« Nice Try in Vinegar Hill Brunching in Bed-Stuy »

March 16, 2007

HOTD: Greenpoint Home For The Aged Hits Market

137 Oak
Holy smokes! The historic Greenpoint Home for the Aged (which the AIA Guide calls an "eclectic brick manion with Italianate massing and Romanesque Revival arches") has just become available. The 5,000-square-foot mansion is not for the faint of heart, though. In addition to the 13 SRO tenants currently residing there, making use of the almost 15,000 square feet of air rights won't be a simple matter given the 1887 building's landmark status. The asking price is $2,500,000. This place is very hard to value, however, for the reasons cited above. Getting free and clear of the SRO tenants would take at least three years, we'd think; we're not even sure a developer could get them out — and it's going to be hard to find an individual with the deep pockets who plans to use this as a private residence and leave the unbuilt FAR unused. One possibility? A developer might just build around the existing tenants, essentially buying the property as a development venture. We don't know the layout of the lot very well but it's not apparent to us how the LPC will ever let anyone build 15,000 square feet here. What this calls for is a patient, eccentric multi-millionaire!
137 Oak Street [Massey Knakal] GMAP P*Shark
Droolworthy: Greenpoint Home for the Aged [Brownstoner]
AIA on Greenpoint [Ragette.org]

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/740

Comments

Is it still against the law to kill SRO tenants? Just wondering....

Posted by: Anonymous at March 16, 2007 10:49 AM

Whoa. That's for somebody totally in love or a totally crazy. Or both. It's a good thing I didn't win the lottery or I'd be out there cleaning up those garbage cans.

Posted by: donatella at March 16, 2007 10:49 AM

This is a fabulous property!!! Incredible potential. I hope it goes to someone who will restore it, not destroy it.

Damn! Wish I had won Mega.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 16, 2007 11:02 AM

I wish I were a patient millionaire. Beautiful bones on that building and so much outdoor space.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 16, 2007 11:14 AM

It's part of the Greenpoint Historic District, so expanding the building could only be accomplished if they can make the addition invisible from the street. I wish I had a million dollars. Oops, 2.5 million I mean. What a dream home that could be. Just 2 blocks off the East river on a quiet little street.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 16, 2007 11:18 AM

could be that some developer might buy it for the air rights (i.e., transfer it to an adjoining property that's not landmarked?)

Posted by: Anonymous at March 16, 2007 11:18 AM

I'd go for this project - beautiful building. Alas, funds are tied up now.
Who knows, if it's still on the market
next year ...

Posted by: Anonymous at March 16, 2007 11:26 AM

Air rights aren't much use in the middle of a district - unless you are at the edge (this is near the edge, I think).

More likely, a developer would be able to some modest expansions within the Landmarks context - not necessarily invisible, but certainly not maxing out the FAR either.

Would also make a great tax credit project, if its developed as rental.

Posted by: Halden at March 16, 2007 11:41 AM

Guttman, he could buy it just before one of the SRO tennants accidentally sets it on fire. then it perfect for build some luxury condos!

Posted by: Anonymous at March 16, 2007 11:54 AM

Brownstoner is still an ass for launching into a discussion of FAR and air rights with such a great property. Get a life. This is in a protected district. If landmarking can't save even this from greedy development, I see a sorry future for historic nyc.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 16, 2007 12:52 PM

For shame, brownstoner, does anyone give a s**t about the legitimate tenants? Or being SRO's, are they just scum who need to be gotten rid of?

Posted by: anon at March 16, 2007 1:07 PM

What about C of Oh no Radusky redesigning it as a yeshiva and then, at the last minute, selling it off as condos?

Posted by: Anonymous at March 16, 2007 1:08 PM

1:07 It's not about getting rid of the scum so much as how one would you get rid of that old person smell thats the key to developing this gem.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 16, 2007 1:12 PM

Poor blighters who actually live there; how hilarious to imply that their smell will linger or that we should be able to murder them--a real thigh-slapper. They have all the socio-economic value of termites. Let the extermination begin.

Posted by: Brenda from Flatbush at March 16, 2007 2:03 PM

Wow, I wonder what it looks like inside. If it's 5000 sqft and has 13 tenants, that's only... 384 sqft each, and probably even less, since they would need room for stairwells, common areas, etc. I wonder if it's all kinds of chopped up in there. Then again, if it was originally built as a home for the aged, maybe it just has separate bedrooms off a main hallway and they didn't have to do any chopping up of the original layout/details to make it an SRO.

For the record, I agree that the current tenants need to be treated with respect, but I also kind of wish, after having visited/worked with numerous SRO buildings around Brooklyn, that the whole SRO system would be scrapped. It only leads to decrepit buildings and substandard living conditions, in my experience. I don't really know of a good alternative, but the current system really does suck.

Posted by: sylvia at March 16, 2007 2:33 PM

Help The AGED
one time they were just like you
drinking , smoking cigs and sniffin glue
Help the aged
don't just put them in a home
can't have much fun when they're all on their own
give a hand if you can
try and help them to unwind
give them hop and give them comfort
cos they're running out of time....

Posted by: Anonymous at March 16, 2007 2:48 PM

"Getting free and clear of the SRO tenants ...' - disgusting.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 16, 2007 3:00 PM

I feel for the people whose home it is.
There are many other buildings that are on the market to consider.
Noa

Posted by: Noa at March 17, 2007 3:43 PM

If someone is selling this building, which currently has tenants, isn't it legitimate to view them as a concern for whoever is interested in buying the property? The tenants deserve respect and legal rights, but can a building inhabited by tenants only be sold to another landlord who intends to continue on with the property unchanged? Is there a middle ground between cold-heartedness and self-righteousness?

Posted by: Drew Kilgore at March 17, 2007 5:03 PM

my humble opinion ..

who ever buy's the property should burn the current tenant's out . Out with the old

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2007 5:38 PM

I don't get it, is this a nursing home or an SRO rental building that was once a nursing home? If it's the former, then wouldn't the folks living there be relocated by either family or the state (depending on how they got to be there in the first place)? If it's the latter, just what are the legal rights of SRO tenants if their building is sold and the buyer wants them to leave? Does anyone have any real information or ideas, or just one-liners?

Posted by: Drew Kilgore at March 17, 2007 8:33 PM

SRO tenants have plenty of rights and often they are offered money to move, so that the process of converting and renovating the property can begin. The tricky part for any developer is that he must obtain a "certificate of non-harrassment" from tenants who move out in order for work to start. Anybody buying this place needs to really know what they are doing; there is quite a bit of work with the city including the submission of architect plans to convert the C of O. I considered buying a house (no tenants in it) which was an SRO and it was just too complicated for me (and expensive - getting financing is harder too). This is a magnificent old place but it could be someone's life work.

Posted by: donatella at March 17, 2007 8:51 PM

Your greed is vile. You can volley ideas and salivate over the desirability of a piece of property with total disregard for human life and go ahead, figure out a way to buy it up. Either way the entire landscape is rapidly being destroyed by your selfish idea of what constitutes progress and profit and soon the city will only be inhabited by cretins like yourselves. NY is an old dream turned nightmare.

Posted by: Bo at March 18, 2007 2:36 AM

This isn't about us advocating any course of action, it's about the reality of the marketplace. Do you really think someone's going to pay $2.5 million for this place and not try to kick out the SRO tenants? Last time we checked most developers and homeowners were not in the charity business.

Posted by: brownstoner at March 18, 2007 2:30 PM

5:21,

A landlord's job is not to run a social welfare agency. A renter lives in a buildig by priveledge, not by right (as protected in NYC as it may be). I own 4 buildngs. Call me when you do too.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 18, 2007 8:16 PM

The issue is less about the "inevitability" of progress than the way it is executed. Little or no attention is paid to the fabric of the city and profit takes precedence over all else. No one expects homeowners and developers to be in the "charity business" but your vision lacks conscience and the city is quickly becoming a cheesy, soulless void driven by greed. History is a nuisance to you people and what you leave behind will be remembered with shame. What a bore. Go invest in Tampa if all your interested in is a quick buck.

Posted by: Bo at March 19, 2007 7:07 AM

Sorry, brownstoner, it was you who made the insensitive comment that started this in the first place. Bo said it perfectly. A show of concern (or not commenting) would've been better. All you comment on is the economics.

And as for 8:16, let's hope he winds up a tenant with a landlord with his exquisite arrogance.

Posted by: anon at March 19, 2007 8:38 AM

I don't know, if the original layout was all divided up, it would be pretty difficult to make this into a one-family residence. I would bet that it ends up going to someone who wants to make condos (or, given the market, rentals?) out of it, kind of like what they did with the old Interfaith Hospital in Crown Heights. They ripped out all the individual hospital rooms and divided it up in to apartments. Does $2.5 million sound about right, then?

And as much as I think that kicking SRO residents out on the street is wrong, maybe the outrage could be taken a little more seriously if people admitted that no-one here is advocating development "at the expense of human life". I mean seriously. Kicking people out of an SRO is not the moral equivalent of sending them to the gas chamber.

Posted by: sylvia at March 19, 2007 9:01 AM

Brownstoner said: Do you really think someone's going to pay $2.5 million for this place and not try to kick out the SRO tenants? Last time we checked most developers and homeowners were not in the charity business.
-----------------------------------------
This is a really disappointing & obnoxious comment. Good to know that when you have money you automatically can look down from your pedestal :thumbs up:

Posted by: Anonymous at March 19, 2007 9:44 AM

Sylvia said: And as much as I think that kicking SRO residents out on the street is wrong, maybe the outrage could be taken a little more seriously if people admitted that no-one here is advocating development "at the expense of human life".

I say: That is exactly what Brownster advocates.

Sylvia: I mean seriously. Kicking people out of an SRO is not the moral equivalent of sending them to the gas chamber.

I say: Yeah, making someone homeless & living out in this weather is A-Okay. We only have 100,000 homeless in this city, what's another? Hey--they all want to be on the streets anyway.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 19, 2007 9:48 AM

Lot's of chatter. Let's get back to the basics.

Has anyone seen the property yet??? Any word on what it's like inside?

Posted by: Anonymous at March 19, 2007 10:10 AM

You can't kick out the SRO tenants. You can either relocate them or buy them out.

Those are the facts. You folks making this into a rich developer versus poor tenant issue are just blowing steam.

In the end, everyone will be better off. I'd be willing to invest as a partner in that building, but I would never do the whole thing myself.

Talk about a headache.

Posted by: Jake the Snake at March 19, 2007 10:35 AM