Co-op of the Day: 191 Willoughby Street

"...A lot cheaper than the Oro!"

But, a lot uglier. I'll pass.

Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 1:01 PM

"originally built as rental apartments"

Were they low-income rental apartments? They look like projects.

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

That is rich for that.

How much per month for a rental in Walt Whitman?

Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 1:14 PM

Perfectly decent no frills apartment. May look like "the projects" but that is only because projects housing of this same era was built as desirable middle income living. Looks no worse than Co-op City, parts of the Bronx and most of Queens. Would be fine as a starter apartment, it's what you do with it that counts. Nice furnishings go a long way.

Preservationista

Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 1:26 PM

Exposed floor plates, not aligned with the sidewalk and curb - creating a hostile and unfriendly feel. A lot of wasted real estate.

Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 1:31 PM

Concord Village 2. Very un-efficient use of the land.

Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 1:31 PM

I feel insane when there is no floor plan.

Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 1:39 PM

looks perfectly comfy to me.
And parking!!!
Droooool.

Who needs a crapola Victorian when one has a roomy apartment and ......parking...!

Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 1:48 PM

I agree.

Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 1:59 PM

My apartment is the one that was referenced above which was listed earlier this year at $530k. We ended up selling it at our ask price back in September (it took us four months to find a buyer, which in the current climate isn't so bad). We spent about 30K on renovations on our place (hardwood floors, new appliances, granite countertops, etc). Looks like the only updating in the listing above is a new paint job. If they can get 560K, good for them!

Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 2:12 PM

When I went and looked at these, someone had left a big loogey on the linoleum floors. This complex is yucky.

Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 2:15 PM

Wow, 1BRs used to go for $80-120K a few years ago.

Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 2:23 PM

What's the architectual difference between these and the projects in the neighborhood?

-sg.

Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 2:24 PM

The maintenance is $995?! This is kind of high, no?

Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 2:28 PM

I know someone who lives there. Not a bad apartment.

Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 2:34 PM

Good question, sg. Proves that architecture ain't the be all and end all when it comes to a person's home. Here are some other questions: What is the difference between [the equity position, tax implications, level of service] between these and the projects in the neighborhood?

Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 2:42 PM

ceilings are very low and the common areas are very pjs

Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 3:04 PM

Originally built to house faculty/staff of LIU and Bklyn Hospital.

Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 3:34 PM

Isn't there a 25% flip tax there? Makes the sellers more inclined to price high.

Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 3:45 PM

I know some folks who just moved out of there because of the regular sound of gun fire and constant corner drug trade.

Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 3:54 PM

"Concord Village 2. Very un-efficient use of the land."

So what's the deal with Concord Village 1? I was going to go to an open house there yesterday, but after I Property Sharked it, I saw there were quite a few units in foreclosure. That was a quick deterrent.

Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 4:41 PM

Wow, I could buy in Hudson View Gardens for that and have nice fake prewar Tudor. I think it's when you start looking at the "budget" end of Brooklyn that you start to really see how overpriced the borough is right now.

Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 4:43 PM

Good point 4:43.

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

Good point 4:43.

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

Given where I work and play, you would have to give me a discount to choose the far more attractive Hudson View Gardens over University Towers.

Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 6:06 PM

Again, before we sold our place there (for $530k), I lived there for 8 years. To dispel some of the commentary about University Towers that people have stated in this thread:

(i) There is no flip tax;
(ii) The common areas are actually very nice. They do an excellent job with the gardening, maintaining the parking lot and two years ago installed four gas grills for common use; and
(iii) I never heard gun shots while I lived there (to that end the infamous "fort greene projects" are basically empty at this point).

Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 6:10 PM

Also, the last thing I want to emphasize about University Towers is how damn convenient it is. 10 train lines (B,Q, R, M, A, C, 4, 5, 2, 3) within a five minute walk. 7 minutes via taxi to soho. I worked in midtown and it took me 20 minutes to get home via taxi and 25 minutes via Q train. People always talk about how great Clinton Hill is....but transportation wise...it's a bit of a haul. To each his own..

Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 6:15 PM

I live here and have never heard a gun shot or seen drug dealers on the corner. The reno apartments are beautiful, the parking is great and people are friendly. It's steps away from Fort Greene Park and the area surrounding the towers is being built up at a staggering rate. Just b/c it's not ORO or Forte or Bell Tell doesn't mean it's not a nice place to live. The nabe is changing people....

Posted by: guest at December 11, 2007 10:15 AM

I have nothing but postive things to say about the residents and the neighborhood area. My only complaint is how ugly the building is and how it doesn't interact with the sidewalk. It has that fortress stance - distanced from pedestrians and a lot of wasted space for development. No stores, bodegas, shops, etc.. There are plenty of people to support it but due to very bad designs it won't happen unless the whole building is bought out and it is torn and redeveloped.

Posted by: guest at December 11, 2007 12:01 PM

I remember when these things were going for 50k at the high end. Unbelievable!

Posted by: guest at December 12, 2007 6:48 PM