Co-op of the Day: 62 Montague Street

will sell in a new york minute at that price.

Posted by: guest at December 4, 2007 12:40 PM

I guess a new york minute has recently appreciated as unrealistically as apartments have. It must now last about 3 months and a price cut.

Posted by: guest at December 4, 2007 12:48 PM

What a beautiful building. Love it. But not loving that unit--dark and gloomy. Looks like it gets no natural light.

Posted by: guest at December 4, 2007 12:49 PM

yes, it will be a sticking point.

Posted by: guest at December 4, 2007 12:54 PM

11 foot ceilings are nice for a ground floor unit. i really like some of the amenities of the unit listed.

i'm going to take a look.

i can't picture that building, but i love it from the pics.

Posted by: guest at December 4, 2007 12:57 PM

It is quite a nice building,looks a little like Hogwarts Academy.
Once the Board has a little dough in reserve, they should restore the turret.
It is missing its cornice and its weather vane. The ground floor unit mostly faces the sideyard and the front windows are set beind a deep moat, but first floors are a drag, unless you like them. Some people do.
The maintenance seems in line with other 3-bedrooms in the area.

Posted by: guest at December 4, 2007 12:59 PM

I'VE ALWAYS CALLED IT "FIRE ESCAPE CASTLE".
If it rocks your socks...

Posted by: guest at December 4, 2007 1:01 PM

It is kind of far from the Hotel le Bleu, so that's a minus.

Posted by: guest at December 4, 2007 1:05 PM

Over $1,000 per SQF for a CO-op? Money better spent on a shiny new condo development for less or teh same per SQF. For that money, you can get the top floor and not worry about the reno style.

Posted by: guest at December 4, 2007 1:06 PM

Agree that 1st floor on the street will be a serious issue at the price. Montague is a busy street with a pretty constant flow of pedestrian traffic to and from the promenade. Not like a quiet side street. Compared to other 3 bedrooms in the area this seems steep.

Posted by: guest at December 4, 2007 1:10 PM

i actually love living on the ground floor. while you have to deal with the comings and goings of people, i like that i'm just a hop to going outside. it makes me feel more connected to the street and what's going on outside my front door. which is kinda what nyc is all about.

also for some of us moving from manhattan to brooklyn, seeing the action on the street makes me feel a little less isolated (i'm on a brownstone block in ps, so not a TON of action, but still...some activity).

if you LOVE total peace and quiet, the ground floor is not for you, but my neighbors up on the 4th and 5th floors often comment to me about how nice it must be to just be able to pop to the store because they usually think about their "trips" out before they go so as to avoid all the stair climbing...

Posted by: guest at December 4, 2007 1:10 PM

Ground floor is a drawback - I walk by it every day and can see right inside... the end of Montague is not too noisy though. Maintenance is on a par with other buildings in the neighborhood.
There are simply few 3 bedrooms in the heights. I bet they'll get close to asking on this.

Posted by: guest at December 4, 2007 1:17 PM

As the sponsor, I'll take the opportunity to comment as well. The apartment is clearly above grade. There is a large living room and that is the ONLY room facing the street and this is a quiet block. All the other rooms face the rear or side. Our high ceilings provide for large windows and very good natural light. We did a complete gut renovation in a period appropriate style and kept the original layout of the apartment. Judge for yourself in person at the open house on Sunday 1-4pm

Posted by: guest at December 4, 2007 1:23 PM

No way. I don't mind the first floor bit so much (though Montague is one of the busiest streets in the neighborhood), but $1000+ per square foot (which is VERY high for co-ops in BH) AND $1400/month maintenance? That's ridiculous, esp. since that amount doesn't appear to get you a doorman.

Posted by: guest at December 4, 2007 1:37 PM

The maintenance is very high.

Posted by: guest at December 4, 2007 1:45 PM

I don't know why you are screaching about 1000 psf for a co-op in BH. That is the going rate. So are the maint. costs.

Even Park Slope (most would consider a less expensive neighborhood than BH) commands 1000 psf for some of the nice co-ops in the North.

You really need to look around more.

You will find this property is really the going price for 3 bedrooms in BH and other areas of Brownstone Brooklyn, for that matter.

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

Looks nice, not a lot of 3brds in area, the block is pretty quiet and the maint -- while high -- is about normal. Wish you had a floorplan. is it on the Squarespace site? Can't get it to work. I'm going to say it's a 1.3mm sale. Is it 'no board approval'? As a sponsor unit it should be and that's always a plus for some people.

Posted by: guest at December 4, 2007 1:51 PM

Sponsor here again.
By the way, as the sponsor, you don't have to go through the pain, hassle and invasion of your privacy by the co-op board. No board approval neccessary.

Posted by: guest at December 4, 2007 1:54 PM

This is the residential part of Montague St. There are no shops on this end of the block.
It isn't that busy most days.
The price is about 5-10% too high. The fact that there is no doorman does not compare favorably with other nice coops in the vicinity. Especially the one across the Street and the ones on Montague Terrace and Pierrepont Terrace. A doorman is a huge convenience as is a good live-in super. That's what coop life is all about. Assisted living for the frantic working person.

Posted by: guest at December 4, 2007 1:59 PM

Looks nice, not a lot of 3brds in area, the block is pretty quiet and the maint -- while high -- is about normal. Wish you had a floorplan. is it on the Squarespace site? Can't get it to work. I'm going to say it's a 1.3mm sale. Is it 'no board approval'? As a sponsor unit it should be and that's always a plus for some people.

Posted by: guest at December 4, 2007 2:03 PM

"No board approval neccessary."

But board approval is one of the POSITIVE things about a co-op.

Posted by: guest at December 4, 2007 2:04 PM

2:04, sure, but sponsor apts are always "no board approval". they don't come up often so they're desireable --- everyone has to pass board but you!

Posted by: guest at December 4, 2007 2:09 PM

Not true 2:03, 2:04. I would actually go and see this co-op, BECAUSE it is no board approval. Personally, I DO have a problem baring my entire financial and personal life before a co-op board, and I've purposely ruled out co-ops in my search. I value my privacy too much, and I doubt I'm the only one. I've been looking at pre-war condos and/or sponsor units. I will be there Sunday, and no, I'm not the owner.

Posted by: guest at December 4, 2007 2:10 PM

1.425m plus 1450 a month in maintenance?

Ok first, realistically, this is going to be a jumbo mortgage @ 7% because that is where jumbos are right now. Lets say the buyer brings the rest as cash. jumbos on more than 75% are difficult to get now, so you'll need that nest egg.

Mortgage payment: 6600 a month 30/fixed. This is the max deductible only if you are married filing jointly - otherwise the deductible limit is half this. You "save" 24k of tax first year (this drops as you pay down the principal).

Now your 400k, well, if you're rich enough to be buying 1.5m places your cash is surely doing better than 5% before tax. Lets say you're getting 6% after tax on your 400k in some pretty average hedge fund. Thats foregone income of $2250 you just used as equity.

So this apartment is costing about $4600+$2250+$1500 = over $8000 in *after tax* money. Can you find the same place to rent for less than 8k a month? Of course. So to beat renting it needs to appreciate in value (widening further the poor comparison to renting), or rents need to shoot up.

On a pure cashflow basis, you're spending $6600+$1450+$2250 = over $10,000 a month, so realistically you need a healthy $25k a month income before tax. That will leave you a little money for luxuries like your overseas trips and that summer house, but not a lot.

so to consider these 1300 square feet, you need a solid combined income of 300k - and savings of half a million (the mortgage lender wants to see a good cushion as well). And to hold onto that equity, prices have to appreciate another 10% before you come time to sell. If they go down 10%, you lose 30% of your paper equity.

What a deal.

Posted by: guest at December 4, 2007 2:11 PM

$1000/sq ft is most definitely NOT the going rate for high-end coops in BH. Do a perusal of the Corcoran listings (which are reliably asking about as much as a seller possibly get) and there are none that I see over $1000 per square foot. Granted, there aren't a lot of three bedrooms, but the best comps I see there are two 4 bedrooms on Willow Place and Joralemon. The Willow Place apt. is $1.6m for 1800 sf and 2 parking spaces (on a much better block). Joralemon street is $2m for 2800 sf. Keep dreaming BH apartment owners, but our neighborhood isn't officially part of Manhattan yet.

Posted by: guest at December 4, 2007 2:14 PM

Question for those quibbling with the maintenance:

NYT recently ran an article stating that most current co-op maintenances in Manhattan fall into the $1.30-$1.80/sf range. This one is $1.10/sf.

Given that Brooklyn maintenances are slightly lower than Manhanttan maintenances, but how much lower can they be? Heating oil, water, etc. cost the same everywhere in the city, no? What do you think IS a realistic figure psf for maintenance, say assuming the building has neither paid off its underlying mortgage nor has an overly burdensome underlying mortgage?

Did the NYT get the current maintenance picture wrong? Because this number doesn't seem way out of line to me, given all the recent increases in RE tax, energy, water, insurance, etc.

Posted by: guest at December 4, 2007 2:31 PM

Maintenance in a coop depends on two biggies:
1) underlying mortgage
2) real estate taxes

After that comes salary for the staff, fuel,
insurance, water and sewer, and management fees.

Keep in mind that mortgage interst and real estate taxes paid in your mainenance is tax deductible.

No board approval is a huge plus as it not only saves a ton of time and paperwork but it also eliminates the uncertainty of whether you will be accepted. Of course whoever you eventually sell to will need board approval.

I think this is a good deal. Maybe a tad inflated -room to bargain- but the basics are in place. It is a lovely building in a lovely neighborhood.

Posted by: guest at December 4, 2007 2:49 PM

Whether or not maintenance is reasonable depends on a whole lot of factors, but for prospective buyers the biggest is WHAT DO YOU GET for the monthly maintenance costs? Did the NYT article break it down any more finely than the Manhattan "average"? I suspect that Brooklyn co-ops have fewer amenities on average than Manhattan co-ops. Certainly fewer have 24 hour doormen, which is a realtively expensive "amenity." This building appears to not have a doorman at all, so yes, $1400/month seems like a lot.

Posted by: guest at December 4, 2007 2:52 PM

2:14...
Over the past year, there have been recent 3BR sales at Two Montague Terrace, 35 Pierrepont, 128 Willow St., and another higher floor 3BR at 62 Montague. They were all in the 1.35m-1.7m range and approx $1000psf. This price and maintenance is in line with the neighborhood.

Posted by: guest at December 4, 2007 2:52 PM

Will all the people blathering on about whether $1000psf is "the going rate" in Brooklyn Heights please pipe down. Just look at the recent comps in the building. The FSBO featured on this site a few months ago sold for $1.46M (below $1.55M ask), @1600sf (per owner's own website). That's only $900psf. That was on the 6th floor. Corcoran listing in the building on the 9th floor languished on the market with numerous price drops for 6+ months before selling in late summer at $1.3775M, @1650sf. That's $835psf. A 2000sf listing by Elliman on the 7th floor was on the market last winter for a few months with a price drop ultimately to $1.645M ($825psf) and didn't sell.

The building and location are nice, but the maintenance is high, this unit is on the ground floor, and it's being listed in today's more uncertain market. This unit will NOT get $1000psf.

Posted by: guest at December 4, 2007 3:08 PM

I think its competitive price and the building is quite handsome.

Posted by: guest at December 4, 2007 3:11 PM

i'll buy it.

for any amount the seller asks.

Posted by: guest at December 4, 2007 3:17 PM

Also, the 2800sf on Joralemon was recently dropped from $2.45 to $2.3 to $2.0M. It's still not moving. It's a nice place, too, and lower PSF maintenance than here.

Posted by: guest at December 4, 2007 3:18 PM

2:14 here - I have no idea whether the sales anecdotes you point out are accurate (and I am not going to search to find out). The fact remains that $1000/sq foot is NOT the AVERAGE for high-end, well renovated co-ops in Brooklyn Heights. But regardless, if you are a determined buyer today only two points are relevant:

1) Is $1000/sq foot the price I HAVE to pay to get a nice co-op in BH? Or, put another way, what can I get for less?
2) Is this PARTICULAR apartment worth $1000/square foot?

I think the answers to both questions weigh heavily against this or any other co-op currently listed actually selling for more than $1000/square foot, especially in an uncertain market.

Townhouses in BH, Cobble Hill, and PS and some condos (like OPP) can get that price, but I maintain that most co-ops can't. If they could, Corcoran, Elliman, BHS, etc would not be putting high-end co-ops in those neighborhoods on the market at well below $1000/square foot.

Posted by: guest at December 4, 2007 3:19 PM

I wish people would not use square foot costs. They are meaningless. You can make up almost any square footage you want to for an apartment. There are no consitent industry standards as to what constitutes a square foot. Therefore as a measurement, it is meaningless. I have been to 1200 sq foot apartment that are much smaller than 1100 square foot apartments. It is trickery plain and simple.
You have to see the apartment and judge the size for yourself. Square footage costs are completely misleading. One broker's square foot is not the same as another broker's. It is the dirty secret of the industry.
Room counts are a better way to go. Visit the apartment and see how big the rooms are. Forget square feet.

Posted by: guest at December 4, 2007 3:24 PM

3:19 I agree with you, and to further support your point, even most townhouses in BH are not getting $1000psf. There are a few outliers above that price, but the average is below.

Posted by: guest at December 4, 2007 3:24 PM

Getting back to the maintenance, from what I've seen, Brooklyn rates seem to be about 2/3 of those in Manhattan. I don't know why, but that's just what I've seen. So this mant is in line for Manhattan, but high for Brooklyn.

Posted by: guest at December 4, 2007 3:36 PM

3:24, not sure what you mean. 10 by 10 equals 100 SQF, plain and simple. An apartment footprint of 20 x 50 roughly equals 1000 SQF. This building has a footprint and each floor minus the common area hallway and any mechanical shafts, occupies so much suqare footage. There is nothing wrong with using that to determine cost. How would you price a studio then? Why would prices be different for different 1 bedroom units in the same building? Because they have different square footage. Your argument doesn't make sense. Room counts mean shit unless you are trying to pack in as amny people as possible. If we priced by room counts, everyone would be living in shoe boxes. 1350 SQF at 1.425M equals $ 1055 per sqf no matter how many rooms you have.

Posted by: guest at December 4, 2007 4:15 PM

There are co-ops and there are co-ops. In a doorman building this maintenance is about normal. In a top floor walk up of a former brownstone convereted to an SRO converted to co-op, you will pay less. But there is no comparison between living in a walkup and living in a luxury building. Hate to be a snob but the world is full of complex comparisons apart from the simplistic sq. ft, Brooklyn/Manhattan comparisons. Also this is Brooklyn Heights which has at times been pricier than Manhattan, and why not? it is nicer.

Posted by: guest at December 4, 2007 4:32 PM

4:15
I want you to take a tape measure and measure any 1200 square foot apartment on the market today and see what you actually get. Usually it about 900 square feet but it could be as little as 800 square feet. In a large building where you don't have the actual legal dimensions of the lot, anything goes. really.

Posted by: guest at December 4, 2007 4:44 PM

I have no desire to live in a doorman/elevator building. None at all.

It's not about being snobby or not snobby, it's about personal preference.

Like most things on this site that people make to sound like they are the gospel of the lord because they said it.

Posted by: guest at December 4, 2007 5:14 PM

5:14,
There are always eccentric folks who don't want what most people want. These people are usually very self-righteous too.
We humor them but no one takes them seriously so their opinions are not usually taken into account when making a point or engaging in intelligent discourse.

Posted by: guest at December 4, 2007 5:28 PM

Do brokers inflate square footage on their listings? Almost certainly. But that does not mean that comparing price per square foot AS LISTED is not a valid way to compare apartments if you are a prospective buyer. Obviously, some apartments can justify a higher per square foot price if they have nice fixtures, pratcical layouts, a good block, low maintenance, etc etc. But as a starting poitn in evaluating whether a buyer's ask is reasonable, price per squre foot is perfectly valid.

And $100 per square foot is way too high for any Brooklyn co-op, no matter how nice (and this certainly doesn't impress me that much). You can get much better value than that in BH.

Posted by: guest at December 4, 2007 5:36 PM

it's about layout, not sq ft. 3 bed, 2ba in a classic 7 layout gets 1.4ish and has recently on a place on Hicks (@ pierrepont) and Clark (@ hicks). And there is a premium on a 3rd bedroom. Trust me, 500 sqft places aren't going for same psf as 3 bedrooms.

Posted by: guest at December 4, 2007 5:47 PM

that makes no sense 5:36. you can compare an infalted 1500 sq ft (that's actually 1100, not that you'd know it) and an honest 1300 sq ft?

Posted by: guest at December 4, 2007 6:17 PM

SPONSOR UNIT=TRANSFER TAX IMPOSED UPON THE BUYER... Be Careful!

Posted by: guest at December 4, 2007 6:31 PM

5:36 here - Yes, you can compare based on square footage. Assume they are all equally inaccurate. Not perfect admittedly, but a decent back of the envelope comparison none the less that I've found very useful in my initial research.

And once you do have a chance to actually look at the apartment and get a feel for the space (as I assume any buyer would), you will then have a sense of how inaccurate the listed square footage is and can revise your initial impression of whether a particular apartment is over/under priced.

Regardless, I've looked at a lot of apartments in BH (I live there and am an open house junkie) and $1000/per REAL square foot is VERY expensive, even for a good layout. And the Montague St. listing isn't even a particularly nice apartment or in a particularly nice building.

Posted by: guest at December 4, 2007 7:00 PM

First of all, this is Brooklyn Heights. It is not Fourth Avenue -soon to become fabulous because of the Hotel Le Bleu- it is not Fort Greene -home of some of the most notorious criminal coalitions in Brooklyn- it is not even Ocean Heights -somewhere near Broadway in the very remotest part of the backwoods. So things are valued differently.
The maintenance is in line with neighborhood statistics, I agree that square footage is a crock and you have to judge for yourself. This is a step away from the Brooklyn Esplenade (promanade to you tourists) and from the Gold Coast of Brooklyn. Are you tyros trying to compare this property with some dump in Flatbush-land? Forget it hons.
You who bought in the backwoods have to sleep in the backwoods. Whoever buys this, will sleep in the Heights.
Lump it. Life is hard.

Posted by: guest at December 4, 2007 8:40 PM

About square feet...I have been looking at some new condos and the floorplans given to me which look like they came from the architect even go so far as to include two measures of square feet "net" and "sellable." For some rooms, one number is double the other (even going so far as to include "open to below" and half-height spaces in the sellable number). The end result is an apartment that is marketed as 1140 sqaure feet, yet the total indicated net square feet of the kitchen, living room, (only) bedroom, and bathroom is only 384. Shows the insanity of trying to price using a price per square foot, when different measures give a factor of 3 difference for the same unit.

Posted by: guest at December 5, 2007 1:02 AM

it's insane to price apts per sq ft. brownstones, with footprints, are a different story.

about transfer tax, that is buyer's problem. but I've bought sponsor apts 2x and both times negotiated that as part of purchase price. owner CAN pay if both sides agree (or you just lower your offer that amount).

Posted by: guest at December 5, 2007 8:10 AM

Admittedly, price per square foot is an imperfect measure, but it is the fairest and most useful way I know for a buyer to compare relative value between two different apartments. Obviously some apartments can justify a higher per square foot price than others. But all other things being relatively equal (neighborhood, layout and # of bedrooms, quality of renovation, building asthetics, etc), an apartment for which the sellers are asking $800 per square foot (my rule of thumb standard for well-renovated BH coops) is a significantly better value than one for which the seller is asking over $1000.

Posted by: guest at December 5, 2007 9:24 AM

Price per square foot is only "insane" if you have no way to approximate square footage. Unless you are buiying sight unseen without a floor plan, you can figure out the square footage of an apartment relatively accurately. And then you can (I might say should) use that number to compare the cost of similar apartments in the same neighborhood. This seems so basic (from a buyer's perspective) that I think those railing against price per square foot as a measure MUST be either a) sellers with overpriced apartments on the market, b) apartment owners who want to see the value of their homes keep increasing, or c) brokers trying to stoke the market.

Posted by: guest at December 5, 2007 9:30 AM

but this place hasn't posted a floor plan, so we don't know actual sq ft. and people are comparing it to other places and listing the corcoran sq ft which is always super inflated. so sure, a corcoran 1400 place that sells for 1mm isn't $1000 per sq ft until you realize it was really 1000 sq ft and then, et voilia, it is $1000 per sq ft.

Posted by: guest at December 5, 2007 9:51 AM

Why to you think the quoted square footage on this particular apartment is any more accurate than Corcoran's then? I've been in apartments in this building and they all seem pretty small to me. My point again - the only thing a buyer can do is assume all listings are EQUALLY inaccurate when making your INITIAL evaluation of whether an apartment is over or under priced.... Why is this so hard to understand?

Posted by: guest at December 5, 2007 10:00 AM

If you measure this apartment by hand and throw in the width of walls you come up with about 1,050 square feet.
Not 1450 or whatever they claim. This is about the normal footage inflation I have found in New York (all boros). It is a nice apartment most people would go in and say: Yea, about 1500 sq ft.
But most people have no idea what a hundred square feet looks like.

Posted by: guest at December 5, 2007 12:00 PM

One needs to see this apt to appreciate it. Square footage means relatively little here as the rooms and configuration are, at best, complicated. One must also not have any clothing or need for closets, as there are none. The renovation is nice and clean, but this is hardly a well thought out 3 bedroom apt. Perhaps combining one bath and 2 bedrooms would make for more comfortable living. But then listing a 3 bedroom as opposed to a 2 bedroom, no matter the config or size of rooms, gets the listing in a higher bracket.

Posted by: guest at December 12, 2007 3:25 PM

To the geniuses who thought this place would go "in a New York minute" - recently relisted with a broker at a slightly lower price. Five months later, so much for the advantages of FSBO.

Posted by: guest at May 2, 2008 3:45 PM