House of the Day: 799 Carroll Street

I'm sure this wont generate any comments :-)

Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 1:38 PM

is there a back-story? yeah of course there is: avarice. Greed. and a streak of panic that he must have got reading the business headlines each morning.

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

By my calculations, this house is increasing in value at a rate of $15.2 per minute. By next summer it will be worth $6,607,184. Better buy it now while it is still cheap.

Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 1:46 PM

lol....ohh what a web we weave....."and if you act now, you wont lose your shirt all together when 2008 rolls around"

Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 1:50 PM

I'm going to be in the minority there, but how the hell did the buyer get the house so cheap in the first place? Yes, I said cheap--less than $500 a square foot for Carroll near 8th Ave, far cheaper than recent HOTDs not just in the Slope but many other neighborhoods.

Was it an inside deal? It couldn't have been rehabbed that quick.

Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 1:52 PM

It's conceivable that they did $600,000 worth of painting so is it too much to ask that they get back $55,000 in profit for their troubles? You people always just assume the worst

Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 2:01 PM

Regardless of what they got it for (don't be haters because the buyer had the $$ and timing to get this and flip it), they should get the price.

Its relatively inexpensive for the area and the rental makes it somethat attractive.com.

Just my $0.02.

I'm sure someone will take a nice stinky all over my hypothesis.

Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 2:05 PM

1:52 You shouldn't be in the minority as what you say is true. Irrespective of the price paid; close to $3m is the going rate for good condition townhouses in that area.

Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 2:07 PM

The house does have some obvious downsides -- namely that it is right beside 118 Eighth Ave. and across the street from another Eighth Ave. buidling -- in other words, it must not get any morning light (forget having a nice breakfast on the deck) and the backyard has darkness and privacy issues. Not massive problems, but I would certainly haircut this one when comparing it to other houses in the neighborhood.

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

I like the blue-painted handrails and the disused backyard.

Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 2:17 PM

I like the blue-painted handrails and the disused backyard...and the lousy Z-stone on the entry level/first floor. Someone loused THAT up. Yuck.

Also, this house will be much more expensive to heat due to the three exposures. And eventually the exposed side wall may cost a lot to maintain.

Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 2:18 PM

Aguayo had it listed on the previous sale. This is what StreetEasy shows:

Price History
06/27/2007 Listed with Aguayo & Huebner at $2,699,000
08/06/2007 Price decreased to $2,599,000
08/20/2007 Listing entered contract

See

http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/92888-house-carroll-street-park-slope-brooklyn

So any idea why the current owner got it at $2,275m?

Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 2:19 PM

3 million as the going rate for finished townhouses in PS? I'm so sick of the trolls who perpetuate this myth, as if it has been for a long time that is standard. People, many brownstones in good condition in Center Slope have sold for far less (even under 2 mil) as recently as a year ago - I know because I live in Center slope and have been actively following the market very closely for the last few years (we own a big apt and have been seeking a house). I suspect the current owner read too many Brownstoner threads about this myth and figured what the hell. It's like 3 million is the new 2 million, as of this year (when markets everywhere else are tanking). Smart buyers know better and will not pay such a price.

Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 2:20 PM

interesting...

http://curbed.com/archives/2007/12/10/time_for_haters_to_rethink_gowanus_hotel_le_bleu.php

Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 2:27 PM

2:20 -- I'm the 1:52 poster. I have no connection to the house other than also living in PS and following the market. You have any comps for similar houses selling at under $500 a square foot? I'm glad to be proved wrong.

Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 2:44 PM

I am the seller:

No we did not renovate. We did paint (which did cost a pretty penny). Additionally, the house will be delivered with $500,000 worth of pirate treasure. Sound like a deal now?

Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 2:46 PM

"do they really agonize over a couple hundred thousand?"

Yes, they do. How do you think they get wealthy in the first place? if they don't, then they and their money are soon parted.
In my experience rich people are tight as a two-bob watch, as my grandpa used to say.

Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 2:51 PM

Just because grandma polished the linoleum does not mean the house is in good shape.

Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 2:54 PM

So 2:46 Why did the previous seller let you negotiate down by $374k after they'd already reduced the price by $100k? Did you have something on them?

And incidentally you obviously don't have kids as you'd know that it's called Pirate's Booty! ;-)

Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 3:00 PM

Good luck trying to finance this. The banks hate flips. You better have a big downpayment.

Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 3:02 PM

I'm 2:20 and yes, I know of comps that sold for far less than 3 mil, closer to 2million and even below in the recent past. One 4-story brownstone on 3rd St and one on 5th (both bet 6/7 Ave) come to mind but I'm at work now and don't have time to troll through property shark to find them. If anyone is really interested and wants to wait til I have the free time to prove this, I'd be more than willing (someone want to start a forum post thread on this topic?). But really, anyone who knows how to use property shark properly can find examples. There is by far too much sensationalism surrounding the few "trophy" properties that ask around 3 million - in my experience, there are certainly big, nice houses that sell for substantially less.

Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 3:08 PM

it's not about 2 million vs. 3 million.

you've missed the point.

it's about price per square foot.

sure, nice homes have sold for 2 million in park slope.

but they haven't been almost 5000 square feet.

come on now. you should know how this works by now.

this is a more than fair price for the home, location, size...even with the recent correction in the market.

this would have sold closer to 3.2 million a year ago like the other similar homes in park slope did. one on my block sold for 3.4 in august.

Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 3:13 PM

3:13, you are making the dangerous assumption this house needs no work

Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 3:19 PM

Where's the info that says it closed at $2,275,000? I have a hard time believing the sellers or brokers are handing out that info. I went to see it and the brokers did say that buyers were selling it soon after a purchase because their plans had changed.

As for condition: It needs all new kitchens (2) and baths (5.5). That should definitely take it down considerably from any comps in the area that are actually selling in the $3M range. The back yard is tiny and dark, but they all are up there. You can, of course, practically spit on the park out your window. The parlor floor was actually very bright with that huge bay window. It feels very unlike most brownstones. It feels very wide.

Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 3:20 PM

um 3:20 I ttake it you've never been to Acris http://www.nyc.gov/html/dof/html/jump/acris.shtml let alone taken the link provided above to Property Shark? Every condo and house sale, (ie real property transfer) as opposed to a co-op (share transaction), is recorded for all to see.

Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 3:24 PM

3:13 - 2:20 again - yes, I understand p/sf but the houses I have in mind (that sold for closer to 2mil) are wide and deep and thus close in sf to this one. Truly, folks can troll property shark to see for themselves.

Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 3:28 PM

I've been to acris and property shark many times. That's why I know that anything that closed on Nov 9 is not likely to be listed by yet and that many things still end up going unreported.

Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 3:30 PM

Look at the PERMANENT shadow in that picture! No light, ever.

And for that dough, I'd rather buy this in Park Slope:
http://www.prudentialelliman.com/Listings.aspx?ListingID=931051

Or for a little more, the 2nd Street beauty featured last week.

Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 3:36 PM

how does one decipher a "PERMANENT SHADOW" from a snapshot, may i ask?

Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 3:41 PM

Any number of ways, 3:41. First, by realizing that the outline of the shadow is that of a BUILDING, and the building is not going anywhere. Second, go to live maps or Prop Shark and see said buildings that surround the house.

Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 3:48 PM

the building doesn't go anywhere, but the sun does.

your line of thinking is not unlike those who thought the earth was flat.

Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 3:51 PM

We saw this when it was up for sale a few months ago.

Here's why the value is closer to $2mm than $3mm (or why the original buyer didn't get a great deal, unless he flips it at this price):

- Federal style, not true brownstone
- Required significant upgrades on mechanicals, etc. (this is potentially what the new buyer did)
- Outdated kitchens and bathrooms
- Period details almost non-existant
- Floors in terrible shape
- Rental unit required work

Either the buyer put some money into paint and mechanicals or he/she is crazy.

Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 4:05 PM

This house might not be in permanent shadow, but you will be in the dark for 75% of daylight hours, judging by the side of the street it is on.

Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 4:08 PM

Ancient bathrooms, ugly kitchen, painted woodwork. NOT a $3m home, sorry, not even close.

Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 4:09 PM

Is the mechanicals were new wouldn't the listing mention that?

Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 4:11 PM

CRAZY, CRAZY listing price. Insane. For $3m you got much better options in the Slope, like the Sterling Place and 2nd Street houses already mentioned.

Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 4:16 PM

the vermeil (sterling/7th) sure is lookin nice these days.

they have clad the whole outside in brick and copper and put on a very nice thick cornice. now they are brownstoning the other building, and looks like they are doing a pretty ok job, i must say.

after months of a crappy work site, it finally looks to be taking shape. one of the more contextual buildings i've seen built lately.

i think they've cut prices a bit since being remarketed. they were insane before.

Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 4:20 PM

Well, the Vermeil's website is a piece of crap and is also totally misleading. When you click on "gallery" they show you the facades of these nice old brownstone mansions on 7th that have NOTHING to do with the Vermeil. The false marketing makes unsuspecting buyers think that is the building itself. No real pics anywhere, and the music is super annoying.

Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 4:25 PM

Here's a question is Mr Brownstoner highlighting a property good or bad for it's chance of selling?

Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 4:26 PM

Is it named after Dick?

Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 4:28 PM

4:26--many people have repeatedly noted that brokers like it when a property is featured, and that they've heard brokers say that the house sells quicker even if it's panned on this blog. I've read it before in the comments, and a broker from one of the big firms told me this is true. Maybe there is something to that whole "all publicity is good publicity" thing.

Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 4:34 PM

Ah, 4:26, the kneejerk response from the site's buddy we always get; thank you for your consistency.

Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 4:38 PM

4:26, good if you have a nice place. Bad, if you have a bad place.

If you have a nice place and priced well people will say good things on here and you may get more people at your open house.

If your place is really bad (needs lots of work) or is overpriced people on here will rip it to shreads and you have to hope that all potential buyers don't visit this website.

It can easily go both ways.

Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 4:51 PM

"the vermeil (sterling/7th) sure is lookin nice these days."

What's up with that place? Looks like after going on the market in January, there were no sales for six months, and all of the listing have gone offline. Odd.

Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 6:09 PM

"This house might not be in permanent shadow, but you will be in the dark for 75% of daylight hours, judging by the side of the street it is on."

What are you talking about? The house is on the North side of the street so it will get great light in that big South-facing bay window all day long.

Yes, it's overpriced, but not because it doesn't get any light. I've been in that room I know what I'm talking about.

Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 6:40 PM

"The house is on the North side of the street so it will get great light in that big South-facing bay window all day long."

Bullshit and you know it. Yes, it faces South. But its light is obstructed, as you can see in the picture above, by the large apartment building directly across the street from it. It blocks your nice southern exposure bay window. The picture says it all. That side of the block is getting the great light at that time, and this house and the one next to it are in shadow. Simply look at the third house over, which is not blocked by the building, and you can see the difference.

Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 7:11 PM

I've been trying to decide whether to buy a brownstone in Brooklyn or to keep my small Soho apartment and move to Southern California.

Reading your folk's comments for the last couple years has helped me a lot. I'm gonna move to Southern California.

The Brooklyn of old is gone. Who wants to live amongst a bunch of snippy social climbers anyways?

Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 7:39 PM

7:39pm this is for you:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=dPT7q825gwI

Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 7:53 PM

Thank all the deities in the multiverse that SoCal is devoid of snippy social climbers!

Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 8:12 PM

Seriously, the snippiest social climbers I've known hang their hats in SoCal.

Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 9:16 PM

I gotta say, that photo does make it look like the building has lots of shade from the big apt bldg next door. While I'm sure there is some light somewhere sometimes, there's no getting around that huge bldg as something that obstructs light.

So far, no one has shed any real light on what justifies the increase of $700K in one month - so it seems silly to talk about comps when the best comp of all is that this house sold for $2.2 a month ago!

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

Also, I get the sense that light is a problem given that the broker touts the ability to put windows on side wall (presumably to get more light). But isn't this expensive? Does anyone have a sense of what that would cost?

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

If this house were drenched in sunlight, i.e., if it were the recipient of the light that the house farthest to the left receives, I would pay $2.5 million for it on the spot.

Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 11:04 PM

I love the kind of neo-gothic oxidized copper window frame in front. Great details on exterior but gah, the interior is so bland and nothing. Except the kitchen, I'm loving the kitchen. I prefer a galley kitchen and I love patterned tiles.

But back to details, this place seems it was a victim of apartmentization in the 60's or 70's. Then converted back to a house. With all details gone.

Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 11:09 PM

"Brick Inlaid Path Leads To Entry"

what does that mean?

Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 11:54 PM

Aguayo still has it listed, since it just sold. Apparently the price was reduced to the $2.275 since it's listed on the Aguayo main house page at that price:

http://ahbrooklyn.com/property.php?id=97&type=house&displaytype=house

Posted by: guest at December 11, 2007 1:35 AM

BIZARRE that it's still listed on Aguayo as in contract. Truly bizarre. Wonder what the hell happened here...

Posted by: guest at December 11, 2007 1:38 AM

So, in response to all the speculation that the owner got it at a reduced price for some sort of special reason, you're wrong. Aguayo still has it listed at $2.275 on its main webpage. They reduced the price because it wasn't moving. How's that for a comp?

Posted by: guest at December 11, 2007 2:56 AM

Re: comps (this one's for you, 2:44) - I agree that thee best comp of all is that this house is STILL listed on Aguayo & Hubener website at 2,275,000 and it's listed as "JUST SOLD". This precisely proves my point that the 2 mil range is more the range these days but even that is only for homes that are large, special, truly prime location. There have also been sales of townhouses in the past year well under 2 mil in the Center Slope - again, poke around Property Shark to see - I know of one on 2nd Street bet 5/6 that sold for 1.6 for example. I also know plenty of people who have recently bought in South Slope (on nice blocks mind you in the "good" school zones) for 1.2-1.4. Of course, there are many variables in pricing - square footage, condition of house, exact location, school district, detail/charm or lack thereof, light quality. But my point is, I think this "3 mil" figure blithely being thrown around is the exception, not the rule. Yes, a house under 2 mil might involve some compromise, but IMO, this HOTD also has lots of compromise (those bathrooms and kitchen - yuck!, potential darkness much of the day, lack of detail, proximity to loud 8th ave, etc.) and is thus no way worth this price. I would not even have bought it at 2.275 from A&H.

Posted by: guest at December 11, 2007 9:14 AM

For these kind of prices you get something in Brooklyn Heights or Cobble Hill.

Posted by: guest at December 11, 2007 9:27 AM

where do you get a 5000 sf townhouse in brooklyn heights for 2 million?

please do share with us.

Posted by: guest at December 11, 2007 10:39 AM

I saw this house when it was on the market before the current owners bought it. I almost walked away from the open house before going in because the outside is so hideous and it's right next to a huge apartment building. The living room is the nicest part of the house. The rest is dated and totally uninspiring. Anyone who pays near the asking price is desperate and/or dumb unless the current owners did a lot of work to it. But how much work could have been done in a month?

Posted by: guest at December 11, 2007 2:24 PM

Was walking by the house this past Sunday and decided to take a peak. The house is in poor shape. The only impressive aspect is the size. All the bathrooms are dated, some don't even work, missing fixtures etc., holes in floor. The kitchens are horrible. I'm not sure what the seller is thinking.

Posted by: guest at December 11, 2007 4:27 PM

"Also, I get the sense that light is a problem given that the broker touts the ability to put windows on side wall (presumably to get more light). But isn't this expensive? Does anyone have a sense of what that would cost?"

Typical cost is $5-7k per window, not cheap but as any architect will tell you, worth a great deal. How many places have light from three sides?

Posted by: guest at December 12, 2007 7:48 AM

How many places are cast into shadow on three sides?

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 8:51 PM

I have seen the house, and as far as any "color on this transaction" I must say that as a potential seller of a brownstone in Park Slope I would certainly steer clear of Aguayo and Huebener as a listing agent.

Posted by: guest at December 30, 2007 1:17 AM

I put in the first bid on this house originally. it needs 1mm of work to update it....i had it priced out. I bid 2.2mm originally (was listed at 2.6mm) and the broker actually laughed at me.

It somehow then mysteriously sells for 2.275mm without me knowing. then, 2 weeks after they close...we get a call from brooklyn properties offering us the same house at 2.9mm.

The house is really nice...but needs a lot of work. very outdated.

Posted by: guest at January 4, 2008 1:27 PM