« Friday Links Growing Momentum for P'spect Heights Landmarking »
April 6, 2007
14 Townhouses, After Slow '06, Go Gangbusters
When Jim Cornell and Leslie Marshall decided to hike prices at the 14 Townhouses at the beginning of February in the face of reports of slow sales, it looked a little crazy to an outsider observer. After all, as far as anyone knew, there hadn't been a sale in months. The hikes, in retrospect, were brilliantly timed. According to yesterday's Brooklyn Eagle, February turned out to be a "record month" for the project, with the result that only one of the townhouses (the model house) remains unsold. Number 269, for example, one of the houses whose price was jacked from $2.75 to $2.9 million is now in contract.
The back-story is pretty interesting. When the houses hit the market early last year, there were three quick sales. Then, for eight months, nothing. Cornell and Marshall pulled the listings towards the end of 2006, rephotographed them, and then threw a big relaunch party in mid-January. They then proceeded to sell ten of them over the next couple months, three to Brooklynites, five to Manhattanites, one to a Greenwich family and one to Chicago family. Frankly, we're glad to see that the market ultimately rewarded a developer for having some vision and cojones. It also shows that brokers are not a commodity product and that a good one can be worth the price.
269 State Street IN CONTRACT [Corcoran] GMAP
Price Hike At The 14 Townhouses [Brownstoner]
14 Townhouses Update: Slow Going, At Best [Brownstoner]
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/894
Comments
Second rule of salesmanhip - up the price to increase the perceived value. They earned their commissions!
Posted by: Anonymous at April 6, 2007 9:11 AM
amazing...these townhouses are pretty dope, having seen them during the brooklyn designs event last year.
interesting that half were purchased by some manhattanites. welcome to the nabe!
Posted by: ltjbukem at April 6, 2007 9:18 AM
If you're going to character-assassinate someone (as an earlier commenter did), please back it up with a specific anecdote. ("I dealt with this guy when he was selling 1 Smith Street and he repeatedly gave me mis-information..."). Throwing out a generalization about someone ain't fair and doesn't give the person who's been criticized any basis for defending himself.
Posted by: brownstoner at April 6, 2007 9:28 AM
Only thing that irritates me about this is that I haven't had a chance to ogle one of these. They ain't perfect, and the immediate nabe has some issues for me, but they're pretty great--an inspiring bit of clever, fresh contempo. Soooo rare. Here's a question for the architects (yo, Architect in Brooklyn?): Couldn't the *idea* of these be replicated with less-costly finishes for the middle-market buyer in a less expensive area? Drop the copper details, go GE instead of Bosch, etc., and add a rental unit in the basement? How cool would THAT be?
Posted by: bob999 at April 6, 2007 9:38 AM
Two more things: This goes to show that the strategy of open houses specifically for BROKERS is the way to go--congrats to the selling agents. Worked for my joint in Chelsea. Second, the Eagle story says this is only phase 1 of a 3-part development; anybody (Mr. B? Brokers?) have info/renderings of the remaining phases? Would love to see.
Posted by: bob999 at April 6, 2007 9:44 AM
I find these houses to be striking (in a good way) whenever I walk or drive by, although the view from the back isn't so idyllic. Plus, the street, with its intact brownstones, townhouses, etc., and stop signs in lieu of lights, makes for a very nice vibe and explains IMO why these are very appealing homes.
Posted by: Archiefina at April 6, 2007 9:55 AM
bob999
A long time ago I worked for the firm that designed these townhouses, and to my knowledge they have remained a talented bunch, so for me much of the appeal of these units is not so much their finishes or dishwashers but their good design.
Good design isn't necessarily expensive, but being open to fresh ideas can (and now I speak from experience) be a taxing proposition for the extremely budget conscious. I don't know if you've seen the plans for these townhouses, but an important element in them is the subtraction of the "parlor" floor plate in the back, such that the public space is two-stories. Good double height windows and a graceful stair complete the feeling of expansiveness and openess.
Now, this move a) subtracts floor space and b) prevents the ground floor from being rentable without a renovation. In short these are radical moves that an inexperienced client is unlikely to approve (with that little voice in the back of his or her head saying "resale value...resale value...") But here, cutting the floorplate is the make or break decision. IIRC these townhouses are little over 16' wide, so when you don't have width, you go for drama in other ways. Here, the sequence of a nice open kitchen that in turn opens up to a dramatic two-story space is a great progression of scale, and impressive, as the new homeowners undoubtably know and paid extra for.
The marketing makes no apologies for these moves that in essense "remove" FAR and "reduce" flexibility. And rightly so: the pay-off is a great public space, coupled with what I would call a correct public to private sequence, with the private roofdeck a nice touch to finish. (Note that this great division also works well on the ground floor, with the guest room or office nicely tucked away in the front).
Are they worth close to $3m to my mind? Not hardly, but what matters more than my opinion is that folks have voted with their feet and pocketbooks (time and again I have to remember the lure for most people of move-in-ready). To get back to your question, yes, this could be done for a lot less money, but not in this way, and not with this design, but certainly with this spirit.
--an architect in Brooklyn
Posted by: Anonymous at April 6, 2007 10:20 AM
well, any other townhouse in this area would be $1.5mm minimum and most in the 1.8-2.1 area. factor in the completely move-in condition for all but the snobbiest minimalist designer who needs it all their way, $2.5-2.6 was quite fair in my uneducated opinion.
color me green. i wish i had one of these.
Posted by: ltjbukem at April 6, 2007 10:26 AM
i have to say that i was a little underimpressed when i saw them - for 3M, that is. while i understand the modern clean lines (and that period details aren't for everyone), there are quite a few rooms (extra bedrooms, etc.) in those townhouses that look like white boxes. the same white boxes you get when you buy a mcmansion in the suburbs. nothing special about 'em.
same for the bathrooms. maybe the master bath is extra-specially nice, but the others? ho-hum. same thing you'd get in any new construction... even in topeka.
i don't know... for $3M in boerum hill, i kind of expect fireworks all throughout the house - not just in the admittedly terrific looking main living room.
in my view, the interior designers managed to make some very blah spaces look very cool.
Posted by: anonymous at April 6, 2007 10:37 AM
Thanks, ArchInBklyn, for the rapid and illuminating response. I really enjoy your commentary. I haven't been able to see the interiors, so your explanation of what was sacrificed--FAR to gain double-height living room, and the option of a rental downstairs--sheds light on why this exact design would be tricky at a lower price point. (And anon 10:37, I would argue that it's the clean, simple poetry of the space that makes it something more than just a white box in Topeka). But what of the facade? Particularly if you had a 20-foot lot to deal with--couldn't an affordable contemporary exterior along these lines be accomplished, with a rental, perhaps without the double-height LR but maybe with other amenities? I just so want to see good, contemporary design for lower price points as well. I firmly believe that these Fedders crap piles are unnecessary.
Posted by: bob999 at April 6, 2007 10:46 AM
What amazes me about the price point for these is that they are going to have a massive development at the bottom of their gardens. I can't imagine having somthing looming over your backyard with windows where people can look down into your yard. I understand that this is NY and inevitable for some properties but I'm surprised people went for it at these prices.
Posted by: ThirtyThreeSixty at April 6, 2007 10:57 AM
I like the idea of updated townhouses with rentals. At a "price point" for mere mortals with jobs, careers, even professions? Whew. The fear's in the air again, it seems, for the 2 or 3 dozen people left who haven't been priced out.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 6, 2007 11:04 AM
I've seen a similar effect in a friend's house in the West Village that was done without taking out the parlor floor plate in the back, just making the back wall of the house all glass. It doesn't have the drama of this, but it's really nice.
Also, "details" don't always need to be preserved. If the old moldings and baseboards aren't all that special and/or they're covered in layers of paint, take 'em off. Keep it clean. Between that and bigger windows in back, you get something closer to this.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 6, 2007 11:11 AM
Today's buyer in brooklyn is not the same buyer from 10 yrs ago...they will take function over form, they aren't overly concerned about landmark status and they are very concerned about adequate space and location...how "overpriced" does the $4M crib on PPW look now? People need vision...the Manhattanization of Brooklyn includes the price of real estate - PPW will close the gap to CPW in price and stature, IMO, in 10-15 yrs...and NEVER underestimate the value of an architect - one I am not BTW...these sales VERY bullish for Brooklyn.
Posted by: Brownstone Dreamin at April 6, 2007 11:34 AM
and what does this do for the $2.4 brownstone on Clinton/Kane with parking...dare I say cheap?
Posted by: Brownstone Dreamin at April 6, 2007 11:39 AM
"But what of the facade? Particularly if you had a 20-foot lot to deal with--couldn't an affordable contemporary exterior along these lines be accomplished, with a rental, perhaps without the double-height LR but maybe with other amenities?"
If you get a chance, stroll on over and take a look at the facades -- looks simple, but they are fairly complicated in their undulations and therefore not cheap to build. The brickwork is fairly precise and there are a lot of "extras", though of course plenty who would also say that these very restrained gestures aren't enough.
The facade also has good, big windows -- expensive. In my opinion, well worth it, but we see all the time buildings in which this is the first thing value-engineered out.
***
"What amazes me about the price point for these is that they are going to have a massive development at the bottom of their gardens. I can't imagine having somthing looming over your backyard with windows where people can look down into your yard."
I agree. Maybe they know something we don't. Or maybe they really don't envison much use at all for the backyard (low maintenence types).
Posted by: Anonymous at April 6, 2007 12:26 PM
^above
--an architect in Brooklyn
Posted by: Anonymous at April 6, 2007 12:37 PM
go to 49th between second and third avenue or somewhere thereabouts. there is a block of townhouses and in the backyard is this amazing little private streetscape. yes backyards, yes right in the smack middle of midtown manhattan,yes ppl can peer into your backyard. and they're probably worth $5mm...
Posted by: ltjbukem at April 6, 2007 1:14 PM
house on clinton/kane with parking is $2.9, not $2.4 million. but i still think that's a good deal. i noticed that BHS just went into contract on a $3.5 million 2 family on degraw that needs a new facade. I'm surprised that the corner house with parking has yet to sell. not sure how long it's been on the market tho.
By the way i think 14 townhouses are beautiful, it shows that most people would prefer clean and modern and new instead of over-done details and small claustrophobic rooms
Posted by: anon at April 6, 2007 1:17 PM
I hope this developer makes a good profit because these townhouses are so much nicer than the cookie cutter condomniums that could have been built instead.
At the risk of getting another AY thread going, I'm sorry that the rail yards couldn't be developed with a more affordable version of this kind of development (i.e. a stretch of low rise 1-3 family homes). For me, that's what really defines Brooklyn and helps make great neighborhoods.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 6, 2007 1:49 PM
True, 1:49. A mix of 1-3 family homes, with outdoor common areas and smaller commercial spaces for shops and restaurants in AY would have been awesome. They could have thrown in a couple highrise or higher-density buildings in the midst of that and it still would have fit Brooklyn better. What doesn't fit is the stadium. The stadium is what forces the whole development to become very Manhattan-esque.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 6, 2007 1:55 PM
1.17 - how does it show that? You might want to take a logic class.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 6, 2007 2:29 PM
1:49 here again, agreeing with you anonymous 1:55. Would add though that I think the developer is using the arena as loss leader. There is no way he would have gotten the political support he has if he was just proposing high rise offices or apartments. The arena is his trojan horse.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 6, 2007 2:45 PM
re: 2:29
it shows that because they sold 9 $2.5 million plus houses, in a not great location (too close to downtown brooklyn) in a month. that would never happen if these weren't very desirable houses. plenty of places over done with details have been languishing on the market for a very longtime, like the $3.6 million dollar house in Ft. Greene and many in park slope. i'm not saying these are undesirable, for many people they are dream houses. but it seems peoples tastes are changing. Many on this site act as if period details are the end all and be all of townhouses, but i don't think the majority of people still want those. 9 houses in a months helps support that.
Posted by: anon at April 6, 2007 3:10 PM
I disagree with the either/or proposition of your argument about people's taste changing from vintage houses to contemporaries, anon 3:10. I've expressed great admiration for these 14 Townhouses buildings, and I LOVE great, new, modern work. But I live in an 1870s brownstone that's dripping with Victorian details that will be carefully conserved, and I love that, too. I love quality and cool, and both styles can have it in spades. I also love eclecticism--which, by the way, was the prevailing idea when most of these late 1800s b-stones were built in Brooklyn; note their crazy combinations of styles. As such, we're honoring that aesthetic by decorating not with Victorian periodista furniture, but with designer-crazy stuff from the 50s, sixties, and seventies--think 70s coke palace--and I think the juxtaposition is wicked cool. There shall be no doilies or 17-color paint schemes.
Posted by: anon at April 6, 2007 5:08 PM
"(too close to downtown brooklyn)"
Is that a drawback anymore? What with 110 Livingston, Oro, etc, going in, plus the development of Albee Square into a mixed condo/commercial space, it seems that downtown Brooklyn will have plenty of its own appeal in the next few years...
Posted by: EJ at April 6, 2007 10:10 PM
"(too close to downtown brooklyn)"
Is that a drawback anymore? What with 110 Livingston, Oro, etc, going in, plus the development of Albee Square into a mixed condo/commercial space, it seems that downtown Brooklyn will have plenty of its own appeal in the next few years...
Posted by: EJ at April 6, 2007 10:15 PM
Oh my God! Ten townhouses sold for over $2 million on a single block in Boerum Hill in just a few months?!?!?!
So much for real estate in armageddon in Brooklyn....
Sylvia is not going to like this! She going to go ape shit over this news!
Posted by: Anonymous at April 7, 2007 4:26 AM
The tastes aren't "changing". There's just a new wave of buyers now. The Manhattanites, which are the ones able and willing to pony up the bigger money to buy a house, have always preferred newer, cleaner, hipper more "luxury" modern properties. Before they usually did not choose to buy in Brooklyn, and now they do, more and more. But the traditional brownstone buyers are still out there, too.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 7, 2007 11:21 AM
11:21 you are a bit of a fool. WHO exactly do you think, for the most part gentrified cobble hill, park slope, boreum hill, etc?
uhh...say it all with me....MANHATTANITES.
don't mean to be rude, but you really don't have a clue if you think manhattanites are now beginning to come to brooklyn, as you suggest. where have you been for the last 20 years?
Posted by: anon at April 7, 2007 7:08 PM
Please, 7:08pm, do you really need to use that tone with me? I feel sorry for your coworkers and spouse or partner who have to conduct discussions with you day in day out, with you using that tone. It's just really rude and does not sound terribly intelligent or adult.
Since there ARE stats to support what I'm saying, like the recently reported 22% increase in prices in Brooklyn real estate in 2006, and the fact that these townhouses all sold to people from Manhattan and elsewhere, AND that pretty much every real estate expert in NYC is saying this, I can state with confidence there has been a marked increase in buyers who traditionally only would have ever bought in Manhattan in the past, now buying in Brooklyn. If you want to argue that the exact same number of Manhattanites are buying in Brooklyn now as they were ten years ago, go ahead. But please do provide links for stats to back up your argument.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 8, 2007 12:11 PM
Sorry, 12:11PM, 7:08 is right. Manhattanites have been fueling this Brooklyn renaissance for the past 15 years. :-(
Posted by: Anonymous at April 8, 2007 8:26 PM
12:11 wins the award for most ignorant post of the week!!!!!
thanks for the laugh!
Posted by: anon at April 9, 2007 3:41 PM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.