« Untrashy Approach to Garbage Midwestern Beer Night »

January 19, 2007

House of the Day: 53 South Oxford Street

brownstone
This four-family brownstone at 53 South Oxford Street is looking pretty darn expensive to us at $1,975,000 given the kind of renovation it just received. While not completely devoid of detail, the kitchen photo, complete with baseboard heating, doesn't give us a high degree of confidence. Nor does the fact that the property just traded at $1,345,000 back in July. A couple layers of poly and some Home Depot cabinets later and the owner's trying to mark it up 50 percent. We don't think it's gonna fly. He also made the strange choice of going with a brokerage firm called Prospective Properties that can't seem to get its website under control. We're thinking $1.6 million, $1.7 if he's really lucky.
53 South Oxford Street [NY Times] GMAP P*Shark




Posted by Brownstoner at 11:10 AM | Comments (19)
Categories: Brooklyn, Brownstones, Fort Greene, Properties, Real Estate

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/344

Comments

Did it really sell for $1.365 in July 2006? If so, that was a steal.

I don't think $500 per square foot for a brownstone on one of the nicer blocks in Fort Greene is "darn expensive". I think it actually leaves room for renovation.

Posted by: dcardoni at January 19, 2007 11:20 AM

It is 4000+ sq ft on great block.
But is that an iron railing on staircase from parlor floor? yikes.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 19, 2007 11:24 AM

sure, it's a nice block now, but just wait til that arena project gets underway...

Posted by: anon at January 19, 2007 11:27 AM

I toured the building this fall, during an open house, when Fillmore repre'ed it for around 2M. i agree with "darn expensive", especially when it is just 4 lifeless/tasteless floor throughs and a cement backyard. If an investment we are at 20 times rent. If you were to live there, its a gut bc of the terrible reno job done the first time. condo/converter won't pay more than. 1.4 and user should pay around 1.5

Posted by: local at January 19, 2007 11:34 AM

I also visited the property this past fall. It needs a lot of work. At a minimum the kitchens and bathrooms need to be completely re-done - there was some questions concerning the plumbing too. I think a fair price would be between around $1.55 million, especially considering that you would need at least $150,000 to fix it up. In terms of location though, you can't get much better, so I understand how the owner believed he could flip the property for a quick and steep profit ($1.375 was a bargain). I also got some indication the owner was willing to negotiate, he had mentioned he was willing to listen to discuss the offer price when I indicated the $1.975 million price seemed high.

Keep in mind that if the current owner/investor wasn't willing to fix it up before selling it, then it's either because he wants a quick sale or that it would be a challenge to fix. Either way, a buyer has some bargaining power.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 19, 2007 12:09 PM

I think it was a poor business decision. would have been smarter to simply upgrade the facade, leave the interior alone, and flip for $1.6M. He got a deal in the first place.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 19, 2007 12:21 PM

word.

Posted by: anon at January 19, 2007 2:40 PM

Huge mistake by the flipper do this crap reno. Who wants to pay for lousy work that will just have to be replaced? Unless it's being bought as an investment property, this is a non-starter. Frankly, even as an investment it's dodgy since to command top dollar (necessary to cover the mortgage at this ask), renters would be expecting much higher end finishes.

Posted by: NeoGrec at January 19, 2007 3:14 PM

fugly.

Posted by: sylvia at January 19, 2007 3:32 PM

That's a pretty damn depressing garden.

Posted by: anonymous at January 19, 2007 4:01 PM

the arena wont be close to this house
the house is ugly but the arena wont affect it at all
not that i care but i think all those who think ratnerville is going to depress real estate in the area are 110% stupid idiots.

developement is good for the bk and good for all.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 19, 2007 4:46 PM

you are 110% wrong 4:46. you'll see.

Posted by: anon at January 19, 2007 6:55 PM

Development of Yorkville into Condo Hell with 50 babies a square foot didn't diminish the landmarked areas of Carnegie Hill.

You can't make a better investment than Ft Greene, now more than ever.

I would, however, be concerned about making any investment in a Sh-hole with no character left. Hard to put that back.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 19, 2007 7:06 PM

we're not talking about condos here-this is about the stadium. have you ever seen a desirable neighborhood in the vicinity of a sports arena? i think not.

Posted by: msanon at January 20, 2007 9:40 AM

Isn't Union Square, Chelsea and Gramercy Park close to MSG?

Posted by: anon at January 22, 2007 7:52 AM

..Oh and I forgot, the Meat Packing District?

Posted by: anon at January 22, 2007 7:53 AM

Unions Sq, Chelsea and Gramercy are not close to MSG by NYC standards (they might look close on a map but they couln't be more different in terms of feel, look, businesses there, residences, etc..)

The area around MSG is nasty. But in fairness, thats not just b/c of the arena. Its also right near Penn Station and Herald Sq which attracts TGIFridays and other such establishments that prostitue the area. I imagine Atlantic Yards will have the same kind of commercial quality but its hard to say now.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 22, 2007 9:27 AM

msanon - actually we're talking about both arenas and condos - if you want to create your own fictitious construct, that's fine. And many stadiums/arenas that have been built recently have great hoods around them: Enron Field, Coors Stadium, etc. It used to be that you put a stadium in the cheapest area to buy the land - that's why much of the areas around the older stadiums are not great. Couple this stadium with a bunch of Gehry condos, and I don't really see the hood prices dropping (now, whether we need all of those many condos is another question).

Posted by: dcardoni at January 22, 2007 10:19 AM

When my friends lived at #53, the back 'yard' was the home to a miserable dog the size of a subcompact car that belonged to the mother of the owner of the building. Once my horrified friend watched the beast capture and slowly dismantle a cat that had strayed too near. Potential buyers should beware of hidden piles of ancient dog poop and possible kitty poltergeists.

Posted by: markaroni at January 22, 2007 4:02 PM

Post a comment

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

Latest Restaurant Additions