52 Clark Street Going Condo?

what a nice building.

I can't say I blame the developer for wanting to make some money.

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 11:39 AM

Unless it is an eviction plan, which requires a much higher percentage of apartments (I think 50%), a non-eviction plan requires only 15% purchase rate and the renewal of rent stabilized tenants. Perhaps your tipster is a non-rent stabilized tenant. Can you confirm this? Eviction plan conversions are relatively rare.

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 11:43 AM

is this the building that took out all those pretty lobby tiles a couple years ago?

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 11:53 AM

Maybe they are just planning to sell it and trying to make it more attractive to the next owner.

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 11:57 AM

Eviction plans have become few and far between since the eighties, when the market was so hot that some developers could count on selling most of the apartments to current tenants. I haven't thought much about eviction plans since then and certainly not in relationship to the deregulation rules that have been put in place since.

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 11:59 AM

It should go co-op or condo.
It is a great building. I'm sure a number of renters will buy, especially if the sponsor offers attractive terms. Other renters will not buy and that's fine. The sponsor can continue to reap profits over time as unsold apartments become available through deaths or when the person needs to be sent to nursing home. Many of the co-ops in the area have gone down this road. It is rocky but it gets you there.

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 12:11 PM

about 3 years back a friend lived in this building and they had to move because their rent jumped from something like $1400 to something like $2200. i bet the owner will try to get whatever they can (and why not?). they did a nice renovation in the lobby a couple years back, as well. nice building with cozy (read: small) apartments. nice location. i'm often surprised there are still rentals anywhere in the heights.

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 12:19 PM

You can't not renew a rent-stabilized or rent-controlled lease (unless the tenant is in default), so I'd imagine that it's all the market rate places not being renewed. Great lobby and hallways; scary, nasty apartments.

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 12:30 PM

maybe they'll follow the BH trend and turn it into student housing

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

Well if they ARE mostly studios, we saw from yesterday's co-op of the day that studios in the Heights are asking 1000psf.

Maybe they decided to go co-op when they saw you could get 465K for a hole in the wall...

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 2:00 PM

I don't think this building was sold in 1999; I think the owner reorganized as an LLC (and maybe bought out a partner).

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 2:20 PM

I live in this building and there has been rumors of turning it into condos for years. I think it would be great, but I also think this current rumor is from just one (slightly nutty) tenant. The building has not really changed hands, but one of the owners did turn it over to his daughter recently, which does make me a little nervous....

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 3:29 PM

Howdy neighbor!
There's more than one slightly nutty tenant in this building, and some are more than slightly nutty.
It's a relic, really, of a much different era in the Brooklyn Heights demographic.

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 3:57 PM

When I moved into the neighborhood slightly over a year ago (I'm a renter), this was one of the buildings I looked at.

I saw 3 or 4 different layouts, a few studios, few 1 bedrooms. What I saw was not in good shape, and the studio layouts were terrible, both cases the 1 living room being no bigger than about 15' x 15' with doors and/or closets on every wall, significantly shrinking the possible layouts for a bed or furniture. The lobby is nice, it's nice there's a doorman, but the place needs major renovation from what I saw.

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

Brooklyn Heights really was the nuttiest neighborhood in NYC I think. It must have been home to the largest collection of crazy white folks this side of Bellevue.

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 4:16 PM

Still, even if a tenant is rent stablized, that doesn't stop landlords from sending notices that (1) the lease won't be renewed, or (2) the rent is going up in an amount greater than the rent stablization rules allow.

Though it is illegal to not renew or to raise the rent more than allowed under rent stablization rules, it is up to the tenants to know their rights and enforce them.

Landlords will send these letters of illegal action on their part because there is a chance they will cause tenants to vacate who either don't know their rights under rent stabilization laws, or would rather move on than spend time, energy and money fighting illegal landlord actions.

Brownstoner, you would do well to tell your tipster to find out what her rights are, if she isn't already aware of them.

And I find it odd that you didn't mention that if some units/tenants are rent stablized, an owner just can't legally send out notices that no leases will be renewed. I find your writing here to be a bit disingenuous - surely you can't be unaware that a planned conversion does not allow a landlord to simply renew no leases in a building of a size where it is highly likely that some units come under rent stabilization law and thus can't have their leases unilaterally ended by the landlord.

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 4:40 PM

It still is, but in a mostly amusing way.

I think this building may have been a hotel at one time. Anyone know of its history?

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

It was probably a residence hotel. apartments with small or no kitchens for working folks who would eat out or in the building's communal dining room. There are several of these buildings in the Heights. They usually have fancy lobbies and small apartments. Rent contol froze the tenants in place and many grew old in the "young bachelor's" studios originally intended for people just starting out.

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 6:41 PM

I have lived there in a rent stabilized 1-bedroom for over 10 years (got in with a low rent)and have seen it go from a building with decrepit hallways (old carpeting, dim lighting etc) and a tired but lovely lobby to much improved hallways and a new if less charming lobby but that's about it. The kitchens are TINY, there are 5 refurbished washers for 141 units (often breaking down and costing $2 a load to boot), and ancient plumbing and wiring. I just can't imagine anyone would be willing to plonk down the money management would charge to buy these apartments. And if they decided to turn the the units into real condos, the renovation would be a huge and expensive undertaking. As someone mentioned above, it is indeed a disappearing example of an earlier era.

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 9:09 PM

Most of these old apartment buildings are near-wrecks when they are converted, they then go through a ten to twenty year evolution where every little thing is changed and every little thing is upgraded and eventually they become nice, high-class dwellings. It is a lot of work but it will just come naturally to you and your fellow shareholders. you cannot expect a landlord, burdened by rent regulations, to maintain a building to the same standards that owner-occupants will. all old co-ops have been through it, believe me it is worth it. ownership, ownership, ownership, that is all that matters.

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 9:26 PM

Cork

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 10:25 PM

the floors are cork. a material that is trendy again for flooring. it is weirdly silent.

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 10:29 PM

Uh, 10:29, not so silent when your upstairs neighbor is walking back and forth in her heels and then decides to take them off and throw them on the floor just as you have finally fallen asleep!

Posted by: guest at June 6, 2008 10:20 AM

It doesn't solve the mystery, but a slew of apartments in the building have been vacated and are being renovated. I checked out a few, and the workers were building enclosures around the kitchens or adding partitions. This is a terrible idea: subdividing a small apartment makes it still smaller.

I should say that the apartments WERE being renovated until last week, when the Department of Buildings shut down the work because of various code violations. YAWN. The management is a claque of scofflaws and constantly on the outs with the authorities. If they were hauled off to prison tomorrow I would register muy surprise by rolling over and going back to sleep.

Posted by: guest at July 7, 2008 9:29 PM

The apartment management also apparently fired the superintendent last week and have cut the 24-hour front desk attendance back to about 12 hours per day (with absolutely no notice to the tenants). I am a tenant of this apartment and I haven't been able to get any information from the management company about what is going on with the construction or the front desk service. The management is either incompetent or is trying to hide something from the tenants.

Posted by: guest at July 10, 2008 11:32 AM