« Condo of the Day: 10 Percent Off at One Hanson Thursday On The Record »
March 15, 2007
Houses of the Day: Head-to-Head on Clinton Street
Two owners within two blocks of each other on Clinton Street in Cobble Hill have decided to put their houses on the market at the same time for almost exactly the same price. Number 274 (left), which is listed with Brown Harris Stevens for $2,900,000, is a 3,600-square-foot three-family that has been in the same family for six decades. Number 299 (right), listed with Halstead for $2,895,000, is smaller at about 3,000 square feet but has a corner location with a parking garage taking up most of the rear yard. Both houses are brownstone and both houses have only 68-feet-deep lots. The corner property has been recently renovated and most likely has higher taxes. Tough call. Which would you buy if you had this kind of dough to drop?
274 Clinton Street [Brown Harris Stevens] GMAP P*Shark
299 Clinton Street [Halstead] GMAP P*Shark
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/728
Comments
Well, one's a 3 family and one is a single family. There are no pictures of the inside of the left - though the picture there is nice. The one on the right is looks beautiful and if I had the money would love to live in that single family house. It has nicer curb appeal with a browner brownstoning and the long parlor windows, compared to the truncated parlor windows. You don't buy a house for the windows, but the house on the left has white vinyl (ughh.). It's all academic though, since no way do I have 3 million for a 1 family. It's an apples and oranges comparison since we don't have all the info and these properties would appeal to very different buyers.
Posted by: anon Fort Greener at March 15, 2007 11:33 AM
The single family is a no brainer. I figure if you have 3million to buy a house, you're probably not relying on rental income. Plus the single family is nicely renovated, plus it has a *drum roll* GARAGE!
Posted by: AnonymousNegro at March 15, 2007 11:45 AM
I'd totally go for the garage. Plus, even though corners can get street noise, I'd rather endure traffic noise (and put in double-pane windows) than endure noise from neighbors on two sides, not just one.
Signed,
someone with a noisy neighbor!
Posted by: Anonymous at March 15, 2007 11:50 AM
interesting, several years ago this house sold for 900k, was rennovated and then sold for $1.6 mln. The garage has a nifty Porsche 911 Turbo in it at the moment
Posted by: greg at March 15, 2007 11:57 AM
I have to agree that the corner house is beautiful. The garage is a great luxury -- however, you are trading off a back yard for a garage. Yes, you can always do a big deck, but with kids, it's just not the same thing as having a large space to run around. This is something we've wrestled with -- whether we'd give up a big yard (20 x 60) for a garage (or even just a parking space on property). I guess it's apples v. oranges, but what do others think is more desirable?
Posted by: Anonymous at March 15, 2007 12:09 PM
I wouldnt take either. I would take 2 mil and put it into a house in Ft Green, put another million into it and have an unbelievably super fantastic house exactly to my liking and be closer to the subway.
Posted by: Anonymous at March 15, 2007 12:46 PM
I lived on Clinton St. for 10 years. Your're about a 2 block walk to the subway at Smith.
Posted by: Anonymous at March 15, 2007 12:55 PM
Ooo, this is a fun one. I'll be curious to see if Halstead posts a floorplan for 299 because I'd want to get a fourth bedroom out of it (maybe that means giving up the library, tee hee). I'd go for 299 if I could make build a tiny one-car garage, put up a privacy fence and give myself a little yard space. The building's corner lot, move-in condition and nice details - plus central a/c! - are hard to pass up.
Posted by: zeebee at March 15, 2007 1:02 PM
Not that I am anywhere near this league on price, but 299 looks nicely reno'd and maintained (or at least well-photographed). Light and airy without giving up all of the old house feel. It would be a shame, however, to buy all that house and get no yard. For me it would depend upon how much work 274 needs. If mostly cosmetic, that would be my choice. But often, if the same family had it 50 years, that might mean nothing's been done for 50 years in important parts of the house, if ever. Once you start opening up the walls, well . . .
Posted by: Anonymous at March 15, 2007 1:07 PM
I meant a subway thats not the F.
Posted by: Anonymous at March 15, 2007 1:10 PM
A garage?..... plus side exposure?.
Deck out the garage roof. Build a friggin' garden!
...... alas, it's all a dream, a sad sad dream.
Posted by: ImNotYourDaddy at March 15, 2007 1:10 PM
what's wrong with the F? 25min to mid-town & regular...
Posted by: Anonymous at March 15, 2007 1:14 PM
The right side house has done a little too much paint job for my taste. But the left side house only have one inside picture. I suspect it'll need a lot of updating. I love the entrance doors though... If we have 3M cash, my husband would go for the right side house for the garage and the extra windows, I'd be probably seduced by the details of the left side house.
Posted by: Anonymous at March 15, 2007 1:15 PM
I have garages (yes, more than 1)and while I would love a backyard, the feeling passes when I deposit the rental income which helps pay my mortgage.
Posted by: Anonymous at March 15, 2007 1:19 PM
who cares about the subway when you have your very own, very enviable GARAGE!
Lawn mowing is totally over rated ;-}
Posted by: ImNotYourDaddy at March 15, 2007 1:21 PM
Most people don't use their yards as much as they could, anyway. A deck above the garage with container gardening would be lovely. If you need to own a car, parking is key. Having parking will be more and more important, the more and more Brooklyn gets developed. If you're looking at a long term investment, I personally think a house with a garage will end up being worth hundreds of thousands more, in the future. Think this way - would you want the private parking spot if you lived in Manhattan? Of course. Well, traffic is already worse in Brooklyn than Manhattan.
Posted by: Anonymous at March 15, 2007 2:03 PM
Are there really people out thre that think its a good thing that a property was in the same hands for 60 or more years? Why do brokers always use that as a selling point? My first thought when i read/hear that is 'fixer upper'. Is there anyone out there that really thinks this is a positive? On that note i would say hands down the property that HAS NOT been in the same family for 60 years!!
Posted by: Anonymous at March 15, 2007 2:23 PM
Houses that have been in the same family for decades are almost always in bad shape. I say that from experience, as I've bought two such houses before. Longtime family homeowners will just tolerate and live with the flaws, doing just enough tiny fixes to keep things running in the house. But they almost never fully renovate or replace the mechanicals, etc.
Posted by: Anonymous at March 15, 2007 2:29 PM
I remember Cobble Hill when it was a middle class community. Those days seem so distant.
Posted by: Serge at March 15, 2007 2:30 PM
Me at 2:29 again, I have to add a big BUT. BUT, old houses that have been in the same family for decades also tend to keep the original details! Multiple owners over the various eras means multiple renovations that are "dated" to those eras. Yuck.
Posted by: Anonymous at March 15, 2007 2:34 PM
$3mm and a 23 foot yard? Wow.
Posted by: z at March 15, 2007 2:36 PM
garage!
Posted by: Anonymous at March 15, 2007 2:50 PM
I'm Anonymous 1:07. I meant to suggest, as some others have posted, that "same family for 50 years" is a cause for concern IMHO, not a selling point. It may signal original details, but even those may be in bad shape. I also don't think realtors mean it that way. I think they are selling a faux quaintness/historical factor, the house equivalent of a used car only driven "by a little old lady on Sundays." In the house case, it's a problem if that little old lady never drove it (metaphorically, of course) down to the repair shop during the week. If the house has good original details, the realtors know how to say that directly and with photos, and the "50 years" selling point is both superfluous and much less effective on that point.
Posted by: Anonymous at March 15, 2007 2:54 PM
re: 299 Clinton.. Another broker selling close to a $3m property and doesn't know that just because NYC recs indicate year 1901 - doesn't mean house was built then...and if he knew anything about the neighborhood and these houses...he'd know he was wrong.
And also doesn't check himself... the listing says 28 x 68.... it is 20 x 68.
Posted by: Anonymous at March 15, 2007 3:09 PM
Cobble Hill was a middle class community before it was named Cobble Hill. The name is just as made up as BoCoCa.
Posted by: Anonymous at March 15, 2007 3:10 PM
The area there Cobble hill or carroll gardens is unreal i would take either one. I do like Henry street a little better than Clinton, i think it has a nicer feel to it below atlantic, but Clinton street is a great block. The area is really booming in Boccoca.
Posted by: dave at March 15, 2007 3:52 PM
Anonymous 3:10p,
No, it's been Cobble Hill for well over 200 years, and actually used to have a really big hill until that was flattened and used as landfill to create parts of Red Hook, Columbia Street Waterfront uplands, etc.
Read up:
http://gsedwards.blogspot.com/2007/01/how-cobble-lost-its-hill.html
Posted by: Anonymous at March 15, 2007 3:55 PM
More historical info also here in this 1983 NY Times article:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9905E4DE163BF931A35753C1A965948260
But yeah, BoCoCa name is totally contrived, and definitely grates my ears to hear it.
Posted by: Anonymous at March 15, 2007 4:18 PM
227 kane recently sold for around $2.3 and it's less than 18ft, has no garage and funky layout half parlor on 3rd floor). but it was in nice condition and wasn't on the market long. i'd say this place is worth $2.9 due to the garage and larger size. i don't think any 3 or 4 families are worth $3 mill, and even most 2 families are worth that. if you ahve $3 to spend on a home you dont' need rental income and if you do you're an idiot for speding that much on a house. elliman has 2 townhouses on clinton; on 4 family for $3.5 which will never sell at that price. who'd pay that for a 4 family!? and it makes no sense for an investor or developer either!
Posted by: anon at March 15, 2007 4:19 PM
I own 3 family and do not understand the comment. Rents go up. We could live for free in our apartment in 3-4 year if rents continue to grow even modestly. and we bought 2 years ago. Rents could cover our loans, taxes and about 1K in maintenance.
Posted by: Anonymous at March 15, 2007 5:00 PM
One key reason that it's a good thing for a home to have had the same owner for a long time is that there haven't been a succession of newbies to splatter yet another coat of paint on the joint--especially on the woodwork. It's true that old-timers are less likely to have kept the place up-to-date, but personally, I prefer to be the person who makes those choices. (What if they had renovated my kitchen in 1985--yecch, mauve!) My place needs a lot of help on the electrical and a little on the plumbing, but at least most of the woodwork has its original, 130-year-old finish--just the way I want it to.
Posted by: Bob999 at March 15, 2007 5:09 PM
re: Anonymous at March 15, 2007 5:00 PM
if you spend $3 mill on a 4 family and live in one apartment you'll never cover your mortgage. even if you get $3000 per floor which is highly unlikely you'll still only cover maybe $1.5 million of mortgage. then you'll still have taxes, maintnence and have paid $1.5 for floor of a brownstone. doesn't make sense. at $2mill maybe, but not at $3.
Posted by: anon at March 15, 2007 5:27 PM
Beg to differ on those that assume they're are not people interest in 3 or 4 family in high price range.
There are those like myself that have lots of equity (as in no mortgage) who would consider trading up the Clinton st. that do not have the incomes of single family househunters.
Posted by: Anonymous at March 15, 2007 6:06 PM
I've been inside 274 Clinton. The woodwork is in great shape and the entrance is stunning. However, several ceiling have been dropped, kithens/baths need updating, and all the fireplaces but one have been removed. The bonus of buying from an owner who has lived in the building since she was ten is that fact that the owner doesn't carry a mortgage and has less of a bottom line when it comes to negotiating a final price.
If you have a kid, then no yard (299) becomes an big issue.
Posted by: Happy at March 15, 2007 6:19 PM
I don't understand the anti-3/4 family comments. I live in a four family, the rental income pays my mortgage, taxes, insurance, utilities, maintenance, and leaves me a profit at the end of the year, and I live for free. I own another four family and a three family that produce an even larger profit. Obviously the commenter does not own any four family houses.
Posted by: Anonymous at March 15, 2007 7:16 PM
i'm not anti 3 or 4 family, just anti 3 or 4 fam for 3 million plus. even if you have lots of equity it's still hard to buy a 3 million dollar house if you don't have the income to support it. banks will lend about 75% of the value on a straight investment basis assuming the purchaser has good liquid assets and high income. owner occupied a bank will lend 80% to 95% depending on how aggressive the lender and how qualified the purchaser. my point is it's naive to think that if you have $500k down and can afford a $1 million dollar mortgage a bank will loan you $2.5 mill. if you can only afford a 1 million a bank won't lend an additional $1.5 million no matter how good the rental situation. owning 3 and 4 families is great, i know plenty of people in cobble hill that have owned them for 20 plus years and now get $2300 a month per renovated floor. they're making a killing. but even if you expect those very high rent to increase (remember in most layouts you only get a 1 bed with study/jr bedroom) it's still not enough to justify a 3 million price tag. that is why brokers market these as conversions to 1 or 2 families or condos. buying a 4 family for $1.5 million as an investment doesn't even make sense unless you put 30% or more down
Posted by: anon at March 15, 2007 7:35 PM
I would rather buy a $ family over a 2 any day even if i live in 2 bedrooms. Give me the income and call it what you will.
Posted by: Anonymous at March 15, 2007 8:36 PM
Anonymous 7:35pm you are absolutely right, and people that say I'd rather have a 3 or 4 family are completely missing your point. We also have a 3 family in this neighborhood, but we bought for a price when the rental income covered a huge percentage of the mortgage. Now it covers 1/2 to 1/3. I'd like to challenge Anon. 6:06pm and 8:36 pm to exactly what he or she would put down, and what kind of income they expect, in order to make this a good investment. Otherwise, you are paying $6,000 in mortgage, plus other expenses, to live in a floor of a brownstone you can rent for one third that amount.
Posted by: Anonymous at March 15, 2007 11:56 PM
I own a 3 family on Cobble Hill that I bought several years ago. When I closed the rents helped with the mortgage but barely. Now they cover the mortgage and I am not even getting market rate (great tenants so why raise the rents). In 5 years I expect the rents to go even higher though I will still charge less then market for great tenants.
Posted by: Anonymous at March 16, 2007 7:57 AM
Again, Anoon 7:57 am, buying "several years ago" changes everything. We bought "several years ago" also -- a 3-family -- and paid well under $1 million. So it was a no-brainer as an investment. Now, our house would sell for 3 times that, but the rents have gone up perhaps 20%, if that. If you are lucky, you can get $2,300 a floor x 3 floors is $6,900. So perhaps that covers 1.15 million of mortgage, but no taxes, and other maintenance costs. So to make this a good investment, you have to put 2 million in cash down. If you have 2 million cash, there are much better investments to be made than this. So, please, tell us how your rents cover your mortgage now. You must have purchased your property for half the cost of this one. Rents were very flat in this neighborhood for quite a few years, and only recently increased, so I don't see how the rents you receive have gone from barely helping with the mortgage to completely covering it. You'd have to provide more specifics to convince me of that, since we have the same situation, and our rents have gone from covering more than half, to now covering more than 3/4. But if I bought this property, the rents would leave me paying thousands and thousands of dollars in mortgage that I don't have.
Posted by: Anonymous at March 16, 2007 8:57 AM
That corner house sold a mere two years ago for something like 2.2. why would people be selling so soon? with mansion tax, broker's fee, etc., they're not making money.
also, i know an architect who claims the brownstone (?) applied to the exterior was done when it was too cold and therefore won't last. don't know if that's true. Just passing it on...
Posted by: anonymous at March 16, 2007 9:13 AM
3-families in most neighborhoods are worth more than 2-families on average. in Bed-Stuy where I live, if you have 4 floors and rent out 2 apartments in your 3-family, it will cover at least half of the purchase price if not more. Then you can live on 2 nice roomy fabulous floors and feel like a king or queen, or a very lucky person.
Posted by: cc at March 16, 2007 11:36 PM
Well sure, because more space is worth more. Any 4-story house has more square footage. It's not that 2-family houses are not valuable. If it's a 3-story house then it should only be a 2-family house. As a 3-family house it would not offer an owner's duplex and would be less appealing.
Posted by: Anonymous at March 18, 2007 9:53 AM
People will sell "so soon" for lots of reasons, 9:13 am. Life has lots of surprises. A $600K profit (less, minus various fees) over two years on a $2 million + property that's been renovated is totally normal in Brooklyn. As for the brownstone siding, nobody should believe gossip on a website about the condition of a property, in place of having an engineer inspect it. I don't want to sound snarkey, but it does sound a tad like you're an interested buyer trying to dissuade others from bidding on this house. Just saying.
Posted by: Anonymous at March 18, 2007 10:06 AM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.