Totally agree about Clinton Hill - good amount of nice homes, but the area is still playing catchup. It might get there, though the transportation issue hurts it considerably.

yeah, you're right about transportation. Much of Clinton Hill is close to the G train, which is also known as "the train to nowhere." It only goes between Brooklyn and Queens, never to Manhattan.

It's another sign (among oh so many) of the shamelessness of real estate brokers when they put in their ads, "only a few blocks to the G train." Who on earth wants to take the G train? Only someone going to visit their dear old granny in Queens.

BJW:
> but it's just impossible to vouch for this data, unless you want to claim that those neighborhoods
> are "prime" Brooklyn

the article said:
> as have a third of the listings in Brooklyn Heights, Carroll Gardens, and Park Slope

Got it. First, BJW calls DUMBO a "non-desirable" area. Then he claims the East 90s in the late 60s was "prime". Now, Brooklyn Heights is claiming that BH, CG, and PS aren't "prime".

Wow, thats rationalizing AWFUL badly.

Not to mention, the article is pretty clearly about the steps toward larger issues. It says it IN THE FIRST SENTENCE.... "Conventional wisdom holds that outlying neighborhoods’ prices are last to rise and the first to suffer in a downturn."

Now its some magical discovery that multiple neighborhoods were included?

But, I still love the part where now Brooklyn Heights, Park Slope, and DUMBO are all not prime brooklyn areas.

So what is BJW? Williamsburg?

ROTFL

Eddie, check out the data yourself - the article CLEARLY states it's using Streeteasy data, so I looked it up. Wouldn't you know, most of the listings are NOT in prime Brooklyn. I haven't looked into the Miller Samuel data, and it's not clear from the article if they mean all of Brooklyn or not, but they're saying 3.4% drop in median price YOY. That's not exactly what you're saying in your thread title. And I never called Dumbo "non-desirable"; I did opine that it was less desirable than Brooklyn Heights, Cobble Hill, and the like. Again, if you disagree, fine. You put quotation marks around things I didn't say - it's self-serving, but not exactly proper. Your MO here is clearly to yell and scream "crash" as much as possible, and belittle anyone who disagrees with you, claiming you "told people so" even though you only showed up to this board quite recently. Awesome stuff.

> That's not exactly what you're saying in your thread title.

The first line of my post showed pretty clearly what the title meant... "38 percent of townhouses suffering price cuts in recent months, averaging an 11 percent drop."

So, not exactly sure what your issue with the title is...

> claiming you "told people so" even though you only showed up to this board quite recently.

It was people on this board (not me) who went and found my old posts on curbed... so, I didn't even have to do the digging. but, yes, absolutely, I told many people so, including many who migrated from curbed here (there are a ton).

> And I never called Dumbo "non-desirable

Actually, you did... Wow, now you can't even get facts about yourself straight. Check the thread.

Oh, and you also claimed 92 and Park was prime, too.... and then argued about it for days, and even now you don't know much about the area. There was a whole thread on that.... which, btw, the crickets are still chirping on.

"Check the thread."

I did - I had said "less desirable." Big difference.

"There was a whole thread on that.... which, btw, the crickets are still chirping on."

That's the difference here Eddie, you sit and listen to crickets, while other people here are you know, doing things. None of this changes the fact that the data you're relying on in this thread does not really lead to the conclusion you made about "prime" Brooklyn. Sorry.

> while other people here are you know, doing things.

Yes, you do SO much. I bow to you.

Teach us some more. Now that we know tourist-less DUMBO, park slope, and Brooklyn Heights are low-end, no trains go anywhere near DUMBO, and that Spanish Harlem was high end in the 60s - all learned from living in Cleveland - I yearn to learn what else you will "do" to make the world a better place.

Teach us, please...

And, as usual, you picked the last 10% of my post to respond to.

You conveniently ingored where I showed your complaint with the title was BS, and your claims about what I said were wrong as well.

Just like the thread on 92 & Park. You ignore the spots where you were dead wrong, and then try to prove yourself right on a detail (which you are usually wrong on, too).

Yes, you "do" so much.

Hmm, another post where it is shown that Eddie Wilson is disingenuous and full of BS and misleading claims. Interesting . . .

I'm notice a second pattern here (besides LIC obsessed with me and following me around).

Both LICC and BJW ended up not being able to afford the neighborhoods they wanted (or, in PC speak, they could afford 126 square foot studios where they wanted, but got "more space for the money"). LICC wanted Manhattan but ended up in LIC, BJW wanted "prime" brooklyn but ended up somewhere outside the main area of Williamburg.

Both obsess over the prime areas, and compare everthing on those terms. LIC even swears that LIC will track the Manhattan market.

I think they both fit into a very popular category... the disappointed "step" buyer.
I'm pretty sure both thought that this was their first rung on the ladder to being able to afford better neighborhoods, and then they would trade up later. I'm sure the brokers and their "friends" told them that as well. But the market crunch is now in, and the marginal neighborhoods are what get hit most in bad times. Meaning, simply, that these two are even further from getting what they wanted in the first place. Likely locked into the apartments they didn't want, and no in even worse financial positions.

This would explain much of their bitterness and rationalizations. This would also start to explain LIC's need to follow me around and essentially boo whatever is said.

Not everyone is going to like the truth, but making funny faces or trying to chance the topic isn't going to bring back 2007. I feel sorry for you, LICC, but insulting others isn't going to make your life any better.

Oh yeah, and lets call bullshit on BJW now.. Here is his quote:

"EddieWilson, I think that's true in the less desirable parts of Brooklyn - downtown, Dumbo, Gowanus, East Williamsburg."

Yes, DUMBO... crappy neighborhood down there with Gowanus, and East Williamsburg. Talk about a guy who doesn't know much, but will keep telling it to you over and over again...

Jeez Eddie, I obviously did something to really upset you (and notice the quote you pulled - I said "less desirable" and even then, you're analyzing that post out of context - solid work all around). You are a bit infatuated (I'm flattered, but please stop) and jumped to ridiculous conclusions about me, which aren't true (this is what you like to call "rationalizing"). I actually own a 2/2 in "prime" Williamsburg - one block from the Bedford stop, which is my second purchase (which I rent out, and I'm pretty young to have bought anything already). But this is all rather irrelevant - you're turning this into a petrfitz-esque, "how much are YOU worth" debate, which is silly. But I do like to follow the market and keep a realistic view of what's going on. I don't put much stock in people who are clearly extremists on either side of this very simplistically-labeled "bear vs bull" debate. There are people on this board who were/are a bit blind to the potential for prices to fall, but there are also people like yourself who are just as reactionary from the other side. Thankfully, there are others here with a healthy, relatively OBJECTIVE Frankly, it's old and non-productive, but that's ok. Take a deep breath, forget about all this wonderful Streeteasy stuff for a few minutes, and move on. It'll be alright.

*relatively OBJECTIVE viewpoint.*

> 2/2 in "prime" Williamsburg

Guess what, there *is* not prime williamsburg.... it was a trick comment...
;-)

> I'm pretty young to have bought anything already
Not in the sub-prime runup... that was part of the problem. Folks who shouldn't have bought were able to...

> *relatively OBJECTIVE viewpoint.*
Got to love it when you can define objective as anyone who agreed with you, and anyone else is "reactionary". Apparenly its ok to be reactionary, but only in the neighborhoods you can't afford, like undesirable DUMBO, Gowanus, and Manhattan.

> But I do like to follow the market
Not particularly well, given your lack of knowledge on the borough you live in... What exactly are you "following", LICC's posts?

Also, since you just corrected your own post, you are apparently Steve. Esue said so...

"Guess what, there *is* not prime williamsburg.... it was a trick comment..."

My, what a trickster. This is a great area I live in - I love it and don't need you to tell me a thing about it, thanks.

"Not in the sub-prime runup... that was part of the problem. Folks who shouldn't have bought were able to..."

Love how you think you can say this without knowing a thing about exactly how/when I purchased. I closed on the WB apartment at the very end of June 2008 (ie: a few weeks ago), well after things got tougher. I had no problems getting the mortgage given my credit and how much I put down. Are you saying that everyone who bought in the last few years are people that "shouldn't have bought but were able to"? Please.

Eddie, pretty clear your goal on this board is just to rub off on people as much as possible. Pretty shallow stuff. Like I said, move on, and let it be.

Eddie, while I enjoy my net worth growing over the years and enjoy living in a great up-and-coming area, where prices have held strong or gone up while prices in other areas have softened or dropped, you should just keep paying your rent check in Brooklyn. Stop being angry at others because you missed the boat and have been paying rising rents all these years. You obviously measure yourself up against others in your mind, and often come up short which makes you bitter. You should stop worrying about other peoples' successes and just worry about yourself.

> I closed on the WB apartment at the very end of June 2008\
> I had no problems getting the mortgage given my credit and how much I put down

You bought at the bubble peak, and you're... uh... bragging? Wow.

> Eddie, while I enjoy my net worth growing over the years and enjoy
> living in a great up-and-coming area, where prices have held strong or gone up

Absolutely LIC, you stay away from those pesky newspapers and statistics and you'll be fine. Bury your head in the sand, and it will be all be fine, I'm sure. LIC just doubled again.

> Stop being angry at others because you missed the boat

Yes, I'm so angry because I didn't board the Titanic. You got me....

> You should stop worrying about other peoples' successes and just worry about yourself.

WOW, THIS COMING FROM LICC??? YOU HAVE TO BE KIDDING ME.

From the guy who obsessed about me and follows me around on every post.

WOW, thanks for the laugh man.

"follows me around on every post."

This is amusing coming from the guy who went back to dig through threads more than a day old.

"You bought at the bubble peak, and you're... uh... bragging? Wow."

Certainly not "bragging." You just make claims about others without knowing a thing about them. Do you know what I bought and what I paid for it? Nope. You take this way too personally and resort to this ad-hominem stuff, which is pretty classless, but doesn't look like you're going to stop. Unfortunate.

Unrelated note, but had to bring it up - what do you make of all the car break-ins, window-smashing, and muggings in Dumbo? Not a great turn of events.

> This is amusing coming from the guy who went back to dig through threads more than a day old.

Dude, I was away for a day, and its the thread I started. Digging? Try again.

> You just make claims about others without knowing a thing about them.

Few people have said more without knowing anything than you. You apparently know more about Brooklyn Heights and DUMBO than the people that live there (including how there are no tourists or trains), and you know more about Manhattan in the 60s than the people who were here... and the list goes on and on? Jeez...

> Unrelated note, but had to bring it up - what do you make of all the car break-ins, window-smashing, > and muggings in Dumbo?

I told you DUMBO sucks when I had to teach you where it was. What's your point?

> "follows me around on every post."
> This is amusing coming from the guy who went back to dig through threads more than a day old.

Yes, EXACTLY the same thing...

"Yes, I'm so angry because I didn't board the Titanic. You got me...."

Sure Eddie, you've been so much better off renting for the last 8 years rather than those who have owned their places . . .

Proof is in the pudding...

LIC - Eddie has only spent approximately $375,000 in rent over the last 8 years. He can easily make that money back by timing the huge RE market collapse that he is sure is going to happen in NY soon. And if it doesnt happen soon he will keep on renting until the next huge market correction happens then he will buy, you'll see.

We were all having some nice intelligent discussions on these boards the last couple of days, with reasonable disagreement and discussion. Oh well, Eddie is back . . .

> LIC - Eddie has only spent approximately $375,000 in rent over the last 8 years

Wishful thinking LIC, but not even close... hell, even my loft rent over that period wouldn't have added up to that.

> We were all having some nice intelligent discussions on these boards the last couple of days

Dude, I've seen your posts, no need to lie. Other folk, yes, absolutely. You, same bitter bubble buyer. That doesn't change. Hell, you've been after steve and others long before I arrived. Don't put your nonsense on me.

Once again, a pattern emerges... its the folks who talk the most about Manhattan RE but lives in Queens and Nevada... please, teach us!

eddie I live in the LES. You are wrong again. Where do you live? Oh yeah in an apartment owned by someone else.

"Few people have said more without knowing anything than you. You apparently know more about Brooklyn Heights and DUMBO than the people that live there (including how there are no tourists or trains), and you know more about Manhattan in the 60s than the people who were here... and the list goes on and on? Jeez..."

Eddie, you keep putting words in my mouth. Check the old threads - I said the Heights was more desirable than Dumbo. And yes, I said my impression is that more tourists go to Brooklyn Heights than to Dumbo as well. Unless you just count Grimaldi's, which isn't Dumbo per se. And for the last time, train access to Dumbo is pretty poor, in my opinion. As for the whole Carnegie Hill in the 60s discussion, you keep harping on it over and over - in my experience, only people who are obsessive or unsure of themselves exhibit that kind of behavior. I don't get why you're such a bitter guy. For real.

"I told you DUMBO sucks when I had to teach you where it was. What's your point?"

You said it was the most desirable part of Brooklyn.

Yet they keep desiring it... still tops in psf... and, hell, you think the police blotter doesn't keep noting issues in BH? Keep telling us about the neighborhoods you visited once.

> I said the Heights was more desirable than Dumbo.

Right after you noted the less desirable neighborhoods in Brooklyn of "Gowanus, E Williamsburg, and DUMBO". Nice backpedal.

> And yes, I said my impression is that more tourists go to Brooklyn Heights than to Dumbo as well.
> Unless you just count Grimaldi's, which isn't Dumbo per se

Actually, you said where else would tourists be going but Grimaldi's. Again, you visted once in 2003 and you're still trying to teach everyone else about the neighborhood.

> As for the whole Carnegie Hill in the 60s discussion, you keep harping on it over and over - in my > experience, only people who are obsessive or unsure of themselves exhibit that kind of behavior

Hypocrite, you did an AWFUL lot of harping on it. You tried on probably 30 posts to prove your incorrect assertion wrong, and you failed. Complain all you want, but you posted over and over again about an area and a time you didn't know much about.

> eddie I live in the LES. You are wrong again. Where do you live? Oh yeah in an apartment owned by
> someone else.

Correction, PAID FOR by someone else. I *love* having the landlord subsidize me..

And, dude, you were the one who told us you lived in Nevada. Great investment there!

"I *love* having the landlord subsidize me.."

Yes, I'm sure your landlord hates that you're paying off his mortgage.

no Eddie - I said that I purchased a second vacation home in Nevada.
Never said I lived there.

And I bought that property for a 40%+ discount. So I think that I am doing just fine with that property.

I have a question for you - if all landlords in NY are losing money by renting units how do they stay in business and not go bankrupt?

"Keep telling us about the neighborhoods you visited once."

Eddie, based on much of what you say, I don't know what establishes you as an authority on Brooklyn yourself. My family was in Brooklyn Heights (and Gramercy) over 40 years ago, so it's not exactly foreign to me. You're just obstinate that anyone who disagrees with anything you say is a tourist and knows nothing. Not a great way to have any discussions here frankly.

"Right after you noted the less desirable neighborhoods in Brooklyn of "Gowanus, E Williamsburg, and DUMBO". Nice backpedal."

Not a backpedal - you're taking things way out of context. I had listed the most desirable Brooklyn neighborhoods (the Heights, Cobble Hill, etc.), and then lumped together what I consider the "second tier," so to speak. Dumbo is obviously much nicer than Gowanus, but I still think it's a notch below the others.

"Hypocrite, you did an AWFUL lot of harping on it. You tried on probably 30 posts to prove your incorrect assertion wrong, and you failed. Complain all you want, but you posted over and over again about an area and a time you didn't know much about."

Yeesh, you posted perhaps twice as often, and several of my posts were of the "ok, we disagree, let's move on" variety. Again, you're acting as a self-appointed authority.

"I have a question for you - if all landlords in NY are losing money by renting units how do they stay in business and not go bankrupt?"

How do you know they're all staying in business? I'm sure that many who are losing money are trying to unload their losing properties. But it's also tough to move such an illiquid asset, especially if it's one that's not doing particularly well.

BJW - dealing with you is like dealing with a kindergardener. If as you say landlords are losing money and are all trying to unload their properties where are all the listings for buildings for sale?

And to point out further flaws in your logic - if they are all losing money, and cant unload their buildings would they all be then filing for bankruptcy?

Stayin your "prime" Williamsburg Condo market and stop making yourself look bad by trying to play with the big boys across the river.

"where are all the listings for buildings for sale?"

This very website. And just because the listing doesn't have a big red sign saying "DISTRESSED OWNER - LOSING MONEY ON INVESTMENT" does not mean such a thing doesn't exist. Capisci?

"would they all be then filing for bankruptcy?"

No, some owners will take losses if they can hold out, especially if they expect things to eventually turn around. Some will sell. Some will go into foreclosure. And yes, some could go bankrupt. But the bigger point is, what proof do you have that these things aren't happening at all?

"the big boys across the river."

Funny stuff.

bjw - please show us one actual data point that proves your point.

You say this site has the data. Pull it and show us that landlords are losing money and selling their buildings in droves.

petrfitz, this is actually common sense. I can't believe you're involved in real estate if you're not aware of some of these things. Do you seriously believe that every single owner in this city is making a fortune? What do you think the odds of that are?

BJW - you are saying that it is "common sense" that landlords dont make any money renting their units?

Do you actually believe that there is a majority or even a small minority of landlords who dont make a profit renting their units?

No, I'm saying it's common sense that some landlords make money and others lose money. I think you'll be hard pressed to find someone who would say otherwise.