« The Gradual Greening of New York Heard on Third: The Brits Are Coming! »

July 7, 2006

Architecture 101: Public School That Went Private

How beautiful and majestic is the former P.S. 9 on Sterling Place in Prospect Heights? V-E-R-Y . The Renaissance Revival structure stopped us in our tracks as we strolled by on Vanderbilt the other day. Built in 1887, the building had fallen into severe disrepair by 1989, the year that, gasp!, Forest City Ratner struck a deal with the city to convert it into co-op apartments. As part of the conversion, the facade, which is a mix of brownstone, sandstone, terra-cotta and brick, was meticulously restored under the watch of LPC. Nine of the 22 apartments were taken by artists who had been displaced by the Metrotech project. Guess how much the 3,150-square-foot loft cost back in '89? $500,000. Yowza.
From Classes to Co-ops [NY Times] GMAP

Comments

500K for an apartment on Vanderbilt in '89? Gosh that was super expensive. You could have bought a huge house for that around the corner.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 7, 2006 9:48 AM

a 3150 sq ft 'apartment' is the size of a house.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 7, 2006 9:52 AM

It's the size of a house, but it's not an actual freestanding house is it, bitch?

Posted by: Anonymous at July 7, 2006 9:58 AM

Ummm... that's a little too much attitude for me this early in the morning...

Posted by: ouch at July 7, 2006 10:16 AM

and it is a coop where there are rules rules and more rules! a house is much better no matter what anyone says. i lived in a coop and would NEVER do it again. it is a dorm for older people.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 7, 2006 10:16 AM

Yeah, let's put some perspective on this thread. I missed out on a Bstone down the block that had mucho detail that sold for $350K in May 1995. But to not be outdone, we bought a muy fabuloso place in Oct of that year for $365K just further down the block. 19x131 lot, 19x45 bldg, 4 stories, no board, backyard, rental income to offset that grande mortgage at the time....trust me that coop has not appreciated nearly as much as the house has. To each his/her own, but I'll take my own four walls over share certificates anyday....

Posted by: Andrew at July 7, 2006 10:44 AM

Speaking as someone who first bought an apt in NYC in 1988, I can assure you that not only was $500k a HUGE amount to spend for that location in 1989(regardless of the size of the space) but the owner probably also enjoyed negative equity well into the mid 90s as a result.

Posted by: anon at July 7, 2006 11:23 AM

Anyone know how much apartments there would go for now? Any on the market recently?

Posted by: Anonymous at July 7, 2006 11:27 AM

Restoration of a classic building and housing for artists. Is this an example of the broken promises that AY opponents love to say is typical of Bruce Ratner?

Posted by: Anonymous at July 7, 2006 11:37 AM

There was just a 3br there for sale, but it looks like it just sold.

http://brownharrisstevens.com/detail.aspx?id=472084

Posted by: anon at July 7, 2006 11:53 AM

We had an "accepted offer" on that very apartment for just under asking until we were mysteriously beaten out by an earlier offer that resurfaced for what my broker said was considerably more. (So unethical... but that's another thread.)

I'd say that the apartments in that building have appreciated pretty well.

Posted by: asw at July 7, 2006 12:16 PM

I'd have to agree -- that was a lot of money for a co-op anywhere, but especially Prospect Heights, back then. This was still a pretty sketchy area at the time. Obviously that price was inflated to cover the costs of resettling those 9 artists, who, presumably, paid very little or were renters. Wonder who bought it?

And who ever said that BR didn't spend money to get people out of their homes -- look at how much he paid people in Dan's bulding to go, and I know for a fact he also offered some displaced artists renting in Dean St and in the Spalding building a year's rent, plus broker's fee, anywhere they wanted to go. It's just when people don't respond to his offers that he resorts to dirty pool, like the threat of eminent domain.

Posted by: babs at July 7, 2006 12:27 PM

A great post. It is proof that we can have our cake & eat it too. Preserve some beautiful buildings and turn a profit. This is "capitalist creativity" at its best. Forget that it's a coop with rules. Look at the big picture---developers who come to your neighborhood looking to crush the church you were baptized/married in can be shown an example how you can save something & still make a buck.

Posted by: jf.sellsius at July 7, 2006 12:42 PM

Congrats! Some real great information here on your page. Quite an effort! I wonder how someone can contribute so much to the industry. Please keep the hard work up. Please let me know if need any info or help on architectural renderings and illustrations
Regards!

Posted by: Architectural Rendering Consultant at July 7, 2006 12:48 PM

thats my favorite building in all of brooklyn. its so lovely!

Posted by: armchair_warrior at July 7, 2006 1:04 PM

So I do some analysis as follows: apt goes for $1.25mm and cc of $725, versus buying a 3 family bstone for $1.9mm in Park Slope, and receive about $3600 in monthly rent to support about $540K of mortgage indebtedness (30 yrs @ 7%). Could be an even money toss-up on the amenities:waitlist for a parking space vs less sq footage, but with your own private backyard upon closing. So which would you take today? If its of interest, let me know, because I have a bstone to sell to you.

Posted by: Andrew at July 7, 2006 1:59 PM

I guess this is one of the artist studios:

http://www.corcoran.com/property/listing.aspx?Region=NYC&ListingID=879039

Posted by: Anonymous at July 7, 2006 2:10 PM

Re 11:37 - Ratner used P.S. 9 as bait to get the people to move from the downtown area that became Metrotech - there was no charity involved on his part. People in PH were upset because the building was used as a neighborhood arts space -though the building was not in good shape but the neighborhood perception was that it was taken away from us.
Regarding prices, by the mid eighties prices were high enough that a top of the line brownstone would sell for 600K. After the stockmarket crashed in '87 and the resulting recession - which was very nasty in NYC, prices dropped far lower. It was not until the mid nineties that got up to that level again.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 7, 2006 2:56 PM

that darned Ratner. Tricked those people out of downtown -(you all do remember what a lovely place Myrtle Ave and vic. was down by Sid's hardware back then, don't you?) - and now they have to live in the down and out Prospect Hts. hood. Don't trust that man.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 7, 2006 3:59 PM

hahahhahaha! 3:59 that was awesome! hilarious! all of you ratner/frc/ay haters out there should take note. the above postings clearly show how retarded you sound to the rest of us when you demonize ay for the sake of nimby!

Posted by: Anonymous at July 7, 2006 4:25 PM

Back to the architecture. This is a beautiful building, but it is does not hold a candle to the truly majestic Old Boys High in Bed-Stuy. While it pains me to say it, that is a "castle" that would probably make amazing condos some day!

Posted by: ANON at July 7, 2006 4:27 PM

Yes. Incredible building. IMHO, make the Old Boys High a private school which would further promote gentrification, higher property values and economic development in the area. Private school conversion should also happen at the old armories on Jefferson Ave (corner of Throop) and Bedford (corner of Atlantic). In the end, the nabes with the best school options for parents will be the real winners in Brooklyn.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 7, 2006 4:39 PM

If Old Boy's High School was lying abandoned with trees growing out of upperstorey windows, I would have no problem with condos. You are right, the building would make wonderful apartments. Thank God it's a city landmark, and has been restored and looks wonderful!

I'm very glad, too, that there are a couple of alternative high school and continuing education education mini schools operating out of Boy's, which are working to improve the educational opportunities in Bed Stuy. Education is also a community's wealth.

Posted by: CrownHeightsProud at July 7, 2006 5:38 PM

Back to say, could they build them, or what? Old Boy's High, PS 9, and many of the other 19th century public school buildings in NYC are gorgeous pieces of public architecture. Thank goodness almost everyone realizes that, and as schools are decommissioned, they usually end up as apartment buildings, or as some kind of public building, but they rarely get torn down. The new schools they are replaced by are usually mediocre, architecturally, and pretty much forgetable.

Posted by: Crown HeightsProud at July 7, 2006 5:44 PM

RE 03:59 PM - I don't think you have the sense that these neighborhoods were not what they are now - PH was not the best in those days- but the real point is that the violation of your rights - being forced out of your home - I find it strange that these basic human rights don't seem to have any meaning to what I assume is a younger generation - even if you are given money it is the power to displace another human being that is appalling and to be the victim of that kind of power.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 7, 2006 6:22 PM

On the note of architecture & education - Anon 4:39 & Crownheights Proud, thank you for making those points. The Education of our children should happen in glorious buildings such as these. My daughter has the privilege of attending private school in a building that is just as architecturally significant and those surroundings have a profound impact on how she sees school and the pride she displays when she talks about school. There is a significant amount of pride to be had in the esthetics of NYC Public School architecture. Wouldn't that make a great subject to facilitate curriculum for students? Math (engineering) Social Studies (immigration) , Art (influence of architectural styles) and on and on . . . .Just dreaming, but I have to!

Posted by: ANON at July 7, 2006 7:57 PM

The NYT article notwithstanding, and Ratner's list prices, that apartment did not originally sell for $500K--I don't think anything in the building sold at that level until recently. The most recent apartment that was sold was originally purchased for around $120K, I believe (but is only about 1800 sq. feet). It is a terrific building, although Ratner did a generally crappy initial renovation.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 7, 2006 8:17 PM

RE: 08:17 PM - I agree the apts didn't sell for 500K - that would have been way out of line for that market - maybe half that or even less

Posted by: Anonymous at July 8, 2006 9:31 AM

Such a lovely building. If ONLY, Ratner and his strip mall cohorts could DESIGN & BUILD something with a tenth of the architecutral integrity. Mind you I said a tenth, I know no one would put that much effort into a building today. Why is that? Why are we allowing the Ratners of the world to build an architectural ghetto all around us?

Posted by: Seamus at July 8, 2006 9:44 AM

I went to school in the Bronx in Ann Seton Elementary School. Not only was it an amazing (and weird) take on a medieval fortress- but it had some of the most wonderful WPA murals ever painted. I often wonder if they were preserved.They were one of the big influences on my life and desire to be an artist.

I realize to recreate architecture of that quality today would be prohibitively expensive and the aesthetics of architecture have changed, but I have no doubts that much better work could be done. Some years ago the Brooklyn Law College added a new wing to the building on Boerum and Jorelemon. It was beautifully done and creatively designed to work with the surrounding buildings, using traditional brick, limestone and details. The dorm they built on State St. is another successful design- a modern take on older building style. The architect, believe it or not- Frank Gehry.

Posted by: Bx2Bklyn at July 8, 2006 11:24 AM

I do believe the price quoted for an apartment in that building back in 1989 was incorrect. I looked at a huge space there back in 1996 and it was only $295,000. I passed on it because of the many issues that accompany a co-op board.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 8, 2006 6:28 PM

Ratner just doesn't care about aesthetics when it comes to business. A Times article about AY admitted as much; it said that, looking back, he regrets Metrotech and the target mall being so ugly. So he figured adding Gehry to AY would make it a slam dunk, cement his legacy and be his gift to BK. Some gift, right?

Posted by: anon at July 10, 2006 7:31 AM

Go Nets!!!

Posted by: Anonymous at July 10, 2006 8:56 PM

« The Gradual Greening of New York Heard on Third: The Brits Are Coming! »

July 7, 2006

Architecture 101: Public School That Went Private

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions