House of the Day: 52 Montgomery Place Revisited

Some Hollywood type who has the cash and want's the BK cache will buy it!

I don't think it will be worthless when Atlantic Yards is built.

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 1:36 PM

surprising especially since a place on berkeley place sold for 3.4 million in august.

that place was done up quite nicely and not sure how this compares, but certainly this place is gorgeous, without question.

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 1:39 PM

"If you're the owner of the gorgeous house at 52 Montgomery Place, it hasn't felt like Brownstone Brooklyn's been immune to the weakening national market."

That's because it isn't! Did you think otherwise?

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 1:41 PM

I could have sworn that brokers posting on this site claimed this was sold already. Anyway, we all know what kind of crap comes out of brokers mouths.

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 1:54 PM

1:41 - spot on. Sometimes brownstoner sounds like a complete shill moron.

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 1:54 PM

"can easily be restored", "diamond in the rough"

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 1:59 PM

1:59. That's good, but not as great as the broker-pitch for that shell-dump in Clinton Hill featured on brownstoner.

It goes something like: 'Buy [this condemned piece of shit] and you won't regret making the best and savviest decision of your life.'

I love how these brokers try to flatter people over the very same thing they are trying to exploit – their hubris.

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 2:06 PM

3.3 mil for a house that's a "diamond in the rough" and "can easily be restore to it's [sic] beauty"? No pictures of the kitchen or baths? I think that I see the problem here.

I guess that's always the problem with real estate: the price. Price something correctly and it will go. This place is priced too high for either its location or its condition (or both).

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 2:28 PM

a fixer upper??
corcoran get real!!

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 2:29 PM

WAY OVERPRICED. No one with that kind of cash right now is going to buy a renovation project at $3.4. So what, they can spend another couple hundred grand doing historical restoration work over 6 months/1 year while neighborhood property values stagnate? Forget it. Needs a cut below 3 to sell.

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 2:39 PM

You know what is sad. This house wont appraise for the asking price, So The Owner and the Broker is wasting your time. Folks it's OVER! It's SO FUCKING OVER you have no idea. Come 1\1\08 Mortgage guildlines are going to change, no more bullshit.

Brownstoner, why don't you post some houses and apartments that we CAN afford. Stop with this garbage! 3.8 for that house get the fuck outta here.

The What

Someday this war is gonna end...

BTW The FED has closed the barn door.

Fed Plans to Tighten U.S. Mortgage Rules After Crisis

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aTUHRnSHrPDc&refer=home

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 2:55 PM

I guess the market is telling us that 3.4 may be too high even for the best location in Park Slope. Nobody wants to be the last one on line to pay mega-big-bucks. I think that is human nature.
Usually folks who buy houses like these have their designers come in and prepare a scope of renovation, so i don't think the condition of the baths matter much as they would probably want to customize them anyway. But the pricetag is high and Manhattan is not visible out the window as in Brooklyn Heights.

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 3:03 PM

This house needs A LOT of work. A broker who knows about this property recently told me that no one wants to pay $3+ in Park Slope for a fixer-upper (duh). That's why this and 60 Montgomery Place won't sell at these prices. And it's also why the Berkeley Place DID sell at over $3mm--it was tip-top shape and move-in ready.

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 3:08 PM

Well I guess Park Slope has become so nice (especially the named streets closest to the park) that even Montgomery Place no longer necessarily commands a premium over the other named streets.

I think that's what these owners are banking on....that Montgomery alone is enough to add a few hundred grand onto the pricetag.

I think I'd rather be on Berkeley Place, myself. Closer to the 2/3 and Q trains and a gorgeous block.

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 3:14 PM

Pay top prices for faded glory, a grand ol' dump. Pay for what it might be, not for what it is. $3.5 mil in a housing recession. Better if you can pay all-cash. Plenty of charm in this narrow, ancient tattered and tired pile.

Check out how gigantic those couches and chairs look in this strip-of-an-appartment. Good for tall thin people.

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 3:17 PM

Well, I'm short and wide, so it won't work for me.

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 3:19 PM

"Good for tall thin people"

The best kinda people out there, if you ask me.

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 3:19 PM

This is an incredible mansion in a top location. It isn't crap (like a lot of the old POS's on this site). Give it time.
It's Christmas. It will sell in January for 3.2 or 3.3. There is nothing marginal about this property, except that it's in Brooklyn, but I hear Brooklyn is hot now, or so the brokers say.

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 3:27 PM

This isn't about the RE market and what price all houses might be able to get in Park Slope. Yes the market is slower now but it only means sellers in Park Slope need to declutter and renovate before selling just like anybody else does. Or if they don't have the time or money for that, that's fine, but lower the asking price. Pretty simple.

This house's interior is incredibly unappealing. The walls are way overdecorated with bad color and wallpaper patterned borders which obscures the architectural details. That mismatched leather furniture is too chunky and oversized for that narrow parlor. I agree with the person who said their 17-footer had more space. Everyone knows layout is more important towards making a space liveable than square footage. So take the dang piano out and put some appropriately proportioned furniture in there. Broker, make your clients work for that extra $500,000 they are trying to get. This is a case where buyers will have an "ick" reaction when they walk in the door, and thus you're forcing them to have to work hard to imagine making it into a chic living space. Some houses can need a lot of work but still have grace and elegance and can wow people and show off the house's potential. This house doesn't do that. If a house in a top neighborhood like this succeeds in showing its potential easily, you can usually find even one person with money who goes for that overpriced asking price. It only takes one. If that one buyer is not showing up, it means a house isn't appealing and you have to figure out why.

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 3:27 PM

"If that one buyer is not showing up, it means a house isn't appealing and you have to figure out why."

No, if a buyer isn't showing up, it means the price is not right--plain and simple.

Most buyers, especially at those price ranges, aren't fooled by staging or decluttering. Most people can see past the dated decor of a house and envision the potential. It's the price--always is.

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 3:33 PM

I completely disagree with 3:27. The house looks great. This isn't a condo in the ORO or in DUMBO. The rooms look lovely not overdecorated and ready for a move-in. Gimme a break.
Considering the incredible crapola that I see featured here in really really marginal places, this place is a gem.
Give it a rest.
This isn't a 2-bedroom condo that needs to be in move-in condition to sell. Besides it looks like it is in move-in condition to me. I don't know why it is not selling but the condition of the interiors is certainly not the reason.

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 3:34 PM

Agreed 3:34. This house looks beautiful from the pictures alone. Absolutely beautiful. The broker description does suggest it needs quite a bit of work, though. I suspect the simple reason is hasn't moved is the amount of work required at that price point. No mystery, really.

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 3:38 PM

It'll go for $5 million once rich people in Manhattan get wind of this glorious property. Brooklyn's time has arrived and this is as prime as it gets. I think in 5 years it could be worth $10 million. After that, $20 million. It's grand and glorious. It charming and ready to move in. Maybe some renovation, but not enough to deter the discriminating buyer. Maybe $20 million is too low. I'm starting to think $30 million.

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 3:41 PM

3:34, 3:38, 3:41 - Same person. Broker at Elliman.

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 3:57 PM

Nevermind - 3:41. Read the rest of your post - after the first line I ignored the rest

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 3:59 PM

I just want to repeat that the reason this house is not selling is not its condition. It is in perfectly fine condition, there are no tenants, it is currently divided as a two-family so you may wish to put it back together as a one family or you may not. The amount you wish to spend to get exactly the kind of house you want is up to you. I don't think the folks buying this house will be desperate for a roof over their heads. The house is not selling for other reasons, maybe the real estate market is heading south, maybe it has not been a terrific year for stock brokers and bankers and lawyers. Maybe the super rich are looking again at that horse farm in Jersey or Connecticut for 3 million.
Who knows? The condition of the bathrooms is not a factor as it may be in an iffy neighborhood or block.

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 4:01 PM

everybody things I'm a broker because my postings are not utterly demented.
Maybe it is the What who is the broker.

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 4:03 PM

I have $3 million and you don't. Eat that, small man!

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 4:09 PM

4:01--give it a rest, seriously. I called to inquire about this listing when it was with Corcoran and was told, right from the get-go, that it needs a lot of work. I said, "oh, so it's not move-in condition?", and the broker said "no."

This current broker also writes "diamond in the rough". Obviously this suggests the same thing the previous broker said. This house is not move-in ready and needs WORK.

So, if you are the seller, which it sounds like you might be, I suggest you lower your expectations. This is NOT about the market, as the house has been listed since April. This is about the asking price.

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 4:11 PM

I think it is about the market.
Nobody buys a hundred-year-old mansion
expecting it to be in brand-new condition.
In fact, that can be a turn off to some who like to restore old mansions. I actually know a couple of folks like that.
Big houses aren't selling now.
Maybe next quarter will be better and maybe not.
Time will tell.

Big houses are not selling in Brooklyn Heights either.

It is a bump in the road, in my opinion.

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 4:19 PM

Finally! You've found the house of your dreams. Money is no object, so reward yourself with this mansion. Throw $3.4 million at this and fix it into your own magnificent home. You have money so you deserve the best. Call me today!

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 4:21 PM

Well, this one's been on the market since April. And there have been $2.8-$3+ million sales in Park Slope since April. As well as much higher number sales in Brooklyn Heights. So, don't think it's the market.

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 4:22 PM

well if it isn't the market it must be the fact that contrary to all appearances this must be crappy old dump of a house.

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 4:28 PM

Welcome to the future of the rest of my life! Live your dreams in this house of mansions for rock-bottom price of $3.4 billion. Come Saudi princes, newly monied Chinese factory owners and Russian Klepto-krats. Buy a piece of the American Dream. Own a this big house today. Call me.

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 4:28 PM

The only reason this would sell with that horrid wallpaper all over the walls and bad layout, is if there were no other houses on the market in Park Slope at all. When of course there are. Why would a buyer with many opions pay $3.3 million to have to do twice the work? It's illogical. The situation speaks for itself. This house has sat on the market unsold even after the price WAS lowered. Something's not appealing to buyers. Sorry. I stick to what I said before; nobody's convinced me to do otherwise.

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 4:35 PM

My lover, who is a broker-in-the-know, just called to tell me that there is a bidding war over this house, as we speak. He says the price is already at $4.25 million, and the highest bidders are offering to waive the inspection!

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 4:36 PM

I'm saying the market is bad, why would I say that if I were a broker or the owner?
Honestly, reading comprehension counts, folks!!
My point is that this is a beautiful house. One of the most beautiful I have seen on this site. If it is having trouble selling it may mean the market is softening.
It could also mean that the owner does not want to bargain, but 3.3 million seems ballpark considering things in Fort Greene had been selling for two-plus.
This house may be a harbinger of a lull in the market. I don't think it is all about the decor.
I don't htink a broker would be saying that.

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 4:37 PM

I think you must be thinking of a different Berkeley Place house. The one that sold for 3.4 million...between 8th and the Park was glorious! The kitchen was absolutely stunning and remodeled.

There was another Berkeley Place that needed a ton of work (between 7th and 8th) that sold for a little shy of 3 million.

Perhaps thats the one you are thinking of...

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 4:41 PM

Your lover will soon be out of a job then, 4:36.

Disclosing offering bids will cost him his license.

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 4:43 PM

4:33, this is the Berkeley house that sold and was last listed for $3.35. It was perfectly renovated. You must be talking about the other Berkeley house that was a real fixer-upper.
http://www.corcoran.com/property/listing.aspx?Region=NYC&ListingID=1070981

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 4:48 PM

Um, I think 4:36 meant it as a joke...at least that's how I read it.

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 4:49 PM

4:36 - your lover is talking out of the same a$$ you eat for dinner.

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 4:51 PM

It's hard to read humor or sarcasm online.

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 4:55 PM

This is not a serious real estate blog.

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 4:58 PM

"This is not a serious real estate blog."

If it were, it wouldn't be nearly as entertaining as it is, and it wouldn't get the amount of hits it does.

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 5:01 PM

For all those confused about the two Berkeley houses that recently sold-

207 Berkeley, a fixer-upper with beautiful detail, last listed price in the NY Times ads was $2.575, it sold soon thereafter:

http://tinyurl.com/2u9unf

270 Berkeley, renovated and move-in condition, listed with Corcoran for $3.35, sold in less than a month:

http://tinyurl.com/37c9gu

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 5:09 PM

I'll buy the house IF it comes with the harpsichord in the picture, AND the seller will also provide the re-animated corpse of J.S. Bach to play for me whenever I want.

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 5:12 PM

I am actually happy to hear that people are not throwing millions at these houses as readily as they were last year.
Maybe things are coming down to earth.
A soft landing?

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 5:16 PM

well since this went on the market in april, well before anything was even mentioned about the credit crisis or anything of the sort i don't see how this house not selling (and others nearby selling after the credit woes) signify that the market is softening.

i'm not saying it's not softening, but taking this house as that example seems like faulty logic to me.

personally as someone who lives near here and sold my studio for 80K more than I paid for it last year, it does not appear to be softening but i'm sure others have difference experiences.

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 5:20 PM

Honestly, if someone snatches this up for 3.3 million or less, I think they're getting a deal.

Once the market swings back up, this place will go for 5 million in 10 years, tops.

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 5:25 PM

it'll be 5 million in 5-7 years.

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 5:27 PM

Well, considering you probably have to put about 1 million into it, I don't see how it's such a great deal if it's only worth 5 million in 10 years.

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 5:31 PM

1 million into it?

You're absolutely out of your mind.

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 5:38 PM

Are they including the completely underground basement in the "Over 5000 sf of grand proportioned rooms?" It seems the only way to get close to that figure.

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 5:39 PM

Only in NYC would someone say you had to sink a million into this place to make it livable.

My god. This is a GORGEOUS HOME. It might need some work, but certainly not a million dollars.

Come on man.

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 5:39 PM

This house can be in your dreams! Waiting no longer for chance to live in palace of magnificant with room for 10 children or more! Park Slope is most warm of all the Brooklyn neighborhoods and they like foreigners. Buy this dream-palace today for rediculous low price of $3.4 million worthless U.S. dollars. Arabs, Chinese and Russians welcome. Call me!

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 5:56 PM

The market is slower than last Fall. The reason this is not selling is that the house requires considerable work and probably a year to deal with the extensive renovations. Also, initially, the owners had a number of dogs in cages throughout the house which was an unwelcomed distraction. House has great light/South exposure and feels wider than it really is but being totally realistic, you can't live in the place for close to a year and the cost to do it properly, could be in excess of $1 mil., just stripping the wallpaper will be a chore. AC will run you over $75,000. Most people don't wish to be saddled with this amount of work and if they do, they tend to have deeper pockets and prefer to be in Brooklyn Heights.

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 5:59 PM

Fotunate bonus to this house buyer. If you move in today comes with caged dogs in every floor. Impress your friends or just to scare your wife with caged dogs in this magnificant dream-palace of all time. All this for only $3.4 million of worthless currency. Arabs, Chinese and Russians: your looking is coming to an end result. Call me!

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 6:04 PM

Interesting that the PPW house linked to under the previous HOTD post for this Montgomery Place house (follow links in post above) seems to have been taken off the market. Apparently it did not sell--they were asking $3.975 in April.

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 6:36 PM

By the time you pay the architect, you pay the expeditor, you pay the contractor's original fee, you pay for his change orders, you pay for the engineer, and you pay for the cost of carry while you are waiting 12-18 months for this house to be redone with new mechanicals, plumbing etc, you will EASILY be out over $1.2ml bucks if not $1.5ml. I know, You are crazy, blah, blah, BUT it is true if yo want it done right and you work forr a living.

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 7:07 PM

The sellers must be stubborn and/or are misinformed by their brokers, who are the same agents that were at Corcoran and are now with Elliman (suspicious - does anyone know why?). Why anyone shops with these huge corporate "headless" agencies is beyond me. I cannot say they are ever helpful. The attitude was sort of "How dare you question me about the price or anything?" We live in the area and thought of upgrading. We have children and saw the place earlier this year. It is in need of a major renovation and -- yes, we got FLEA BITES INSIDE THE HOUSE! My husband and I had bites on our ankles. The kitchen is so old it's possibly 1950's, and not in the good way. I was embarassed for the family that lives there. The agents never should be showing this way. They did a disservice to the sellers. The basement appeared it was totally falling apart around us. Rear deck was rotted. I wouldn't even go on it with more than 2 people, you seriously could fall through. That may be the only way someone will get the house - ha! Nonetheless, I think it's worth something around $2.8M and will retain it's value in years to come. It could be really beautiful some day, but who has the resources to fix it and continue to live somewhere else while you wait a year or more for all that to be done? Some friendly advice to the agents and seller: the asking price can not be justified without a major renovation, don't keep comparing it to the prices your neighbors got in the past - those glory days are over and will be for years to come. Take it off the market now and fix the issues before someone gets hurt.

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 7:15 PM

wait, this house in nowhere near Clinton Hill or Bedford Stuyvesant. Where do the sellers get off asking for this much dough?
And their wallpaper is tacky. And there aren't even two or three income-producing apartments upstairs. Forget it. They nuts?
And to top it off: no roll down gate at the front.

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 7:40 PM

7:40, uhmm, That's so funny I forgot to laugh.

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 8:05 PM

Well, I guess 7:15's comment explains why this isn't moving.

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 8:40 PM

yeah, flea bites do not add value.

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 8:55 PM

Those were blue chip Montgomery Place fleas, the most highly coveted of all Park Slope fleas, not some sorry Bushwick bedbugs. You should have felt honored that they deemed you bite-worthy.

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 9:07 PM

8:05, "so funny I forgot to laugh" is about as funny as the fact that you said that and you're NOT in second grade. Or maybe you are. In that case--lame joke, junior.

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 9:11 PM

what ever happened to that condo on montgomery that was like over 2 million bucks for a 3 bedroom? listed by sothebys. anyone remember that one?

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 10:55 PM

Still seems to be available. Google the phrase "Stunning Condo Duplex in Stately Mansion" and you will find the listing.

Posted by: guest at December 19, 2007 12:26 AM

Hey 9:11. I know you are but what am I?

Posted by: guest at December 19, 2007 6:49 AM

I'll take fleas over tenants any day.
You can bomb fleas.

Posted by: guest at December 19, 2007 9:21 AM

To renovate, do the math:
5,238sq. ft. X $350sq. ft. = 1.8m
$350 - $500 sq. ft is the going rate for a high end gut renovation.

Ok...so this won't be a gut renovation, but you're still going to want to upgrade plumbing, bathrooms, kitchens, add central AC, etc.
Even if you do a cheap ass renovation @ 200sq. ft. you're at 1M

High End Prices
Typical high end NYC (8X10) kitchen is about $100K
Bathroom (5X7) about 30K

To renovate this house will be over 1M.
Is it worth it??

Posted by: guest at December 19, 2007 10:19 AM

if i had the time and the money i would definately do it.

this place has the potential to be fantastic.

Posted by: guest at December 19, 2007 12:28 PM

"this place has the potential to be fantastic."

Yes, but at the asking price, it should ALREADY be fantastic.

Posted by: guest at December 19, 2007 1:33 PM