Co-op of the Day: 210 Congress Street

is the fridge sitting in the middle of the kitchen?

Posted by: guest at March 5, 2008 12:49 PM

i've seen projects that look nicer.

Posted by: guest at March 5, 2008 12:51 PM

i always think that place is a retirement home. the location is rather perfect, though...

Posted by: guest at March 5, 2008 12:55 PM

Sure, they may get over ask.
If it had 2 bathrooms it would be 860,000.
The maintenance is low, and I think the building has a garage.

Posted by: guest at March 5, 2008 1:01 PM

not feeling the apartment or the complex, but for the right price, any two bedroom in PS29 will sell. I'll say they are near the right price, maybe 720 gets it done

Posted by: guest at March 5, 2008 1:02 PM

Great location, but that building is awful. Of course, if it wereen't they would probably be asking for $1.2mil like every other deluded seller out there. It might move at this price point, but it's not a clear bargain.

Posted by: guest at March 5, 2008 1:02 PM

I'd need to undo the "improvements" like the kitchen, light fixtures and all those light cans. But... elev building, 2 bedroom, PS29? Sure, it will sell quickly.

Posted by: guest at March 5, 2008 1:06 PM

Not a good deal at 750. Only 1 bath, which decreases the value. Probably done at 700, though.

Posted by: guest at March 5, 2008 1:09 PM

I'm not very good at doing sqf but isnt this around 850? So close to $900/sqf? If that's right, very rich for this building. I saw another apartment in this building, thought the building had a very claustrophobic feel apart from the fact the outside is very ugly (low ceilings I guess). Certainly a great location though.

Posted by: guest at March 5, 2008 1:17 PM

Under 1000 sq ft some of which is lost to useless foyer. One bath. Crappy small windows. No. Definitely not worth this much. There are far better places on the market.

Posted by: guest at March 5, 2008 1:21 PM

WOW - 750K???

I owned an apartment in 220 which is part of the coop buildings for seven years. I sold my one bedroom 2 1/2 years ago for what I thought was an outrageous price (4x my purchase price)

Lots of new younger people moved in now, as older residents moved or passed away over the years so it's not a retirement building!!!

Nothing spectacular about the actual apartments, basic post war construction 8ft ceilings, boxy-ish rooms, upper floors have nice views.

The building itself is very well maintained and at the time i lived thre had a stable active coop board. Location is excellent if you are looking in Carroll Gardens/Cobble Hill.

-1910

Posted by: guest at March 5, 2008 1:24 PM

Brownstoner - the building was built in 1950 so it's Post-war.

-1910

Posted by: guest at March 5, 2008 1:28 PM

maybe he's saying pre-iraq war?

Posted by: guest at March 5, 2008 1:37 PM

well considering i'm trying to sell my 2 bdrm and mine is bigger, about $50 more in mntc, better location and city views and near P Park I say I have a good shot at moving my place if this one goes for $750. I'm asking $779...w/ room to negotiate.
Plus I love Terri Naini...she's way cool! I know she'll move this place.

Posted by: guest at March 5, 2008 1:47 PM

Seems a bit high to me, maybe around 690-700 should do the trick.

I don't the the layout is anything special Mr. B. Foyer space doesn't buy you much. Kitchen looks decent except for fridge in weird location.

Posted by: guest at March 5, 2008 1:51 PM

This posting demonstrates exactly my issue with Brownstoner. This building is more or less EXACTLY the same in terms of (lack of) design, and (minimal to zero) aesthetics as 95% of the stuff that is being built today. Yet for some reason Brownstoner gives it a pass.

The only reason I can figure is age (as in, the building has been here for awhile and everyone is used to it). But it is pure hypocrisy to attack virtually every new building if your going to say this building is "perfectly nice" - how is this building (a plain brick wrapping with no decorations, that breaks the streetwall) "perfectly nice" - and then you call that new rental building on 4th Ave (and I believe Douglass) a monstrosity (it too is a plain brick building, actually maintains the streetwall, has some street level 'decoration" and at least tries to add some design with the center window wall)?

This inconsistency leads one to believe that Brownstoner's (and his ilk) real issue isnt with aesthetics but with preserving Brooklyn exactly as it was when they (recently) got here.

And Btw - if you know anything about NYC, then you know the post-war era of this building (1950s) utilized some of the crappiest, slap-stick construction methods and practices that this city has ever seen - so don't try to claim quality (as compared to today's buildings)

Posted by: guest at March 5, 2008 1:52 PM

biff- take your ass to jenny's "craig" list already. damn fat hornball!

Posted by: guest at March 5, 2008 2:16 PM

there are many people who would consider this a better location than "near P Park".

there isn't all that much on the market in PS29 at this price.

Posted by: guest at March 5, 2008 2:18 PM

i would pay this for a 2 bedroom in park slope.

but not here.

Posted by: guest at March 5, 2008 2:26 PM

i would pay this for a studio in park slope.

but not here.

Posted by: guest at March 5, 2008 2:35 PM

I walk by this building often and for a long time I thought it was a nursing home. Have seen some young mothers with babies recently though, so maybe the place is turning around.

It's still hideous, though, and without a second bedroom I can't see it going for anything over $690,000 or so. It's just overpriced compared to what you can find in comparable buildings in PS 29.

Posted by: guest at March 5, 2008 2:41 PM

it's not pre-war.

Posted by: guest at March 5, 2008 2:47 PM

1:52 PM - I think building built right after the war still had the better finishing -the bigger closets. the plaster walls - not like the junk they build today. Most of the new building look like they got whupped with the ugly stick - why don't developers hire architects with a little taste. This is a site for people who like old homes, not rich people (there is a difference, in 1980, when I moved here rich people weren't too much in evidence- but we were all folks who appreciated old houses.) Why not find a web site more to your liking - I'm sure there must be something out there.

Posted by: guest at March 5, 2008 3:20 PM

Polemicist = morally superior snoozefest

Posted by: guest at March 5, 2008 3:32 PM

"The scale of the windows and ceilings are a little blah, but"

If by "a little blah" you mean "horrid," then yes, I agree.

The ceilings look to be about 8 feet high; from the one pic with a window in it you can tell it's one a low floor and gets no light; no kitchen pics but you can tell just from the floorplan that it will need replacing; the bathroom seems tiny; and the maintenance is on the high side given the size of the place.

Maybe $650k would move it.

Posted by: guest at March 5, 2008 3:39 PM

Streeteasy shows that another 2BR/1 bath apartment sold in here in November last year for $780,000, which was $31,000 over ask. Seems in line with what they're asking here.

And just to throw in my two cents, I think this is a way better location than Park Slope.

Posted by: guest at March 5, 2008 3:42 PM

To throw my two cents in, I'd much rather be in Park Slope.

Some people don't seem to appreciate what having a park like Prospect right outside your door is worth.

But everyone has different tastes and desires.

Posted by: guest at March 5, 2008 3:52 PM

Mmm. Park Slope.

Posted by: guest at March 5, 2008 3:55 PM

What it lacks in charm it makes up in practicality. At least it has an elevator you don't have to shlep up your groceries and dry cleaning like so many vastly more expensive apartments featured here over the last couple of months.

Posted by: guest at March 5, 2008 4:09 PM

there are plenty of more practical apartments which aren't so hideous.

i'd take something half this size in a building that didn't look like a jail.

Posted by: guest at March 5, 2008 4:13 PM

in a building that didn't look like a jail.

right, in Bed Stuy or Billyburg,
No Thanx!

Posted by: guest at March 5, 2008 4:18 PM

wait! wait! are park slopers telling us how much better it is there than here (anywhere else)? ah yes, they can't keep their hands off a thread not about them

Posted by: guest at March 5, 2008 4:21 PM

no, 4:21...i think they were just saying park slope is prettier.

which i think it is also.

it's almost too pretty.

people like to hate pretty things. ask giselle.

Posted by: guest at March 5, 2008 4:25 PM

The building was built in 1949-1950. It converted to a coop in 1980 or 1981, which meant that the few remaining rent stabilized tenants (and sponsor units) and original owners tend to be older. However, with the turnover of about 10-12 apts per year, it has changed to a younger building with families and professionals (insert your determination if that is good or bad for the neighborhood).

In response to the various comments, the bathrooms are 5x7. The ceiling are 8 feet (give or take a few inches). The outside of the building is red brick, but the view is of gorgeous brownstones (sucks to be the brownsones looking at the building but that's their problem) Unless a renovation changed the walls, the original walls are all thick plaster, not sheetrock. Put in some mouldings, change the doors and hardware, add some nice fixtures, and the rooms are wonderful and spacious.

As for amenities, it includes storage and onsite car and bicycle parking, as well as washer/dryer (all at extra cost). This unit is literally above the garage and driveway, which makes for extra noise and fumes. Stable coop board and wonderful grounds appearance. Literally across the street from Cobble Hill Park.

Posted by: guest at March 5, 2008 4:47 PM

"This unit is literally above the garage and driveway, which makes for extra noise and fumes."

no thanks.

drop the price 100K and maybe.

Posted by: guest at March 5, 2008 4:52 PM

Saw this at the open house this past weekend. Its location, in my opinion, is great. The apartment, however, was not. It's on the first floor and the living room windows look out over the driveway entrance to the underground garage. The ceilings were low. The bedrooms were a decent size. The building itself did indeed feel like a nursing home.

Posted by: guest at March 5, 2008 4:55 PM

The building is plain but it has a lovely garden with nicely mowed lawns and pretty ornamental trees, it seems very well taken care of. Not at all institutional. But if the apartment is on the first floor, then that's a real minus. I would not touch it with a ten foot pole, although some people like the ground floor.

Posted by: guest at March 5, 2008 5:14 PM

3:20 - 1950 is not "right after the war" and plaster walls or not, the post-war period in NYC is one that is well known to have utilized the cheapest construction, and least amount of design and amenities.

You can bitch and moan all you want about 'today's' construction but at least when comparing it to early 1950's - nothing (generally) rivals that period for crap. The city was dealing with massive housing shortage (Quonset huts anyone) and the country was also fighting a war.

The one thing you do have to love about plaster walls however was the way they just soaked up all that lead paint.

Posted by: guest at March 5, 2008 5:25 PM

ugly and ridiculously overpriced

Posted by: guest at March 5, 2008 5:34 PM

"The one thing you do have to love about plaster walls however was the way they just soaked up all that lead paint."

Which is SOOOOO different from any other old building - say - Oh - a 3 million dollar Brownstone?????

Posted by: guest at March 5, 2008 6:01 PM

6:01 is right. Brownstone Brooklyn is the Saudi Arabia of global lead reserves.

Posted by: guest at March 5, 2008 6:56 PM

I know people who have a true prewar with a large foyer outside the kitchen that's used as a dining area with the table against the wall and it totally works great that way. Their ceilings are higher and have more details and all the nice prewar things. But just wanted to weigh in and say the foyer/DR layout is not a bad thing.

It does look like a nursing home. The exterior of this building looks like the coop that wanted to tear down its huge ancient tree last year, remember? And there was a protest over it that went public? I myself commented at the time the building would look institutional without the tree.

Like this one.

I wonder what they decided about the tree at that building. Brownstoner should do a follow-up on it.

Posted by: guest at March 5, 2008 8:13 PM

8:13 you are an architectural illiterate, so either take some courses or shut up. The Mansion House in Brooklyn Heights is one of the very loveliest pre-war apartment Buildings in the Boro. To say it looks like a nursing home belies either your extreme youth, your total ignorance, or most likely, both.
What an ignoramus. The only thing these two buildings share is that they are not brownstones.

Posted by: guest at March 5, 2008 8:24 PM

maybe it was a NORC - official term for "naturally occurring retirement community." Eventually, they change to younger, that's just how life goes.

Not loving the kitchen - don't like refrigerator in doorway. But that's true for a lot of awkward size/shape kitchen renovations - sometimes it's the best choice that could be made.

It'll sell - it's a two bedroom. Don't get it, but some people truly don't care about things like first floor and garage fumes.

Posted by: guest at March 5, 2008 11:42 PM

It won't win any beauty contest for sure but I think its fine and practical. The location is great and bedrooms look decent size. I don't see how people think this is so overpriced. Especially considering how much other 2 br/1 bath are going for in the neighborhood.

Posted by: guest at March 5, 2008 11:52 PM

Thank you, owner of a coop apartment in Brooklyn Heights' "Mansion House" at 8:24 with a major personal agenda. Nice to hear from you. Obviously you HAVE decided to cut down that beautiful old tree from your rabidly defensive tone. You do sound like you need your meds.

Yours is not some gorgeous building, sorry.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 12:15 AM

Terry Naini is a fabulous and smart broker and from what I hear from people (sellers) I know who have worked with her she typically get asking price or over on her listings. And as someone else mentioned she is cool!

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 6:30 AM

we bid on a two bedroom in this building last august, which had admittedly much nicer amenities in the kitchen/bath - and it went for $40K over asking price, which, at the time, was also $750K. by the way, the couple that won the bid came from manhattan, were newlyweds, and paid in all cash. so i imagine that there are more than a few geriatrics who like this building and will pay far more than the seller wants.

Posted by: guest at March 25, 2008 6:27 PM