Co-op of the Day: 62 Pierrepont Street

Hey there Brownstoner, 62 Pierrepont owner here. i should correct a couple of things:
we're not ground floor, it's apt 3B. and the outdoor space featured on our website is the building's communal garden - lovely - but not ours alone. sorry for any confusion.
very happy to be featured. we're having an open house this evening 6-7 and then another on sunday 11 to 12:30.

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 1:14 PM

no private outdoor space for that price??

don't think so.

i was going to look, but i'm looking for ground floor.

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 1:16 PM

The floor plan only indicates two "chambers." Where is the half?

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 1:18 PM

not on your life will that fetch $799k!

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 1:24 PM

hmmm...

Not on the ground floor.

No private garden.

Only 2 bedrooms, not 2 1/2

Not really a good day for Mr. B today, huh??

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 1:25 PM

owner here again. the half is the dining room, which can easily become a third bedroom/den. the living room is large enough to incorporate a dining area.

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 1:26 PM

Great location (unless you're a BH hater and I know there are lots here) and I love the paneling.

I wonder if you can open kitchen up to LR side, skip the DR, and end up with 3 bedrooms?

Anyway, 799 sounds realistic to me.

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 1:28 PM

1:28 = biff posting as guest

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 1:33 PM

Is ground floor a selling point?

Even as a straight-up 2 bedroom with a sep dining area, this seems like a decent buy.

FSBOs always seem pretty reasonable or way way off the map. This one seems reasonable.

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 1:34 PM

200K overpriced.

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 1:35 PM

200k overpriced? this site has gone nuts.

Are you finding a lot of 2 bedrooms out there with FDRs for under 600k? Please please please, show me. I could afford that! Also need a decent local public school (PS8 will do).

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 1:40 PM

You can rent this apartment for 3K a month, or pay 7K a month to own it.

You can find 2 bedrooms in PS for 600K.

BH is overvalued.

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 1:42 PM

Two small bedrooms, one bath, unseen kitchen and few closets -- who are you kidding? This could make (with work) a decent one bedroom ($599K).

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 1:43 PM

I see a kitchen.

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 1:46 PM

one wall -- no close up of the kitchen

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 1:49 PM

c'mon 1:49. you sound a little hard to please. one wall is now "unseen"? you don't need to make a binding decision about the place based on these photos. just enough to decide if you want to go and look. so you're not interested, fine.

I think the place looks nice enough.

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 1:53 PM

This is a handsome building. Very well kept up. This is priced spot on. It's Brooklyn Heights.

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 1:55 PM

for the same price, i'll take this...

http://www.corcoran.com/property/listing.aspx?Region=NYC&ListingID=1259973&ohDat=6/22/2008%2012:00:00%20AM;

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 1:55 PM

the corcoran park slope place does look nice. but being listed with corcoran means that 799K is not as negotiable at 62 Pierrepont's FSBO 799K.

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 1:58 PM

the park slope place is much larger and much nicer.

it ACTUALLY has two bedrooms plus another smaller room...

this place is stretching the truth my counting the dining room as the 1/2.

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 1:59 PM

Sorry, but I don't buy the "3rd bedroom" being made out of a dining room. The apt looks nice enough, but it's deceptive to market as bigger than a 2BR. Not sure of the price - seems a bit high in this softening market.

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 2:02 PM

Quit it with the posts corcoran broker. you suck

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 2:03 PM

62 pierrepont owner here. not sure why it's stretching truth to call a windowed dining room a half BR. and indeed there are 2 other BRs in addition. plus a 24 foot living room.
ah well, it all makes for a lively day...

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 2:04 PM

hello? Brooklyn Heights is more expensive than Park Slope.

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 2:05 PM

"hello? Brooklyn Heights is more expensive than Park Slope"

Not sure why....

Schools, shops, restaurants, the park are all better in PS..the ONLY thing BH wins on is commute to Manhattan.

And that PS place is steps to the GAP 2/3 which makes it literally 10 minutes farther from Manhattan.

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 2:09 PM

The only drawback here is that there is only one bath. everything else is fine.
A two-bedromm in a walk-up tenement building in Park Slope is in no way comparable to an elevator buildng in Brooklyn Heights. Two different markets.

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 2:10 PM

we have a park slope hijacking alert.

if you guys want a circle jerk about your precious PS please take it over to the PLG HOD post.

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 2:12 PM

"hello? Brooklyn Heights is more expensive than Park Slope"

Not sure why...."

It doesn't matter. It just is. As 2:10 said, they're two different markets.

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 2:13 PM

The Park Slope place is on the 2nd Floor, is only 10% down and is 250 square feet larger and $250 less in maint. a month.

Oh and one more bedroom.

I'd say the comparison is a good one.

I'd take the PS place anyday over this one.

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 2:14 PM

I've been in this apt (friend of a friend of the owners) and just want to say that it really is nice, I loved the paneling in the dining room, which in my fantasy I would use as a library (living room could easily accomodate table). Kitchen nothing special but very workable, bathroom has nice old fashioned vibe, and the building is to die for (as is location if you like the Heights). Downside -- I seem to remember that it faces the back, so no views and a little dark.

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 2:15 PM

As someone who's looking to buy, I APPRECIATE the comparisons to other similarly priced apartments in other neighborhoods. We are looking in PS, FG and BH and maybe CG so I welcome the discussion.

The people complaining about the PS talk clearly must have a vested interest in this apartment, because I see absolutely nothing wrong with the comparison. Since when are BH and PS totally different markets?? I've never heard of anything so silly.

Thank YOU for the link, 1:55!

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 2:16 PM

Brooklyn Heights is more expensive than Garden City.

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 2:17 PM

Brooklyn Heights is more expensive than Franklin Lakes

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 2:18 PM

Brooklyn Heights is more expensive than Westport

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 2:18 PM

"BH is overvalued."

NYC is overvalued!

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 2:25 PM

There are many people who wouldn't live in Park Slope, or in any other neighborhood in Brooklyn other than Brooklyn Heights--believe it or not people!!! I work with a few of them. They are Manhattanites who work on Wall Street, junior-level, and want to be one subway stop away. Also, their bosses live in Brooklyn Heights, so it's about the status, etc., and being able to share this in common. So in that way, it is a different market.

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 2:26 PM

I'm still not sure why anyone would choose this place over the PS one.

Do that many people really LOVE BH that much to pay for a smaller space with fewer services, no park and lower quality schools??

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 2:27 PM

2:26...The people you speak of are now losing their jobs hand over fist, and being arrested for the implosion of the U.S. economy.

I'm not so sure I want to base my decisions about Brooklyn neighborhoods on a few men who thought they ruled the world and now will be spending the next 10 years in the state pen.

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 2:29 PM

2:29--do you really believe that EVERYONE on Wall Street has been fired? Really?

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 2:31 PM

we are looking at 2 (plus) bedrooms in brooklyn heights, park slope and carroll gardens.

i also don't at all see how these are different markets. we are looking for the most space for the best money.

the "different markets" you speak of may be with the 5 million and up townhouse market, but certainly not with 800K 2 bedrooms...

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 2:32 PM

Where did I say everyone?

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 2:32 PM

Park Slope is not for everyone. Brooklyn Heights is not for everyone. Hence, people buy in the neighborhood they prefer. Is that really such a crazy idea?

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 2:34 PM

We've all been fired and arrested.
Do you believe that everyone in Brooklyn Heights works on Wall Street? I believe they are all Lawyers and Architects, and that they are all old farts who play pinocle or squash at the Heights Casino. But that's just what I believe.

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 2:34 PM

I don't want to live in a neighborhood full of out of work Wall Streeters. They aren't going to be a happy bunch for the next few years.

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 2:36 PM

"we are looking at 2 (plus) bedrooms in brooklyn heights, park slope and carroll gardens." "...we are looking for the most space for the best money."

But many people actually look in ONE specific neighborhood. Not everyone is as flexible or indifferent to neighborhoods. Some people *only* want Park Slope, others are looking specifically in BH, and yet others in CG.

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 2:37 PM

Whenever the topic of Brooklyn Heights comes up, people say that it's the ONLY neighborhood where they would consider living in Brooklyn.

Now that Wall Street has become a dirty word, they don't live there anymore. Is that how it goes, 2:34?

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 2:37 PM

I know very few people who limit their search to only one neighborhood.

No one, actually.

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 2:39 PM

I am looking for a house, and after seeing many houses in many neighborhoods over the past year, I've decided that I want Park Slope and will only buy in Park Slope. My brother and sister-in-law, on the other hand are in love with Brooklyn Heights and have no desire or interest to look anywhere else. It's very common, 2:39. Really.

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 2:43 PM

2:37- that's actually how it went, but it goes a little different nowadays.

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 2:43 PM

The point I was making in my earlier posting is that sometimes folks act as if an apartment in an elevator apartment building is comparable to one in a four-unit walk-up building.
Now If you can find a similar apartment in Park Slope, in an elevator building, with 2 baths, or with a beautiful terrace, then we're talking comps and real competition that would make the extra stops on the subway every morning and evening possibly worth it.
But don't ask me to live in a dinky walk-up with no services if I'm lookng at larger elevator buildings.

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 2:49 PM

Hmmm. Just checked out the Park Slope Corcoran listing everyone is so excited about. If you look at the photo of the building exterior, on Property Shark, you'll notice that it's a dumpy, tenement-style building. While the listing notes it's 2-flights up, the apartment is on the 3rd floor, so the broker is most likely undercounting the stairs, or counting it from after the first landing, as I've seen done many times. Also, Union Street is busy and noisy and not really comparable to Pierrepont.

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 2:51 PM

i still like the ps place much better.

and btw, 2:49, this place doesn't have a terrace, so why should the comp in ps have one?

this has a common garden. big deal.

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 2:56 PM

http://www.bhsbrooklyn.com/detail.asp?id=906186

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 2:58 PM

http://www.bhsbrooklyn.com/detail.asp?id=895667

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 2:59 PM

http://www.bhsbrooklyn.com/detail.asp?id=784642

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 2:59 PM

The PS apartment is on an industrial block. Pierrepont Street is quiet, shady block. I've seen this FSBO and really liked it. Maybe it's overpriced; I dunno. It's been on the market for a while.

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 3:00 PM

http://www.prudentialelliman.com/Listings.aspx?ListingID=989527&rentalperiod=&SearchType=apartments&Region=NYC

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 3:03 PM

http://www.prudentialelliman.com/Listings.aspx?ListingID=970275&rentalperiod=&SearchType=apartments&Region=NYC

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 3:03 PM

I like BH and all, but I pretty much prefer every listing posted here better.

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 3:06 PM

http://www.warrenlewis.com/cgi-bin/re/re_show.pl?re_command=show&ID=6435

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 3:07 PM

Regarding the 2.5 bedrooms issue, I don't understand how a room off the dining room without a door even counts as a bedroom.

If anything, I would call the room off the dining room a half bedroom. So this would be a 1.5 bedroom with a living and dining room and a galley kitchen.

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 3:14 PM

Hard to convert this place into a real three bedroom unless you like walking through one bedroom to get to another.

Meh, next.

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 3:18 PM

Thanks for all the links. There are some good ones in there. I really like the Warren Lewis listing!!

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 3:23 PM

Apartments like this are the tragic consequences of carving once grand places into warrens of rooms.

Which makes 35 Prospect Park West pad, posted yesterday, all the more special.

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 3:23 PM

Such a mean-spirited bunch of know-nothings.
A typical thread on Stoner.

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 3:31 PM

Interesting Polemicist, since Brooklyn Heights is known around the world as America's first "suburb."

I find your comment to be the exact opposite of how I feel about the two neighborhoods.

And I don't live in either.

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 3:33 PM

3:31...well since you've obviously come to the comments section of a real estate blog in search of pulitzer prize winning prose, i'm very sorry to disappoint.

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 3:34 PM

Energy in Brooklyn Heights??

Where??!

I've lived here for 20 years and the ONE thing it certainly does not have is energy! It's a sleepy little village with very few high-rises, very few shops or restaurants and very few people.

It does, however have a lot of peace and quiet and lovely architecture!

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 3:38 PM

I can't find any energy in bklyn hights! My best friend has lived there for almost 4 years now and the place is very very dull compared to park slope.

Park slope is full of young artistic, fun, and outgoing people. BH is full of white bread, ivy league, lawyers!

The only advantage BH has over park slope is its proximity to manhattan and to the courts (since BH is full of lawyers).

Other then that, Park Slope trumps BH in every other respect!

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 3:56 PM

that Park Sloper post is everything I hate about Park Slope. 2-1/2 bed vs "2-bedroom, convertible to 3"? really? this is something you get online and post about? who frickin cares.

And whoever wrote that this apartment is the result of carving up grand places is 100% wrong -- this place was clearly built as an aparmtent building.

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 3:57 PM

wow!!!!!!! what are you people!!!!!!!!!!!????????? its insane how retarded these threads can become...a bunch of people with really wack taste and opinions....no wonder brooklyn is what it is today....

welcome yallllllll!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 4:44 PM

You're likely wrong, 3:57, and I'm probably right. (3:23 here.)

Lots of "grand" apartments in New York were carved up as residential patterns and tastes changed during the 1900s. Buildings this vintage -- especially in a neighborhood like Brooklyn Heights -- commonly had apartments with 10 rooms and more.

Look at the plan. It was probably the rear of an apartment that may have extended all the way to the street. That explains the awkward layout of rooms, the oddly positioned and narrow kitchen (unlikely the original in an apartment this age), and other idiosyncracies.

Apartment buildings like this one and in this part of Brooklyn were built to compete with nearby private houses, the upper-middle-and upper-class standard of the day. They simply morphed over time according to market conditions -- usually shrinking. (The Depression was a particularly hard time. On Central Park West, for example, apartments of 12 rooms and more were turned into "efficient" three and four room places because these were easier to rent. Same on Park Avenue.)

Brooklyn Heights' row houses were turned into apartments (think of all those charming, albeit small Remsen Street co-ops in former private houses). And Brooklyn Heights apartments were turned into smaller apartments.

Read your history.

Sources: Richard Plunz, History of Housing in New York City; Robert A.M. Stern, New York Architecture and Urbanism series, including New York 1930.

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 4:48 PM

Agreed that this thread is ridiculous. It's hard to believe that the majority of you posters are adults with enough purchasing power to buy an apartment, anywhere in Brooklyn.

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 4:50 PM

The apartment is nice but entirely too expensive for what it is. I'm not saying someone won't buy it, but I'd certainly choose any number of those Park Slope places linked here over this one.

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 4:52 PM

not many people in this market are going to want to overpay for a 2 bedroom like this in a neighborhood which has probably already peaked for the next 5 years.

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 4:56 PM

"You can rent this apartment for 3K a month, or pay 7K a month to own it." That's why I'm renting, with a million cash burning a hole in my pocket.

Much as I want to buy, I can't justify these prices. And even in the top 5% of NYers, I don't have enough money to give it away to apartment sellers asking silly amounts for their properties.

In the medium run, rental, investor and owner-occupant prices have to converge. Otherwise, entrepreneurial types will buy up rentals and convert them to owner-occupant, or buy up empty lots/commercial buildings and build new units. At equilibrium, investors should be indifferent between holding their units for rent or selling them to owner occupants.

Which means that it should be CHEAPER to own than rent, not more expensive. How can I justify paying more than about 10x annual rental value?

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 4:59 PM

i bought a studio and pay less to own it than i would to rent it.

it depends on the property. studios are still very good deals in brooklyn right now.

have you seen that studios in manhattan are basically starting at 400k and up these days. more like 500k...

you can still get one for 300k in prime brownstone brooklyn if you look hard. that's less than 2000 a month, which is cheaper than most nice studio rentals when you factor in the mortgage interest deduction.

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 5:03 PM

Don't forget the maintenance when doing your math, 5:03.

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 5:10 PM

Brooklyn Heights has the waterfall. Brooklyn Heights wins.

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

300K apartment

60K down.

240K mortgage.

That's about $1500 a month mortgage. let's say 400 maint. for a studio in Brooklyn. That's $1800 a month total.

Mortgage deduction brings that down to around 1200-1400 a month.

To own in NYC.

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 5:14 PM

Sorry, 1900 total a month roughly.

The the mortgage deduction factor...

(Although my maint is less than 300 a month...)

I figured out that my newly bought studio costs me about 1100 a month after the mortgage deduction...

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 5:16 PM

5:03 -- 15 x rent is still more than a rational investor could pay unless s/he/it expected to be able to increase rent faster than expenses quickly. But it is a lot better than the ratios I'm seeing on the larger places I'm looking for.

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 5:17 PM

It is a bit of a strange layout. The dining room opens into one "bedroom" and a wall may be needed. The bathroom, while vintage, is old and needs updating, as does the seemingly small kitchen. Also the paneling in the dining room is not to everone's taste (not mine anyways). So work needs to be done. And the bedrooms are small. A do-it-yourselfer might buy near this price, likely offer less as its FSBO. Most, however, probably wouldnt run to buy this place at that price.

I agree, Parkslope is always going to be a bit less expensive than prime Brooklyn Heights. But as far as money spent, I would go with the Park Slope apartment.

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 5:23 PM

5:16 Are you in a 55% tax bracket? Your valuation of the mortgage tax deduction seems too high.

What would your studio rent for?

How do you calculate the opportunity cost on your downpayment?

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 5:25 PM

I would love to buy a little studio. But i'm 23 and don't have 60,000 dollars. Does anyone want to front me?

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 5:25 PM

My studio rented for $1800 before I bought it a year ago. Like I said though, my maint. is only 250 so that with my mortgage payment is a little less than 1600 a month. I could not find something to rent in my area for that price. It would be very difficult, anyway. I looked.

I know that I got 7 grand back this year in taxes and before I owned I had to pay 2K.

The money seems to be rolling in now that I own. I honestly don't know what my tax bracket is....

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 5:30 PM

this building was always an apartment building. I knew someone who lived in this building, in this line even. I think the layout here has been changed a little tho.

So, no, it was never "grander" than it is now.

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 5:34 PM

To afford a 300k apt you should have about a 100k income -- or at least that is what any bank would have said up to 5 years ago. Standard rule of thumb is that you should be saving 15% of income. Presumably you are single and childless; on 100k you should be able to save more than that. Save for three or four years and you'll have the downpayment -- and the 300k studio will still be at 300k.

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 5:35 PM

5:16, in pricing your monthly cost of purchase you forgot the cost of lost interest on your down payment. Of course, on the other side, there is then the price of equity build up over time.....

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 5:38 PM

5:34:

Your friends lived in this building before World War I, when this building likely opened?

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 5:38 PM

Studios are supposedly the one segment of the market which are showing marked strength right now. I bought mine in 2006 for 235K and someone JUST sold theirs in my building in May for 375K. No joke. Not sure what you say is totally true, 5:35.

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 5:39 PM

5:38, yes I'm aware of that, but I was also spending about 24K a year on rent previous to the purchase, so I feel pretty great about my place. I didn't buy it as an investment. I bought it because I want to live in NYC long term and this actually ends up being cheaper than rent. It was one of the best things I've ever done for myself.

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 5:41 PM

5:30 got an old-fashioned fair deal: it costs less to own than rent. Basically, the buyer--not the seller--is getting the benefit of the mortgage deduction tax subsidy.

This coop isn't priced that way, unless its rental value is north of 5k. I don't see how it could be.

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 5:48 PM

I believe studios...even in this market are a pretty fair deal in Brooklyn. They are the only "fair" deals I see in terms of the rent/own ratio...

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 5:51 PM

Brownstoner is overvalued.

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 5:52 PM

"I bought mine in 2006 for 235K and someone JUST sold theirs in my building in May for 375K."

Aren't you the same person who said that you bought yours for 235 and sold it for 375?

Funny how your story keeps shifting every time you get called on the details.

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 5:59 PM

5:35 here. I should have said "assuming a return to rationality and/or long term trends". Very little in this market has been rational in the last several years and the trend lines for the last 5 years look like nothing ever seen before.

But if you are trying to predict what is going to happen in the next several years, it seems to me that betting on a return to rationality is safer than extrapolating the last few years. If prices keep going up 60% every two years, in four years that $375k studio will be selling for $960k. Why would rational people pay $960k for an apartment they could rent for $2000?

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 5:59 PM

Yeah, there's probably only one person on this website who bought a studio in Brooklyn.

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 6:00 PM

5:59...

Perhaps the person posting lives in the same building...?

I don't recall the specifics, but I actually think the person you are thinking of sold their place for 339K. I only remember that, because it's the same price I bought my place for...

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 6:02 PM

5:38 - no, they didn't live here pre-WWI. would that make sense?

they lived there in the last 10 years and had the original floorplans framed on the wall.

believe it or not, there were apartment buildings with 2 bedroom apartments in them even pre-WWI.

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 6:05 PM

I lived in this building years ago and I can tell you that is the most upkept building in all of the Heights. The Super actually knows how to fix things and believe it or not, he's friendly.
We were very happy there, we just outgrew the apt.
Also, there was nothing like grabbing an ice cream on a pleasant summer evening and walking lazily to the Promenade, grabbing a bench and taking everything in. Oh yeah, now there's a waterfall to look at too.

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 6:08 PM

A "waterfall."

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 6:15 PM

there's a waterfall to look at for a couple months. big woop. THAT'S a reason to overspend on an apartment! now i've heard it all.

go over to ps and you can look at hundreds of acres of the most beautiful urban parkland every day for the rest of your life out your doorstep.

and pay less.

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 7:11 PM

I'm so tired of the Park Slope crashers.

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 7:35 PM

I have seen it. Layout is not bad, but it is a small apt for more than 2 people. 900SF? Maybe.If you want a small space chopped into alot of rooms this is the place for you.

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 9:07 PM

I agree with poster above who said this is a 1.5 bedroom at best, since one of the main "bedrooms" is really just more space off the dining room without a door - how can you call something a bedroom if it does not have a door? Would you really feel comfortable having people in your public space when you can't even close your space for privacy?

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 9:16 PM

Now here's an apt that looks much nicer:

http://www.75prospectparkwest.blogspot.com/

OK, it's 100K more, but maybe that's negotiable, and it seems like it's 2 REAL bedrooms (no need to build a wall) plus everything renovated to hilt, in better school district and better overall location. I still think both these apt are expensive in current market, but comparatively, I think this PS apt is the better one for the money.

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 10:30 PM

no floorplan on the 75 ppw tho

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 11:14 PM

I looked at an apartment that I think was in 801 Union Street once. Let me just say some apartments photograph better than they appear in real life. If it's the building I think it is, the hallway/staircase was in pretty drab shape and the colors were awful. The owner said there were no immediate plans to renovate and improve the common areas. The Brooklyn Heights apartment is in a much better building and it's more appealing because there are more units in it. Basic coop knowledge... the more units in the building the better because any new costs/emergencies can be spread out among more owners causing a less expensive inpact on you. 801 Union = 4 apartments. If their boiler goes or the roof needs to be replaced, look out, you're going to get one giant assessment. From what I remember, the owner told me they only had a $3000 reserve and there wasn't any intention of increasing the maintenance to help build up the reserve fund. In my opinion, that's a building heading for financial disaster.

Posted by: guest at June 20, 2008 10:47 AM

Union Street is often a double-parked hell of honking and fumes and soooo many people?

Get a grip, move to the countryside. You are obviously not suited to living in a city.

Posted by: guest at June 20, 2008 12:34 PM

Agree with 10:47am. I saw both of these apartments. The BH apartment is in nice condition and in a great building. My husband and I seriously considered putting in an offer (below asking) on it, but ultimately found something in PS that suited our needs a little better. The PS apartment, on the other hand, is in an absolute dump of a building. It was appalling. The current owners did some nice renovations, but that building is dreadful. Also, of the four units in the PS building, two are currently on the market and the 2nd floor apartment needs a ton of work.

Posted by: guest at June 20, 2008 2:08 PM