« Condos of the Day: 163 Washington Park Wednesday Blogwrap »
July 18, 2007
House of the Day: 12 Warren Place
We go from a 12.5-foot-wide house for $1,250,000 in the South Slope yesterday for to an 11.5-foot-wide house for $945,000 in Cobble Hill today. And while the South Slope house has about twice as much square footage, it can't come close to comparing in terms of charm because the Cobble Hill house happens to be located in one of the most charming spots in the entire city, Warren Place. Hopefully someone out there will be able to tell us what the highest price for one of these old Workingmen's Cottages is. Given the great condition and quality of finish in this place, we won't be surprised if the seller gets her price.
12 Warren Place [Brooklyn Bridge Realty] GMAP P*Shark
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/1628
Comments
Wow! That is so lovely.
Posted by: anon at July 18, 2007 1:42 PM
went to open house. it's really, really tiny. if you were single, and short, maybe.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 18, 2007 1:44 PM
they are eeensy little houses, but i actually knew families of 3 and 4 people that lived in them once upon a time...in the 70's.
Posted by: oldcobblehiller at July 18, 2007 1:46 PM
Kind of hilarious that "cottages for workingmen" are now million dollar real estate. But I'm loving the DH Lawrence vibe of the interiors.
Posted by: anonymous at July 18, 2007 1:49 PM
It's going into contract for $1.1 million.
Posted by: anonymous at July 18, 2007 2:00 PM
once upon a time americans weren't so disgustingly wasteful to the point that they thought they NEEDED 3000 square feet to raise a child.
this place looks like heaven to me.
Posted by: anon at July 18, 2007 2:02 PM
they are lovely, truly. i didn't mean to imply that they're tooo small, just small by comparison to the regular sized houses in the area.
Posted by: oldcobblehiller at July 18, 2007 2:14 PM
2:02--i totally agree. to me it looks like a dream for a small family.
Posted by: anon at July 18, 2007 2:14 PM
2:00 - really?
bidding war?-
Posted by: wow at July 18, 2007 2:17 PM
anon 2:00pm I spoke to the broker yesterday and was told it was still in available.
Posted by: anon at July 18, 2007 2:18 PM
i have recently been in a few of tehm and there is simply nothing like it! This close to the city, this neighborhood, great neighbors, good vibe.
Don't have the bucks, but if I did I would jump on it in a second.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 18, 2007 2:21 PM
There was a $960,000 offer accepted and moving along until this morning, then someone came in and trounced with $1.1 million. It's a beautiful place and all, but that works out at over $1,000 per square foot!
Posted by: anonymous 2:00 at July 18, 2007 2:21 PM
anon 2.18pm. We were the original offer accepted on Monday -- guess you can't trust a broker.
Posted by: another anon at July 18, 2007 2:25 PM
They're coming ... the sub-1 mil houses!
OK, so this one got bid up, but with news finally getting out that not only subprime but Alt-A mortgage paper (about 40% of market in the past couple of years) is about worthless, RE prices might actually begin to reflect the cost of living ... and some sick-money Wall Streeters oughta be hitting the bricks soon.
Nice little house, too.
Posted by: cgwatcher at July 18, 2007 2:25 PM
There was one that sold for $1.2 but had bigger backyard/lot.
As long as don't mind stairs and more diminutive furniture - certainly alternative to manyh coops and with nobody over your head.
PS -
2:21 sounds like the listing agent talking.
Posted by: pete at July 18, 2007 2:26 PM
2.21 here. Just friends with another anon -- got info from her.
Posted by: anonymous 2.21 at July 18, 2007 2:29 PM
Response to original accepted offer...since buyers have been known to back out before going to contract, it is the brokers responsibility to continue showing a property until a contract is signed. Brokers also have to present all offers to a seller by law. The broker was only doing their job. It was the seller that didn't keep to the original agreement with you.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 18, 2007 2:34 PM
I meant this anon 2:21 sounded like the agent not the other 2:21
--->"i have recently been in a few of tehm and there is simply nothing like it! This close to the city, this neighborhood, great neighbors, good vibe.
Don't have the bucks, but if I did I would jump on it in a second"
Posted by: Anonymous at July 18, 2007 2:40 PM
I feel like bidding 1.2mm just to mess with the 1.1mm's head.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 18, 2007 2:42 PM
i believe it was Mos Def who swooped in with the 1.1 offer
Posted by: peace at July 18, 2007 2:43 PM
it's so unbelievably tempting to add to the hype...let's drive the price up another 2 or 300...oy.
Posted by: anon at July 18, 2007 2:47 PM
i love the poster that thinks because a property sells for less than a million that the real estate market is crashing.
next thing you know, they'll use that logic to say that a studio not selling for at least a half million means the sky is falling.
are you stupid? this is a small house. lovely, but small. size does have some affect on prices, you do realize???
Posted by: anon at July 18, 2007 2:49 PM
I went to the open house and while I agree broker needs to hear all offers (and maybe advise owner not to accept one until all offers are in), this broker did seem particularly untrustworthy.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 18, 2007 3:01 PM
To Anon 2:25,
How many subprime borrowers bought $1.0 million + Brooklyn townhouses? My guess is the answer is pretty close to 0.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 18, 2007 3:17 PM
Untrustworthy? We were there, and she was perfectly nice.
Posted by: ts at July 18, 2007 3:20 PM
anon 3:17 i think anon 2:25 was citing pressure in Alt-A mortgages. I'd bet quite a lot of 1.0mm+ houses have been bought with Alt-A mortgages. (parenthetically 2:25, Alt-a paper isnt anywhere close to worthless, nor for that matter is subprime. If you have some alt-a or subprime or alt-a paper and want to give it to me for free I'll gladly take it off your hands)
I saw one of these houses and found it really claustrophobic. But then I'm on the tall side.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 18, 2007 3:25 PM
I saw one of these houses years ago and believe me, it's not just folks who think you need 3,000 square feet to raise a child that would find these spaces small. THEY'RE REALLY SMALL. A house that is 11 feet wide is actually less than 11 feet wide in the interior. The houses also aren't that deep, and the ceilings are low. They're CHARMING, no doubt, and my husband and I seriously considered buying the house we toured, but even as a childless couple (at the time) we didn't see how there would even be room for a normal amount of furniture. I do love the location and the ambience, however.
Posted by: Park Sloper at July 18, 2007 3:31 PM
Oh I love small houses. Cozy houses are so nice in Winter. We do live in a climate that's chilly most of the year. And for Summer months a small house would force you to use your yard more often as part of your living space, and what an amazing little cobblestone backyard area. If we didn't work from home, thus need more space, I'd totally go for one of the cute tiny houses in Brooklyn. There's certainly upsides to spending less, on smaller spaces. I'd rather spend the extra money on gorgeous decor, than on merely buying the place, and having nothing left to do fun things with the house interiors. I'm babbling. Just my thoughts on tiny houses.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 18, 2007 3:40 PM
to anon 2:12
So let me get this straight, this "disgustingly wasteful trend" as you call it, of needing 3000 sq ft to raise a child is new? Werent the vast majority of townhouses in Brooklyn originally built as single family homes around or prior to the turn of the century. So this "trend" seems to be more than 100 years old.
Posted by: bored at work at July 18, 2007 3:49 PM
PS 29 is what a family would move into this house for. However narrow it is, this still more space than you get buying a condo in any of the good school districts.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 18, 2007 3:51 PM
3:49, "single family" at the turn of the century included grandparents and other extended family, PLUS at least one servant.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 18, 2007 3:53 PM
you've left off one important fact, 3:49.
in 1900 people had around 6 children on average.
you sound like bush. distort the facts to your advantage.
and yes, since the 1960's the american home has grown in terms of square feet, while the number of children per family has decreased.
i believe this trend is just at the very beginning of going down again. i hope so anyway. i had friends in high school that were only children living in 7 bedroom, 5 bath homes. it's gross.
Posted by: anon at July 18, 2007 3:54 PM
broker may have been nice but she gave me misleading comps.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 18, 2007 4:06 PM
Help me out. Why bid 1.1mm when highest offer was 960? Why not bid 985ish and skip the mansion tax?
Posted by: Anonymous at July 18, 2007 4:23 PM
yeah, talk about claustrophobic.. only in nyc can we say how "cozy" an 11 ft wide house is. "charming"!
Posted by: Anonymous at July 18, 2007 4:26 PM
while it might not be for everyone, i'd say that if a bidding war has pushed the price over a hundred thousand over asking, some people do indeed like the charm of it.
ever heard the phrase, to each his own?
Posted by: anonymous at July 18, 2007 4:31 PM
4:26 here.. i agree 4:31.. i apologize for not being clear.. i actually lived a few blocks away for a few years, and always loved those houses. just commenting on the arrogant tone of people saying it's not in fact small (which it is, granted there's nothing wrong with that!), but rather "cozy". let's just call a spade a spade..
also, anyone with kids knows how much fun it is to raise them in a "cozy" apt/house. no comments allowed from people WITHOUT kids, regarding how much space people WITH kids should live in, etc..
Posted by: Anonymous at July 18, 2007 4:38 PM
4:23, the broker is not allowed to disclose what the offer is. Therefore, the higher bidder had to guess at their offer.
Posted by: yente at July 18, 2007 4:38 PM
4:23
methinks a slimeball buyer's broker convinced the buyer to bid that high
funn, aint it..."mansion tax" for a "Workingmen Cottage"
Posted by: me at July 18, 2007 4:41 PM
Absolutely charming if you're name is
"Sleepy", "Sneezy" or "Grumpy"...
It's lovely, inside and out, all kidding aside, but such a tiny space... I bet it will fly though at that price
because of its location and charm.
Posted by: bren at July 18, 2007 4:42 PM
4:38 that's not true, in a bidding war you can beat the highest offer. unless it was a "best, sealed bid" deal, but it doesn't sound like that
Posted by: Anonymous at July 18, 2007 4:49 PM
geez, a lot of people (like me) would be happy to raise their child in this "eeensy" house. and, okay, it's small but it is its own house, on three floors and with a small yard and two bathrooms (not to mention neighborhood, schools, etc). i guess it's all a matter of where you're coming from but i think many small families would be more than happy in "such a tiny space".
Posted by: anon at July 18, 2007 4:49 PM
i agree 4:49.
when i see so many small families in park slope in 1 and 2 bedroom apts, i find it difficult to comprehend how someone with one or two kids wouldn't be thrilled to call this place home.
i think the ones who bash the size are the ones who similarly think that if each child doesn't have his/her own bedroom, bath and walk in closet, that they live below the poverty line...
Posted by: anon at July 18, 2007 4:56 PM
4:49.. happy to spend 1+ million to raise a family in "such a tiny space"? hmmm..
Posted by: Anonymous at July 18, 2007 4:59 PM
To me, it's not so much the size but the price of the size. I attended a 2nd open house last night (and was told that the house already sold), but the broker let us poke around, and the house is indeed as charming as everyone says it is. For some families, it's big enough, for others, no. But for me, over $1M for a space that size -- be it if one person will live there or a family -- is just too much money.
Posted by: cggirl at July 18, 2007 5:00 PM
but 1000 per square foot is getting to be the average for the neighborhood, so i'm not following?
if this were an apt. all on one floor, i don't think people would be balking at the price.
i'm seeing over a million for just a floor in a townhouse in clinton hill, so i can't imagine a perfectly kept single family house not being "worth" a million or so in cobble hill, which i find far nicer in terms of neighborhood.
it's interesting.
Posted by: anon at July 18, 2007 5:06 PM
shouldn't the mansion tax be raised since $1 million clearly doesn't buy you a mansion in NYC!!! in Manhattan you can barely get a decent apt for $1 mill!
Posted by: anon at July 18, 2007 5:16 PM
the price isn't that bad, a house on Henry St that was listed for $3.75 is in contract after being on the market for a few weeks. I imagine they got somewhere close to their ask and that house isn't much more than 3 times the size of this one. it seems $1000psf is about the going rate for a move-in ready cobble hill one fam.
Posted by: anon at July 18, 2007 5:19 PM
I feel like I've been hearing $1000 psf is the going rate for the past 2 years for every single neighborhood in NYC.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 18, 2007 5:33 PM
the BIG difference between this house and other apts, the henry st house, etc is that all of the rooms are 11 FEET WIDE.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 18, 2007 5:52 PM
I really agree with 5:16 about the mansion tax but it is such a cash cow for the city that they'll never raise it but they should at least re-name it so it's not so absurd..
I also have an idea that some of this tax or a new smaller tax should go to the businesses that the brokers and sellers are getting rich on the back of. Listings actually have photos of cafes like the great place on 11th St & 5th Ave. and they use these businesses in the listings as selling points. Restaurants, cafes, etc. come into a neighborhood and make the value of real estate higher and see no benefits from these elevated values. Let them form neighborhood associations that would see some kind of benefit from profits that are made from their sweat and equity. Anyway, it's just an idea.
Posted by: Jon Sherman at July 18, 2007 10:20 PM
10:20--not a bad point but don't you think it's kind of a chicken and egg dilemma? maybe a good restaurant wouldn't move into a neighborhood until there were residents nearby with the money, inclination, etc. to support it. and presumably the businesses do get something from the listings: more such residents. i don't really know either, just thinking also . . .
Posted by: anon at July 18, 2007 10:34 PM
I think carroll Gardens and Cobble hill are the best areas in brooklyn i would die for this.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 18, 2007 10:42 PM
we were in contract with the house next door right after 9/11 for $490. we backed out at the last minute and then it sold the next week for $550. the houses are very desireable, even though they are tiny. I still think about the house sometimes, but another downside is that you can hear the bqe with the windows open
Posted by: anon at July 18, 2007 10:44 PM
but what about all the poor oppressed workers amongst the architecture in sunset park? What are you doing to help them?
Posted by: dingdong at July 19, 2007 8:18 AM
"To Anon 2:25,
How many subprime borrowers bought $1.0 million + Brooklyn townhouses? My guess is the answer is pretty close to 0.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 18, 2007 3:17 PM"
This is an interesting question. Subprime does not mean low income, just a low FICO score and other other measures. Plenty of people who make a lot of money and can afford the monthly payment on a million plus loan have low FICO scores, so I am not so sure the answer is zero.
Posted by: Jim at July 19, 2007 11:36 AM
ok, 5 then.
the point was it is not a problem that largely affects brownstone brooklyn, so the arguement that the sky is falling because of all the defaulting of mortgages among those in these areas is pretty ignorant.
Posted by: anon at July 19, 2007 12:05 PM
We were at this open house too. I really, really wanted to love this place--we have one kid--but it's super super tight. low ceilings downstairs--we are tall--you're paying for someone else's "eh" renovations (kitchen kinda dinky) yes there's a W/D but it takes up the closet of the 2nd BR. The courtyard area is much much smaller than it looks in photo. Total sf in house just over 1000! Again, wanted to love it, but...couldn't quite get there. This is not a million-dollar place with that square footage. The mews is lovely, though.
Posted by: anon at July 19, 2007 1:29 PM
that's interesting. everywhere else in prime brownstone brooklyn seems to be selling for 1000 psf. why not this place?
Posted by: anon at July 19, 2007 1:33 PM
Anon 1:33 --
Because it's 11 feet wide! A nice feature of brownstones (some, but by no means all) is their width. This, a mews house, is lovely and charming, but a main characteristic of mews homes is their narrow width.
Posted by: anon at July 19, 2007 2:56 PM
Agree 2:56. It is different to have 1000 feet with some width. An 11 ft wide house probably has rooms of 9 1/2 to 10 feet, which is VERY narrow. Many people would feel very cramped in such a narrow room. Having said that, it is quaint and you can't say $1mil is the wrong price if more than one person bid close to and then over it.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 19, 2007 3:37 PM
I rented 12 Warren Place back in the nineties. It was totally charming, but truly too small! The second bdrm could only fit a crib-- not even a twin bed. And we couldn't get our queen-size boxspring up the staircase, so we ended up sleeping on the floor for 2 years. All the customized cabinetry ate up alot of floor space-- but at least we had storage. I think we could fit a couch in the living room, but not much else. It's true that several families raised 2 kids in these houses, but, wow, space was tight.
Posted by: anonymous at July 23, 2007 1:33 PM
Latest Restaurant Additions
-
Tillie's of Brooklyn
added December 1, 2008 12:00 PM in Fort Greene -
Provence en Boite
added November 26, 2008 11:58 AM in Boerum Hill -
Melt
added November 25, 2008 12:02 PM in Park Slope -
The Farm on Adderley
added November 24, 2008 12:00 PM in Ditmas Park -
Chez Lola
added November 21, 2008 12:02 PM in Clinton Hill -
Nana
added November 20, 2008 12:02 PM in Park Slope -
Pomme de Terre
added November 19, 2008 12:01 PM in Ditmas Park -
Scopello
added November 18, 2008 12:01 PM in Fort Greene -
DiFara
added November 17, 2008 11:59 AM in Midwood -
Chiles y Chocolate
added November 14, 2008 12:02 PM in Park Slope
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.