From DNA Info:
A large, single-family home in Jackson Heights' historic district recently sold for close to $1 million — more than $300,000 above the neighborhood's average asking price, according to the realtor.
The three-story home on 86th Street was listed at $979,000 and sold for $940,000 after being on the market for a "few weeks," according to Jeff Putterman, an agent with Beaudoin Realty Group who listed the home.
The home — which was built in the 1930s — has five bedrooms, four bathrooms, a fireplace and all of the quaint details original to the house, including crown molding and hardwood floors.
"There were a lot of people interested in the home," Putterman said, noting that it was on the market for a few weeks and received many bids.
The average cost of single-family homes sold in the neighborhood so far this year is $622,455, according to the most recent data available analyzed by the realty group.
I guess the REBNY line about landmarking suppressing property values is as full of shit as the candidates they supported this past election.
15 comments:
And landmarking increases the costs of repairs for the property owner.
It's a double edged sword
which protects while it punishes.
But you're better off with higher costs than a ghetto becoming a slum.
That's where Jackson Heights would have gone were it not for the historic district status it attained.
Those colorful, vibrant immigrants were turning it into the Cocaine capitol of NYC in the 1970s.
Damn....nyc housing prices are out of control.....wonder who bought the house for over 900k? I know some houses in bayside here go for 1 million. I dont know who can afford this these days unless youre apart of the 1 percant or some church organization.
Only a Jackson Heights drug dealer would pay a million bucks for a house there.
Only a Jackson Heights drug dealer would pay a million bucks for a house there.
Actually, asshat, if you spent any time over in prime Jackson Heights-land, you would know that that utter bullshit.
People getting priced out of Manhattan and elsewhere are moving to Jackson Heights, and they have money to burn.
Only a Jackson Heights drug dealer would pay a million bucks for a house there.
Hey!
I resemble that statement!
The reason they got so much for it, is because it is huge.
Come on crappy that's bullshit reasoning. Home goes for ~%50 more than average cost of single-family homes in the neighbourhood. Is this an average single-family home in the neighbourhood? With 'five bedrooms, four bathrooms, a fireplace and all of the quaint details original to the house, including crown molding and hardwood floors.' Probably not. This doesn't prove that landmarking increases property values. That's bullshit and you know it.
Under the new deal any foreigner who spends more then $500,000 on real estate get a free permanent green cards for the whole family.
Now the Chinese who all have the same last names are pooling together. No background checks nothing. They just need to pay the money
In Bayside the Chinese are trying to buy out whole blocks waiving $$$$ CASH to make a colony including a church. They are after the dead end streets with the sunken ramp driveway (flood) shitboxes behind the Cross Island Parkway.
As for the "bullshit", how about this?
The other myth about it costing more for repairs is also debunked. I've fixed up my entire house and haven't had to go to LPC once. You only need approval for alterations, not maintenance.
Although the interior was not designated, the previous owner obviously was preservation minded. Preservation definitely increases property values because it is sought by so many home buyers, especially the ones with money.
The property value was definitely raised by landmarking because this house is on a huge lot and would have gone for about this amount if it was marketed as a teardown. For a stand alone home, the price should have been much less. Landmarked homes are valued by people with money and they are willing to pay more for a designated home. Supply and demand...there are more people who want landmarked properties than actual landmarked properties.
Landmarked homes are valued by buyers who want HOMES, not developers.
The property value was definitely raised by landmarking because this house is on a huge lot and would have gone for about this amount if it was marketed as a teardown. For a stand alone home, the price should have been much less. Landmarked homes are valued by people with money and they are willing to pay more for a designated home. Supply and demand...there are more people who want landmarked properties than actual landmarked properties.
For whomever wrote this:
The photo is misleading. Only the right half of the building was sold - it is a semi-attached house. The lot is not huge in any way. Each half of the total building sits on 40'x 100' and is in an R5 zone, which would allow perhaps a 3 or 4-unit building if it were torn down (not enough to turn a profit for after acquisition and construction costs).
You are correct that people pay a premium for living in an historic district. The main reason is simple: they know that their neighborhood will not get torn down around their most important investment - their home.
This is why I've advocated for landmarking over two dozen neighborhoods in Queens - including Broadway-Flushing, Laurelton, Hollis Park Gardens, Richmond Hill, Woodhaven and others - over the last twenty years.
The real estate sharks, in complete cooperation with most of the elected officials in Queens, have written and conveyed a storyline about how landmarking will lower your property value since the Manes days. Former Borough President Claire Shulman - his chief deputy - would constantly harp on this point, telling anyone she could that it was no good for the residents and property owners of Queens.
Well, the joke has been on us: as our neighborhoods fall down around those of us who care - and continue to fight - the truth has been pretty obvious, as I've stated for decades: how can you put a price tag on piece of mind that your neighborhood - by being landmarked - won't fall into shambles by being overdeveloped and underserved?
That's why the smart people who have been lobbying in Manhattan for years now have 27% of their borough protected. That's right: more than a quarter of Manhattan is now landmarked.
Guess how much of Queens is landmarked? Less than 1.5%, and that's taking into consideration that Queens is five times the size of Manhattan geographically.
For those neighborhoods that are still worthy of landmark designation, I say this: WAKE UP and demand designation, while you still can!
Paul Graziano
"fixed up my entire house and haven't had to go to LPC once. You only need approval for alterations, not maintenance"
Yep all true "restoration" that's what I did. I even milled my own router bits to duplicate original molding's and things. No bland generic Home-Depot crap was used
Great article and amazing positive comments written. QUEENS we need to wake up there is still a lot to preserve here but we must act soon!!!
Post a Comment