House of the Day: 418 11th Street

So understand that people have different preferences...some like older homes, some like new, but how in the world could someone choose The Mynt (highlighted yesterday) for 2250 per month, when you could live here for the same price in a floor through. I know I know...not everyone wants to live in Park Slope, but the Mynt is no where near subways, right next to projects and this is in one of the loveliest neighborhoods in Brooklyn. Obviously there is probably no soaking tub here or high end appliances, but in terms of locations, it's interesting to see the price comparison, in my opinion.

To each his/her own of course...

Posted by: guest at June 17, 2008 1:30 PM

I remember walking past that building last summer, at the time the owners were trying to sell it themselves. Guess they had to bring in the bigger guns.

Posted by: guest at June 17, 2008 1:33 PM

How can a broker or seller rationalize not including interior photos in this day and age?

they're doing it. And apparently well enough that you are shilling the property for them.

Posted by: guest at June 17, 2008 1:39 PM

This house has been for sale, at this price, I think, for years -- three, at least.

Posted by: guest at June 17, 2008 1:42 PM

The Mynt is the same distance from the G as this is to the F train

Posted by: guest at June 17, 2008 1:42 PM

Hey Brownie

Property shark has this listed as a 5 family. Good luck getting a loan on dat shieeet

Posted by: guest at June 17, 2008 1:43 PM

Been on the market for a long time.
I believe the interior is a home depot nightmare with little or no original details left.

Posted by: guest at June 17, 2008 1:46 PM

1:42...I know the F train isn't the best in the world, but at least it goes to Manhattan.

Comparing any train to the G is a bit silly, don't you think?

Posted by: guest at June 17, 2008 1:49 PM

Queen Anne

Posted by: guest at June 17, 2008 1:50 PM

The seller is a crack pot.

Posted by: guest at June 17, 2008 2:02 PM

awesome look building regardless

Posted by: guest at June 17, 2008 2:14 PM

Is the Cadillac included?

Posted by: guest at June 17, 2008 2:31 PM

I believe it is called Queen Latifah style.

Posted by: guest at June 17, 2008 2:32 PM

Coldwell Banker is trying to move this house at $2.2 million:
http://realestate.nytimes.com/sales/detail/253-NS8060415

The owner had a FSBO ad on NY Times until a few days ago where, if I recall correctly, it was listed at $1.7 million.

And I swear that Warren Lewis or BP had this house not too long ago.

Posted by: guest at June 17, 2008 2:35 PM

We saw this house about a year ago. It is indeed a home depot special inside - no charm, no detail, poorly done. A shame, since exterior is pretty. I wonder if there's something deeper wrong with it, since owner has tried to sell it in so many ways - FSBO, Aguayo & Huebener, and Corcoran has it recently. Price has been all over the map: Corcoran aimed for 2.2 which was crazy since it's been lingering at 1.995 for so long - I think at one point owner tried at 1.7. I think it's a tough sell, since it's almost too big for one family, but hard to carve up differently than the way it currently is (poorly done duplex with 2 upper rentals) and it would probably be quite expensive to renovate, even if psf is reasonable, since it's a lot of square feet! Maybe they should drastically reduce the price and hope for a lot more interest?

Posted by: guest at June 17, 2008 2:37 PM

And, for interior pics see Coldwell Banker listing:

http://cbhkg.com/listing.asp?propid=85675

Posted by: guest at June 17, 2008 2:37 PM

231, I was thinking the exact same thing...seems to fit perfectly.

Posted by: guest at June 17, 2008 2:45 PM

Nice block. Didn't Brownstoner do a post on the house across the street from this one several years ago that was sold for over 2 million? A very modern gut reno? Anyone know the exact address?

Posted by: guest at June 17, 2008 3:05 PM

Romanesque Revival, except the year built -- 1920 -- is puzzling in that regard. Not Queen Anne, people.

Posted by: guest at June 17, 2008 3:51 PM

Wonder if there's some sort of C of O issue. I'd think that for 1.7-1.8 someone would take a flyer and gut reno it.

It really would make a nice 1 or 2 family home. I'd personally take the garden and first 2 floors and rent out the 3rd and 4th. Or, why not just take the whole thing, with the 4th floor for storage/office/guests?

Posted by: guest at June 17, 2008 3:57 PM

hey 3:51! decorative terra cotta window in gable = Queen Anne. nothing puzzling about Queen Anne in the 20s.

Posted by: guest at June 17, 2008 4:03 PM

also asymmetrical facade = American QA

Posted by: guest at June 17, 2008 4:05 PM

yup...aguayo had it for something like 2.2, maybe even more, and that's easily a year ago. the interior has in fact been renovated, but pardon me while I cough up a hair ball....aaaggghhh.... it's a cheapo job that is a mess. the rentals are not at all renovated. soooo....add ±600k to put this into the condition of some other houses recently listed nearby at comparable prices. excuse me, another hair ball.....ggaaagghhh

Posted by: guest at June 17, 2008 4:23 PM

that is one cheap looking interior.

Posted by: guest at June 17, 2008 5:59 PM

This is in South Slope and South Slope is far from one of the most beautiful neighborhoods in Brooklyn. It has some nice blocks and many not so nice blocks. The best thing it has going for it is that it is next to Park Slope.

Posted by: guest at June 17, 2008 6:08 PM

1920? property shark is not the bible

Posted by: guest at June 17, 2008 6:50 PM

1920?
ha ha ha!
This style of building was completely OUT in the 1920's.
This is an 1880's Victorian Gothik/Romanesque revival townhouse.

Posted by: guest at June 17, 2008 7:06 PM

saw this a year ago, as well. just not worth the price. railroad layouts inside, no real way to configure it sensibly, looked like the building had been poorly cared for, no features of note remaining. just not sure what you would use this as. it has been on with several agents as well as fsbo, it didn't sell for $1.95 last year so I have no idea why someone would buy it for $2.2 this year??

Posted by: guest at June 17, 2008 7:11 PM

Responding to the first poster re: browntone floor thru v. new condo. I like old brownstone floors, and have rented a few and owned one, but before you even get into the amenities like doormen, gyms, central AC, fancy appliances, etc., which I gladly give up for charm and well laid out apartments in well-located old brownstones, there's this to remember: every one of my old brownstones (and they were all prime apartments in great P.S. locations) had (1) lead water main (meaning you know there's lead in your water); (2) insufficient electricity (meaning the lights dimmed if you ironed clothes, dried your hair with a hair dryer, etc.); (3) insufficient heat in the rear, due to either old windows, poorly insulated new ones, and/or old radiators that worked poorly, especially the top floor rear ones, so it is really cold on winter nights (even when you own and CAN turn up the furnace); (4) had mice, usually, (5) were impossible to completely cool at once, even with multiple window air conditioners, due to the long, narrow layout, and (6) realy thin floors (noise from above if not on top floor, and sometimes from below).

Now that I finally don't have (most of) those problems, not in a new condo, but an old elevator building converted to condos, it would be hard to go back to your basic semi-renovated brownstone. And yes, I've also gotten used to an elevator (no more lugging groceries), central AC, and actually being able to have packages delivered (such luxury that feels like!)

Posted by: guest at June 17, 2008 8:48 PM

The seller had this treasure for sale last week for $1.99 mil. He had crazy signs up all over the lovely scaffolding which now completely covers his building.

At $1.9 this seemed like a deal on this block which is one of the better ones in the South Slope (soon to be Park Slope). Regardless of what the Park Slope purist at 6:08 pm says, this block is solid and way better than many, many blocks in Park Slope. Just in case, watch your wallet when you cross 9th street 6:08!

Place half the size across the street sold for 1.4 and another place up the block was $1000 sq. ft. Hard to fathom, other than "crazy owner" syndrome and bldg aesthetic re-do, why this place is not moving.

Posted by: guest at June 17, 2008 9:28 PM

9:28 - why is this place not moving? Try - market shift... And more lingering properties coming....

Posted by: guest at June 17, 2008 10:52 PM

When are you people going to wake up and realize that real estate prices in NYC are way overpriced and bound to collapse?

Prices have gone up by three or four times in the last ten years ALL OVER Manhattan and Brooklyn, yet so many of you continue to defend these crazy prices.

Rent increases, on the other hand, have gone up modestly.

I don't get it. So many of you are successful, educated folks, how can you buy into this craziness with a straight face?

(I'm a landlord, by the way. . . not a "bitter renter.")

Posted by: guest at June 18, 2008 8:06 AM

"Collapse"? Come on. Prices may and are leveling out a bit in key Brooklyn nabes (Park Slope last), but they ain't collapsing, particularly with all the Euros and Manhattanites finding "deals" left and right.

Agree, the extraordinary price tags on some of these pieces of doo are confounding and someone at some point soon may not make a 200% profit of the sale of their former stinker, but I don't foresee any Gary, Indiana style "collapse"...maybe a "waning" or a "subtle shift"...

Posted by: guest at June 18, 2008 12:37 PM

First things first, South Slope is not different from Park Slope it is the same neighborhood!!

Posted by: guest at June 18, 2008 1:09 PM

It was an Open House pick last July at nearly the exact same price: http://www.brownstoner.com/brownstoner/archives/2007/07/open_house_pick_132.php

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 7:18 AM

Dear 8:06am who said:

"When are you people going to wake up and realize that real estate prices in NYC are way overpriced and bound to collapse? ... Prices have gone up by three or four times in the last ten years ALL OVER Manhattan and Brooklyn ... Rent increases, on the other hand, have gone up modestly."

Here's the analysis from someone that just bought a townhouse.

My old rent was $3,200 and showed no signs of going down, only up, up, up.
My marginal tax rate is about 40%. That means I'm break-even on a mortgage payment of $5,300.
I had the down payment money.
I don't care if I only make 3% on my down payment for the next 5-10 years and with my mortgage (30-year fixed) I'm even on my monthly costs.
The extra "maintenance" on the house (insurance, fixing things that break) is nothing compared to the sense of pride in ownership, back yard, THREE times the space, etc.
The chances of losing a portion of my down payment over 5-10 years are very, very small.

This is about opportunity cost and "next best alternatives." I am not unique in this regard (or math). Make sense to you now?!

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 9:15 AM