« Novo Takes a Nosedive Development Watch: 53 Broadway »
March 18, 2008
Checking in on 364 St. Mark's Avenue

Given the strange white smudging on the brick exterior and the fact that this place has been on the market since late 2006, we expected to find 364 St. Marks Avenue sitting in unsold purgatory when we went to look it up. On the contrary, 16 out of 20 units are spoken for. The remaining four apartments are all in the 1,000 to 1,100-square-foot range and asking between $543,500 and $599,000. The building's not going to end up on the cover of Architectural Digest anytime soon but the developer gets points for high ceilings and big windows.
364 St. Marks Avenue [StreetEasy] GMAP P*Shark
364 St. Mark's Avenue Coming Down the Pike [Brownstoner]
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/4236
Comments
some sort of leaching mineral.
Posted by: guest at March 18, 2008 11:32 AM
What's with the "strange white smudging" on new buildings' brick exteriors? I see the same thing on the new buildings they put up on the West corners 7th and Sterling where the plane crashed back in the 50s. Although I think those builings are excellent examples of how even minimal effort can make a big difference in helping new builings blend in with the old, they also have that smudging. Is it the mortar from the brick?
Posted by: Brooklynnative at March 18, 2008 11:33 AM
I vote to move the PH heights border to Washington ave.
Posted by: guest at March 18, 2008 11:34 AM
Nice modern look using classic materials. To my eyes this is a good middle class building and I would welcome it to my neighborhood.
Posted by: LM at March 18, 2008 11:39 AM
Looks Fedder free, too!
Posted by: guest at March 18, 2008 11:41 AM
those are mortar streaks - very common and easily removed with muriatic acid. not a big deal.
Posted by: guest at March 18, 2008 11:49 AM
I live on this block and there have been some "strange" happenings with its construction. About a year and a half ago--they hit a water line and flooded the entire foundation (all residences on this block had brown water for a few days as well.)
Posted by: guest at March 18, 2008 11:53 AM
It's called "new construction bloom" Rainwater sucks salts in the mortar to the surface of the brick. The water evaporates, leaving the salts which crystallize and form the white stains. It's not a big deal, and agree with 11:49: it can be removed with a weak acid, although it will rinse off the building within a few years.
Posted by: guest at March 18, 2008 11:53 AM
rookies, the same thing happened to our brownstone when we refaced it and it disappered on its own.
Posted by: guest at March 18, 2008 11:58 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efflorescence
its a sign of poor detailing of the brick cavity wall. most likely not enough or blocked weep holes
Posted by: guest at March 18, 2008 12:26 PM
These units are a better deal than anything in a prime neighborhood. God bless the fringe!
Posted by: guest at March 18, 2008 12:39 PM
12:26: not necessarily. The salt can come from the mortar being washed with rain water--how will weep holes (designed to allow condensation from behind the brick-veneer wall to evaporate) help that? And, BTW: who the heck wrote that Wiki article? It's not really correct. Those salts will still crystallize, even if the sealer is applied. Thing is now, they're crystallizing inside the brick where the force of the crystallization will eventually cause the masonry to crack.
Posted by: guest at March 18, 2008 12:40 PM
11:49 here again,
Completely agree w/ 12:40, and that's also why Wikipedia is a total joke. It's kinda like saying "According to a post I read on Brownstoner, those streaks must mean this place is a shit sandwich!....and furthermore, yadadadada...."
...and yes, I get the irony of this!
Posted by: guest at March 18, 2008 12:49 PM
An article on Snarkipedia says the "strange white smudging" is called "equity bloom," and is a residue left by evaporating value.
Posted by: guest at March 18, 2008 2:02 PM
good one, 2:02!
Posted by: guest at March 18, 2008 2:09 PM
bitter renters
Posted by: guest at March 18, 2008 3:21 PM
I looked at these in 2007, and gave them a pass. The layouts were classic new-development bad - designed to maximize the square footage the broker could claim, not for habilitability. The kitchen fixtures also felt cheap.
Posted by: guest at March 18, 2008 3:54 PM
then why call it equity bloom?
Posted by: guest at March 18, 2008 5:40 PM
All renters are bitter
Posted by: guest at March 18, 2008 5:42 PM
thin-skinned fish in a barrel
Posted by: guest at March 18, 2008 9:10 PM
This buidling had a very strange marketing effort.
It is not listed as a new development on the brokers site. You really need to dig to find it.
Posted by: guest at March 19, 2008 12:07 PM
I found an apt. in this bulding in Oct. 2006, gave a deposit the following month and waited like a moron for the building to "finish" for well over a year. My lawyer had to fight tooh and nail to get my 10% deposit back and finally did in December 2007. Shame on Corocoran for sponsoring such a shady project, not to mention their lack of communication with its buyers. I wonder if the building ever got their CO, last I heard, they did not. Plus, my condo is back out on Corcoran's site so whoever posted this article is wrong that they are 16 out of 20 units full. Last time I looked there were at least 6 unsold units, including the one I walked out on. Best decision I ever made.
Posted by: guest at March 25, 2008 9:44 PM

Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.