« Development Watch: 240 Atlantic Avenue Revisited House of the Day: 282 DeKalb Avenue »

November 12, 2007

Condos of the Day: 40 Sterling Place

40sterling.JPG
The brownstone condo conversion at 40 Sterling Place in Park Slope somehow misses the mark for us in terms of style (it seems caught between modern and traditional, without really nailing either one), but the three apartments do seem to offer some nice clean, relatively open spaces (for a brownstone) for about $750 a foot, which is not a stretch in this part of town. The unit on the second floor has already been snapped up, but the bottom duplex (which has the garden) is available for $1,300,000, as is the top-floor (plus roofdeck) apartment for $1,050,000. Anyone checked these out yet? Update: As one commenter (ever so politely) points out, this is a new construction project, something one might be forgiven for not picking up on based on the purposefully misleading facade photo on the listing (which has now been moved to the jump). Luckily we were able to get our hands on a more representative photo in the last few minutes (above) which shows that the facade, like the interior, falls into that chasm of bad taste that lies somewhere between old-school and modern.
40 Sterling Place [Brooklyn Properties] GMAP P*Shark

40sterlingplace1107.jpg




Posted by Brownstoner at 12:39 PM | Comments (39)
Categories: Condos

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/2868

Comments

Grotesque, insane, attrocious - this is a condo, no?

Wait, it's a brownstone! Charming, gracious, lovely, character, original-detailed.

NO, it's a condo, by a developer no less! Shit-hole, greedy, f*cked up, tragic, boring, souless, loveless, death-like, apocapyptic, death camp!

Posted by: guest at November 12, 2007 12:53 PM

This is not a conversion. This was actually a new construction project, C'mon Brownstoner at least attempt to seem like you know what's going on.

Posted by: guest at November 12, 2007 12:54 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is NEXT DOOR to Maggie Gyllenhall and Peter Sarsgaard.

They are 38 Sterling.

A chance at seeing her brother is worth 1.3 million to me.

At least.

;-)


Posted by: guest at November 12, 2007 12:55 PM

Forget Jakie, Peter is hawt!

Posted by: guest at November 12, 2007 12:58 PM

They look like nice, airy, open spaces, but the kitchen cabinets and finishes on the bathroom are really tacky...

Also, I think those open staircases were maybe not the best choice for what are obviously family-sized apartments? I know my friend with kids who is looking for an apartment this size would freak at the sight of those.

Posted by: guest at November 12, 2007 1:03 PM

yes, peter is quite handsome as well.

Posted by: guest at November 12, 2007 1:03 PM

Greed, greed, greed. Peter is greedy, Maggie is greedy, Jakie is greedy. Charm, stairs, greed, fixture, greed, details, greed, space, greed, light, greed, my house is better than yours, greed.

Posted by: guest at November 12, 2007 1:09 PM

This is less interesting than the discussion about boilers.

Posted by: guest at November 12, 2007 1:10 PM

you are less interesting than the discussion on boilers.

Posted by: guest at November 12, 2007 1:12 PM

Well, Cataneo (Master Plumber) is certainly hot, as is Mr. B. So many good looking guys in NY.

Posted by: guest at November 12, 2007 1:16 PM

Mr. B's looks attract a lot of attention from the guys who read this site.

Posted by: guest at November 12, 2007 1:17 PM

Except that I'm not a guy.

Posted by: guest at November 12, 2007 1:19 PM

i don't think it looks that bad for new construction.

not at all.

i'm a guy and i like guys.

Posted by: guest at November 12, 2007 1:23 PM

You'd seriously call that facade in bad taste? It is leaps and bounds better than just about any other new construction built in the borough. Sure, it's not perfect, but I think it blends pretty well with the surrounding brownstones.

Posted by: guest at November 12, 2007 1:28 PM

i think the arch doorway looks about as good as any other 100 year old one i've seen.

Posted by: guest at November 12, 2007 1:32 PM

Are those stairs especially steep, or is it just the angle at which they were photographed? Yikes, as a parent, I'd never buy something with those stairs -- I wonder why they didn't make them more user-friendly?

Posted by: guest at November 12, 2007 1:34 PM

fair enough--it's far from terrible but still a wasted opportunity from where we sit. they get points for the materials, but if you're going to have a fairly traditional entrance and do lintels that approximate those of neighboring buildings, why create those bay windows that look like they were designed in the 1970s. This location, in our opinion, calls for either a landmark-level copy of the adjacent facades or an exciting modern design that stands on its own.

Posted by: brownstoner at November 12, 2007 1:42 PM

The facade is innocuous enough, but those bathrooms are hideous. Straight out of Tony Soprano's Jersey McMansion.

Posted by: guest at November 12, 2007 1:43 PM

I agree with 1:28 and 1:32- I think the facade is gorgeous! Now, the inside... well, that leaves a bit to be desired. I agree about the stairs being dangerous for children. And these are family sized apts. It's so strange how developers can't seem to get simple things like that right. Oh well, more condos that will sit on the market for some time! (Of course, the famous neighbors are a bonus so maybe they will sell quicker than most).

Posted by: guest at November 12, 2007 1:44 PM

i never said the facade was gorgeous, 1:44.

it's fine. it's not horrible.

Posted by: guest at November 12, 2007 1:48 PM

The doorway is alright. The bay windows are tragic.

Posted by: guest at November 12, 2007 1:56 PM

Hideous bathrooms! Hideous bathrooms! Hideous bathrooms! Hideous bathrooms! Hideous bathrooms! Hideous bathrooms! Hideous bathrooms! Hideous bathrooms! Hideous bathrooms! Hideous bathrooms! Hideous bathrooms! Hideous bathrooms! Hideous bathrooms! Hideous bathrooms! Hideous bathrooms! Hideous bathrooms! Hideous bathrooms! Hideous bathrooms! Hideous bathrooms! Hideous bathrooms! Hideous bathrooms! Hideous bathrooms! Hideous bathrooms! Hideous bathrooms! Hideous bathrooms! Hideous bathrooms! Hideous bathrooms! Hideous bathrooms! Hideous bathrooms! Hideous bathrooms! Hideous bathrooms! Hideous bathrooms!

Posted by: guest at November 12, 2007 2:25 PM

Can't take a sh!t in that bathroom!

Posted by: guest at November 12, 2007 2:25 PM

Tony Soprano lives in Park Slope?

Posted by: guest at November 12, 2007 2:25 PM

Well, I'd hate to have that building as my neighbor. But, I guess that's why Gyllenhaal & Saarsgard were able to get their next-door brownstone for only $1.8.

Posted by: guest at November 12, 2007 3:01 PM

I used to live on that street and watched the (new) construction of this building. In person the facade is much worse than the pictures indicate.

Posted by: an architect in Brooklyn at November 12, 2007 3:03 PM

Plenty of families have children who are old enough or coordinated enough to manage those stairs. Get your SPED kid a helmet or a baby gate.

Posted by: guest at November 12, 2007 3:45 PM

does anyone else on here get pissed off that people on bikes NEVER stop for red lights and often ride on the sidewalk? i do. and so do three people i recently asked in an anecdotal survey. why aren't you talking about THAT!??

Posted by: guest at November 12, 2007 4:04 PM

I saw Maggie G. out with the tot the other day. She's taller than I thought she would be. How tall's Saaaarrsssgaaard?

Posted by: guest at November 12, 2007 4:05 PM

Saarsgaard is so hot. I love those droopy, half-closed eyes. So sexy.

Posted by: guest at November 12, 2007 4:14 PM

Can one of those careless bicyclists please run into Maggie G? Please?

Posted by: guest at November 12, 2007 4:55 PM

I think they underpriced the middle apartment (the one in contract) and overpriced the other 2 a little bit. Whoever got the middle apartment got a deal. Rooms are a bit on the small side, though you could easily knock down a wall and create a nice 2 bedroom.

Posted by: cwh812 at November 12, 2007 5:29 PM

I dunno, but a three unit condo sounds like a very dicey situation.

Posted by: guest at November 12, 2007 6:12 PM

Who are Maggie Gyllenhall and Peter Sarsgaard?

Posted by: guest at November 12, 2007 7:05 PM

Man is Sarsgaard hot.

Posted by: guest at November 12, 2007 7:20 PM

I didn't get to post much but, Here is something for the pole smokers!

Fitch Downgrades $37.2 Billion of CDOs
Monday November 12, 2:45 pm ET
Fitch Cuts Ratings on $37.2 Billion of Collateralized Debt Obligations, Affirms $6.9 Billion

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/071112/fitch_cdo_ratings.html?.v=2

Allow me to translate! Credit conditions are getting bad by the second. Soon you will see the sell-off in this junk. Also commodities got hammered today due to margin calls. I don't see where housing gets better.

The What

Someday this war is gonna end...

Posted by: guest at November 12, 2007 7:52 PM

Oh, and I almost forgot:

My meds.

The What

Someday this war is gonna end...

Posted by: guest at November 12, 2007 11:47 PM

I dreamt about Sarsgaard last night. I didn't want to wake up...

Posted by: guest at November 13, 2007 12:29 PM

Wow--how easy for all of you to sit there and make crazily hostile comments about a place you haven't even seen in person. Yes, the bathrooms aren't in the best taste, but they certainly aren't in the worst, either. And for this price, to get a garden, three bedrooms and a huge, beautiful kitchen is almost inconceivable. Are you simply upset that you can't afford this? I can't think of another reason to sit there lobbing hand grenades. As far as the exterior, it fits in a heck of a lot better than one of those glass-and-steel condo behemoths going up all over the neighborhood. Short of doing a museum-quality copy of the other brownstones on the block, this is about as good as it gets, my friends...

Posted by: guest at November 13, 2007 1:41 PM

Post a comment

Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.

Latest Restaurant Additions