« Guttman Back in Business at 187 Plymouth Street Just Sold in Brooklyn »
January 4, 2008
Sales Watch: Slow Going at The Azure
When the Azure Condos at 195 Classon Avenue in Clinton Hill hit the market last spring, the developer gave the FSBO route a whirl for a few weeks before handing the project off the Corcoran. Since June, however, the firm's marketing mojo has come up a little short, with only one of the seven units in contract to date. As last year drew to a close, Corco cut prices on three of the units: one went from $649,000 to $599,000; another from $755,000 to $679,000; and a third from $735,000 to $649,000. Do you think $600 a foot is low enough to move these babies? As an aside, that arch over the doorway still bothers us.
195 Classon Listings [Corcoran] GMAP P*Shark DOB
New Development: The Azure at 195 Classon [Brownstoner]
The Azure [Iviz Developers]
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/3365
Comments
Could that building be less contextual? It's kind of OK on its own merits, but it looks like it was meant to be built in L.A.
Posted by: guest at January 4, 2008 10:49 AM
this'll be a rental by the spring
Posted by: guest at January 4, 2008 10:49 AM
who buys these places? It looks like on the map there is literally no real subway line (Except the G) in sight.
How convenient/inconvenient do the rest of you find this specific area if you live around there?
Just wondering, because I might be interested, but really have no idea how I would get around.
Posted by: guest at January 4, 2008 10:54 AM
I live near there. C and G access is fine. Ya some fattys complain about the hike.
Posted by: guest at January 4, 2008 11:06 AM
The top part of the building is very odd looking. I can't imagine anyone buying these event at the new price. I think these will go rental very soon.
The G train is the closest option and as for the C that is at least 15 mins walk away.
Posted by: guest at January 4, 2008 11:11 AM
It is .375 miles from the Classon G (doable) and exactly a mile from the Clinton-Washington C stop (a trek).
The building is absolutely horrid, especially at those prices.
Posted by: BrooklynZoo at January 4, 2008 11:16 AM
Wow - No way I would spend 600K+ for a condo if I have to walk a mile to the closest usable subway. Im guessing it probably not the safest 1 mile walk either?
Posted by: guest at January 4, 2008 11:40 AM
Yea, no way I'm walking a mile to the closest real subway for these prices. Also the few layouts I looked at online all look like crap.
Posted by: guest at January 4, 2008 11:50 AM
"Im guessing it probably not the safest 1 mile walk either?"
And I'm guessing you're an--ah, never mind.
Posted by: guest at January 4, 2008 11:50 AM
The TOP part of the building is odd-looking? To each his own. I think the top 80 percent of this building is beautiful. It's the entrance that looks like shit--bizarre mishmash, out of place arch, Home Depot tiles on-sale, something-or-other. But hey--it could be worse, and many buildings are.
Posted by: Rehab at January 4, 2008 11:54 AM
So are you saying it is really safe 11:50? I really have no idea having not spent much time in that specific area...
Posted by: guest at January 4, 2008 12:02 PM
I live two blocks away, and have lived here for a little over 2 years. The walk to the C is absolutely 100% safe, along blocks lined with beautiful homes and trees. The walk to the Classon G stop is not as pretty, but still fine.
Another alternative is the B54 Bus that runs along Myrtle and drops you off by Metro-Tech.
The distance should kill it, not the safety. That stretch of Myrtle has changed a lot with all the new restaurants.
12:02, and others... with any apartment/house, you should visit the area first to get a sense. People on these boards will not be very helpful, because some people never feel safe in New York, and there are others who feel sale and comfortable in more nabes.
Posted by: BrooklynZoo at January 4, 2008 12:20 PM
The top and bottom halves of that building are both ugly, just in different ways. It's like a really bad exercise in "exquisite corpse" architecture.
Posted by: guest at January 4, 2008 1:00 PM
To me, the problem is the location: between Myrtle and Park. You're basically living in the shadow of the BQE.
Posted by: Park Sloper at January 4, 2008 2:14 PM
Agree with others that the distance to the subway is the killer here.
Also, even the picture makes it look a bit dirty outside of the place, not to mention not fitting in with the buildings nearby either.
Posted by: guest at January 4, 2008 2:52 PM
to the potential buyer - look at all in your price range that offers you enough space.
i personally do not like that area, but you may.
Posted by: guest at January 4, 2008 3:48 PM
Who would buy a place here? The first posting is right it fits downtown LA not brooklyn. A building that so out of character. I hope the building burns. Burn baby burn!
Posted by: guest at January 4, 2008 7:53 PM
I live in the neighborhood. It's really nice actually. Pratt, cafes, and a great record store etc. But that's besides the point. I'm an architect. I drive by this thing everyday on my way to work. I hate it. I hate it. I hate it. Of all the stupid floor to ceiling cheap ass curtainwall buildings that are going up now this has got to be the worst. Who wants to live with twelve foot high windows that you can't clean, can't cover, and look out to a gas station? I haven't been inside, but judging by the ridiculous boxes on top of the building, the floorplan must be a disaster as well.
Love the neighborhood though.
Posted by: guest at January 6, 2008 10:02 PM
Where is the record store?
Posted by: guest at January 7, 2008 10:19 AM
The Azure is in such a weird locale for the time being - all of those blocks north of Myrtle are still so shabby, but are all being developed.
Posted by: lesterhead at January 9, 2008 2:34 PM
Went to look at this a while back, thought the place looked nice enough and was puzzled about the lack of sales and the drastic price cuts. Also about the fact that the move in date has been pushed back so far, the agent quoted it as "around September 2008". Did some more research, and something supposedly "due for occupancy" by fall 2007 has 8 BUILDING VIOLATIONS so the Department of Building can't give it a go signal.
Sounds shady to me.
Posted by: guest at June 3, 2008 7:38 AM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.