« Filling in the Blanks: 268 Berry Street DUB Pies Hits Australia Day Cricket Tournament »
January 26, 2007
Residential Sales in Brooklyn
PARK SLOPE $1,242,500
375 12th Street
2-family, prewar town house; 2 bedrooms, 1½ baths, dining room, renovated kitchen and baths, whirlpool tub in primary unit; 1 bedroom, 1 bath in other; hardwood floors, original molding and detail in each; rear garden; 18-by-100-ft. lot; taxes $2,147; listed at $1.25 million, 8 weeks on market (broker: Aguayo & Huebener)
Residential Sales [NY Times]
Photo by Kate Leonova for Property Shark
CLINTON HILL $1,106,000
185 Lefferts Place
4-family brick townhouse; primary duplex: 2-bedroos, 1.5 baths; simplexes: 1 bedroom, 1bath; 16-by-125-ft. lot; taxes $1,200; listed at $1,145,000. Brokers: Gwendolyn Fairly-Smith; Brooklyn Properties of 7th Avenue.
2nd item from Sunday's New York Times
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/367
Comments
On the 12st property: according to PropShark this is 1764 sq ft, thus the price is $704 per sq ft. Very well paid for a non-brownstone between 6th and 7th Ave.!
Posted by: anon at January 26, 2007 10:51 AM
I'm pretty surprised that a small siding-clad house in that location could command such a price especially given the low potential rental income
Posted by: anonymous at January 26, 2007 11:31 AM
I saw this house quite a while ago. It's nicely done but very tiny. The second bedroom and upstairs bath were so small I felt our family of four would outgrow it quickly and need the downstairs (the stairs are left for this purpose), thus no rental income and more work to be done. There was also no space for a dining room table. The kitchen was lovely though, and the back yard nice. We were concerned about all the construction on the street. Seemed very high to me, I'm surprised it sold so close to asking.. and a little dismayed at the prices in South Slope these days.
Posted by: cw at January 26, 2007 11:49 AM
Oh, it was also longer than 8 weeks on the market. We saw it last summer with a different realtor.
Posted by: cw at January 26, 2007 11:55 AM
isn't this just the story right now?
park slope = manhattan
clinton hill = scary distance place
look at what the same (crazy) money gets you.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 26, 2007 12:49 PM
I really can't believe 12th st. sold for that price.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 26, 2007 12:57 PM
Regarding 12th Street: I saw the house and it was worth $700 a foot. The developer seemed like he put mucho money into it. Beautiful kitchen and luxury bathrooms, and a very nice rental. I put in a low ball offer early in the process but I knew it would go for close to asking price.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 26, 2007 1:08 PM
a small frame house in the slope=1.3 million
a large brownstone in clinton hill or bedstuy double the sqaure footage= 700-900k
laughing at people foolish enough to follow the leader ( over paying for the slope) and afraid to set trends (bedstuy-clinton hills)= priceless
"p.s can someone say negative equity"
Posted by: anon at January 26, 2007 1:12 PM
you can't get a brownstone in clinton hill for 700-900k unless it is a shell or needs a complete gut, or has rent controlled tenants. Bed-Stuy, sure.
Posted by: lp at January 26, 2007 1:40 PM
Actually, the Lefferts Place sale above is technically in Bed-Stuy as it is the block of Lefferts Place between Classon and Franklin, and it's still over a million.
Posted by: lp at January 26, 2007 1:42 PM
And it's a 4 family, and it's only 16 feet wide... Long lot though. Pretty good price for the seller for Bed Stuy border...
Posted by: lp at January 26, 2007 1:51 PM
I really have to disagree with Anon 1:08's assesment of the worth of 12st. I saw it too and it had plastic siding and was generally very inexpensively done. 11:49 is right. It is tiny, the rooms are very small-scale and a family of four would definitely need the whole house. We live in the South Slope but just bought a gorgeous six-bedroom in Ditmas. There's just no value in the South Slope anymore.
Posted by: west at January 26, 2007 2:23 PM
I meant to say that we paid about the same price as 12th St. (for more than double the sq. footage)
Posted by: west at January 26, 2007 2:24 PM
i guess i was overstating my case for clinton hill being 700- 900 but I hope i made my point that is a very small house to command that kind of mobey
Posted by: anon at January 26, 2007 2:31 PM
No you did not make your point. The south slope is a more expensive area than clinton hill, regardless of the siding, renovation, size, etc.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 26, 2007 2:34 PM
Is it really? honest question...
What are the boundaries of the "south slope"? Clinton Hill is pretty pricey, but I guess your statement about current cost of real estate really depends on what you consider "south slope".
Posted by: lp at January 26, 2007 2:50 PM
lp is getting at the right point. The south slope frame houses are now going in the range of this one on 12th street if they are renovated, under $1 mil if they have never been touched. It is a bit dicey taking an old frame house apart, so perhaps worth spending the money if someone else already has done it (assuming they've done it right and that you can tell). Several other recent sales of near south slope renovated frames -- 248 12th, 244 14th, and 229 11th -- are all above the price for 12th street. Whether $700/sf is what the market should bear is one question, but the market is bearing that right now. As for value, is it more or less value than walking four blocks north and paying $300-500k more for a similarly sized brownstone or brick? Hard to know what the answer is.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 26, 2007 3:01 PM
If decent renovated south Slope frames are going for $700/sf, what are renovated brick and brownstone townhouses up the hill selling at?
Posted by: Anonymous at January 26, 2007 3:24 PM
lp,
I'd call South Slope 9th Street south to Prospect Expressway (or to 15th Street by the more conservative definition). Either way, it's definitely pricier per square foot than Clinton Hill.
Posted by: linusvanpelt at January 26, 2007 3:47 PM
With thouse boundaries, I agree and can see that it would generally be more expensive than Clinton Hill.
Posted by: lp at January 26, 2007 4:01 PM
The whole "South South Slope" coinage (for the area between Prospect and the cemetery) has confused the issue. Though I think that area is still pricier per s.f. than Clinton Hill, not that I've been shopping lately.
Posted by: linusvanpelt at January 26, 2007 4:06 PM
I saw the house next door to the one on 12th St. last year. It went for 1.25 and was teeny tiny. We opted out as the block had a lot of construction and vacant lots going on. Just didn't seem worth it. Good location, but the block was crunk IMO.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 26, 2007 4:25 PM
That house is in Bedstuy, not Clinton Hill. If you're going to compare South Slope and Clinton Hill mkt rates, use relevant data.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 26, 2007 4:39 PM
...and, it sold for $1.1 because someone believed the real estate agent when she told them that it was in Clinton Hill...or my favorite new variation 'Clinton Hills'.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 26, 2007 4:43 PM
If you really want to know what houses in Clinton Hill proper are going for, check under the listings for Ft. Greene and compare it the the Clinton Hill Historical data and weed out those that are actually in Clinton Hill that real estate agents are designating as Ft. Greene. If you look up at the street signs, they'll remind you where you are, as well.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 26, 2007 4:54 PM
Hey West from 2:23 I'm not an architect or anything but that house has nice wood siding and brownstone facade. I don't see the 'plastic.'
Posted by: Anonymous at January 26, 2007 5:13 PM
Are we talking about the house in the middle? It looks like vinyl in the photo and no way does it look "nice" even if it IS real wood. I'm not West...just anon.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 26, 2007 6:41 PM
anon 1:12, you are genious!
a small frame house in the slope=1.3 million
a large brownstone in clinton hill or bedstuy double
the sqaure footage= 700-900k
laughing at people foolish enough to follow the leader ( over paying for the slope) and afraid to set trends (bedstuy-clinton hills)= priceless
shhh!!! some people get it and some people just don't!
Posted by: anon at January 26, 2007 8:00 PM
oh...and by the way, lefferts is absolutely in clinton hill. it's clinton hill to bedford ave. although i'm seeing plenty of houses between bedford/nostrand listed as clinton hill. who cares anyway?
Posted by: anon at January 26, 2007 8:03 PM
you are wrong- it's clinton hill to bedford avenue, not classon, 8:28. check your facts before you speak.
Posted by: anon at January 26, 2007 9:05 PM
5:13, are you basing your comment on the above photo? I visited this house and held the siding in my hand. IT IS PLASTIC. As far as a "brownstone facade", I have no idea what you're talking about. It is not a brownstone. Do you mean it is a row house?
Posted by: west at January 26, 2007 10:22 PM
No, anon 9:05, you are wrong. The border of Clinton Hill and Bed Stuy is Classon. However, I'm going to take the position that it *should* be Bedford, and perhaps start calling it that way, too.
Posted by: anon at January 26, 2007 10:25 PM
hey 2:34 "you didn't make your point" I guess you were one of those kids in school who struggled identifying the main idea and figuring out who were the main characters of a short story.
a small frame house in the slope=1.3 million
a large brownstone in clinton hill or bedstuy double
the sqaure footage= 700-900k
laughing at people foolish enough to follow the leader ( over paying for the slope) and afraid to set trends (bedstuy-clinton hills)= priceless
try again and see if you can get the underlying meaning this time.
Posted by: anon at January 26, 2007 10:34 PM
hey 2:34 "you didn't make your point" I guess you were one of those kids in school who struggled identifying the main idea and figuring out who were the main characters of a short story.
a small frame house in the slope=1.3 million
a large brownstone in clinton hill or bedstuy double
the sqaure footage= 700-900k
laughing at people foolish enough to follow the leader ( over paying for the slope) and afraid to set trends (bedstuy-clinton hills)= priceless
try again and see if you can get the underlying meaning this time. good luck to you
Posted by: anon at January 26, 2007 10:40 PM
11:54, I think the original post was going for irony. Unless I'm mistaken, the person who said that about South Slope being Manhattan was saying he thought people who are paying over a million for tiny South Slope houses are those who only buy in already established hot neighborhoods, and are too conformist to venture into up and coming neighborhoods and get more space for less money.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 27, 2007 7:43 AM
here's the 12th street house
http://www.ahrlty.com/H375Am/H375AM.html
Posted by: Anonymous at January 27, 2007 8:07 AM
Anon 8:07am -- the house in the link has a different door, so I don't think it is the same one. But maybe a similar layout.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 27, 2007 9:37 AM
That is definitely the house Anon 8:07.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 27, 2007 10:50 AM
from 9:37am -- oh, so the house that sold is the one on the right in the photo. I just assumed it was the middle house, that the photo focuses on. Is it just me, or is that photo misleading, then?
Posted by: Anonymous at January 27, 2007 12:28 PM
the link to the 12 st. house is from last year - it took forever to sell. we bid on it and then retracted when we took a closer look (the whole house pitched to one side, the stairs from the downstairs unit were no longer attached so if you wanted to make it a one family you were outta luck and the deck was not legal). this photo is for the house next door - just like anon 12:28 says.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 27, 2007 3:22 PM
Hey Anon 3:22. I live in the neighborhood and see the back of the 12th Street House. More than half of the decks on the block are 'illegal' and to say the entire house is pitched to one side is incorrect. Also, I looked at the house and the stairs WERE attached. Maybe you were thinking of a different house?
Posted by: Anonymous at January 27, 2007 4:38 PM
It's true that the South Slope is not as uniformly beautiful as some of the brownstone streets of Park Slope, but it is charming in its own way and is a great neighborhood to live in: safe, good schools, close to Prospect Park, close to stores and restaurants on 5th and 7th Aves. Not everyone can afford a $2 million brownstone.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 27, 2007 8:30 PM
Ok, the photo in the original post is correct. 375 12th is the blue house (it is now white, but still vinyl sided). The house in the ad linked by anonymous 8:07 is 375A which also sold a while back. 375 is the one without the cornice (I went by today while running errands).
Posted by: Anonymous at January 27, 2007 9:11 PM
Maybe there was just a typo in the Times, and the recent house sold was actually 375A. I agree that the house in the ad linked by 8:07 is NOT the middle house in the photo above. But the house in the ad is the same realtor and the price is the same, so maybe it's just the newspaper's error.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 27, 2007 11:15 PM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.