Condo on Henry in Cobble Hill- what's a fair price

One more piece of information- the common charges and taxes (without the planned tax abatement) are close to 1K per month.

I love this block and have spent loads of time there (clients of mine recently purchased a sister townhouse down the block). The buildings are magnificent, and the additional width (22' vs 20') makes a big difference. The $775K seems like a fair asking price - it's down 20% from initial ask, and hovering around $700/sf, which brings it into alignment with recently closed comps. Seems like it's the only unit left in the building, so financing should be manageable. And with 20% down, you're within conforming loan limits.

I don't think you can call 588 Henry a "similar apartment". First of all, it's a co-op. Also, just one bathroom, significantly smaller, and no outdoor space. Also, a somewhat distressed sale (seller's husband had relocated already, etc - as seller posted in Brownstoner. There was some action here on Streeteasy as well). And while I like that part of Henry Street, the market in that very specific area seems to suffer due to its proximity to the BQE, Gowanus Expressway ramps, and the school. All in all, I think the buyer got a truly great deal.

I do find it odd that, despite the fact that Cobble Heights has it listed as an "exclusive", the property is still on the BHS site at the original sale price: http://www.brownharrisstevens.com/detail.aspx?id=746693

Tina
(Brooklyn broker)

$500-600 psf. Nothing more. Plenty of Manhattan in the $700s now, and some in the $600s. And still falling.

And this isn't Brooklyn Heights. Nice Cobble Hill, but still Cobble Hill.

Thank you for your comments

By the way, I would love to see prices come down to nyc10022's suggested ppsf. But you asked "what's a fair price." I am not advising you to pay $775K, if that number doesn't work for you. But in the current market, it's priced in alignment with recently closed comps, as well as other new listings.

Tina
(Brooklyn broker)

Again, still points at NOT taking that price.

Closed comps are sales that went to contract MONTHS ago. So, DO NOT user them as comps. They could be 20% off.

As far new listings being at that level, even brokers have said to expect way below listing prices.

So, $775k might have been accurate months back, but it is 2009 now. We're in a very different place.

While it probably is in alignment with current brooklyn comps, I think what I'm seeing is Brooklyn taking it's time to catch up with Manhattan -- we're seeing big drops in pricing both on rentals and sales and I haven't seen that in Bklyn yet.

If you put 20% down, you're looking at 4200/mo in carrying costs. If you were to put 50% down, you'd be looking at 2735 in carrying costs. I think you could rent a comparable apt in Cobble Hill for 2700 or less -- tina agree or disagree?

I would add that I expect rentals to go down in bklyn by the 3rd or 4th quarter (Catching up with manhattan) and I agree with nyc10022 that comps are a bad thing to use in a free falling market like we have right now.

The "true" price of the unit is $400k in 2009 dollars -- at 20 percent down, that would get you 2500/mo payment. As the sponsor has already sold the other three units, I would expect him to use this as a rental unit unless he finds someone he can offload it to for more. I know, I know, 400k sounds ridiculous, but that's what the apartment is actually worth. In ten years at 3% increase per year it will be worth 540k. That's the historical rate of return for real estate. Someone remember this thread and see if I am correct :)

I live in Battery Park/Financial District in Manhattan right now, in a rental and it's true that rents fell and real estate prices fell. They fell across the board too, not just in my neighborhood. I was also looking in Park Slope and that happened there as well. Why has it not touched Brooklyn Heights and Cobble Hill? Is it the small inventory? After all, how many prime Cobble Hill condos are on the market? (I think the answer is one). The apartments are sitting there and many are the same apartments I looked at back in September (before the real s---t hit the fan).

The crash just started here. Manhattan started TWO YEARS after the general market... and it had more of a direct influence from Wall Street. Not surprising that Brooklyn would lag a big, but consider that new construction is getting its ass kicked. Williamsburg, LIC, and some of the more modern areas of LIC and all of 4th ave in Park Slope have already hit glut scenarios.

Not surprising that brownstone areas would trail by a bit, as they are more family apartments (and there were no condos to flip).... so I'd expect these areas to lag a bit, on the downside and the upside.

Fact is, millions and millions for townhouses in 2nd tier neighborhoods is just not viable anymore.

I don't understand this "limited supply" argument, which is often raised in regard to stagnant pricing in Brooklyn Heights and/or Cobble Hill.

What's limited about it? Is it more limited than the West Village? More limited than Nolita? More than Yorkville?

Every neighborhood had its discrete boundaries, but the truth is that Brooklyn Heights and Cobble Hill are part of vast region of New York called "Brownstone Brooklyn," which is probably the largest sub-district in the city. It is characterized by lots of single family houses and lowrise buildings of older vintage, and it stetches across thousands of blocks, from the waterfront to central Brooklyn.

It's kind of nonsensical to talk about limited supply in this context.

graffiti, what I mean is that there are fewer sales and thus fewer comps, so you can't see whether the prices are going down in the same way.

I think you do have to look at specific neighborhoods, not brownstone brooklyn as a bigger concept. BedSty is full of beautiful brownstones and thus part of "Brownstone Brooklyn" but it is a different market then Brooklyn Heights/Cobble Hill. Brooklyn is much more economically diverse than Manhattan and the price points reflect that.

Brownstone Brooklyn also has a much higher stubbornness factor than most neighborhoods. Many homeowners bought their brownstones 30-60 years ago. Those people (and their families, heirs and assignees), were sure they were siting on millions of dollars, theirs at a mere mention to their local broker. It's hard for them to face the fact that yesterday's millions are greatly diminished.
The same thing is happening with their rentals - brownstone apartments used to go in a matter of days, for very high rents, even in crappy, poorly maintained buildings. Now they still want those high rents, AND they expect renters to pay a broker's fee. So the apartments just sit there for months on end. I want to eventually buy in Brooklyn, and want to rent now for a year or two, but nearly everything I see is priced exactly like it was 3 years ago. And the brokers are simply denying reality, claiming that the properties (both sales and rentals) will be snatched up for ask as soon as the crocuses bloom. Granted, most brokers are astonishingly stupid and self-defeating, but even the better ones who have been through previous downturns refuse to face reality.
775k for that apartment is a great price if you're monumentally delusional. This is not a full-service building; it's a brownstone. Your owner base is tiny, therefore your maintenance price hike risks are very, very high. And once that tax abatement expires, you'll have a substantial increase even if nothing ever goes wrong with the building. All that for something you could rent for 2500?

Hi currenttime, I'm in general agreement with others on this thread. I'd think this place's value is less than $775K in the current market. The rent vs. buy math is pretty compelling and prices are likely to fall. On the other hand, a 'fair price' is whatever you think is fair. I wouldn't get hung up on the price cuts, though -- it was overpriced to begin with.

If you must have an apartment like this, in that location, NOW, then hopefully you're buying for the long term. If you buy at $775K, don't be surprised when this apartment's market value drops by $100K or more and stays there for years.

Just an anecdote from my rental building in Brooklyn Heights. There's a parlor floor 1BR available with outdoor space. The building's an old, 10-unit brownstone maintained well, but nothing swank. In the past few years, apartments in this building have rented in, literally, a day (our landlord lists slightly below market). We'd see a posse of young couples for a day or so and the apartment would be gone.

Now, it's been 2-3 days and our landlord is calling us to see if we know anyone who would be interested. Same building, same below-market ask (relative to current comps), different playing field.

Not a compelling story, I know, but definitely a change in attitudes.

I can also see the low-supply argument. I just think it depends on how patient you can be. Great places may be few and far between, but they do come available. And prices certainly aren't going to go up. Good luck!

I'm confused. It's been said many times that fringe 'hoods are hit first in a slowdown. But, it's also being said that Brooklyn lags Manhattan. Does that make Manhattan the fringe borough to Prime Brooklyn?

Anyway, I do agree about the "inventory" being low. It's not that there are less houses (although there probably are), but there aren't near as many people desperate to sell in Brooklyn Heights & Cobble Hill. If you don't need to sell, why do it in a declining market?

1) I would not consider Brooklyn Heights and Cobble Hill "fringe" neighborhoods. They are prime Brooklyn. Keep in mind that actual fringe areas like Fort Green and 4th ave have gotten smacked already.

2) Brownstones / more family housing can influence the trend... delay the quick drops, but also stay lower for a longer time.

3) Nothing about this one is a "standard" crash. We're talking probably the biggest bubble ever, and the Wall Street impact is horrendous. This, unlike most other crashes, caused a direct and VERY severe decline right in the middle of prime.

> If you don't need to sell, why do it in a declining market?

If you have to sell eventually, better before the bottom than at the bottom. If you want to stay forever and can afford it forever, good for you.

But the optimum would have been selling before the crash.

JKB,
If your landlord is still looking for a tenant, I'm looking for a reasonable priced 1-bed in BH. I don't need luxury, just a clean place. I've got excellent references/job/credit etc. How can I contact him?

ok, I see what you guys are saying. You're not saying there are fewer housing units, you're saying there are fewer offerings.

Anyhow, yes it does seem to be the case that prices have dropped less in Brooklyn than in Manhattan.

But I don't think that's because the bubble was bigger in Manhattan, because it was pretty darn big in Brooklyn. In 1999 I looked at buying an uninspiring, three-family townhouse on the edge of Cobble Hill for about $450k. That same house in 2007 was going for nearly $2mm.

I think the less-steep price drop is due a few things: as STf62 notes, there are many "legacy" houses in Brooklyn, bought one or two or three generations back and then kept in family hands. These people are not likely sellers.

And in fact the whole "family" tone of the borough tends to make it fairly stable in terms of home ownership. People who are settled and raising kids, with the kids already in specific school districts, are less likely to want to move.

HOWEVER -- eventually the market declines in Manhattan will catch up with Brooklyn, because all pricing in the New York region is benchmarked against Manhattan prices. Jersey City, LIC, Brooklyn, White Plains -- everything is priced with an eye to its relative value to Manhattan housing.

There is some argument on this board very often about whether Brooklyn was traditionally priced too low versus Manhattan, that the quality of life in Brooklyn and the accessibility of public transportation should change that old pricing relationship. These folks argue that no matter where prices end up as the market bottoms out, Brooklyn will end up being higher compared to Manhattan than it used to be.

I understand this argument, but I don't quite buy it. I don't think 10 years of gentrification -- with its nicer restaurants, shops and parks -- is enough to offset 100 years of the traditional pricing relationship.

Also, I think much of the reason for the Brooklyn boom was that it became sort of a "fad." It got to be a "hot" neighborhood, and that was more of what drew people there than the fundamental characteristics of Brooklyn real estate.

And all fads eventually come to an end. Pretty soon it will be "hot" to live somewhere else, and Brooklyn's charms will fade.

GraffittiGrammarian - have you ever been to Cobble Hill? It couldn't be any less "hot". But its charms are timeless (and Landmarked). Brooklyn Heights and Cobble Hill have seen 40 years of gentrification, and they are not likely to reverse that trend. Will prices come down? Maybe. Probably. Seems logical that they would, right?

I think one of the big factors keeping Cobble Hill prices high is the school district. It has a very well-regarded elementary school, and the zone is very small. Conversely, Brooklyn Heights' zoned school - while loved by many kids and parents - got spanked in the most recent DOE school evaluation. As a broker in the area, I see a lot of buyers who specifically want to be in the PS29 zone. If your alternative is private school, and you have two school aged children, placing them in PS29 saves you $50K/year. Interestingly, the principal from PS29 moved over to PS58, whose zone abuts PS29's. (The $410K co-op mentioned by the OP was in PS58). So now I see a lot of clients looking for either 29 or 58. If those schools took a nosedive, I think prices would back off.

Incidentally, jmkeenan, a comparable rental in Cobble Hill (in PS29) will run you about $3500. And there aren't many of them available.

Does this justify a ppsf on par with many Manhattan neighborhoods? Nope. But for many serious Brooklyn buyers, Manhattan is not even a consideration. My husband and I joke about what it would take for us to move back to Manhattan (answer: an 1800sf unrenovated Tribeca loft, with 14' ceilings and outdoor space for under $800K). My husband grew up in Brooklyn Heights, and I've lived in Brooklyn since 1989. For people like us, the "but you could buy in Manhattan for that price" argument just doesn't hold water.

Completely agree with Tina, especially re: cobble hill. It is easily my favorite neighborhood in nyc.

Tina, I'm a little pressed for time right now but briefly, I lived in Cobble Hill for 9 years (Warren St. between Court and Smith). I still have friends in the nabe and visit fairly often. (now live in manhattan).

I know PS 29 quite well, but when I lived there, most parents of PS 29 kids felt sort of put-upon, they were always complaining that they couldn't afford the Friends school in Brooklyn Heights. I suppose it's all a matter of perspective.

I disagree with you about CH not being hot. I think it has been very hot -- look at all those boutiques that now line Court Street and Smith Street. When I lived there, there were still mostly mom and pop stores on both avenues. Rents have easily tripled in CH since I lived there, and commercial rents have gone thru the roof.

I think it has its appeal, but there are plenty of nabes in Manhattan that I would take in a second over CH, if all prices were equal. Nolita, GV, Upper West, certain blocks in Hells Kitchen -- they are all preferable to Bklyn. It was always hard to do things after work when I lived in Brooklyn because the idea of going back to Brooklyn, then back to Manhattan, all in the same evening, was very unpalatable.

I think that will always be an impediment. I see a lot more shows and go out a lot more now that I live in the city. I do sometimes think about moving back to Brooklyn -- mostly because it is quieter there, less street noise at night -- but I would definitely miss all the drop in cultural and social activities.

For instance -- now it's a no-brainer if someone offers me tickets to Lincoln Center on a weeknight, or if the ballet is having a special ticket offer (as they sometimes do.) I relish those occasions. But when I lived in Brooklyn I would often let such opportunties pass, or would find that I couldn't get any of my Brooklyn friends to go with me. Nobody there wanted to spend their weeknnights in Manhattan --not even for a cheap night at Lincoln Center.

But it's good that you enjoy the nabe, good for you. I just don't see these prices being sustained, or anything close to it. GG

GraffitiGrammarian,

I'd never say Brooklyn's cultural activities appeal to everyone, but your post comes off a bit strong. There's plenty to do all over Brooklyn in terms of art, music, performances, nightlife, food, etc. I would have never moved to Brooklyn if that weren't true. It's a bit silly to compare, because everyone's tastes will differ (ie: Lincoln Center vs BAM), but the choices are there.

GraffitiGrammarian, all good points.

And, yes, CH has absolutely been hot. It went from signficantly below to BH prices to almost there. And guess where the majority of brooklyn high-rated restaurants are? Smith Street... That place went from crap to boutique very quickly.

I can't think of a hotter neighborhood in brooklyn, except for maybe Fort Green. WB, Brooklyn Heights, Park slope all had interest for longer periods (the later two MUCH longer periods). CH/CG, and maybe Boerum shot up faster than anywhere.

And I agree with bjw, Brooklyn has plenty of choices. But, its not Manhattan, I think of it more like a Boston. You'll have decent versions of almost everything, but only a handful possibly at the level of manhattan. And MUCH less choice in terms of the better things. Much of that just comes from density, which you'll never get in Brooklyn or Boston.

Sure, Brooklyn has plenty of cultural choices. But I would argue that's not what brings people to Cobble Hill. The people paying $775K for a two-bedroom condo are turning down tix to Lincoln Center because they can't get a sitter on such short notice, not because they live in Brooklyn. The slower pace matches their reality, it doesn't conflict with it. And when those families become empty nesters, chances are they'll think about moving back to Manhattan, or Williamsburg - wherever the action is. But for now, they don't need to be reminded of what they're missing. Instead, they can have a bloody mary at an outdoor cafe on Smith Street and feel like they're somehow back in the game, ignoring the drool on their Baby Bjorn straps. We're lamer than you can imagine. Believe me, I've been there...

BTW, I don't live in Cobble Hill myself, I live in Red Hook, which has even less action!

$3500 for a two bedroom in Cobble hill??? That's the price in Manhattan proper (with a doorman and an elevator) -- so with all due respect, I don't think that's sustainable Tina, no matter how charming.

I'm not saying it's sustainable. But it is sustained:
http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/rental/478422-rental-119-wyckoff-street-cobble-hill-brooklyn
http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/rental/443650-condo-360-baltic-street-cobble-hill-brooklyn
http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/rental/472071-rental-121-wyckoff-street-cobble-hill-brooklyn

And none of these are in the ps29 school district...

But seriously, Manhattan proper in a fantastic school district? 1000sf 2bed/2bath with outdoor space?

Oh - here's one closer to $3000/mo:
http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/rental/460854-rental-53-douglass-street-cobble-hill-brooklyn

The majority of folks I know who have moved to Brooklyn (probably 50 at this point) start looking for one reason... more space for the money.

Of course, when you ask them a year or two later, they come up with some cooler excuse... "I was tired to manhattan", "had to get away from the yuppies", etc... but given the timing, I usually think its a bit of sour grapes.

Definitely some positives to Brooklyn, but I think its ultimately a compromise. A good compromise for many, but nonetheless a compromise.

Tina --

I"m not going to spend all day looking for comp on the UWS so since I'm lazy, I just went to the Brodsky site:

http://www.brodskyorg.com/apt_detail.cfm?ID=2085

3500 on the dot, 2bed 2bath, and there is someone to get your packages for you (i think doorman is a more than fair trade for outdoor space and a much longer commute).

You can find the same deal at Archstone too.

Brooklyn will fall.

But it will take some time, so do some deals now and save your $$$ Tina :)

http://www.sirkinrealty.com/west.htm
75th and West End, 2975 (though it is listed at 2775 on craigslist).

http://newyork.craigslist.org/mnh/abo/1089056207.html
little bit pricier $3300, 94th and West End, but the pictures look nicer.

Both are 2 bed/ 2 bath w/ garden

This is how you know things are insane, it's cheaper to live on the UWS side than Brooklyn!

Oh, and I am not a broker, so this is just me doing a quick search on CL and nybits.

Rents in brooklyn heights are even higher.

I know someone who picked up a small 2 bedroom on the UES for $2k. $3k can get you something pretty nice in a 2/2.

Asking that in Brooklyn... that 'aint gonna last long.

I know a couple who picked up nice a 2/1 in Cobble Hill for $2200, i can't imagine another bathroom getting that up to much more than $2600

When I moved to Brooklyn 10 years ago it was indeed to get more for the money - back then I got an 800 sq ft. floor-through for what I was paying for my minuscule east village studio.
Then I went to Texas for a year, and now that I'm back it looks like I'm better off staying in Manhattan, where I can get a nice 1 bedroom in an elevator building for around 2,000, no fee. I don't expect to get the exact same thing in Brooklyn since the housing stock there is rather different, but sweet jebus, I don't want to pay that 2,000 for a walk-up dump and pay a fee on top of it. At least I can look forward to buying in Brooklyn in a year or two. (In Dallas I had a gigantic, beautiful apartment in an art deco building in their "uptown" for $1050, utilities and parking included. Of course Texans were also included, so it wasn't such a great deal.)

jmkeenan - I'm not doing these deals, nor have I been. I mainly do sales - I don't have the stomach for Brooklyn rentals. I have a hard time charging renters a fee, frankly.

But, all, as I said above - this is about a specific public school, it's a nano-neighborhood.

as long as cobble hill is being discussed: any thoughts about http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/94901-house-243-kane-street-brooklyn-heights-brooklyn ?

this property has been on the market for some time - although it looks to be well done - since it didnt move at this price for well over a year, any predictions as to what it will sell for? anyone know what's going on?
has anyone seen it?
why was it listed for a million less in a better market?

I appreciate all your feedback. Graffitti, as an FYI, I am exactly the type Tina mentioned, the one with the stroller at an outdoor restaurant so no exciting Manhattan night life for me no matter where I live. I would be moving to CH for the quite green streets, the outdoor cafes, and the school district. But I don't think that it should come at Manhattan prices because of 1) longer commute and 2) less interest in the nabe from most people moving from outside of NYC (compared to Manhattan). For all my love of everything Brooklyn quaint, it will always sound more prestigious if you say you live in Manhattan than in Brooklyn. And prices should reflect that.

currenttime, the price I'm willing to pay in brooklyn has nothing to do with perceived "prestige" about where I'm living. You need to adjust your expectations, or start looking in cheaper neighborhoods. There are a lot of very nice areas in brooklyn that are quite a bit cheaper than cobble hill. Prices in all areas of the city should continue to decline as the recession deepens.

spiderman27,
They are out of their minds on the pricing. I'm guessing the price difference is that they put in $X00k in renovations and are trying to get paid for that, on top of the previous peak price they listed at which nobody was willing to pay.

Tina -- sorry, didn't mean to sound like i was engaging in brokerhate :) Thanks for finding the comparable apartments, I was/am surprised at the CH premium.

junk - i too think they are nuts re: 243 kane street. but the history is weird - they bought for 1.8 or so, listed a little while later for high 2s (i thought after the renovation but maybe just a silly flip) and then a little while later for 4+/-.
my guess is if it didnt sell for all that time that this should clear for low 2s - any thoughts? has anyone been inside?

common junkman, prestige is at least part of the reason why certain buildings on Fifth Ave command the prices they do. proximity to the park and convenience to work doesn't quite explain it all, right? Prestige is a consideration that is reflected in the price.

re: 243 Kane
It's not unusual for one of these renovated single-family homes to sit on the market for a long time, even during the bubble. I saw a lot of places and thought "they want what for that?", only to see it close a few months later for close to the asking price. It's a specialty item.

So! To pricing. Here's a recent comp for 243 Kane, with caveats:
http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/309127-house-17-cheever-place-brooklyn-heights-brooklyn
Fabulous reno - I really love this place. But: 243 Kane is wider, has a "grand stoop" (Cheever's entrance is at street level), a perfect facade (Cheever has a brickface ext), and is located between Clinton and Court (closer to tranportation, farther from the BQE).

Cheever sold for 2.3M (went into contract well past crash, closed last week). So: Add $60K for the facade work (actual contractor's estimate), and $600K for the better location (I know, it seems extreme, but I had buyers who wouldn't even look at Cheever because of the location), $50K for the curb appeal of the grand stoop.

Estimated sale price: $3.1M

Just a guess, folks.

stF62 - just saw your post. We've got some friends looking at the place tonight (Wednesday). If they pass, I'll give you our landlord's number (he lives around the corner and is showing the place himself).

I'd think this place fits your description -- it's a good, reliable 1850s building, but wouldn't pass the sniff test for people looking for 'top-of-the-line everything' or 'triple mint!' luxury. I haven't actually seen this particular apartment, but our landlord has done nice renovations on other apartments in the building, and I expect this one to be about the same as ours (and we love ours, despite its 'charms')

Landlord's asking $2150, but I bet he'd go lower. The place is probably 500s-q.-ft. or so -- great location. And I doubt there'd be any fee involved.

Anyway, if you're still interested, pls post again, and I'll update.

re: 243 Kane.

I saw this place linked in another thread
http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/394880-coop-239-central-park-west-upper-west-side-new-york

Which one would you spend your 3.8MM on?

Re: 243 Kane in Brooklyn vs. the apartment on Central Park West with direct park views going having the same asking price. That defies logic.

JKB,
Thanks for the response - I'm still interested. I used to live in a not especially well cared for CG brownstone for many years, so I know what to expect, more or less. If you'd prefer not to post your landlord's number, you can email it to: sf68642@yahoo.com
Thanks, and sorry for the intrusion on the discussion.
(Or just think of it as an illustration of how difficult it is to find a reasonably priced place BH.)

that's IN BH.

Lots of good comments here.

It's funny how the thread started out being about condos and then drifted into townhouses.

About a townhouse: I can understand how there is a premium for a house, for some buyers. (Not to the extent of a Kane Street house being equivalent to the CPW apartment -- good catch, junkman!)

But there is the appeal of privacy that comes with a house, so I can give some ground for that.

But there is also a lot of grief that comes with owning a townhouse. I used to know a family with a Cobble Hill townhouse they had bought in the 80s for about $250k. These were middle class folk, public sector employees, the house was a huge investment for them.

Over the years, they were wedded to the upkeep, it drove them crazy. When there was a big winter storm they had to go up and shovel the snow off the roof. They were always replacing something or other -- the boiler, rotted windowsills. They had to keep a little seperate pile of money on hand at all times to cope with things that needed replacing, because it was a hundred year old house, and at some point on an old building you have to replace the windows and the roof and .... on and on.

So a townhouse has a special set of issues that go with it, both on the positive side and the negative.

But in any case, currenttime started the discussion about condo pricing in Brooklyn vs Manhattan, and that is really where the "upcreep" in Brooklyn makes the least sense to me. It's hard to compare townhouse prices between Manh and Bklyn because most housing stock in manhattan is not townhouses.

So for simplicity's sake, (and logic's) can we just leave townhouses out of the comparison?

On a condo/co-op basis, how can you justify comparable prices between manh and brooklyn, Tina?

"On a condo/co-op basis, how can you justify comparable prices between manh and brooklyn"

This would only make sense if you did the comparison on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis. Should CH & BH cost more than most of Manhattan? Definitely. Lots of Manhattan sucks... Two Bridges, Yorkville, Midtown, Chinatown, Murray Hill, etc. (Granted, this is only my opinion, but you get the idea.) However, I think the differences between CH & BH are significant compared to most of the rest of Brooklyn, also. There's a lot of crap in Manhattan & even more crap in Brooklyn, but both boroughs have decent areas; I think Manhattan has MORE decent areas, but I like the few good areas of BK better than any part of Manhattan. So, personally, I'd pay more to live in Cobble Hill than ANY part of Manhattan.
Disclaimer: I lived in Manhattan for 8 years (UES, UWS, & FiDi), and currently live in Cobble Hill.

broadwayron,

Really well said. I think the Manhattan vs Brooklyn case is way oversimplified way too often. Most of the prime areas in Manhattan are great, but there's a lot of neighborhoods that just don't stack up. Same is true in Brooklyn and other boroughs. Comparing by neighborhood is much more realistic than comparing overall boroughs.

GG: "On a condo/co-op basis, how can you justify comparable prices between manh and brooklyn, Tina?"

Gee, I sure can't. My explanation, such as it is, about the pricing in this patch of Cobble Hill relates to the specific draws of the neighborhood, for a specific demographic. We can find lots of Manhattan parallels, but I wouldn't presume to call any of them "comps".

Peruse the threads in the "schools" rubric here to get a sense of the intensity with which people approach education-related relocation. Many parents want to be in 199 on the Upper West Side, for example, but there is a lot of anxiety surrounding the re-drawing of those district lines. Cobble Hill is landmarked and lower density than a lot of neighborhoods, and doesn't seem threatened by overcrowding the way PS231 has become in Park Slope. Etc. Many people value the quality of their kids' education above all their other investments. All I'm saying is, it matters. Does this justify the prices? No. But I hope it helps people understand why anyone might be willing to pay them.

By the way, I'd rather shovel snow on Kane Street than pay $5K a month in maintenance on CPW.

Tina
(Brooklyn broker)

Hmm. I can see how you could assign better values to the top nabes in Brooklyn than certain Manhattan districts -- better than East Harlem for sure, better than the far far west side of Hell's Kitchen.

But better than Murray Hill? No way. Better than midtown? Portions of midtown are some of the most desirable real estate in the world.

If that's your personal preference, broadwayron, that's fine, you're certainly entitled. But I don't think you can expect a big part of the apartment-buying market to agree with you on that.

"Most of the prime areas in Manhattan are great, but there's a lot of neighborhoods that just don't stack up"

But demand shows more people are willing to live in a lesser manhattan neighborhood than a better brooklyn neighborhood.

There is absolutely something to the "in or not" factor, and prices follow accordingly.

There are some great parts of Boston, too. But they're not Manhattan either.

"There are some great parts of Boston, too. But they're not Manhattan either."
But, if you work in Manhattan, you probably wouldn't live in Boston.

GraffitiGrammarian-
I guess my taste in neighborhoods is more off-base than I realized. I worked in midtown for a few years (granted, it was almost 10 years ago), but I always thought it would have been a horrific place to live. Plus, I don't even like elevator buildings (and, I prefer a building withOUT a doorman), so I guess I'm in the minority. But, I find it interesting to hear how someone loves an area I detest (heh, like Murray Hill... and I almost bought a place there about 7 years ago- very glad it didn't happen).

"But demand shows more people are willing to live in a lesser manhattan neighborhood than a better brooklyn neighborhood."

I guess it depends which one you're talking about. Murray Hill? I can see why some would prefer it (and I haven't checked, but I'd guess prices are roughly similar). Inwood? Chinatown? I think there's more demand in Brooklyn Heights, Cobble Hill, Park Slope, Williamsburg, etc. Agreed with broadwayron, not sure what Boston has to do with this.

broadwayron: I would jump at the chance to live in midtown because I could walk to see the kind of shows I love: at City Center, at Alvin Ailey, at Lincoln Center. I also take class in midtown so it would be great on that score too.

I find certain blocks in Hells Kitchen very appealing. There are some old low-rise apartment buildings (red brick, Tudor style) in the mid-50s that I find very sweet. The blocks are leafy and like little oases from the craziness of Broadway.

Plus 9th Ave is fun, it's the kind of old fashioned commercial strip - a little bit of chic, a little bit of grit -- that makes New York New York.

(Not like the mix of overpriced boutiques and chain stores that has overrun Court Street in CH/BH, which I always find kind of depressing.)

So look, you and I both have particular tastes, obviously the mainstream could differ.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think there is lots more demand for midtown than for Brooklyn because of its location relative to the good New York stuff, whether we are talking about low-rise or high-rise housing stock.

And -- in a tough market, it seems to me that location will be worth more than brooklyn-type "lifestyle" amenities, because people will say to themselves, oh I could always renovate, but I can't do anything about location. It is what it is.

regards.

"But demand shows more people are willing to live in a lesser manhattan neighborhood than a better brooklyn neighborhood."

> I guess it depends which one you're talking about. Murray Hill? I can see why some would prefer it
> (and I haven't checked, but I'd guess prices are roughly similar).

Murray Hill and Cobble Hill? Nope, check again.

The only Brooklyn neighborhood with prices in the level of south of 96th street manhattan is DUMBO, and even it is fairly low on the list.

> Inwood?

I'm sure I'll kick up a sh*tstorm with this, but you know we're not talking about Inwood. When folks say in Manhattan, they don't mean Washington Heights. Lets say south of 96+Harlem, which includes 99.9% of what folks are generally talking about when they say "Manhattan".

If you want to include Inwood, well, thats a different conversation.

> Chinatown? I think there's more demand in Brooklyn Heights, Cobble Hill, Park Slope, Williamsburg,
> etc.

But the prices don't agree with you. Neither do a million chinese. ;-)
Seriously, prices for new condos in chinatown are high even for Manhattan...

> Agreed with broadwayron, not sure what Boston has to do with this.

Simply in response to this:
"but there's a lot of neighborhoods that just don't stack up"

You can have your opinions on which is better and what does this and that, but if we're talking about demand and prices, its not at all relevant.

You can always find folks who would rather live in XXX over YYY. That doesn't tell you anything.

The fact that demand pushes prices in even "crappy" Manhattan neighborhoods way over top shelf Brooklyn... that tells you a lot about demand.

Same

"Maybe I'm wrong, but I think there is lots more demand for midtown than for Brooklyn because of its location relative to the good New York stuff, whether we are talking about low-rise or high-rise housing stock. "

Agreed...

"And -- in a tough market, it seems to me that location will be worth more than brooklyn-type "lifestyle" amenities, because people will say to themselves, oh I could always renovate, but I can't do anything about location. It is what it is. "

Agreed there, too.

I'll also add that a lot of what people "prefer" about Brooklyn is available outside of the region. Hell, even New Jersey. Light, space, less crowds, "bang for the buck", bla bla.

But what is not dying is getting paid for being a gentrifier. The edge of yuppiedom is going to start moving inward as we move through this recession.

And the likelihood of folks willing to wait until things get better will slow... when things stop getting better.

"Murray Hill and Cobble Hill? Nope, check again.
The only Brooklyn neighborhood with prices in the level of south of 96th street manhattan is DUMBO, and even it is fairly low on the list."

I don't think we're reading the same thread here - people are asking why prices in Cobble Hill are so high (comparable to the UWS even).

"Lets say south of 96+Harlem, which includes 99.9% of what folks are generally talking about when they say "Manhattan"."

I don't buy the 99.9%, but I get what you're saying. It's a touchy issue, and I'm not really a fan of just ignoring a huge chunk of the island for essentially socio-economic reasons. Same thing happens in Brooklyn, FWIW, though to a lesser degree.

"But the prices don't agree with you. Neither do a million chinese. ;-)
Seriously, prices for new condos in chinatown are high even for Manhattan..."

I don't see this - look at the listings. The stuff that's actually in Chinatown is not at all crazy compared to more desirable Manhattan neighborhoods. There's also very limited supply, mostly because a lot of the buildings are rent-controlled/stabilized and in pretty rough shape.

"location relative to the good New York stuff"

That's quite a generic catch-all, isn't it? There isn't "good New York stuff" in Brooklyn? Many people would strongly disagree.

"people will say to themselves, oh I could always renovate, but I can't do anything about location."

I agree, but there's two ways of looking at that. Living in Midtown is good if you work there, but is otherwise relatively unappealing.

"I don't think we're reading the same thread here - people are asking why prices in Cobble Hill are so high (comparable to the UWS even)."

I get thats what the original question was, but you made a specific statement about these neighborhoods... just noting they weren't correct.

This would only make sense if you did the comparison on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis. Should CH & BH cost more than most of Manhattan? Definitely. Lots of Manhattan sucks... Two Bridges, Yorkville, Midtown, Chinatown, Murray Hill, etc

CH & BH are cheaper than Murray Hill, Midtown, Chinatown. Just noting the mistake.

"I don't buy the 99.9%, but I get what you're saying. It's a touchy issue, and I'm not really a fan of just ignoring a huge chunk of the island for essentially socio-economic reasons. Same thing happens in Brooklyn, FWIW, though to a lesser degree."

I'm not ignoring it from soci-economic reasons, I'm ignoring it for definitional reasons. Just saying that is what folks are talking about when they say "Manhattan is...". I don't think folks are going to accept that Manhattan is "cheaper than XXX" if you use inwood as an example, thats all.

> I don't see this - look at the listings.

I have looked at the listings.

If you are still claiming that Chinatown is cheaper than CH/BH, that isn't accurate.

"location relative to the good New York stuff"

"That's quite a generic catch-all, isn't it? There isn't "good New York stuff" in Brooklyn? Many people would strongly disagree."

His statement didn't say there isn't good new york stuff in brooklyn.

Good new york stuff can be everywhere. But assume more of it is in Manhattan. Then manhattan will be closer to more good new york stuff.

So, his statement can be 100% accurate as long as manhattan is closer to more of the good new york stuff (which can also include bronx) which is SUPER likely because more of it is in manhattan.

"I agree, but there's two ways of looking at that. Living in Midtown is good if you work there, but is otherwise relatively unappealing."

All ($$$) evidence to the contrary...

Its still on the high side price-wise, and its not just for folks working there.... lots of out of towner apartments there, too.

Not saying its a great place to raise a family...

But thats a VERY blanket statemend which happens to be mostly untrue.

"I get thats what the original question was, but you made a specific statement about these neighborhoods... just noting they weren't correct."

And you get on me for "correcting" you? I said pricing was roughly similar - there are examples of rents in this thread! Murray Hill is almost certainly more expensive overall (~$880/sqft, I'd guess), but it's in the same ballpark as BH (~$730/sqft I think).

"I don't think folks are going to accept that Manhattan is "cheaper than XXX" if you use inwood as an example, thats all."

Ok, well, it's not accurate to say all of Manhattan then. No big deal.

"If you are still claiming that Chinatown is cheaper than CH/BH, that isn't accurate."

Don't think I said that - but it is true that's it's not at all prime Manhattan.

"Good new york stuff can be everywhere. But assume more of it is in Manhattan. Then manhattan will be closer to more good new york stuff."

Again, how are we having a semi-serious discussion that involves using the phrase "good new york stuff?" Ridiculous.

"But thats a VERY blanket statemend which happens to be mostly untrue."

Ok, I'll revise and say for most people who actually want to live in New York full-time, it's probably not high on their list. You say yourself that lots of out-of-towners get places there - that I can understand, to be close to Broadway shows, Lincoln Center, Carnegie Hall, etc.