« Condos of the Day: Sneek Peak at 66 North 1st StreetLevel: Bank Carves Out Myrtle Space »
April 8, 2008
House of the Day: 547 10th Street
A victim of a fire some time ago, the three-family house at 547 10th Street in Park Slope isn't exactly putting its best foot forward in the facade department. And despite an ad that boasts "Beautiful Original Details Intact," it's not looking historically significant enough to us to justify the $2,300,000 asking price. Anyone have any thoughts on this place?
547 10th Street [Craigslist] GMAP P*Shark
Photo by Kate Leonova for PropertyShark
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/4472
Comments
I guess the old phrase location, location, location is playing a role in this one, bigtime.
How much would it cost to completely redo the exterior?
10th and 7th Avenue is great though. A block from the subway.
Price does seem high, but again...not much inventory to choose from. I guess this one might be investor friendly like the ugly-from-the-outside Sterling Place one we saw sell for 2.2 million.
Posted by: jerri blank at April 8, 2008 1:33 PM
holy christ that is overpriced.
i mean... wow.
10th street 3-fam for 2.3 mil? with that facade? what are they thinking?
I know 7th ave is nice, but honestly.
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 1:35 PM
hahaha. yuck.
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 1:38 PM
$900k tops.
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 1:42 PM
This is the UGLIEST stretch of homes in all of Brownstone Brooklyn. Bleech.
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 1:45 PM
somebody is smoking crack. you can get a real brownstone that looks halfway decent and isn't all chopped up for that. it's hideous.
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 1:45 PM
Uh, what "original details" could they possibly be referring to?
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 1:52 PM
A fire-damaged multi-family that will have to be completely gutted to be livable for only 2.3 million? Sign me up!
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 1:58 PM
barf!! cant wait for the AC cut outs.
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 2:11 PM
In a sane world, these properties would be demolished and replaced with modern housing.
the low FAR of the area makes that less than feasible however.
Posted by: Polemicist at April 8, 2008 2:12 PM
piece of shit
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 2:16 PM
piece of shit
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 2:19 PM
restoring the facade would cost about a hundred thousand. That part is easy. But what are you going to do about the adjacent buildings? It is quite an ugly stretch. Your investment may not pay off because of the shitty neighbors.
I think this property is over priced by $800,000.
Posted by: sam at April 8, 2008 2:22 PM
The ad doesn't say anything about fire damage. I know brokers don't highlight negatives, but I really hope they fixed it as opposed to letting people come see the property and say, "oh by the way, those fire charred walls can be easily restored with some TLC."
Posted by: Brooklynnative at April 8, 2008 2:46 PM
That location s*cks. For that money you can get a real brownstone with real original detail that's really in park slope, not south slope.
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 2:52 PM
I could get a several bona-fide mansions just outside the city for this price. Or I could buy a few 8-unit apartment buildings in ENY or bed-stuy for this price. The rents on those would be much much better than the rents on this one.
This was very middle class housing 10-20 years ago; I got walked at knifepoint on this block about fifteen years ago.
To put it mildly, people's rent versus buy expectations are massively out of whack -- this building would rent for _MAYBE_ 100k/yr (optimistic) before expenses.
Call me when this gets cut by half or when NYC incomes double.
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 3:07 PM
I'd point out that the house, while rather fugly, is 20' x 65'. That's 1300 sft per floor, times 3. If the basement is finish-able, times 4. That's a lot of space. Could live in a duplex 2600 sft apt and still have two large 2BR rentals at $3000 per month easy.
The interior seems OK, altho you never can tell. THe location, one block south of 'prime' PS is pretty good.
Agree it's over-priced by a few hundred thou, but not as much as all the haters think. Of course a lot depends on the interior, mechanicals, and so on.
Posted by: denton at April 8, 2008 3:14 PM
Wow, I thought this was Greenpoint. It is a great location, Slope-wise (it's been decades since this was way-out-there 'South Slope'), but it's bloody hideous...
Posted by: Brenda from Flatbush at April 8, 2008 5:41 PM
The interiors look very basic and the exterior of course is horrible. The improvements are not worth much if anything. Certainly, no one would pay money to construct something so wretched. The land is worth $300/FAR tops. It has 5,400 square feet of developable area, so I say $1.6MM at the most. There is no way that building is worth $700,000 exclusive of the land.
Posted by: Polemicist at April 8, 2008 5:43 PM
The Real Estate Broker says - "Yes that is fire damage, and yes the facade is horrid, but 5 minutes you'll save on your commute is totally worth it."
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 5:44 PM
The Real Estate Broker says - "Yes that is fire damage, and yes the facade is horrid, but 5 minutes you'll save on your commute is totally worth it."
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 5:46 PM
try 4000.
We own similar house.
Granted, I do not know condition and amenities of each rental in this house, but we can get 4K/month easily for our rentals. We rent for slightly less, and when brokers call us to check if we expect vacancy, 4K is the most recent estimate if we will be looking for tenants now. Demand is huge, location is great, it is zoned for 107, one and a half block from the park.
Actually, block does not look bad at all. It is just a small stretch of the houses closer to 7th ave that was stuccoed at 70th. the rest of the block is brick and brownstone, a lot of trees. And five minutes to the park.
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 6:17 PM
1:52
This house is part of original development of 20X65 brownstones as well as 549, 551, 553... up to 575 i think.
It is just an outside that is stucco. It was developed as a pretty high end 3 family dwelling somewhere in 1893-95 I would guess.
I can not tell what is still there in #547, but original details in this development are more Edwardian, calm and tasteful. Carved marble fireplace mantels, interior light well divided light windows, pocket doors, mouldings, tin ceiling, ceiling plaster medallions, some decorative plaster, pocket doors. Second and third floors have buitins.
In our house we still had gas light remains and couple of very old chandeliers.
Well, when we removed part of one wall, we found old postcards.
Again, I do not know what is inside of #547, but it is owned by an old lady, who knows...
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 8:42 PM
A true brownstone, with a nicely restored owner's unit, down this block sold for 20% less than the ask on this a little more than a year ago.
I'd be very surprised if they get anywhere near asking in this market.
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 8:43 PM
1:52
This house is part of original development of 20X65 brownstones as well as 549, 551, 553... up to 575 i think.
It is just an outside that is stucco. It was developed as a pretty high end 3 family dwelling somewhere in 1893-95 I would guess.
I can not tell what is still there in #547, but original details in this development are more Edwardian, calm and tasteful. Carved marble fireplace mantels, interior light well divided light windows, pocket doors, mouldings, tin ceiling, ceiling plaster medallions, some decorative plaster, pocket doors. Second and third floors have buitins.
In our house we still had gas light remains and couple of very old chandeliers.
Well, when we removed part of one wall, we found old postcards.
Again, I do not know what is inside of #547, but it is owned by an old lady, who knows...
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 8:44 PM
1:52
This house is part of original development of 20X65 brownstones as well as 549, 551, 553... up to 575 i think.
It is just an outside that is stucco. It was developed as a pretty high end 3 family dwelling somewhere in 1893-95 I would guess.
I can not tell what is still there in #547, but original details in this development are more Edwardian, calm and tasteful. Carved marble fireplace mantels, interior light well divided light windows, pocket doors, mouldings, tin ceiling, ceiling plaster medallions, some decorative plaster, pocket doors. Second and third floors have buitins.
In our house we still had gas light remains and couple of very old chandeliers.
Well, when we removed part of one wall, we found old postcards.
Again, I do not know what is inside of #547, but it is owned by an old lady, who knows...
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 8:45 PM
triple posting, uggrrrr
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 8:48 PM
triple posting, uggrrrr
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 8:49 PM
what an ugly boring dwelling.
Stoner, you have to do something about your server, it is driving us crazy, every time i post i get a problem message, sometimes the post appears sometimes it doesn't. what's up w'dat?
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 8:56 PM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.