Condo of the Day: 409 3rd Street

does anyone know why my comment about wondering about the future of real estate blogs (as the economy and housing market seem to be tanking) would be deleted?

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 12:48 PM

maintenance and taxes are $560 a month!!

that is a BARGAIN and i believe makes up for the higher price tag.

most units this size are 1000 bucks a month or so.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 12:51 PM

yuck. these little room, cramped, no central a/c, no storage, no laundry walk-ups are sheer misery at any price. plus, crap kitchen/bath.... triple yuck.

buy a new condo with the bells and whistles and add the damn moldings.

save a bundle and live better..

yuck yuck yuck

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 12:53 PM

new condos are not going to hold their value well as they age, 12:53.

especially as the market takes a tumble.

people in condos are going to be the first to try to unload or rent out and a lot of the newer condo buildings are going to suffer in quality.

co-ops have stood the test of time in nyc over the long run (saved our ASSES) from the credit crisis) and i think we will continue to see that as the next couple years unfold.

there is a reason they exist and we now are starting to see why.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 12:56 PM

If you pay over a million dollars for an apartment in Brooklyn and you only have one bathroom then you are insane!

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 12:57 PM

Yet another way overpriced coop that is going to sit on the market for months. Obviously not a seller who cares about actually selling in 2008. Either that, or yet another broker who promised the moon to get a listing.

No one with this kind of money is stupid enough to spend over $1000 per square foot for a not particularly nice co-op in the middle of Park Slope (though 3rd is a nice couple of blocks). The low maintenance cost doesn't change this simple fact.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 1:03 PM

Once NYC Finance sees you bought the place for over 1 mil, I assure you the "Unabated" taxes of $160/ month will shoot up to the moon.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 1:06 PM

Shock - Corcoran releases another grossly overpriced Park Slope listing...hoping to lure some 26 year old sucker with a bonus check in off the streets of Tribeca. Unfortunately, there simply aren't as many out there this year. Most are hoarding their cash and/or getting paid in stock. This won't sell above $1m.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 1:07 PM

How much would this apartment be in the City?

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 1:07 PM

more

but it would be less in Bed-Stuy

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 1:11 PM

This apartment would cost easily 3 million at one of those HIDEOUS upper west side monstrocities (Ariel East and West). And that's not even a nice part of the Upper West Side...99th and Broadway.

That being said, 3rd Street is one of the most lovely blocks in Brooklyn, in my opinion.

I'm curious to those who say that this will sit and sit like all the other overpriced crap? Can you please tell me where all this stuff is, because in my look around the major brokers websites, I see almost NOTHING for sale.

Where is all this stuff that sits that you speak of? Cause if they were taken off the market, then clearly the owners didn't really NEED to sell so your implication that it's a larger sign of the market in jeopardy, you really should come up with a new explanation.

If you knew anything about Park Slope real estate, you would know that inventory hasn't been this low in decades.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 1:13 PM

Lousy layout. Seven foot wide bedrooms. One bath. I agree - it's a triple yuck.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 1:15 PM

This apt will not go for over $1mm. And the high price will only deter buyers. There doesn't appear anything special about the apt. 3rd street may be nice, but it is far from all subways.

There is no reason to ask what it would go for in Manhattan, since it's not Manhattan!

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 1:20 PM

It doesn't matter what it would cost in Manhattan. Get over it already. The other poster is right--yeah, and it would be cheaper in Bed-Stuy, and even cheaper in Staten Island. And?? It's not the UWS. And just because it's cheaper compared to the UWS doesn't mean it's a deal or a bargain so that someone will pay any price JUST because it's cheaper comparatively speaking. It's still 1+ million bucks.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 1:21 PM

This apt was a rental for $3900/month back in August '07 - according to streeteasy. hhmmmm. The math doesn't add up!

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 1:22 PM

People on this board need to realize anything can and will sell in NYC this is not bumfck OHIO. Where is the WHAT? you are an Shitbag WHAT

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 1:22 PM

1:07...here's what 1.1 million gets you on the upper west side.

http://www.corcoran.com/property/listing.aspx?Region=NYC&ListingID=1164921&ohDat=1/27/2008%2012:00:00%20AM;

not a whole helluva lot. and the maint is over TWICE what this place is.

i think it's easy to see why these places get top dollar for brooklyn, when 700 sf 1 bedrooms go for a million in most parts of manhattan these days.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 1:22 PM

How much would this cost in east new york?

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 1:22 PM

Comparing Park Slope to the Upper West Side or Manhattan in general is not stupid. Sorry, but it's not.

I and most of my friends moved from the Upper West Side (renting) to buy in Park Slope.

Why is it not important to discuss that for a million dollars you get a 1 bedroom on the Upper West Side and for the same 1 million you get a 3 bedroom on the most beautiful block in Park Slope?

I don't get it. I certainly know that I much prefer Park Slope. If you gave me 10 million bucks right now, I wouldn't leave Park Slope, so why is talking about the difference in price not important given that a huge amount of the new residents in Park Slope are moving from Manhattan??

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 1:26 PM

Two of those three bedrooms are minuscule jokes. The bathroom is also tiny.

The place is listed as a condo, hence the low monthly charges, so you get none of the benefits of being in a co-op.

And this isn't even one of the nice stretches of 3rd Street.

3 strikes.

I suspect this place will go somewhere in the $800-850k range.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 1:31 PM

I agree without other amenities such as a wood burning fireplace and private or shared outdoor space, I think the max price would be $700/sq ft. I think the real size of the apartment is 1250 square feet and should therefore sell at $875k.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 1:34 PM

I'd rather be in cobble hill or brooklyn heights for 1mm. I don't engage often in the Park Slope discussions, but I have to think that this neighborhood has gone too high, too fast. It just doesn't feel like a smart bet to put down 1mm+ for this place.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 1:35 PM

I love how they throw in the word "awesome" into the description.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 1:36 PM

Park Slope is getting softer by the minute... snuggly soft.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 1:38 PM

I would say the average maintenance in park slope is about $750 per month, so for every $100 below this amount is worth about $17k based on 6% interest rate. In this case then the $560 maintenance is worth about $32,300 to the overall price of the apartment which should be reflected in the price per square foot. I would say $909k should get it done.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 1:39 PM

1:35....cobble hill and brooklyn heights are more expensive than Park Slope. And Cobble Hill was a pit 10 years ago.

So how is it that Park Slope has gone "too high, too fast" when things have gone higher and faster in BH and CH.

Why would anyone spend a million bucks for a place near a deserted downtown and a bunch of Johos as compared to a million to be near the best park in NYC on the nicest street in the borough?

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 1:39 PM

I'd put this in the 900K range, probably 950K. I'd also redo the layout so that the little bedroom off the living room was a dining area and use the dining room/home office as a bedroom so that all the bedrooms are in the back together. The back small room is tiny, but that's par for the course iwth an old walk up building.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 1:42 PM

So this floor-through that's been chopped up is really a 2 bedroom apartment. $1+ million for a 2BR?

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 1:43 PM

These long, streched out brownstone apartments (longer because they were built as 4 or 8-unit buildings, not single-family) are in demand, because they have the charm of brownstone apartment living, with lots more space than those floor-thrus made from carved up single-families. They make lovely apartments. (Those looking for brownstone apartments know about the narrow width of some brownstone rooms, and aren't deterred.)

The much lower maintenance on larger brownstone coop apartments (compared to larger buidlings with staff and elevators to maintain) makes them more affordable. The fact that this one is a condo is a big plus to the buyers, in my opinion, as they don't have to get board approval, and can likely rent out their unit if they want.

I don't know what it will go for, but it definitely go for at least close to a million, and I wouldn't be surprised if it went for over one million.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 1:44 PM

Manhattan is Manhattan, period. This is not Manhattan.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 1:44 PM

1:35 again. I guess what I"m saying is that this would not be listed at 1.2mm if it were in CH or BH.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 1:47 PM

this will go easily.

places like this are in demand in park slope, bigtime.

probably will be bought my a small family already in park slope.

no need to panic.

1:44 is correct on all points.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 1:48 PM

park slope, brooklyn heights, upper west side, whatever... the apartment is a thumbs down.

i have looked at a bunch of these over the years, and they always feel really small, cramped, old fashioned, and lack any kind of feeling of being comfortable to live in.

you can get 1000 sq. ft in a new condo with a way better feel.

also, the gross window a/c units are simply not for grownups.

ugly building, ugly apartment. would discount it at anything above $500K.

it's not nice! it needs work + it will always have a crap layout.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 1:48 PM

I don't dispute that there are plenty of people moving from Manhattan to PS to buy. That does not mean that these same people become stupid when they cross the river. The point isn't Park Slope vs. the Upper West Side. That comparison is irrelevant. Try comparing this apartment vs. other comparable Park Slope apartments and you will see that this particular place is grossly overpriced. Anyone with internet access can figure out that there is better value for money elsewhere in Park Slope/Cobble Hill/Brooklyn Heights. No neighborhood in Brooklyn has hit $1000/sq ft yet.

(In anticipation of the brokers who I know will attempts to refute this claim - I'm sure there are an outlier or two out there at $1000 sq/ft but current listings aren't even close to this yet on average - and we all know there aren't many apartments selling above ask these days).

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 1:52 PM

Thank you 1:52. That is exactly what I was going to say.

-An UWS resident looking for a property in Bklyn

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 1:57 PM

I think 1:44 and 1:48 are the same person and that person is either the owner or the realtor. And you are high as a box kite if you think you're getting that price.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 1:58 PM

why cant we all get along?

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 1:58 PM

moreteasir -

In a brownstone apartment that hasn't been gut rehabbed with separate boilers and hot water heaters, the maintenance OR common charges pay for:

1. heat
2. hot water
3. common areas electricity
4. water and sewer charges
5. repair and maintenance of common elements, like roof, facade, fire escapes, sidewalk, stoop, common hallway, heat and hot water equipment (if common) - all to the extent the building has the money and doesn't need to do an assessment for a particular project
6. any jobs hired out - like common area cleaning, garbage removal

In a coop, they also pay for:

7. real estate taxes
8. insurance on the building (coop owners buy only quite cheap renter-type insurance on their belongings and any fixtures added since conversion, like new kitchen cabinets)
9. plumbing and electrical mishaps that happen inside the walls
10. payments on the underlying mortage on a coop, if any, and
11. anything else the coop decides to pay for jointly.

$400 maintenance or common charges, or $560 with taxes, on a brownstone apartment, is really a very good deal - cheaper than maintaining a home, because you are sharing the maintenance costs with the other unit owners. Lived in one, so I know.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 2:00 PM

I sold my apartment in Park Slope for north of 1000 psf. I know you don't want to believe it, but it has happened. And I'm certainly not the only one.

My neighbor just sold her 800 sf 2 bedroom for 849K so it happens. You just don't want to let it inside that thick head of yours.

Check out www.vermeilcondominums if you want to see how much new condo construction costs in Park Slope these days.

I'd take this place on 3rd over the Vermeil any day of the week. "Bad" layout or not.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 2:01 PM

For all those readers out there that ruthlessly bash new-build condos - this apartment is your answer. You want to live in a brownstone because it has 'charm'? Well, here it is, with the single bathroom, the narrow rooms, the walkup, the whole works. This is what you all think is so great? The emperor has no clothes.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 2:03 PM

how much would this dump be in Manhattan, Kansas?

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 2:03 PM

Thank you, 2:00. Some actual facts are nice every once in a while.

Hope people are able to find them amongst all the other crappy posts on here about how horribly overpriced this place is.

YAWN.

It will sell despite your bitter words, folks. Near asking price as most of the properties on here do despite your constant bitching.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 2:06 PM

I am 1:44 - not 1:48. Not owner or realtor. Owned a similar sized P.S. coop (rooms were removated into different places in mine.) Sold last year. Demand was HUGE. I should have asked way higher than I did (I was looking to sell fast, not at highest possible price weeks later.) Most brownstone apartments are much smaller, being made from single family homes, so less deep. Looked at a lot of 'em when buying, so I know how nice it is to find a big one.

I didn't say they'd get the asking price - but somewhere around a million.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 2:07 PM

Thanks broker/seller 2:06. I was one of those negative nellies, but now that you've set me straight, I'm on board.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 2:07 PM

At first I was pissed off about this joint only having one bathroom, but then I remembered that you can piss out the window.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 2:08 PM

2:03...I do think this place is great compared to new construction condos.

I have enough friends trying to unload their new pieces of crap in Williamsburg and Greenpoint right now, in search of something with "walls instead of paper" (as they say) for something in Brownstone Brooklyn.

Last week I was at a dinner party of someone who just bought a POS in the South Slope. The couple asked me all night if I could let them know if something comes up for sale in a brownstone on my block in the North Slope because "this place is a total shitbox"

When I turned on their bathroom sink to wash my hands, and water hit me in the eye, I knew what they were talking about.

The place is 6 months old.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 2:09 PM

1:52 here - thick skull (and admittedly bad grammar) or not, one or two anecdotes of apartments going for over $1000/ sq ft DOES NOT mean that THIS apartment can get that price. Was yours a co-op? Was it a long hike away from the local F train? Was the kitchen obviously sub standard? Did you sell in 2008? Was your third bedroom the size of a walk-in closet?

Congrats to you for getting that price, but my point stands - there is better value for money to be had, and with the market uncertainty buyers have no reason to jump at the first listing they see. If you don't believe me, check Streeteasy - plenty of comparable co-op listings in PS that are well below $1000 sq/ft.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 2:10 PM

2:07, hate to burst your bubble, but i'm not the broker or seller.

it is possible to like the apartment without being one, you do realize??

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 2:11 PM

THANK YOU 2:09! I just love these new construction condo boosters who seem to think that if something is "new" it is automatically well made. In fact, as we can see all over the borough, it is usually the opposite.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 2:11 PM

2:00 - Please get real $160/month for taxes is clearly an oversight that will get corrected once this place sells. It will be more like $500/ month in taxes when NYC Department of finance gets through with you.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 2:12 PM

It's a crappy apartment. Not a good deal.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 2:12 PM

Yes, many of us prefer the old-fashioned feeling of brownstones to new construction, and are willing to put up with (gasp!) one bathroom and some narrower rooms (with higher ceilings and larger windows in them than new construction has) to get it.

I always thought it was basically a different buying market for those looking for new v. brownstone apartments. I looked at new and old, but never seriously considered making an offer on a new one - they just didn't feel right to me. To each his or her own....

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 2:13 PM

Was yours a co-op? YES

Was it a long hike away from the local F train? YES...much farther than this one...by about 5 blocks.

Was the kitchen obviously sub standard? It was one step up from a firepit.

Did you sell in 2008? Nope...November 2007

Was your third bedroom the size of a walk-in closet? Only had 2 bedrooms. And an armoire, no closet in the second bedroom.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 2:13 PM

America is one of the only places outside of third world countries, where people prefer "new" over "old"

You want quantity over quality.

You are not well suited for Park Slope above 4th Avenue.

You are well suited to Sugarland, Texas.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 2:16 PM

Anyone who likes this apartment is a broker or seller.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 2:17 PM

2:13 - again, congratulations. Glad you found a sucker to buy at that price. Streeteasy currently has 50 2+ bedroom co-op listings in Park Slope. The average price per square foot on these is just over $734. Now, that is obviously an imperfect, back of the envelope-type guidepost, but it at least begs the question of whether this particular apartment is worth a $300 sq/ft mark up over the average 2 bed+ Park Slope co-op. Having seen tons of similar apartments in 2006-2007 (I ended up buying a renovated 2 bedroom co-op in Brooklyn Heights last Spring at approx. $800 sq/ft), the answer is clearly, resoundingly, NO.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 2:22 PM

2:12 - 2:00 here. Your point on taxes is taken, but I don't think it will be nearly as high as you think.

My experience is with brownstone coops, which are taxed on a building-wide basis generally similarly to single-family homes (so if you own 1/4 of the shares in the building, your share of the tax is 1/4). I don't have experience with how much higher brownstone condos are taxed over brownstone coops.

I referring to the $160 month - which already sounds to me to be 1.5 to 2 times higher than a similar brownstone apartment's share of taxes. Not sure how much higher it would go...

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 2:22 PM

850k is a long way from 1.2

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 2:23 PM

seems to me that at $1000 psf this place would still be in the high 900s

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 2:26 PM

damn, 2:18, do you have another one of those to sell? i've got cash!

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 2:28 PM

2:22 - Condo Taxes are much much different than a coop - Essentially the city asseses value based on the rental value of the condo unit, even if it is not rented.

Having said that, I bought a condo in a conversion last year that was once a 4 family. The annual taxes were $2,000 on the entire building. Once I bought one of the floors - BANG NYC Was all over it. Taxes are now $350 a month for 1/4 of the building and I paid way less than $1 Mil Plus.

NYC always spells a buck.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 2:28 PM

The place is 1300 sf.

If you want to say that number is stretching it and including the common areas so not fair, then you'll need to take the same deduction for EVERY SINGLE OTHER APT. IN NYC that stretches the truth about square footage.

So unless you'd like to do that, this place is 1300 sf.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 2:29 PM

I am not a broker or seller. I like it. But I think is is priced about 200,000 - 220,000 more than it should be. It will be interesting to see what it sells for. But if the owners are holding out for price near asking, I don't think it will sell...

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 2:30 PM

2:29, dude, everyone stretches sq ft but NOBODY includes common hallways, stairwells, front lawn.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 2:35 PM

2:28 -

2:22 here. Your story is useful info. Was it a new conversion, or one that was converted ahile ago? I ask because (1) I never want to live in a small coop again, and (2) I see in the ads for the brownstones converted years ago to condos (albeit, that's a small sample), the taxes listed always seem to be farily low.

Does NYC tax new conversions higher, or is it somehow waking up to adjust taxes on older brownstone condo conversions now? Anyone know?

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 2:38 PM

Where is your proof that square footage was stretched that far, 2:35?

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 2:38 PM

corcoran does.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 2:38 PM

well, I looked at floorplan and see that he's measuring the whole floor. you don't get to sleep in the hall.. that's not included. even corcoran doesn't do that

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 2:41 PM

Pay attention to the last line:

Q Many advertisements for apartments in New York include the price on a per-square-foot basis. But my impression is that New York brokers do not have set procedures for calculating square-foot measurements. Are there any rules regarding how these measurements must be taken?

A “There is no legal requirement that addresses how to measure square footage,” said Stacey Max, an executive vice president of Bellmarc Downtown.

Ms. Max said that with condominiums, the square footage of an apartment is usually specified in the offering plan and that in most cases, the area is calculated by measuring out to the face of the exterior walls.

With co-ops, things are less straightforward. “Some brokers use approximations of the total square footage when marketing an apartment, while others use room dimensions but avoid quoting the total area,” Ms. Max said.

When room sizes are used, closets and hallways are not included. But if the square footage is determined by measuring the perimeter of the apartment, that will include closets, hallways and unusable dead space taken up by interior walls.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 2:43 PM

sometimes they do on brownstone apartments, but they usually make it obvious, by stating the width and depth of the building somewhere in the description, so you can see they aren't deducting for the hallway in their sq. ft. calculation.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 2:44 PM

have yet to see a sq. ft. calculation, even when using room sizes, that doesn't include interior closets and hallways.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 2:46 PM

We looked at brownstone floor thrus in PS last winter and spring, and the prices then were around 850-950, depending on proximity to park and condition.

To me, this is a stretch, but as everyone has noted, you're saving hundreds of dollars a month, plus no board approval means easy entry for buyers. This is one of those barometer listings. If they get over 1 mil., the sky is not falling. if they have to price chop 20%, then I'll officially admit to a RE slump.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 2:53 PM

COMMON hallways (ie, what's outside your door) are never supposed to be included. Even the realtor here more or less says he's cheating that number

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 2:53 PM

Has anyone else noticed an unusual amount of hot guys in Park Slope lately?

I've seen more in the past few weeks than I ever remember.

Like...some REALLY hot ones.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 2:54 PM

I'd rather have this place for hundreds of Ks less.

http://www.corcoran.com/property/listing.aspx?Region=NYC&ListingID=1123475

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 2:54 PM

That listing has been on the market since sliced bread was invented, 2:54.

Something must be wrong with it.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 2:58 PM

That place looks nice, but is much smaller.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 3:01 PM

much smaller and the maint. costs are twice as much!

this place on 3rd is 6K a year LESS in maint costs!

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 3:03 PM

Actually, if I remember correctly, when the Carroll St. was first marketed, they stated that the pics weren't even of that building - they were from a previous building nearby that had been converted to 4 apartment and sold, and now they were doing another building - to be similar. Don't know if it has been on the market so long because it is not finished yet, or if it is ready to go and just not selling.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 3:04 PM

actually, I think that places was sold last year.

but that listing does show one thing: there is a sweet spot in PS, CH, BH, etc. For a nicely laid out 2-bedroom with den or fdr in the 850 sqft range, they DO get 1000psf. But smaller and larger apts don't (unless much much larger 4bedroom kinda places in FS buildings and then they do).

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 3:04 PM

Anything remotely nice in the named streets of Park Slope between 6th and PPW are getting close to, if not over 1000 psf.

As long as it's within the historic district.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 3:09 PM

Yeah, but I think the higher prices for these 850 sq. ft. ones are gotten only when there is a really nice renovation (this one, and the earlier building sold last year, is a new conversion, with a nice new renovation.) I also think it has 2 baths, if I remember correctly, which is a plus. And it being a condo, not a coop, ads to the desirability, too.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 3:09 PM

6k less but 400k more. hmmmmm

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 3:10 PM

The smaller one costs more to maintain because, as a new condo conversion, the new higher real estate taxes have already been calculated (or estimated.)

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 3:10 PM

ummm. and 400 sf bigger, 3:10.

you aren't that dumb, are you?

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 3:11 PM

to make the hilarious statement that every old building like this POS provides quality while all new construction doesn't means that you are deluded.

this is junk... icky icky ugly ugly

you guys are buying into your own brownstoner hype!

get real!

the average person would gladly prefer something good looking, nice, spacious, clean, with up to date cabinets and appliances, and with a washer/dryer and central air.

this place is lousy. it is not a nice living environment.

and, the price is hysterically high. brownstoner please let us know what this sells for. please!

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 3:20 PM

3:11, I'm not 3:10, but are you taking that square footage at face value? because that would be dumb.

Since this is a condo that had to file at some point, I think the property shark figure of under 1100 is right. It's about 200 sq ft bigger if you don't include the outdoor space on the little place.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 3:23 PM

"the average person would gladly prefer something good looking, nice, spacious, clean, with up to date cabinets and appliances, and with a washer/dryer and central air."

you mean like the novo? or crest?

LOLOLOLOL.

YOU ARE AN IDIOT!

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 3:23 PM

This place needs 150k worth or work. NEXT!

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 3:25 PM

The new construction that is NICE, and built with quality is stuff like 15 Central Park West or Richard Meier's buildings, which cost FAR more than brownstone apts.

Sadly though, most of the new stuff in this price range is CRAP.

And for someone looking in Park Slope, there is very little new construction at all. So your choice is either the POS building along 4th or older housing stock.

I think it's safe to say that the majority of Brownstoner readers prefer the latter.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 3:26 PM

"This place needs 150k worth or work."

So just a tad more than you could stand to spend on your face?

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 3:27 PM

I'm not sure what you're problem is 3:27 but if are you are reconfiguring an apartment, completely renovating a kitchen and bath and adding a bath, yeah, you're looking at around 150k

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 3:34 PM

3:26 is right - I could maybe get interested in new if it wasn't crap.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 3:37 PM

I've redone my kitchen and bath at a cost of around 40k for both.

And neither are necessary upon moving into this apartment, it looks to me.

If you spent 150 on a kitchen and bath reno, you got RIPPED OFFFFFFF!!!

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 3:37 PM

Sure, the average person probably prefers something quite new, but then, I've never considered myself average.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 3:38 PM

It's official, 3:38.

I love you.

One of the best responses ever.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 3:39 PM

Agree with 3:37 - it doesn't take anywhere near that to renovate - even nicely - unless you are trying hard to spend a lot of money.

And this apartment is fine as it is, for many people.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 3:40 PM

I personally love the look of this apartment.

A nice, good-sized place for a family of 3 plus dog.

You won't find a much prettier location.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 3:43 PM

40k for kitchen and bath. then you still need architect, permits, second bath, reconfiguration (walls, floors, elec). You could do it for 80-90k. (but then I wouldnt put a 40k kitchen and bath in a million dollar apartment)

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 3:47 PM

40K was the price I paid for everything, 3:47.

And it looks fantastic.

A person who works scouting film sets asked me if I'd be willing to let them use it for a shoot, in fact.

So go have fun overspending.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 3:49 PM

A nice, good-sized place for a family with midget children. Those 7-foot-wide bedrooms are too small.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 3:51 PM

Dark hallways, creeky floors...brownstones are often poorly made crap too.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 3:51 PM

yes, dark is usually an adjective i use to describe poorly made also.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 3:52 PM

"creeky floors"

i prefer my floors creeky than buckling up like those in most new construction i've seen.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 3:53 PM

Whatever the cost of rennovating, for this price you shouldn't have to do ANY work. But that kitchen is awful and there is only one tiny bathroom - NO WAY this is good for a family of three people (with or without Fido). More importantly, NO WAY this is worth a 15-20% markup on the rest of Park Slope, no matter how nice of a block this is. Keep dreaming Corcoran.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 3:55 PM

3:55. We'll see, won't we.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 3:57 PM

Dark as in poor light, poorly designed. Evidently Victorians didn't care much for well-lite spaces. Had something to do with their pale skin.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 3:59 PM

The apartment has received 7 calls to set up showings since Brownstoner put up the listing.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 3:59 PM

Agreed it is overpriced. But it is still a nice apartment - the market will determine the correct price, if the seller is actually interested in selling.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 4:00 PM

This apartment is worth as much as it is because there are alot of you people (the readers of brownstoner) who like this kind of pile and are willing and able to pay through the nose to get it.

You can't love brownstones on 3rd Street and then complain that they cost so much. Thank yourself.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 4:01 PM

The people who are complaining are the ones who can't afford diddly, 4:01.

Trust me...those of us who own in Park Slope are well aware of prices, and think these beautiful old homes are more than a "pile" as you say.

I consider it my home and one that I never plan to leave.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 4:04 PM

"Had something to do with their pale skin."

Which in case you haven't heard is also back in fashion.

And unless we come up with a cure for skin cancer sometime soon, probably will stay that way for a little while longer.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 4:07 PM

it's received 45 calls and 16 offers, 4 of which are over-asking.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 4:09 PM

now that last comment, I know is a joke.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 4:15 PM

wrong 4:09--I don't know where you get your information from. There have been 156 inquiries and 28 offers for this apartment, all since this posting, and we are currently in the midst of a bidding war. It is total pandemonium. The price is already up to $1.975 million and it can only go up. The highest bidders at the moment are an editor for Martha Stewart Living magazine who has twins, and a gay interior designer. They're ferocious and determined.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 4:17 PM

Yes, the lady's strolling the streets of park slope should be carrying parasol's like their Victoian sisters - protects from cancer.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 4:17 PM

Sorry, 4:17.

The Editor of Martha Stewart Living already lives in Park Slope.

And I'm a gay interior designer and already have a lovely home not far from here.

You mean there are others???

Next thing you're going to tell me that Anderson Cooper is GAY!!

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 4:23 PM

yo, it was a joke. and there are many editors at MSO (he didn't say THE) and many gay designers. you are not that unique.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 4:27 PM

Yes, I realize there are others, 4:27.

I was being sarcastic.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 4:30 PM

people--as above poster clarified, there are many, many editors at Martha Stewart and somehow they all live in the Slope. Actually, almost all magazine editors for these useless "lifestyle" mags live there. What a racket.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 4:31 PM

'Lovely home.' What bs.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 4:31 PM

Can I offer anyone a martini? Is it too early?

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 4:32 PM

I'm AN editor of Martha Stewart Living.

What the hell do you people want??

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 4:37 PM

You were being dim

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 4:37 PM

ha ha ha ha. I am peeing in my pants from laughing. Too funny. Love it.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 4:37 PM

I got that 4:23 was kidding! I guess sarcasm doesn't translate well on these boards.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 4:41 PM

These three bedroom apts on Third Street are all pretty similar in layout. None have sold for more than 920K (and the one that sold for 920K had a VERY nice kitchen and bath reno). This place will sell in the 800s.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 4:41 PM

4:32... Not too early... I'd love a martini. Perfect end to a perfect day. Thanks!

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 4:46 PM

HEATH LEDGER JUST FOUND DEAD!!! omg

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 4:46 PM

All you people love these cookie-cutter brownstone floor-thrus, expect to pay a lot if you want to buy, 'cause there are a lot of you who want this kind of pile. People paid thousands for tulips too.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 4:47 PM

He should never have left Brooklyn...

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 4:52 PM

that's really not funny to joke about.

i can't believe this. there is no article yet that i can find....just the announcement is up on fox news.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 4:53 PM

www.tmz.com

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 4:55 PM

Guess the Ledger story put an end to the real estate ranting, at least for the moment.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 5:20 PM

He was found in Mary-Kate Olsen's apartment. Were they romantically linked? This is so sad.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 5:23 PM

looks like suicide.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 5:26 PM

Now the Times has the most updated info:

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/22/actor-heath-ledger-is-found-dead/

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 5:29 PM

I thought that third street was so wide that it allowed for all that front stoopage along with the standard 55-60 foot back yard. Am I wrong?

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 6:03 PM

6:03--3rd Street and even some 2nd Street houses tend to have very small yards because the lot is taken up by the house.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 6:06 PM

3rd street is 6 blocks to the train.

i don't think that's far.

certainly not by nyc standards.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 6:09 PM

a good way to look at these lots is to go to http://maps.live.com/
and type in the address. Use the "aerial" and "birds' eye" views and zoom in. You can change the angle and see just how big the lots and extensions are. Sometimes it marks the wrong house on the block, so just be aware of that. But it's a great way to see the lots from above and get pretty close up.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 6:09 PM

11x7 bedroom? what is this, a lower east side walk up?

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 6:18 PM

nice article on brooklyn real estate...

http://www.urbandigs.com/

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 7:30 PM

7:30 = urbandigs.com "publisher"

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 7:40 PM

nope, i'm not actually, 7:40. just came across the link on curbed and thought i'd pass it along. i'm not a broker, a seller, don't work for urbandigs, none of it.

just someone passing on some info i read.

never seen urbandigs before in my life.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 7:56 PM

if there are so many better options at this price (and in this location, since location is usually at the top of everyone's list) why don't you find us a few, 8:32?

of course you can find more for a million bucks.

but not on 3rd street in park slope. this is about what these apartments go for, give or take.

i say it goes very close to asking.

ps. 321 certainly plays a factor in this pricetag as well, btw.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 8:40 PM

your just have a deal on your rent. And your apartment is probably in a very bad shape.

We own house with 2 apartments like that one.

I follow rental market closely. Current rent for our apartment would be slightly over 4K if we rent it today.
Of course it is in a very good shape, more original details and had half bath and w/d in the space where they have "possible second bathroom" on the plan. But it does not make for 1.5K difference.
I think it was mentioned that that particular apartment was rented for 3900 a month last year.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 9:19 PM

the economic "meltdown" which may or may not be averted, does not mean than now all homes in prime areas have suddenly lost half their value overnight.

a million for a nice apartment in park slope is still a pretty good value.

you all need to look around. places like phoenix, las vegas and florida have already had major price corrections, but there are still plenty of million dollar homes in all of those cities to be had.

listen...keep waiting for that bargain if you want.

but anyone who thinks we are going to see rock bottom prices in park slope are dellusional.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 9:42 PM

Though many of you PS residents deny ever wanting to live anywhere else and claim that PS is the best place on earth to live, most of you concede that Brooklyn Heights is higher priced. So looking at a listing that just went into contract

http://www.corcoran.com/property/listing.aspx?Region=NYC&ListingID=1120176

The last ask at 1,075,000 according the streeteasy is less than the ask for this POS. The maintenance on the BH is about twice as high, but I think the trade off for one block from the subway with a full service building is worth it since that will include all the things the previous poster pointed out. So its not a brownstone but it is an older highrise with lots of interesting features. 2 bedrooms with 2 full baths and close to 1500 sq ft in central BH for less than this whale shit. I think all you guys who keep screaming this is a buy have put your apartments as an asset in Quicken and don't want to see your net worth drop in those pretty graphs.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 9:59 PM

that's why it's called an asking price.

you want the place for a million? make an offer.

learn the difference please between asking price, offer and final sale price.

i think brooklyn was undervalued for many years. it has now almost caught up to where it should be, considering the proximity to manhattan. there are also lots of people who now prefer brooklyn over manhattan. i think prices are starting to reflect that.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 9:59 PM

"i think brooklyn was undervalued for many years."

Perhaps. But I would venture to say now that it is now overvalued. Or rather, overpriced.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 10:06 PM

10:06, that is one of the best comments I've ever read on Brownstoner. Thank you.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 10:44 PM

Great point with the Brooklyn Heights comp.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 10:45 PM

i think brooklyn is just overpriced to you, 10:06.

i see plenty of people buying homes in brooklyn.

even now.

3 townhouses went up for sale on berkeley place 2 weeks ago...they weren't listed, but were being sold by the deceased owners wife and daughter and heard today all three have already received offers.

people are still buying multi-million dollar homes in brooklyn.

just because they are above your budget, does not make them overpriced.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 11:18 PM

I would much prefer 3rd Street over that BH place.

Much better school and half the maintenance. The maint. never goes down. I'd never even look at a place with maint. costs that high.

The ps. 321 factor right there is worth the extra money to me.

In terms of neighborhood, it's a personal preference, of course but I don't like highrise, doorman buildings.

I do like a community with a great park, great school and great restaurants and shops, however.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 11:22 PM

Park Slope is getting soft...like a warm down comforter.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 11:33 PM

If there are plenty 2BR brownstone coops in prime Park Slope for $600,000 to $700,000 why is one extra bedroom worth a whole $500,000 more? That's literally what that 3rd bedroom costs, $500K, if this coop is priced at $1.2 million. I do think some public-school-obsessed parents will buy it, but I just don't understand that math. Crazy mathematics.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 11:40 PM

Worst photos ever, too. Might be the most cluttered home I've ever seen in a RE listing. I would be really turned off if I showed up at this place seriously interested in buying it, and were confronted by clutter like this that shows people can't even be bothered to pack a few things in boxes. It would make me wonder how regularly this apartment was actually cleaned over the years. Like there'd be nasty crud under the fridge and in the corners.

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 11:47 PM

"3 townhouses went up for sale on berkeley place 2 weeks ago...they weren't listed, but were being sold by the deceased owners wife and daughter and heard today all three have already received offers."

And you know this HOW exactly, oh mighty sockpuppet?

Posted by: guest at January 22, 2008 11:52 PM

Those houses on Berkeley were mentioned on another thread a couple weeks ago. It's not hidden information.

Posted by: guest at January 23, 2008 12:01 AM

If it's those Berkeley houses that were mentioned last week, two are SROs/rooming houses, and the other is an 8-family. Hope those buyers are getting a deal.

Posted by: guest at January 23, 2008 12:02 AM

"Those houses on Berkeley were mentioned on another thread a couple weeks ago. It's not hidden information."

Maybe, but the same person keeps bringing them up. Also, until we see final selling prices, it means nothing.

Posted by: guest at January 23, 2008 12:03 AM

i live on the same block of berkeley and i heard that news also.

none of those 3 homes are sro's.

not sure what you are talking about.

if i had the money, i would have bought one of them in a second. this is probably one of the most beautiful streets in park slope (in my opinion) and those three (while needing some work) are beauties with the original railings and stairs out front.

and i heard they were indeed selling them quite cheaply.

cheap, considering a remodeled single family sold on this block for 3.4 million back in the summer. or so i heard.

never ceases to amaze me.

Posted by: guest at January 23, 2008 12:12 AM

Actually, 12:12, when you punch the addresses of those Berkeley houses into Property Shark or the DOB site, two come up with C of O for "Converted dwellings or rooming house" with 10 units, and the other comes up as an 8-family. It's public information--look it up yourself since you know the addresses. And the $3.4 million home that sold was rare in that it was perfectly renovated with top of the line everything, including central AC, fancy sound systems, etc. That has set the bar pretty high for what you should demand in the Slope for that price.

Posted by: guest at January 23, 2008 12:18 AM

12:12 - It is embarrassingly obvious that you are also 11:18, so of course you "heard that news also."

Posted by: guest at January 23, 2008 12:40 AM

Ha - so funny to see broker morons posting multiple times, agreeing with themselves.

12:12/11:18 - do everyone a favor, including the people close to you. Rather than blowing a fellow broker, why don't you instead put your mouth around the nearest tailpipe and inhale until you can't any longer. That'll be only one broker down, but it's a good start.

Posted by: guest at January 23, 2008 7:26 AM

7:26

I know who you are.

Posted by: guest at January 23, 2008 8:36 AM

I know who 7:26 is too - someone with a pretty good idea.

Posted by: guest at January 23, 2008 10:34 AM

The larger houses in Park Slope that are still owned by the older generation are chopped up and filled with nasty little tenement apartments. We've been inside some of these once-grand houses when they're for sale. Go take a look next time one is on the market. It really shows what Park Slope had become 25 years ago. Such a huge contrast to where it is now with all the progress. It's interesting.

Posted by: guest at January 23, 2008 11:20 AM

Everywhere in NYC had become that 25 years ago, 11:20.

Harlem, Upper West Side, Hells Kitchen, Lower East Side, East Village, the list goes on.

You're right about Park Slope, but it's downturn during that time was not unique to that neighborhood.

Posted by: guest at January 23, 2008 11:33 AM

Yeah, but I didn't say it was unique to Park Slope, 11:33. Not at all.

Park Slopers on the defense!

Posted by: guest at January 23, 2008 11:47 AM

So I walked down the famed 7th Avenue the other day, for the first time, and I was very disappointed. There was not much going on. It was very suburban-like. And pretty deserted for 7pm.

Posted by: guest at January 23, 2008 12:15 PM

since when was 7th avenue famed?

maybe 15 years ago.

the fame was in your head, bud.

try 5th avenue next time.

and you will indeed find most streets in the middle of janaury deserted at 7pm on a tuesday.

Posted by: guest at January 23, 2008 12:41 PM

For all the restaurants paying astronomical rents who need to stay in business on 7th Ave, 12:41, it better not be normal to be deserted at 7pm. But it's true, 5th Ave is the place to go if you're looking for more activity at dinnertime.

I never read the police blotter but today I did, and there were 6 muggings in Park Slope last week! One at gunpoint. Dang.

Posted by: guest at January 23, 2008 1:02 PM

The Park Slope police blotters are the scariest. I always read them.

Posted by: guest at January 23, 2008 1:10 PM

chiles and chocolate on 7th is great and usually packed. it was on monday night. granted it seats about 20.

la taqueria gets a nice crowd as does moim on 7th and garfield.

it's improving a little bit.

Posted by: guest at January 23, 2008 1:19 PM

hey idiots - there are other condos being built besides novo and crest - and many of quality. you people are so ridiculous.

this type of building is hideous and always will be....

Posted by: guest at January 23, 2008 6:13 PM

"there are other condos being built besides novo and crest - and many of quality."

Name one - just one - of quality in Park Slope.

Posted by: guest at January 23, 2008 8:35 PM