« Four-Play on Washington Avenue Friday On The Record »
April 6, 2007
Open House Picks
With Easter weekend upon us, there are slim pickings in the open house department. Here are three we were able to dig up. Feel free to list any more you can find in the comments.
Carroll Gardens
150 Summit Street
Corcoran
Saturday 2:30-4
$1,475,000
GMAP P*Shark
South Midwood
678 East 22nd Street
Brooklyn Properties
Saturday 2:30-4
$1,199,000
GMAP P*Shark
Park Slope
289 14th Street
Some Dude Named Richard
Saturday 1-3:30
$985,000
GMAP P*Shark
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/895
Comments
I like the house in carroll gardens, even with the rent stabilized i think it is a cheap price for the area. Summitt is a nice block leading to a beautiful block Henry street
Posted by: Anonymous at April 6, 2007 12:18 PM
Mr. B,
Why did you remove the sidebar links to Brooklyn realtors? I found it so handy for a friday afternoon perusal of new listings (I feel like Property Rover misses stuff & the NYT site drives me nuts.)
Posted by: Anonymous at April 6, 2007 12:23 PM
Is this the going rate for Carroll Gardens? Bed Sty and Crown Heights houses are about $1.2MM after reno for a similar house and houses like this in the Slope are around 2.3MM , it seems like the neighborhood is really undervalued compared to other brownstone areas.
Why does this seem so reasonable?
The scariest thing is that $1.475 million seems reasonable in this market.
Posted by: ImNotYourDaddy at April 6, 2007 12:26 PM
It's reasonable because of the rent controlled (not rent stabilized) apartment. That's a killer. I would hesitate to buy any building with a rent-controlled tenant, no matter how cheap it was.
Posted by: Rusty at April 6, 2007 12:51 PM
Regarding the Summit Street house, I think the rent controlled tenant on the garden floor (one of the larger floor plates) makes a HUGE difference. If you back out that floor from the overall area (on the assumptions that you ain't gonna be accessing it in the foreseeable future and that the rental income isn't sufficient to show anything but a minimal profit after heat and maintenance) then you're left with, I reckon, around 2,800 SF and a resultant price of $527 per liveable SF. Comparing that with the $500/SF result of dividing the likely market value of my Boerum Hill house by it's overall SF including the open market tenant garden floor, I know which place (and location) I'd rather have. If the Summit rent control tenant were not there and the garden floor area were added to the equation, then the resultant $384/SF asking price becomes much more attractive and interesting.
Posted by: John Ife at April 6, 2007 1:01 PM
12:18pm has to be the seller or the broker.
I wouldn't touch that building with a ten foot pole for anything over 1 million.
There's nothing worse than being stuck with a low rent tenant for life. Every day you live there you feel like they own the building and you work for them.
Believe me, I know from lots of personal experience.
Posted by: the scarab at April 6, 2007 1:03 PM
Vacant 4 story of size of Summit St. needing major work would be $1.6 range
(and I'd guess does need major work to make duplex or triplex or single).
I saw house on Luquer couple weeks ago - that one had 2 RCs which really sucks for buyer or seller. (I think priced at $1.25)
But I suppose has upside potential once RC tenant leaves. Unlikely a young person living there but possible.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 6, 2007 1:12 PM
1:12 wrote:"Unlikely a young person living there but possible."
But even if older persons, there's always the potential of offspring succeeding them in the tenancy.
Posted by: John Ife at April 6, 2007 1:19 PM
RC tenants never ever "leave."
If you're really lucky, maybe you'll outlive him, but they seem to never die.
And a "nephew" can show up one day to help "take care" of his uncle. Before you know it, you have a new 26 year old rent controled tenant paying $175/mo rent.
Only buy a rent regulated building if you get it dirt cheap. Otherwise, you're in for a living nightmare.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 6, 2007 1:20 PM
Sounds like it's worth it to buy out a rent-controlled tenant. Even if it costs something like $50,000 to $100,000 to do that, you can sell the house for more than that without the RC tenant occupying the place.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 6, 2007 1:36 PM
I happen to like Summit St., but it's not exactly prime Carroll Gardens. I live in Boerum Hill and am closer to central Carroll Gardens (Degraw to 2nd or 3rd place to me) than summit street. On Summit between Henry + Hicks you're running up against both the BQE and Hamilton Ave. Combine that with the RC, and this doesn't look like such a deal.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 6, 2007 1:39 PM
fyi...just so we are all on the same page..
click on this link for family members and succession rights...per anon 1:20, nephews are excluded.
http://www.housingnyc.com/html/resources/dhcr/dhcr30.html
Posted by: what bubble? at April 6, 2007 1:40 PM
Looking at that South Midwood house I found myself thinking it's such a better idea to buy a house that's a little smaller but in good condition, than to buy some huge sprawling house that needs a ton of work. It seems everyone is determined to have a huge tall brownstone or sprawling Victorian, but between cost of renovations and extra cost of maintaining and heating/cooling a big house, it seems disproportionately too expensive just for that extra space. Even if the extra space comes with rental income. I mean, how many years do you have to own a place to earn from rental income the $400,000 (or more) extra you paid for the place? Anyway, just some ruminations on the whole single-family vs. multiple-family house thing.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 6, 2007 1:45 PM
This is the second week for "Dude named Richard"'s south slope FSBO. I missed it last week but he had a hand-markered sign on the front (lemonade anyone?). Anyone see it last week?
Posted by: Anonymous at April 6, 2007 1:46 PM
Unless that nephew had an "emotional and financial commitment" with the renter.
Loopholes within loopholes.
Posted by: EJ at April 6, 2007 1:47 PM
i think the best thing to do, as someone above mentioned, is to speak the RC tenant prior to the purchase/offer, and see if there were amenable to a buyout...if they are older, they might be. you offer them a buyout and the right to stay there for some period of time at their current rent...
Posted by: what bubble? at April 6, 2007 1:54 PM
You can't easily buy out a rent controled tenant, even for 100k.
Think about it, it costs much more than that to buy a place, and the maintenance alone is way more than his or her current rent controlled rent.
My experience is that they simply won't leave for anything. My rent control tenants don't even want to talk about it.
Sure, maybe for 500k or a million bucks, but who the hells going to give them that?
Funny thing is they did nothing at all to deserve payment of any kind except rent the place years ago.
Posted by: the scarab at April 6, 2007 1:58 PM
With enough manipulation,etc someone could qualify to succeed RC tenant.
But rare for it to happen.
Who wants to live with grandma's in old floor thru railroad apt?
Relatives are long gone to LI, NJ, Florida or StatenIsland.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 6, 2007 2:08 PM
I've actually heard of RC tenants agreeing to a buyout for less than the money you're talking about, Scarab. $100,000 to 200,000 cash is worth offering. That kind of money is very appealing to a lot of people. Especially if they are already thinking of relocating outside the city, or they are near or past retirement age. Just because they are RC doesn't mean they're poor. Even rich people used to mostly rent, in previous decades. That money added to what they've already saved for retirement, they're doing good.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 6, 2007 2:13 PM
If you are interested in a nice starter apartment, check this one out:
http://realestate.nytimes.com/+Comshare/VUListing.asp?Lid=253-NS7040522
Posted by: Dave at April 6, 2007 2:14 PM
$399K for a "starter" apartment?!
you make me sick.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 6, 2007 2:22 PM
Well, credit where credit's due, Dave; at least you have the balls not to camoflage your spamming as so often happens in this section of Brownstoner. Sometimes, in this arena of subterfuge, blatency has a certain retro appeal.
Posted by: John Ife at April 6, 2007 2:26 PM
got to love those personal attacks as you hide behind the anonymous post.
Posted by: what bubble? at April 6, 2007 2:29 PM
Nice staging, Dave. I'm always curious who manufactures these Pottery Barn knock-offs at 2/3 the size to make the apartment look bigger. Has anyone ever sat in a dining room chair used in staging? Or tried to fit four place settings at the table?
Posted by: Anonymous at April 6, 2007 2:31 PM
Don't you think the person who owns the house might have thought about buying out the rc tenant before they put it on the market? I'm sure they did and its not going to happen for you. By the way, A 4 family without RC sold one block over, carroll bwtn henry and hicks, in Fall 2006, for 1.345.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 6, 2007 2:39 PM
Buying a house with a rent control tenant is the easiest way to ruin your life. This house already has an owner, and it's the tenant.
In NYC, a rent control tenant has more ownership rights than the actual owner. Odd but true. Nowhere else in the world, except perhaps Cuba, can one find this type of scenario.
Not only do they own the house, but they will own you.
Never never never, -And to take on this heartache for over a million dollars! It is beyond all reason.
Posted by: Serge at April 6, 2007 2:54 PM
remember an older person can adopt or marry anyone and that person will get succession rights.
Posted by: Serge at April 6, 2007 3:01 PM
Thanks for the feedback. I am the live-in owner of the unit, and I was just posting in response to the host's request for more open house listings. The furniture is normal size, but may look 2/3 size because the windows are 7 feet tall. The couch is about 7 feet long and the dining room table can seat up to 6. I'll take it as a compliment that you think it was staged.
Posted by: Dave at April 6, 2007 4:27 PM
12:18 No i am not a realtor I am simply stateing the home is a good deal. Whoever is saying that boreum Hill would be a better deal must have there head screwed on backwards. Ok there are no Housing Projects near summit street, the Public school PS 58 is only behind ps321 and ps 29 in terms of quality, and it might be passing ps 29 because the assistant principal is now the principal at ps 58. There is a rent controlled tenant but the block and the price are the key. The area is beautiful like i said and take a look at the comparables, a home around the block on Carroll very similar just sold for $1.8 mill and i know the home on 2nd place similar just went into contract for $1.8 .
Posted by: Anonymous at April 6, 2007 4:47 PM
See what I mean, Dave (post above, re subterfuge).
And the above poster's comment re my comparison with my Boerum Hill residence is just ludicrous. He has no f'ing idea where my house is, its size, its configuration, or what I assumed its worth to be in my calculation. Maybe not a realtor but most likely the owner.
Posted by: John Ife at April 6, 2007 5:36 PM
yea anon 4:47 you are def. the owner or Realtor. just be honest man.
john ife- any part of boerum hill is inferior to summit st. sorry buddy.
Posted by: Stockholm at April 6, 2007 6:11 PM
Anon 4:47 -- Did the home on 2nd Place have a rent control tenant? If not, this is an extremely irrelevant comparison. In fact, the place block homes in CG are probably the most desirable, so if those are only going for 1.8, the one on Summit with a rent control tenant should be 1.2 But, I do agree with you about PS 58 -- not many people outside the neighborhood are aware of it, but it's becoming very popular among people newly moving into the neighborhood now, and could eventually have some effect on home prices similar to what you see in PS 321 and 29 neighborhoods.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 6, 2007 8:08 PM
Ok first of all i hate realtors that#1 they are scum of the earth. #2 I am not the owner i wish i was. All i was saying was the school system was better and i would take that area over the troubled boreum hill and there housing projects any day, thats all. Boreum hill is a beautiful place but it has major problems ask the residents of warren street.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 6, 2007 9:27 PM
Hey - is this not the same Brooklyn I grew up in or WHAT? There are a million ways to get a rent controlled tenant out of a buiding. You just need to be creative. Come on people - let's think out of the box here bit - or in if that's the case.
Posted by: ComeOn at April 6, 2007 10:21 PM
Hey Dave, I took a look at your place a couple weeks ago at your last open house, I live (rent) just down the block. I can vouch that his place is very cute, and the backyard out the back windows is alot nicer than the one my bedroom looks out on. And its also full-size furniture. Just don't have the bread to buy it. Toodles.
Posted by: Rachel at April 6, 2007 10:42 PM
Since when is the F train "express"? (re summit st. house).
Posted by: el at April 7, 2007 9:11 AM
SMidwood looks cute, but seems priced way too high given its small size (a bit over 2000') and location--far from the trains and in a transitioning neighborhood. Also, I've heard that the area has experienced a recent increase in crime and that it varies block by block in safety and appeal.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 7, 2007 9:52 AM
Agrred The price on South Midwood house is nutz.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 7, 2007 11:03 AM
Agreed the price on South Midwood house is nutz.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 7, 2007 11:04 AM
i saw dave's apartment as well (i'm not in the market, was there with a friend). it seems to be a very friendly, well-maintained co-op in a cool location. the apartment gets great light, which to me is a #1 priorty.
sometimes this board gets to snooty for its own good.
Posted by: anon. at April 7, 2007 10:16 PM
Thank you Dave for responding to Brownstoner's request to list more open houses in the comments. I'm sorry some people are giving you a hard time. The apartment looks fine; however, if it is only 500 sq feet, isn't $800/psf high? The Summit St. house is only $600/psf, if you don't include the rent control tenant floor (and even less if you do). Are co-ops alot more expensive per foot than brownstones?
Posted by: Anonymous at April 7, 2007 10:43 PM
Is it just me, or does Dave seem to be posting as lots of different people, peppering his posts with some neutral stuff to try and hide the fact. Maybe I'm paranoid and there's no one on the grassy knoll this time, but imho, Dave sucks.
Posted by: ParkSlopeRenter at April 8, 2007 11:48 AM
$800 per sq foot is high. We sold our very well-located, prime Park Slope co-op this past Fall for $600 per sq foot. But other factors play a big role not just square footage. Like obviously a well maintained, nicer building will be priced higher for its apartments than some run-down thing that might be for sale on the same block. And with co-ops and condos, services and amenities make a big difference in price. Like whether the laundry is inside the apartment or in the basement. Or if there is no laundry at all in the building. Also the maintenance fee per month affects sale price, and whether there is a mortgage on a co-op building, or its mortgage is paid off. All kinds of things that make comparisions to pricing houses totally different from pricing apartments.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 8, 2007 11:51 AM
It doesn't "suck" to be motivated to sell one's apartment, Park Slope Renter.
These people suck:
* mean people
* George W. Bush
* toxic bosses
* noisy neighbors
See my point? Change your standards for what is bad behavior. Because if seeing someone simply trying to sell their apartment offends you that much, you've lived a pretty sheltered life!
Posted by: Anonymous at April 8, 2007 11:58 AM
I should say I was the same person at 11:51 and 11:58 and I'm not this Dave person. Just putting off housework by finding an excuse to be on brownstoner.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 8, 2007 12:02 PM
Back to rent control. When I first read the comment about buying out the tenant for 50 to 100,000 dollars and then the place being a good deal, I thought that nobody is giving up a rent control apartment for that money. No way. I believe Serge and Scarab.
Posted by: donatella at April 8, 2007 12:39 PM
Oh, hello again. Just to clarify -- mine is a condo, not a co-op. Condos generally go for more because you own the unit, and you can sublease, renovate, have a pet, or buy/sell as you please, unlike a co-op, where the board has veto powers. And we don't have any rent-controlled tenants to deal with (major difference). I priced based on comparable recent sales. And, I only post under my own name.
Posted by: Dave at April 8, 2007 4:05 PM
Back to what this thread is supposed to be about which is open houses....
Did anyone go to the South Midwood open house? It looks so pretty. But i'm not sure about the price. Just wondering what someone who went to see it thinks.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 8, 2007 4:36 PM
I went to the South Midwood open house. The house is beautiful, though definitely smaller than the huge Ditmas-area houses that get discussed on this blog. The third floor rooms are small because of the slanted roof, though they are fine for the home offices that are up there. The basement is finished and currently is used as a nanny's suite--nothing fancy but certainly functional.
There are many gorgeous details--stained glass windows, inlaid floors--and great built-ins. The backyard is mainly mulch-covered, so those who love a rolling lawn will be disappointed. Having tried to maintain grass I have no problem with it.
For me, the sticking point is a high price in a neighborhood that is not anywhere near as convenient to transit as the main Ditmas neighborhoods (only the 2 and I think 5 are available to the Brooklyn College stop as opposed to the express B/Q in Ditmas) and has fewer amenities. But Warren Lewis has a house nearby with an asking price of $1.6 million, so maybe I'm just behind the times. I haven't seen that house but I really can't believe that price for this neighborhood.
Posted by: Beth at April 8, 2007 5:44 PM
The B/Q stops at Newkirk Avenue - essentially a 10 minute walk from the South Midwood house
Posted by: Anon at April 8, 2007 8:45 PM
Re: South Midwood. $1.6 M asking could just be the fantasy of an overly optimistic broker. The reality, IMHO, is 200-300K less. Same for the $1.2 M house.
Actually it's the case for many current Bklyn listings--beyond overpriced. Greedy brokers, greedy owners, it's time for a buyers' revolt.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 9, 2007 11:05 AM
Just wanted to chime in re: April 6, 1:45 comments. The benefits of owning a 2-family are more than just rental income. You also get major depreciation on many aspects of homeownership, making the overall cost much less. You get to depreciate the heating, wear and tear on common areas including roof, porch, driveway, paint on hallway walls, etc. So when you do an itemized deduction plus take account of rental income, you find that usually on your taxes you can declare a loss--offsetting your regular income and lowering your taxes. So though rental income may not seem worth paying extra for, it can make the difference between affordability and not. I'm no accountant, just speaking from experience and filing via turbotax. It's certainly worth considering if you can't afford a house in decent shape for $1mil but maybe you could afford a 2-family in decent shape for over $1mil. It's enabled me as a single mother to provide a lovely home for my children that I otherwise couldn't come near.
Posted by: Anon at April 9, 2007 11:06 AM
not that it matters, but i met dave and he's a very straight-forward decent guy (from what i could tell). i would have to say there is no subterfuge at all in him. he's trying to sell his apartment. that's it.
regarding SF costs, you have to consider the concept of economies of scale. at a certain point (with regard to overall apartment SF), $/SF becomes irrelevant.
Posted by: anon. at April 9, 2007 12:00 PM
Supposedly the house in South Midwood has two offers already so 1.6 may not be too much of a fantasy for that house. It is on a double lot.
Posted by: Anon at April 10, 2007 1:46 PM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.