House of the Day: 370 Park Place

Saw this house a few weeks ago. It is a wreck and needs tons of work. 1.7 in this market for a narrow peice of junk is not reasonable...you will need to put another 500k at least to make it livable...and that is the low end of the range in terms of budget. All in $2.2 for that block? No thanks.

Posted by: guest at May 28, 2008 1:41 PM

"interior needs a fair amount of work, it appears, but much of the original detail remains intact"

Well, the first half of that is true, but the second is not. There are limited details left in the entry way and parlor floor. Very, very little above that.

There have been several discussions about the recent history of violent crime at this intersection.

Potential, yes. Priced appropriately for the property and location, not yet.

Posted by: guest at May 28, 2008 1:47 PM

Well, these listing prices, while high in my opinion, certainly show just how outrageously priced 144 Underhill Avenue is--HOTD a few days ago.

Posted by: guest at May 28, 2008 1:56 PM

Realistic?
I don't think you're using that word correctly.

Posted by: guest at May 28, 2008 2:30 PM

Fjorder, increases in property taxes on buildings of this size are capped by a max % increase each year. Even if the assessment goes up by 10x the taxes will only increase about 6% per year over where they are now.

Posted by: guest at May 28, 2008 2:36 PM

We saw the next door house last weekend and it was a wreck. This house actually looked worse from the outside as it was missing its cornice. Both of these homes look like nightmare projects not for the faint of heart - probably a developer is the best target. But will a developer pay this much in this market? Also, amenities/transportation are not very convenient. Both of these have had price cuts and I foresee more. Overpriced houses suffer a lot more in this market than those which are priced more realistically.

Posted by: guest at May 28, 2008 2:53 PM

These listings were totally misrepresented by Corcoran and the agent Andrea Yarrington who told us just to make a low offer. She and the firm are a bunch of crooks. I heard the owner had an appraisal done which indicated these units were worth about 1.3 mil. a piece if delivered vacabt. I was told by one of the neighbors that it is an estate sale and they can't get the tenants out. They are being operated as illegal SRO'S

Posted by: guest at May 28, 2008 3:01 PM

Yarrington told us to make a low ball offer too...This place goes off at 1.7mm.

Sometimes i wish mr. B didn't own a bstone in brooklyn...

Posted by: guest at May 28, 2008 3:31 PM

Actually, many brokers in general have been suggesting to us that we make lowball offers on a number of properties. Occasionally there is the correctly priced property in this market, but so much is overpriced now that I think many brokers are just trying to get offers on the table, even if they are low...

Posted by: guest at May 28, 2008 3:57 PM

These were nice houses in a great location - sure, they need work, but people have been buying up brownstones and doing a lot of work for decades now. Whether they are priced right is sort of irrelevant - if what is posted above is true, and they are really set to sell (not just an owner testing the market to see if they can get a really high price) - they will indeed sell - for the market price, wherever that turns out to be, to someone who wants to restore one. Basic details can be added back...wish I were in the market to buy - at current prices - but I'm not.

Posted by: guest at May 28, 2008 4:03 PM

Unless it's the same owner for the 2 buildings....conflict of interest perhaps?

Posted by: guest at May 28, 2008 4:58 PM

Z - Of course this brownstone fully renovated would probably cost more than 1.7 but the point is that it probably needs a bare minimum of 500-700K of work, if not more. So that's why it's overpriced. I think if this property, fully renovated, fetched 2 million in today's market the owner should be happy!

Posted by: guest at May 28, 2008 5:30 PM

LOL, Admittedly, I have not seen these bldgs, but when anybody says "The interior needs a fair amount of work" for a bstone that usually means nothing has been done to the building since WWII (esp for an estate sale). So, all systems & mechanicals probably need to be updated.

Having undertaken a total reno of a similar-sized building 5 years ago in PS, I can tell you that not only is it the $500K construction costs, but it is the time (2 years of virtually full-time attention from my wife, half-time from me) and an unmeasurable level of aggravation.

Yeh, it sounds cool and some people make it look easy, and of course, everybody thinks that THEY will know how to handle the crazy contractors, the moody bldg inspectors, the crooked suppliers, etc., and get them all to cooperate, deliver, and finish on time, but reality is just a whole different story. Try sitting on a jumbo mortgage for a building that is now worthless because its been ripped apart and has no working plumbing/electric, that you can't even live in until... god knows when, while you pay rent or mortgage on your existing place.

There is a reason prime reno'd property sells for a big premium and dumps sell for a big discount.

Posted by: guest at May 28, 2008 5:55 PM

"Unless it's the same owner for the 2 buildings....conflict of interest perhaps?"

It is the same owner.

Posted by: guest at May 28, 2008 7:14 PM

I disagree, these could be classified as dumps in that they are too narrow and too lacking in irreplacable details to sell for over $2M even after they've been rehabed. These never were and never will be grand victorian brownstones. They could be nice homes, but only after a lot of work and money.

Posted by: guest at May 28, 2008 7:20 PM

I am not a broker, but I'm sure I'm going to be accused of it for what I'm about to write. It seems like a broker can't win here. They may have to list a property at a high price because that's what the owner wants to try at first - and shouldn't they? Then if buyers say it seems high, they tell them to make an offer so the owner can see that. Then, buyers come here claiming they were told to "lowball". I have a hard time believing any broker actually said that word. I can believe they said to make an offer.

Posted by: guest at May 28, 2008 7:37 PM

Both buildings are owned by the same gentleman who lives in New Jersey. He can't truly deliver them vacant and they are being operated as SRO's. Much of this conversation is meaningless unless they can be delivered vacant. Corcoran and Andrea will dance around this until the cows come home . This broker from Corcoran did a meaningful disservice by telling the owner one thing and then telling customers just to put a lowball offer in. They can't represent either building can be delivered vacant and if this is the case, the value is probably half the $1.7 mil. they are asking. Everyone should stop their hypothectical analysis and concentrate on the facts

Posted by: guest at May 28, 2008 7:49 PM

Andrea told us to offer $ 1mil for each and when we asked when they could be delivered vacant should could not tell us. Who would make this stuff up?? I thought brokers work for the seller??

Posted by: guest at May 28, 2008 7:51 PM

As a buyer, I can make any offer I want to a broker. The broker is required to present it to the seller. I can make an offer of $1,000,000 or $700,000 or $7000 for a townhouse listed at $1,700,000. The seller can say no. Don't kill the messenger.

Posted by: guest at May 29, 2008 2:41 PM