House of the Day: 348 Clermont Avenue Shell

It's rare to find a total shell of a brownstone in Fort Greene these days, but Townsley & Gay has a quintessential one on Clermont Avenue listed for $975,000 (cash only). Set Speed says the building is in such bad shape that the price "might as well be considered the cost of the land." While the interior photos (which T&G deserves credit for being so forthcoming with) reveal that there's really nothing left to save on the inside, we hope that the LPC won't let the facade be torn down. (The building is safely within the FG Historic District.) The listing mentions that the house is a former SRO, but doesn't mention whether the Certificate of No Harrassment has been gotten already. Given all this, what do you think about the price?
Listing #97 [Townsley & Gay] GMAP P*Shark
Clermont Ave shell on market for $975K [Set Speed]
56 Comments
By Anonymous on March 28, 2007 12:20 PM
By Anon on Greene on March 28, 2007 12:31 PM
12:20:
Years of no heat and exposure to the elements. It's amazing how quickly a house can deteriorate with no maintenance.
By Anonymous on March 28, 2007 12:38 PM
Cash only.. That crazy!! The current owner hasnt had the building a year and he wants to pocket $300K?
By bob999 on March 28, 2007 12:39 PM
And just when I was bitching about how screwed-up *my* house is! Thanks--I'm feeling better about it already. Question: is there any history of the LPC permitting somebody to raze a facade like this within the historic district? Why would they? This looks like an excellent opportunity to mingle old-world facade with radical contempo interior--I would love to do that someday. I say glass block the entire back wall (with doors and windows, of course) and go for a wide-open floor plan. After you find that special sugar daddy, of course.
By Anonymous on March 28, 2007 12:42 PM
That's what the building on 7th Avenue looks like inside, I'm sure. The windows are all busted out just like with this one.
I'm all for saving historic bldgs and facades, but if it's so far gone it costs more than the property is worth for the new owner, to fix the facade, then the owner should be allowed to tear the whole thing down. If the city cared all that much about this house and its facade, then the city never should have allowed the house to get to this condition in the first place.
By bob999 on March 28, 2007 12:44 PM
And what does that mean, "cash only"? If a buyer goes to the trouble to get a mortgage and signs the papers, isn't the effect for the seller the same? Or does he just not want to risk a buyer's mortgage falling through at the last minute? Seems like a great way to eliminate 80% of potential buyers. Also seems like a seller who is looking for a developer to buy rather than an actual person--which is disappointing. But I bet if you walked up and made him an offer, he'd listen--there are only so many people who are willing to take on a shellhole like this....
By what bubble? on March 28, 2007 12:44 PM
it should be pretty interesting how LPC deals w/ this, as clearly the structure of the house has been messed with (and beams removed) as the whole house and front facade have begun to cave in...this really might not be salvageable...
and, oh yeah, they are on crack if they think they are getting $975K after buying it for $650K last year, and considering this might need a certiifcate of no harassment and it needs at lease $500K worth of work if the structure is salvageable, and if not, then an unknown amount...and you have to deal w/ LPC...they should pay me..
By newtothehood on March 28, 2007 12:45 PM
speaking of abandoned buildings, does anyone know what's happening with the building on 7th between union and berkeley that says it was sold. it's on the east side of the street next to the ace supermarket...
that whole block of 7th between union and berkeley has way too many vacant properties.
By ltjbukem on March 28, 2007 12:46 PM
if the 88 laf shell sold for about the same price, this would have interested buyers at these levels. this isn't on lafayette with buses rumbling by all day..
By Jake the Snake on March 28, 2007 12:47 PM
Best case is you spend $500k and get the placed fixed up and that's if you're an experienced real estate investor. No way it could be done in less than a year with DOB permits and C of O issues. SRO issues would delay things longer.
How much would it sell for? Who knows where the market will be in a year and a half. I doubt much higher than it is now.
That red shed next door is a major eyesore as well.
Personally, I'd rather do a much bigger deal where there's more upside after all that time and money spent.
For nearly a million bucks down, I'd definitely invest elewhere.
By linusvanpelt on March 28, 2007 1:10 PM
Question: will the LPC decide whether the facade can be torn down before the building is bought, or after?
I have no problem with LPC protecting buildings within its discretion, and potential buyers being able to make informed judgments based on what the LPC will allow. But it seems unfair for someone to buy it, setting a price based on the costs of a teardown, then be required to keep the facade (perhaps at greater expense) after the fact.
Is there any way to resolve this question before the deal is done?
By Serge on March 28, 2007 1:20 PM
The only difficult part of this is the no-harassment certificate. If that can be obtained, the rest is a piece of cake. So many houses in Fort Greene looked like this in the 70's and 80's. The Landmarks people would never let this facade go. Even if it partially collapsed they would make you put it back. They are not difficult to deal with.
The SRO non-harassment certification -now that's a bear.
By Anonymous on March 28, 2007 1:29 PM
Why would obtaining a non-harrasment certificate be difficult to obtain? It's obvious that the house is uninhabitable and has been so for an extended period. Non-harrasment certificates are required to insure that property owners haven't forced out SRO tenants.
By Serge on March 28, 2007 1:30 PM
To Linus:
What do you really think would happen if you went to the landmarks preservation commission and said, I want to buy this house but it's an old wreck, so I want to make sure I can tear it down first.
Landmarks is not in the business of giving approval for demolition of historic buildings.
There have been building in much much worse shape than this one that have been restored in this district alone.
Don't even go there.
By AnonymousNegro on March 28, 2007 1:31 PM
How does a place get like that? Was there a fire? Did someone just strip the house of all it's beauty and charm? Was it the rats?
What's an estimate of the cost to renovate this? low end to high end...
By linusvanpelt on March 28, 2007 1:38 PM
Serge,
I'm not advocating one way or the other whether the house should be torn down or preserved. All I'm saying is: wouldn't it be in everybody's interests--buyer, seller, the community--to settle these questions before any deal is done?
By Anonymous on March 28, 2007 1:41 PM
LPC does give permission to demolish buildings in historic districts if they cannot be saved. But from the pictures, it looks like the facade could be salvaged. That is, it looks structurally sound even though the brownstone is delaminating and the windows have rotted. The Certifcate of No Harrassment may not be such a hurdle if the building has been vacant long enough. As someone pointed out, it didn't get this way overnight.
By Anonymous on March 28, 2007 1:41 PM
Assuming no certificate, I'd pay 800k cash.
By Serge on March 28, 2007 1:49 PM
To Anon 1:41
When was the last time the Landmarks Commission gave its OK for the demolition of an historic building in an historic district?
I can't think of a single example.
In terms of the no-harassment certificate, there may be no problem here, I don't know the details. But if there is an old claim from someone saying that the landlord forced them out thru no heat or lack of upkeep or something, then it is a very difficult problem.
By Anonymous on March 28, 2007 2:03 PM
Corcoran has a 3 story shell for $750k on Union between Hoyt/Bond. I'd venture a narrower lot also.
Of course not LM area so easier to do but if know what you're doing Clermont would be better deal.
By donatella on March 28, 2007 2:33 PM
This is in my neck of the woods and so I have had an interest in this -- well more like morbid curiosity. I checked it out in the past on the LPC website and they say it is structurally damaged. I do not know at what point safety for attached structures and people in the neighborhood trumps historical value, but this place is a complete wreck. The lintels and the facade are crumbling and coming off in huge hunks. To get a sense of the pricing, you need a structural engineer to get in there. Sometimes when I walk by that place, I think about the sequence of construction i.e. how to go about restoring it and how long it would take, if in fact it is possible. It has been exposed to the elements for a long time; the second and top floor windows have separated from the frames and were tilting inward (I see now that there is plywood on the second floor), exposing the house to rain and the elements. This is one step up from being a lot. Assuming that a beautifully restored 18 foot 4 story, three family Italianate brownstone on this block would go for 1.65 - 1.75 and let's say it costs 600,000 to completely gut it, rebuild it and reface it, let's see after 2 - 3 years of work, how much would you make? Assuming it doesn't fall down first.... I really hope that it is salvageable. Would somebody pay 1 million bucks for a shell? Could it be a shell? Or a lot? It's funny, the other day when I passed it I thought in some cities, you could buy that place for $1.
Oh and by the way, I wish that owner would do something about all the garbage that collects around that place....
By donatella on March 28, 2007 2:38 PM
They say on the ad that it is 21 feet wide, hmm. I don't know. But I forgot to say that getting a certificate of non harrassment in this case is probably the least of the buyers troubles. You need to put a public notice in newspapers over a period of time announcing the conversion and advertising to former tenants to come foward. Usually you don't have SRO tenants combing the law journals and public announcement sections of the classified, so it is just a time thing. It's been empty so long it shouldn't be a big deal. By the way, there is another wreck down the block on Clermont.
By Anonymous on March 28, 2007 3:20 PM
give it a rest, just tear it down. there is no way any new building would not be a huge improvement.
By Anonymous on March 28, 2007 3:40 PM
bob999--reason this deal would prob have to be all cash is cause it's pretty hard (especially these days) to get a home mortgage for something that isn't habitable/doesn't have CofO.
By jack slade on March 28, 2007 3:45 PM
I drove by that home for at least 4 years always wishing I could buy it. I’m finally glad I have the opportunity to peak inside. This building is a great investment and so what the guy is making 300k after holding it for short amount of time. The next guy will sell it for 2 million. Deep down inside we all wish it was us making that money and believe it or not some people do "flip homes" for a living . Some poster wrote it’s a 500k repair cost …what is that 100 k per floor and 100k for the common space. Give me a break. I can clearly see that the demo is almost complete and there's no obstructions in the way if structure work is needed. People really need to remove their tunnel vision goggles when looking at homes like this and don’t become a victim to contractors who can see that you’re bleeding cash out your ass and you’re a newbie.
By unknown on March 28, 2007 3:50 PM
How in the world can someone let a house be like that, its unbeleivable and to think that they want all cash, I guess they are steering towards a developer.
By donatella on March 28, 2007 3:53 PM
Dear Jack, that would cost more than 500,000 I think. The place has to be completely rebuilt if it can be, including a complete refacing and rebuilding of the facade, lintels, etc which are crumbling. Making money is wonderful but this house is a career. Maybe I'm just a wimp but I went through this with a house in way better shape and I get chills down my spine thinking about doing anything like that with this. I think the price has to drop to make it work.
By Jack Slade on March 28, 2007 4:02 PM
Dear Donatella, the last 2 words in your first sentence sums it all.
thank you very little for your comment.
Jack
By Anonymous on March 28, 2007 4:12 PM
OK, Jack, I'll bite. Assume the worst. Rotten joists throughout the house, crumbling facade, leak situation as bad as can be on all exposures, everything sagging, nothing level, all kinds of structural problems. How much should it cost a savvy pro to get this house done right, including all fixtures and finish materials.
My tone may be a bit facetious/incredulous, but this is not a rehtorical question. I am truly curoius as to your answer.
By Anonymous on March 28, 2007 4:18 PM
all of this* is done all the time in Harlem.
* building out shells that were as dilapidated as this bld or worse. These brownstones were generally very solidly built and withstand an extraordinary amount of abuse.
* dealing with SRO issues (3yrs since last habited is the general window of risk but can be tricky - need specialist advice)
* dodgy ownership issues/brokers/speculators
That said, it takes a lot of $$$ & guts & I would be more wary of any place that has a freestanding side wall (like this one).
By Anonymous on March 28, 2007 4:46 PM
Dear 4:18, I am curious about how you would approach buying and rebuilding a house like this. Assuming that the Certificate of non-harrassment could be gotten and financing or $$ were available, how would you approach whether or not buying and rebuilding this house was possible? Getting a structural engineer to evaluate everything but particularly the freestanding wall? Assuming that it was stable enough, and you could sell the house for 1.8 million dollars in 2 years, how much would you pay?
By donatella on March 28, 2007 4:47 PM
4:46 was me; thought I was logged in...
By Anonymous on March 28, 2007 4:52 PM
Anyone that pays $950K for this place is going to lose their shirt. It will cost $700K to renovate and will take 3 years. Assume $950K purchase and $700K renovation (hard + soft). Cost is about $1.65. Carrying the place, even at 6.0% interest is going to add another $300k. You're cost basis is $2.0 million. How much are you going to sell it for? Factor in the risk with Landmarking + SRO. You really need to discount your bid if you're going to make money on this place.
By Anonymous on March 28, 2007 5:15 PM
OK,
People are throwing around a lot of numbers and opinions (which is great, of course, and part fo why we all love the site). Would a few of you (those of you who think it would be relatively cost-effective, and those of you who think this is a money pit) put some real metrics on the line? How do you go about arriving at your initial back of the envelope number for renovation costs? I and others (Donatella, I feel your pain every time I read one of your posts) am curious to learn more about what you see in dollars when you see a house like this one.
By Anonymous on March 28, 2007 5:20 PM
I agree with the above poster.
I've bought properties similar to the one above, gutt renovated them, and successfully flipped. I also have have long term relationships with contractors who give me very good prices.
If a contractor himself buys the house and does the work on his own, it still wouldn't be worth it.
A Million dollars cash is MUCH better spent as a downpayment on a 4 million dollar property with the potential to make a million bucks or more than on a one million dollar property with the potential to make OPPTOMISTICALLY two hundred thousand.
By donatella on March 28, 2007 5:21 PM
Thank you 5:15, I am in recovery.
By Anonymous on March 28, 2007 5:22 PM
4:52 is correct about costs. This house won't go to some individual who builds a home for himself/herself. It will be a developer who makes condos on each floor and sells them for $800-900K each.
By Anonymous on March 28, 2007 5:24 PM
On average it costs about 100k a floor with a well priced contractor to gutt renovate a townhouse.
This is an average figure from experience.
What more do you want? It's impossible to be more precise unless I personally inspected the house with my contractor and I'm not going to waste my time doing that.
By Anonymous on March 28, 2007 5:33 PM
You'd also have to get a structural engineer in there. IF the brick work can stand, it'll cost a lot to replace all those water damaged beams. From the photos, they look terrible.
Replacing athe beams alone could be at least 50k alone and I'd be nervous the place would fall down in the process.
This is a job for someone with gutts of steel or brains of oatmeal.
By Anonymous on March 28, 2007 7:41 PM
Serge, Anon 1:41 (the first) here. I believe that LPC approved a tear-down on Cambridge within the past year. Can anybody confirm?
By jack slade on March 28, 2007 9:20 PM
Guts of steel I like that.
People over spend when they walk into these kind of homes and panic when they see leaning stairs then they quickly call an engineer to explain why the stairs are leaning. Others think because they spent 100k per floor that's the official rate any thing less is an outright lie.
Anon 4:12 I started typing up a plan with costs for you but then I realized why tell the world my secrets. We need people like you to keep these high end contractors happy.
But I will tell you a few things.... this job can be done for 300k with some room for savings. A real gut demo will erase all the issues you raised in 2 weeks (leveling, structure, leaks etc). And do you really need me to tell you that the finishing touches depend on the person's taste??
Just like the poster stated a letter of no harassment should be easy because the house has been vacant for more than 3 yrs. An investors can condo it or just keep it simple with the arch and DOB by building one kitchen and making it a 1 family then put it back on the market next yr.
Jack
By Archiefina on March 28, 2007 9:36 PM
Though the least of its problems, this house also has a stream running below it - or so I was told when looking at its next door (attached to the left) neighbor, formerly Paul Robeson's house, the basement of which was reminiscent of a swamp. Perhaps untrue, but a memorable statement by the selling broker.
By eek on March 28, 2007 9:47 PM
Jack, given those estimates, are you in any way related to Bricolage?
Heh. Sorry. Had to ask. :P
By anon on March 28, 2007 11:39 PM
jack, your full of it if you say you can do this for 300k. i gut renovate townhouses for a living and 300k will get the structure fixed (new staircase, joists, sub floor, etc) and all new mechanicals, maybe even the facade fixed (doubtful since it's landmarks which will delay and drive up costs and it needs to be brownstone which is much more than brick clean up). there are 15 containers of trash in this place, that's 15k right there. a decent house should have close to 200k in fixtures. say what you will, but a sub zero still costs $5000k for the cheapest model no matter what kind of deal you get. a good kitchen (cabinets and nice high end appliances) should cost at least 40k, no point in redoing a new house if you'll get cheap appliances. stone counter tops run $60 -$80 psf! new wood windows that landmarks will require cost 10k minimum. even if you buy the cheapest wood floors thats still 4k not including install. minimum of 10k for tiles, 20k for bathroom fixtures (assuming at least 4 bathrooms). and this is all based on a 1 family, condos would cost more since you have more kitchens and master baths, the most expensive rooms in the house. i'm sure you could put in shit fixtures and do this for 400k-450k, but what's the point. those things do add value and will make the house that much easier to sell. in this market a low quality product won't sell, but as we're seeing high quality stuff is moving fast. realistically if you could get this place for $850k it'd be a good deal. i'd put $700k into an amazing renovation, then i'd have another 300k in soft costs (assuming you take out a loan). you could get everything through landmarks in 2-3 months max, if you don't plan any additions it'll be approved at staff level. sro is difficult but doable. once construction starts you have 7-8 months to completion. that's one of the biggest myths, that construction should take a year or more. sell for $2.5 mill and make over 25% return. not a bad deal. i think there is much more upside as 1 or 2 family as opposed to condos.
By Anonymous on March 29, 2007 8:35 AM
I was the poster who said I would buy
this for 800k cash. I would do this if
all the stars aligned - a) I really
wanted to live on this block of FG
b) had a place to stay for the duration
of the reno c) wasn't doing this for a profit but to get a place to my taste
for a reasonable price in FG.
I am not a contractor and don't have the
time or energy or patience to GC myself.
This job would cost me at least 400k, if
not closer to 600k. Even with carrying costs (and assuming SRO no-harrass cert
can be obtained within 6 months), it
would be a reasonable buy if this was the block I wanted.
By Anonymous on March 29, 2007 9:30 AM
Disagree with anonymous 5:24. That old $100K per floor renovation cost is out of date. Has anyone seen what's happended to the price of materials the other day.
I bid out a similar job 2-3 years ago to good quality contractors. All three bids came in at about $600-$700K. with the inevitable work changes, there is no way this job gets done for less than $700K.
By michaelcampion on March 29, 2007 10:29 AM
Does anyone have a link for:
no-harrass cert. or SRO?
Much thanks...
By Anonymous on March 29, 2007 10:58 AM
All that $100K per floor would build is a crappy place to live. With walls and floors you can hear people whispering through. In other words, some cheapo condo flip job. In other words, ruining the building. Why would anyone be so proud of doing that? That doesn't take skill. That takes a lack of ethics. The fact is a decent gut reno and condo conversion will cost several hundred thousand dollars. But if you do a great job and sell them for $900K each, you still make some money. If you're not so greedy as to need a 500% profit on the endeavor, it's a perfectly fine profit to make.
By jack slade on March 29, 2007 10:59 AM
eek- no need to apologize I’m not related to Bricolage nor do I share his taste in design… however your comment and emoticon proves that it is possible.
To the anonymous owners, contractors, developers or whatever who saw a few snap shots of the house and are able to give the world a quote for 700k. I’m sorry you feel threatened by my statement or are in denial because you paid an arm and leg for your renovation. Your reactions and numbers have inspired me to hone in on my skills and get paid because there's some serious cash to be made out there.
Believe it or not there are some investors out there that are able to look pass the horror in those few pictures and understand that this building is a 4 story brownstone in a hot location for less than a million dollars in 2007. Those facts alone can turn a quick profit and they clearly understand that there’s no need for a 700k renovation packed with emotions and personal touches. And if by chance you are that kind of investor that spends that kind of money I know it will break your lil heart when you drive by after the selling the house and a new dumpster is parked outside the house.
For the record I’m not a developer, broker, or agent.
By Anonymous on March 29, 2007 11:16 AM
All I know is we spent $85K on an all-new kitchen (good cabinets but without the pricey high-end appliances); an alarm system; updated (not all-new) bathrooms; new roof; new water heater; expanded breaker box; new storm sewer; new washer and dryer and new plumbing and electric for those; some other plumbing work; painting inside; carpet on stairs and in a couple BR's; a chandelier installed; yard clearing; and wood blinds throughout. So if you figure this house would need all those things AND to be completely rebuilt, it's hard to see it being done for $300K. Unless you hire the kind of contractor the seller of our own house hired, some of whose plumbing work we had to go back and fix it was done so stupidly and amateur.
By Anonymous on March 29, 2007 11:29 AM
I'm buy-it-for 800k poster. I can see where Jack Slade is getting his #s from. It's possible if you're in the GC role, and know which subs to hire and how to keep them on a tight leash (figuratively speaking). But even as someone who has a reasonable amount of time to deal with contractors and subs, I couldn't make it work unless it were my full-time job more or less.
By Anonymous on March 29, 2007 12:18 PM
I am anons 4:12 and 5:15. Apart from a bit of invective, I appreciate that a bunch of you have dug a bit deeper into the numbers to provide some perspective. I'm not going to referee this, but I feel I have learned something (even if Jack is still guarding his trade secrets). I know what I went through with an old house reno/restoration job for me and my family to live in, and was curious how one approaches a renovation without pity. So thank you all (and keep the thread going, if you wish).
By Anonymous on March 29, 2007 2:08 PM
I have seen the inside of this house with my own eyes. It's in the worst shape a house can be in. The agent would not even allow us to walk around inside (not that we wanted to). We took a few steps in to see rotten joists throughout the house or joists that have been removed completely, a crumbling facade, a whole in the roof that has been leaking for years, brick walls exposed and huge portions of the brick missing from the wall. The staircase falling off the wall and 1/4 of the floor board missing (the rest may have fallen into the basement). This house is in the worst shape a house can be in.
By Anonymous on March 29, 2007 3:35 PM
Jack may be closer to the truth with his numbers than most posters here think...
What many might not realize is that when you do a complete gut renovation, it makes all of the tradesmen's jobs go much much faster and easier, and, thus, cheaper! Why? because new work is easier than "retrofit" type work. It's also easier to make an accurate bid with fewer contingencies for "surprises."
You cannot compare your experience of remodeling your kitchen and/or having your house rewired or having your new toilet waste line installed to what thoses tasks would cost in this case.
the trades make a profit based on speed. They like gut renovations - it is understandably easier for them if there are no "hidden" obstructions when they arrive to do their work and can get the work done quickly. Just ask an electrician how much easier it is to install a new circuit when the walls are completely opened up - takes about 20% of the time it might take to run the same circuit through a simple plaster wall; (and then the plaster wall needs to be repaired and repainted, too. even more time spent.)
time is money, baby...this is why remodeling is usually more expensive than bidding for all "new work."
also, the sequence of construction events can be better controlled this way, maximizing efficiency.
the secret is to make sure that the foundation, masonry work and brickwork are structurally sound; if they're not, it could be expensive to repair. (although, 2:08, some missing bricks don't necessarily portend disaster) the brownstone cladding out front will be expensive to fix, and landmarks will make it a requirement to get it right, (one would hope.) the condition of the roof, stairs, beams, joists and studs don't really mean a thing. they will all be replaced and all the new floors and walls will be level and plumb.
level, plumb and exposed = easier, faster and cheaper.
anyway...
no one on this thread can look at photos and give accurate numbers to waht this would cost without knowledge and the personal inspections of several different experts - thinking otherwise is a ludicrous, ignorant notion.
this is not a restoration-type gig for those who learn things from "this old house" and bob vila, but it's also not really daunting to those who know what they're doing and have done it many times.
By lp on March 29, 2007 4:09 PM
Totally agree with the last post. This is a gut and rebuild of the roof, floors (including joists most likely, stairs and walls), along with all new electric, plumbing and other mechanicals, while preserving and repairing, where necessary, the stone and brick walls. It is more straight forward than a rehab/restoration job in a run down, but habitable, brownstone. Apples and oranges, but in some sense, easier from a project timeline and ease of planning/work point of view.
By anon Fort Greener on March 29, 2007 5:00 PM
It's also easier to make an accurate bid with fewer contingencies for "surprises."
In this case, the surprise might be the collapse of the building.
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.

how does a building even get like that?