House of the Day: 273 Baltic Street

Uh... I re-read the hanging metal staircase part 5 times and I still don't get it.

Posted by: guest at September 26, 2007 1:41 PM

One interesting thing about that house is that on Property Shark the lot is listed as being 16.33 feet wide and the house is 16.76 feet wide. May be splitting hairs or may be a typo but I have heard about people having headaches about these things.

Posted by: guest at September 26, 2007 1:44 PM

I would think that with the type of renovations that are being described, there would be a LOT of pictures up! That would certainly drive more foot traffic to the open house I imagine. The renovations sound pretty darn upscale.

But isn't this really in Carroll Gardens? Why is it being marked as Cobble Hill?

Also, 1:41 - the stairs that they describe have support beams which attach to the ceiling to keep it in place. A lot of really modern houses/apts have this feature. It is supposed to create the look of free floating stairs, and it does save a lot of space underneath the stairs. BUT- I always get nervous with staircases like that. I've climbed up them a few times and I always feel like one of the beams is going to snap and topple the stairs. Not ideal.

Posted by: guest at September 26, 2007 2:01 PM

Please 2:04! I've heard that excuse so many times. Wouldn't you EXPECT that a when a listing is posted for the world to see that it's in perfect shape and has its photos included? It's something so simple--you prepare the listing materials, including the most important element--its pictures--and THEN you post it. A deadline is a deadline, whatever.

Posted by: guest at September 26, 2007 2:09 PM

Yes this is definitely Cobble Hill, and on a very nice block. I think the price is pretty realistic since I just bought a house in CG for 1.16, same width, 10 ft shorter, one less floor and in need of renovation.

Posted by: guest at September 26, 2007 2:10 PM

maybe every broker doesn't realize that their listing is going to be raped by those on brownstoner and don't have the sense of urgency you seem to think uploading pictures on a home is.

get a life.

Posted by: guest at September 26, 2007 2:11 PM

Post 2:01 is correct. Cobble Hill technically ends on the west side of Court. This property is between Court & Smith.

Posted by: guest at September 26, 2007 2:12 PM

Actually, I saw this listing show up at least 2 days ago, I remember the staircase description. So they've had time to put up pics. Get your assistants and web slaves to work!

Posted by: guest at September 26, 2007 2:27 PM

"2.7% of households in the US make $ 200,000 or more in annual income
17 % of households in the US make $ 100,000 or more in annual income

only 5.6 % of individuals in the US make $ 100,000 or more in annual income "

*****
17% plus 2.7% equals 19.7% dumbass.

1 in 5 people make 100K or over according to your calcualtions.

Posted by: guest at September 26, 2007 2:28 PM

Back to the house...
1.995 million and no Living Room???

Posted by: guest at September 26, 2007 2:38 PM

Not that I relish putting up a post that in any way defends The What, but "17% of households in the US make $100,000 or more in annual income" includes all the households with more than $100,000 in income, not those households PLUS the households with more than $200,000. That's double counting. And, a household includes all the people and earners that live in it, so it's not "1 in 5 people" anyway. And who knows if these stats are even correct.

Posted by: guest at September 26, 2007 2:40 PM

"I know that the figures are off."

THEN PLEASE STOP POSTING INACCURATE FIGURES!!!

Jeez you are a moron.

Posted by: guest at September 26, 2007 2:41 PM

er... it doesn't matter what type of income US households are pulling in. NYC real estate isn't directly responsive to realities west of the Hudson.

I'd like to see the incomes percentiles for NYC or NY Metro incomes...

The row house is worth what the average New Yorker/European will pay for it.

Posted by: guest at September 26, 2007 2:42 PM

"Back to the house...
1.995 million and no Living Room???"

Yes and at the new Trump Soho, 1.2 million buys you no living room and NO BEDROOM.

It buys you a studio.

Wake up people. We're not in Kansas anymore.

Posted by: guest at September 26, 2007 2:42 PM

I believe the shift back to Brooklyn is similar to the shift world-wide back to the urban areas.

We are going to have to live closer together for the sake of the earth. Soon it won't be a matter of wanting to move to the suburbs, it will be a matter of NEEDING to live in the cities.

That wasn't meant to sound doom and gloomy, just a fact. The world is moving towards urbanism as a general rule.

It won't only be about what's cool so much as a general need to keep population density as high as possible.

We are just beginning to see the shift to a greener earth...this demographic shift away from the suburbs is just the beginning, I believe.

Posted by: guest at September 26, 2007 2:48 PM

2:09, 2:11, 2:27 --
Either many brokers are clueless about the web and don't realize people start dissecting these listings the second they go online, or the brokers have a motivation for getting the listing online as early as possible that trumps the common-sense inclincation not to post a listing until it's complete with important collateral like photos. (Maybe the brokers think only the compulsive brownstoner crowd is watching early, but it baffles me if they don't realize anyone who's seriously watching a particular market - i.e. their prime selling audience - will pounce on a new listing as soon as it becomes available anywhere on the web.)

I had the same problem with my broker recently - it drove me nuts and soured our relationship from the start.

I would strongly urge any prospective seller to get an explicit committment from your broker about the timing of your listing on the web, MLS, etc. I loosely discussed this beforehand but didn't know just how explicit I should have been until it was too late.

I'd love to hear from a broker on why this would ever happen.

Posted by: guest at September 26, 2007 2:49 PM

RE: Sam 2:42

Seems like Downtown BK and the adjacent "historic" neighborhoods will stay relatively healthy in the next real estate contraction. They've generated critical momentum... I believe there was a permanent shift in consumer behavior with regard to older row-houses.

But other BK neighborhoods outside the core won't get that type of sustained interest. Even new families don't want to live in Bensonhurst...

Posted by: guest at September 26, 2007 2:52 PM

new families didn't want to live in park slope 40 years ago, ft. greene 20 years ago, clinton hill 10 years ago or bed stuy 5 years ago.

i think things are more dynamic than you suggest, 2:52.

Posted by: guest at September 26, 2007 2:55 PM

Interesting question, 2:42.
All of the families who've planted roots in Brooklyn (and Manhattan) will stay unless crime rises or school options worsen. I don't think the housing market or even general economic conditions really affect the people already here in a direct way. So to the extent it's a "fad" to live here, the fad will continue, and therefore will attract more newcomers, somewhat insensitive to price. More important is whether the housing market/general economic conditions will ripple over to crime rates and funding for schools.

Posted by: guest at September 26, 2007 2:57 PM

OMG - With mine an my wife's salaries we just barely made it in the 2.7% bracket?!! Am I suppose to feel happy or or sad?

...because even with that stat I still can't afford this "NOT SO WORTH IT" townhouse. Uggh,..

Posted by: guest at September 26, 2007 2:58 PM

RE: 2:55
Yeah- I'm not saying Bensonhurst will never be a "high-demand" neighborhood... I just doubt it be able to sustain interest during the next real estate correction - that's all.

It's hard to predict the next 10 yrs much less the next 40.

Posted by: guest at September 26, 2007 2:59 PM

I agree, 2:57. New York City has always been a place where new people flock. Even during the bad days, people were leaving for the suburbs, but lots of young people were coming as well.

We are in a time right now of intense political seperatism and the wealthy liberals (and not so wealthy liberals) in this country have but a few good options for city living...New York being arguably the best.

I know I've travelled all over the country and there are very few places I'd want to live other than New York.

I think a lot of people feel the same.

I hear people say all the time...if I ever left NYC it would be to go to Europe.

I'm in total agreement.

So no, I don't think it's a fad. I think New York is just that special.

Posted by: guest at September 26, 2007 3:04 PM

My wife and I are in the top 1% and we can't afford this place. Jersey here we come.

Posted by: guest at September 26, 2007 3:16 PM

if you're in the top 1% and can't afford this place, you might want to first try limiting those weekends to atantic city and hookers to once a month first and see how that goes.

if that fails, looks like jersey is your only way out.

Posted by: guest at September 26, 2007 3:19 PM

"2.7% of households in the US make $ 200,000 or more in annual income
17 % of households in the US make $ 100,000 or more in annual income

only 5.6 % of individuals in the US make $ 100,000 or more in annual income "

*****
17% plus 2.7% equals 19.7% dumbass.

1 in 5 people make 100K or over according to your calcualtions.

***************************************

The inability of perfectly reasonable people to understand statistics drives me crazy.

There is nothing inconsistent about the figures quoted above. Individuals live in households, but households do not equal individuals. One would not expect that a percentage calculated among households would equal a percentage calculated among individuals.

And before calling someone a dumbass, look closely to see whether your math makes sense. The 2.7% of households who make $200,000 or more are a part of the 17% of households who make $100,000 or more. It is absolutely meaningless to add these two figures together.

Posted by: guest at September 26, 2007 3:29 PM

Death before New Jersey!

Posted by: guest at September 26, 2007 3:29 PM

you did yourself a disservice by registering.

now most people see your shit and glance over it and skip to the next.

Posted by: guest at September 26, 2007 3:30 PM

So, 3:29....17% MINUS 2.7% equals 5.6%....the figure the what posted?!!?

Posted by: guest at September 26, 2007 3:32 PM

3:32 -- Please try to stay with me here.

Let's pretend there is only one household in the country and that it contains two individuals. One individual earns $125,000 anually while the other earns $75,000 anually.

In this scenario, 100% of HOUSEHOLDS earn greater than $100,000 annually, while only 50% of INDIVIDUALS earn greater than $100,000 annually.

Thus it is not inconsistent to say that 17% of HOUSEHOLDS make $100,000 or more, while only 5.6% of INDIVIDUALS male $100,000 or more.

Got it?

Posted by: guest at September 26, 2007 3:38 PM

16 feet wide and three floors for 1.9mil, that is alot to pay for a Viking stove and a suspended staircase.

Posted by: guest at September 26, 2007 3:44 PM

Great,..I make under 100k,.. call me loser!

Posted by: guest at September 26, 2007 3:45 PM

HEY 3:38!!!

Would it be the same number if the women made the $175,000 and the female made the $50,000.

Posted by: guest at September 26, 2007 3:49 PM

my wife makes that on a good night down by the NOVO.

Posted by: guest at September 26, 2007 4:09 PM

Wouldn't it make more sense to buy two houses for that price in one of the "fringe" areas. The What can do the calculations, but you get 40 feet x 8 floors or two houses for 1.9 or less; it would seem like a no brainer, but that would be in a raceless world.

Posted by: guest at September 26, 2007 4:15 PM

"BTW: The people that attack me should get a log-in too."

The What has a point.
Anonymously bashing him is lame.

I think he's a little strange, and gets off track a lot, but dont think he needs to be bashed.

Get logins ya WhatHaters.

Posted by: guest at September 26, 2007 4:17 PM

more registered users = less comments

just leave people to do what they want.

isn't it bad enough we aren't going to be allowed to wear low rise jeans soon...?

Posted by: guest at September 26, 2007 4:21 PM

Two thoughts on the lack of pics:

1. You have NO idea what sortof PR machine Brownstoner is. The properties discussed on here are heavily trafficked...with or without pics.

2. When you are talking about 2 million dollars homes, these brokers have clients they call that they know are looking. They don't rely on the average joe scouring pages to see the pics...they schedule appoitments with serious buyers who are going to want to see the place inside with their very own 2 eyes.

The pics are meaningless when it comes to most of these properties. If we left it all up to pics, most of you wouldn't have bought anything because you didn't like the furniture in the damn place.

If the pics were horrendous, the serious buyers will still go look, because a lot of times it's just cosmetic stuff. If not, the pics don't tell you the mechanical condition of a 2 million dollar, 100 year old home.

You just want to see the pics so you can trash it, say how the furniture looks like it's from pottery barn, exclaim how overpriced it is, then disappear when you find out it sold above ask the next week.

Posted by: guest at September 26, 2007 4:26 PM

Thanks for your useless insights into my mind, broker 4:26, but when I was looking for my $2M+ home, I made judgments about places after the broker I was working with sent me links. If the house looked crappy in the link, the broker had to work harder to convince me to come take a look in person. Just because you're not plugged into the web 24/7 doesn't mean your clients aren't.

Posted by: guest at September 26, 2007 4:35 PM

"If the pics were horrendous, the serious buyers will still go look, because a lot of times it's just cosmetic stuff."

I beg to differ. I got a steal on my house because the listing broker had a bad website, bad pictures and bad marketing. The serious buyers were scared away before they even made it to the house.

Posted by: guest at September 26, 2007 4:37 PM

i'm not a broker, 4:35.

but thanks for asking.

Posted by: guest at September 26, 2007 4:42 PM

It's actually four floors if you look at floor plans and photograph. This apparently incompetent broker doesn't count garden floor as a floor.

Posted by: guest at September 26, 2007 4:47 PM

because it's a basement, not a garden floor.

Posted by: guest at September 26, 2007 4:54 PM

Actually 4:47, the bottom floor is under ground. The next floor up walks out to the garden. So I would call that 3 floors too (plus basement).

And for the record, my husband and I are in that 1% too (just barely) and we couldn't afford a $2mm place, just like the other poster.

Posted by: guest at September 26, 2007 5:00 PM

you top 1% earners need to stop complaining, lower your standards or move to jersey and make some room for the young, creative people who make 20-60K that made this city the great place it is today.

Posted by: guest at September 26, 2007 5:04 PM

Fat chance 5:04. Make me another creative latte.

Posted by: guest at September 26, 2007 5:09 PM

ok, keep complaining for all i care.

i am a new happy homeowner and make probably 1/4th what you do.

i just don't spend it all on whores and drugs.

Posted by: guest at September 26, 2007 5:13 PM

"Do people think this layout is worth $700/sf?"

yea, don't you?

i predict this place will be sold within 2 weeks.

Posted by: guest at September 26, 2007 5:29 PM

5:29

The person who buys this place at 1.9 million should be interviewed by Brownstoner and asked "What were you thinking of!?!?!"

Posted by: guest at September 26, 2007 5:49 PM

I agree, 5:29. It'll sell quickly. It's a great location and it sounds like really high end renovations. I think its reasonably priced, from the description anyway.

5:04- I'm a 1%er and absolutely agree that there should be place for everyone. But for the record, we're just as much part of what makes this city what it is. And you're one of the beneficiaries of the crazy high taxes we pay to keep this city going, so I would say you might want to be the one to 'stop complaining'.

Posted by: guest at September 26, 2007 5:51 PM

5:51

High End!?!

You mean High Priced!! This place is not worth 1.9 million. At 16 feet wide and with furniture you're going to feel claustrophobic. Take 3 steps and you hit the wall. You will not want to stay home very often and if you do you're going to fight for the window seat.

If going for a Brownstone only go for an 18 footer and up.

This should be priced at least 200k less.

Posted by: guest at September 26, 2007 6:05 PM

2:10 pm: Was yours a related-party purchase or did you find it on the market? Curious, because we've been looking and haven't seen anything listed in CG at anywhere near your price. Do you mind telling us what the ask was on the place you bought?

Posted by: guest at September 26, 2007 6:36 PM

my house is that width and it doesn't feel claustrophobic at all, you just have to knock out the walls between hallway and living room and the width feels great.

And for the record, top 1% is so meaningless in this city. try top .1 percent - that's who we're all competing with because they all live (or have pied-a-terres) in this city.

Posted by: guest at September 26, 2007 6:39 PM

5:09: that was perfect.

Posted by: guest at September 26, 2007 7:14 PM

Petebklyn post 4:19, have you ever been to this block? To call it Cobble Hill is a joke and inaccurate. It's across from a frightening middle school (I lived across from it on Butler Street for 3 years, so I know.) It's one of the worst blocks in the entire vicinity of Cobble Hill, Caroll Gardens, Boerum Hill. Perhaps you may want to check things out prior to spewing off inaccurate facts. These so-called high-roller clients you speak of wouldn't consider this listing.

Posted by: guest at September 26, 2007 9:22 PM

i just google streetmapped it. looks like a school right across the street. awesome shot of a bunch of kids hanging out front. just where I want to live.

reminds me of this place in the city where the price kept dropping. finally I streetmapped it and there was a shot of a bar with like 10 drunk people standing out front. wonder why the price went down.

ps. how the hell do you get into the .1%?

Posted by: guest at September 27, 2007 12:13 AM

12:13 - work on wallstreet! (to get into the 0.1%)

Posted by: guest at September 27, 2007 1:09 AM

I live in this area. Prices are high. New condos on Carroll Street and also on 2nd Place each sold for about 950k per floor in 25x50 buildings. Rather than own 2 floors in a condo building, many people would prefer 3 and 1/2 floors and own the building. I looked this building up on the DOB website and there have not been any work permits since before 1999. I am suspicous of the renovations. Finally, the building is in Cobble Hill. Its location near a troubled middle school does not remove it from the neighborhood. It might not be prime, but it is in the neighborhood.

Posted by: guest at September 27, 2007 8:57 AM

There was a 13 ft. House of the Day in Carroll Gardens that went for 2 million over the summer and when it came on Brownstoner everyone said that it would not sell. This 16 footer in Cobble Hill will go for 1.9 mil easy.

Posted by: guest at September 27, 2007 9:02 AM

9:02

Who ever bought that 13 footer for 2 million should have his head examined.

Think about it. That person could have paid only $2.00 a day and live on the F train subway car. That's about a 13 footer, right?

Posted by: guest at September 27, 2007 10:11 AM

Who ever bought that 13 footer for 2 million should have his head examined.

then every buyer in manhattan needs to have their head examined since studios are selling there for a million bucks in some buildings now.

please wake up and smell the roses. a full house...13 feet...16 feet whatever is certainly worth 2 million to some people when they are cashing in on a 2 bedroom 20 minutes away.

Posted by: guest at September 27, 2007 10:47 AM

8:57, this house is not in Cobble Hill. Cobble Hill is a designated landmarked area which ends on the west side of Court. You can check the map out online but this is clearly not Cobble Hill. I think the brokers are trying to make the property sound more desirable than it is.

Posted by: guest at September 27, 2007 11:55 AM

10:47

You have to put things into context and perspective AND Brooklyn is not Manhattan.

And since you did. For 2 million you can certainly buy either a 1 or 2 bedroom condo in Tribeca that has more than 1000 feet of living space. That makes it wider than 13 feet.

So, for 2 million you can buy a wider brownstone in Park Slope or Prospect Heights.

The neighbors of the 13 footer are probably saying "I would have never bought that place."

Posted by: guest at September 27, 2007 12:25 PM

no you are right. it's not manhattan.

but read the paper sometime. many people are starting to prefer brooklyn over manhattan. i certainly do.

your comparison makes no sense. this home is over 2200 square feet. not sure where you come up with a 1000.

many prime areas in manhattan are going for near 2000 psf (and up!) so this place would be 4 million.

half price sounds like a deal for some.

don't think so many people would have clicked on the link yesterday making it corcoran's most viewed if the price seemed so outrageous. like i said, it will be gone fast.

Posted by: guest at September 27, 2007 12:49 PM

Rather spend my money in Ft Greene or Clinton Hill and get a real Townhouse. Grand ave. you can get a 25 footer with 12 foot ceilings for less than that, and the broker will comp you the stove and throw in a Sub Z.

Posted by: guest at September 27, 2007 1:00 PM

Too bad neither Ft. Greene nor Clinton Hill are worthy of 2 million dollar townhouses at this stage of gentrification.

Ft. Greene may be approaching that level, but spending 2 million dollars on ANYTHING in Clinton Hill in 2007 is absurd.

Perhaps in 2015.

Posted by: guest at September 27, 2007 1:15 PM

The person who bought that 13 footer must be kicking himself in the head because at 1.9 he could have another 3.5 feet.

Real Estate is not for everyone.

Posted by: guest at September 27, 2007 2:12 PM

I wipe my ass with The What's dignity and family name. Go tie your balls in a knot, fuck face.

Posted by: guest at September 27, 2007 6:15 PM

Corcoran would sell more houses if they accompanied each listing with a picture of the agent's poom-poom.

Posted by: guest at September 30, 2007 8:43 PM