Open House Picks: Carroll Gardens Edition

i want that adorable 150 huntington street house.

Posted by: guest at November 30, 2007 1:31 PM

the two little houses are nice. If I happen to find a million bucks laying around i'll think about it.

Posted by: guest at November 30, 2007 1:34 PM

I do too, but for south of 1mm

Posted by: guest at November 30, 2007 1:36 PM

why are they cooking dolls

Posted by: guest at November 30, 2007 1:37 PM

No really feeling these houses...

Posted by: guest at November 30, 2007 1:38 PM

The Carroll Gardens house seems such a deal compared with the Carroll Gardens house. The Carroll Gardens people are crazy to think they can charge as much as Carroll Gardens when it has so much farther to go in terms of safety and amenities. I mean, don't get me wrong--I think Carroll Gardens is beautiful. It's just no Carroll Gardens yet.

Posted by: guest at November 30, 2007 1:43 PM

The Huntington Avenue prices are absolutely insane, given that these houses are struck in between the Gowanus Expressway and the Canal.

Posted by: guest at November 30, 2007 1:43 PM

Re: huntington ave

i don't think the prices are insane, relatively speaking.

they are the price of a spiffy 1 bedroom in manhattan.

some people would rather trade that in for a nice small house in a cute neighborhood in brooklyn.

not all. some.

Posted by: guest at November 30, 2007 1:48 PM

Huntington Ave is known for its, um, grit

Posted by: guest at November 30, 2007 1:50 PM

is this where archie bunker was filmed?

Posted by: guest at November 30, 2007 1:52 PM

1:48 - Have you ever actually been on stretch? If you have, I seriously doubt you would describe it as cute.

Posted by: guest at November 30, 2007 1:57 PM

where is carol gardens?
i dont know much about south brooklyn

is huntington street a good one?
coffee/wine/cheese/bakeries nearby?

Posted by: guest at November 30, 2007 2:00 PM

Somebody please explain to me why Carroll Gardens is so wonderful? Not seeing it here.

Dolls VERY creepy.

Posted by: guest at November 30, 2007 2:05 PM

"The Carroll Gardens house seems such a deal compared with the Carroll Gardens house. The Carroll Gardens people are crazy to think they can charge as much as Carroll Gardens when it has so much farther to go in terms of safety and amenities. I mean, don't get me wrong--I think Carroll Gardens is beautiful. It's just no Carroll Gardens yet."

hahahahaha wtf is this. My head just exploded

Posted by: guest at November 30, 2007 2:08 PM

I never got Carroll Gardens also.. I guess it because is borders Cobble Hill??? All the homes there seem like 1950s contractors went crazy... One thing I do like are the set backs...

Posted by: guest at November 30, 2007 2:10 PM

People like Carroll Gardens because though the townhouses are usually carved up and seriously run down, there are shops and the inhabitants are white.

Posted by: guest at November 30, 2007 2:11 PM

Presumably, people who buy 1MM housed in Carroll Gardens need to work. How the heck do they get there? The subway at Smith/9th is going to be closed for a few years, right? This whole part of Carrol Gardens just became red hook.

Posted by: guest at November 30, 2007 2:18 PM

um. the main stops in carroll gardens are bergen street and carroll street on the F train.

you don't know the neighborhood too well, apparently.

Posted by: guest at November 30, 2007 2:21 PM

now THIS is a house!!!

http://www.bhsbrooklyn.com/detail.asp?id=765573

Posted by: guest at November 30, 2007 2:33 PM

jesus those little houses are in the middle of nowhere.

Posted by: guest at November 30, 2007 2:43 PM

Carroll Gardens - good housing stock; best variety of restaurants, bars and bouitques; good schools, short commute, walkable to Brooklyn Heights, Cobble Hill, Boerum Hill and Park Slope. Those hating on Carroll Gardens obviously don't live there. Though many do love it here and want to move there, since prices for large brownstones are $2.5M and up.

Posted by: guest at November 30, 2007 2:44 PM

Each of these houses has the pluses and minuses

396 Degraw Street
Zoned for Sprole school, not PS58. Breeders beware!

79 Carroll Street
Nice house, but way overpriced.
On other side of BQE. Taxes are $8000+ yikes!!!!!!!!!!!

150 Huntington Street and 199 Huntington Street
These are too high. IMO, it would be better to pay a little more for a place street. Huntington is dark and grimy. They can walk a few blocks to 2nd Place Carroll street stop.

Posted by: guest at November 30, 2007 2:45 PM

its all red hook

Posted by: guest at November 30, 2007 2:57 PM

These are not the best houses in Carroll Gardens. As with any neighborhood some still have their original details and other lost them over the years. These are examples of smaller houses or ones that need work.

Posted by: guest at November 30, 2007 3:04 PM

That is beautiful, 2:33. I wish I could afford it...

Posted by: guest at November 30, 2007 3:16 PM

1.43, ALL of Carroll Gardens is between the BQE and the canal. The houses on Huntington are easily accessible to the F at Carroll St via 2nd place entrance.

Posted by: guest at November 30, 2007 3:33 PM

Yes, 150 Huntington is pretty darn cute.

As for the BQE, well there are houses on the BQE, or under a Bridge, or over a bridge, or over a subway, or under a subway, or next to a 15 year construction site, or by a power station, or over an oil spill...

Posted by: guest at November 30, 2007 3:41 PM

WTF is going on with the "floating" brownstone window lintels at 150 Huntingotn (and its neighbors!)?!?!

Cheap ass window re-dos? Sad.

...and since when does non-prime CG go for $1.9 million?!?!

Step away from the crack pipe and put down the dolls.

Posted by: guest at November 30, 2007 3:57 PM

Why do people love Carroll Gardens? Because it is a bit more low key than some other neighborhoods in Brownstone Brooklyn, but still has many great new restaurants and shops, as well as some amazing old Italian bakery's and stores. It has two great public elementary schools. Lots of great activities in the neighborhood to do with kids. Lots of cool artists, writers and musicians to keep it real. A great mix of gentrifiers, latinos and italians who have been living here for decades who have lots of great stories about the old neighborhood. Some beautiful brownstones--although they don't come available very often--as well as some great funky modernized townhouses. Some amazing views of downtown Manhattan. Walking distance to lots of other great neighborhoods in Brooklyn. An all around lovely place.

Posted by: guest at November 30, 2007 4:05 PM

low key = zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Posted by: guest at November 30, 2007 4:14 PM

"1.43, ALL of Carroll Gardens is between the BQE and the canal."

Yes, but not all of it has both a mere block or less away.

Posted by: guest at November 30, 2007 4:17 PM

That is a supercool back yard at 150 huntington, though i got a question if that sod was newly planted when that photo was taken. Big trees and grass generally do not get along that well.

Posted by: guest at November 30, 2007 4:24 PM

These houses are all garbage, that Park Slope house at 3.2 is 3.2 nicer than that Degraw trash.

Posted by: guest at November 30, 2007 4:41 PM

The Park Slope house at 3.2 should be 5 if that Degraw is 1.9. Those houses are all garbage and if they are like the rest of the trash in Boerum Hill and Carroll Gardens they are probably slanted.

Posted by: guest at November 30, 2007 4:44 PM

And Park Slopers wonder why everybody hates them...

Posted by: guest at November 30, 2007 4:52 PM

"The Park Slope house at 3.2 should be 5 if that Degraw is 1.9"

I agree. I know I'll get ripped a new one for saying this, but I think the 3 million dollar PS homes are a deal compared to a lot of the shit I've seen in Carrol Gardens, Prospect Heights, Clinton Hill and to a certain extent, Ft. Greene...most of which are not even too much less expensive.

Posted by: guest at November 30, 2007 4:56 PM

"And Park Slopers wonder why everybody hates them..."

I don't wonder at all. I couldn't care less.

Posted by: guest at November 30, 2007 5:00 PM

I don't understand about the Sixth Avenue house--if it has all new mechanicals, kitchens, baths, etc., why is it described as a "gem in the rough"? What sort of remaining TLC does the new owner need to provide?

Posted by: guest at November 30, 2007 5:17 PM

Guest, it needs everything. The broker's listing is misleading. The current owner inherited the house, stripped out everything because he intended to live there, then fell ill and stopped the work in its tracks. So right now all the demolition has been done. He's run new plumbing risers and put in wiring for electrical outlets but everything is unfinished and exposed, as in dangling wires where outlets will be, subfloors but no flooring, exposed plumbing. The "new kitchens" are in boxes - Lowe's or Home Depot - and were waiting to be installed as of last weekend. The bathrooms are not new - that is just not true. This building would draw more receptive buyers if the broker advertised it honestly as "we've done the demolition, now you do the rest of the work." The location is great - that's a beautiful block of Sixth between Berkeley and Union. We were strongly encouraged to subtract the cost of a renovation from the sales price (already reduced twice, from a start of $1.9M to $1.79M to the current $1.65M) and make an offer, but that's way more renovation than we want to undertake at this time.

Posted by: guest at November 30, 2007 5:18 PM

"And Park Slopers wonder why everybody hates them..."

I don't wonder at all. I couldn't care less.>>>

Clearly that is not the case for most others from Park Slope since they spend countless hours defending themselves against the hatred on these boards.

Posted by: guest at November 30, 2007 5:24 PM

Why are the taxes so high on that carroll street place?

Posted by: guest at November 30, 2007 5:46 PM

what is the 6th avenue house being discussed???

Posted by: guest at November 30, 2007 5:47 PM

would not buy a thing prices are going lower and the agents are getting very desperate. They are leaving the real estate industry in large numbers to look for work elsewhere. Hold out the market is correcting

Posted by: guest at November 30, 2007 7:03 PM

Well, that PS $3.2m house is a much better deal than the So. Portland house being discussed on the other thread, that supposedly went for over $3m.

Posted by: guest at November 30, 2007 7:33 PM

I would just like to say that despite location, I think the two cheaper listings are actually nicer than the more expensive ones this week, at least from the pictures on the internet.

Posted by: guest at November 30, 2007 8:20 PM

This beautiful Huntington Street house is on a beautiful block, where home ownership is a thing of pride to its residents. Ok, you may have to walk past some grunge to get there, but that is true of a good many places, including those around such tony areas as Hell's Kitchen and certain parts of the East Village.

This block is not a pit of crime and drugs, something that will be quite evident if you go to the open house. Most of the houses on this block are in semidetached groups, so that the garages can be accessed. This is a winner.

Posted by: guest at November 30, 2007 8:24 PM

I love living in Carroll Gardens, but I have to agree that the housing stock isn't as "pristine" as in other neighborhoods. So, if your main priority is buying a brownstone with lovely period details, this isn't the neighborhood for you. The recent Carroll Gardens house tour was a good example -- houses with traditional touches, but basically lived in by families who wanted to keep living in an urban neighborhood but wanted more space, decent schools, nearby shopping, and an unpretentious community.

That's what I like about it, and hope that prices decrease enough so that it doesn't become just another enclave for rich people.
(And I own a brownstone already). And if the so-so housing stock turns off buyers who obsess over traditional detail, so be it -- maybe that will bring prices back to earth. There's a lovely community of families (who use the public schools) who are simply happy to be living in a decent space that gives them room for a family, a backyard, and lots of trees. Sure, we hate the new construction buildings that are beginning to ruin the charm of the neighborhood, but we could care less about what the interiors of brownstones look like. Traditional, modern, a mishmash, or whatever -- those of us fortunate to have bought houses when they were still affordable are grateful to have the space to raise a family in a lovely neighborhood. I'd hate to see that ruined by an influx of people who can spend upwards of $2 million dollars on a home and expect their houses to showcase their wealth.

Posted by: guest at November 30, 2007 8:52 PM

I don't think these prices are way out of line, but, as usual, the market will decide. The two smaller houses are pretty appealing. You might be able to knock $100k off the listing, then use that for renovating/remodeling. The big multi-family ones, meh. But a savvy landlord might look at the rent rolls and see an income stream there. Sounds like the 1,200 sqare foot floor-thrus might rent for $2000 a month, or more.

Yeah, some parts of CG are a little threatening at night, but it's not really a neighborhood you'll be wandering around in at the time, anyway. Truth be told, it reminds me a lot of certain parts of Philadelphia.

Although these houses are a bit removed from Carroll Gardens "proper."

Posted by: guest at November 30, 2007 9:54 PM

i don't get these prices. at all. thank you.

Posted by: guest at November 30, 2007 10:41 PM

Degraw Street House: I saw this house at last weekends open house. According to the broker the owner lives on the top floor, has bought a house outside of NY (I think she said in Ohio) and is looking to sell asap. Apparently the bottom floor is rented out - to the same tenant for the last few years. Broker could not say if house was to be delivered vacant or not, but by now she may have more info. Basement is used as storage. There is a small paved over garden/non-garden between the house and the garage.

Could not get in to see the garage. There is a small crumbling deck off the back of the bottom floor unit. Rooms look much bigger and brighter in the pictures than they are in real life, granted I was there on a cloudy day sometime between around 12.30 and 1.00pm, but I found that the house felt darkish and small which was not what I expected given the dimensions, the floor plan and the pictures. To be fair, I did overhear other people talking about how great it would be to have so much space but that's what makes the market. Ceilings height is very ordinary so that didn’t help it for me.

In general the place seemed to be quite solid and in reasonably good condition, completely livable, but I wouldn't call it gorgeous. Floors and woodwork looked like they had undergone a bit of a cheap poly job. On the top floor is a rudimentary bachelors kitchen, bathroom is old, quaint, working, a bit decrepit looking, had some character. Ceilings could use some refinishing to smooth them out. Could not get onto the roof. Could not get into tenants apartment. Was told by Broker that the owner told her that the electrics were upgraded to 220 some 6-8 yrs ago or so if I remember right.

Quite a big turnout I thought - I saw maybe 20-30 people passing through - I was there for maybe 25-30 minutes. Couple of couples having earnest looking conversations with the broker so I thought there would be a good chance that someone would make an offer, maybe someone did who knows!

So besides my opinion of the house my impression is that at this price level there was some evidence of pent up demand but at the same time folks seem hesitant in this market. Broker did emphasize that the seller is motivated.

Posted by: guest at November 30, 2007 11:14 PM

I saw the Carroll Street place at their first open house last weekend. There were almost no original details left and almost everything has to be redone. No work seems to have been done in the 50+ years the current owners have been in there, while every cosmetic decision begs to be redone -- linoleum floors, wall-to-wall carpeting, ugly dropped ceilings, ancient wiring, fake brick fireplace, 2/3 cemented backyard, etc.

Posted by: guest at November 30, 2007 11:20 PM

There are actually some very pretty houses on the Carroll Street block. I remember looking at a place there four years ago and there were protesters about some issue at WBAI (which may be some indication of the hippy nature of some of the residents). The noise of the BQE is a bit of a downer. The interior of the house looks like mine was four years ago. Of course at several times the price!

Posted by: guest at November 30, 2007 11:24 PM

In regards to the 1.35 on Huntington, if you look out into the backyard, the BQE looms right in the distance, the noise, dirt and grime of so much traffic should lower the price down quite substantially...

Posted by: guest at December 1, 2007 12:05 AM

I live in cg and it's ugly and crappy, so stay away! As for these wish prices ... well, if they wait around long enough, they may wish they'd sold at 800K. Folks in "bubble-proof" Calif. are already wishing like that.

Posted by: guest at December 1, 2007 12:20 AM

First off huntington is not even Carroll gardens> &9 Carroll street is on the columbia waterfront where the city designates it at Cobble hill. Anyway Carroll gardens is a great area for those who don't know. The area demands way more than all other areas of brooklyn with the exception of Brooklyn Heights. The area is just a Gem if you ask me. great school PS 58. Great families and a beautiful stock of brownstones and federal brick homes.

Posted by: guest at December 1, 2007 12:33 AM

The houses in Huntington street are crap in a crappy area. I'm a real estate investor and owns some in PS and CG, I went to look at these
houses, the prices are insane. The 150 Huntington in sitting on the market forever
no wonder, there will be no takers.
I wouldn't touch it even for 900K.

Posted by: guest at December 1, 2007 1:09 AM

oh. my. god. that Degraw St house is the saddest, most depressing thing i've seen in a long time. and for $1.9m bucks? they've got to be kidding. any smart broker would withhold the photos and cross their fingers. that place exposes the insanity of the nyc real estate market.

Posted by: guest at December 1, 2007 7:31 AM

I walk by 199 Huntington on the way to work everyday. Been admiring it ever since I moved to the neighborhood. The adjoining houses are not as well kept up though. Also, there's a lot of overgrown trees in the yard. Am glad that it's on the market. Maybe the new owner will take better care of the yard. Even so, it's a great block. There are some real incredible/enchanting old-world mansions on this stretch. I like the neighborhood; no need to defend it; am in love with it actually; love strolling around or riding my bike on a nice day; real glad I made the decision to buy in the nabe even if it's just a studio. This house is one of the real prizes of Brooklyn housing stock, imho.

Posted by: guest at December 1, 2007 9:37 AM

A million plus.....hummm.
Check this one out for 750K, looks good to me.
http://newyork.craigslist.org/brk/rfs/494104161.html

Posted by: guest at December 1, 2007 9:39 AM

I know this is all about Brooklyn, but if you look on Streeteasy, you're starting to see prices on properties on the Upper West Side getting slashed, and some decent (truly, not shit) apartments asking below $1000/sf, even in the $800s.

UWS - good schools, very nice neighborhood, lovely architecture. Many of the same selling points as some nabes in Brooklyn.

Just pointing out a real potential disequilibrium in development here.

Posted by: guest at December 1, 2007 10:58 AM

The Degraw St. house is horrible--hardly any details and a disgusting ceiling in the center parlor. And that price! Please! You could get a perfectly nice coop in the Slope or even the upper west side for that much. Who would spend that much for an ugly house in CG? People (or at least realtors) are out of their minds.

Posted by: guest at December 1, 2007 11:25 AM

I wish all you CG haters with your baseless whining about violent crime in my nabe would get a grip. If you are going to make these kinds of inflammatory claims, at least provide us with truthful detail about what violent crime YOU have actually experienced in CG. You probably won't be able to do that because, truth is, you've never actually seen or experienced any crime in Carroll Gardens.

Who among the crime dramatists on this thread have supported any of their claims with fact? None! Indeed, the strongest allegation I've seen about "crime" in CG so far on this blog was a recent post recently submitted by a friend of a resident (not the resident themselves, mind you) who complained about being verbally harassed by Black youths on a street corner. Give me a break! That kind of behavior may be upsetting and intimidating but IT IS NOT A CRIME.

As someone who has lived here for 2 decades, safely raised a family here and now safely walk the streets here any time of night or day that I please, I can tell you that I have never witnessed a violent crime in CG. Yes, I'm loathe to admit that, at times, I have my own suspicions that some of the young men I see are likely involved in the drug trade. But again -- that is merely my suspicion. These young men have certainly never approached me to buy drugs from them and I have NEVER actually witnessed a drug deal go down in CG. Nor have I have ever witnessed a mugging, shoot-out, drive-by, arson, rape, or any kind of violent crime that some of you folk are imagining to be the order of the day around here.

Does crime exist in CG? Of course it does! However, as other, more level-headed folks on this blog have pointed out, crime exists in EVERY neighborhood. And, the bottom line of it is that the rate of crime in CG --especially violent crime -- does not place this area anywhere close to making the short list of most "unsafe" neighborhoods in Brooklyn.

If you don't want to live in CG, no problem. Don't buy here. But please stop suggesting that people who make the choice to live here are "stupid" for having done so. At least please have the integrity to stop using exaggerated arguments about crime in CG as code and subtext to cover other prejudices you have that you would rather not openly discuss.

Get a grip.

Posted by: guest at December 1, 2007 11:29 AM

10:58, you are absolutely right. I've now officially seen many higher asking prices on a per sq. ft. basis in many parts of Brooklyn than on the UWS (for apartments). Needless to say, I've revised my search. If I'm going the apartment route, I'm not going to be paying more to live in Brooklyn than on the UWS. Go ahead and flame me now.

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

upper west side = new jersey.

enjoy.

Posted by: guest at December 1, 2007 1:04 PM

brooklyn = brooklyn.

enjoy

Posted by: guest at December 1, 2007 1:37 PM

If one condiders W155th street the UWS then you are correct. And hope you enjoy it.

Posted by: guest at December 1, 2007 1:56 PM

Actually, the price decreases are for properties below 96th Street!!

West 155th is not the UWS.

Posted by: guest at December 1, 2007 2:07 PM

I'm pretty sure the Carroll St. is a flip -- seller bought a year ago, emptied out the apartments, and is selling it vacant.

Posted by: guest at December 1, 2007 2:15 PM

The 150 huntington street house is an early house. Carroll Gardens contains many houses that pre-date the brownstone era. These 1840's houses are not as deep as the later houses, probably because it was still the candle and whale oil period and they needed as much light as possible in the house. But I think they are among the nicest city houses built in the USA. They are plain compared to the later "Italianate" style houses. Although this one has great pilasters and a pretty ceiling in the parlor. 1.3 million plus dollars is a lot of money though. I hope the lucky banker or corporate lawyer who buys it will not hire a hot-shot architect who will rip to shreds so as to make it more cool. A trend I see happening among the new, very rich, arrivals in Carroll Gardens.

Posted by: guest at December 1, 2007 2:26 PM

199 Huntington will sell. It's a single-family which is more desireable to the new wave of Brooklyn house buyers. But I think the house decor is too funky/eclectic/antiquey to appeal to high income buyers, have to say. Which often come from Manhattan. I personally love wallpaper, but not with dark woodwork. Wallpaper is too "granny" with dark woodwork. And there's an odd mix of some woodwork painted white, and some dark stained wood that gives an overall impression of of jumble and clutter. Not a "clean" cohesive design scheme showing specific choices going one way or another. It wouldn't keep the house from selling, but it would reduce the number of offers. Which means maybe the seller misses out on getting the best price possible. I love the vintage kitchen though, must say. I had a refurbished 1940's white porcelain and chrome gas range in CA and loved it. I miss that thing! I'd rather go buy refurbished or repro vintage stoves any day, instead of stainless steel which has become so boring. We got steel appliances for our current house because the kitchen was too small for larger scale vintage appliances.

Posted by: guest at December 1, 2007 2:29 PM

Adding to the 199 Huntington discussion: my husband and I stopped by this afternoon. There was lots of traffic - we arrived before 3PM and were the 6th or 7th sign-ins on the sheet.

Interesting house - the restoration/renovation on the woodwork and plasterwork on the garden and parlor floors is immaculate, House Tour quality. I'd change the dark-ish wallpaper in the parlor and ditch the awnings to bring in more light, but the parlor floor and garden-floor dining area are exquisite.

The kitchen has no counter space. None. The current owner is using a kitchen table as an eating space and (presumably) prep space. You would have to re-do the kitchen if you're a cook. I suspect the wonderful vintage Magic Chef range throws off a lot of heat - the oven doors seemed very light (ie not well insulated). The full bath off the kitchen is toeing the line between "period" and "kitsch." The garden is wonderful and the mud room is sturdy and bright.

The owners did not do any of the restoration work on the top/bedroom floor that they did on the two lower floors. Both big bedrooms need to be scraped and repainted - there's flaking and peeling paint and some noticeable cracks in the plaster. The bathroom is a judgment call - it is very small (the tub is the smallest possible standard-size tub) and there's no ventilation. You could use it as is and add a vent to the roof, or you could spend the money to reconfigure one of the small 'bedrooms' into a bath. Those small rooms are really small, as they are in most brownstones.

It will be interesting to see if this goes for more than asking price.

Posted by: guest at December 1, 2007 2:34 PM

the pictures show plenty of counter space in 199 huntington.

i think you're talking about a different house, 2:34.

Posted by: guest at December 1, 2007 3:21 PM

199 Huntington has no bathroom on the parlor floor and no central air and a cute but not amazing kitchen. Not complaining, but wondering if these things were all done what the price would be? Would it just be what it would cost to do these things? Something like $125,000 more? Yes, I know you could do these renovations for less, but I'm talking really high quality renovations with an architect and an interior designer. Or would it be more than that because so few homes are really that recently renovated. I'm only asking because it makes me wonder how much it's worth to put in to a home, can you get it back when you totally fix it up, when a house like this is considered done?

And yes I too am sure this house will sell for its asking price. I'm only trying to figure out how good it is to totally fix up my place.

Posted by: guest at December 1, 2007 3:49 PM

It is worth noting that work permits were never filed for any work done at the Degraw Street house. Check the DOB website yourself.

Realtors don't "feel it is no problem" to advertise a "two family used as one." By law, they have to disclose when a property they represent does not match DOB or DOF records. They can be sued if there's not full disclosure.

And I don't think there's any difference between how the DOB treats small and large apartment buildings.

Here is what the DOB themselves explains:

"The key document used to certify the legal use and occupancy of a building is called the “Certificate of Occupancy” (C of O). The document is issued by the Department of Buildings and describes how a building may be occupied, for example, a two-family home, a parking lot, a 40-unit multiple dwelling, or a store. A C of O is often required when selling a home or refinancing a mortgage.
If planned construction is creating a new building, or will result in a change of use, egress, or occupancy to an existing building, a new or amended Certificate of Occupancy is necessary. Usually, the contractor's or owner's representative contacts the Department to arrange for its inspectors to perform the necessary construction, plumbing, electrical, and elevator inspections.

The Certificate of Occupancy will be issued when the completed work complies with the submitted plans and applicable laws, all paperwork is completed, all necessary approvals have been obtained from other appropriate City agencies, all fees owed to the Department are paid, and all relevant violations are resolved. A new building cannot be legally occupied until a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued."

Posted by: guest at December 1, 2007 3:51 PM

Saw 150 Huntington last Sunday. All I can say is wow. First though, a few negatives:
The garden level needs upgrading, including the kitchen. The agent bragged about the boiler, but on inspection, it appeared to be an old coal fired unit that was converted to oil, and while the blower appeared to be relatively new, it looked as if it hadn't been touched in a long time. The roof of the extension needs repair, as does the ceiling of the formal dining room with leaded glass skylight beneath it.

No doubt there's work to do in this house, but this is a museum quality house with it's numerous leaded glass windows and panels. The woodwork is gorgeous. Floor to ceiling oak panelling with coffered ceilings. The third floor dressing areas are completely intact with all the built-in cabinetry complete and unpainted, plus the his and hers sinks. The 'master' bath, while small, has the original tile throughout, with some repairs necessary, and a beautiful stained glass window with reeds and a bird.

It's not for everyone though. This house is a true antique in remarkable condition. I think it will sell fast.

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

2:34 is the broker.

quite a few broker posts on here today...

Posted by: guest at December 1, 2007 4:33 PM

3:51pm--

Recently, someone on the forum posted a question about a c of o because they wanted to buy an apartment above them, along with another neighbor, and split it to add to both of their apartments.

Another person answered that if you are COMBINING apartments, so that you have fewer apartments than the c of o allowed, then it was okay. They even cited some regulation to that effect.

Are you certain you are correct? Does every co op where an owner combines 2 apartments get a new c of o? Given how often this occurs, especially in big buildings, wouldn't there be a constant need to apply for new c of o's?

I'm just wondering if you are an expert, or simply posting what you believe is correct.

Posted by: guest at December 1, 2007 5:01 PM

To follow up on my last post in response to 3:51pm -- has there ever once been the case of the DOB fining a brownstone owner because there was no kitchen in the garden apartment and it was as part of the rest of the house?

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

Don't know what u are talking about with Degraw street house.....but anyway...
I would guess that good % of houses in Carroll Gardens/Cobble Hill are not used as city CofO states. And they are bought and sold that way all the time. and have been for years.

The problem is when CofO is for fewer units than usage.

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

To the poster above with the info about the DOB. I have a 2 family that I renovated to use as a 1-family. It was all done legallly. But we didn't change the C-of-O. You don't have to. We have all of our sign offs and everything. And this was just done this summer, not so long ago. The issue of whether the renovations required a permit is another story. We would have to know what they did during the reno. Did they tear down walls, move plumbing lines or what? If they just did cosmetic stuff (new cabinets, tile, etc.) then they didn't even need a permit.

Posted by: guest at December 1, 2007 10:05 PM