« Architecture 101: Bed Stuy's Boys High School Friday On The Record »

Open House Picks: Townhouses

Categories: Open Houses

house Carroll Gardens
361 DeGraw Street
Brownstone RE
Sunday 1-3
$1,650,000
GMAP P*Shark

house Bedford Stuyvesant
53 Monroe Street
Corcoran
Sunday 12-2
$1,150,000
GMAP P*Shark

house South Slope
212 16th Street
Douglas Elliman
Sunday 12-1:30
$1,100,000
GMAP P*Shark

house Crown Heights
271 Brooklyn Avenue
Ettelson RE
Sunday 1-3
$799,000
GMAP P*Shark

56 Comments

By Anonymous on October 20, 2006 12:04 PM

Bad news -- these all suck. The one in carroll gardens looked great until I read that the house comes with the tenants.

Good news -- I can afford all of them (individually that is).

BTW, does "established tenants" = rent controlled/stablized

By Anonymous on October 20, 2006 12:13 PM

These are the crappiest picks in a long time. Terrible.

By Rick on October 20, 2006 12:15 PM

not true anon 12:04, Carroll Gardens House is a 3 family. No such thing as rent control on 3 family houses.

By crouchback on October 20, 2006 12:17 PM

Degraw Street and Brooklyn Avenue are the only two that appear to be priced realistically. The pricing for Degraw would be on-target if the building were being delivered vacant. (I have generally interpreted "established tenants" to mean a combination of below-market rents/long leases.) The Corcoran crack pipe was obviously in use before pricing for Monroe Street (I think the broker is a College classmate.)

By crouchback on October 20, 2006 12:24 PM

"Carroll Gardens House is a 3 family. No such thing as rent control on 3 family houses. "

Disagree. There have been one or two weird examples of this in the Neighborhood with respect to 3-families. I remember one on Pacific Street between Nevins and 3rd and another on Bond Street between Degraw and Douglass. The tenants had been there for more than 20 years. Unusual, but one could still run into it, especially in CG given the number of old-timers.

By Anonymous on October 20, 2006 12:26 PM

degraw has some weird tenant situation, it isn't a 4 family but I think it was and these tenants are rent-stabilized somehow

By Anonymous on October 20, 2006 12:27 PM

Mr. B for tomorrow's apartment listings, can you please (pretty please) feature the pierrepont street apartment that BHS is showing. I have no interest in the apartment (I wish !), but am dying to hear what people think about the listing.

By malymis on October 20, 2006 12:28 PM

It is possible to be RS or RC in 3 familly building depends what happend in the past
(for exemple it was SRO back in the days)
Not common but possible generaly RS/RC applaing to 5 fam + Przemek Godyck
Monroe st looks nice but narrow triplex with tenants upstairs is kind of not ideal

By Anonymous on October 20, 2006 12:31 PM

Downing Street link does not work.

By ZeeBee on October 20, 2006 12:34 PM

DH and I saw a three family in Park Slope with a rent-controlled tenant on the garden floor, hence the asking price (tenant is in her early 60s and has lived in the apartment for 40 years). Corcoran has the listing:
http://www.corcoran.com/property/listing.aspx?Region=NYC&ListingID=867334

By John Ife on October 20, 2006 12:34 PM

From http://www.dhcr.state.ny.us/ora/progs/oraprogs.htm#underrc it would seem that if the tenants have been living there since befor 1971 it's a dead cert they're benefitting from rent control no matter how many units there are in the building:

"The rent control program applies to residential buildings constructed before February, 1947 in municipalities that have not declared an end to the postwar rental housing emergency. There are 55 municipalities that have rent control, including New York City, Albany, Buffalo, and various cities, towns and villages in Albany, Erie, Nassau, Rensselaer, Schenectady, and Westchester counties.

In order for an apartment to be under rent control the tenant must have been living there continuously since before July 1, 1971. When a rent controlled apartment is vacated in NYC or most ETPA localities, it becomes rent stabilized (where the building contains at least six units), or completely removed from regulation."

By Anonymous on October 20, 2006 12:34 PM

"no such thing as rent control in a 3 family" I bought a 3 family in CG 13 years ago with a rent control tenant paying $57 per month. Even 2 families had rent control in the 1950s. If a person moved in to a 3 family before 1960 something, rc applies. My tenant is still with me and I know of many others. After the rc tenant dies or leaves, it becomes a market rate apt.

By Anonymous on October 20, 2006 12:35 PM

Saw the degraw st house last week. To 12:04's question "established tentants" = rent controlled tenants, IIRC paying under $1500 combined for the two units.

Which raised a question for me, how much should rent controlled tenants affect a property's price. The rental income doesn't pay much of the mortgage after utilities, maintenance and headache are considered. There is the indeterminate benefit that you may get the units back, eventually. I assume the tenants are elderly, but I wouldn't want to feel a vulture. There is also the possibility that a relative might try to enforce some continued right to the place.

It seems like the house should be worth (1)the value of the owner's duplex, plus (2) the value of the current rent, plus (3) the value of potential future rights to the rest of the house. I can figure out the first two. I'm at a total loss for the third. Can't wait to see what the market says.

By Andrew from PS on October 20, 2006 12:35 PM

Saw the 16th Street a few weeks ago at first OH. Cleanly and decently renovated, but almost devoid of original detail. Very little space, virtually no closet space, and low ceilings on the top floor. The Basement apartment was quite small, as well.

Moreover, it has a looming condo project immediately to right side, which dimishes the appeal substantially.

Would have worked better as a single family, which would have attracted more buyers.

What about the new Warren Lewis townhouse in the Slope listed at $1.1 million. Anybody seen it?

By Anonymous on October 20, 2006 12:39 PM

CG: 2 tenants each pay 650/month and are rent-controlled.
One set is a couple near retirement age (i.e. you can't kick them out); second one is an elderly blind woman with her son living there; good luck kicking them out in the next 40 years.

Yuck.

By Anonymous on October 20, 2006 12:47 PM

NYC REal estate wow how depressing

By Rick on October 20, 2006 12:59 PM

Okay folks, you proved me wrong! Clearly rent control in a 3 family is rare but possible. Thanks for the info!

By anon on October 20, 2006 1:00 PM

1.1 in park slope sounds appealing, especially for what looks like a brick/brownstone structure..even if it needs work, many others are selling for 200-300k more. I can only assume that this price is negotiable, so it can only get better

By Anonymous on October 20, 2006 1:03 PM

Rent control is tough for owners for several reasons. Not just $. The tenants can make life a nightmare by calling in violations, etc. There's no getting rid of them. Good for them and all, it's just terrible for the owner of the building. Don't ever buy a building that has rent-controlled apts.

By malymis on October 20, 2006 1:16 PM

Only way of geting them out (i mean RS i am not sure of RC) is to claim the space for your own use. You would need to prove that you need that space. It will not work for oldery and dissabled.
Or you can buy them out $$$$$$$.

By Anonymous on October 20, 2006 1:52 PM

Can't do that for RC tenants. Buyout is unlikely -- everyone has been there since 1971, and in one of them, the 40-ish son is moving in 'inheriting' the RC apartment. Doubt he'd take a buyout.

Plus, raising the rents is _very_ hard in RC buildings.

By malymis on October 20, 2006 2:08 PM

In RS/RS you dont rise the rent Rent Control Board does it for you.

By crouchback on October 20, 2006 2:16 PM

RC affects sale price tremendously as, in the case of Degraw Street, you are effectively purchasing 2 floors because the typical buyer (35-45 years old) cannot do anything with the other floors for most of their expected life time. Discounted price should probably be 1.1 to 1.2.

By anon on October 20, 2006 2:48 PM

A friend who is a veteran landlord suffered the existence of a rent control tenant who was arrogantly abusive. "You'll never get me out." My friend's wife got pregnant and he made the case to the rent control board that his expanding family required him to have use of the space in said tenant's apartment. They got to evict said tenant.

By west on October 20, 2006 2:54 PM

Yeah, that Corcoran listing with the tenant ZeeBee mentions is weird. Not only has the tenant been there forever but she even has her own part of the garden fenced off. The listing agent called her "the mayor of the block" as if that was a selling point. To me, that just means that every single person on the block will know my business. Probably has more than a little to do with why it's been on the market for months and months. I think it was an Open House pick at one point too.

By Anonymous on October 20, 2006 4:07 PM

Anon 2:48pm told me the same story when she showed me the CG Degraw street house ;). Nice try.

By Anonymous on October 20, 2006 5:26 PM

Q: 16th street: if the building is 18 x 35, how do we get a 700 square foot rental? (A: magic!)

By anon on October 20, 2006 6:23 PM

A: 630sf, 700sf..whats the difference, its the same thing:) real estates always generalize..check any condo listing, and I guarantee their estimates are off minimum 10%

By ParkSlopeRenter on October 20, 2006 6:49 PM

So from the sounds of it, the DeGraw St. house is $1.65M for a duplex apt. with royal PITA neighbors who will expect you to put out their trash and fix their clogged toilets, right? What a bahgain. It's official, the market is still insane...

By Anonymous on October 20, 2006 7:19 PM

I love the sink, tub and floor tile in the Crown Heights house. (Seriously.)

By renogirl on October 20, 2006 7:35 PM

I think Monroe looks nice -- that's a sweet block. Clearly the kitchen could have used an updating...

By Anonymous on October 21, 2006 8:57 AM

Did you see the comment on the footer of the Ettleson webpage "This information is reliable but not guaranteed". I love it!

By savegreeneave on October 21, 2006 2:03 PM

I agree, the monroe house does look nice. and contrary to the prior comment, it's not really overpriced (at least from what we can see). you could find a house in that area for as low as 900K. but it would need about 250K of work. this one, other than the kitchen, appears beautiful, details intact, etc.

By samuel on October 21, 2006 4:02 PM

I just got back from Monroe, i do not see them selling that for more than 1 million. The area needs a good 10 years and the house is small. I swear some ppl take playing with the house's money to a totally dif level. ITS BED STUY!

By sylvia on October 21, 2006 9:12 PM

Oh my goodness, what a pain, disabled and elderly tenants that might actually call in violations cause they're not afraid of getting kicked out of their apartments. How mind-bogglingly awful.

I have no sympathy for landlords who bitch about rent stabilization or rent control, I really don't. Just accept the fact that your building is worth less than other similar buildings because it can't pull in as much rent, and leave it at that. To buy a building that has RS/RC tenants in it in the hope of kicking them out is flat out immoral. You're basically planning on ruining people's lives so you can get a deal and make a profit. Go find some other money-making project that doesn't involve kicking old ladies out of their homes.

Rent control and rent stabilization are one of the only instances in NYC real estate where the huge imbalance of power between landlords and tenants is reversed. Thank God. I understand that some tenants may take advantage of this fact, but seriously, the landlord still owns the building and is guaranteed to come out ahead, in the end.

And all this talk of RC/RS tenants as if they're some cancer to get rid of only encourages landlords' tendency to view their property in terms of its cash value to the exclusion of all other considerations (such as the contribution it makes to their neighborhood, for example). That's just irresponsible and short-sighted.

By Bottle on October 22, 2006 3:43 PM

Sylvia, in NYC, rent control/rent stabilized tenants are not always disabled and eldery. In fact, as often as not, they're people in the prime, earning a decent amount who can afford to pay more. Your melodramatic focus on kicking old ladies out of their homes is not what people on this board are advocating. Let's not confuse control/rent stabilization with low-income housing -- they're not the same thing. I'm all for low income housing (and think there should be far more of it in this city), but rent control/rent stabilization make no economic sense, especially as they are not always used for the people who need them. Everyone in this city would be far better off if the city got rid of rent control/rent stabilization and instead focused on providing more low-income housing in every part of the city.

By Anon Pros Hghts on October 22, 2006 5:02 PM

Did anyone else go to Brooklyn Properties open house at 602 Bergen Street? It was horrible! The seller or the agent should have cleaned the house beforehand. There were dirty mattresses, canes and about three inches of dust everywhere......
Even at $999K for a house (needing a gut reno), a buyer shouldn't have to see a property this way.

By Anonymous on October 22, 2006 6:48 PM

I went to the open house at 602 Bergen. Although it was dusty and dirty, the house has some charms, plus an extra long back yard. The broker was very forthright about the amount of work needed and the cost of the work.

By Anonymous on October 22, 2006 7:59 PM

"And all this talk of RC/RS tenants as if they're some cancer to get rid of only encourages landlords' tendency to view their property in terms of its cash value to the exclusion of all other considerations (such as the contribution it makes to their neighborhood, for example). That's just irresponsible and short-sighted."

I don't even understand this logic. How does having a person paying $239 a month "contribute" to the neighborhood if the market rate for that same space is hundreds, if not thousands of dollars more? For many, many people, this "cash value" you speak of is the bulk of their entire investment in the great American capitalist system, allowing them great flexibility to do things as provide for their parents medical care, or send their kids to college, or take an exotic vacation, whatever they choose to do with money borrowed vs. the value of the home.

With entrenched, retroactive policy such as rent-stablization, these potential investments are stripped of their potential and depress the value of the homes in the surrounding areas, as buyers move on to more solid, and wealth-generating possibilities.

Unfortunately, for many prospective owners, this unfairly rewarded tenants do represent an unfair, and imbalaced weight on a site's value. As sad as they may be, on the humanitarian side.

That's why I, for one, would never, ever buy a building in that sort of situation, as the moral and psychological tax is too high to pay, in my opinion.

Unless of course it was a park block.

By sylvia on October 23, 2006 10:29 AM

I realize that not all rent-stabilized tenants are elderly or disabled or low-income. But I also know that RC/RS is one of the only things that gives residents some assurance of not getting kicked out of their homes as soon as their lease is up. If every apartment in NYC got jacked up to current market-rate every year when the lease came due, you can bet your stake in American capitalism that there wouldn't be any elderly or disabled people left in certain neighborhoods, much less any Puerto Ricans, Poles, African Americans, writers, artists, social workers, people with children, people with dogs, and generally, people who want to live in the neigborhood cause it's been their home for years.

On the macro level, RS/RC have forced neighborhoods to gentrify at a much slower pace than they would have naturally over the past ten years. And I for one am happy about that. And it's not like either RC or RS guarantee that an apartment will stay below market rate forever. They just slow the inevitable.

On the micro level, let's say you live in a non-stabilized apartment and you've lived there several years and you love the neighborhood and you want to stay there. Let's say you make a decent salary, you're not low-income, but you're not in the market for a brownstone or anything. Let's say the neighborhood is on of those places that's gentrifying at a rapid rate, but your landlord has only raised the rent by nominal increases every year cause you're a good tenant who pays your rent on time and you don't bother him for little things. Let's say one year you need certain repairs done to your apartment (because, say, the heat and hot water only work 50% of the time), but when you call the landlord, he just refuses to make these repairs cause it would entail replacing the whole boiler, and you freeze your tush off for several months, and finally decide to call the city. And the landlord gets mad and wants you out, so he just raises the rent to "market rate" when your lease is up that year. You're essentially being evicted because you asked for perfectly legal repairs.

And it's not that the landlord's wife is having quadruplets and they need your apartment for a nursery, and it's not that he's hurting for money and needs to raise the rent. And it's not like he won't have to replace that damn boiler at some point, if he intends on renting the apartment out in the future. In fact, as far as I know, my previous landlord STILL hasn't bothered renting my old apartment out (yes, that was me), two years later. He was just being vindictive. And I know I'm not the only one in the city who's been through that.

I can't help it, I heart rent stabilization.

And, Bottle, (sorry for the length of this post) I do agree: low-income housing is a big issue. And I'm all for it. But in the run-away NYC real estate market of the past few decades, there has been little to no political will to create enough affordable housing for the city's lower or even middle classes, and rent stabilization has done a good job of taking up the slack. It's done its job, and now it's slowly disappearing, as RS apartments hit the $2000 legal rent line and people die or move out of their RC apartments.

By glarph on October 23, 2006 10:39 AM

It could be possible that the landlord raised your rent after replacing the boiler not to be vindictive, but to cover his costs.

I know that the lovely young ladies who rent an apartment from me keep making me have to call in a plumber as they (admittedly) flush cotton balls, cardboard tubes and other "non-essentials" down the commode. Am I going to take the cost of that into consideration when it time to re-sign? You bet I am.

By sylvia on October 23, 2006 10:45 AM

And Anon at 7:59, I don't see how the landlord making an extra say, $1000/month somehow benefits the neighborhood more than the tenant saving that amount on rent. The tenant could spend that extra cash in local businesses. Or the landlord could.

But either way, you're still just thinking of the neighborhood in terms of cash flows and not as a place people call home. RS/RC protects a neighborhood (and some of its inhabitants) from the brute forces of the market and gives it (and them) a chance at some continuity. I think that's a benefit, even if it's not necessarily monetary.

By sylvia on October 23, 2006 10:49 AM

glarph, I really wish that were true, but the fact is, he didn't replace the boiler at all. And at first, before telling me the rent was going to go up, he flat-out told me that he wasn't going to renew my lease cause I had caused him "too many problems."

By HC on October 23, 2006 11:59 AM

About a year ago I was reading a study about rent differences in cities with and without rent stabilization. The findings were that cities with RS basically had two separate markets.

In cities without RS, rents for available apartments typically fell around the average rent - sometimes below, sometimes above - in a bell curve. Advertised asking rents and currently paid rents had a similar curve. However, in cities with RS(and I believe NYC was the worst), there was one curve showing actual rents being paid, and a much higher curve showing rents for available apartments.

The average rent in NYC at the time of the study was something like $650/month, and the average rent of available apartments was $1500/month. I don't have the study in front of me, but I believe they controlled for apartment size.

Rent stabilization lead to much higher free market rents, rather than a more natural range of rents. A few benefit greatly from RS, and many pay higher prices than they would if the market truly were a free market. Boston got rid of RS, and I heard that average rents went down. And although the retiree could no longer afford the 3-BR in a prime locale, all middle and lower class housing didn't disappear.

I agree that it's important to keep low-income housing, but RS does not seem like an efficient way to do it.

By sylvia on October 23, 2006 1:16 PM

Happen to have a link to this authoritative study? Does it happen to come from the Cato Institute? Come on. We've been through this before, no?

By bored at work on October 23, 2006 1:27 PM

I am also interested in finding out how the market prices the DeGraw Street house. It has been on the market for some time, and not moved. It is my understanding that one of the RC tenants lives with her son (as noted above) and that his sons live with them too. As a buyer, you are facing an essentially permanent RC apartment with no hope of market-rate rentals. I am not sure of the other RC apt.

There has to be a significant discount on the property. Why is anyone going to buy a duplex with modest rental income for $1.6MM?

By se on October 23, 2006 4:14 PM

>Rent Control and Housing Investment: Evidence from Deregulation in Cambridge, Massachusetts

Overall 20% increase in housing investment post rent-control elimination in Cambridge, MA, across all economic strata.

Rents have increased, yes, but the market can be a bitch sometimes. There's no logical reason for a CPW classic six to be renting for $300/mo.

By Voice of Reason on October 24, 2006 1:27 PM

First of all, I have a 3 family house with two RC tenants. They don't ask for much as they know they are getting a good deal. Most RC tenants are like everyone else, they just have a really good deal on rent.

361 Degraw looks like any other townhouse or home for that matter. If you own a home you have to deal with maintenance. It is completely manageable. In terms of disagreements, the worst that happens is you go to court and the court tells you to fix things. I don't even pay a lawyer, I go myself. And btw, that can happen (and did happen for me) with non RC tenants. I am not a professional landlord, just someone who happened to buy two properties in CG when the timing was right.

361 Degraw looks like a good deal to me, even with RC tenants. You get the owner's duplex, which for a comparable condo anywhere in brownstone brooklyn (PS, Ft Greene, or even DUMBO) would be priced comparably. Plus you are in walking distance to great restaurants on Smith St. I'd buy it, but I have enough properties already.

By bored at work on October 24, 2006 2:54 PM

Do you really believe that its a "good deal" at $1.6 with 2 RC tenants? Assuming the house is 3200 sq ft, and the duplex is 1600 sq ft, you are paying $1000/ft for a place to live (plus the neglible income from the RC tenants). For $1000/ sq ft you can get almost anything else in Brooklyn.

By Anonymous on October 24, 2006 10:33 PM

Posted by: Andrew from PS at October 20, 2006 12:35 PM
"CG: 2 tenants each pay 650/month and are rent-controlled.
One set is a couple near retirement age (i.e. you can't kick them out); second one is an elderly blind woman with her son living there; good luck kicking them out in the next 40 years.Yuck."

Are you an actual prospective buyer?
Have you actually made an offer or are you speculating?

Posted by: anon at October 20, 2006 6:23 PM
So from the sounds of it, the DeGraw St. house is $1.65M for a duplex apt. with royal PITA neighbors who will expect you to put out their trash and fix their clogged toilets, right? What a bahgain. It's official, the market is still insane...

I take it you'd rather shell out a monthly maintenance fee on top of a hefty mortgage to avoid taking out garbage. That's what 1.6 gets ya otherwise. You're probably not ready for home ownership if these simple prospects are unappealing.

Sylvia at October 23, 2006 1:16 PM
I am also interested in finding out how the market prices the DeGraw Street house. It has been on the market for some time, and not moved. It is my understanding that one of the RC tenants lives with her son (as noted above) and that his sons live with them too. As a buyer, you are facing an essentially permanent RC apartment with no hope of market-rate rentals. I am not sure of the other RC apt.There has to be a significant discount on the property. Why is anyone going to buy a duplex with modest rental income for $1.6MM?

If you're that reliant on rental income you can't afford the house. I have my doubts any of you really can. I saw this house and saw nothing wrong. It's in move-in condition and offers amenities that no condo can. (read terrestrial backyard) It's not an investement property it's a home. That is apparently hard for some of you to wrap your heads around but for the right family this place is a gem. If I weren't settled in, I would have made an offer on it.

By Anonymous on October 25, 2006 9:50 AM

We went to the open house on Sunday of the Crown Heights property. It is in decent shape with some original details still in tact. It seems to have been broken up into an SRO at some point but that can easilly be changed...not to mention that was illegal. Solid building, great neighborhood.

By bored at work on October 25, 2006 11:23 AM

10:33 anon

Thanks for your world view and the ridiculous assumptions you make about others. There may be "nothing wrong" with 361 DeGraw, but if a buyer doesn't need to rely on rental income, why would anyone buy the headache of two RC tenants? There are plenty of brownstone duplex coops that have "terrestrial backyards."

And if its such a gem for the right family who can wrap their heads around the concept, why hasn't it sold for months and months? Because its WAY overpriced. Get it?

By Anonymous on October 25, 2006 9:22 PM

Thanks for your world view and the ridiculous assumptions you make about others.

The truth hurts doesn't it?

...why hasn't it sold for months and months? Because its WAY overpriced. Get it?

AGAIN! Have you made an offer or are you speculating? Perhaps they would accept what you might consider a reasonable price or at least what you can really afford.

By Anonymous on October 27, 2006 9:45 AM

To anonymous at October 25, 2006 9:22 PM,

I am beginning to wonder whether you and a few of the others whiners here are a bubbleheads who are not serious buyers. Tell me what you can get for $1.6mm for a nice condo and you can get much more with just the duplex off of a brownstone. Just my 2 cents.

By Anonymous on October 27, 2006 10:53 AM

Sorry, I meant my comment to "Bored at Work"

By Anonymous on October 29, 2006 7:08 PM

To anonymous at October 25, 2006 9:22 PM,

Posted by: Anonymous at October 27, 2006 9:45 AM

Sorry, I meant my comment to "Bored at Work"

Posted by: Anonymous at October 27, 2006 10:53 AM

Thank you...I think it's time to consider that this website really isn't helping buyers or sellers , and this should be brought to the attention of other real estate websites

Explore Neighborhoods:

Explore Neighborhoods:

Search Brownstoner

Open House Picks: Townhouses

56 Comments

Post a comment

Browse Featured Topics:

Browse Topics:

Restaurant Guide

Latest Restaurant Additions