Co-op of the Day: 35 Prospect Park West, #6C


This new co-op listing at 35 Prospect Park West in Park Slope just hit the market with a price tag of $1,750,000. While no exact square footage is given, we’re guesstimating that this comes out to somewhere around $900 a foot. The Classic Six apartment is definitely classic: Lots of prewar details and generously-sized rooms. And the building is one of the best in The Slope. Thoughts?
35 Prospect Park West, #6C [Brown Harris Stevens] GMAP P*Shark

30 Comment

  • These ‘classic’ apartments don’t have access to a bathroom without going thru a (bed)room….and in this case also going thru the kitchen.
    Not very 1%

  • These ‘classic’ apartments don’t have access to a bathroom without going thru a (bed)room….and in this case also going thru the kitchen.
    Not very 1%

  • Maybe $150,000? The bike lane has really killed property values here.

  • Yup, a classic. No “kitchen” in a corner of the tiny room billed “living/dining.” Right, NoP?

    • It is nice to see a real kitchen, a real dining room, and a real living room. Not like all the kitchens like you said shoved in the corner of a small room.

      While the bathrooms are not in the ideal spot, I don’t care about that to much, that wouldn’t be a deal breaker. It isn’t like there would be a line forming with strangers to use the bathroom….it would only be family and friends, and they all already know what my bathroom looks like anyhow……and who cares.

      the bedroom in between the dining room and kitchen, not sure what I would do with that, maybe desk w/computer…plant room, many possibilities.

      maybe a few modifications, but it is 100 oercent better than the crap they build now….

      • Agree with you about the bathrooms, and also about that bedroom, but these days everyone wants some kind of office space at home, and why not fill it with plants, if it has the light?

        Couple of years ago, I was standing in what was advertised as a brownstone two bedroom in Clinton Hill. The kitchen was in the corner of the tiniest room you have ever seen at the back. Walked down the hall, nice big room in front and that little room over the stairs on upper floors next to it. So I’m thinking, Nice big living room, pretty good. But then I walk to the back again, and I think, Wait, where’s the second bedroom? So I ask Rudopho, and he says, This is the living/dining room. That front room is one of the bedrooms.

        The two of us standing there filled up the space, so I said to him, But I have a couch!!

        That should have been the (smallish) dining area. The front room should have been the living room. Which left that tiny 8×10 front room as the only bedroom in this “two bedroom” apartment.

    • You’re right about that, Dylanfan.

      To see how far our standards of “luxury” or even adequacy have fallen, compare the “back of the house” portion of Emery Roth’s two-bedroom plan, consisting of pantry and two servants rooms, to the entire “entertainment” area of a two-bedroom apartment in Enrique Norten’s Park Slope misadventure (http://img.streeteasy.com/nyc/attachment/show/492554.jpg). Note that the service rooms of this pre-war beauty equal the entire area of the new condo’s “front of the house.” Add Roth’s kitchen and they are even more spacious!

      Today’s COTD, however, departs from the usual Roth plan in that the family bedrooms are entered directly from the “gallery.” This arrangement places the most private parts of the plan in conflict with the most public, even though the positioning of the gallery creates an elegant, elongated processional between living room and dining room — excellent for parties. (And who wouldn’t want to have lots of them, in an apartment like this?) Monday’s COTD at 41 Eastern Parkway handled the hierarchy of public, private and service functions better, with the benefit of a free-standing bathroom for use by guests and family ( http://www.brownstoner.com/blog/2012/03/co-op-of-the-day-41-eastern-parkway-5a/ ) although in a building the class of 35 Prospect Park West it would be assumed that the servants would keep all bedrooms as tidy as pins for any guests passing to and from the bathrooms. (In its favor, Number 35 does enjoy Roth’s sense of room proportions and his careful consideration of window placements — as symmetrical as can be in the family rooms — that makes it better architecture than Number 41.)

      I know nothing about the board at Number 35 and whether they would approve, but if a family requires a true three bedroom unit I see it easily accommodated in this plan — without compromising its pre-war qualities — by doing the following:
      1) Convert the service area (with exception of the kitchen) into a dining room.
      2) Turn the current dining room into the master bedroom.
      3) Share the plumbing wall of the corner bedroom’s bathroom to make a master bath in the bedroom’s current closet (enormous as it is).
      4) Optional: subdivide the gallery to create a separate “foyer” to the three bedrooms (accompanied by reconfiguring the closet and entry to the current second bedroom), thus extricating the private parts of the plan from the public.

      Actually, it was not unusual for pre-war developers to offer to customize apartments for tenants and buyers, so such changes would be in keeping with the spirit of buildings like Number 35.

      And just because we are the American Society for the Preservation of Pre-War Apartments does not mean that we discourage the thoughtful modification of these national treasures to make them appropriate for today’s lifestyles.

      NOP
      President, ASPPWA

      • what is that layout plan.?
        kitchen in the living room or living room with a kitchen in it.
        I cant even figure out how to place furniture in there. And wasted space with 2 bathrooms in a 2 bedroom.
        yuck !
        that is one horrible layout.

        this must be from a new building

        • Indeed, Stargazer, it’s in a new condo by a “starchitect.”

          And on a per square-foot basis, Number 35 is a bargain!

          NOP

          • Stargazer and NoP, I did not dare mention to Rudolpho that I needed room for my 6′ long dining room table, armoire, and antique icebox currently in my dining room. Nor did I bring up the rest of my living room furniture, just the couch (it alone would not have fit; a love seat, maybe, OR a small table with two chairs). 649K. I ran back to my one bedroom, with its real living room, dining room and (separate) kitchen.

            Someone’s living in it–likely sleeping (poorly) on a twin bed in that itty-bitty room up front.

            Why are plans like that approved?

          • can you imagine??. I too have a decent size table and four chairs that I can actually converse with people, so if your ever in the neighborhood, by all means…..

            I agree with you, why are these plans approved.

            I do think however the open kitchen concept takes care of the “window thing” for the kitchen, tenement act 1901 all rooms must have windows…..

            I don’t know why they stopped putting windows in bathrooms, another on of my pet peeves, a fan in the ceiling, I have yet to ever know one that actually worked….

          • Dylanfan, they are approved because they conform to the letter of modern housing law (which may vary from the realtor’s room designations). Another reason to avoid row house conversions and seek out original, pre-war apartments (those built between c. 1900 and 1941). Here are plans with real rooms, conforming to the mandated cubic space standards of their time (including heights, not just widths) and arranged as real places to live, whether for one, a couple, or a family with servants.

    • You’re right about that, Dylanfan.

      To see how far our standards of “luxury” or even adequacy have fallen, compare the “back of the house” portion of Emery Roth’s two-bedroom plan, consisting of pantry and two servants rooms, to the entire “entertainment” area of a two-bedroom apartment in Enrique Norten’s Park Slope misadventure (http://img.streeteasy.com/nyc/attachment/show/492554.jpg). Note that the service rooms of this pre-war beauty equal the entire area of the new condo’s “front of the house.” Add Roth’s kitchen and they are even more spacious!

      Today’s COTD, however, departs from the usual Roth plan in that the family bedrooms are entered directly from the “gallery.” This arrangement places the most private parts of the plan in conflict with the most public, even though the positioning of the gallery creates an elegant, elongated processional between living room and dining room — excellent for parties. (And who wouldn’t want to have lots of them, in an apartment like this?) Monday’s COTD at 41 Eastern Parkway handled the hierarchy of public, private and service functions better, with the benefit of a free-standing bathroom for use by guests and family ( http://www.brownstoner.com/blog/2012/03/co-op-of-the-day-41-eastern-parkway-5a/ ) although in a building the class of 35 Prospect Park West it would be assumed that the servants would keep all bedrooms as tidy as pins for any guests passing to and from the bathrooms. (In its favor, Number 35 does enjoy Roth’s sense of room proportions and his careful consideration of window placements — as symmetrical as can be in the family rooms — that makes it better architecture than Number 41.)

      I know nothing about the board at Number 35 and whether they would approve, but if a family requires a true three bedroom unit I see it easily accommodated in this plan — without compromising its pre-war qualities — by doing the following:
      1) Convert the service area (with exception of the kitchen) into a dining room.
      2) Turn the current dining room into the master bedroom.
      3) Share the plumbing wall of the corner bedroom’s bathroom to make a master bath in the bedroom’s current closet (enormous as it is).
      4) Optional: subdivide the gallery to create a separate “foyer” to the three bedrooms (accompanied by reconfiguring the closet and entry to the current second bedroom), thus extricating the private parts of the plan from the public.

      Actually, it was not unusual for pre-war developers to offer to customize apartments for tenants and buyers, so such changes would be in keeping with the spirit of buildings like Number 35.

      And just because we are the American Society for the Preservation of Pre-War Apartments does not mean that we discourage the thoughtful modification of these national treasures to make them appropriate for today’s lifestyles.

      NOP
      President, ASPPWA

  • Tiny bedroom and bathroom near kitchen is the Classic 6′s maid’s room and bath.

  • That kitchen floor is, um, interesting–I’d ask if it could come furnished

  • What? No complaints here about all the noise on this major, heavily trafficked street? No problem with the hordes who flood the farmers market each weekend with their littering and, double parking? No concern whatsoever for the noises coming from the various concerts and events at the bandshelll? Oh, I forgot. This is PPW, after all. What would be considered a thumbs-down “noise” and traffic problem on the east side of the Park becomes urban cachet on the west. LOL

    • Brooklynista, the ASPPWA embraces both the east and west sides of the Park and draws no invidious distinctions among Eastern Parkway, Ocean Avenue, Washington Avenue, and Prospect Park West, each of which is replete with splendid examples of the pre-war type — all the better because they include middle- to upper-class apartments of the period. These wonderful buildings communicate across geography and mark the period when Brooklyn apartments at many price points had “class,” from the studio with drop-down living room to the duplex mansion in the sky.

      The distinctions you mention are the unfortunate results of contemporary neighborhood rivalries. In the arc of history, they are of little consequence.

  • What? No complaints here about all the noise on this major, heavily trafficked street? No problem with the hordes who flood the farmers market each weekend with their littering and, double parking? No concern whatsoever for the noises coming from the various concerts and events at the bandshelll? Oh, I forgot. This is PPW, after all. What would be considered a thumbs-down “noise” and traffic problem on the east side of the Park becomes urban cachet on the west. LOL

  • The B line 8 room apartments in this coop are fantastic, and the duplex units are out of this world. I don’t like the private space not having a hallway and I’m not sure I would have gotten rid of the 2nd Maid’s Room.

    • ParkNYC, you are a purist and belong to an influential segment of the the ASPPWA: those who’d leave pre-war apartments in their original state.

      Between us, I too share in many of the purists’ values. Unless something’s broken, why fix it? The bulbous porcelain sinks and fixtures. The multi-paned cupboards. The subway tile. The servants’ rooms. Etc., etc., etc.

      But of course, there’s the modernizing faction among us, seeking to bring the archaic into the present.

      The ASPPWA is a big tent and welcomes all — within reason, of course.

    • ParkNYC, you are a purist and belong to an influential segment of the the ASPPWA: those who’d leave pre-war apartments in their original state.

      Between us, I too share in many of the purists’ values. Unless something’s broken, why fix it? The bulbous porcelain sinks and fixtures. The multi-paned cupboards. The subway tile. The servants’ rooms. Etc., etc., etc.

      But of course, there’s the modernizing faction among us, seeking to bring the archaic into the present.

      The ASPPWA is a big tent and welcomes all — within reason, of course.

  • I just looked at the layout and I don’t understand why one has to walk through the bedroom to go to the bathroom, that is my only critism.