Newsletter |
« Development Watch: 518 Meeker Avenue Monday Blogwrap »
24

House of the Day: 186 Quincy Street

Categories: Bedford Stuyvesant, HOTD

186quincy0707.jpg
We first noticed the 6,600-square-foot mansion at 186 Quincy Street when it was on the market back in December 2005 for a whopping $1,600,000. Not surprisingly, given the fact that it's long been chopped up into 11 units, it never found a buyer and is currently back on the market for a more realistic $1,100,000. Because seven of the apartments are vacant and the other four have long-time rent stabilized tenants, the sale's a little trickier than your average house. According to the broker at Marcus & Millichap, it'll probably take about $500,000 down to get this financed. Still, theres lots of original detail on the inside and the layout is such that with a little creativity some of the vacant apartment could be connected. The only thing that's really unappealing to us is that further east on the block there's a rash of new fedders townhomes that really tarnish the landscape. This could be an interesting opportunity for the right person though. Hopefully it won't be a developer looking to maximize the unused FAR (which there's a ton of given the lot size).
House of the Day: Bed Stuy Mansion [Brownstoner] GMAP P*Shark
Architecture 101: 186 Quincy Street [Brownstoner]



By Brownstoner at July 16, 2007 12:15 PM | Comments (24)

24 Comments

By Preservationista on July 16, 2007 12:37 PM

I wanna see it, waaa! but I'm not going to register on some investor site to do so. The link for the archive story has expired, so there's nothing on Craigslist.

The house looks interesting, architecturally, I am not in the market for a complicated deal like this, but I do like eye candy. Mr. B, any chance you can post some pix of the interior from somewhere?

By anonymous on July 16, 2007 12:56 PM

Hey, I emailed you about this one a few months back... didn't realize you had already profiled it. Figures it would be a rooming house, but what potential! FYI, I don't know anything about this block but I do know that there's a sweet little community garden nearby on Quincy that recently hosted a storytime for toddlers... which is why I found myself driving along Quincy that day and noticed this house.

By Anonymous on July 16, 2007 1:21 PM

A "realistic $1,100,000"??? What color is the sky in your world?

By Sam on July 16, 2007 1:42 PM

Four rent-stabilized tenants reduces the fair market value of this property tremendously. What can one do with the house with four tenants other than continue to treat as a rental property?
And how can one adequately repair and restore systems etc, with four tenants who cannot be pried lose?
This is a property for an investor who needs to show a loss to offset gains elsewhere. It has to be someone who can afford hold on to the property for five, ten, or more years until the tenants pass away or need to go to a nursing home. You're not buying a house, you're buying an elder-care institution with four permanent patients. I mean this honestly, someone would have to pay me to take this on.

By anonymous on July 16, 2007 1:55 PM

Just wondering: if a group of people wanted to buy it as a co-op as an earlier poster suggested, would they be able to do so legally with 4 tenants in place?

By Sarah on July 16, 2007 1:56 PM

Can this house be turned into a single-family home? What are the limits to owner-occupancy? I thought that as long as the rent stabilized tenants (not rent-control) are not over 62 or disabled, then the owner can claim owner occupancy and return this house to single family home.

By anonymous on July 16, 2007 1:57 PM

^sorry, I meant an earlier poster from back when this was HOTD.

By Anonymous on July 16, 2007 2:04 PM

Sam, I stopped counting the ignorant statements in your 1:42 post when I got to three....

By cash money on July 16, 2007 2:12 PM

let the race war begin...

By anonymous on July 16, 2007 2:17 PM

I was really impressed that we had gotten this far without anyone mentioning the "r" word. Oh well.

By Anonymous on July 16, 2007 2:37 PM

Sarah - You are correct but the eviction process is very slow in nyc. Someone would be looking at a minimum of a year if not several years to gain full occupancy of the building. Also once the building is vacated you can't rent out any part of it for at least 2 years (maybe its three i don't remember). So that means if someone bought it they would have to have enough money to finance the eviction and carry for at least 3 or 4 years if not more. This would require someone with a good deal of money who probably can find a lot better options in bedstuy for that kind of money.

By anon on July 16, 2007 2:51 PM

Wait a sec - are these specific regs for rent-stabilized tenants? Because we unfortunately did end up having to evict someone from a building we intended to occupy, and we were able to occupy immediately AND have an additional tenant in the meantime. And our eviction process was about 9 mos start to finish. But that was a 2-family building.

By Anonymous on July 16, 2007 2:57 PM

It is very difficult and extremely expensive to evict rent-regulated tenants.
Renter-protection laws in NYC are vey strong. If you buy this house with the intent of living in it as a single- family, you may be able to eventually move the tenants but it will take you years if they chose to fight you in court. Remember no Brooklyn judge will ever, ever, throw a tenant on the street. In this town it is so much easier to lose your home if you own than if you rent. It is just one of those things.

By Mos Def on July 16, 2007 3:02 PM

kick em all out
this is New Brooklyn and we need to renovate

f*ck the rent regulated leeches

go move to alabama!

By Sam on July 16, 2007 3:12 PM

Has anyone else ever noticed that when one writes the un-varnished truth about rent-regulation on this blog, someone says it's not true?
Who is this mighty personage who finds Landlord-Tenant Court so easy and user-friendly?
What I said in my 1:42 post is not only true, it is mild.

By anon on July 16, 2007 3:56 PM

Sam, I was 2:51 and you cannot be serious. I was just trying to figure out if what you said was specific to rent-regulation. No one accused you of lying.

By Anonymous on July 16, 2007 4:01 PM

so Sam - Don't buy it. It is not for you, great.
For someone else it will be. Great.
Big deal.
What you really want is a non-reg property at regulated property price. And when you can't you blame the system.

By Anonymous on July 16, 2007 4:19 PM

2:51 - this is 2:37 - Yes this is specifically talking about rent regulated tenants. 99% of the time 2-family houses are not rent regulated, so your situation was totally different.

FWIW sam i agree with all your comments :) I wouldn't touch something like that with a ten foot pole. Whoever buys this place is going to have to be someone who just loves the property and doesn't mind throwing away a ton of money on it. A true labor of love.

By anon and anon on July 16, 2007 4:23 PM

I think I read (here perhaps) that if you plan on making "substantial improvements" and/or taking over the house as a single family home, then you can remove rent-controlled tenants. Does anyone know if that is correct?

By Anonymous on July 16, 2007 4:54 PM

4:23 - Under certain circumstances you can and some you can't (age of tenant, etc).
Either way is long process. But people do it. And remember - they are getting the prop at cheaper price because of regulated tenancy.
Plenty of non-reg propery available for those they want those. Or they can build there own. So quick crying just 'cause you can't afford it.

By anon on July 16, 2007 5:08 PM

"you can't afford it, you can't afford it and your mother is an alcoholic"

By Sam on July 16, 2007 6:51 PM

anonymous 4:01,
I agree, that is what I said, I would not touch this but an investor who needs to show a loss to balance out gains, may find it ideal.
I have high blood pressure and whenever I go to my doctor he seems suprised to see me again, so I don't need the aggravation of rent-regulated tenants.
A big company, or sadly a Tony and Carmella Soparano type Company, with "ways" of inducing tenants to vacate, may buy it.
Rent control sometimes brings the worst out in people.
I steer clear of it, There are so many other ways of making money.

By slick on July 17, 2007 6:20 AM

If you intend to claim occupancy of a rent-regulated apt, then you can refuse to renew the lease and initiate holdover proceedings when they dont leave.

If you are lucky, they will not fight or take some money that you would spend in expenses anyway. The worst case scenario is that they delay the process and loot the building down to the copper wire before they leave.

The short answer: It's not for everyone.

By victoria on July 24, 2007 4:45 PM

i'm in landlord tenant court now with my brother who moved into my 3 bedroom in manhattan off c.p.w. without my permission.i started a holdover .how long will it take me to get him out? worst case scenario. does any one know ?

Post a comment

Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.

Related Posts with Thumbnails