« Off-Site Affordable Housing Moving Along on Quincy House of the Day: 37 Lafayette Avenue »

July 9, 2007

Rental of the Day: 110 Livingston Street Studio

Guess some of the buyers at 110 Livingston Street were pure ~~speculators~~ investors. Sotheby's now has a 675-square-foot studio for rent for $2,750 per month. The never-been-lived in space looks like it has pretty high ceilings and clean, high-end finishes and fixtures. It would be interesting to know what the buyer paid for this place to get a sense of what kind of return this rent would generate. Anyone know what the common charges are on a unit like this?
110 Livingston Street [Sotheby's Int'l] GMAP

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/1554

Comments

It's an H line unit on one of the lower floors (the higher floors have 10 ft ceilings).

CC's are $328 a month.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 9, 2007 12:48 PM

That rent is RIDICULOUS...

Posted by: Anonymous at July 9, 2007 12:50 PM

The rental in question has a "home office" (i.e., a room with no window) which you could use as a bedroom, so it's slightly better than a true studio.

Either way, I agree the rent is high, but that seems to be the going rate. A few one-bedroom units at 110 Livingston have rented out for $3000/$3100 a month.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 9, 2007 12:55 PM

That rent is ridiculous, and given that the place sold for close to $500k, it doesn't even cover the nut. However, $4/ft. for high-end rentals is pretty normal in that area now. Courthouse, 53 Boerum, Danny's Chinese and a few others have been getting that all year and even before.

Posted by: anon at July 9, 2007 12:55 PM

First poster here.

Forgot to mention that the buyer (assuming he got in before all the price amendments) paid in the low $400's for the unit.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 9, 2007 12:57 PM

Actually, if the buyer purchased the unit early (I think there were 6 price increases), he picked up the unit cheap enough to where $2700 WOULD cover his nut.

Assuming 20% down and a decent rate (I plugged in 6.5), the monthly mortgage payment would be $2200. Common charges are $330. Tax (abated) is $60.

The total outlay (not including the down payment) is ~$2600 a month.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 9, 2007 1:08 PM

geez, you'd think they'd have some rules about not leasing out for a couple years at least. who wants to live in a place like this full of renters?

Posted by: Anonymous at July 9, 2007 1:20 PM

What's wrong with renters?

There are 300 units in the building. Bound to be a few renters in the mix, but I doubt that the place is going to be full of them.

Besides, anyone that can swing $2800 for a studio isn't likely to be a deadbeat junkie.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 9, 2007 1:24 PM

Reality check here - MOST people in this fair city rent. That's from Park Ave down to Mother Gaston Ave.

Before condo was the word of the day, most people did not have much choice, as co-ops, were not always an option, either.

I don't understand the hostility towards renters on this board, especially since 80% of you have been renters at some point in life, or depend on renters to pay the mortgage.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 9, 2007 1:33 PM

How do they prevent shares I wonder? I agree that a person who can swing 2800 for a studio is probably working a lot -- but how about 3 people splitting the rent? Do they police this kind of thing? I'm looking at a newer condo development and I didn't even think about this. Would it be in the by-laws?

Posted by: Anonymous at July 9, 2007 1:33 PM

1:33,

If the building you're looking at is completed, the residents have probably formed a condo association and voted for a few by-laws (like limiting the number of rentals, no shares, etc).

As someone else mentioned though, I don't think there's anything wrong with renters--even shares. And honestly, I don't think that you're going to run into that kind of situation in a building like this though. People who need roommates to split the rent with probably aren't in the market going for a small, one room luxury studio.

For the same price you can get a 2 (or more) bedroom place in a non-doorman place.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 9, 2007 1:47 PM

That's a pretty nice space for someone who , for example, needed to rent for a few years for a job in Lower Manhattan. I really like the kitchen. Not an unreasonable rent for that size, and if the city's vacancy rate is around 1 or 2 pct., they'll get it. There are a lot of dumpy 1 brs out there asking $2,500. As for preventing shares, that may be up to Sotheby's, or the by laws may penalize the owner if it happens. our current co-op is waging a low-intensity war against a shareholder who has sublet her place to a rotating cast of hard-living "roommates." Grrr...

Posted by: Pete at July 9, 2007 1:49 PM

Renters don't give a s#&t about building rules. They leave junk in the public hallways, mix recyclable garbage with non recyclable garbage so it doesn't get picked up, damage public hallways by continually moving in and out, play loud music since they don't know their neighbors, clog pipes by attempting to flush tampons, and disrespect every other building rule you can name.

Renters have no stake in a building, and their actions prove they just don't care.

I would never buy a condo in a building that allowed renters.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 9, 2007 1:51 PM

Then I guess you're never buying, 1:51.

About the only way you're not going to deal with renters is to buy a single family house.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 9, 2007 1:54 PM

... or buy a co-op.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 9, 2007 1:58 PM

people need to realize that market rent does not equal "the amount i need to cover my mortgage"

Posted by: meh at July 9, 2007 2:00 PM

Dude, MANY co-ops allow sublets.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 9, 2007 2:02 PM

Why would you want to buy into a co-op that tells you what you can and can't do with YOUR property? Just to avoid an occasional renter?

Meh, market rent is what what the market will bear. And in this case, it's enough to cover the mortgage nut.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 9, 2007 2:05 PM

many don't, dude. and the ones that do usually have rules and fees (2 years max and one months rent needs to be kicked back to bldg to discourage sublet)>

Posted by: Anonymous at July 9, 2007 2:07 PM

A typical Two Trees kitchen special: Bad galley layout, open shelving to display clutter, and almost no cabinets. I was in one of these for two years and it sucked big time.

Posted by: Rascal at July 9, 2007 2:10 PM

I am showing this to my tenants who are nickel and diming me in Ft. Greene for the same space and pay 1450.

Give me a break. These people are smoking crack.

Posted by: anon at July 9, 2007 2:11 PM

Oooh..."only" 2 years? Certainly not enough time to cause any damage, disturb any neighbors, or clog any toilets with tampons. And, of course, the building gets the princely sum of one month's rent!

Different strokes for different folks, dude. I prefer not to have anyone tell me what I can and can't do with my shit.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 9, 2007 2:16 PM

The sponsor is still going to control the board for a decent amount of time, and there is no way he would limit sublets because it makes it harder for him to sell.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 9, 2007 2:21 PM

Follow up to Rascal's 2:10 post. Is the "no-upper-cabinet-barely-any-base-cabinet-kitchen" typical for the condo product that is being delivered to the market these days?

Posted by: Anonymous at July 9, 2007 3:05 PM

co-ops allow sublets but only after the tenants have submitted application packages and are vetted by the board.
You can be rejected. And there is usually a limit of one to three years per unit.
Renters and owners do not mix well usually. The renters have no stake in the building, they tend to ignore the rules, to be transient etc. That is why nicer buildings severely restrict sublets. It's a little snobby, sure, but this is NYC and we're talking Real Estate, so the sky's the limit in terms of snobbishness.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 9, 2007 3:06 PM

2:16: are you pro or con subletters.. can't tell. the renters you write about are the reason people hate renters in their building

Posted by: Anonymous at July 9, 2007 3:07 PM

Most of the sink unit is probably storage. You have storage next to the oven on both sides, along with the shelves and 2 upper cabinets. If you put your everday glassware and dishes on the shelves, seldom used dishes and pots and pans in the overhead cabinets, more cookware and utensils near the stove, and then foodstuffs in the sink unit, or some combination thereof, that should be enough for your average single person. Maybe buy a hutch or china cabinet. Still looks like a nice set up for a studio, although very pricey, to be sure.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 9, 2007 3:18 PM

I am an owner at 110 Livingston and the offering restricts owners from renting to anyone but "family" for the first year. Obviously, an exception of some sort was made here.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 9, 2007 3:28 PM

Lots if not most of NYC coops is mix of renters and owners.
Since they were done by non-eviction plans which allowed RS/RC tenants to stay.
P.S. In my neighborhood(boerum/carroll/cobble) , seems more that new small condos (owner occupied) turn dirtier, shabbier more quickly - because maybe young condo owners are more renter-mentality and figure everything is supposed to be done for them and take no responsibility for upkeep the outside of property.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 9, 2007 3:47 PM

to 3:05 -- Yes unfortunately most kitchens are actually just the focal point of the living room -- usually not enough room to put more than a table for two in the space outside the counter. I looked at 100 -- the D line for $835K and throught it was terrible. Obviously for people who do not cook but want to brag about their appliances.

to 3:47. yes and even the new kids whose parents bought their $450K one bedrooms for cash act like they live in a dorm. I am not voting to approve anyone whose parents pay for the apartment any longer.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 9, 2007 4:34 PM

$2750?? Admittedly, that's a big studio, but come on. Why not just duck out a few stops to Cobble Hill or Park Slope, gain a couple bedrooms, and not live a half-block from Adams and Fulton Mall?

I mean, modern convenience and luxury is nice, but how much can you actually fit in 600 square feet? You could probably spend the money you save renovating a rental somewhere else, if you cared enough.

Posted by: Q.R. at July 9, 2007 4:42 PM

Courthouse apartments (also 2 trees) a few blocks away has 1BRs for that amount and a little less. Makes the price seem really silly.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 9, 2007 5:09 PM

The whole argument against renters is pretty funny. Imagine what would happen to NYC housing prices if the majority of buildings banned sublets/rentals. It would collapse.

Posted by: Crayfish at July 9, 2007 5:41 PM

We pay that amount for a 2 br/2ba with washer/dryer in the heights.

Insane.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 9, 2007 5:49 PM

This is the standard Two Trees kitchen design. The appliances are all very nice, but there isn't enough storage. The open shelves will collect dust and all of your things will be covered in a layer of cooking grease (that is, if you actually cook in your apartment).
Seems like it's simply a much cheaper design to implement than specing upper cabinets.

Posted by: ... at July 9, 2007 6:10 PM

anon 2:11 YOU are smoking crack. There's also two houses for sale in the heights for $7MM. I guess your house must be worth at least 10? I forgot Ft Green is such a better location than the heights.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 9, 2007 6:17 PM

I see 5:49 brought some reality, but to add: I live in a 1300 sq ft (I measured it) 2BR/1BA with seven closets in a pre-war elevator building about three blocks west. It's got a huge foyer we've turned into a library, an eat-in kitchen, and a 26x15 foot living room. And I pay $150 less. Moved in 18 months ago, so it's not like I got a 2001 find.

Don't be suckers, people. (And I'm addressing fellow renters.)

Posted by: insane at July 9, 2007 6:30 PM

reality is what people pay. not what people think the market is. i love all the posters who claim the house of the day is overpriced. you know what, these sell.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 9, 2007 7:15 PM

I pay 1300 a month for a 350 square foot one bedroom hole in the wall that I got 12 months ago. The rental market in this part of town makes the home purchase market seem tame...do I win? 6:30, that's all but impossible to find now.

Doesn't matter though...someone will rent this apartment because it looks sexy and is 7 minutes from Wall Street. Same reason why I live where I do. Only barely in the heights, but I'll take it. And I say let em have it.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 9, 2007 7:32 PM

I posted at 2:11 and my point was that I have a nice brownstone in Fort Greene and one of my apartments is renting for 1450, and it is 700 square feet. The rent is low for the area but in contrast to this apartment, a complete disconnect. That was my point, 6:17, not a brag. Jeez. Back to the apartment, though, 100 Livingston St, is not exactly the Heights. Give me a break.

Posted by: anon at July 9, 2007 10:32 PM

The kitchen is absolute absurdity. Its basically half an aisle kitchen with next to zero cabinet space.Can someone please explain why almost all the new construction in Brooklyn,Manhattan and even Queens have these dumb miniature kitchens. I always thought a spacious kitchen sells or rents the place. Obviously the developers dont think so.
This place is garbage.

Posted by: cb1 at July 10, 2007 1:03 AM

It's 110 Livingston, not 100 Livingston.

The kitchen is tiny because the unit itself is tiny. The larger units have more storage (although similar open layouts). Some even have closed cabinets.

Considering the building is a few units shy from being sold out, I'd say that more than a few buyers are okay with this kind of kitchen layout.

I prefer open kitchens to closed kitchens, but then again, I'm a bachelor with no kids.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 10, 2007 2:42 AM

Open kitchens are fine--I have one and love it--but there are ways to do it that are more efficient and practical. Two Trees really just took a very old New York apartment model--the galley kitchen--and removed a wall. As if that didn't eliminate enough upper cabinet space, they installed open shelving above the stove. 6:10 is right: anything on the open shelving gathers grease and dust. It's disgusting. Their original rationale for this design was that it is more "loft like." Uh-huh. It's also much cheaper. Look for U-shaped kitchens. Nothing better.

Posted by: Rascal at July 10, 2007 7:13 AM

Rascal, I'm inclined to agree with you (for the most part), but I don't see how a bigger kitchen would be possible in this unit without intruding significantly into the living area. A U-shaped kitchen doesn't seem practical in such a small room. Given the choice, I bet most people who live in studio and small apartments would prefer a larger living room over kitchen space (I could be wrong, of course).

This type of kitchen is fine for a lot of people, including me--I eat out or order-in virtually every meal. I don't think that's unusual in NYC (maybe the norm?). My current kitchen is spacious and has a huge pantry, but the only thing I've used this Wolf range for is to boil water for coffee.

I imagine a family who cooks often might want and need a bigger kitchen/more cabinet space, but a family isn't likely to be looking at this studio. A single person or couple who cook a great deal have lots of other choices for $2800 a month.

If you NEED to cook and eat-in because you can't afford to eat out all the time--well, again, you're probably not looking at $2800 a month studios.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 10, 2007 9:16 AM

I think the relationship between owners and renters is similar to the one between drivers and pedestrians: While walking down the street, you're like, "How dare that car cut me off?" The second you get behind the wheel, it's like "Why don't they get the hell out of the way!"

For coops the rationale is a little different - I'm not sure if it's true or not, but the belief is that banks are reluctant to give new buyers mortgages in coops with too many renters for fear they will not maintain the building. In condos it's less clear, but the general concern about turnover and annual moves in and out of the building is certainly legit in addition to any fears that renters won't maintain their apartments.

I live in a small condo with some renters and our experience has been mixed, we were originally concerned that one owner rented to four college students but they turned out to be considerate, quiet tenants; meanwhile a family with a small baby moved in a few months ago and constantly leaves trash all over the place.

Posted by: eeeck at July 10, 2007 10:52 AM

There have been a few rentals at 110 Livingston and as a previous poster stated, the price is about right. The Court House apartments go for at least $2700 - so this building should command at least that. I think the price is a a shade on the low side... i would argue for $2800/$2850 for the "luxury" accommodations including the proximity to the many subway lines. The building is one of the most talked about, written about (few NYT articles) of all the new construction on this side of the Bklyn Bridge.

Throw in the fact that the nabe may be getting a Trader Joes and its got the makings of a steal at that price.

In the interest of full disclosure - I'm a 110 Livingston owner.

Posted by: Iphone at July 10, 2007 10:57 AM

Throw in the fact that the nabe may be getting a Trader Joes and its got the makings of a steal at that price.

In the interest of full disclosure - I'm a 110 Livingston owner.

Posted by: Iphone at July 10, 2007 10:57 AM

Trader Joe's might open 4 blocks away at the old Sovereign Bank building, but would that really help raise prices for sales/rentals for the nabe?

Anyway, the old bank building is really pretty. If TJ's moved in, it would probably be the most beautiful supermarket in NYC.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 10, 2007 11:24 AM

TJ wouldn't itself lead to increased prices for rents or apartment purchases but its a further sign that the nabe IS changing. With TJ moving in, it should (optimist) encourage other retailers/businesses to take the plunge and open up shop as well. I walked down Smith Street this past weekend and noticed a Lucky Brand Jeans store opening up... change is coming and there's plenty of available space.

On a side note... if congestion pricing ever kicks in - the amount of traffic on Brooklyn Bridge Road should decline dramatically (except the weekend of course).

Posted by: Iphone at July 10, 2007 11:43 AM

The nabe is definitely changing. Two Trees owns a lot of retail space around 110 Livingston including the YMCA, Little Gym, New Sovereign Bank, New balance store, rumored TJ space and old thomasville space. With that much real estate they can design sections of the neighborhood to meet the profile of its clients to boost up real estate prices like they did in dumbo.

Look at Montague street with all the one building ownership. Nothing but banks, RE offices and cell phone stores since they rent to the highest bidder.

Posted by: Joe at July 10, 2007 12:29 PM

great building, great area. interesting that it's sold faster than one hanson even, i wouldn't have expected that

Posted by: anon at July 10, 2007 1:48 PM

« Off-Site Affordable Housing Moving Along on Quincy House of the Day: 37 Lafayette Avenue »

July 9, 2007

Rental of the Day: 110 Livingston Street Studio

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions