That Pesky Last Unit at 302 Washington Avenue

wait- it's called a garden duplex, but I can't see the garden in the pictures, floorplan or listing description. Is there no garden? So I pay a million to live in the basement?

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 10:04 AM

for that much money in a condo i'd be very picky in this part of town. not that i wouldn't pay it necessarily, but i'd be careful.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 10:13 AM

I wouldn't want to live in a brownstone without any of the beautiful details. This place screams home depot to me. If I were a developer I would try to keep as much as possible rather than the usual format of recessed lighting, crappy new wood floors, hideous kitchens etc. I think that properties like these, ruined by developers will languish, especially now, so the idea that somehow this is the standard to make money seems old hat to me.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 10:18 AM

Hmmmm, seems like a lot of scratch for two bedrooms in that area. A helluva lotta scratch. It needs to come way down, especially since you are looking at over a $1k/mo in CC and taxes.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 10:22 AM

There IS no garden...there is a building right behind this townhouse. AND, by the way, that little moderne building used to be white which was appropriate. Someone decided to "brownstone" it a couple of years ago to ill effect. Yuck. The small bldg has metal windows from the 1930's. The overly dark brown looks terrible.

The apartment in questions is a 3-bedroom...not sure why someone above wrote that it only has 2... But still, the space is not so hot. Too much money of a mtg to carry on top of the maintenance. It would sell if it were priced accordingly.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 10:33 AM

We live in the lower duplex of our own brownstone, which we renovated relatively cheaply, and it's far nicer than this. The ceilings in the kitchen and dining room are low. If there is a nicer parlor floor living room with high ceilings, it's funny there are no photos of it. Also, the basement floor is more below ground than the standard brownstone, which has more steps leading up to the parlor floor. And I agree with above posters, this is an unconventional layout and I don't understand why they would do this.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 10:35 AM

I like Tinarina's use of Spanish in her post.
Kudos to using "el crappo"

Hilarious

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 10:35 AM

What "city views" do you figure you get from a "garden duplex"?

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 10:41 AM

I just don't get this. I mean it's "nice." But for that kind of money it should be more than that. This kitchen is disappointing. No real backyard is also a problem. I think the outside looks good despite the sub par landscaping.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 10:41 AM

By city views they mean you have to get on the bus and take it to the promenade and there you can see the city.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 10:43 AM

I looked at a few of the upper units in this building awhile back. Everything is perfectly fine except for the bus stop RIGHT NEXT to windows, (See photo). Anyone who has every lived close to a bus line knows how loud those things can be at all hours of the night. I'm sure a ground floor unit would bear the worst of it...

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 10:47 AM

"City views" as in views of the city sidewalks.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 10:58 AM

One walks in on the bedroom floor and the kitchen is upstairs, makes no sense.
I disagree with the posters that say this looks like Home Depot, I do not even know what that means, as opposed to what, Prada? I think the finishes and details look clean and beautiful but the layout is wacked out.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 11:00 AM

No, the kitchen is--perhaps it is those open shelves next to the window. What would one put there, mugs? That's not sleek; it's not elegant. I don't get it.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 11:04 AM

to 10:35,
I don't believe the term "el crappo" is really Spanish. Just FYI.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 11:05 AM

I'm surprised that Landmarks let them get away with not replacing the cornice. The building looks scalped.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 11:11 AM

The building looks great.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 11:15 AM

"I'm surprised that Landmarks let them get away with not replacing the cornice."

Ahhh, that's why it looks funny. I kept looking at the photo wondering why it was not as "beautiful" as claimed above.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 11:15 AM

11:04, if your kitchen looks better than this, then congratulations.
Based on the photo, this looks like a darn nice kitchen.
Some of the critics on this site are as nutty as this unit's layout. And I bet that there is someone out there who is searching and searching for a duplex with the bedrooms and LR downstais and the kitchen upstairs. They will fall in love when they see this and pay asking.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 11:21 AM

The landmaks commission does not make you put back a cornice if it was missing at the time the area was made an historic distrcit. However, if your cornice exists, they will not let you remove it or modify it.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 11:23 AM

The kitchen and living room being on different floors is just plain weird.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 11:28 AM

yeah, that is a little odd 11/28.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 11:30 AM

11:21 you really think someone is going to fall in love and pay asking? Why would they have to? They won't have any competitors bidding for the place, so they'd be pretty naive to do so. And I would think anyone paying 1.2 million for a house would be fairly financially savvy.

Unless 1.2 million is a "deal" for a 2-bedroom in a Clinton Hill brownstone with no back yard, why would someone buy this? Are you saying that a typical Clinton Hill duplex with better details, layout, and real back yard goes for 1.6 or 1.8 now?

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 11:31 AM

Everybody has a different opinion of good taste, it is meaningless to say that something was done without taste unless, I don't know, it looks really awful or has blue polka dots on the floor or something. What in the world is wrong with the "taste" of the kitchen or other finishes? It may not be your taste, but you may be the one with bad taste. Who knows? The little shelves next to the window are charming, what's wrong with them?
11:31 makes an excellent point that if only one weirdo likes this layout then the sponsor will not get his asking proce. But this is New York, there are bound to be at least three weirdos who have always dreamed of living next to the kitchen and putting the kids downstairs by the living room. And they will all appear at once.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 11:48 AM

what's wrong w/ blue polka dots? and is this how polka dots is spelled?

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 12:04 PM

Problem is, a garden duplex with no garden is really just a duplex with half your living space in a basement. Basements are el creepo. That kind of space should be priced at a discount, not a premium.

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

This is definitely a basement duplex. There should be no reference to "garden" made in connection with this unit. The basement is pretty low too. Probably just makes the 50% above-grade cutoff for "habitable space".
The price seems high but then all the prices on thid blog seem high so who knows? I prefer the 3-bedroom on Montague Street featyred last week. That was 1.4 but maybe negotiable and a larger, meaning more financially secure, building. Whoever drew up this floorpaln was not thinking striaght. This could have been much nicer, but it still a stretch to want this much dough for a semi-subterranean, easily burgled apartment. I pass.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 12:14 PM

Highly unlikely that 3 weirdos would appear at once 11:48am (or are you just kidding?) Apparently there hasn't even been 1 weirdo showing up for a year!

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 12:31 PM

Lot of competition at this price point. But all-in all the place looks pretty decent.

At lot of post here say it's not tasteful or it's an ole "developers home depot standard" What features, appliances, layouts etc. would make this place worth it?

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 12:36 PM

We were in the market for this exact type of apartment (1st floor and lower level duplex), and as 10:25 suggested, we did buy a place where we "live" on the upper floor. Our place is new, so we have 9 1/2 ft ceilings.

On the top floor, have a kitchen/dining room, full bath, office/guest room, and a living room with steps down to garden.

Lower level, 2 bedrooms, bath, storage and small patio outside of what's now the master bedroom. Master bed has big patio doors, letting in a lot of light. 2nd bed has 3 above ground windows which also let in a lot of light. Also, the lower level has full sized laundry room.

Sleeping in the garden level is terrific mostly because it's very quiet. I probably wouldn't have chosen a place that did not have garden access and fair amount of light tho.

Paid $950K, CCs- $335 / Taxes- $65 (per) month.

We did however, put in money to create this layout (moved plumbing, demo'ed closets) and we added built ins - most of this to create the master bedroom, so tack on another $90K or so.

Considering we have significant outdoor space (also, it leads to a common walk way out to the street), have a bigger apt (1950 sq. ft) and have lower cc:s.. think that this place is over priced.

Re location: I don't want to live in either Fort Greene or Clinton Hill, so I wouldn't have considered this place if had been on the market last year when we were looking anyway.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 12:42 PM

weirdos come in packs.
That has always been my experience in real estate.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 1:00 PM

10:33-Maybe the "moderne" building behind the duplex used to be white, but not in the last several years I have lived around the corner from it. Should it be white—yeah. I used to fantasize about remodeling it in an international style (painted white—a nice canvas for grafitti artists everywhere). I heard that Landmarks made them keep this building brown. As far as the cool pre-existing casement windows, I loved 'em, but they are freezing in the winter and the newer energy efficient casement replacements just don't capture the same less bulky look. FYI-this building used to be conected to the front brownstone. As for the confusion about the "garden" aspect to the duplex, I'm assuming it was to identify the 2 floors which comprise the place—the "garden" floor and the parlor floor (as opposed to, for example, a duplex using the parlor floor and the third floor). The ad says "3 bedroom garden/parlor duplex." A bit misleading though. Not only does it not have a garden, but the entire back of this duplex has no sunlight, though it does have some nice southern facing windows (albeit by the bus stop). Though I also have objections to the plan, it seems hard to provide 3 decent sized bedrroms in this space and layout, though I might have omitted the powder room in exchange for a larger second floor bathroom or a larger 2nd bedroom or expanded living room. They did use real slate on the new roof-nice, but they did not redo the brownstone exterior—it is painted. Wasn't sure how I felt about the Dekalb side painted brick color, some days I like it and some days I don't. I agree with Denny (11:32) that more and different woodwork would be an improvement. I understand and appreciate the modern aesthetic of minimal (or no) trim, but so many developers, and homeowners, go in and mix looks. These guys, in doing a gut reno, could not be faulted for going with a truly modern look, but the kitchen and the use of unappealing, cheap trim clearly indicate that this was not their aim. If not going modern, this parlor floor would have had 11-12' foot ceilings originally, and larger trim would have looked great (along with ceiling molding). Since it has added a/c and forced air heat, I suppose they had to drop the ceilings for airhandlers and duct work,etc., but still larger scale woodwork would be called for. Their choice, to my mind, equals the less expensive way out (as do the appliance choices for a 1.2 mil space). Not to say that the look of a space has to be an either/or proposition, but it is a fine line to pull it off well. All in all, not near as bad as it could have been, in fact, not bad at all. The right person will dig the floor plan (or perhaps make some modifications). I know one thing, they will love this neighborhood. Welcome to everyone else that have already purchased in the building. Happy holdays everybody.

An opinionated non architect in brooklyn

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 1:34 PM

Dear El estupido,

I think the painted facade looks really nice. A good combination of brick red and brownstone brown. Also, what is wrong with the windows?

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

I live just down the block from this building. I always walk by it and only see 1 light on. I didn't realize that all of them are occupied except one. Great location.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 5:24 PM

The house is nice, living in the basement is for the help. Thank God I don't have to stoop so low as to live in a basement off Fort Greene Park. Oy!

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 7:28 PM

Does eight blocks away count as "off Fort Greene Park?" In that case, I live four blocks inside of Prospect Park.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 8:21 PM

Is it really that cost-prohibitive to punch through those original windows on the side? I don't understand. I see so many buildings with the original window openings all bricked up.

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

8:21, How's that? Your comment make no sense. Are you a homeless person living inside Prospect Park with a wi-fi connection?

10:05, Listen you numbskull, those are "blind windows" they are part of the vocabulary of classical architecture, which I am sure is Greek to you since it isn't something you can download on your I-pod. Leave the architectural criticism to the grown-ups, OK?

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 10:42 PM

Brooklyn had a window tax?

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 12:31 AM

Not all "blind windows" were originally actual blind windows. A lot of windows BECAME "blind", if you will, because someone covered them up. Someone is really pissed off--usually the sign of a person with a vested interest.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 12:36 AM

To Denny Henrequez (ealier blogger) use SPELLCHECK. How are you ever going to afford any real estate if you can't spell. Less time on Brownstoner and more time in school.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 7:16 AM

If someone has a vested interest whats wrong with that? Go home and have your mommy wipe your tushy.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 7:19 AM

To 7:16 (earlier blogger) use SPELLCHECK. How are you ever going to afford any real estate if you can't spell. Less time on Brownstoner and more time in school.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 10:50 AM

zing.

Posted by: guest at December 15, 2007 12:30 PM

I looked at this place last year and thought the maint. cost. was a little high and the fact that the master bedroom view consisted of the bus stop (38B), coupled with bad bathrooms (too small- too 'cheap' looking)warranted a pass. the neighborhood has a lot of pluses but the cost will have to come down to move.

Posted by: guest at December 20, 2007 12:34 PM