House of the Day: 44 1st Place

Surely the above-ground pool merits that price!

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 1:45 PM

I think you are underestimating sq footage...Should know better than just quote what you see on propshark.
You have 2 floors with extension at 25 X 60 according to realtor and the top 2 floors are probably 25 X 45 ... for more like 5250sq ft. and then would be approx $731 sq ft. Makes it sound more reasonable.
My opinion is that they looking for someone wantiong to do condo conversion.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 1:53 PM

perhaps the sale is timed carefully - to catch a bidding war from two goldman execs whose wives unaccountably want to be within walking distance of a mosquito infested over-crowded tarmac playground for their little darlings?

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 1:54 PM

I like that the kitchen is on the garden level. It't not my style of kitchen, but it's great for entertaining. They are smart to keep the top two levels as rentals, as they can ask for higher prices for the brighter apartments. I've noticed that even the very nicely renovated homes, once they are sold, the new buyers renovate anyway. When you get to that level of money, I guess you have that luxury.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 1:55 PM

I was just doing the calculations my self, and I came up with exactly what 1:53 came up with - the buikding is 5,250 SF according to the floor plan - that's not $1,000/SF

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 1:56 PM

the apt. was featured in domino...whatevah. the rest of the house just aint worth the $$$

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 2:05 PM

thr-thr-three million ei-ei-eight hundred thousand dollars?

How could that be?

This house isn't even, you know, attractive.
The facade has been stripped of all detail including the cornice and the front garden looks like crap. The ironwork is right out of Pink Flamingoes.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 2:08 PM

Incidentally the building is only 24 feet wide - I just confirmed that on the deed dated 8/26/93 on Acris.

So if the width is 24 and the length is 42 feet with a 14" extension on floors 1 & 2, then I get a sq footage of 4,704 (2 x 56 x 24 + 2 x 42 x 24) which is $817 per sq ft (for the original depth look at the basement length which is the original build of the structure).

And at $817 psf it's still bloody expensive and seemingly overpriced.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 2:09 PM

Worth the price only if the house carved from a single giant rock of crack.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 2:10 PM

This is very expensive for the neighborhood, and I doubt they will get this high of a price. That being said, however, if real estate is about location, location, location, this is really one of the best blocks to live in all of Carroll Gardens (despite 1:54's denigration of the neighborhood). Arguably one of the nicest blocks in all of Brooklyn, if you like the CG amenities and don't mind not having Prospect Park nearby.

Also, there's something great about the 25 foot wide brownstones -- It allows you to get so much more out of the layout. For example, you can use the lower duplex and get a real 3-bedroom out of it, with a huge living space. The 20-ft wide homes just don't quite work that well. And, if this is bought by an investment banking type, it's very easy to triplex it and create a large 2-bedroom garden rental.

The price is still a big stretch, but there aren't that many homes of this size and location. Perhaps someone will pay close to $3 million if money is no object.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 2:12 PM

"Perhaps someone will pay close to $3 million if money is no object."

Money is ALWAYS an object.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 2:19 PM

The audacity of hope! Or is it the soft bigotry of low expectations.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 2:24 PM

Well the kitchen may not be your taste, but who can argue with astroturf on the patio?

Sign me up!

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 2:24 PM

it is in the very nicest part of CG. Very convenient to Manhattan by car. The interior looks to be better preserved than the facade. So for another half a million to 700,000 dollars one could have a really magnificent showplace. Is this much money justified in this neigborhhod? probably not, but who knows? None other than the famous John Zuccotti of real estate fame lives nearby I think. There are moguls in the area but they keep a very low profile.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 2:30 PM

If a Manhattan mogul type bought this house -it is very convenient to the BB tunnel, one could be in Manhattan in minutes, they would not want to keep two rental units over their heads. And besides, to properly rehab the house it needs to be empty to allow the contractors to do their thing for eight to ten months.
If the renters are protected in any way from eviction, then all bets are off. Although in reality, in Brooklyn, every tenant is protected from eviction if they really want to make a fuss.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 2:43 PM

Other than some of the parlour floor detail, I don't think the place looks that great for the price. The upper floor pictures leave a lot to be desired. It's a four family with kitchens on each floor for goodness sake.

For this price, it should be pristine, not four floor through apartments, a stripped facade, non-period ironwork, and the need for, at a minimum, major aesthetic overhalls of most of the floors other than part of the parlour floor.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 2:46 PM

this needs a gut reno.. mucho dollars and dump the tenants.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 2:50 PM

1) Anyone looking in that price range is not looking for rental income to help cover the mortgage.

2) In order to convert this house into a 1 family, it will need a serious renovation, as already stated by an earlier poster, "it's a 4 family with kitchens on each floor".

3) At the end of all this, you're looking at at least a total price of $4.9 million. Which is delusional unless, as the new love of my life has already stated, "it's carved from a single giant rock of crack".

4) The price is so grossly over-stated, that prospective buyers wouldn't even bother negotiating it down to earth.

Please tell me who in their right mind would pay this much for something that will need this much work?

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 3:00 PM

All it takes is 1 buyer.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 3:16 PM

this may sound strange, but i find the 3-story brownstones in this neighborhood so much nicer (at least from the outside) than the 4-stories. the former looks more like a brownstone, the latter more like an apartment building.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 3:19 PM

it's a 4 family. no one will pay that much for a 4 fam. as an investment it doesn't make sense cause best case scenario you're getting $11,000 a month. as condo conversion it's overpriced since it'll need at least some reno and it's price per sq ft is close to what the market for floor through brownstone condos is now. no one that wants to live there will would pay that much just to rent out 3 floors. so whoever buys it will need to convert it into a 1 fam. no one who can afford a 3 million plus house wants any tenants or should need help with the mortgage, if they do they won't get a loan in this day and age. if it ever sells (and for this price it won't since there have been 4 fams on Place block in this price range sitting for some time) it'll be to someone who just love th house and location and is fine with paying this price plus another half mill minium (and 8 months or so) to get the house they want. you're better off buying a wreck of a house for around 2 million and doing a top notch renovation to get exactly what you want. how many 4 family houses outside of brooklyn heights have even sold for over $3 million?

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 3:43 PM

Jusging from the floorplan and the photos the interior has been chopped up in a most unsympathetic way. If I was a buyer in this $$ ballpark, I'd rather put my money into something smaller but nicer. And a condo developer would surely rather pay less for something in rougher shape.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 3:52 PM

at least this building is big enough to contain four apartments. I am still thinking about the little house in Bed Stuy that was cut up into four units, and it was a doll's house to begin with. Pathetic. Anyway, this may be a good investment as a small apartment house depending on the rent rolls.
You could rent renovated apartments for quite a bit, deduct the depreciation from your taxes, watch as the price appreciates.
It could work. As a luxury home? not so much.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 4:00 PM

You are going to be hard pressed to find anything in Carroll Gardens for under $500 a sq. ft., so I think that a building with some fairly impressive interior detailing on one of the nicest blocks of all of Brooklyn can justify $730 a sq. ft. It is certainly a whole lot more value than that Lincoln Pl. coop in Park Slope yesterday that was going for $750 a sq. ft.. Or the coop in South Slope today that is also going for $750 a sq. ft.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 4:01 PM

What pictures are being referred to here, the only three pictures that I see are the same ones that are posted above.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 4:07 PM

yes i find brown ellis' photo format kind of confusing. if you click below the photos where it says "see all photos" you will see the rest of them.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 4:14 PM

Big love right back at ya 3:00.

xoxo, 2:10

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 4:18 PM

Yes, $730/sf for First Pl seems reasonable. I don't know where the rest of you are getting your comps, but these seems like a bargain compared to some of the other places going for quite a bit more per square foot on Brownstoner lately.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 4:26 PM

People always make the argument that anyone looking in that price range is not looking for rental income to help cover the mortgage, which simply is not true. The two top floor rentals which are over a 1000 sq. ft. each can easily get $3000 a each. That is over $6000 to help offset the mortgage that is a huge hunk of change that anyone, rich or poor, would welcome. I agree that there are those people who are just not interested in rentals, but that does not have to do with how much money they are willing to spend.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 4:31 PM

"That is over $6000 to help offset the mortgage"

Well, that would cover 1/3 of the mortgage by giving up 1/2 of the house.

And of course you would have to drop a lot more money to turn those into $3k rentals,

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 4:56 PM

This price just makes me laugh. And cry.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 5:02 PM

4:31,
You are completely wrong.
the wealthy like to separate their income producing properties from their residence.
They may have an apartment for an assitant or
a nanny but not a rental tenant. Honestly.
A rental tenant in your house is stricty middle-class.
It is really, really unthinkable not only in terms of class but even liability.
Are you same idiot that says more or less the same thing every time a really epensive house comes up? Stop it. You're annoying and wrong.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 5:04 PM

RIDICULOUS!...REALLY STUPID!...A PAINTED BROWN, DECORNICED, NOTHING SPECIAL, CUT-UP MESS. For this money?!!!!

HHHHhhhh!!!

Oh yes...and: "D-O-N-E-D-E-A-L!!!" ;-)

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 5:12 PM

5:04 are you a developer who is hoping to buy this property and turn it into coops, but the price is still too high to make it work for you? Actually the one who is really annoying is you. Go away.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 5:13 PM

Haiku to an overreaching listing:

It is very expensive
New granite counters
Will languish for many months

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 5:14 PM

Actually, I am quite wealthy and I like to keep my assistants and renters in a shed in the back of the house. And I like my tea at noon.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 5:19 PM

Any word on how sale of the $8,375,000 on Warren Street's (a previously overpriced HOTD) going?

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 5:20 PM

I love walking up and down these Place streets during the holiday seasons. The decorations are awesome.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 5:23 PM

Love that Nelson lamp.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 5:25 PM

Not that I could ever afford this building, but I would love to live on one of those Place blocks.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 5:28 PM

Not that I could ever afford this building, but I would love to live on one of those Place blocks.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 5:28 PM

Middle class in New York City is upper class in the rest of America.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 5:43 PM

"Middle class in New York City is upper class in the rest of America."

No, it just cost like upper class to live like middle class.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 6:28 PM

The brokers and sellers are just fucking around with this listing price. They don't really need/want to sell it. That's why they set such a ridiculous price. Aside from that, the house is UGLY. For that money, you're better off with the other Prudential listing in Park Slope, on 3rd Street & Prospect Park.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 6:33 PM

There is no such thing as middle class in New York City. there is hand to mouth and there is rich that's about it. Oh. and there's my parents are rich.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 7:44 PM

Uh, I'm middle class.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 8:15 PM

I was wondering how long it was going to take some sloper to say "for that price, why wouldn't you buy X in the slope?" It is as inevitable as night following day.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 8:49 PM

As inevitable as somebody complaining about the Slope and Slopers.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 9:42 PM

8:15
You're in the wrong place. look at the suburbs.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 10:05 PM

Nope. I'm in the right place. Middle class. In Brooklyn. Park Slope actually. Bite me, 10:05. Happy Holidays!

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 10:09 PM

10:09
I think you can bite yourself, are you really middle class? think about it.
Or are you really hand-to-mouth?
You know the definition of the middle class, the bourgeoisie, it is the class that does not depend solely on their wages (like the proleteriat or working class) for a living. The middle class has investment income, rents, businesses. Are you really middle class or a wage peasant? or are you in denial? Can you not afford the suburbs? or are you really a rich guy pretending tobe one of the working masses?

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 10:26 PM

And I wonder why everyone complains about the slopers.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 10:45 PM

"I was wondering how long it was going to take some sloper to say "for that price, why wouldn't you buy X in the slope?" It is as inevitable as night following day."

I'm not some sloper. Don't live in Brooklyn. Just in the market. And I know there's a qualitative difference between this house and the one on 3rd, and between Carroll Gardens and Park Slope. Market comparisons, nothing more. And in this case, there is none. This house is overpriced by AT LEAST $1.5 million. I think Brownstoner is being too generous.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 10:46 PM

10:26 - Well, here I was fully prepared to bite myself when my butler silently appeared. He uttered "Allow me, sir," and bit me the way only a trained professional can.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 12:18 AM

generous no way This part of Carroll Gardens blows anything you have in Park slope away hands down. Ugly on the outside i think you are nuts what are you looking for? get a life it's all about lifestyle and carroll Gardens is full of it and it's much closer to midtown that Park slope much closer

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 12:29 AM

In American every working class grunt fools himself into believing he is part of the "middle class". Everyone in the middle class thinks they are part of the upperclass, and those from the upper class think they are independently wealthy.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 2:09 AM

I'm in the market too and live on the upper west side and would never move to Park Slope. Just too much like the upper west side, which is what I am trying to get away from. The place on 3rd street is nice but I would never want to live there. Would not really want to live on the First Place street house either, but if it were between living in Carroll Gardens or Park Slope I would choose Carroll Gardens with out a doubt. It is just sooo much cooler than Park Slope. My girl friend lives in Carroll Gardens and I can take a car service through the Battery Tunnel and be in Manhattan in less than ten minutes. This is important to me because sometimes I get home late and leave early and shortening my commute is a perk of Carroll Gardens that I just can't place money on. I love all the restaurants and shops on Smith and Court and the fact that there are still a few mom and pop restaurants, butchers and bakers that have been around for decades in Carroll Gardens give it so much more character than Park Slope. Park Slope, like I already said, has just turned into the upper west side. Really the only advantage that Park Slope has is the park and the fact is, if you live near 5th avenue, which is the cooler part of the slope, the walk to the park is far enough that you are as likely to go to the park as often as someone from Carroll Gardens. Park Slope has some nice things, but Carroll Gardens is so much more alluring to me. I also like Fort Green and Clinton Hill a lot.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 8:30 AM

To claim that it is 1.5 million overpriced is just ridiculous and you are being purposefully troll like and argumentative. That would bring the value down to $480 a sq. ft. which people pay more for on the other side of the BQE.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 8:44 AM

When Brownstoner admitted they were wrong about the sqaure footage and price per square foot, they should have also admitted they were wrong about it being 1 million over priced. In fact if they originally thought it was $1 million over priced, then with the correct square footage the price would fall exactly where brownstoner would have originally expected it to be.

Brownstoner, I think it was irresponsible of you to erase the original part of your post and not erase the latter part about it being a $1 million over priced.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 8:52 AM

Hmm, lots of people with vested interest in the house on the board. Just identify yourselves.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 9:40 AM

more like an interest in the neighborhood.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 10:23 AM

you mean like pumping up the values in the nabe?

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 10:35 AM

No not like pumping the value. This is the value that Brownstoner himself thought it should be. He originally assumed the house was 4000 sq. ft. at $3.8 million and thought that it was $1 million over priced. So he believed the market value was $700 per sq. ft. which is what it is selling for.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 11:00 AM

If interest in a nabe is pumping up the value, then everyone on brownstoner is guilty.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 11:03 AM

1 - This house is ridiculously overpriced.

2 - Park Slope and Carrol Gardens are so similar that the back and forth bickering is actually quite silly.

Posted by: guest at December 15, 2007 12:25 PM

I grew up at 99 First Place -- my family lived in the parlour floor apartment. The brownstone for sale is not one of the nicer brownstones on First Place. My aunt's brownstone, at 5 First Place (between Henry & Clinton Streets; sold in 1981 for $165,000 -- read it and weep) was in much better condition and had many original features intact. 99 First Place (between Clinton & Court) is, sadly, in bad shape. Anyone know who owns it and what he/she plans to do with it?

Posted by: guest at December 16, 2007 9:59 PM