Glenn Roberts, Jr. of Inman News discusses a cool thing that’s happening in Helsinki these days:
Igglo, a Finnish company, allows prospective buyers to post online offers to buy a particular property — it doesn’t matter whether it’s actually for sale.
The company has photographed every building in Helsinki, according to a Web announcement, with more towns to follow. The site combines property photographs with satellite images and maps. The Web announcement states that the online offers can indicate to property owners “how desirable their property is, even if they weren’t actively considering selling.” Site users can earmark a particular property, street or neighborhood area that they are interested in, and receive alerts when a property in that area is for sale.
How many times have you seen a certain home and thought “wow, maybe one day.” Then you might forget about it entirely. This would be perfect for potential buyers like that to have a way to just put out a feeler. Roberts reports an American company has plans to offer a similar service here.
If enough people participated this could also be an amazing tool for sellers and/or their agents in pricing property. New Yorkers, however, tend be be a bit cynical and I would imagine that the “bottom-fishers” would destroy a site like this by posting that they would like to purchase the Russel Simmons penthouse at 150 Liberty for $250,000. I am curious to know what type of policing their would be of the site to prevent this from skewing numbers.
Another major obstacle in Manhattan is that most buyers don’t know what their most desired home looks like by the very nature of the apartment market. Unlike the suburbs, you can’t drive by and peek at apartment 25B at Trump Place unless the owners are willing to let you in, which is not all that likely. That said, despite the pitfalls, I like the idea and would love to see it attempted in Manhattan.
As you know Toni Schlesinger’s book Five Flights Up is a collection of conversations with real New Yorkers about where they live, and why they live there. An interesting topic that comes up a often in the dialogues is why New Yorkers relocate throughout the city. It seems to also be a question of neighbor, and not just a property issue.
In this section of the book Schlesingner talks with a couple guys that traded in their Chelsea digs for an old beaten up brownstone in Harlem:
The first time I was here I though you lived in an embassy. There was this grand party which hundreds of people royalty, an Auchincloss, and all the big names in the landmark world. People drifted through rooms with fifteen-foot ceilings lit by hundreds of candles. Some guests perched on the persimmon velvet side chairs near the andirons. Others threw back their heads and laughed near the pink-and-white-striped satin chaise. Then of course there were those who stood under the oak-coffered ceiling in the dining room nibbling almond paste cookies among the autumn arrangements of hydrangeas and the gold silk drapes that spilled onto Oriental rug. You said you have one cleaning lady once a week to care for sixteen rooms, two kitchens, and five bathrooms. She must go into collapse.
[Dimitri] She just comes to dust. We do the rest. The house is 1888. We found a brochure about it in the museum of the City of New York. It was built for upper-middle-class New Yorkers who did not like immigrants moving into Midtown. I’m quoting from a history book of Harlem. The area didn’t stay wealthy for very long. I don’t think those houses could sustain themselves. It was too expensive to keep a place like this in top shape. Families moved out really fast. Later, with poverty and depression, the whole thing went down the drain. All this gracious living only lasted a very few decades. These places were rented out as rooming houses.
You moved to Harlem over one and a half years ago.
I came by accident one day. My foundation had some work here with the Children’s Storefrontówe were giving them money to teach the kids ancient Greek. I passed Mount Morris Park and that was it. It sounds like a fairy tale, but when I see what I want, I go after it. So we started looking. We didn’t want anything this big, but we came in just before the market got really crazy. Now there are not many buildings left to buy and prices have gone up a lot. The guy around the corner bought his about the same time we did. He works for an investment company. A lot of friends think we’re completely crazy to move up here. I think what people say about Harlem is highly exaggerated. I lived on the Bowery, in Chelsea, East 13th Street. That neighborhood has lost its edge. We’ve only done basic renovation on the house so far. The lawyer who lived here before did most of the dirty work, tearing down walls. As a historian, I want to make it livable without interfering with the fabric of the house. We don’t need air-conditioning because the skylights always create a draft. Also, I don’t want its years as SRO to be lost, the imperfections in the doors because of fights.
By the way, they were making a movie in front of your house when I came inó50 Violins with Meryl Streep.
They make movies around here all the time. A guy was trying to convince me to use our house for a minimal fee. He said”So-and-so, the actor, will be here. We’ll make you famous.” I said, “Look, I don’t care if it’s the Queen of England.”
Some noteworthy articles from the last few days:
Score one for open and honest dialogue.
Regular readers will know that a few days ago I played around with Zillow, and found the newish Internet-based service to be a flawed way to price your property.
That prompted a visit from David at Zillow, who made several thoughtful comments about the workings and role of Zillow. Please read the whole back and forth linked to above–I don’t want to try to summarize it all here, because there’s a lot going on there. I think it’s fair to say that we have both learned from the debate, and I can certainly see how, as Zillow gets more and more refined, it could be helpful in some situations.
David encouraged me to think of Zillow as a starting point. Part of one of my responses included this:
You describe in your last comment how this tool could work hand in hand with a professional, as a resource to be further refined–i.e. a starting point. You acknowledge that guys with laptops in Seattle may not have the best grip on the information on the ground in NYC. But on Zillow’s website, it seems to me you are promoting the idea that homeowners need no further resources to price their homes. You use the word “nirvana” to describe the last step of the Zestimate.
Yesterday, David responded:
You are correct that “nirvana” doesn’t support our message; that page is being rewritten and will change on the site within the next few weeks. Thank you for bringing this to my attention; ironing out these kinks is exactly what our Beta phase is for.
You know what that made me think? I’m impressed. That’s integrity. That’s honorable. And, I believe, that’s good PR: because that kind of open and honest dialogue can’t help but make Zillow look good.
OK…I’m back ready to wax eloqouently about the real estate market yet again.
Is anyone out there willing to give me a good haircut, some acupuncture, or perhaps a gourmet meal for my advice? You laugh, but that’s the kind of deal Stephanie Rosenbloom is talking in about in The New York Times.
In a time when half a million dollars barely buys a studio in New York, Mr. Schiller is hoping to trade a watercolor drawing by his longtime friend Maurice Sendak, perhaps best known for his children’s book “Where the Wild Things Are,” for an apartment.
Mr. Schiller’s approach is unusual, but in a time of continuing high prices, it could become more common. There are a number of enterprising apartment hunters for whom cash is not necessarily king. Brokers in Manhattan say they are encountering people who will swap a variety of goods and services in their quest to buy or rent, offering up everything from artwork to acupuncture.
(By the way, the article also points out that Mr. Schiller’s broker is not willing to be paid in art.)
My biggest question here is why doesn’t this gentleman sell his artwork for the alleged $650,000 that it’s worth and then buy himself an apartment? I know, he says in the article that he’d rather keep the painting if he can’t find an apartment. But the truth is, with $650,000 cash in hand, he would have his choice of nice one bedrooms (with views!) all over the city. He essentially can’t fail.
Whereas in his current situation, he needs to find that perfect seller who would part with their apartment for a “Wild Things” illustration. I have two small kids, and love “Where the Wild Things Are” as much as the next guy but I assume most people with property in this guy’s price range don’t have the luxury of swapping the biggest asset in our portfolios for a children’s book illustration.
As it is, he essentially needs a miracle–and a good first step in making that miracle happen is to get some of the best exposure in the world with a huge feature article in The New York Times. If this deal fails despite that advantage–it’s clearly a very flawed proposal.
As for bartering in general? I haven’t seen much of it, and if it starts to become more commonplace, I would take that as a strong signal that we have officially entered a buyer’s market.
Jonathan Miller points out that the collapse of “Bubble Blogs” seems to be gaining momentum. All that negative chatter is only interesting for so long.
But on a Friday evening, after assessing numbers and markets all week–sometimes I wonder how long it will be before people are tied of all of us experts talking about the real estate market and its ebbs, flows, peaks, valleys, and whether or not you should buy, sell, hold on, or run for the hills.
Predicting the market gets a lot of air time. But it’s a tiresome pursuit. No one much knows what it’s going to do, and it’s laughable that we all pretend to. It comes down to this: is it a a buyer’s or a seller’s market? I think it’s leaning more towards the former.
But there isn’t anything in concrete about what’s going to happen tomorrow.
Nevertheless we make celebrities out of many of those who make a good show out of trying. see Avenue magazine…
I will be back on Monday with some good solid info. for you. I’m feelin’ like I need to stir it up a bit. Stay tuned…
Jonathan Miller’s absorption and days on market chart is impressive and important. He’s a master at providing untainted, honest numbers that give accurate information about “current” market conditions. An incredibly useful tool for the entire real estate community, including sellers and buyers.
Meanwhile, Crain’s has an article by Julie Satow called “Manhattan Residential Sales Keep Climbing.” It says this:
In the first quarter of the year, the median sale price for a Manhattan apartment jumped 13% to $749,000 over last year; condominiums surged 22% to $838,000 and even co-ops, which traditionally fail to register as much growth as their condo cousins, had a median sales price of $665,000, or 5% higher than a year ago.
It’s a little misleading. As Jonathan Miller points out in his chart (and I completely agree) the “current” market is flat. I would go further to say in some markets across the city, it is even flat to down but sellers are still seeing record numbers being paid for their homes, just not quite as high as last year.
The first quarter of this year was quite busy and atypical of years past, the spring market was more quiet. It appears that the summer market is heating up just a bit. I believe Jonathan Miller is correct in saying that we really won’t be able to make real sense of numbers until at least the 3rd quarter of this year.
With vacancy rates at unbelievable lows and a very tight rental market resulting in an anticipated 5.3% increase in rents this year according to the NAR (always have to include this disclaimer), many of those who had hoped to stay in rentals or switch from ownership to rentals are having a change of heart.
There are signs the shortage of rentals may lead to some increased sales activity. The summer sales market seems to be stirring. Attendance at open houses is increasing. The buyers who are out there remain apprehensive, but as sellers accept that the market has cooled and prices reflect this, buyers seem more willing to jump back in.
A while ago we blogged about Toni Schlesinger’s new book Five Flights Up. It’s a series of off-beat interviews with real New Yorkers about where they live. One of the recurring topics is: how can you afford this place? One response that’s not super uncommon is along the lines of: with help.
Below is a short segment from the book, part of an interview conducted in June 2002. Schlesinger’s questions are in bold. Eighth grade math teacher Smith Watkins is talking about her newly purchased 300 square foot studio apartment in a prewar building in Greenwich Village.
This is one of the Bing & Bing buildings, which they say are among the city’s finest prewar properties. I sound like a real-estate agent or something. But I read that Alexander Bing was one of the great socially conscious developers. He created Sunnyside in Queens, modeled on an English garden city. Profits from his Manhattan buildings subsidized the experimental communities. Now, are you in the mood to say, how, at twenty eight, you can afford to buy an apartment with your current teacher’s salary?
My family helped me. My father and his brother have a company, Watkins Trucking. My grandfather started it in Thomasville, Georgia.
With a pickup truck delivering chickens during the Depression.
Yes! Now he ships Gap, Sony, Clinique. I’m the only family member, out of seventeen, who could work in the company who doesn’t. I’m the only one who lives above the Mason-Dixon Line. I grew up in Tampa, where the headquarters are. My dad has a farm in Thomasville. He raises pointers. My boyfriend’s getting one from my dad. [Her boyfriend, Rob, lives on Avenue A, is a digital retoucher, used to be a bartender, and met Smith in late September. He arrived later with a bag of pork chops and Coca-Cola.] My dad raises the pointers for hunting. The farm used to be owned by the Whitney’s. My dad’s a wonderful businessman. Yes he advises me. He told me that when you buy an apartment, you can write off a percentage ofó-wait, I’m not sure. I’ll call him. [She dials.] Hey Dad, how’s its going? Is the interest expense write-off the incentive for home ownership? Yes, OK. I wrote the $59,000 check today. Dad, you’re going to be proud of me. Last night I went to feed the homeless on the Upper East Side. I’m going into overdrive here. I’m going to be a math teacher, feed the homeless. I made fifty pounds of mashed potatoes. We served it with chicken and corn. Daddy, I love you. Thank you for all your help with everything. [She hangs up the phone.]
Nora Ephron really started something with her New Yorker article about all those wealthy New Yorkers with rent-controlled apartments.
On the Walk-Through, Damon Darlin discusses a follow-up op-ed column, by John Tierney, in today’s New York Times. Quoting Tierney’s column:
Like European nobles in crumbling castles, rentocrats are above money grubbing. They deserve their homes because of their longevity and their virtues. They compare rent control to Fulbright scholarships ó a stipend wisely provided to worthy intellectuals and artists. They will announce, with a straight face, that they’re entitled to keep their apartments because of the extensive “emotional investment” they have made in the buildings.
They scorn tacky landlords obsessed with getting higher rents so they can pay for nonemotional investments like furnaces. Ephron writes witheringly about the beehive hairdo and pink silk suits of the building manager, a “frightening” woman ó and a resident of New Jersey. The Apthorp tenants were appalled at the landlords’ efforts to renovate the property ó how bourgeois! ó so they could get permission to charge higher rents.
The constant lament of the wealthy about the loss of their rent controlled homes never ceases to amaze me.
This is a huge point of contention within my own family. Parties will remain nameless, but some of my family members live in rent controlled homes while also summering in the Hamptons and wintering at a five star hotel in Florida. They also have a fourth residence. Their rent controlled apartment has a garage full of Mercedes, BMW, Saab, etc.
I’m just not sure the creators of rent controlled housing had this family profile in mind.
Once again I ask, where are our teachers, firefighters, police officers and other civil servants supposed to live when the wealthy are living in rent controlled homes?
