House of the Day: 82 Sterling Place

They'll get that price...or a little less.

With a renovation, they could easily get a million per floor. Nice profit, excellent location.

I believe this is the same block that Maggie Gyllenhall and Peter Sarsgaard live on.

Posted by: guest at October 1, 2007 1:35 PM

The exterior needs so much work, it's unbelievable. I can't even imagine what the interior is like. I was on my way to the open house, saw the facade, including the missing cornice, shortened window frames, and the stark and ruined facade, and I turned right around.

Posted by: guest at October 1, 2007 1:44 PM

For a developer though, they could put in a million bucks on renovating the place and STILL make a million if they sold for a million for each floor, which would not be difficult to do.

Don't think it probably makes sense otherwise.

Posted by: guest at October 1, 2007 1:51 PM

atlantic terminal is the greatest mall in America, if not the world!

Posted by: guest at October 1, 2007 2:13 PM

wrong thread. that was friday, bud.

Posted by: guest at October 1, 2007 2:20 PM

I guess there's not much action on the broker's $8 and $7 million listings in Brooklyn Heights, judging by his immediate attention to this thread.

Posted by: guest at October 1, 2007 2:32 PM

How big are the floorplans? How do you know they could get $1M per? Maybe if they make for spacious 2BRs, but this will moer likely result in 1BRs.

I figure it's worth about $1.7M. But maybe you could buy it for $2M, put $500K into renovations and conversion, then sell four condos for $750K each. $500K profit, minus carrying costs in the meantime. Not bad, but also not great.

Posted by: guest at October 1, 2007 2:44 PM

I wasn't nor have ever been a broker, 2:32.

But your jaded post is always appreciated.

And laughed at.

Posted by: guest at October 1, 2007 2:46 PM

Slim pickins out there...

Posted by: guest at October 1, 2007 2:52 PM

yeah, truly, 2:52.

i was shocked at how few new listings there were on corcoran today.

seems inventory is low. i wonder if that's actually true...

Posted by: guest at October 1, 2007 3:05 PM

A broker told me that people are keeping things off the market (coops/condos mostly), or not promoting them, so they don't have to deal with people looking for bargains. They are waiting for prices to move up/stabilize (I think they will have a long wait).

Posted by: guest at October 1, 2007 3:57 PM

few listings because the opportunists are being told not to list yet as the market isn't "smoking". Brokers work for sellers only, and their madly running around the herd nipping at heels to keep the lid on any stampede. Perhaps the fat spring lunch of chickens is still warming their bellies? But divorces, relocations, ARM resets, and rising tax and expenses wait for no man. Autumn listing period is also a window that has started to shut.
I think the rental market isn't as tough as it was, and with UBS and citigroup reporting acres of red ink, we (buyers) can afford a wait and see attitude. You can rent a damn nice place for the interest only nut on a $1m mortgage.

Posted by: guest at October 1, 2007 4:03 PM

keep dreaming 4:03.

Posted by: guest at October 1, 2007 4:04 PM

4:04 here, and I'm sorry for my previous remark. I'm just consumed with avarice and sleep better at night thinking that a craptacular pile like this house is going to make the owner a millionaire twice over, as it keeps the fantasy of the unearned income on my own place alive.

Posted by: guest at October 1, 2007 4:26 PM

with no pictures, i'm wondering how you KNOW it's so bad, 4:26?

you just naturally hate everything before you know anything about it??

or perhaps you're one of the few psychos we have on here that hate historic architecture and comment and read brownstoner religiously...?

which is it?

Posted by: guest at October 1, 2007 4:32 PM

I think that based on the travesties wrought upon the exterior of the building, the lack of interior photos might suggest that more horrors await within.

Or maybe the broker is just not trying very hard to sell this place. I mean, c'mon, you're asking over two million clams for this place, would it kill you to snap a couple of pictures?

Posted by: guest at October 1, 2007 4:42 PM

While this is true, 4:42...the fact remains that so few brownstones come for sale in the North Slope, that they don't HAVE to do too much to sell these places. They sell on their own. Look around...there's maybe a dozen brownstones for sale in all of the North Slope right now. And that's probably overestimating.

Of course there are some travesties. It's 100 years old. People buy these places to fix them up, and restore them to their former glory. You know...the whole reason this blog is in existence.

To say you hate this place goes against everything this site once stood for.

I don't get it.

Go read curbed if you are into the new development stuff and want to bad mouth these great old homes.

Posted by: guest at October 1, 2007 4:46 PM

4:46 - you're a little prickly, no? Did I ever say I hate old homes? No, I just said that this one has had some unfortunate things happen to it over the years. I also said that perhaps the broker should work a little harder for that $100k payoff.

Posted by: guest at October 1, 2007 4:57 PM

yeah, referencing the horrors that lie within usually is a term of endearment, haven't you heard?

Posted by: guest at October 1, 2007 5:03 PM

I believe those unfortunate things happening to it over the years is people living in it and mother nature.

Damn them both!

Posted by: guest at October 1, 2007 5:04 PM

"People buy these places to fix them up, and restore them to their former glory."

But are these the people who drop $2.2m on a fixer-upper? At what price point does one expect a move-in ready house?

Posted by: guest at October 1, 2007 5:06 PM

Yes, curse you Mother Nature for stripping that home of every ounce of original detail and messing up the first floor windows!

Posted by: guest at October 1, 2007 5:09 PM

This house is ugly and overpriced. I think that is a fair assessment, no? It's not worth any interior shots, hence the lack of pics. But it is what it is, and maybe some developer will make the numbers work, albeit at a lower sale price. The facade alone, if you were to truly restore it, can set you back over 200K, since it's not just the brownstone restoration, but the creation of the ornamentation that is gone, top cornice, window frames, etc.

Posted by: guest at October 1, 2007 5:13 PM

It's not just Mother Nature. While many times, homeowners truly can't afford to keep up the house, and if that is the case, then I am very sympathetic, other times it is pure greed and absentee landlordism. Regardless, that should be reflected in the listing price. I think this one is a bit too high. But does that really surprise anyone?

Posted by: guest at October 1, 2007 5:15 PM

Oh, but this house is totally worth 2.2 because "movie stars" live on the block, as the broker reminded us in his first post.

Posted by: guest at October 1, 2007 5:17 PM

The Berkeley Place "fixer" sold for 2.7 million in August.

I see little difference.

Posted by: guest at October 1, 2007 5:19 PM

Do the "movie stars" own dogs? Can I scrape the celebrity dog poop off my sidewalk and sell it on eBay?

Posted by: guest at October 1, 2007 5:24 PM

Celebrities don't live on this block unless you mean Dolly Williams who owns a place here...

Posted by: guest at October 1, 2007 5:30 PM

Is 5:19 the same broker who points to the Berkeley Place sale in every comments thread, but then (i) cannot verify the sale or the price, (ii) cannot acknowledge that even if that deal did happen (which nobody knows), it went to contract before the credit crunch?

Posted by: guest at October 1, 2007 5:31 PM

Ok, 5:19: HUGE, HUGE, HUGE difference between this place and Berkeley. Berkeley had beautiful original details and fabulous woodwork THROUGHOUT the entire house. The facade was beautiful too. The garden level was in great shape. There is absolutely no comparison. It needed the standard upgrades, but had been lived in as a 1-family, plus garden rental to a shrink, for 30 years. And BTW, it did not sell for 2.7. It was lowered to 2.5 and then it went away, so I assume it sold then. No freaking comparison, no way.

Posted by: guest at October 1, 2007 5:32 PM

This place will sell in 2 weeks.

For 2 million-ish.

Posted by: guest at October 1, 2007 5:36 PM

"Is 5:19 the same broker who points to the Berkeley Place sale"

The Berkeley Place home reference was a for sale by owner...Why would a broker bring that up?

I think you're thinking of another Berkeley Place house that was not a fixer listed by Corcoran.

Calm down.

Posted by: guest at October 1, 2007 5:37 PM

Yeah, it probably will. Because there is always either a) a sucker or b) a developer with dough. Oh well, as long as they make that eyesore look better than it does now...

Posted by: guest at October 1, 2007 5:39 PM

The Berkeley Place home was not a FSBO, it was a friend/small broker who has helping them out. I saw the place with this broker. I also went to this Sterling Place house, and didn't bother to enter after seeing that poor facade. You cannot compare these two houses--apples and oranges.

Posted by: guest at October 1, 2007 5:42 PM

whine, whine, whine, not my listing, blah, blah, blah, too expensive, can't afford it, blah blah, blah, can't believe people are trying to make a buck, blah

Posted by: guest at October 1, 2007 5:44 PM

More like apples and horse apples.

Posted by: guest at October 1, 2007 5:48 PM

Absolutely, much better, 5:48. Thanks.

Posted by: guest at October 1, 2007 5:51 PM

Maggie Gyllenhal and Peter Saarsgard live on Sterling Pl betwenn 5th and 6th Aves. This house is between 6th and 7th, not that anyone cares.

Posted by: guest at October 1, 2007 6:04 PM

Does Maggie still wear those hot stockings? That's worth a few grand fo' shizzle.

Posted by: guest at October 1, 2007 9:20 PM

I understand they don't actually live there yet...

Posted by: guest at October 1, 2007 9:24 PM

it was a retired broker and friend on the berkeley place house, yes.

i'm not him. that was my point. i don't think roy is trying to build up that house on brownstoner trying to come out of retirement...

Posted by: guest at October 1, 2007 9:25 PM

They won't need to change the interior much to film Trainspotting 2.

Posted by: guest at October 1, 2007 9:27 PM

Are those cinder blocks covering up the garden level windows?

Posted by: guest at October 1, 2007 9:46 PM

i like the door.

Posted by: guest at October 1, 2007 9:51 PM

This house would be perfect for a retarded crack whore and her family.

Posted by: guest at October 1, 2007 11:43 PM

Or maybe the Munsters.

Posted by: guest at October 2, 2007 7:15 AM

Sure, it's not pretty (yet) but if the floorplans are anything like the neighboring buildings, then the apartments have potential to be gorgeous. The buildings next door are comprised of 2 and 3 bedroom floor-throughs with light that streams through the apartments and lovely backyards. If I had the cash, I'd buy this place in a heartbeat.

Posted by: guest at October 2, 2007 11:13 AM

The floorplans don't look that promising at all. The bottom two floors have two potential "bedrooms" that have no windows. Layout is awkward on all of the floors. It's gonna take a lot of wall moving to make those places nice.

Posted by: guest at October 2, 2007 1:46 PM

House on Sterling Place is 20 x 60 feeton a 100 foot lot allowing 2 bedrooms in rear plus a 3rd in the front if desired, so the price of $1,00,000 per floor is not wrong!
No pix inside because house does need alot of work, but potential is there for really nice big apts!

Posted by: guest at October 2, 2007 3:18 PM

in fact, i believe there was something on this same block highlighted here on brownstoner that was an apartment in a brownstone on sterling that sold for 1.5 million...

definite potential.

Posted by: guest at October 2, 2007 3:56 PM

Uh--huh. If you put a 3rd bedroom in the front, as you describe, thus eliminating your living room, you think you can charge 1 million for that apartment? And the 2 bedrooms in the rear would mean that one of them would be those crummy 8X6 or 10X6 "bedrooms" that no one will pay that dough for.

Posted by: guest at October 2, 2007 3:59 PM

If you tore the fucking thing down and rebuilt it with bricks of bound $100 bills, then MAYBE it would be worth 2 mil.

What a sick joke.

Posted by: guest at October 2, 2007 10:48 PM

I'll give the author of the 3:59 post the benefit of the doubt and guess that he/she's myopic and can't read floor plans. It looks to me like there's already a third room in the front of apartments (except the first floor, which has garden access instead). I think all these negative posts amount to no more a string of jealous babies saddened by the fact that Mommy and Daddy won't give them the $2 million they need to buy a place with tremendous potential. Go back to your parents' basement where you belong and where you needn't worry about housing costs. If you like, I'd be happy to show you around my place on Sterling that's got the same layout and that's filled with light, air, 2 real bedrooms, and an office/baby room. It's even got a real loftlike feel -- (All those renovations for less than $100k!). If you like, I'll offer it to you (and your folks) at $1.2 million. Cheers!

Posted by: guest at October 3, 2007 10:22 AM

Total rip-off. Only makes sense for a developer, IF they get it for a much reduced price.

Posted by: guest at October 3, 2007 11:59 PM

Not directly related- but do people feel protective of houses, like this, that are just the skin (if even that) of the original building? It does seem like a lot of money for a house that provides little more than a roof overhead.

Posted by: guest at October 4, 2007 9:33 AM