« Another Day, Another Atlantic Yards Lawsuit Brooklyn's Top Ten Developers »
April 5, 2007
One Brooklyn Bridge Park Open for Business
Without a whole lot of fanfare, One Brooklyn Bridge Park opened for business yesterday. There's no pricing info on Stribling or the development's Homepage, but one prospective buyer dropped us a note with this report from inside the sales office: There are 445 apartments in the complex, ranging from $650 a foot on the BQE side to $1,200 a foot for Manhattan views; three bedrooms start at $1.8 million. There's one model apartment to look at (a two-bedroom) and none of the most prime units are available for sale yet. One interior design detail of note: The Sub Zero built-ins are wood covered to blend in with the cabinets. (We've included an interior rendering on the jump.) It's easy to be skeptical about this project given the proximity to the BQE and the fact that there's going to be another couple years of construction, but we bet that time will show that this is a place people want to live, especially when the park is done. What do you think?
Photo by rguskind
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/886
Comments
I think the BQE side is a bit of a hard sell, but that the other faces of the building will do well. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think people would rather live elsewhere for the same $$ than be perched facing the BQE and little else in the area. There are better deals in prime 'hoods with better views (or at least non-highway views).
Posted by: EJ at April 5, 2007 9:48 AM
I think the BQE side is a tough sell only on the low floors. Once up over the highway, the views south will be quite nice. This building will do very well.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 5, 2007 9:52 AM
Perhaps... I'd personally still be worried about noise unless and until I could actually stand in a unit on that side of the building.
Posted by: EJ at April 5, 2007 10:01 AM
Design looks nice-ish, but is there no better way to handle the HVAC than those huge, ugly units under the windows? Why it such a challenge for NYC developers to make heating and cooling unobtrusive? (Note to this developer: you might try a different camera angle--in this shot, the A/C unit is the star of the shot.) Also, does the master bath have two sinks? :)
Posted by: bob999 at April 5, 2007 10:08 AM
bob999--i'm just curious, not carping, but what are the alternatives to units under the windows?
Posted by: Anonymous at April 5, 2007 10:18 AM
When will the park be finished? When will the park be started? This is really an investment in the future, the same way Dumbo was (except it already has Dumbo pricing).
Let's also not forget that this is just as far from the subway as "Cobble Hill West" on the far side of the BQE.
I am drooling over the wood cabinets in the kitchen, though.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 5, 2007 10:18 AM
Does the condo own the land or is there some kind of 99-year-lease deal with the park? And is there still a lawsuit outstanding by the Sierra Club and others challenging the inclusion of condos in the park? Until both those questions are answered conclusively I'd be wary of plunging in here. Also, seems like pricing should reflect that the park is not yet there or done; at this level, it's hard to see that discount. Essentially, it's a bet that city and state government are going to complete this park, when it's been talked about for years and years without much in the way of actual earth-moving.
Posted by: anonymous at April 5, 2007 10:22 AM
That's what *I'm* asking. In my last condo (I'm now in a brownstone) we had a fan unit hidden above the ceiling in a closet and a heat-exchanger unit on the roof, with steam heat coming from baseboard radiators. No ugly boxes in the apt. Worked great. I'm sure it's much more expensive to install than these hotel-style units. Do people not agree with me that they're obnoxious and ugly--and taking space that could have been devoted to more floor-to-ceiling windows?
Posted by: bob999 at April 5, 2007 10:24 AM
bob, I don't disagree with you there.... on the other hand, I'm coming from an old-school radiator building, so condos that have smaller footprint HVAC units than the radiators - with the perks of temperature control and a/c instead of just full-blast steam heat - it doesn't seem so bad to me.
Of course, I'd rather not have 'em at all.
Posted by: EJ at April 5, 2007 10:29 AM
Don't they expect anyone to actually cook (especially the families likely to purchase 3- or 4-bedrooms). Those kitchens, while attractive, are tiny. It would be nice if some of these developments would offer a range of finishes (so tired of seeing awkward looking vessel sinks everywhere). Otherwise, I like the size and concept of the spaces and building.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 5, 2007 10:32 AM
I'd rather have these than baseboard anything. I had baseboard radiators.
These aren't photos by the way. They are computerized drawings. Cool tho.
The land was purchased outright. I think that sierra club lawsuit may be out there but it seem insignificant. Whether the BBP gets built anytime soon is a big question. Also, I know this condo has parking. I wonder how much a resident would have to pay for that.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 5, 2007 10:32 AM
Beautiful views. But even when/if the park gets built, getting to this building will always be difficult, either by foot or car. Wouldn't be a problem for me, because I'm willing to put up with the odd inconveniences and discomfort that accompany most NYC real estate - every property involves some sort of compromise. But I'm not in the luxury price point that this building is courting, and I find it hard to believe that many of potential buyers who consider living here will want to grapple with this. Then again, I can imagine many investors wouldn't think about the issue at all. (Perhaps they are also the folks who bought condos at 75 Smith, across the street from the soon-to-be-reopened jail).
Posted by: Anonymous at April 5, 2007 10:47 AM
It would be cool if you could take a water taxi from the BBP to Wall St.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 5, 2007 10:52 AM
Gets wiped out in the first hurricane.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 5, 2007 11:00 AM
I thought that The Developers Group was handling the sale?
Posted by: Anonymous at April 5, 2007 11:01 AM
Actually, this location would be great if everything you did were by car, since you can access the BQE very easily at Atlantic and can drive under the promenade up to DUMBO and onto the Brooklyn Bridge. Problem is walking.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 5, 2007 11:01 AM
going to be a bit of a mess when they start re-doing that portion of the bqe in a few years, which i have heard is in the works...
Posted by: jm at April 5, 2007 11:07 AM
I love the look of these places. Ever notice how Two Trees is using the same interior in every damn building? These looks like something a bit nicer.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 5, 2007 11:14 AM
Agree that a major concern is the extensive work they're going to be doing on the bqe. Aren't they using the park as a staging area? I wouldn't think that area is going to pleasant to live in for quite some time.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 5, 2007 11:33 AM
I think this stretch of the BQE repair will be done before people move in. I was at the Brooklyn Heights Assoc annual meeting and I think they said this area was being repaired sooner rather than later. In 2007 anyway.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 5, 2007 11:40 AM
Agree that a major concern is the extensive work they're going to be doing on the bqe. Aren't they using the park as a staging area? I wouldn't think that area is going to pleasant to live in for quite some time.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 5, 2007 11:47 AM
I would move in here in a minute if I could swing it. It's expensive, but not as wacked-out as the house prices are in B-list neighborhoods.
Posted by: bb at April 5, 2007 12:10 PM
I just bought a house in PSlope for $400 per usable square foot. $1,200/sf?! Insanity. That's prime SoHo style pricing. Do we all think this place will sell like Meier's place on the park or some prime loft place in Tribeca?!
I agree that the amenities will be lush (much more so than in my humble abode) and the park/views/water very nice … but $1,200?!
Posted by: Anonymous at April 5, 2007 12:18 PM
I dont think 1200/sf is insanity for waterfront views, I would think most of the places overlooking the Promenade, when they do trade, sell for that or more. Also, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think your $1200/sf for prime Soho is a bit dated.
Posted by: Scott at April 5, 2007 12:36 PM
10:32 Land was not purchased. Long-term ground lease. 130 parking spaces available for purchase - somewhere in the neighborhood of $150,000 per space.
Anyone have any idea of what the common charges might be? I believe this property will be contributing to the park maintenance.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 5, 2007 12:41 PM
I take back my comment $1200/sf for prime Soho being dated, that actually looks roughly in the right neighborhood from a quick survey of NYT listings. My bad, I would've thought it was higher.
Posted by: Scott at April 5, 2007 12:42 PM
12:41, if what you say is true, we're talking bout a condop...
no deed (correct me if I'm wrong), no HELOC, heck, no mortgage interest deduction... all for twelve hun a sq foot!!
Think I'd wait this one out and see whats built next on the strip.
Posted by: me at April 5, 2007 12:56 PM
1. I thought the highway side units would be cheaper and the park side more expensive.
2. This building will survive most hurricanes but what about global warming?
3. Reconstruction of the BQE triple cantilever is several years off. I'd need a real competitive price to live on that side of the building through several years of construction. The park will not be the staging area unless, heaven forbid, the park still hasn't been built by then.
4. Not sure it's a ground lease per se, but the developer is going to sell the property (including the land) to the state and lease it back for 99 years.
5. A reliable source told me $12/square foot on the common charges.
Posted by: g-man at April 5, 2007 1:04 PM
$12 a sq ft common charges!!!!!!!!!!!
As opposed to approx $2 a sq ft for Manhattan!!!!
TALK ABOUT INFLATION!!!
Posted by: Anonymous at April 5, 2007 1:15 PM
The building is a co-exclusive between Stribling and The Developers Group. Looks like it will be a beautiful project.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 5, 2007 1:17 PM
$12 is an annual figure, not monthly
Posted by: Anonymous at April 5, 2007 1:24 PM
no mortgage interest deduction? eh?
Posted by: Anonymous at April 5, 2007 1:25 PM
"$12 is an annual figure, not monthly"
That's still $1 per sq. ft. per month, which is relatively high for Brooklyn, even in the luxury condos.
Posted by: EJ at April 5, 2007 1:34 PM
Thanks 1:24. Part of what makes the CC high is the rent that has to go towards park maintenance. Hardly any other building has a similar expense.
Posted by: g-man at April 5, 2007 1:40 PM
Good luck getting insurance for that location. Both for condo/coop board for the building as will as owners for their individual apartments.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 5, 2007 2:14 PM
While I don't think $1 psf is high for Brooklyn, I can't believe that $1 psf will be the approx cc number for this project. Amenities are never free. You pay for them as part of the unit cost and in monthly charge. Size of building plus location could add up to an above average monthly cc.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 5, 2007 2:34 PM
The only way this or any other luxury building has less than $1/sf maintainence is with re tax abatement. Seems weird that there would be a tax abatement for a luxury project on public land....
Posted by: Anonymous at April 5, 2007 2:42 PM
I was walking about CC without taxes included - on that basis $1 per sq. ft. is very high for a new development.
Including taxes, I would agree that $1 is decent.
Posted by: EJ at April 5, 2007 2:49 PM
2:42 Unless park maintenance payments are considered payments in lieu of taxes (PILOT) which would be an effective real estate tax abatement to owners. Maybe.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 5, 2007 3:19 PM
Land lease is scary. Your common charges are very high. Look at Battery Park, not easy to sell there because of the maintenance.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 5, 2007 3:28 PM
1. There will be PILOTs and annual rent to the park governing body, whatever that may turn out to be. Developer is reportedly seeking legislation to make PILOTs tax deductible. Word has it that the sale/lease with the state is dead without the change in regulation.
2. There will likely be a J-51 tax abatement, for converting a commercial building to residential.
3. This isn't public land. It is privately owned land that will be deeded over to the state as part of the park financing deal.
Posted by: g-man at April 5, 2007 3:39 PM
I think this place is a buy buy buy. I love the look
Posted by: Anonymous at April 5, 2007 3:42 PM
Wow - crazy contingencies re: common charges, lease, construction AND the fact that closest subway is the Clark St. 2/3, at least a 15 minute walk for brisk pedestrians? Keeping my theoretical luxury checkbook closed, thanks.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 5, 2007 4:31 PM
Why would you walk all the way to Clark St? 8-10 minutes tops up Joralemon (the end of which is across from 360 Furman) to the 4/5/2/3 at Boro Hall. Its the same walk from Cobble Hill West (where I live) to the F at Smith. Other amenities that should be closer are far though.
The BQE project is scary. Plans talk of reroute along Furman while the catilever is being repaired. Furman is already a speed way (as my 70 in a 30 ticket will attest - watch out for the traps when bypassing the BQE).
Posted by: Anonymous at April 5, 2007 6:00 PM
who cares about the BQE project - the BQE is there now, and will be after - its awful, the project won't make any difference to the pollutants you're breathing in. In fact - it'll probably be quieter during the project.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 5, 2007 6:53 PM
uh, 6:53, I don't think it will be quieter as a contractor demolishes a quarter-mile long, 60-foot high masonry structure and builds a replacement. I don't think it will be less dusty either. I think it's going to be three to five years of living hell.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 5, 2007 8:13 PM
"I think it's going to be three to five years of living hell."
And then, after that, you'll still have the BQE next door.
Posted by: EJ at April 5, 2007 9:06 PM
Nobody with kids should have them living within 100ft of a major road like the BQE - the scientific studies tell the story
Posted by: Anonymous at April 6, 2007 8:44 AM
9.06:
why would you be worried about masonry dust as compared to carcinogenic petroleum byproducts? Let me guess, you get the diet soda but you smoke cigarettes.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 6, 2007 8:46 AM
So much misinformation. It's a condo, not a condop, tax abatements may be available just like any other residential conversion, units are completely and normally mortgagable and deductible, monthly carrying costs are average for the amount of service, the park is scheduled to break ground in two months, the building will be the pump to maintain the park, and I heard 30 apartments went in the first two days.
Posted by: harvest at April 6, 2007 11:17 PM
What else can you tell us about the place, broker?
Posted by: Anon at April 7, 2007 8:49 AM
BQE rebuild a mess. Noise and chaos to ensue for many years. Park proponents likely to win law suit so this will be the lone house on the prairie with long hike to stores. Promenade dwellers will block any bridge to get up to shopping and subways in central Heighs. Got a covered wagon?
Posted by: g-gal at April 7, 2007 9:58 AM
g-gal -- haven't they already lost the lawsuit?
Posted by: anon at April 7, 2007 2:27 PM
How did 30 apts go already?! I can't find actual pricing anywhere? Please advise, I'm genuinely interests.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 8, 2007 5:06 PM
O.k., here goes. Anon (4/7), what else do you want to know? Anonymous (4/8), since the project was announced and the sign went up on the building (what? a year ago?), 4000 people have either hit the website or called to be shown the building when open. In fairness, the developer has been wading through that list first. As for the lawsuits, g-gal, keep trying; the only two I know about have already been rejected by the courts.
Posted by: harvest at April 8, 2007 9:01 PM
"4000 people have either hit the website or called to be shown the building when open"
So... 3999 hits on the website, and one call?
Posted by: EJ at April 8, 2007 10:08 PM
yo, harvest, doesn't the offering plan have to be approved by the attorney general before there can be any sales? the developer's website clearly states that the offering plan has not been approved.
Posted by: disbeliever at April 9, 2007 11:50 AM
"and I heard 30 apartments went in the first two days" (OH LIKE IN '04?)
without an approved offering plan???
DON'T BELIEVE THE HYPE!!!!
Posted by: Anonymous at April 9, 2007 12:33 PM
Yo, disbeliever, the offering plan was approved by the attorney general. The updated website will be up in two weeks. You can have a field day. And yo, disbeliever, I've been a community activist probably since before you were born.
Posted by: harvest at April 11, 2007 5:28 PM
With very little for sale in the prime heights and cobble hill - this building will have success just because there are so few options out there! $1200 is not looking that outrageous these days!
However, the pollution from being that close to the BQE would keep me from buying this place - even if I could afford it. AND it is a hike to stores/ subways/restaurants ...especially when you are carrying your groceries.
Posted by: vis2 at June 9, 2007 3:44 PM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.