« More Architectural Nonsense in Bed Stuy Wolcott Asking Prices Top $1 Million »

December 6, 2006

Condos of the Day: 439 Clinton Avenue

mansion
This former mansion on Clinton Avenue has been bumming us out ever since the developers got their hands on it a couple of years ago. For a long time they had some ugly window bars on the ground floor and the doors they chose look totally out of place. (Anyone know how the doors would have made it past Landmarks?) That may sound like nit-picking, but all it takes is one bone-head aesthetic decision to completely throw off an exterior. As for the interior, we hear from people who've been inside that it's a charmless gut. What a waste. In the right hands, this could have been spectacular.
Web Number: M06-2292 [Century 21] GMAP
Clinton Hill Mansion Condos [Set Speed]




Posted by Brownstoner at 11:16 AM | Comments (22)
Categories: Condos

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/60

Comments

I stumbled upon the first open house a few weeks back and looked around the place a bit. While the layouts were, uh, challenging, and the prices were a bit high, it was not *entirely* charmless.

Definitely could have been done a lot better. But if the prices were about 4/5 of what they are asking, I think they would have no problem selling out.

Posted by: Anonymous at December 6, 2006 11:52 AM

I went to an open house here this summer. I had thought all of the units had sold back then. I was disappointed that the developer used copper baseboard radiators rather than wrought iron, but the addition of central A/C and decent finishes do make the units a pretty good deal.

If you take into consideration the cost of paying to park a car in the neighborhood, I think that three bedroom two baths doesn't sound like too bad of a deal.

I kinda like the mausoleum look of the exterior,but that may be because I was a goth kid in my younger days. :P

Posted by: Shahn Andersen at December 6, 2006 12:09 PM

It is the "Facts of Life" house. Where is Mrs Garrett? Doesn't look so bad on the outside. Must have been lovely as a one family.

Posted by: putnam-denizen at December 6, 2006 12:16 PM

Was this place ever a one family? I heard that it really was a mausoleum.

Posted by: Anonymous at December 6, 2006 12:22 PM

There is an old C of O for it on the DOB website for three families plus three SRO "rooms". It was never a mausoleum.

Posted by: Scrappy at December 6, 2006 12:24 PM

Does the rotten building next door affect the salability of these units?

Posted by: Anonymous at December 6, 2006 12:25 PM

Woah. Is there parking included in that place? Where is the parking space?

Posted by: Anonymous at December 6, 2006 1:03 PM

BTW... the unit linked to here is REALLY tiny (less than 900 sq. feet) and some of the space seems less than usable. There is a HUGE garden apartment for sale that has an awkward layout but an amazing garden. Pretty low ceilings on the garden apt too. All in all though, it did not seem too bad, just overpriced.

Posted by: Anonymous at December 6, 2006 1:05 PM

900 sq. feet is small? My 600 square foot apartment is feeling a little inadequate about that comment.

Posted by: Anonymous at December 6, 2006 1:27 PM

My husband and I looked at the house about 7 years ago after a huge fire had destroyed any remaining detail. The entire house was either scorched or filled with water (from putting the fire out). It needed a gut reno! At that time they were asking $750K—We thought it seemed outrageous at the time, but we kick our selves for not going for it. Too bad it didn’t sell to a family/ person who would have kept it as a house.

Posted by: Anonymous at December 6, 2006 1:28 PM

Speaking of fires and details, as 1:28 mentioned, does anyone know how homeowner insurance would cover historic details which could be very expensive to replace or emulate in the case of repairing a fire-damaged brownstone?

Posted by: Anonymous at December 6, 2006 1:38 PM

Wow. Nice segue anon 1:28!

Posted by: Shahn Andersen at December 6, 2006 1:59 PM

I believe this property goes all the way through to Waverly. The parking would be in the back. I also think the Waverly side is the same block as the condo shown last week -- and may be the lot mentioned last week to be developed. This property -- Jacobean architecture style -- has a weird and very sad history of fires and tenant/owner disputes. I remember some gorgeous stained glass windows that were destroyed in the fire. Wish the developer could have brought them back.

Posted by: Anonymous at December 6, 2006 2:29 PM

The mansion/former church on one side wlll I am positive be renovated. The other neighbors have one of the most beautiful houses in Brooklyn. Published numerous times (although fairly unassuming on the outside). They have experienced alot of pain with this property and deserve some nice new neighbors. Can you imagine the fear of a fire to a row of townhouses!!

Posted by: Anonymous at December 6, 2006 2:38 PM

I don't think this property goes all the way back. In fact I think it backs onto the new Waverly "carriage houses" which were featured a couple weeks ago (or a condo in one that is).

Posted by: putnam-denizen at December 6, 2006 3:47 PM

With respect to the insurance/detail question, I went through this a while back as I realized my homeowner's insurance would be inadequate in case of fire, and wanted to make sure I was covered. Got the insurance rep to go through the entire house counting marble fireplaces ($6,000 @), itemizing and measuring woodwork, tin ceilings,parquet floors, taking pictures of all the detail, and estimating what it would cost to rebuild "as it was" in case of destruction. Needless to say, my insurance bill went up quite a bit, but I don't want to be covered for just a vanilla gut reno in case the worst happens, especially when I know exactly which craftspeople I'd hire to recreate the house.

Posted by: Anon at December 6, 2006 4:53 PM

1:27: 900 square feet for a two bedroom, 1.5 bathroom, "family" sized apartment is not exactly what I would call roomy. But then again, if you are in a 600 sq. ft. 4 bedroom 3 bath, I suppose you might have some room to disagree. To each his own.

Posted by: Anonymous at December 6, 2006 5:35 PM

Please beware of 252 Greene Ave Condos. They are overpriced and have zero equity on a 400 sqfoot condo for 275K. Buyers will not be able to find comps for the area. This is shocking because the area was supposed to be booming. Any thoughts?

Posted by: Havelynn at December 6, 2006 5:36 PM

A Goth Kid? Now I know i am too old for this site.

Sorry. Only the old can afford Brooklyn.

Posted by: anon at December 6, 2006 5:39 PM

Why doesn't Sharon Barnes buy it. She lives next door and thinks she can own the nieghborhood.

Posted by: anon at December 6, 2006 5:41 PM

don't know about that, most of the buyers of the brownstones in my area of clinton hill and fort greene have been in their early mid thirties, apartments can be a younger crowd...

Posted by: lp at December 6, 2006 5:42 PM

A goth kid in the early 80's would be 30 - 40 years old now.

Posted by: Anonymous at December 6, 2006 5:48 PM

Post a comment

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

Latest Restaurant Additions