« Condo of the Day: Ansonia Loft Streetlevel: Fresh Market Coming to Fulton »
September 27, 2007
House of the Day: 264 St. James Place
After many months of renovation, the house at 264 St. James Place in Clinton Hill hit the market this week. It's a four-story, three-family brownstone a stone's throw from Lefferts Place. We don't have a lot to go on, but like most flip-jobs in this neighborhood, the indications aren't positive. While the listing on the BHS site has no photos, the NYT listing has two interior shots, which reveal an schizophrenic mix of old and new. The parlor floor front hall, for example, has a door frame molding that's been stripped to the original wood, a front door with kind of a vintagey-distressed paint job, on wall of exposed brick and baseboard heating. The garden level kitchen area reveals some similarly strange calls. The flippers bought the house for $862,500 just over a year ago and certainly haven't put a million bucks into it since. They're trying to get $1,850,000 for the place but we'd guess they're off by at least $300,000 given the quality of the renovation.
264 St. James Place [Brown Harris Stevens] GMAP P*Shark
264 St. James Place Listing [NY Times]
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/2352
Comments
I'd say they're off by more like 600k.
They couldn't have splurged for a cornice outside?
That place looks HIDEOUS.
Posted by: guest at September 27, 2007 1:52 PM
Why does the facade look so strangely off?
Posted by: guest at September 27, 2007 1:52 PM
this is not the best street...AT ALL
Posted by: guest at September 27, 2007 1:55 PM
Odd that its listed on BHS since the owner has a for sale by owner sign in the window with a phone number.
The owner is the same guy who bought the yellow pre-civil war mansion on Lefferts Place and was going to tear it down and build condos before the mansion was landmarked.
Schitzophrenic is a good word here. He added landmark quality iron work to the front stoop and yard, saved some molding details here and there, but painted or somehow coated the facade in an odd orange/brown tone, replaced the crappy unoriginal front door with a single door that looks a bit out of place and is stained in an odd manner. I hope he does ok, but it seems a bit haphazzardly done.
Posted by: guest at September 27, 2007 1:58 PM
It'll be worth what they paid (maybe less) by 2010. They better hurry up or it will be "flip flop".
Posted by: guest at September 27, 2007 2:05 PM
This is actually the ugliest house on a really nice street with great townhouses.
His price is not realistic and his choices are confounding. 1.6 if he's lucky.
Why couldn't he spend an extra 250 bucks to replace the overgrown weeds on the sidewalk in front of the house with flowers.
Or dirt.
Posted by: guest at September 27, 2007 2:10 PM
The house next to it looks equally, if not uglier than this one, if that's possible.
So if there are other nice houses on the block, these two sure aren't it.
1.2 million. tops.
Posted by: guest at September 27, 2007 2:15 PM
There truly are slim pickins out there... can someone explain what might have been done to the facade to make it look that way? (This is a serious question, I'm not being facetious.)
Posted by: guest at September 27, 2007 2:19 PM
looks as though they just painted it with a very poorly matched color.
Posted by: guest at September 27, 2007 2:21 PM
Brown Harris Stevens listing? How tacky. For a company that has been around since thew 1800's it s pretty darn ghetto to me.
Posted by: guest at September 27, 2007 2:24 PM
In addition to the weird color, the facades of both houses look bad because they have no cornice.
It also looks like there might have been more detail on the window and door lintels at one time, but to save money the details were just stuccoed over--not uncommon in years past when folks were trying to save a buck.
Posted by: tinarina at September 27, 2007 2:27 PM
Check it out! Warren Lewis has the same house listed at $2.1 and they're trying to pass it off as Fort Greene. I knew I recognized that ugly facade from another listing.
http://www.warrenlewis.com/cgi-bin/re/re_show.pl?re_command=show&ID=6144
Posted by: guest at September 27, 2007 2:28 PM
Someday this war's gonna end. That'd be just fine with the boys on the boat. They weren't looking for anything more than a way home. Trouble is, I'd been back there, and I knew that it just didn't exist anymore.
Captain Benjamin L. Willard - Apocalypse Now
"The flippers bought the house for $862,500 just over a year ago and certainly haven't put a million bucks into it since. They're trying to get $1,850,000 for the place but we'd guess they're off by at least $300,000 given the quality of the renovation."
"The owner is the same guy who bought the yellow pre-civil war mansion on Lefferts Place and was going to tear it down and build condos before the mansion was landmarked."
You beat me to the punch! Plus he's stuck with Lefferts Pl.
How much money this guy burn thru (mort, Reno and CC)??? This house will be on the market for ever. 1.9 Mil yeah righttttttt!
Keep you eyes on this one folks.
Posted by: The What at September 27, 2007 2:32 PM
Why would they put exposed brick on that side of the entrance to the parlor? If they wanted exposed brick why not just use the party wall and strip the plaster? Strange
Posted by: guest at September 27, 2007 2:54 PM
"Check it out! Warren Lewis has the same house listed at $2.1 "
I love how Warren Lewis blocks you from clicking through.
Like they dont want to get caught?
Posted by: guest at September 27, 2007 3:24 PM
whaddaya mean? The link works--I just clicked on it. It's there.
Posted by: guest at September 27, 2007 3:31 PM
I couldn't click through to WL from Brownstoner. I had to paste the URL in from another page...
Posted by: tinarina at September 27, 2007 3:37 PM
Personally, I like the the terra cotta color of the exterior. Can't say as much for the exposed brick entrance. Oh, and the price is wack.
Posted by: guest at September 27, 2007 4:13 PM
one more data point from the coming onslaught. foxtons may file for bankruptcy and fired 92% of staff today. yikes.
Posted by: guest at September 27, 2007 4:19 PM
http://www.newsday.com/business/ny-bzfoxt0928,0,3121370.story?coll=ny_sports_highschool_util
Posted by: Jimmy Legs at September 27, 2007 4:45 PM
If you are even considering spending this much money how can you not make a bid on the Lefferts Place houses at 59 and 65? They are bigger, with a view of the yellow house and huge back gardens. Just my opinion.
Posted by: guest at September 27, 2007 4:45 PM
not nyc related (yet), but still fun http://flippersintrouble.blogspot.com/
Posted by: guest at September 27, 2007 4:48 PM
no one is buying in clinton hill or bed stuy for anywhere near these prices.
not in this market.
you'd have to be a fool.
Posted by: guest at September 27, 2007 4:49 PM
There is always a fool out there.
Real Estate isn't for everyone.
Posted by: guest at September 27, 2007 5:16 PM
Untrue, there are Clinton Hill houses that have sold for this price. This one most likely will not, but there are others that have.
Posted by: guest at September 27, 2007 6:17 PM
maybe a year ago.
not today, or anytime in the next 5 years will clinton hill homes sell at these prices.
they shouldn't anyway. not with the lack of good transportation and services.
way too many suckers in nyc.
Posted by: guest at September 27, 2007 7:38 PM
the only thing i would say to that 7:38, is that myrtle has changed significantly and will be transformed further with the planned changes and coming condos. so the NW area of CH is actually one of the hottest spots to buy right now given the beautiful houses and coming condos/services. $1.9m for this st james place is not worth it when there is a beautiful brownstone on washington btwn myrtle and willoughby with beautiful front yard and details galore for i think $1.7m. if i had the money, thats the kind of house in the best part of CH. but you're right about transpo- you definitely have to be patient or willing to walk to the atlantic stop.
Posted by: guest at September 27, 2007 10:37 PM
i would have bought it for 862k and put some work in it. I'd like to think i could do a better job.
Posted by: slick at September 28, 2007 3:50 AM
7:38 I think you're being a bit harsh. I agree the St James Place is overpriced but that's because it's a weird renovation, not because of the neighborhood. This house is one and a half blocks away from the C train. Three stops and you connect to the express A train. Hardly inconvenient. As for knowing what property in the neighborood's going to be worth in five years, after you with that crystal ball!
Posted by: guest at September 28, 2007 9:39 AM
"Three stops and you connect to the express A train".
Exactly. Three stops and you're at work, in the financial district. That's my daily commute and it's fast and convenient. The MTA subway system is flawed in general. There isn't a line out there that one can categorize as being 100% reliable. Park Slope has to deal with the inept F train, Williamsburg has it's lack-luster L train, etc.
Saying that Clinton Hill has inconvenient transportation issues is a flat out untruth. Please refrain from posting information unless you are familiar enough with the subject matter to give accurate feedback.
Happy Friday!
Posted by: guest at September 28, 2007 12:04 PM
I got a phone call from a broker that the house will be shown this Mon. and Wed. from 12-2. Is anyone else going?
Posted by: guest at October 19, 2007 10:50 PM
Just one question. When and how did 264 St. James Place Bet. Fulton & Lefferts Place get to be in CLINTON HILL???!! This is wishful/creative thinking on somebody part. This is very funny to someone like me who has lived in Brooklyn for decades-riding the 25 bus up and down Fulton St. long before there was a hint of outdoor seating or let alone a sushi bar. Since renaming and claiming is the name of the game why don't we just rename ALL of Bed-Stuy Clinton Hill -that should help property values a bit more.
Al
Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 4:37 PM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.