« Fort Greene Dining Doubleshot: Chez Oscar & Ici Monday Photo of the Day »

March 13, 2006

House of the Day: FSBO at 178 Maple

house The owners of this house must have a lot of friends! Within the space of about two hours on Friday, four people emailed this listing to us having recently received an email about it. Everyone who had an opinion said the same thing: Gorgeous, pristine house but perhaps a little pricey. If you include the finished basement, the house is 3,000 square feet (actually, more like 2,700 according to Property Shark); if you don't, well, you can do the math. We'd have to agree with the emailers, but you can't blame the sellers for trying. And you never know--this brownstone is so beautiful you can't rule out the possibility that someone who's been looking at absolute crap in this price range in other nabes will walk in and feel like they've found a bargain. And if they love, then maybe they have. It only takes one.
FSBO $950,000 [178 Maple] GMAP P*Shark

Comments

Very pretty! As someone who has sold FSBO, I only have two thoughts on the marketing end:

1. That snow is going to make that listing look very old in a minute.

2. That yard could have been a show-stopper. I wonder why they didn't wait 4 weeks and throw in $100 worth of tulips from Lowes.

Otherwise, perfect.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 13, 2006 11:52 AM

The unfortunate part here (and it's really no biggie) is that this house is on the south side of the street -- in the winter, the front lawns of the north side houses get all the sun, and the snow goes away much earlier (and the flowers bloom sooner). It reverses itself in the summer, but when you're dying to get out of winter and your front yard is still snow-laden while the crocuses are coming out across the street, it's painful!

Posted by: babs at March 13, 2006 12:00 PM

wow, it is indeed gorgeous

Posted by: lc at March 13, 2006 12:18 PM

That backyard is to die for.

Posted by: Anon at March 13, 2006 12:29 PM

Beautiful house, and very informative website. A very professional job, and better than some RE sites.

They should have had photos of the kitchen and bathroom, however, only because most people want to see them, warts and all. Not showing them makes you think they aren't that great, when they could be fine. I didn't even notice the snow. Flowers are nice, but wouldn't sway me towards the house if it wasn't great otherwise. I like that they took pictures of the rooms empty. You get a better sense of what you are really getting without the distractions of people's stuff.

All in all, a fine FSBO effort. Best of luck to them.

Posted by: CrownHeightsProud at March 13, 2006 12:32 PM

more fsbo

Posted by: diana at March 13, 2006 12:46 PM

As far as the photos go, the advantage of selling FSBO is they can update the photos as soon as they like if they get better pix in the spring.

I'm a broken record, but a finished basement is just not equivalent to other square footage. A playroom is great, but it's not equal (in utility or renovation cost) to a parlor or another floor of bedrooms, etc. -- it's still a basement, sitting on cold earth. But, much like Bstoner said, all it takes is one buyer who doesn't realize that...

Looks pretty, anyway.

Posted by: linusvanpelt at March 13, 2006 1:09 PM

I'll take southern exposure in the backyard over melting snow in the front any day.

Posted by: Drew at March 13, 2006 1:34 PM

Lovely house, but it can't be bigger than 1,900 square feet. $950,000 for that in Lefferts Manor seems way over the top to me. No matter how you feel about the nabe, prices there simply do not justify this asking price. The house on the same block for $975K is about a thousand square feet larger and has simialr details--and that one is overpriced too. I'd say this should be 900K tops. But we'll see...

Posted by: Anonymous at March 13, 2006 1:35 PM

Just asking. . .do others agree with one the previous posters that houses on the north side of the street (not just this one) are better because the front faces south?
I often see ads touting "south-facing garden," which is the opposite. . .

Posted by: tripster at March 13, 2006 1:41 PM

I love the FSBO listing. So much info. Should have more pictures though. Mostly of bathrooms and kitchen.

-stephen

Posted by: Stephen at March 13, 2006 1:42 PM

The front of my house faces north. I do like having the extra sunshine in the garden.

Posted by: Hal at March 13, 2006 1:50 PM

it was just sold a year ago for $480K less than they are asking...so obviously it's a flipper who bought it run-down

Posted by: anon at March 13, 2006 1:59 PM

change that..it was bought 4 months ago...definitely a flipper..thus the higher asking price

Posted by: anon at March 13, 2006 1:59 PM

3,000 square feet is obviously a stretch.

Looks to be about 1,600 if you don't count the basement.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 13, 2006 2:11 PM

Property Shark says 1,800 square feet. That seems right.

Personally, a south-facing garden is nice but I'd rather have the good light pouring into my living room.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 13, 2006 2:13 PM

Re: south v. north side of street.

I've lived on the north side for over 30 years. Easier snow shoveling is great, but I'd love a south garden. Most of my back yard is in shade after Labor Day--I gave up growing tomatoes long ago.

All academic though because I'm never moving.

Posted by: Bob Marvin at March 13, 2006 2:50 PM

just as i suspected --- an even split on north vs. south!!
'Stoner can argue over anything!
i saw one building on sixth ave that faced west and i definitely thought that was better because both back and front yards got sun. . ..

Posted by: tripster at March 13, 2006 3:00 PM

I vote for the South facing garden...

Posted by: Gidget at March 13, 2006 3:17 PM

South for me! If you garden, definitely more options for more colorful plants in a south facing garden. Shade gardens can be really beautiful, but there are many more plants that require too much sun for the north facing garden. You can always add a pergola or deck to provide shade, but you can't often add sun. Not without a demo crew or a chainsaw. I'm kind of a sucker for a sunny kitchen, anyway.

Posted by: kensington gal at March 13, 2006 4:05 PM

I agree that this place is way over priced, even with a south garden. I'd pay maybe 875,000 for it since it's so cute, but no more.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 13, 2006 4:41 PM

Maple Street houses have been selling in the $900's, so this is not out of line at all. 168 Maple raised their price to $975 because of so many offers (they should have accepted one, because now they risk going stale) and 170(?) Maple (also fsbo) had an accepted offer the first weekend which only fell through because the buyer's own deal on their sale has been held up. I think this one will sell.

Posted by: dt at March 13, 2006 5:15 PM

dt--At an asking of 925K, 168 should have been able to get over 975K with multiple bids. If they didn't get it then, they certainly won't get it now that they raised the price. 170 Maple is only asking 930K. Even if you accept that 168 should get 975K, the difference in sizes betwen these houses is far more than a 25K difference. If that one is 975K, this house should be no more than 925K. Personally, I doubt either will go for that much, but there is always one numbskull in the bunch.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 13, 2006 5:27 PM

FLIPPER>>>>>
Definately. I think someone on the block bought this house for 500K, borrowed another 250K and flipping it for about a 200K profit.
Flip.

Posted by: FLIP WILSON at March 13, 2006 5:45 PM

North garden: Good, even light, cooler in the summers, and more growing options than you'd imagine.

And if you happen to have them, the southern light through lovely stained glass transoms makes any draw-back worthwhile!

Posted by: Anonymous at March 13, 2006 8:17 PM

Listing was probably emailed by partners not their friends.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 13, 2006 8:24 PM

Listing was probably emailed by partners not their friends.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 13, 2006 8:24 PM

I have a two story, very similar to this one. I'm on the North side of the street. It's the best of both worlds. I get the sun in the living room, but the house is short enough that my backyard is rarely shady. In fact, it's more often too sunny. I wanted to grow moss between my patio stones, but it's so sunny there's no chance.

Posted by: annonymouse at March 13, 2006 8:27 PM

poster 5:27, 178 Maple is in much nicer condition than 170 Maple. The yard is also much bigger. This place is in move in condition, while 170 doesn't show nearly as well. The detail counts for something, too. So again, I believe that 178 will move at or close to its ask. I am also of the belief that all of these houses will sell in the $900's.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 13, 2006 9:20 PM

If you don't like where the sun is move it.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 13, 2006 10:08 PM

I don't get it. If a flipper bought the place in run down condition a couple of months ago, unless it only needed a new coat of paint and some new appliances, it looks like someone sunk some money and thought into it. The place is really nice. The purist in me wouldn't have used some of those particular light fixtures, but they are period appropriate. The kitchen doesn't win any design awards, but it is decent enough for someone to live with for a few years. The bathroom is Eh!, but again, livable. They did a wonderful job on the floors and the wainscoting and other detail looks pristine. And you have that large back yard, which is clear of dead trees, junk and the other crap often seen in cheap flips, as they usually don't think about the back yards. All in all - a nice job.

So what's the gripe about it being a flip? Is it only because they stand to make a nice profit, marketing a house for what similar houses in the nabe are going for? I can understand the grousing if they had done the usual crappy coat of paint job plus low end Home Depot kitchen, but this is a nice renovation. Anyone want to enlighten me?

Posted by: CrownHeightsProud at March 14, 2006 12:13 AM

If you're in the market for a house to actually live in--you know, raise the kids, get to know the neighbors, grow old--it sucks to see everything affordable bought not by someone who loves and is committed to the house and community but by someone who uses it solely as an investment and pushes the price way out of your grasp. I'm not saying people shouldn't flip, I'm not saying they're not smart, I'm not saying it's not a free country--I'm just saying it sucks. There are a lot of people out house hunting who can handle carrying costs of a mortgage and home repair loan, but they don't have a huge bolus of cash for the down payment. Fixer uppers used to be the refuge of those with energy and imagination but not a lot of scratch. Now, they're being flipped for twice the price--which also pushes up prices of other houses in the neighborhood and makes it harder and harder for a sucker to catch an even break.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 14, 2006 1:01 AM

Wrong -- Anon 1:00AM!

Flippers, especially those who properly renovate and then sell for a much higher price, are helping the people who already own homes in a once blighted area. Those people, the ones who lived through the hard years (for lack of a better term), deserve to see their homes rise in value.

The fact that lower income newcomers can't afford a house in a particular area anymore is not something to be lamented. The oldtimers moved in before prices rose and "deserve" the run up in prices that flippers, developers, gentrifiers, yuppies, and whoever else, bring to a neighborhood by paying ever increasing prices.

A "sucker" as you put it, does not deserve to "catch an even break." A sucker should stay in his shoebox rip off rental apartment and suck his thumb.

Posted by: Ebomb at March 14, 2006 8:15 AM

Wow, 2 answers on totally opposite sides of the spectrum - not surprising around here.

I have to admit mixed feelings here, I bought my house from a flipper, although I knew perfectly well that's what was going on. As Anon 1:01 said, I needed an inexpensive fixer upper, I didn't (don't) have a lot of money, and because the flipper was a friend, he took back the downpayment in the form of another loan, or I never could have bought the house. I absolutely agree that there should be more programs and opportunities that allow low interest or special term down payment loans, because that is the hardest part of buying a home for the average person - having the downpayment. My friend bought my house in foreclosure, and never set foot in it before buying it. After getting it, he poured a new cement floor in the cellar, sheathed the back of the house in concrete, and put a plywood floor down in the kitchen, as the original floor had large rotted out sections. He also bought a stove for one apartment, and had an ironworker put a couple of sets of bars on a couple of windows. That was it. In return, he sold the house for about twice what he paid for it, which was still below market value for its size, the nabe, etc. Would I have liked to have gotten it for what he did? Of course. I also would have liked to have bought in Bed Stuy for all of the 17 years I lived there when primo, primo houses were going for around $100K back in the early 80's, and less than primo, but certainly decent were going for $60 - 85K. These are the houses that now go for close to a million. Damn! But I couldn't do it, I just didn't have the money. In regards to buying foreclosures - it's not my business, as it is my friend's - I don't have the connections, the capital, or the cojones which are necessary to that business. But he does, and we both profited - I got my house, he got paid.

As Ebomb said, I am glad the oldtimers are getting good prices for their houses, as God knows, they have been through the wars (sometimes literally), and are now able to see some profit from their hard work. And I am certainly glad my house has tripled in worth. However I don't think his last sentence is valid, people are forced to live in a lot of places they don't want to, not because they are too stupid to buy, but more because they can't. Again, the answer to more home ownership is figuring out how to get more people access to downpayment money. I don't see that as middleclass welfare, but as expanding the pool of homeowners, which provides for an increased tax base, and more stable neighborhoods and cities.

It seems to me that flippers are going to have to concentrate more on the fringes of established neighborhoods, and start going to new places where prices are still low, such as East NY, and buy up and hold for a while until the demand for houses starts in those places, and mark my words, it will soon enough. It would seem that to buy high, and not be able to sell for much higher, would not be a worth the effort. But what do I know?

Posted by: CrownHeightsProud at March 14, 2006 10:18 AM

FYI -FSBO---156 had offer first week, deal never fell through---contracts all signed....went for over 900...

Posted by: Anonymous at March 14, 2006 1:40 PM

Whoa Ebomb--why so hostile? I said I wasn't saying people shouldn't be allowed to flip, but I was answering a question about what's wrong with flipping. The thing is, some people have lived through the hard years and now are being priced out when they're grown up or ready to buy. You guys keep looking at it like it's just about investment. For some people, it's about home.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 14, 2006 5:30 PM

I visted the open house at 178 Maple, and thought they did a wonderful job renovating, the place is lovely. But it is very small for the asking price, particularly in PLG. The kitchen is not eat-in. There is no bathroom on the main floor, you have to go upstairs or down to the basement. Two of the bedrooms are spacious, but the other two are quite small.

156 Maple, while not in such pristine shape, is much bigger, with the two-floor extension on the back, 1/2 bath on first floor, etc. Same with 160 Maple.

But 178 is a cute little house, particularly if you don't have a family. I'll be interested to see what it sells for. My guess is around $875K, which ain't bad considering they bought it six months ago for $500K!!

Posted by: onomotopia at March 15, 2006 12:14 AM

Great photos which really stretttttch the rooms. If I ever FSBO, I want pix like that, because all in all, this is a fairly small house but the photos read big. Like onomotopia, I agree that it is great for a couple. I live in a house with the same layout in Bay Ridge and of the 4 original small bedrooms on the 2nd floor, two were combined, one is an office and one is a small guest room.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 15, 2006 12:45 AM

The house may be pushing the asking price, but to say that a house with 2 decent and 2 small bedrooms is appropriate only for a couple -- keep in mind what small spaces families often live in in New York. For someone moving out of an apartment and looking to buy a house for less than a mil, this may look like a castle.

I mean, some people like more space and that's fine -- that's why God made Ditmas Park -- but I think there are plenty of families to whom this would seem like more than enough.

I'd be more bothered by the lack of a bathroom on the parlor floor, but that again is personal taste, not a universal. I don't suppose there's any practical/attractive way of fitting a half bath there?

Posted by: linusvanpelt at March 15, 2006 9:16 AM

We bid on a nearly identical house in the same row in 2001. Our bid was 525K and we didn't get it, so it sold for at least 530K. From 530K to 950K is an 80% increase in 5 years. Not much of an appreciation given what has happened in most of Brooklyn.

At the time, everyone was saying that Lefferts Manor was about to have dramatic changes since prices had increased by 50% in the previous 2 years. But I was there a month ago and absolutely nothing had changed. Still no stores or restaurants. Still scary people hanging out on the corners. I'm glad we didn't get that house. Not to mention that the place we bought has far more than doubled since 2001! Color me happy.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 15, 2006 10:29 AM

According to property shark, the sellers bought this place in September 2005 for $500K.

Posted by: onomotopia at March 15, 2006 10:45 AM

That is strange since another house in the same row went for about 825K in spring 2004. And I do remember the 525K or so sale in 2001. This place must have been a mess.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 15, 2006 10:53 AM

I think the place was pretty dark and dreary, which is why the sellers should be congratulated for their vision in renovation. But when comparing prices, don't forget that the lower numbered houses on that same block (Maple 2) are about 1000 square feet larger.

Posted by: onomotopia at March 15, 2006 1:02 PM

I'm curious -- is there any way that high ebonized oak wainscotting (pictured here in the DR ) can be made lighter? I'm one of these people who feels oppressed by dark wood.

I love the color of the tiger oak.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 15, 2006 1:14 PM

RE comments at 1:02--The house we bid on in 2001 for 525K was identical but closer to Rogers, same details, same layout, same everything. This bathroom looks nicer. So the price comparison is a good one. (One of the larger ones closer to Bedford went for about 600K back then.)

Posted by: Anonymous at March 15, 2006 1:28 PM

Beautiful. But tiny for a brownstone. And in PLG? $900K tops.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 15, 2006 6:30 PM

Saw the open house and although the sellers did a tasteful job, I'd worry about it being all surface and not much else. Kitchen is tiny and formica is old.

I'd agree that it's good for a small family who don't want to do any painting or work of their own.

The block is pretty, but the price is a stretch. Maybe a Manhattaner will swoop in and pay it, though.

Posted by: anonymous at March 25, 2006 2:28 PM

« Fort Greene Dining Doubleshot: Chez Oscar & Ici Monday Photo of the Day »

March 13, 2006

House of the Day: FSBO at 178 Maple

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions