« Filling In The Blanks in Park Slope Catholic Church and City Stick It to Fort Greene »

June 8, 2006

House of the Day: Fort Greene Ground Zero

house
This place is pretty much a dump, but the price of $1.2 million for prime Fort Greene reflects that. The property clearly has been rental building for some time, with cheap kitchens and no love given to the old details. (Our favorite one is the small round skylight at the top of the stairwell.) We bet the ultimate buyer will convert this place into condos, using the remaining FAR to squeeze out a set-back addition on the roof and maybe a small extension on the rear of the ground floor. Maybe some of you who've converted buildings like this before can weigh in on whether the numbers work at this price. Shahn?
92 Lafayette Avenue [Corcoran] GMAP P*Shark




Posted by Brownstoner at 11:36 AM | Comments (23)
Categories: Properties

Comments

This has been on the market for many months. I believe the entire back wall was taken out and it is open to the elements at the moment. If this is the property I'm thinking of, it is on Lafayette between S. Portland and South Elliot, south side of the street.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 8, 2006 11:48 AM

Actually, I might be wrong on which building this is in the above post, I just checked your GMAP link.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 8, 2006 11:50 AM

Anon, that's not the same building.

Posted by: mcteague at June 8, 2006 11:58 AM

20' X 35', w/10' extensions on thel ower two floors--its REALLY small for a four story house.

Posted by: Bob Marvin at June 8, 2006 12:05 PM

The story behind this place since it was originally put on the market months ago is that it is a 6-family SRO wrapped in legal troubles, and there is a rent-controlled tenant on the parlor floor that refuses to leave.

Now, there is big news in the updated listing:

It appears some deal has been reached, as it is now finally being listed as to be delivered *totally* vacant.

There is a ton of reno work needed to convert it from its current chopped up state as a 6-family SRO, but at least it appears that buyers can get a guarantee (not previously the case) for the property to be delivered 100% vacant.

Interesting to see what happens here, and to what degree the parlor-floor tenant apparently now agreeing to vacate brings to the equation, although I am not sure if there are any other lingering legal issues.

We'll see.

Otherwise, looks like a nice place and location for someone game for a total gut reno.

Posted by: webster at June 8, 2006 12:07 PM

This is a non-vacant SRO which explains part of the low price.

I've always heard that SROs are very difficult to convert. Is it just hard to buy out the residents, or is there something else?

I'm curious to hear people's experience.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 8, 2006 12:09 PM

Er, whoops, should have refreshed my memory by reading the actual updated listing linked above.

It's chopped into 1 apartment + 9 SRO rooms. (not 6 fam SRO as I said above)

My mistake.

Posted by: webster at June 8, 2006 12:12 PM

This looks like one of those gut renovation required houses asking a few 100K less than market price. If it requires rewiring electric (you might have to give up old plaster walls along with original details, if any left), oil tank removal, asbestos removal, roof, lead pipes etc., those savings would never cover renovation cost. And you and your engineers never know what inside of walls look like until it's opened. Those houses are for someone has incredible cash flow and time (and love for house).

Posted by: Anonymous at June 8, 2006 12:42 PM

My understanding is that unless there are certificates of non-harassment from all prior tenants for the last three years, the city will not approve any building plans to convert the SRO into a regular family house. This will certainly crimp anyone's abilty to renovate the property for quite a while.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 8, 2006 12:50 PM

That is correct re: Cert of Non Harasssment. Getting the cert, assuming everything's kosher with the tenants, takes 3-6 months in a good case. Only after that can you get DOB to approve plans.

Posted by: Brownstoner at June 8, 2006 1:10 PM

Bob, - REALLY small? thats 3200sq ft.
I know we live in days of McMansions- but 3200sq ft 4 story sounds REALLY typical to me.
Not your big glorious house tour house - but more the usual.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 8, 2006 1:22 PM

I was bidding on this house with intention to convert into condos but backed down because the lot and house FAR is a losing money.

Posted by: developerxx at June 8, 2006 1:34 PM

No wonder all those SROs are so inexpensive - you have 3 prior years to worry about tenant complaints.

Posted by: BxBrooklyn at June 8, 2006 1:34 PM

Used to live in the big apartment building at 99 Lafayette. That looks like a typical sized building for that section.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 8, 2006 1:35 PM

As I said from my previous post I could have bought it for 850K but backed down because it will lose money converting into condos.

Posted by: developerxx at June 8, 2006 1:40 PM

Developerxx keep your day job.

Posted by: Anon at June 8, 2006 3:07 PM

In fairness to developerxx, this was originally offered at less than $1m I think. It quickly went up to about where it is now and has sat for months. This seems consistent with it becoming vacant, but 3-years of certificates is pretty tough. Who knows what you have to pay to get them, and one crazy guy could hold everything up forever.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 8, 2006 4:29 PM

I saw it a few months ago. Wasn't allowed in first floor since tenant was still there, but the rest of the building looked horrible - not even "looks horrible but good bones" - I mean everything was bad (oh, except for the boiler, which actually looked like it had been replaced within the last 10 years or so). Needs a total gut job. Also, the bus stop is almost right in front of the building.

Posted by: anon at June 8, 2006 6:07 PM

Anonymous 01:22,

I'd expect a four story house to be more like 4,000 sg. ft. My fairly modest 3 story house is almost as big and PLG houses are generally considerably smaller than those in FG. Of course you're right that a 3,200 sg.ft.house is NOT small by any objective standard, but oned of the great advantages ofb browntone ownership IMO is the great luxury of being able to WASTE space :-)

Posted by: Bob Marvin at June 8, 2006 7:12 PM

I think any brownstone over 3600 squ ft is "big" and you pay extra for it. 4,000 squ. ft is not the norm, at least in CG where we live.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 8, 2006 8:18 PM

i live in 101 lafayette (@ corner of south oxford) on a high floor. several of my windows face this building and i can tell you from 10 floors up the noise from bus & subway is deafening -- i can't imagine living right on the street level. imagine the screech of air brakes every 5 minutes. i love fort greene and the surrounding blocks, but this is reallly a nasty location imho.
that being said, maybe special noise reducing windows would do the trick?

Posted by: anon at June 8, 2006 8:35 PM

I have always wondered - and you guys seem more knowledgable than me - whether an SRO could equate to a B&B or small hotel or what they used to call a "Tourist Home"?

I guess I have fantasies of Paris or something

Posted by: coward at June 9, 2006 12:33 PM

Sorry for the late post. I saw this building a year and a half ago when they were trying to sell it occupied (with the RC tenant) in a quick flip for $750k. I didn't think it made sense then, and I still don't. The garden floor has really low ceilings, and there isn't much you can add to the property because of the shallow backyard. It also needs significant renovation. This will sell to a user and a user only.

Posted by: Shahn Andersen at June 10, 2006 10:49 PM

Post a comment

Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.

Latest Restaurant Additions