« Crown Heights To Be Landmarked Today (Hopefully) Development Watch: 352 21st Street »

April 24, 2007

PLG Shocker! 185 Ocean Closes 33% Above Ask

The award for the craziest bidding war of the year so far has to go to 185 Ocean Avenue, home of blogger Planet PLG. After hitting the market with a price tag of $899,000 in early March, the turn-of-the-century brick house in PLG generated a torrent of offers; when the music stopped, the winner bidder had signed a contract for $1.2 million. He closed for all cash yesterday. The new buyer has been feeding locals the line that he plans on renovating and moving in with his family but the smart money, unfortunately, is on a tear-down. Man, do we hope we're wrong.
185 Ocean Avenue [Brown Harris Stevens] GMAP P*Shark
Blogger Sells His Home [Planet PLG]
Open House Picks 3/2/07 [Brownstoner]

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/898

Comments

This house is on a row of townhouses on Ocean Ave across from Prospect Park that are unique and lovely. The impending doom of this building screams loudly for including these houses in the PLG historic district.

By the way, another of your HOTD's in PLG recently closed considerably higher than asking as well. That one is landmarked and will stay as is.

Posted by: Anon at April 24, 2007 11:24 AM

I'm not shocked that this went above ask. Offered at $900K for 2-family with parking right on Prospect Park. With the rent you'd collect from the gagages + the 2nd unit, you're going to be living cheaply in your own place.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 24, 2007 11:25 AM

Please, please don't let it be a teardown... but for that money, I'm not holding out much hope.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 24, 2007 11:26 AM

Yeah, a 29x150 ft lot on the park with R7-1 zoning is a development site.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 24, 2007 11:26 AM

I'm willing to bet the farm that it's a teardown. Oh well, people will enjoy their condos near the park.

Posted by: Rick at April 24, 2007 11:40 AM

Websites like Brownstoner are part of the reason all of these historical buildings are being torn down.

A hot real estate market, constant and utter promotion, plenty of ugly "new money" people (i.e., tasteless Wall Streeters), and what do you expect? It's life.

Posted by: anyonymosuh at April 24, 2007 12:39 PM

why offer so much over the ask to tear it down? what a moron!

Posted by: RentingForNow at April 24, 2007 12:45 PM

"plenty of ugly "new money" people (i.e., tasteless Wall Streeters") -

Anynonymosuh, if you're talking about me I'm going to kick you in the a^%^ with one of my gucci clad feet...

Seriously, what a stupid f'ing comment. All the houses selling on my FG block are being renovated (quite nicely thanks) by lawyers/bankers etc.
Oh and yes - black/white/jewish/chinese lawyers and bankers - just to head of the white-bread comments

Posted by: Anonymous at April 24, 2007 12:48 PM

Actually, the stupid part of Anonymosuh's comment is the idea that Brownstoner has some kind of obligation to try to influence the market, either up or down (and that he has the power to do so).

Posted by: Anonymous at April 24, 2007 1:16 PM

Oh, there was even more stupidity in Anonymosuh's comment - this site in particular is skewed in favor of preservation, not razing and condo-building. It certainly is only rarely in favor of such action, yet apparently it is one of the driving forces behind those people who choose to do so!

Posted by: EJ at April 24, 2007 1:23 PM

According to acrossthepark.com, the buyer is a developer who never even entered the building. Which expalains the wack price, but does not bode well for the future of the building.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 24, 2007 1:34 PM

When I heard some offers were coming in on the house from people who didn't even go inside, I knew it would sell to a developer.

I don't think new condo developments are a bad thing for PLG. I'm glad about it, frankly. There are plenty of landmarked gorgeous houses in LM and PLG, whose residents will benefit from the better amenities that will come when more nice new condos get built. Plus that house is surrounded by bigger buildings so putting a condo there fits in the surrounding environment fine. I don't care if I'm being politically incorrect among the preservationists here. I'm for preservation, but I believe in picking one's fights and weighing all pros and cons against each other when developing a neighborhood. The stance that all new construction sucks is ridiculous and unrealistic.

Congrats to the seller!

Posted by: Anonymous at April 24, 2007 1:45 PM

1:45 I actually agree as far as this house goes--not a big loss. But this is next to a row of stunning limestones on Ocean, and this being torn down sets a horrible precendent. The problem with a "not all new construction is bad" approach is that we have no control over what is developed or town down. If this goes, the limestones may soon go too--and that would be a terrible loss.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 24, 2007 1:52 PM

"Stunning", really? Hmm, I'm not sure of that myself. I still say pick the fights, and fight tooth and nail to protect the best examples of architecture in a neighborhood, but allow well-done new development too, in order to keep a neighborhood renewing itself and progressing.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 24, 2007 2:14 PM

I posted this on ATP earlier:

IMO any new building on THIS site, whether it's a Fedders POS or a Richard Meiers glass box, would be harmful to the neighborhood. What happens when one of the wonderful limestones in this row, also built way under allowable FAR, comes up for sale? Fortunately, that doesn't happen very often, but there's the potential for disaster. Can you imagine a glass box plunked down in the middle of the row? An extension of the PLG Historic District, to include this row of Ocean, Parkside Ave., Chester Court, and so on, is long overdue. The only good that MIGHT come out of the destruction of the "Planet" house would be that it could serve as a wake-up call, but let's hope it doesn't come to that.

Another regular poster on ATP and THIS site (whose very short name begins with "E") called me to task for equating a Meiers building with Fedders crap, but my point is that even the best possible replacement building on this site is likely to be a disaster.

Posted by: Bob Marvin at April 24, 2007 2:52 PM

Planet PLG is a sell out after all...
There is NO QUESTION that house will be torn down. Most of the block is apartments.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 24, 2007 2:59 PM

The limestones are lot width of 18' I believe. Much less chance of teardown.
This house is on 29' wide lot which makes much more profitable to put up new building.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 24, 2007 3:13 PM

Thre limestones can build a 36,000 sq. ft. building that is 54 feet wide. That sounds reasonable to me.

In order to avoid the temptation to sell, homeowners of the limestones on Ocean should, if possible, sell their unused FAR to the developer, but not the whole house. It will result in a larger piece of new construction, but effectively protect the restrictions on their building.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 24, 2007 3:33 PM

Am I the only one who sees a prison-like effect created by the bars on every window? Is that even necessary in this day and age?? (And is that actually plywood in the attic windows?)

Posted by: Mac at April 24, 2007 4:27 PM

well, when this house was originally posted here, everyone bitched that they wouldn't want to live in the shadow of the large apartment building next door. now that something more proportional may get built, everyone is bitching about that.

welcome to brownstoner.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 24, 2007 5:29 PM

A new development is the BEST thing to happen in this area. I hope they build a Richard Meier type of building for a fraction of the cost!!

Posted by: Anonymous at April 24, 2007 5:46 PM

"Am I the only one who sees a prison-like effect created by the bars on every window? Is that even necessary in this day and age?? (And is that actually plywood in the attic windows?)"

By the time it hit the market, the bars were gone from the second floor windows and, no, that isn't plywood on the third floor (not an attic anymore) it's a window shade.

Posted by: anon at April 24, 2007 5:52 PM

This teardown will make its buyer a tidy little profit...just wait and see.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 24, 2007 6:22 PM

Anonymous 3:33, how can you build a 54 foot wide building on a 20 foot wide lot? (Besides defying physics.)

The limestones are definitely at less of a risk because of their smaller lot size. I see this phenomenon all the time over on the non-Manor side of the neighborhood where the Victorians get torn down and turned into Fedders. The row houses on smaller lots are (thankfully) not worth it for the developers.

And Bob, I understand your fears about the Meier glass box thing, but let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. As much as it breaks my heart to see Dan's house torn down, some good could come of it. If we have to have a new building, higher end higher density development could help to bring services to the neighborhood and could help clean up some of the shadier stretches of Ocean Ave.

Again, I don't think the limestones are at risk, unless all the owners decided to sell all at once.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 24, 2007 7:23 PM

Anon.7:23,

I HOPE you're right about the limestones, but I fear what might happen if even two contiguous houses in that row were sold.

The only real good I could see about a tear-down would be if it mobilized people in that row to take action.

Posted by: Bob Marvin at April 24, 2007 8:17 PM

Dear Brainless:

If a developer buys three continuous lots that are 18 feet wide, the have a parcel that is 54 feet (because 18 X 3 = 54).

The developer doesn't have to build one building per lot. In fact, I'm willing to bet a developer would rather tear down that entire row on Ocean Avenue and build a big-ass condo.

To those who believe a condo building on Ocean Avenue would improve the economics of the surrounding area, BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR. Economic development is considered a valid use of Emiment Domain.

The limestones are certainly at risk. Money talks. Most people will sell if the offer is high enough.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 24, 2007 8:32 PM

Brownstoner:

The only "SHOCKER" here is that the house was listed so low to begin with.

Of course, it's quite unfashionable on this site to call any listing "underpriced". Basically, underpriced listings are typically seen as "just right" by Brownstoner, while smart pricing tends to be called "outrageous.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 24, 2007 8:40 PM

8:40, that is the silliest thing I've ever heard. This property was priced to sell and to hopefully spark a bidding war. As it happens , two or three developers got involved and pushed the price way beyond reason. That's all.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 24, 2007 8:55 PM

9:43 -- Are you retarded? No one is disagreeing with the fact that it was bought by a developer, and everyone has made your points many times over. Who are these idiots that have made you so indignant?

On another note:
What amazes me is how much value the "on the park" element adds. How much would this have gone for had it been on a regular block? 700Gs?

Posted by: Anonymous at April 24, 2007 11:03 PM

Anon 8:32 you are spot on! As an owner of one of the limestones, I have already been approached on the very concept that we limestone owners should form an LLC, tear down the entire strip and put up condos. Aargh. Onward to mobilizing for landmark status!

Meanwhile, Anon 9:43, being "on the park" definitely adds tremendous value. That is why most of us bought homes there in the first place. The park is our front yard; in winter, the lake is visible from the upper floors of our homes; we're steps to the boathouse, oriental pavillion, concert grove and nethermead; We're also just down the block from the BBG. To boot, we are situated between between 2 major subway stops. In fact, with the coming of the 37M Lakeside Center in a few years, the sale of 185 Ocean at only 1.2M will one day look like a true steal.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 24, 2007 11:31 PM

No one has mentioned the fact that this house shares a driveway and splits 50/50 a 4-car garage with its neighbor. Any condo development would have to deal with the potentially sticky legal questions that could arise from this fact. If the neighbor also sells that's one thing - if not, this could get ugly.

Posted by: anon at April 24, 2007 11:33 PM

Yes, you are right Anon 11:33. I'm concerned that the owners of the adjacent house (187) will freak out over the threatened development plan and end up selling as well, thereby starting some kind of small domino effect.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 25, 2007 12:02 AM

From what I've heard, that block and the neighborhood as a whole would be much better off if the people across the driveway from this house moved on.

Posted by: anon at April 25, 2007 7:02 AM

Exactly, 7:02. My reaction is, what's so bad about what 12:02 describes?

The longtime promotion focusing solely on PLG and LM as a neighborhood of single-family historic homes has not been even slightly effective in attracting amenities. What WILL attract amenities and quickly renew the neighborhood are condos and hip renters. So bring 'em on. There are a lot of landmarked blocks in PLG and LM. Which is wonderful. Protect those. But allow fresh, new development in other key locations like Flatbush and on lots bordering the park. The park is what will be most attractive to developers. The park is key.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 25, 2007 9:24 AM

Bob at 2:52pm, Ed might be cantankerous but he made valid points on ATP. Though he certainly be more polite.

I am a LM resident and I disagree so much I almost have no words for it, with the concept that any type of new building would be a disaster in this location. Not ALL old buildings are important and beautiful. They just aren't. Europe puts very modern buildings next to very old ones. Why can't we? Do we only get to erect new buildings in all-new subdivisions? Seriously though, what do the hardcore preservationists propose as appropriate sites for new buildings? I've lived in and loved old houses all my life, but this kind of extremist view is so alien to me. True lovers of architecture are capable of loving new buildings too. To only love old buildings and hate new ones is not about architecture, it's sentimentality. Totally different animal.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 25, 2007 11:01 AM

Its not that hard core preservationsists want to save every building, its just that almost every replacement building built in Brooklyn in the last 10 years is crap. If developers were putting up decent buildings, traditional or modern, we'd all say great for a place like this.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 25, 2007 11:33 AM

Since when is $1.2M unreasonable for a house that faces PROSPECT PARK???

Posted by: Anonymous at April 25, 2007 1:05 PM

Good point, 11:33am. That is why I think the focus needs to be on making sure the right developer with the right plan puts up a nice building!!!

Posted by: Ed at April 25, 2007 1:13 PM

What is going to happen here is that a horribly ugly building will be built. It will attract people who will frequent the few place on Lincoln but who simply will not go all the way around to Flatbush, so the scuzz of Flatbush willl not be improved in any way. It is basically a lose/lose for the area. But it is a big win/win for the sellout seller and the developer.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 25, 2007 1:38 PM

Hey 1:30pm - with an attitude like that, how do you get out of bed each morning?

Posted by: Anonymous at April 25, 2007 2:09 PM

Location, location, location!

Posted by: Anonymous at April 25, 2007 2:22 PM

i highly doubt that a developer who was intending to build a crap building would a. bid so high over asking price (most crappy developers are cheap as hell) and b. take a place on prospect park. anyone but the dumbest developer would build something shoddy on one of the most beautiful public spaces in the country.

that may be too optimistic, but i don't necessarily think we can be so quick to judge with literally NO info on the topic other than the parcel and house was sold.

Posted by: anon at April 25, 2007 2:57 PM

1:38, it's a bit absurd to suggest that anyone living in a new condo on Ocean would NEVER venture one or two blocks away and onto Flatbush Avenue. If you ran out of milk, you wouldn't take a subway to a deli in Park Slope, simply because Flatbush so offended your aesthetic sensibilities that you couldn't bear to set foot on its sidewalks.

As new businesses come to the area, it will only make Flatbush a more attractive place to shop, eat, and hopefully bank in the near future. Yes, the trend toward better businesses started on Lincoln Road, but there's only so much retail space on that particular block. It's inevitable that development will trickle over onto Flatbush, and in fact it already has.

A very nice little seafood place opened on, gasp!, Flatbush Ave. and Rutland just a few weeks ago. The owners heard about the area, saw that it was underserved, and found a location with a rent they could afford. It's been crowded every time I've been in there.

I can't say I'll be happy if this charming home on the park gets demolished. But as any longtime resident will tell you, it's the young people now moving into rental apartments and buildings gone condo and coop in PLG that's finally bringing about real change here. Hopefully, if this developer is planning a tear down, he's got some foresight and can see where the neighborhood is headed and build accordingly.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 25, 2007 5:48 PM

5:48, they'll get their milk on Lincoln, not Flatbush. But I don't see the word "never" in my comment. And the little seafood place you mention is a take-out joint and is just a small step above the other crap on the avenue. I know PLGers are desperate for any possible sign of change, but please don't try to pass that off as any kind of improvement or new development. I suppose that Cop tower you had on Flatbush was actually an art installation, right?

Posted by: Anonymous at April 25, 2007 6:24 PM

Anon 11:01AM,

I completely agree that "not ALL old buildings are important and beautiful. They just aren't". That's not the point here. This row of 13 homes,facing the park, is unique in PLG. The rest of the very long block, from Lincoln to Parkside is made up entirely of apartment buildings. We (the committee of the old PLGNA, working on HD designation) tried very hard to have this row included in the original PLG HD dsesignation, but it was a losing battle. The LPC didn't even consider Ocean Ave to be IN PLG in their 1977 Preliminary Designation Report and a number of blocks in THAT report (most notably Parkside Ave.) weren't designated in 1979 because they weren't contiguous with the final HD. That doesn't mean that there couldn't be oned or more additional HDs in PLG.

Do I think that the three brick houses on Ocean are as worthy of designation as the ten limestones? Perhaps not, but IMO to loose them would disturb the integrity of this unique stretch of Ocean Avenue.

Posted by: Bob Marvin at April 25, 2007 7:03 PM

Bob, relative to much of the country, PLG is a huge success in preservation. PLG has hundreds of houses landmarked and the community should be very proud of it. It should not be considered a hand-wringing failure if all the other limestones in a one-mile radius can't be protected. And then it's like, protected from what? Progress? We welcome progress on many levels in PLG. It's also time to start thinking about new ways of approaching the developing PLG. Think about what's working vs. what wasn't working in the past.

As for 6:24 there's a cop tower on the Upper East Side too. As for me, I don't care if I lived in the safest upscale neighborhood in the world, I love seeing a police presence. This city needs more regular patrols, in all 'hoods.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 26, 2007 9:33 AM

6:24, I currently live in downtown Manhattan, though I have been looking in PLG (and in many other Brooklyn neighborhoods, from Brooklyn Heights to Fort Greene/Clinton Hill to Ditmas Park).

The only bodega I know of on Lincoln is smack on the corner of Flatbush, making it next to impossible to avoid that street.

At least you're acknowledging that the seafood joint on Rutland/Flatbush is a cut above what's already there. You can't go from Kennedy Fried Chicken to Jean Georges overnight, but each bright and appealing new place that isn't a nail salon or a fast food joint seems to be a step in the right direction.

And I wasn't out there for the few days the cop tower/art installation was up (at the above mentioned Lincoln/Flatbush intersection), but it doesn't seem like such a bad thing that the NYPD is focused on improving the area. Would they be taking such an interest if there weren't more and more gentrifiers moving in? Sad to think, but probably true.

No one's saying the area doesn't need some help. I wouldn't mind if that tower parked next to Beekman Place for a month. But don't assume someone buying a new condo on Ocean is patently going to avoid the rest of the neighborhood. Dozens of people have paid well over a million to live in Lefferts Manor in the past year, and they need to walk or cross Flatbush everyday.

There are also other draws to PLG, that have nothing to do with services or the establishments on Lincoln Road. The other day when the wintery weather finally broke, I saw loads of young kids of an array of ethnic backgrounds out playing together with their parents and nannies on the sidewalk of one of the landmarked streets, about a half a block from Flatbush Ave. If I had a little one and lived on Ocean, I would certainly be venturing further into the neighborhood.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 26, 2007 9:36 AM

I agree that about 90% of the new buildings going up are crap but if any site is suitable have its FAR beefed up this is it- it is adjacent to a six story building.

On the one hand Lefferts Garden gentrifiers are trying to get better amenities in addition to the new cafe and Mexican restaurant that have recently opened. On the other hand they seem to oppose projects that could add up to 5 families (in high end apartments) or up to 11 families (in moderately priced apartments.)

The city is going to add 1 million people- they have to live somewhere- a block away from the subway and across the street from Brooklyn's biggest park doesn't seem like a bad place.

As long as the developer doesn't screw it up with a piece of crap...

Posted by: P at April 26, 2007 9:44 AM

Remember what happened in Riverdale... Big time domino effect. No reason (I know of) why it can't happen here. Scary.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 26, 2007 10:00 AM

I agree with P. There's no reason to complain about about a well thought-out condo in this location.

Posted by: Ed at April 26, 2007 2:55 PM

What are people talking about????? Another condo or another apartment building is not going to change the area at all. All the buildings along Ocean Avenue across from Prospect Park (except for a few stragglers adjacent to 185 Ocean) are apartment buildings. PLG or LM will always be without the amenities many residents desire. It's a financially depressed area without the deep pockets found across the park. The schools are horrible and that is what will move this neighborhood. Not woodwork or details. A coffee shop and a restaurant in the 15 years I've been here. The slow erosion of the real estate market. Inventories will rise and prices will fall and the money stays across the park, i.e. Park Slope, etc, etc. Why buy a house here in PLG. Let's face facts.

Posted by: guest at February 12, 2008 12:00 PM

« Crown Heights To Be Landmarked Today (Hopefully) Development Watch: 352 21st Street »

April 24, 2007

PLG Shocker! 185 Ocean Closes 33% Above Ask

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions