« Development Watch: 410 Fourth Avenue House of the Day: 1306 Albemarle Road »
September 11, 2007
Condo of the Day: 249 Varet Street
There aren't a whole lot of commercial condos in the more residential areas of Brooklyn but given the number of artists and other folks making a living off work-at-home creative pursuits in the borough the concept makes some sense. A couple that leap to mind from the last year or so are 20 Grand Avenue in Clinton Hill and 241 Norman Avenue in Greenpoint. Now you can add a third to that list: The Varet Lofts at 249 Varet Street in Bushwick. There are 16 units ranging in size from 940 square feet to 1,530 square feet and in price from $380,000 to $499,000. (Because of tax abatements, monthly common charges are less than $500 a month.) Details on the individual units still aren't available on the project's home page, but this listing for a 2,700-square-foot combined apartment for $795,000 surfaced on Craigslist last week. There was an open house last weekend, too. Did anyone go? UPDATE: An anonymous tipster sent some prices our way. Only the units on the first and second floor are currently available; you can see the prices for them on the jump. GMAP P*Shark
Unit -- Sq. Ft. -- Price
1.1 -- 620 -- $499,000
1.2 -- 1,090 -- $390,000
1.3 -- 1,390 -- $410,000
1.4 -- 1,190 -- $440,000
1.5 -- 1,700 -- $450,000
2.1 -- 1,210 -- $410,000
2.2 -- 1,110 -- $425,000
2.3 -- 940 -- $380,000
2.4 -- 1,140 -- $385,000
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/2081
Comments
sweet renderings.
in actuality, that block is pretty dingy and is most certainly treeless.
when my friends moved there in the mid-90s it was a purely industrial neighborhood with a bunch of illegal AIRs, the most activity you ever saw was from the boar's head meat packing plant at the end of the block. a bunch of years ago, the city cracked down on the illegal artist lofts and forced landlords to bring buildings up to code. around the same time the RE market took off and now that area is filled with new overpriced lofts.
while that neigborhood has come up in recent years (there are now stores and a bar), those renderings are pretty off base as to what the area actually looks like.
Posted by: benno at September 11, 2007 1:05 PM
The photo on Property Shark is pretty grim, but presumably it's from before the building was renovated
Posted by: brownstoner at September 11, 2007 1:09 PM
I kinda like the urbaness if the outdoor space.
"Who moved my cheese?"
Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 1:21 PM
If I am not mistaken I was brought through that building almost a year ago by the owner's representative. We were looking for an industrial work space and decided it was too far to go in terms of renovations needed.
I commented at the time that it would be fine broken up into live/work spaces for artists, but that the neighborhood was scary. This is not the place you want to be coming home to late at night unless you could drive in through an automatic gate.
I love Property Shark...it's the best of the internet in terms of gathering and presenting a broad matrix of information.
That photo was what I saw this past year. Would be suspicious of the renderings in terms of accuracy...could be the hopes and dreams of the seller.
Posted by: kuroko at September 11, 2007 1:24 PM
i was on that block this weekend watching football with my buddies.
the block looks nothing like the exterior rendering. it is most definitely treeless with broken sidewalks and grafitti sprayed buildings and fences.
the area is still a fairly active industrial area (neighbors include and architectural metal workshop, noodle makers and a yamulka factory). what is interesting to me is that a lot of the developments over there aren't just rennovations of existing industrial buildings, but also new construction of loft buildings that actually look like the existing industrial architecture.
i'm sure the lofts look great on the inside, but your views are of auto-body shops and vacant lots.
it can also be a sketchy walk to the morgan ave L train. my buddy still goes to pick up his wife when she comes home on the train after dark.
Posted by: benno at September 11, 2007 1:33 PM
Wow, I moved to 222 Varet street in 1991, I lived there witrh 3 other people for 4 years. 2700 sf for 1200. it was raw, but we loved it, we had a full silkscreen setup,a darkroom, and 4 private rooms, the landlord was the infamous Josh Gutman. The building was filled with artists, however wasnt very communal. The neighborhood was pretty messed up. Packs of stray dogs, kept alive by the Boarshead rejects the workers fed them. We all made a promise to each other if anyone ever got hurt, shot, mugged, that we wouldnt bring each other to Woodhull (where patients check in but dont check out) but that we'd drag the victim on the train to Manhattan. One of us even formed a band called "shuttlebus" named for the bus we had to take when the L train wasnt working late at night(still i operation) .We were poor and drank Midnight Dragon like it was water. Things sure have changed over there...I don't believe its as dangerous as it was back then.
Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 1:40 PM
Haven't been there, but love the post from guest 1:40.
Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 1:48 PM
www.diehipster.com
Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 2:12 PM
whats an "alphabet city" person? some hipster terminology i'm not cool enough to understand?
Posted by: lifer at September 11, 2007 2:18 PM
most of the craigslist ads advertise the lofts as live/work. isn't that a misrepresentation?
http://newyork.craigslist.org/search/rfs/brk?query=varet+live
and why is brownstoner calling a commercial condo an "apartment?"
Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 2:28 PM
So do these have kitchens?
Also why does the GMAP link go to 53 S Elliott Pl?
Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 2:50 PM
These units do not have kitchens. They do not have bathrooms. The units on the upper floors have a sink in the unit and two units share a bathroom on the hall.
There is one apartment that can legally be used as residential. It is the 'caretakers' apartment. They are trying to sell it along with one of the loft spaces as a bigger unit.
I have seen inside since it has been renovated. It nicely done.
Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 2:58 PM
Wow, it's SUCH a shitty neighborhood over there... if you can even call it a "neighborhood". And I love how they call Bushwick "East Wiliamsburg.
However, it's nice and convenient if you're into smoking crack and like hanging out at the Bushwick Houses projects a couple blocks away.
It's also great if you like torched cars and bullets coming through your windows.
Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 3:24 PM
The handyman's apartment is on the roof. Not bad. He'll be able to see all the topless sunbathing from his pad.
Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 6:26 PM
Actually 3:24pm, Bushwick only starts south of Flushing avenue so this cannot be called Bushwick. It is correct to call this East Williamsburg.
BTW, I know plenty of white hipster kids (many single white women) that live around there and they have no issues with their safety.
Would I want to live there? Certainly not but it aint as dangerous as you are making out.
Posted by: guest at September 12, 2007 10:14 AM
Brownstoner,
I must agree with another poster. Why are you calling these apartments and describing this as a live/work situation. There is only one live/work unit, and it is a combination of a loft and the caretakers unit, and it comes with caretakers responsibilities. These are not live/work units and the cannot be residences.
Posted by: guest at September 12, 2007 1:14 PM
The other commercial condo listed here is 231 Norman, greenpointlofts.com. they have bathrooms and gas and electric hook-ups, but still not a residential set-up, probably considered by some as a better neighborhood.
Posted by: guest at September 20, 2007 4:12 PM
it's funny that places like greenpoint lofts try to market to artists.... 231 norman's elevator is barely big enough to fit two people comfortably...how could you ever get materials up to your studio? a 5ft painting couldn't even make it past the 1st floor?
also why are some of the wooden floors buckling? looks like it's suffering from water damage? why did they have such a difficult time getting the C.O.?
Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 10:23 AM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.