« Co-op of the Day: 135 Amity Street Tuesday On The Record »

December 12, 2006

House of the Day: 43 Prospect Place

houseThis house on Prospect Place between 5th and 6th Avenues is a good example of how some of the "hairier" deals are having a tough time in this market. Having sat on the market since at least the middle of the summer, the four-story, six-unit building just had its asking price cut from $1,600,000 to $1,400,000--on its surface a shockingly low price for a brownstone in prime the Northern corner of Park Slope. Of course, there's a catch: There are two occupied rent-stabilized units that are going to, at the very least, add time and money to the conversion process. Seems to us though that the price is fully reflecting that drawback. It's hard to comment on the interior with no photos to go from, but certainly the broker euphemism "Building would benefit from substantial rehabilitation" suggests it may not be much to look at. Anyone know if there's any architectural detail to speak of?
43 Prospect Place [Corcoran] GMAP P*Shark
Reduced: 43 Prospect Place [Natefind]




Posted by Brownstoner at 11:54 AM | Comments (22)
Categories: Properties

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/140

Comments

you are wrong. this still has a way to go before the downside is fully reflected. this is NOT prime park slope (outside the good schools area), relatively close to flatbush avenue, and probably needs at least $500,000 in reno. $1 - $1.25 million is the appropriate range.

Posted by: anon at December 12, 2006 12:34 PM

mr b: this is not "prime" park slope.

Posted by: anon at December 12, 2006 12:38 PM

Really? We think it's pretty nice around there...

Posted by: Brownstoner at December 12, 2006 12:43 PM

It's not "prime" in the stricted sense of the word, but it's a fantastic area which will only go up in value once Atlantic Yards is developed.

Meanwhile, I hope there aren't architectural details. Given the proximity of the Gehry buildings, it would be nice to turn the interior into something ultra modern.

Posted by: Anonymous at December 12, 2006 12:46 PM

The RE taxes are quite hefty ($7900) and more than double the norm for the area. That needs to be factored in. Also, why no mention of the actual rent for the two occupied units?

Posted by: crouchback at December 12, 2006 1:11 PM

I think this particular brownstone has been on the market for a very very very long time (possibly over 2 years) - I think I saw it a long time ago at a much higher price.

Posted by: anon at December 12, 2006 1:30 PM

Lots of parts of Park Slope that are not prime Slope are still nice. But if prime means that area which, all other wthings being equal, is in highest demand and would fetch highest price (most sought-after school, closest to the park), this is not it.

Or else most of Park Slope is prime, in which case the term is pretty much meaningless.

Posted by: linusvanpelt at December 12, 2006 1:35 PM

Fair point. We stand corrected on the prime issue.

Posted by: Brownstoner at December 12, 2006 1:37 PM

Has anyone seen the inside? What sort of a reno does it need? What apartments (Garden, top, etc.) do the regulated tenants occupy?

Posted by: Anonymous at December 12, 2006 2:09 PM

I think it's funny that this part of Park Slope isn't considered prime. I guess I always thought that closer to Flatbush was better (better train access) and closer to downtown (Boerum Hill, Cobble Hill, Ft Greene, etc) would be a selling point. And all that hype about 5th Ave being the new 7th Ave... Maybe it's the hipper rather than prime-er part of the Slope.

Maybe someone should tell the Gyllenhaal/Sarsgaard family they bought in less-than-prime Park Slope.

Posted by: sylvia at December 12, 2006 2:11 PM

Wait, propshark also says it was sold in March of this year for $1,190,000 to some kind of LLC. What happened? Did they think they could flip it and then it ended up being too much work to evict the stabilized tenants?

Posted by: sylvia at December 12, 2006 2:25 PM

Park slope towards 5th avenue is definitely hipper than towards 7th avenue--seems to me precisely because the rents are cheaper and it's easier to set up shop as a restaurant, bar etc. The closer you get to 4th the rougher around the edges...but there's a lot more cool stuff going on there.

Posted by: Anonymous at December 12, 2006 2:37 PM

People people this is prime park slope. Park place between 6 and 7 is as nice as anyblock in the whole of brooklyn. 5th ave north is great now. the only draw back is no ps 321 or whatever the heck that school is.

Posted by: Anonymous at December 12, 2006 2:43 PM

Blah, blah, blah....Has anyone seen this house? Someone who might be able to offer some insight on the HOUSE?

Posted by: Anonymous at December 12, 2006 3:23 PM

North of Union Street is outside District 15 (which has a bunch of good schools in addition to PS 321). It's District 13, which historically was quite bad (maybe improving, I don't know). It might be prime in other ways, but if you're not zoned for a decent school, it's a problem.

Posted by: Anonymous at December 12, 2006 3:28 PM

Also, pretty funny that someone thinks being closer to Atlantic Yards is going to make it more desirable.

Posted by: Anonymous at December 12, 2006 3:52 PM

Well, Sylvia, I'm all for considering 5th Avenue the marker for prime Park Slope, because by that definition I live in prime Park Slope. But if you're going to use terms like prime at all, they don't make much sense if they include most of the neighborhood... unless Park Slope is Lake Wobegon, where all the blocks are above average.

All that said, I'd love to live on this block... but not, it looks like, to buy this house.

Posted by: linusvanpelt at December 12, 2006 4:37 PM

Saw this house late in the summer, but only the top two floors as the lower floors are rented -- I think you have to make an offer in order to see the bottom floors. Have no idea what details, if any, are on the parlor as a result. I seem to remember one of the upper floors having some character, and the other having had a bad renovation. Wasn't interested due to the tenants.

Posted by: anon at December 12, 2006 8:11 PM

I never shop or eat at restaurants on 7th. Boring. We always go to 5th Avenue. The boutiques are cooler and the restaurants better.

As for 4th, I bet in the coming years there will end up being some great stores that are bigger sized there. It's impossible to fit large-sized stores in "prime" slope, in those narrow storefronts. It's why Whole Foods is going in somewhere below 4th. I wonder if a major department store might even someday come into the 'hood. Bloomingdales or something.

Posted by: Anonymous at December 13, 2006 2:43 AM

The DOB lists the current owner and his application for demolition of the entire interior this summer. The architect listed is one that has been posted on this site. (in fact his website has this project on it)

For whatever reason the application was denied by the DOB in October.

The sale price earlier this year was low but not as low as the deed traded for in 2005 ~800k according to PropertyShark.

Clearly the tenants are an issue. Is anyone familiar with the rules around stabilized tent eviction? If the tenant(s) is older than 65 is that an issue?

At 20 Ft wide its attractive for a number of options

Posted by: Anonymous at December 13, 2006 4:18 PM

Also the DOB indicated the plan was to demo the entire structure, create a owner's triplex and create a rental on the 1st floor. Expected project cost:500K

Posted by: Anonymous at December 13, 2006 4:21 PM

I lived in this building from 2000 to 2002. I had a tiny one-bedroom apartment in the front of the 2nd floor. At that time the building contained 6 units: a garden apt; a studio in the front of the first floor; a one-bdrm in the back of the first floor; 2 one-bdrm units on the 2nd floor; and a 2 bdrm unit on the third floor.

The third floor unit was renovated into the two-bedroom unit while I was there. I saw the inside, and it was nice but not spectacular. The units on the 1st and 2nd floors, including mine, had been done quite a while ago, weren't laid out all that well, and weren't in great shape. The garden unit was a bit scary. I saw the inside of it once, and it looked like it had last been worked on about 30 years ago and hadn't had any maintenance or painting done since then.

I'm almost certain that the two rent-stabilized apartments are the studio on the 1st floor and the garden unit. The folks in those units had been there forever and didn't look like they were going anywhere. All the other tenants were in their 20s and early 30s.

The structure of the building itself is beautiful. I certainly hope that no one is able to get a permit to demolish it.

Posted by: abc at December 19, 2006 12:53 PM

Post a comment

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

Latest Restaurant Additions