« Tuesday Links Reno Bloggers Take New England Salvage Road Trip »

April 10, 2007

Smith N Court Blows Its Load

In another case of premature website ejaculation, the homepage for the 23-unit Smith N Court just dropped. (Thanks to Set Speed for spotting this one.) Despite its name, the 5-story, 33,000-square-foot project is actually located at 52 Dean Street and is scheduled to be completed this summer. It's never too early to start chumming the waters though! Except for the penthouses and the ground-floor maisonettes, it looks like most of the apartments are geared toward the married-couple-with-one-small-child crowd, as the predominant floorplan includes a master bedroom plus a small second bedroom. No word on prices. Any early field reports on this one?

Update: Some pricing information just found its way into our inbox. The 2,868-square-foot triplex townhouse is asking a hefty $2,725,000. The cheapest apartment in the building is a 776-square-foot one-bedroom on the second floor for $610,000. The most expensive is the 1,526-square-foot top-floor three-bedroom with an asking price of $1,525,000. Size breakdown: 1 townhouse, 3 one-bedrooms, 16 two-bedrooms, and 2 three-bedrooms. The average price per square foot appears to be in the $750 to $800 range. Parking spots are a cool $70,000 a pop.
Homepage [Smith N Court] GMAP P*Shark DOB
Smith & Court Condos [Set Speed]
Photo by Scott Bintner for Property Shark

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/917

Comments

It's just mind boggling how these buildings are constructed for such a narrow demographic.

So I guess they theorize that 5-7 years from now the owner of the property will sell to the next victim, and this trend is to continue ad infinitum?

Would it have been too much trouble to simply enlarge the 2nd bedroom so it could be used for something other than a baby's room?

Posted by: Eryximachus at April 10, 2007 9:43 AM

They don't appear to be exactly huge, either. Despite appearances of scale, the (nearly illegible) square footage totals for rooms suggest things are quite small. Even the triplex appears to be no more than 1350 sq. ft. - and while that's hardly "small", it ends up as only about 450 sq. ft. per floor... I'd rather have a duplex with 675 sq. ft. per floor (or even a simplex with it all on the same stage).

Posted by: EJ at April 10, 2007 10:01 AM

I think I would be hopping mad if I had bought and apartment in the Boerum Place condos next door that faces that development. This development, in an unneighborly fashion, has impinged on the light and views (totally blocked out in some cases)of Boerum Place owners in its attempt to maximize FAR. Surprised I have not heard of any complaints or lawsuits.

Posted by: crouchback at April 10, 2007 10:12 AM

Who writes your headlines...Gersh Kunzman? Imus?

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

I think any lawsuit would be against owner/developer of Boerum Place if they hid fact that one some windows weren't legal,etc. (BTW - The Boerum Place condos look very nice and I believe are Scarano designed).
You can't blame new developer - they are building as of right.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 10, 2007 10:34 AM

are you sure it's 525 dean? the dob site doesn't show any recent permits

Posted by: gc at April 10, 2007 11:00 AM

Brownstoner's link to DOB is off--- address is 52 Dean (not the 525 address link brings you to).

Posted by: Anonymous at April 10, 2007 11:05 AM

"The 2,868-square-foot triplex townhouse is asking a hefty $2,725,000."

Holy crap! Are they nuts? Apart from the fact that there are plenty of nice REAL townhouses around that are larger, less expensive, and free of monthly maintenance charges, I kind of wonder whether the "lower level", which is obviously included in the stated square footage, is actually classifiable as habitable space as opposed to basement space.

Posted by: John Ife at April 10, 2007 11:13 AM

what is more mind boggling to me is that eryximachus has never made a single positive comment on this board. EVER.

for someone who is in their 20's who makes over a hundred grand a year, you sure are an unhappy guy.

proves money does indeed not buy happines.

Posted by: anon at April 10, 2007 11:15 AM

"and free of monthly maintenance charges"

excuse me? have you ever owned a townhouse???? clearly not if you can say this with a straight face. the upkeap on a townhouse can and usually is quite hefty.

Posted by: anon at April 10, 2007 11:17 AM

"excuse me? have you ever owned a townhouse????"

Well, yeah. Duh! I just figured that anyone but a dunce would understand that I was specifically referring to the MONTHLY charges that are determined by initially the self-interested developer and subsequently by a quite probably inefficient condo association. Even if my taxes and building maintenance is as much as the over $1,000 pm I would wildly guess is chargable for this unit (which I doubt), at least I have some self-determination in how and when such expenses are incurred. Plus, the more significant of those expenses are likely to impart capital improvement and consequent increased value to my dwelling in particular, with no dilution across 22 other units. And let me assure you that I do properly upkEEp my house.

Posted by: John Ife at April 10, 2007 11:33 AM

How do they get ~2900 sq. ft out of that floorplan? The room totals don't come anywhere near that. Huh.

Posted by: EJ at April 10, 2007 11:34 AM

They misspelled "Extensively" on the splash page of the flash intro. For $2.75 million, I would want correct spelling.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 10, 2007 11:40 AM

I didn't realize there was a "War of 1912" as stated on the history page. Incredible! Also, isn't this really in Boerum Hill?

Posted by: anon at April 10, 2007 1:00 PM

"isn't this really in Boerum Hill?"

Yep. West of Court, north of Warren = Boerum Hill.

Posted by: EJ at April 10, 2007 1:11 PM

Maybe theymeant the Motorhead song 1916.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 10, 2007 2:20 PM

Re: anon 11:17

Co-op monthly maintenance charges are qutie different from the cost of carrying your own house in some meaningful ways. E.g., co-ops typically have an underlying mortgage, paayments for which are part of the maintenance, so you are carrying not only your own financing, but a portion of the building's. Also, you are carrying a share of property tax on a multi-family dwelling, which is taxed at a higher rate in the City than a 1-2 family home. Plus you are carrying a share of the building's insurance as well as your own. So while townhouse owners of course have costs involved in maintaining their houses, the absence of monthly maintenacne charges is a meaningful shorthand for the difference in carrying costs in terms of both the amount and what the costs are for.

It would be nice if, before readers attacked each other, they stopped, took a deep breath (maybe visit the "zen oasis" bathroom in the house Mr. B. posted last week), and thought about what the poster to whom they wish to respond was trying to say and the context in which it was said. I have yet to figure out the algorhythm under which some threads proceed along nicely while others take a sour tone.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 10, 2007 4:27 PM

How could ANYONE pay those prices for a place a block away from a PRISON...an expanding one at that! They are going to build more prison units where the gas station used to be.. Yikes...that place is Doomed. no wonder the prices are going DOWN

Posted by: Tom at April 10, 2007 4:32 PM

these prices may be expensive, or not. but pricing on that block should have nothing to do with the prison. only prison-related discounts should come at places that directly across from prison, like 75 smith, or whatever that odd building a block toward downtown, past atlantic, is called.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 10, 2007 4:43 PM

calling it Cobble Hill is fine for most of us- I don't know when this "West of Court, north of Warren = Boerum Hill" got to be law. I have never referred to anything east of Smith St. as Boerum Hill.
And from what I have read, never any plans for jail site across Atlantic from current spot. Last I read trying to get variance for hotel at old gas station spot.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 10, 2007 5:21 PM

So where did anyone get the idea that the House of D (NOT a prison) was going to expand across Atlantic Avenue? Not true!

Posted by: Anonymous at April 10, 2007 7:23 PM

Every page of ad copy on that site has grammatical errors and typos. What a mess.

Posted by: picky at April 10, 2007 8:27 PM

Tom, "They are going to build more prison units where the gas station used to be"

I'd like to know where you heard that. That was supposed to be top secret. But for purposes of clarity, it's a jail (or more correctly still, as Anon 7:23 stated, a house of detention), not a prison.

Posted by: A Non-Mouse at April 10, 2007 9:06 PM

Posted by: Bx2Bklyn at April 11, 2007 8:23 PM

Its a little weird that Unit #5b is listed as a 2-bdroom, when the floorplan shows just one being constructed and another as a "Future 2nd Bedroom".

Should I assume that there is some small issue (ie. DOB rule) that prevents them from building the 2nd room now?

Does the Buildings Dept ever review the marketing (ie. websites) for these new buildings?

Posted by: Anon at May 21, 2007 10:24 AM

Has my sense of direction suddenly gone out of wack? 52 Dean St. is EAST of Court and WEST of Smith, right?

Posted by: honus at May 23, 2007 12:44 PM

Has my sense of direction suddenly gone out of whack? 52 Dean St. is EAST of Court and WEST of Smith, right?

Posted by: honus at May 23, 2007 12:44 PM

Any update on this place? I heard the penthouses were sold, but the triplex is still available.

Posted by: mike at July 15, 2007 8:51 PM

« Tuesday Links Reno Bloggers Take New England Salvage Road Trip »

April 10, 2007

Smith N Court Blows Its Load

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions