« An Alternate Proposal for Domino Sugar Factory Parlor Floor Kitchen #3: Jeffrey's 35-Footer »
July 31, 2007
Trying to Flip the Greene Avenue Atrocity
Long-time readers will remember that the bane (alright, one of the banes) of our existence is a shockingly ugly two-family building at 220 Greene Avenue that was completed early last year. The middle-finger to the neighborhood sat on the market for several months before finally selling last October for an eye-popping $1,250,000. Perhaps suffering from a case of buyer's remorse, the new owner dangled the property back on the market just three months later for what would have been a money-losing $1,200,000 before finding some renters to move in. Since then, the presence of the new building effectively sabotaged the sale of the lot next door, which was came on the market back in February for $650,000 and has since been reduced to $583,000. (Presumably it's worth even less now under the new zoning.) Anyway, the current owner of Number 220 is now trying to unload the building for a whopping $1,400,000, a price made all the more surprising by the fact that, according to the new listing, at least one of the two units is occupied by Section 8 tenants who we can't imagine are paying enough to cover the mortgage. At least the owner's upgraded from a Craigslist bottom-feeder who misrepresented the property last time around with fake photos to a broker at Fillmore who may not realize quite what a tough sale he's signed on for.
220 Greene Avenue, Listing #738098 [Fillmore] GMAP P*Shark
Actually, Greene Avenue Atrocity IS for Sale [Brownstoner]
Lot for Sale: Don't Mind the POS Next Door [Brownstoner]
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/1695
Comments
I believe the style is "Early Rikers"; how very thoughtful to erect a satellite prison facility so convenient to all!
Posted by: . at July 31, 2007 10:49 AM
Gaza Chic
Posted by: anon at July 31, 2007 10:55 AM
No wonder the real estate bubble is leading to foreclosures. What kind of idiot pays $1.25m for a cinderblock nightmare that's rented to Sect. 8 tenants? There's no way the rent roll is covering the mortgage... the only value in that house is as an eventual teardown.
Posted by: anon at July 31, 2007 11:04 AM
Fillmore has time/money to waste.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 31, 2007 11:08 AM
i am still laughing at the "gaza chic" comment and its 15 mins later
Posted by: anon at July 31, 2007 11:11 AM
i think that this must mean that my home is worth $35 million.
Posted by: benno at July 31, 2007 11:28 AM
How do you know one of the tenants is Section 8? Seems like you are inappropriately in everyone's business these days...
Posted by: anonymous at July 31, 2007 11:48 AM
Couldn't this be considered substandard, even for Section 8 tenants?
Posted by: Justin at July 31, 2007 11:50 AM
Truly shiteous... but with a terrace and plants!
Posted by: GHB at July 31, 2007 11:51 AM
The Fillmore real estate listing for this building says "Section 8 Tenants."
Seems like you are inappropriately jumping to conclusions these days...
Posted by: Justin at July 31, 2007 11:52 AM
it's actually really nice for a prison
Posted by: pfa at July 31, 2007 11:55 AM
cuz we can read the plain english in the listing
Posted by: Brownstoner at July 31, 2007 11:56 AM
I wonder if the developer/builder truly understands where he went wrong? I wonder if he might be thinking, "gee, could I have built it too ugly..."
Posted by: Anonymous at July 31, 2007 11:58 AM
oh, wait, it looks like he actually managed to find a sucker to buy it. never mind (re. 11:58)
Posted by: Anonymous at July 31, 2007 12:05 PM
Anon 11:55, that is a huge insult to Gaza. Note that as of yesterday this schmuck still hasn't fixed the window that's been smashed for months.
Posted by: bob999 at July 31, 2007 12:08 PM
Perfect for the discriminating survivalist or nostalgic ex-con.
Posted by: Gary at July 31, 2007 12:11 PM
When the zombies attack you'll all be wishing you lived in this bunker.
Posted by: John at July 31, 2007 12:20 PM
How about something more constructive; For all the architects out there, how could you change the facade of this building to make it acceptable? Knock it out and add a glass front?
How about a rendering or two and a budget?
Posted by: Anonymous at July 31, 2007 12:33 PM
Gaza Chic can only be remedied with Jewish Lightening.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 31, 2007 12:37 PM
looks like ministorage for humans. who bought this in the first place, investor?
Posted by: Anonymous at July 31, 2007 12:54 PM
"How about something more constructive; For all the architects out there, how could you change the facade of this building to make it acceptable? Knock it out and add a glass front?
How about a rendering or two and a budget?"
I've always thought it would be an interesting design project to take something this awkward and try to make something out of it.
--an architect in Brooklyn
Posted by: Anonymous at July 31, 2007 1:21 PM
"For all the architects out there, how could you change the placement of the dual meters next to the front door to make it acceptable?
Posted by: Anonymous at July 31, 2007 1:47 PM
AAIB,
How about doing one of those architectural makeovers the Times was running for a while? Maybe if all the homeowners within a three block radius kicked in $100 we could help the owner at least fix the exterior.
Posted by: Brownstoner at July 31, 2007 1:50 PM
Maybe we could convince Christo to wrap it. permanently.
Posted by: Anon at July 31, 2007 1:57 PM
You know there isn't a damn thing you can do about the building of ugly buildings in Brooklyn, is there? This is probably the thousandth brownstoner post of new ugly buildings. So in lieu of effective action or advocacy of any sort, Brownstoner perseverates in posting on architectural uglies for what reason? To give people a opportunity for a free for all mudball throw. To make it harder to sell it? To mock the builders? If you had some ulterior positive motive except self indulgent self congratulation, this kind of post would be easier to take.
And do you really think the buyer got buyers remorse? Give me a break. Not that it has any meaning or significance in the cosmic scope of things but supposedly the owner had difficulty with his financing.
Posted by: anon Ft. Greener at July 31, 2007 3:10 PM
"How about doing one of those architectural makeovers the Times was running for a while? Maybe if all the homeowners within a three block radius kicked in $100 we could help the owner at least fix the exterior."
Just a hunch, but most of the interest re-dos of this building would involve chopping out a lot of square feet -- this idea tends to be a non-starter for owners obsessed with their square foot numbers.
Just reworking the facade would be lipstick on a pig, IMO.
--an architect in Brooklyn
Posted by: Anonymous at July 31, 2007 4:08 PM
"Perseverate"? Nice "word"!
It is extremely valuable to critique new buildings in Brooklyn, good and bad. A lot of people read this site. It can't hurt to have a dialogue among a large group of passionate people about these aesthetic issues. And yeah, if we manage to bankrupt just one asshole who builds this kind of shit, the world will be a better place.
Posted by: bob999 at July 31, 2007 4:52 PM
Form follows function, boiled down to its essence. You have an apartment building, it needs a door to get in. You have an apartment on the first floor, it needs a window. You have an apartment on the second floor, it needs a window. Ditto third floor. City says you have to set back after the third floor, you set back. You have an apartment on the fourth floor, it needs a window.
That's architecture - changing anything would ruin the essence. The real crime is the tenant who has ruined everything by adding flowers.
Posted by: Halden at July 31, 2007 4:53 PM
If that tenant could add some ivy or some kind of hanging plants that will eventually cover that entire facade, it will benefit the entire nabe. We always bitch and moan about all the mega-monstrosities being put up all over Brooklyn, so an ugly turd of a building like this tends to fall through the cracks. That's it...maybe it could fall through the cracks!
Posted by: GHB at July 31, 2007 5:20 PM
Main Entry: per·sev·er·ate Pronunciation Guide
Pronunciation: p(r)sevrt
Function: intransitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -ed/-ing/-s
Etymology: Latin perseveratus, past participle of perseverare to persevere
1 : to manifest the phenomenon of perseveration
2 : to repeat or recur persistently : go back over previously covered ground
Posted by: anon at July 31, 2007 5:25 PM
In that case, maybe you can explain why so many shmucks out there perseverate in building esthetic insults like this, and then try to flog them on the market?
Posted by: neighborgood at July 31, 2007 5:43 PM
perverse-severance maybe? In light of recent financial news, what will this be worth next summer?
Posted by: Anonymous at July 31, 2007 8:13 PM
Brownstoner:
Count me in for the $100. I live around the corner.
Posted by: tinarina at July 31, 2007 9:10 PM
I am not a designer, but the owner might be able to save this building (and really that is like bringing back the dead) but maybe putting up a thick wood exterior like some other creative townhouse owners have done in the past in Brooklyn. I think there have been posts here about them and people have generally been favorable. It would hide the nasty color and give it a better feel. Maybe a very dark wood? Thoughts?
Posted by: NewSloper at August 1, 2007 9:56 AM
Maybe if they tie a big red ribbon around the "house", someone will steal it!
Posted by: GHB at August 1, 2007 11:22 AM
Never mind perseverate. I'd like to make this baby dissaparate -- far, far away.
Posted by: NeoGrec at August 1, 2007 12:17 PM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.