The Novo Going (At Least Partially) Rental?

Shocking! In other unexpected news, the sun rose this morning.

Posted by: guest at December 6, 2007 11:36 AM

As if the high condo price didnt alienate buyers, you think a 2BR on 4th Avenue will fetch $3,500 renters?

Posted by: guest at December 6, 2007 11:43 AM

cheaper than 400/night across the street!

Posted by: guest at December 6, 2007 11:51 AM

Amusing.

These are the condos frequently brought up by pumpers on these very boards as perfect examples of the recession proof park slope property market.

If they are going rental it is because Boymelgreen looked at sales and noticed, whoa, they've fallen off a cliff that even a discount won't help. Being a man entirely obsessed with ROI he decides to screw the buyers - some of which must have been hoping to rent out their units themselves, or flip them - and throw the rest of the units onto the rental market rather than have them gather dust for the next 3 to 6 months.

Posted by: guest at December 6, 2007 12:02 PM

i wish they'd tear that place down and start over.

Posted by: guest at December 6, 2007 12:06 PM

Not good for those who bought. 40% rental. History repeats itself. It's 1990 all over again. Renters will be hard on that building. I can see it now. Try explaining to someone paying $3500 a month in rent that he can't practice their tuba playing at 3am weekdays.

Posted by: guest at December 6, 2007 12:08 PM

i think the rental prices are ok. rentals are sky high right now.

Posted by: guest at December 6, 2007 12:09 PM

3.5K for a 2 Bedroom? That is about 1K more than what can be obtained further east. I see 1 bedrooms listed for under 2K. Seems to me a strecth. Some renters would need to chime in and explain what would draw them to pay a thousand more a month for a rental apartment?

Posted by: guest at December 6, 2007 12:20 PM

Wait till BelTel, Oro, Forte etc all start renting out the half they haven't sold... And it iwll be soon.

Posted by: guest at December 6, 2007 12:21 PM

I would hope the buyers could bail now that half the place is up for rent.

I'd be PISSED!!!

And for all those that talk sh*t about Co-ops and tout Condos as the best thing since sliced bread...here is a PERFECT example of why I am so happy I live in a co-op.

That place is going to look like shit in 5 years.

Even more than it does now, it that's possible.

Posted by: guest at December 6, 2007 12:23 PM

12:23pm. You're not making any sense. Flexibility to rent out is one of the very reasons why people like condos. Co-ops don't let it happen, along with many other restrictions. As someone who has lived in a Brooklyn co-op for four years (which still has sponsor-owned rent control units from the '80's!) I can't say that co-op living has been a dream. My wife and I would love to be able to move to a larger place, but hold on to our 1-bed and rent it out. But we can't. Everything has its costs.

Posted by: guest at December 6, 2007 12:30 PM

$3500 for 2 bedroom is not too much - it's in 321....and it'll be new everything. easy to move into, etc...

Posted by: guest at December 6, 2007 12:33 PM

Oh no, here we go again. Another drag-down of condos, on 4th ave and in general? Doesn't anyone have anything better to do or say? Yes, condos suck, we know it already, blah, blah, blah.

This repetitive ranting must some form of self-esteem therapy for some people with issues out there.

And don't worry, I don't have any stake in any of these buildings.

Posted by: guest at December 6, 2007 12:35 PM

That is why I would never buy into one of these new buildings, I would be PISSED OFF if my building turned into a rental.. Can any lawyers chime in here?? Could you sue?

Posted by: guest at December 6, 2007 12:37 PM

Agreed on the rent, not too bad against what's in the market. I can see this working for people with small kids too (proximity to JJ Byrne, within PS321).

Posted by: guest at December 6, 2007 12:41 PM

I'm guessing would-be flippers who are now becoming landlords rather than try to sell in a declining market.

Posted by: guest at December 6, 2007 12:43 PM

Renovated buildings/appartments also come with "New everything" and are in better locations than this that still don't command 3.5K a month for 2 bedrooms.

Posted by: guest at December 6, 2007 12:45 PM

I live in a small 10 unit co-op and convinced everyone that allowing renting (upon approval of the new tenant by a majority of the board) was a positive thing for the building and for resale value.

So now we allow renters.

Most people are pretty resonable if you have some tact.

Posted by: guest at December 6, 2007 12:49 PM

the studio i own in the north slope rents out for 1700 a month.

you people in 2000 1 bedrooms in prime park slope are in deals, btw. rents have increased signifcantly.

Posted by: guest at December 6, 2007 12:50 PM

12:21 - I was thinking of buying at the Forte...What's the basis for the claim they'll start renting out soon? What info do you have on the current status of sales, etc.? Thanks.

Posted by: guest at December 6, 2007 1:07 PM

fun fact....it has been the sponsor's intention since about April to rent out the bottom 2 floors.

Posted by: guest at December 6, 2007 1:11 PM

"the studio i own in the north slope rents out for 1700 a month."

We know. You trot this out on every thread.

A couple of points:

A) This isn't the North Slope
B) Your tenant is a sucker

Posted by: guest at December 6, 2007 1:18 PM

those formulas are a bit outdated, 12:52. people here spend a lot more on rent and scrimp in other areas to make up for it. cheap beer, for instance.

these will be rented out to young professionals making about 50-70K a year. two of them will share it.

pretty common. that's an executive assistant's salary.

my friend is a waitress and makes 65K a year for god's sake.

Posted by: guest at December 6, 2007 1:18 PM

If there was ever a place that was built to be a rental. this is it.

Posted by: guest at December 6, 2007 1:20 PM

i rent in a 2br in a very comparable building in 321 and pay 1k less than 3.5k.

Posted by: guest at December 6, 2007 1:20 PM

This is really bad news for the buyers. A condo 50% rented sucks.

Posted by: guest at December 6, 2007 1:24 PM

To the co-op owner of a small building that allows rentals -- that works only so long as everyone wants to rent; once one or more folks want to sell, they will be in trouble. As someone stated, as in the early '90s, between credit drying up, and bank's being more circumspect, prospective owners are going to have trouble getting mortgages if they are going to be able to get them at all. In general, I think it is a bad idea to allow rentals in small building.

Posted by: guest at December 6, 2007 1:25 PM

"Try explaining to someone paying $3500 a month in rent that he can't practice their tuba playing at 3am weekdays."

LOL!

Posted by: guest at December 6, 2007 1:30 PM

"My bet is not only will real estate prices come down, but so will rents."

BINGO!

Posted by: guest at December 6, 2007 1:39 PM

Hopefully developers will take note that crap simply does not sell.

Posted by: guest at December 6, 2007 1:39 PM

fun fact.... the 1st 2 floors of Forte' are retail spaces renting through RFK. Condos start on the marketing 3RD floor.Hence if you count Forte' does not really have 30 floors, yet it is marketed as so.

Posted by: guest at December 6, 2007 1:47 PM

"What's the basis for the claim they'll start renting out soon?"

I'm not 12:21 but I did see those Forte units and the sales team refused to disclose how many units have sold yet. Unless someone can enlighten us to the contrary, you have to assume they're under pressure to go rental to absorb those exorbitant holding costs. One of their representatives became defensive when I commented on the small master bedroom on of the 3/2 units (for over a mil, I should be able to fit king bed, dresser and chest). I think all these developers are getting desperate.

Posted by: guest at December 6, 2007 1:48 PM

1:11 - It appears that the apartments start on the third floor. I know the Clarett Group/Forte are trying to rent out the bottom for a restaurant or such. Are you saying that they have already had plans to rent out the bottom two residential floors?

Posted by: guest at December 6, 2007 1:52 PM

i was just commenting that i don't believe these will be rented to COUPLES earning 140K a year.

i think it will be groups of 2 (or possibly even 3) young professionals who will rent these and share them.

lots of "cool" stuff opening on 4th, great access to manhattan and 5th avenue.

not really a family building, from what i can see.

Posted by: guest at December 6, 2007 2:11 PM

"Hopefully developers will take note that crap simply does not sell."

You all either have the financial capacity to live/rent/buy in what you would consider 'quality' buildings, or you hold out a high standard but can't back it up by actually affording to live to your high standard.

This building is no better or worse than a zillion other buildings throughout New York. And it's priced for it's neighborhood +/- to account for SOME variability for quality.

The fact is a lot of New York residential doesn't appear that nice. In fact, in many ways it's a ugly city at least from a residential perspective.

You can say you want only the best, but you better be able to pay for it. If not, you can stay where ever you are and complain about all the crap.

Some of you are like that white cat in that TV commercial who is finicky and only eats the best catfood. That cat is sponging off his rich owner, but passes off his great taste as a virtue. Get real!

Posted by: guest at December 6, 2007 2:14 PM

A co-op is the way to go if you want a long-term, perhaps even permanent home. There is nothing like a tough coop board to keep the building on an even keel and keep deadbeats and fly-by-nights out.
A condo is best if you are really buying on a speculative basis and you may want to rent it out month to month. In NYC, condos unfortunately attract some of the folks who would never make the grade in a good co-op. That includes people who don't file their taxes, who have shady sources of income, who launder money in the Caicos, on and on. NYC has more than its share of shady characters and they may end up living on your floor in a condo.
The very worst thing is to buy in a condo that then becomes largely rental. That is like living in a fancy SRO. There is no real stability or pride of ownership in the building.

Posted by: guest at December 6, 2007 2:14 PM

you can easily find 800sqf apartments for around 2400 in prime park slope and 2000 by 4th ave.

these prices suck.

Posted by: guest at December 6, 2007 2:17 PM

1:18 Life is too short to drink cheap beer!

Posted by: guest at December 6, 2007 2:19 PM

2:14pm. That's total bullshit! Some of the most expensive and desirable buildings in top-flight neighborhoods in Manhattan (read: Tribeca, Chelsea) are condos. No deadbeats paying $1,400...$1,600...$1,800... a square foot to buy into those buildings.

Posted by: guest at December 6, 2007 2:31 PM

As has been said from the beginning, this is nothing but a glorified dorm.

Posted by: guest at December 6, 2007 2:36 PM

as someone here noted, this building was ALWAYS going to be part rental from the very FIRST offering plan. I agree that this is probably the single ugliest in Brooklyn, but this does not mean ANYTHING as far as the market in general or 4th ave specifically. Crest has sold 61 out of 68 units as of today. Argyle is over 30% sold already etc. So I guess there goes that theory....

Posted by: guest at December 6, 2007 2:36 PM

I responded to 2:14pm's absurd comments about condo-dwellers and then upon reading his comments again realized that he couldn't possbily be serious. I was duped.

Posted by: guest at December 6, 2007 2:41 PM

I dont mind the Novo too much. I guess all of you Purists prefer the tire stores and shacks that formely occupied the space.

Anyhow, rent or own it will boost 4th avenue and increase foot traffic and ammenities.

As ugly as it is, some people will find it more appealing than alot of the rental stock in run down brownstones and hundred year old dumps landlords pass off as "cahrming" in Park slope these days.

Posted by: guest at December 6, 2007 2:46 PM

The one who keeps referring to the building as a dorm, have you been inside?

Posted by: guest at December 6, 2007 2:50 PM

Lets not jump to conclusions here.
A couple of ads on craigslist are not necessarily an indication of 40% of the building going rental. These could be buyers who bought their apartments as investments or simply decided to postpone moving in.

Posted by: guest at December 6, 2007 3:10 PM

"The one who keeps referring to the building as a dorm, have you been inside?"

I think they are referring to the potential denizens, not the building.

Posted by: guest at December 6, 2007 3:13 PM

All I really want to know is this: when will it be finished?

Posted by: guest at December 6, 2007 3:19 PM

i have no desire to go inside.

i like to live in a building i find beautiful.

and i find this the exact opposite of beautiful.

happy to have it over a tire shop, but it's still unreasonable that things this hideous get built.

Posted by: guest at December 6, 2007 3:23 PM

Dear Brownstoner,

Hold on a second! With all due respect, are you positive that what you are seeing on Craigslist are not simply ads being placed by buyers/investors who have already closed ar will be closing soon? Did you call the Boymelgreen/Corcoran office to verify this before posting?

According to the corcoran website they are NOT offering any of these units as rentals. 58 have sold and 18 are currently for sale.

The craigslist ads appear to have nothing to do with Boymelgreen or Corcoran. If this is true, then about 50 people made comments that were based on pure speculation - comments which sound pretty silly if it turns out it's just a few units being rented out by the condo owner.

Posted by: guest at December 6, 2007 4:12 PM

4:12: agreed. It's apretty irresponsible post. I've seen the apartment at the Novo: they're crap, but the craigslist ads I've seen look like the work of an independent agent representing some unit owners.

Posted by: guest at December 6, 2007 4:29 PM

I didn't know the Novo had even started closings yet. From what I understand, you can't legally advertise an apartment for rent until you've closed on it (because you don't own it until then). And the DOB website doesn't show a Certificate of Occupancy (or even a TCO) as having been issued, so I really don't get it. Has anyone tried calling this real estate person (who doesn't seem to be affiliated with any reputable organization)?

Posted by: guest at December 6, 2007 5:04 PM

3:23pm. I guess you don't ride the subways, because they are hideous too. And don't use the post office, cause most of them are hideous too. And don't ever take a train to NJ cause Penn Station is hideous. Or go to a Rangers game cause MSG is hideous, or go to the movies because most movie theaters in NY are hideous. Or drive down Flatbush Avenue, cause it's hideous.

Posted by: guest at December 6, 2007 5:06 PM

4:12 and 4:29 (aka the brokers) need to read what brownstoner wrote. he simply wrote that 2 rentals showed up on craigslist.

if you have a problem with other speculation, take it up with the anonymous posters on this thread.

nothing in the write-up was a false, misleading or irresponsible statment. it was a statment of fact.

sounds to me someone is a little pissed off.

i wonder why...

Posted by: guest at December 6, 2007 5:07 PM

Nope...I actually really like ugly things...love the subways, msg...even flatbush!!!

But I don't care to live my one life on this planet or raise my family in something ugly.

I know...crazy talk.

Posted by: guest at December 6, 2007 5:16 PM

Broker should learn to spell!!!
Marion

Posted by: guest at December 6, 2007 5:28 PM

5:07. You're wrong on that. B'stoner clearly implied there was a link between what he interpreted as slowing sales (from the sponsor) and the appearance of rental units.

If he thought they were rental units from owners, why then would he care how many sponsor units had sold?

Posted by: guest at December 6, 2007 5:34 PM

5:16p. Fair enough. You troll around this hideous city going about your business, but when you go home to the family, you want to be in your bubble of beauty. Man's home is his castle.

By the way, found a news story you might be interested in:

IN POLL, 79% OF BROOKLYN BROWNSTONE DWELLERS RANK NATION’S CRAPPY HOUSING STOCK AS #1 PROBLEM FACING COUNTRY

A survey conducted by Gallup/Brownstoner of Brooklyn’s brownstone residents indicated that 79% feel that the nation’s ugly houses and residential buildings are the number one issue and challenge facing the United States. In the survey, 12% chose the environment as their primary concern, 8% chose illegal immigration, 1% chose the economy and 0% chose the conflict in Iraq/terrorism.

“There are essentially only five or six habitable neighborhoods in the entire United States,” said one survey taker, who chose only to reveal his identity as ‘Rehab’, “and they are all in the borough of Brooklyn…This is unsustainable.”

Rehab went on to say, “as they say, man cannot live on bread alone, and residing in finely appointed, nicely restored, detail-rich brownstones is an essential component of any healthy life. The fact that 99.99% of the nation’s dwellings are hideous, ugly, charmless, and grotesque suggests the dire straits we find ourselves in.”

Other like-minded survey takers pointed to “generic colonial houses in boring suburbs, tacky faux-Spanish haciendas in Florida and Southern California, and soulless modern constructions, such as Frank Lloyd Wright’s ‘Fallingwater’ in Bear Run Pennsylvania” as examples of blight that degrade the aesthetic sanctity and mental health of the country and its people. Special scorn was reserved for new-build condominiums in major metropolitan regions, which one survey respondent likened to “the hydrogen bomb of residential architecture.”

When asked whether they were certain that Brooklyn’s neighborhoods were the only ones in the country with suitable brownstone dwellings, survey takers were uncertain. Some claimed to know of brownstones on the Upper West Side of Manhattan but wrote them off as “too expensive” and “filled with rich yuppie scum.” As for the prospect for finding stocks of charming 19th century residential structures in cities such as Boston and Philadelphia, most survey takers responded that they had “never been to those places.”

Not all survey takers agreed that charmless housing was the primary problem facing the country. “Fuck brownstones and their ass-whipped owners,” said The What, a notorious gadfly to Brooklyn’s brownstone residents. “This goddamn credit depression and financial system implosion are gonna wipe out these lily-skinned brownstone fucks and their precious homes,” The What went on to say.

The survey taker known as Rehab claimed to be in talks with former Vice President Al Gore about the possibility of producing a feature-length documentary about this problem, tentatively titled “An Inconvenient Truth II – Brownstone Living or The End of the World”. Rehab said that the key take-home from the film would be that a population of non-Brownstone dwellers would eventually perish from spiritual malnutrition, threatening our children, our country and the fate of the world. When asked what the appeal of such a film would be to people living outside of Brooklyn, Rehab predicted that “this documentary will win a Nobel Prize.”

Posted by: guest at December 6, 2007 5:39 PM

Broker should learn to spell!!!
Marion

Posted by: guest at December 6, 2007 5:39 PM

I agree with 5:07. Whether or not units are rented out by the sponsor or recent buyers, the effect is the same. IT'S GOING RENTAL. One of the classic, preliminary stages of a housing price collapse. My condolences go out to anyone who purchased in this development at ask.

Posted by: guest at December 6, 2007 6:17 PM

Whatever happened to brevity?

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

How long until Crest follows suit? Or the Olive Garden building? And let us not forget the poor, pitiful Argyle. The party is over and Argyle is nothing but a small stack of girders. I think I heard it quietly sobbing as I strolled past it last night.

Posted by: guest at December 6, 2007 7:04 PM

the argyle has sold 30% of its units since they went for sale in late october.

crest is nearly sold out.

Posted by: guest at December 6, 2007 8:12 PM

We are looking for a rental right now in Park Slope -- we have a 1 year old child -- rents are ridiculously high! We saw a third-floor walkup - just over 1,000 sq ft -- one floor -- for $4800 today! In the prime part of the neighborhood two bedrooms are going for at least 3-3500$ and they're often old and crappy, with moldy bathrooms and sub-standard kitchens, narrow brownstone parlors or walk-ups.

I don't relish the idea of living at the Novo, or on fourth avenue, but i might consider it if I don't find something better..

Posted by: guest at December 6, 2007 8:23 PM

6:17--

But what Brownstoner wrote (and really should respond to) is that sales must not be that great because apartments are going for rent. He drew that connection, and hasn't substantiated it.

If apartments are selling so poorly that the Novo is forced to change plans and rent them out, that's one thing. If a couple condo owners are renting out their apartments, that's not nearly as big.

Posted by: guest at December 6, 2007 8:58 PM

Can anyone tell me what's going on at the Forte? Any inside info would be great! Thanks for your help.

Posted by: guest at December 6, 2007 9:27 PM

4th Avenue and its (future) residents will outlive this website. Guaranteed.

Posted by: guest at December 6, 2007 10:08 PM

8:23 keep up the looking and consider other areas too. i've lived in 4 hoods in brooklyn, and there are plenty of great and surprising areas that aren't always considered... especially here. recommend doing a search on insideschools.org and joining local yahoo sites. check out brooklynbabyhui on yahoo groups for instance. people are really nice and helpful.

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

2:14 "The fact is a lot of New York residential doesn't appear that nice. In fact, in many ways it's a ugly city at least from a residential perspective."

Not true. That's why HOTD threads get soooo many comments. A lot of New York residential in form of houses (brownstone, limestone, townhouses, carriage [when they hit the market]) and older co-ops and condos are not only nice but stunningly beautiful to look at and live in. Yes, renos have to be done, but there is something to be said for housing that has lasted through the ages and still looks like a lady as opposed to a pig wearing lipstick and is affordable and where you can do what you want when you want.

The post about a tuba at 3am was dead on. Why would I buy or rent something where I can't do what I want when I want esp. if I am paying very dearly.

In my brownstone, with brick party walls, I can any and everything whenever I want and my neighbors are none the wiser. Oh, and my mortgage is less than or comparable to what people are paying to buy/rent crap.

Sandy

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 1:17 AM

Novo closings for the lower floors are happening soon. And there are units that are in contract but are not on StreetEasy.

Now when's Terrapin playground going to be finished?

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 3:13 AM

Sandy, you're seeing the world through your own brownstone-colored glasses. Much, if not most, of the city's housing stock is 'ugly' by the standard of the aesthetes that haunt this website (hell, this website wouldn't exist if everything were beautiful). And for every 'stunning' older co-op out there, there are three or more older co-ops that are dark, run-down and sad looking.

And one of the key themes on this website is that there are few, if any, unexploited brownstone neighborhoods left. The Crown Heights article hit this nail on the head: prices go (way) up, value goes down, attraction of neighborhood goes away.

Of course, if you have unlimited financial resources you can go out and buy all the beauty you want. But as the man above said, don't pass off your financial advantages as some sort of virtue in taste.

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 9:27 AM

One ugly building. One crappy street to live on. I lived on 4th ave for 2 years a little over 2yrs ago and it was horrible. The noise is insane. The marathon and other events going on this street every year suck. The only reason I stayed was due to the rent....a 3bdrm apt for $2100 on 4th btwn 10th and 11th. I then moved to a 1bdrm on Carroll Street for $1400, and just moved out of their into my very own purchased apartment in Fort Greene. I would love to stay in Park Slope but I would never move into this building or ever live on 4th Ave again....yeah yeah i know everyone says its going to be the next 5th ave. I wont hold my breath.

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 5:56 PM

I agree there may be some defects in the exterior brickwork, but if you've walked past the building, there is glass wall up the entire backside of the elevator along 4th avenue. Its beautiful. (Its to no surprise that the photo listed above doesn't show the angle to see any of the beautiful glass). The inside of the apartments are great. All of the lights and the shower/bathroom fixtures, appliances, are very high end. You are not getting garbage. The gym inside is excellent.

The exterior of the building could have been better. Its not terrible. But it looks like the Boymelgreens did a commendable job on the interior of the building. I can't wait to see what the lobby is going to look like.

As far as rental prices go. If people buy them, the price is right. If you think its too high, go rent somewhere else. For what you are getting, its a very fair price.

Posted by: guest at December 8, 2007 9:38 AM

[sound of crickets]

Posted by: guest at December 8, 2007 2:43 PM