Open House Picks

You gotta love how by comment #3 we're already onto anger and sarcasm!

I think Decatur Street *could* be interesting. It's a great part of the neighborhood (just around the corner from the $1mil+ beauties on Stuyvesant, 2.5 blocks to the express train). But I think given the price and the "as is, needs TLC" language in the ad this place probably needs work. Could be a real diamond in the rough, though, for the right person. Would love to hear from someone who goes to the OH.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 18, 2007 2:08 PM

anon 2:30 you have obviously not spent much (any) time in this area.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 18, 2007 2:34 PM

Is the Willow place house the same one that generated all the discussion the other week? The renovation looks fantastic/expensive imo. I guess the house is a little shallow. Can anyone tell how deep it is? Other than that, $3.6 seems reasonable compared to the comps for that neighborhood, weighing the renovation.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 18, 2007 2:36 PM

I like the Decatur House, even though the Other HOTD in Macdonough St is a bigger house and better buy.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 18, 2007 2:39 PM

To 2:42, my apologies if your question/statement was genuine, there are a lot of people on these threads simply looking to provoke people.

Yes, while the neighborhood is predominantly African-American, there is a good mix of people. As a white person who has lived in the area (further down Stuyvesant) for several years, I can say that I have always felt quite welcome. The area is "changing" as they say, which is only a good thing if the warm and welcoming character of long-time residents (extended to all in my experience and that of many others I know) can be maintained.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 18, 2007 2:48 PM

It's my house...I'll blow out whatever walls/partions etc. I want...as to why - I don't want to live in a loft building I want to live in a house...and last I checked there aren't too many "loft houses" around except some converted stand-alone commercial spaces in neighborhoods I don't want to live in...

if you don't want to do it and live in tiny little warren rooms like its 1860 - fine; but this whole "it's sad" thing is, well, just sad...

Posted by: Anonymous at May 18, 2007 3:44 PM

I'll be interested in the Willow Street house if I had 3 Million Dollars under the Mattress.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 18, 2007 3:49 PM

The willow place was on the market last fall for either 3.6 or 3.8. Is nice, has a nice top floor with a little porch.
But it is small, not very deep, and has a not-so-great view of 360 furman and the bqe.

If you want to pay 1kpsf for something 10 blocks from the subway, go ahead.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 18, 2007 4:33 PM

Willow Place is not a long subway walk. Walk up to Joralemon and over on Joralemon to Court Street. There is a entrance for the 4 and 5 at the corner which connects underground with the 2,3,M and R trains. A pleasant walk under 10 minutes.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 18, 2007 4:44 PM

There was a house on A&H on 13th street that sold for above ask of 1.3 two or three months ago. But the reno there was NICE.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 18, 2007 5:17 PM

Willow say 3570 sq ft on propshark and 'approx 4000' on realtors website.
Propshark says dimension is 22.83 x 42 deep. Sounds pretty good sized to me.
Obvious the comment about long walk and size was made by someone who doesn't live around there and has more opinions then brains.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 18, 2007 5:25 PM

oops 'than brains'.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 18, 2007 5:27 PM

"I will say that although the house has obviously been restored with period details in mind (including the kitchen), there will be more than a few people who will be daunted by the wallpaper and appliances..."

if people are "daunted" by wallpaper and appliances, they will probably never find a house they want, b/c it would have to come EXACTLY as they wanted it since wallpaper and appliances are 2 of the most easily remedied "problems" there are.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 18, 2007 11:12 PM

I'm the guy who bitched about the long walk to the subway. I used to live _ON_ that block in a beat-up R/S apt, and I still live nearby. I've been in THAT house, and I know that you can see 360 Furman, the BQE, and a lot of the columbia pl apt buildings.

The kitchen in this house is small, the rooms are small, the neighborhood (particularly the back) is loud, there are no stores for blocks (except for the crappy bodega by the laundry), and it is a long uphill walk to boro hall. The area is nice, but not 3.6 MM nice -- for less money, you could get a place on Clinton or Henry.

It isn't that much bigger than the one that was 1.7 on the same blcok earlier this year.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 19, 2007 12:08 AM

What's up with the advertisement in the post on
10:17. Pretty funny. Why do they bother to post such nonsense?

Posted by: Anonymous at May 19, 2007 12:19 AM

People post all the time on this site, "where oh where can I buy a house that's more affordable?" And then when a seller (or neighbor of a seller hoping to see the comps go up in the area) posts an ad for a house you jump all over him! How nice. I just think there are more posters on the site from other boroughs now, because of the press the site has received recently. And when they see everyone is whining about Broklyn houses being too expensive, they want to share info about their neighborhood. That's all. I'm a Brookyln homeowner by the way. Not a SI homeowner, but I do think SI is a place people should look if they want a nice house in a nice neighborhood under a million.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 19, 2007 12:32 PM

The 10th Street house will sell. It's a single-family which is more desireable to the new wave of Brooklyn house buyers. But I think the house decor is too funky/eclectic/antiquey to appeal to high income buyers, have to say. Which often come from Manhattan. I personally love wallpaper, but not with dark woodwork. Wallpaper is too "granny" with dark woodwork. And there's an odd mix of some woodwork painted white, and some dark stained wood that gives an overall impression of of jumble and clutter. Not a "clean" cohesive design scheme showing specific choices going one way or another. It wouldn't keep the house from selling, but it would reduce the number of offers. Which means maybe the seller misses out on getting the best price possible. I love the vintage kitchen though, must say. I had a refurbished 1940's white porcelain and chrome gas range in CA and loved it. I miss that thing! I'd rather go buy refurbished or repro vintage stoves any day, instead of stainless steel which has become so boring. We got steel appliances for our current house because the kitchen was too small for larger scale vintage appliances. Here's what I'll buy next time, because these new repro ones would fit in standard cabinet openings for appliances:

http://www.elmirastoveworks.com/northstar.aspx

Posted by: Anonymous at May 19, 2007 1:06 PM

yes., but bryce canyon is beautiful as well, more beautiful than Staten Island, and just as unlikely to be of interest to readers of this site as staten island.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 19, 2007 1:42 PM

1:06pm,

Single families are definitely not more desirable than two family homes, especially illegally renovated ones like 10th St., which is a legal two family. It would cost big bucks to make it legal.

Also, even if you don't need the income, who wouldn't want an extra apartment to use for guests? I totally disagree with you.

Look at 10th St's floor plan. Two of the "four bedrooms" are tiny. Anybody able to afford this house will need to completely redo the top floor and the kitchen. There's no master bedroom and master bathroom in the current setup.

Also, aside from the cool old stove, I believe the kitchen needs a complete gutt too.

Looks can be deceiving. None of the fireplaces are real, chairs fit in the "parlor," but not a normal couch, and there's not central AC. Personally, I'd rather buy a wider house in worse condition, than have to renovate a narrow place that doesn't really meet my needs.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 19, 2007 2:07 PM

I agree. And though 2:07 may enjoy having an extra "apartment" for guests, buyers disagree. People hate extra and unnecessary kitchens to rip out. As for $2,000-3,000 rent contributing all that much towards an extra $500,000 to $1 million one has to pay for an extra apartment on an extra floor in a 2-family 4-story house in Park Slope, forget it. The math doesn't make sense anymore at these prices. You're better off buying a single-family home for less money.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 19, 2007 3:20 PM

anonymous 2:07 You are ill informed. What do you mean illegally renovated? If this is a legal 2 family a buyer has a choice in using it as a 1 or 2 family. This is a not a narrow house and the top floor layout is typical of most brownstones in the neighborhood.

I hope you have the really big bucks to buy the elusive very wide house that meets "your" needs.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 19, 2007 3:31 PM

PS 39 is not considered a very good school, so that's one thing against the 10th street house.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 19, 2007 5:53 PM

My guess is that Warren Lewis agents are just trolling this site to plug their 10th Street listing. That or the owners. This seems to happen every time that agency has a listing that gets mentioned on here. Not that there can't be a difference of opinion. But really if you have something to say about PS 39 just say it. Only an agent with no personal knowledge of the school would post the info above. I think brownstoner should make them disclose when they are hyping their own listings.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 19, 2007 7:55 PM

7:55 -- Actually, "PS 39 is not considered a very good school..." sounds to me like the comments of someone with "no personal knowledge of the school." I've got a son in 39; we chose it over the district's gifted programs, and we're glad we did. The new principal, Anita de Paz, is great, active and dedicated to getting the teachers professional enrichment. The school is small and tight-knit, without overcrowded classes. And the administration is very open to responding parents and encouraging parental involvement; the kindergarten classes are learning Chinese, from the grandmother of one student who's a retired professor of Chinese.

I don't know if that makes the 10th Street house worth the price or not, but the knock on PS 39 was totally unsupported. If you have some first-hand experience of the school, feel free to share it.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 20, 2007 8:08 AM

I don't get the constant rejection of homes just because someone doesn't like the paint color or the wallpaper. Hello - when it's yours, PAINT! Painting is about the easiest, cheapest renovation out there. Same with other people's decor and furniture. You're not buying their taste, you're buying the house. It's a blank slate for you to do with as you like and can afford, especially small cosmetic changes. People who can't look beyond the surface are going to be disappointed constantly, or pay too much for cosmetic niceties and miss what's behind the flash and dash and make huge mistakes.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 20, 2007 8:29 AM

Following up on someone's apparenly inccorect post that the renovation of the 10th St. house was illegal because it was a legal 2 family being used as a 1 family --

I always thought this was perfectly legal as well. When you are doing a renovation to make a 1 or 2 family out of a house with a 3 or 4 family c of o, you can file your plans without officially changing the c of o. This would be useful if you thought, at some future date, you might return the property to a 3 or 4 family.

In a discussion months ago, someone else also said you are supposed to officially change the c of o if you are using it this way. I always thought you only had to worry if you had MORE apartments that the c of o allowed, not LESS. Anyone know?

Posted by: Anonymous at May 20, 2007 8:58 AM

Regarding 10th Street house:

1) It is not legal to use a two family as a one family. The Certificate of Occupancy must match the set up of the house to be legal. Insurance companies may not pay up if renovations were done illegally. In a legal renovation, the C of O MUST be changed.

2) Those fireplaces aren't "closed up." That's utter BS. Originally, heat was pumped out of those things from a furnace in the cellar. It's possible to
"open them up" and line the chimney, but you have to use a small gas insert, not real wood, because the openings are too small.

3) The top floor does look like it needs a total renovation. You don't spend 2 million bucks on a house and just "open a wall" to make a master bedroom. At a minimum the master bathroom needs to be moved to one of the small bedrooms which requires a lot of work (both construction and plumbing).

4) Per Property Shark, the house is 18.75 feet wide which means the usable interior space is at most 17.5 feet wide, probably a bit less. Nothing wrong with a narrow house, but claiming the place is 20 feet wide, as a previous poster does is an outright lie.

5) I'm not disparaging this house because I'm a "hater." The original detail in the photos is indeed impressive and the yard is beautiful. But the house does need substantial work on the top floor to build a proper master bedroom and bathroom. Also, redoing a kitchen is not cheap, especially considering we're talking about a 2 million dollar home.

6) Warren Lewis, the broker, does not co-broke. Any broker that doesn't co-broker (not even a REBNY member) does not represent the best interests of their client since there is no incentive for agents of other firms to bring their clients to view the property. I'm sure some of the positive comments about this house is the agent himself tooting the place.

All that said, the house will likely sell for around its asking price because of the crazy market and the great details remaining in the house. The buyer will spend a couple hundred grand more renovating the top floor,putting in a new kitchen, adding central AC, and changing the C of O to a one family use as it should be. No "hater" here. Just speaking my mind.

All that said, it doesn't look like a bad deal considering all the other overpriced crap on the market.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 20, 2007 10:46 AM

Of course everyone knows things can be easily changed in a house, 8:29pm. They're not saying don't buy a place because of wallpaper or a non-updated kitchen. They're saying as buyers they need to include the cost of renovations, in the amount of money you have to borrow on the mortgage. So yeah, they're going to think about these things when deciding what to buy.

Have you priced the costs of decent contractors lately in NYC? It's absolutely important for a buyer to consider the costs of renovations. It's at least a hundred thousand to put in a brand new kitchen and bathrooms. Yes kitchens and baths cost that much. I just did it in my own house.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 20, 2007 12:03 PM

Moving the plumbing to one of the small bedrooms to create a decent master bathroom is a big job and will cost big bucks. You have to file the job, permits are required, licensed plumbers are a must, and the DOB has to sign off on it. If the C of O is not correct, which in this case it isn't, you'll need to bring the house up to code for the new C of O as well.

This is a house for somebody renovation oriented who has deep pockets.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 20, 2007 12:47 PM

I'd love to meet the contractors in your dream world, 12:27! I didn't get any installation quote for under $15,000 for my kitchen and my kitchen is small, and the walls were already prepped. Bathroom installations were the same costs. And that doesn't include appliances, cabinets anything.

Nobody buys a $2 million house in Park Slope and puts in a cheap kitchen and baths by the way. Bad bad bad idea. It doesn't measure up to the other houses in the area, and that's the number one rule in renovating and updating. Don't do TOO much more than what other houses in your area are doing, but don't do a lot less than what other houses are doing either. Our house isn't even in a neighborhood as fancy as Park Slope, and everyone in our neighborhood are installing custom, high-end kitchens. Like it or not, it's what buyer expect to find when they walk into a house in this market now. Sorry.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 20, 2007 12:48 PM

As for people being put off by a blue wall here on brownstoner, that house with the gorgeous blue walls the bashers hated went for over asking price with multiple offers. Because THAT'S a house that only needed a paintbrush if someone didn't like the blue. Everything else was done.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 20, 2007 12:53 PM

What's with the 10:46am bashers here? I thought he made perfectly reasonable comments, even if I disagree with some. Come on, he's right that it's sad that $2 million doesn't buy you central air, and that it will probably go for that much anyway.

Also, the blue wall house mentioned above which also went for above 2.65 million, supposedly, also had no central air or master bath (as far as I can tell). Are those no longer an issue for high end buyers?

Finally, those of you who said the c of o was illegal...the realtor is advertising the illegality on the website. Is it really a problem? Wouldn't a renovation meeting the code for a 2 family also meet the code for a 1 family anyway.

I guess I'm as bad as 10:46am with "too much time on my hands" (as someone accused).

Posted by: Anonymous at May 20, 2007 1:21 PM

regarding the 10th street property; propertyshark has the current owner buy this place only a year ago? unfortunately, it does not say what the sale price in 06 was. Is this a flip job?

Posted by: Anonymous at May 20, 2007 4:34 PM

I agree. I think this whole forum is set up for real estate agents to just hype their listings. They already have their own website. Why do they go on here to do this?

Posted by: Anonymous at May 20, 2007 7:51 PM

8:47pm,

You're clearly the one with the agenda.

I'm the 10:46am poster and I have no affiliation at all with any brokers. Just because I question paying close to 2 million bucks for a small house that needs lots of work does not make be a bad person.

What's your problem? The point of the this site is to discuss Brooklyn brownstones. You're welcome to your opinion and I'm welcome to mine.

Go eat an onion or something.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 20, 2007 10:03 PM

The 10th street house has no bathroom on the parlor floor and no central air and a cute but not amazing kitchen. Not complaining, but wondering if these things were all done what the price would be? Would it just be what it would cost to do these things? Something like $125,000 more? Yes, I know you could do these renovations for less, but I'm talking really high quality renovations with an architect and an interior designer. Or would it be more than that because so few homes are really that recently renovated. I'm only asking because it makes me wonder how much it's worth to put in to a home, can you get it back when you totally fix it up, when a house like this is considered done?

And yes I too am sure this house will sell for its asking price. I'm only trying to figure out how good it is to totally fix up my place.

Thanks.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 20, 2007 10:53 PM

There are a lot of misconceptions flying around about C of Os. An old house may not even have one--they came into existence after a certain date, and older homes were assigned a designation, not an actual certificate. If you buy a house that has been in the same family for decades you may learn this when you go to DOB. You are not required to get one unless you file for permits that would affect the status. And it's perfectly legal to live in a 2-family that is in fact a 1-family. It may never have actually been a 2-family. Insurance cos are more interested if you convert a 1-family to a 2-family; banks or mortgage holders may not care either way.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 21, 2007 11:02 AM

Talk to a real estate attorney before buying a house with an incorrect C of O.

11:02 am is correct that it isn't illegal to live in a house with an incorrect C of O, but there are many problems than can arise because of it.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 21, 2007 11:09 AM

But IS there a difference between one family living in a legal two family, and two families living in a legal one-family? I think it is necessary to distinguish between the two -- people aren't being very clear about this. And I point out, in the first case realtors advertise these so-called illegal c of os -- when it's a 2-family being used as one -- as if it's no problem. Is it? Of course, 2 families living in a legal 1 family IS illegal, but that's different than described above.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 21, 2007 2:51 PM

I'd guess it's worse if a legal one family is used as a two, but either way, if renovations are done, I believe the archtect's plans must match the real layout for the DOB to sign off on the job.

If I bought the house, I'd change the C of O to a legal one family because I don't like to skirt the law.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 21, 2007 5:15 PM

Whether or not the architects plans match the job (which I'm willing to bet they do for the 10th St. renovation) has nothing to do with whether a c of o is officially changed.

The question is, does the DOB care, as long as the use of the house is not MORE than the c of o? My understanding was that the DOB would sign off on any "combining" of apartments that matched the filed plans without requiring a c of o change.

In big co-op houses, people combine apartments all the time to make larger apartments. These renovations are legally filed, but the entire co op building isn't forced by the DOB to change its c of o to something less than it's original c of o.

Are you saying that there are regulations that specifically treat small brownstones differently than larger apartment houses?

I am curious as to the answer here, and why realtors feel it is no problem to advertise "two family used as one". My suspicion is because it is perfectly fine by the DOB to do so. Otherwise, these realtors are doing the sellers a disservice by advertising their illegal use of the building, and the DOB can easily make good money by fining the owner of any home advertised as such.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 21, 2007 6:31 PM

6:31pm,

Work permits were never filed for any work done at the 10th Street house. Check the DOB website yourself.

Realtors don't "feel it is no problem" to advertise a "two family used as one." By law, they have to disclose when a property they represent does not match DOB or DOF records. They can be sued if there's not full disclosure.

And I don't think there's any difference between how the DOB treats small and large apartment buildings.

Here is what the DOB themselves explains:

"The key document used to certify the legal use and occupancy of a building is called the “Certificate of Occupancy” (C of O). The document is issued by the Department of Buildings and describes how a building may be occupied, for example, a two-family home, a parking lot, a 40-unit multiple dwelling, or a store. A C of O is often required when selling a home or refinancing a mortgage.
If planned construction is creating a new building, or will result in a change of use, egress, or occupancy to an existing building, a new or amended Certificate of Occupancy is necessary. Usually, the contractor's or owner's representative contacts the Department to arrange for its inspectors to perform the necessary construction, plumbing, electrical, and elevator inspections.

The Certificate of Occupancy will be issued when the completed work complies with the submitted plans and applicable laws, all paperwork is completed, all necessary approvals have been obtained from other appropriate City agencies, all fees owed to the Department are paid, and all relevant violations are resolved. A new building cannot be legally occupied until a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued."

Take care

Posted by: Anonymous at May 21, 2007 8:53 PM