« Co-op of the Day: 474 3rd Street Sneak Preview: Dinner with the Band »

April 17, 2007

House of the Day: 465 Clinton Avenue

We're in love! This limestone Clinton Avenue mansion is just a few blocks from Brownstoner HQ so we get to pass by almost everyday. Until we checked out the listing, however, we'd never seen the interior. While we wish there were more pics, the two shots of the inside reveal some truly killer woodwork. Because this is a corner house, it was able to be built out on the entire lot, resulting in 6,300 square feet of living space plus a two-car garage. This results in the property's only downside as far as we can see: The lack of a real backyard. With a price tag of $2.5 million, the big question is whether someone will step up to convert the 12 existing units back into an owner-occupied two-family or whether this has condo conversion written all over it.
465 Clinton Avenue [Corcoran] GMAP P*Shark

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/952

Comments

I know the listing says 12 units, but I only count 10 kitchens. With 5-7 empty units, excellent opportunity to combine some units into a good sized owner-occupied unit (with two parking spaces!) and maintain rental income.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 17, 2007 12:09 PM

There are twelve families crammed in there? Geez, that's as bad as Moscow in the old days.

Posted by: Fran at April 17, 2007 12:18 PM

It is cruel and unusual to provide so few pictures! (Hello, Corcoran?) What a magnificent house. And given that you can barely touch a ONE-family anywhere near here for less than 1.6, a 12-family for this price seems like a really good deal. Is it possible that the rentals aren't in the great condition shown in the photos? Has anybody been inside? Delicious cornice.

Posted by: bob999 at April 17, 2007 12:18 PM

I can't imagine that's a legal 12-family. Anyway its a beautiful building but its going to be a big project for someone.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 17, 2007 12:19 PM

my old block!

Posted by: jake at April 17, 2007 12:28 PM

it is 6+ unit bldg. so guaranteed dealing with RS here and maybe elderly, even possibly SRO status (yes not 12 kitchens because some are just rooms with bath).
And although hallway looks orig. what do you think condition is after being carved up for so many years - all the tiny kitchens and bathrooms.
But great curb appeal.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 17, 2007 12:35 PM

So what do you do with the five tenants? Do you work around them? buy them out? seems complicated. On top of the fact that places like this -- old & grand, not to be gutted -- require around $250 a sq foot minimum to rehabilitate. Thats at least another 1.5 mill NOT including buying out the tenants.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 17, 2007 12:36 PM

I'm working on one of these old ex-SROs now, though thankfully without the tenants attached, and it is VERY expensive to bring them back to original grandeur, even if a lot of the original details are intact. We went back to the original building plans of the house to determine what the partitions had been before being chopped up. It's a huge pain in the ass for any contractor, and I'd say it's more like 300 to 350 a square foot just to replace all MEP and put in some decent finishes (ie restore woodwork, etc).

Posted by: Anonymous at April 17, 2007 12:39 PM

I agree that its lovely on the ourside, but twelve families? That's as many as moved into Doctor Zhivago's mansion after the revolution (in the novel).
There are some units that are empty so that's a plus, but it is difficult to run a nice building with too many rental tenants. Their priorities are the opposite of the buyers. They do not want improvements that will raise their rent and the buyers will want to make improvements to protect and enhance their investment. It is a bad dynamic, I've been there.

Posted by: Fran at April 17, 2007 12:43 PM

Spectacular house, but way too much work to bring it back to glory, imagine just eliminating all the plumbing from the baths and Kitchens??? good luck looks like a developer opportunity.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 17, 2007 12:43 PM

even at 1.5 million in renovation, this house as a 1 family for 4 million would be a STEAL.

check out curbed.com

there's a townhouse downtown in manhattan going for something like 20 million dollars that is similar in grandeur to this one.

even let's say 5 million total for someone who would restore it completely back to its original one family status would be a deal for what you're getting...

Posted by: anon at April 17, 2007 12:46 PM

why does everyone keep saying 12 families. while there may be 12 units, this does not imply that all are families.

i suppose it's neither here nor there, but it does sound far more dramatic to say that 12 families live there instead of 12 singles.

Posted by: anon at April 17, 2007 12:49 PM

According to the HPD violation, this building has been always rental at least since 1986 or possibly before, as they got a landmark sticker in '83. And once seized by city?

Posted by: Anonymous at April 17, 2007 12:50 PM

Anon 12:46,
right, and what do you do with the renters?

Posted by: Fran at April 17, 2007 12:51 PM

I see,
It is a twelve-singles building, not a twelve-family building.
I guess it must have been a monastery.
Honestly, I get such a laugh out of some of the postings.

LOL!!!!

Posted by: Fran at April 17, 2007 12:56 PM

am I the only idiot that can't see how floorplan and pictures line up? door on floorplan is on far right and in pic is on left. wish they included bowed window and bump out so I could make heads and tails out of it.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 17, 2007 1:02 PM

The building is essentially the size of 3 brownstones. 12 rental units is not a stretch.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 17, 2007 1:05 PM

12:49 you're kidding right? 12 family is just terminology. It could mean family or single or roommates or whatever. It's terminology.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 17, 2007 1:06 PM

fran, your postings are so ignorant and bitter. please go move to atlanta.

Posted by: anonymous at April 17, 2007 1:08 PM

agreed re: fran.

your first posting says "TWELVE FAMILIES??" and then you LOL that someone commented about whether it might not all be families.

C U Next Tuesday!

Posted by: anon at April 17, 2007 1:10 PM

we bought an sro and doing it very cheaply (we accepted the lowest bid - and paid for it) cost us 400k. so buyer has to assume that doing even just decent work on 6300 sq feet would be at least 1 million. ouch. and, comparing this to a brownstone in manhattan is apples to oranges. doesn't add up.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 17, 2007 1:20 PM

it adds up when there seems to be a very distinct migration to brooklyn happening right now amongst certain people who are looking to cash out their places in manhattan.

i have 4 very good friends who are actively looking to sell their chelsea, upper west side, and 2 midtown apts. focussing their search almost exclusively in brownstone brooklyn.

it IS related, in my opinion when for 2.5 million you can either get a 3 bedroom place built from straw at Ariel Condos at 99th and Broadway or a 6500sf mansion in Clinton Hill.

Posted by: anonymous at April 17, 2007 1:25 PM

the brownstone for sale on my former block on the upper west side...i don't know the dimensions, but a decent brownstone that probably needs some work but is beautiful nonetheless is going for 5.5 millions dollars.

this is half that and probably quite a bit larger and definitely there is the issue of the tenants, etc.

i do believe though, that comparisons can be made as brownstone lovers do cross borough borders....

Posted by: anonymous at April 17, 2007 1:28 PM

I think my postings are very nice, the sense of embitterment comes from anon and annonymous.
What are you guys? The Brooklyn thought police?
Go blow it out your ear.

Posted by: Fran at April 17, 2007 1:39 PM

Comparisons can and should be made. My Upper West Side apartment was fine before I had twins and a live in nanny.
I never really considered BK but I needed to be near Wall Street and needed space and the prices can not be beat. I purchased a eight bedroom home in Ditmas Park. I did look in FG/CH also with the intention of converting any two family back to a one family. I lowballed a bid and lost out. I learned of these nabes during their various tours and now have previous neighbors who now have children looking to make the move to Brownstone BK because they have more financial options when they buy in BK. For now anyway!

Posted by: 100 to 112 at April 17, 2007 1:44 PM

This is a beautiful gorgeous house. I looked up on ACRIS and this is not an SRO, but a multi family apartment building. Don't know if I am reading the records correctly, but it seems like 8 apartments are stabilized. Recent DOB complaints include falling plaster in one of the studio apartments and violations include recent boiler problems. Obviously you are getting an old beauty here with deferred maintenance problems and with an undetermined rent roll, but not an SRO which is good and this building could be gradually transformed into a smaller number of apartments. This falls into "life's work" category, but boy, what a gorgeous place.

Posted by: donatella at April 17, 2007 3:41 PM

12:46 I am in complete agreement. IF you have the luck to be able to buy it and spend a year restoring (and getting the tenants out), then you're investment will be the soundest you can get.

I would MUCH sooner invest here than in the West Village or anywhere in Manhattan. Best neighborhood in the Tristate area, and if I had kids (or dreams of them) and a really great income, wow, I wouldn't hesitate.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 17, 2007 4:15 PM

Love your 'Dr. Zhivago' comment, Fran. And of course I got your point, both times. Ignore the ranters. Our Victorian Flatbush house was an illegal SRO and a legal 2-fam; we are still patching together a coherent 2-family living space 20 years later. Not a job to attempt on a shoestring; but then, anyone in the market for this baby is not worrying about shoestrings!

Posted by: Brenda from Flatbush at April 17, 2007 4:50 PM

I just lost all respect for you Brenda. Even with the minimal amount of photo's, it's obvious that this is not an SRO. It's mansion-sized, it's not brownstone. You would know that 12 apartments was not an outrageous amount if you'd ever actually SEEN the building, or scene the types of vehicles that drive in and out of the parking area. Fran typed before thinking, or having any knowledge of that particular building. You both sound plain stupid.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 17, 2007 5:15 PM

Surprised noone has said this is right behind AY. Yuck. So long sunlight.

Posted by: anon at April 17, 2007 5:38 PM

you have absolutely no clue where ay is if you think that is the case.

1st prize for most moronic comment of the day 5:38

Posted by: anon at April 17, 2007 5:47 PM

While maybe "right behind" isn't quite right, the sunlight will be affected here.

check this:
http://www.onnyturf.com/gmap/?gmap_id=2

Posted by: anonymous at April 17, 2007 6:50 PM

This is a mansion that is the size of a large brownstone, no bigger. In order to fit 12 untis in there you have to stuff 3 apartments per floor including the basement.
In other words a rabbit warren of little studios. It is a lifetime job to improve a house like this, I'm not saying it isn't worth it, I'm just saying that you need to understand the reality of the thing.
Ignore the posters who obviously are pushing this as a "fabulous mansion"
it is a tenement, and will be for many years.
Ok thought police, have at me.

Posted by: Fran at April 17, 2007 7:10 PM

oh my god. i just bought a place on 35th street and no one told me that it's near the empire state building!

must sell now due to lack of sunlight!!!!!

do you ay psychos have any idea how idiotic you sound?

Posted by: anon at April 17, 2007 7:35 PM

Wow.... some seriously hostile sh*t today.
Are we debating the future of humanity? a cure for MS? mass murder at Virginia Tech?
This is a real estate blog.... how about some perspective.
Go watch CNN for 20 minutes.

Posted by: ImNotYourDaddy at April 17, 2007 8:04 PM

I love all of you. Even you Fran.

Posted by: anonymous at April 17, 2007 8:19 PM

"Because this is a corner house, it was able to be built out on the entire lot, resulting in 6,300 square feet of living space plus a two-car garage."

Brownstoner, can you please explain the FAR rule regardig corner lots? In addition, do corner lots adhere to different rules regarding fence heights too? I have a corner property and would very much like to build either an extension or garage. Does anyone have any info with respect to these two issues?

Thanks so much! All the best!

Posted by: Anonymous at April 17, 2007 9:11 PM

What's with all the name calling? Are you people 5 years old? It's getting pretty tiring.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 17, 2007 9:26 PM

You can renovate this place in stages around tenants with the idea of gradually consolidating apartments. This is not the deal of the century, but something that involves many years of hard work. On the surface, the price seems good for this elegant old aristocratic building, but the ACRIS records show some serious deferred maintenance problems. You will not be able to just "eject" tenants as one poster put it. If you want the place, it will be a very long process and if you don't want to lose your mind or your humanity, you will have to really love the place, hang in there with the tenant situation and have the patience of a saint. It also doesn't hurt to start out with a pile of cash as well. Don't mistake the price with anything near your cost for this place. But it really is gorgeous.

Posted by: donatella at April 17, 2007 9:49 PM

Fran, like I said before, if you have the money (which you do, if you buy a place like this), it takes around a year (total) to rehab a building like this and bring it to its original grandeur, assuming too much damage wasnt done. And surprisingly, these giant places are very conducive to dividing into apartment without much destruction, because each room is literally manhattan apartment-sized. In fact, back when these buildings were built, and occupied by large families, that is precisely how they were treated -- each persons room served as their domain. Yes, bathrooms and kitchenettes are a nuisance, and a lot of exposed waste pipe will probably have to be removed, but from experience I can tell you that it isn't hard at all. Just expensive.

And worth every penny.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 17, 2007 9:53 PM

I was pretty sure that whacko in Virginia was Ed. I guess his fuse is still burning.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 17, 2007 10:12 PM

I think that you are agreeing with me Igor. This is exactly my point. The reason I make this point is that the tenants come with the house and that the process of doing any kind of renovating means working with/around them. I think that some posters get the impression that it is an easy process to "get rid" of tenants and begin a complete conversion. Also, I think it is important to maintain a tone of civility on this site. It is not easy, but I do believe it is possible.

Posted by: donatella at April 17, 2007 10:23 PM

What happened to typekey?

Posted by: Anonymous at April 17, 2007 11:50 PM

I agree with you about civility, Donatella. Where's that douchebag William Bennett when you need him? (Ha.) Meanwhile, instead of just blindly speculating when none of us seems to know whether this is or isn't an SRO, is or isn't occupied by hostile, rent-stabilized tenants, is or isn't falling apart, how about somebody emails the broker and asks her a couple of questions? I would, but I don't care enough--I already have my money pit. Meanwhile, in re AY, regardless of the BS from Ratner's minions in this thread, obviously this site will be affected--it's a block away, so construction hassle and noise will be a constant for a decade, easy, and it's north of the job site, meaning that shadows are likely in winter. Maybe not a deal-killer for everybody, but definitely a factor.

Posted by: bob999 at April 17, 2007 11:56 PM

ATLANTIC

YARDS

EFFECT

Live it, love it, learn it

Posted by: Anonymous at April 18, 2007 12:05 AM

here's the shadow:
http://www.southoxford.com/pages/shadows.html

Posted by: Anonymous at April 18, 2007 12:51 AM

http://www.southoxford.com/images/Real_Shadow_Sweep_lg.jpg

Posted by: Anonymous at April 18, 2007 12:52 AM

Some of us -- you should pardon the perversion -- like the neighborhood for its history and architecture. The building is gorgeous, a stunning example of the Victorian neo-classical style, complete with Tiffany windows, the monument to an early vendor of Persian carpets.

Slice and dice it as you will, speculators, I just want neighbors who promise to maintain the building as one of the jewels in Clinton Avenue's crown.

Posted by: BookWorm at April 18, 2007 3:48 AM

Bob999, I checked on ACRIS and it is not an SRO but classed a C1 building which is an apartment building and according to the records it has 8 stabilized units (don't know about the other 4). I have my own money pit too, but checked just in case I win the lottery.

Posted by: donatella at April 18, 2007 8:35 AM

That shadow study is so odd. I lived in a 40 storey building on the upper east side (third avenue) and it cast no shadows whatsoever on the brownstones on Madison. (I know this because I used to work in a cafe on MAdison basically across from my building, and it would get sizzling hot because of the sun.

And third is much closer to madison than AY is to Ft Greene park.

Just seems strange -- I wonder if the shadows are so intermittent you don't notice them? Or are these buildings, being 20 stories higher, that much more shadow generating?

Posted by: Anonymous at April 18, 2007 8:56 AM

I don't know whether I'd want to buy the place (even with my imaginary money), but I'd be interested in a condo conversion.

Posted by: bill_stickers at April 19, 2007 5:10 PM

« Co-op of the Day: 474 3rd Street Sneak Preview: Dinner with the Band »

April 17, 2007

House of the Day: 465 Clinton Avenue

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions