« Condo of the Day: 34 Park Place BREAKING! LPC Approves Historic Designation for Domino »
September 25, 2007
House of the Day: 23 South Portland Avenue
Hey, just because South Portland Avenue was voted the best block in New York doesn't mean you can just slap any old price on a house and expect it to fly off the shelf. Which is what the owners of 23 South Portland (who also own 4 South Portland) have done. Granted it's a five-story house, but it's been an SRO forever (though the owner claims to have received a Certificate of Non Harrassment) and is in need of a total renovation. (An email we received from a neighbor said that this is a case of renovatus interuptus—the interior is totally demo'd and the backyard full of sandbags. We've got no info on why the owner/developer is cutting and running. The recent title and mortgage history is a little tricky to follow too, but the house has changed ownership a couple of times since 2004, most recently in January of this year. The price of that transaction is not provided (possibly because it was simply a transfer between related parties?) but it was accompanied by a $1,680,000 mortgage. Given that you can pick up the perfectly restored house across the street for $2,600,000, the asking price of $2,500,000 for a place that needs a complete make-over seems like a relative rip-off. Then again, what would five floor-through condos on this block net you? Clearly that's the only way this price could make any sense.
23 South Portland Avenue [Christmas Realty] GMAP P*Shark
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/2326
Comments
This house is currently completely demolished on the inside--there are no floors or walls. It is a shell, albeit a nice one, since the facade was recently redone. A buyer would have to build this house from scratch. About the nutty price, they're trying to sell you a shell at move-in condition prices. There are a few details remaining on the parlor floor, a pier mirror, a marble mantel, and some cracked remnants of ornamental molding. A few more marble mantels have been taken apart and are stacked in the parlor--will they come with the house or are they being stripped? I would urge any potential buyers to sort through the property history and DOB records with a fine tooth comb to figure out what's going on and definitely make sure that C of No-Harassment exists and is valid--HPD and DOB records do not reflect that.
Posted by: guest at September 25, 2007 1:46 PM
Make an offer for 2 million, put a million into it and you've got a 3 million dollar house.
Didn't that one on S. Elliot sell for over 3 million?
Posted by: guest at September 25, 2007 1:51 PM
A shell is easier to restore than existing crackhouse conditions, where you have to demo, or existing historic conditions, where you have to work around stuff.
having said that, good luck with that price buddy.
Posted by: guest at September 25, 2007 1:54 PM
"We've got no info on why the owner/developer is cutting and running. The recent title and mortgage history is a little tricky to follow too, but the house has changed ownership a couple of times since 2004, most recently in January of this year. The price of that transaction is not provided (possibly because it was simply a transfer between related parties?) but it was accompanied by a $1,680,000 mortgage."
The house is in foreclosure!
The house was a flip gone bad!
They are underwater now!
Buy this house to convert into CONDOs are you kidding me????!!!! Mr. B How many fucking Condos we have around here!! Stop building, please.
This is a classic case of Occam's Razor. The truth is right there but, the stupidity and greed of others blind them. Open your eye's this Real Estate Mutant Bubble is OVER.
Someday this war's gonna end.
Posted by: The What at September 25, 2007 1:56 PM
The What, I'm actually growing to like you, a lot.
Posted by: guest at September 25, 2007 2:07 PM
I don't understand brownstone condos, unless you make 2 duplexes and a floor through, or a triplex and duplex. How does it work regarding common spaces, maintainance, upkeep, etc? Seems like small # of units mean big/potential problems on the practical back end of this.
Not trying to be snarky or negative, I'd really be interested in knowing if this would work out as opposed to the usual owner occupied duplex/triplex plus rental units.
Posted by: guest at September 25, 2007 2:07 PM
Relative rip-off is right! 30 South Portland, ACROSS THE STREET, is absolutely gorgeous and in move-in condition and it too is 5-stories (hidden 5th story, I saw the house 2 times)--they're asking 2.6 for that. Even if it's easier to redo a shell than a crackhouse, this price is way over the top and fantastical. It doesn't even really make that great financial sense for a developer.
Posted by: guest at September 25, 2007 2:07 PM
The real comparison would be the house across the street, 30 South Portland. And there is no comparison! Shell vs. move-in beauty. Hello?? (The jury is still out about whether 53 South Elliott actually sold, was transferred, or was taken off the market.)
Posted by: guest at September 25, 2007 2:26 PM
So much for pricing a home in relation to the comps in the neighborhood.
HGTV....you've led me astray!
Posted by: guest at September 25, 2007 2:30 PM
To 2:07 - see the listing for the Park Place brownstone condo to get an idea of the possibilities. I live in a brownstone condo duplex in a five-story, four-unit building in Park Slope. It was a reasonable solution for me when I purchased it in 2002. I could have gotten a whole house in more of a fringe area, but my 2,000 square feet of living space plus garden was more than enough for my needs, and the more modest cost got me a home on a prime North Slope block (while still enjoying brownstone living, as opposed to buying a crappy new-construction condo on Fourth Avenue). I agree with the commenter on the Park Place thread that as the bubble bursts, I'm better off (both financially and otherwise) hunkering down for the next few years in my Park Slope condo than I would have been in a house that might lose its value in a neighborhood where safety issues might become more of a concern. Maintenance and the like obviously have to be shared with the other owners, which has its upsides and downsides -- nice not to have sole responsibility, but difficult if NO ONE wants to take responsibility, or if you don't like your neighbors. So far, I have no complaints.
Posted by: Park Sloper at September 25, 2007 2:37 PM
could be a mortgage scam.
Posted by: armchairwarrior at September 25, 2007 3:03 PM
Mortgage scam meaning what?
Posted by: guest at September 25, 2007 3:06 PM
To commenter 1:46: is there any more info you can provide on the house? I'm just really curious and it seems like you know the property. Thanks.
Posted by: guest at September 25, 2007 3:06 PM
Property Shark puts the square footage at 4000. If you add the garden level (not always accounted for on PS) let's say the house is 5000 sq. ft. How much would it cost to rebuild this house?
Posted by: guest at September 25, 2007 3:10 PM
Christmas Realty often has out of whack prices considering the circumstances of their listings... or maybe they just have unrealistic sellers most of the time...
Posted by: guest at September 25, 2007 3:18 PM
1:46 here. My sister lives next door and we were able to see the inside after the demo since we had some initial interest and were also really intrigued. We're also brownstone junkies so we did all the DOB research, etc., and it is very convoluted. Just go to the DOB website and search for the address. It's a total war zone inside and while one or two pieces of details remain, it's pretty much bare and stripped. There's really nothing inside there to justify that price. Too bad. We immediately lost interest...
Posted by: guest at September 25, 2007 3:18 PM
person A sells to person B for x amount of money. person B gets mortgage for x amount of money.
Person B defaults on the mortgage.
Person A probably inflated the sell value of the building to person B who is covered by the mortgage. Whom probably didn't have to pay anything down since person A and B were in collusion to default the bank.
Posted by: armchairwarrior at September 25, 2007 3:20 PM
This house is beautiful on the outside but from what I'm hearing on this board, there is nothing on the inside people. Nada. I suppose that while that could be a draw for some people, it's certainly not happening at that price, and not in today's market. Most individuals in today's market that dispose of $2.5+ to blow on a house are buying up beauties like 30 South Portland, 181 Washington Park, and 344 Carlton Avenue (all featured on brownstoner's HOTD--look them up), even if you have to pay a bit more in a bidding war. Those houses are worth it. They're pristine. This poor ol' house has a sketchy history and has had its guts ripped out. Never trust a developer to sell you the house with any of its salvageable deets. I've seen developers strip houses and sell off the parts, just like it was a car.
Posted by: smithee at September 25, 2007 4:20 PM
"We've got no info on why the owner/developer is cutting and running."
Try http://tinyurl.com/3cyoca .
Posted by: guest at September 25, 2007 5:06 PM
so I see it's offered by Christmas Realty - it really will be Christmas for somebody if they can sell it at the listed price!
Posted by: guest at September 25, 2007 5:21 PM
The owner is an unsavory character (I'm being kind)that has been in the nabe a long time and is somehow affiliated with the broker representing the property.
Posted by: guest at September 25, 2007 5:23 PM
Yeah--something's not kosher. All you gotta do is cross-reference the title documents (going all the way back) on both 4 & 23 So. Portland to notice that it doesn't smell right. Thank heavens for public records on the internet!
Posted by: guest at September 25, 2007 5:47 PM
Of all the many unsavory neighborhoods in Brooklyn, Fort Greene has always been right up there. It pains me to say that because it is a beautiful area. But it has always been dominated by corrupt and unsavory underworld characters. Bad guys even by Brooklyn standards.
Things have changed a lot over the past years, particularly the real estate prices, but I wonder if the underlying social fabric has changed equally as much.
Posted by: guest at September 25, 2007 7:45 PM
I just am wondering why everybody loves to talk about a bubble so much. Are these people who don't need to live with a roof over their heads? Sure if you are renting a RS apt, then who cares about housing prices. But otherwise it doesn't make sense to me. You aren't supposed to time the market for regular investments, but somehow we are all supposed to be really smart and time the market to buy homes? How does this work exactly? I know tons of people who have been sitting it out for prices to drop and they do the opposite and now they are stuck. Go figure.
Posted by: guest at September 25, 2007 8:14 PM
8:14--I think the price on this property has nothing to do with a bubble or whatnot. It's overpriced for what it is, no matter what the market (actually it'd still be wildly overpriced even in the hottest of markets). And I agree that in general, if you find a house you love, and have the dough, buy it. You're right that you shouldn't try to time the market. It's your home.
Posted by: guest at September 25, 2007 8:22 PM
Listen Guys, 30 S. Portland may seem like "a beauty" (as it is referred to up and down in this thread) but it also needs some work. So money will need to be spent. It is in stable, good cosmetic shape but here are issues with water and the systems need updating. The elec. needs updating. You're gunna spend some money going in there as well..maybe not this year but over the next couple most probably. Not to say...that the shell for 2.5 is not ridiculously overpriced...it is.
Posted by: guest at September 26, 2007 10:08 AM
10:08: 30 South Portland is a beauty, even if needs some standard mechanical/electrical upgrades. I saw the house many times and was later outbid. It went into contract about 2 weeks ago. It is in perfect cosmetic condition, beautifully maintained, pristine garden-parlor duplex (I've never seen such a luxurious garden level), sweet backyard with a koi pond, and details throughout ALL the 5 floors. I am still sad about losing out in that bidding war...sigh. Anyway, I find it offensive that anyone could think that people are such suckers that they'd pay the same price for a shell across the street.
Posted by: guest at September 26, 2007 1:08 PM
1:08 here: that's awesome that you'd think I was the broker, considering most every comment I make about HOTDs are actually really negative because I think most are shit and overpriced. So everyone on this thread, including Brownstoner himself, that appreciated 30 So. Portland as a house, and thought it was reasonably priced relative to other properties is a broker? I was a prospective buyer, fell in love with that house, was outbid and am still sad about it. I checked out 23 So. Portland soon thereafter and was appalled that they were asking essentially the same price as 30 So. Portland. Nothing more, nothing less. BTW, the broker who was handling the 30 So. Portland house is incredibly nice, so I highly recommend using her! And yes, the property is in contract. I was supposed to be contacted if the sale didn't go through, and I'm still waiting... You know, it IS possible to actually say something nice about a house, and not trash its asking price, without being a broker!
Posted by: guest at September 26, 2007 1:54 PM
i don't call 2.6 million for a house in ft. greene reasonably priced.
if you were outbid, someone else is even more foolish than you are.
Posted by: guest at September 26, 2007 2:10 PM
Different strokes...that's all, although maybe you're right. However, it was "reasonably priced" when you take into account comparables and recent sales in the immediate area, as well as some of the insanely overpriced listings too. These numbers are outrageous in general, you have a point.
Posted by: guest at September 26, 2007 2:15 PM
i think paying 2.6 million for a townhouse in park slope (at least the northern part) makes sense. it's lovely, has many services, near a big park, has subway access, etc.
i think ft. greene is gorgeous too, and i'd say 2 million sounds about right. maybe a little less.
i do not think ft. greene (which gentrified 20 years after park slope) should be commanding the same prices yet. it's just not far enough along in the process yet to ask for these prices.
Posted by: guest at September 26, 2007 2:21 PM
I agree 2:21, but I am certain that the 30 S. Portland house, if it were located in Park Slope, would be going for 3.6. It's a much grander/larger-scaled house than for ex., the Berkeley listing that everyone keeps mentioning. But Ft. Greene is definitely overpriced in general, even if it is beautiful.
Posted by: guest at September 26, 2007 2:35 PM
"You aren't supposed to time the market for regular investments"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda
"How does this work exactly?"
http://tinyurl.com/mythk
Posted by: guest at September 26, 2007 3:43 PM
I guess everyone dropped this thread. Sorry 1:08 you didn't get the house. Did you bid under the asking? You might have eventually had quite a bit to do in the house because there are some issues/quirks that only the initiated know. Luckily the seller is getting out for a decent selling price in FG. The person who wrote it should go for 2, maybe a little less is not correct. I could have predicted it would sell for over 2, NOT under 2...goodness sakes.
Sorry you didn't get it.
Posted by: guest at September 27, 2007 6:54 PM
23 South P. is a total disaster package--run. They did some of that demo work last year without a permit and created cracks in the building next door. Also, the broker is dishonest.
[And for the record, 30 South P., the house across the street everyone keeps referring to, is gone.
http://www.bhsbrooklyn.com/detail.asp?id=727404
Posted by: guest at September 28, 2007 11:51 AM
What a sick joke.
Posted by: guest at October 3, 2007 1:59 AM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.