« Wednesday Food & Drink Round-Up Foreclosure of the Week: 445 East 19th Street »
July 23, 2008
109 Gates Avenue Revealed: Man, That's Ugly
You couldn't have screwed this one up worse if you'd tried. As we discussed last Fall, the current owner of 109 Gates Avenue paid $2 million for the five-story house about a year and a half ago, and then proceeded to do about the most Home Depot-esque renovation imaginable. He then slapped a wacky $2,800,000 price tag on it and let it sit with a big plywood fence around it for many months. That fence just came down yesterday and, Oh Lordy, the result was a schocker. Although the owner did file plans with Landmarks, a neighbor told us, evidently he didn't stick to them. He's now dropped the price by a million bucks to $1,800,000. Given the interior finishes and the landmarks headaches that lie ahead, we're not so sure that'll get the job done. One thing's for sure, though, once that storefront gets fixed it should make a nice home for a new restaurant. Vini & Olii could use the company, and it would make this neck of the woods safer by providing some more foot traffic and light. Update: LPC informs us that a violation has already been issued.
Another Update: We got our hands on the permit granted by LPC way back in 2003. Click through for the full text, but here's a taste: "The design of the proposed storefront and the second floor bay, based on the 1908 drawing, will help to unify the first and second floors of the building, and return the facades closer to their historic appearance; that recreating the Gates Avenue and St. James Place entrances to the store will also bring the building closer to its 1908 appearance."
109 Gates Avenue [Brooklyn Properties] GMAP P*Shark
House of the Day: 109 Gates Avenue [Brownstoner]
Mural, And Then a Restaurant, at 109 Gates Avenue [Brownstoner]
May 27, 2003, following the Public Hearing May 27, 2003, voted to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed work at the subject premises, as put forth in your application completed on May 1, 2003.
The proposed work consists of removing the stoop, altering the corner storefront and adding new light fixtures, and installing a new window on the fifth floor on the secondary north facade, all as shown in a block plan, partial floor plans, replicas of Department of Building filing drawings from a 1908 renovation of the building; existing and proposed elevation drawings, photographs of the existing conditions and tax photographs showing the street facade, all prepared by Brent M. Porter, Architect, and in photographs from Commission files, all presented at the Public Hearing and the Public Meeting.
In reviewing this proposal, the Commission notes that the Clinton Hill Historic District Designation Report describes 109 Gates Avenue as one of a row of five Italianate style rowhouses built in the 1860s. The Commission also notes that the building was altered several times prior to designation; that the parlor floor entrance and two story corner storefront are part of the work shown in the 1908 drawing; that the building was damaged by a fire in 2000; that portions of the studio window and storefront were removed after the fire; that several parts of the stoop were replaced prior to designation; and that the historic material still in place at the stoop is in a deteriorated condition.
With regard to this proposal, the Commission found that the removal of the modern portions of the storefront, including the roll–down security gates and housing, the metal panning at the signband, the aluminum door to the retail space, and the corner entrance, has eliminated features that detracted from the special architectural and historic character of the building; that the design of the proposed storefront and the second floor bay, based on the 1908 drawing, will help to unify the first and second floors of the building, and return the facades closer to their historic appearance; that recreating the Gates Avenue and St. James Place entrances to the store will also bring the building closer to its 1908 appearance; that the configuration, material, and finish of the proposed studio window will return this feature closer to its original appearance and will be in keeping with the special architectural and historic character of the building; that removing the cast iron stoop will not eliminate significant historic material in view of its deteriorated state and previous loss of most original material; and that for these reasons the proposed alterations are in keeping with the building, the street, and the Clinton Hill Historic District.
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/5614
Comments
Thats so bad its funny
Posted by: dittoburg at July 23, 2008 11:41 AM
The Brooklyn House of Detention is for people like this owner.
Not only the owner but Landmarks should be held accountable.
What a POS.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at July 23, 2008 11:42 AM
What a moron!
Posted by: troll at July 23, 2008 11:44 AM
I've lived around the corner from this monster for almost 5 years. Every day I passed it my frustration increased. Who or what is keeping the sole retail space in our immediate area hostage? Finally the plywood comes down and this is what we get? Dreams of a nice diner/cafe/grocery dashed- it's gonna take a LOT of undoing to make this one happen.
The architect lives directly across the street from this mess. It's a well known fact that he and his wife are sticklers for Landmarks compliance, so what happened?
In any case, i can't imagine anyone's gonna rush in to sweep up that headache. Looks like it won't be long before the plywood's back up...
Posted by: houseowax at July 23, 2008 11:55 AM
This kind of Home Depot renovation is happening all over Brownstone Brooklyn. From the small decisions like what kind of front door to larger ones like this.Contactore/developers spend millions on a property then make it look like some grandma who has a teddy bear on her sweatshirt did the renovations. It is mind blowing.
Posted by: billyboomer at July 23, 2008 11:56 AM
I'm digging the archway that doesn't attach to the wall. Everyone needs two ways to get from the LR to the DR, in case one is blocked. Nice of the broker to highlight that "feature" by putting it front and center.
Posted by: slopefarm at July 23, 2008 11:57 AM
Perhaps they should put the plywood back up.
Posted by: dittoburg at July 23, 2008 11:57 AM
The listing should read "Used to be Italianate Style"
And what's with those white Tudor style mullions on the windows???
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at July 23, 2008 12:04 PM
Yeah, it looks bad, but this is an investment property- 4 one-bedrooms and a store. Whats a 1-bed go for in this part of Clinton Hill? $1500. And a store? $2000?. Thats $8000 a month. Not bad.
Posted by: e10b at July 23, 2008 12:05 PM
My eyes!! My eyes!!
That is horrible! Why would anyone do that- even if you don't care about old houses, why would you make something so unappealing and then think people would rush to buy it?
Posted by: bxgrl at July 23, 2008 12:09 PM
This one bad side effect of the Mutant Real Estate Asset Bubble! But no, real estate always goes up. Dumbasses this thing is falling apart like a .99 watch! But no Fannie nad Freddie will be bailed out, But no the Government will buy all the Mortgages, But no it's different this time!! See what happen when Asshats get access to large amounts of capital!!!
Say Buh bye, Asshats....
The What
Someday this war is gonna end..
Posted by: what at July 23, 2008 12:16 PM
slopefarm, perhaps above the light switch next to the archway they should put two arrows; one with "Under 200 pounds" written on it pointing to the left, and one with "Over 200 Pounds" pointing to the right.
And how about putting some steps leading to the side door? I can imagine a very surprising descent to the sidewalk for someone exiting the home after a few drinks.
Posted by: Biff Champion at July 23, 2008 12:20 PM
$8000 a month income ain't bad.
But it won't cover the mortgage, will it?
Posted by: SnarkSlope at July 23, 2008 12:27 PM
e1ob,
$96K per year income ($8,000)on a $2.0 million purchase price would give you a return of 4.8%. You could do better than that by investing in something like municipal bonds. So, not a great investment.
Posted by: Boerum Hill at July 23, 2008 12:30 PM
Boerum Hill -- You are so, so wrong. The return on this investment is pretty deep in the negative. Let's just assume you put down 20% and get a 7% mortgage for the rest (good luck in this environment). Even without spending a single penny on taxes or maintenance, the numbers break out like this:
Equity contribution: $400,000
Annual mortgage payments: $112,000
Rental income: $96,000
Loss before considering a multitude of other costs: $16,000
Let's just throw in $20,000 a year for insurance, taxes, maintenance, etc. Then you manage to lost $36,000 a year, for a pre-tax return on equity of negative 9%. Post tax is better but still pretty bad.
In other words, someone who buys this as an income property is basically retarded.
Posted by: lechacal at July 23, 2008 12:42 PM
Boerum Hill -- I didn't mean to throw stones at you. I agree that this is a bad investment; I just wanted to make an even stronger case. I know you aren't saying this is a "buy."
Posted by: lechacal at July 23, 2008 12:43 PM
Boerum Hill had it right. 4.8% return and that was before taxes & utilities
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at July 23, 2008 12:47 PM
daveinbedstuy -- Calculating the return on a real estate investment doesn't mean dividing gross income by purchase price. See my calculations. That's how you do return on equity for a real estate investment. Really basic stuff that anyone who invests in income properties needs to know.
Posted by: lechacal at July 23, 2008 12:51 PM
Yeah I know that lechacal but when the gross numbers are so obviously bad there's no need to do all the extra math.
"Really basic stuff that anyone who invests in income properties needs to know"
Boerum Hill knew this, I knew this, so did most of the others I would bet.
It'll save you a lot of time in the future!!!!
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at July 23, 2008 12:57 PM
Whatever. I don't know why anyone who knows these things would ever even come up with a 4.8% number. It doesn't make any sense for any reason and it's not how investors think about these things.
Anyway, I have no interest in having a back-and-forth message board fight (like the Special Olympics, even if you win you're still retarded). I would rather focus on what price these people would need to ask for this property to actually make any sense to an investor. So let's assume:
- You need an 8% equity return for a real estate investment to be attractive.
- You can get a 7% mortgate with an 80% LTV.
- Tax, insurance and expenses are $20,000.
- Gross rental income is $96,000.
The purchase price for this property would need to be about $1,050,000 for these numbers to work. Here are the numbers
Income $96,000
Annual tax, insurance and expenses $20,000
mortgage rate 7.00%
Purchase Price $1,050,000
Down payment $210,000
Mortgage expense $58,800
Net income $17,200
ROE 8.19%
Posted by: lechacal at July 23, 2008 1:11 PM
This place is a horrible investment.
Posted by: troll at July 23, 2008 1:20 PM
lechacal, thanks for the lesson in crunching real estate numbers.
bedstuy dave, thanks for reminding me i'm not the only one who's clueless about these things!
Posted by: claudegueux at July 23, 2008 1:23 PM
Very precise lechecal. Thank you. This is the real world. First of all you won't get a 7.00% rate so your numbers, precise as they are, will be totally unrealistic. Go make an offer of $900,000 on the property now and let us know what happens..
Calling people retarded always hightens other people's opinion of you here even given your mathematical and investment acumen.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at July 23, 2008 1:28 PM
When the gross numbers indicate a 4.8% return and you're looking for a cap rate (understand that lechecal?) of 5% or more you know automatically that the property needs to come down about 50%. it's really very simple.
claudequex when you are clueless you are clueless about a lot of things.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at July 23, 2008 1:33 PM
This is a crime.
what, as a (former) real estate agent, you were part of the problem that created this "mutant" bubble. If you have an issue with that, talk it out with your therapist.
Posted by: 11233 at July 23, 2008 1:40 PM
How can that store only rent for $2000 a month? What percent of the first floor is the store?
Posted by: Shahn Andersen at July 23, 2008 1:43 PM
Dave, that is a fair point. Cap rate is a measure some people focus on. I would point out that you should back out expenses to arrive the cap rate, so the result would not actually be 4.8%.
Peace.
Posted by: lechacal at July 23, 2008 1:45 PM
I think the starting rental numbers are out for both the apartments and the shop. It's more like 2000 per apartment and possibly 2800 for the shop. That makes the return more like 11000p/m or 129000 per year.
It will make sense to an investor somewhere around 1.6mil. In the next 10 years they are also sure to see some capital appreciation and that will be factored in also.
Posted by: Aussie at July 23, 2008 1:54 PM
OMG! That renovation has to be a crime. I live right of street and I'm saddened by what they did to this building.
Posted by: A ClintonHillLady at July 23, 2008 1:57 PM
I live nearby and am mystified as to how the retail space got built. DOB requires Landmarks signoff, so how did it get this far? Or was it all done in the cover of night behind the plywood?
And agree that the retail space would rent for much more--if it's the same square footage as the bodega that was there years ago (the whole floor), it's a decent size.
Posted by: tinarina at July 23, 2008 1:57 PM
yes tinarina...can anyone answer the issues about Landmarks? What were they required to review and what are the criteria? Additionally, Mr. B. says that the owner filed plans with landmarks and then didn't stick to them. Where's the accountability.
I'm asking because I don't know. i live on a "calandared" block and am looking at other properties on a "clandared" block but have yet to fully research this.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at July 23, 2008 2:10 PM
Information about the types of work that need LPC review is available at:
www.nyc.gov/html/lpc/html/working_with/perform_work.shtml
The LPC complaint form is available at:
www.nyc.gov/html/lpc/downloads/pdf/forms/violation_form.pdf
Posted by: g man at July 23, 2008 2:26 PM
If you want to see the actual Certificate of Appropriateness --
1. go to www.citylaw.org/cityadmin.php
2. click on the box next to "Landmarks"
3. enter "109" and "Gates" into the box for keywords
That should return one record, "COFA for 109 Gates Avenue, Brooklyn Docket 03-6191." And look at that! The architect for the project is Brent Porter, he of the alternate plan for Admirals Row. Small world, ain't it?
Posted by: g man at July 23, 2008 2:34 PM
g man...that would certainly be a great example of what's proposed in the academic world and what his actual accomplishments are in the real world!!
"Those who can't, teach"
I wonder if his students have seen this disgrace.
If any of you are on here please bring this to the attention of the rest of the class.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at July 23, 2008 2:54 PM
I think g man deserves a special commendation not only for researching the COFA for this POS but digging up the fact that this "Professor of Architecture" was involved with it.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at July 23, 2008 2:59 PM
FYI--Brent Porter is an adjunct prof at Pratt... He's been there for years and is not tenured.
Posted by: tinarina at July 23, 2008 3:04 PM
May this moron take a bath on this shameful monument to stupidity and greed run amok. This sort of cynical waste makes me sick.
Posted by: Florence Castleberry at July 23, 2008 3:30 PM
Florence Castleberry..may I call you Flo? According to what Mr. B wrote he is going to take a bath. Hope it keeps him out of the market for a long time.
"Mel, kiss my grits"
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at July 23, 2008 3:39 PM
I haven't seen a copy of the plans, but I'm sure whatever the Landmarks Preservation Commission approved was a lot more attractive than what we are all seeing from the street right now. It's quite possible that there is still further work to be done to comply with Landmarks' Certificate of Appropriateness for the site and the removal of the fence was not supposed to be a sign that the project is completed.
It's hard for me to believe that Brent Porter was on this site every day dictating how things should be done. Other than a few inspections that he has to do, the architect can't tell a developer how to do certain things, and is not responsible for a lot of what happens on a site - particularly when it comes to aesthetic choices.
Posted by: Shahn Andersen at July 23, 2008 3:54 PM
g-man- who are you??? You always have an answer to this official stuff. I'm starting to think you are some kind of special ops :-)
I wouldn't bet that Porter signed off on what was actually done. It sound like the owner went off on his own since he was issued a violation and no architect in his right mind would want to be on record for that monstrosity in violation of the LPC anyway. according to Mr. B ". A group of investors bought the building in February 2005 for $1,100,000 and, after several months of planning and (presumably) navigating the Landmarks process started a gut renovation. With the renovation only partially finished, the owners flipped the building in December 2006 for $2,000,000 (which seems pricey to us)."
Porter was probably the original architect on record, and the present owner not only didn't change that on paper but ignored the whole thing. Mullioned windows?? That would never have passed the LPC.
Posted by: bxgrl at July 23, 2008 3:59 PM
I live next door to this fugly thing....why did they have to remove the plywood?! At least the art work made it bearable. I hope this guy loses a ton of money
Posted by: gatesave at July 23, 2008 4:07 PM
daveinbedstuy, this fool should kiss more than my or anyone's grits for pulling such a dirty trick - this building is a blight on the block, the street and the neighborhood.
Posted by: Florence Castleberry at July 23, 2008 4:10 PM
It was rumored that the last tenant of this store, a bodega, set it ablaze in retaliation for being evicted due to street pharmaceutical sales. What a mess.
Posted by: DOW8000SP800 at July 23, 2008 4:20 PM
BIS shows that plans for an Alt-2 were approved in 2002. Work permit wasn't pulled until 2007. How much did the architect even know about the work done under the permit? I don't know the answer, just posing the question. Wouldn't be surprised if the work doesn't conform to plans.
Posted by: slopefarm at July 23, 2008 4:24 PM
Before any of you go ahead and mindlessly trash Brent Porter, I know for a fact that he was the architect for a previous owner and that some architect acquaintances of mine worked on it after him and then someone else replaced them. While his name may be on the approved landmark plans, that in no way implicates him on what eventually happened! Talk about a high tech lynching!
Posted by: Schultz at July 23, 2008 4:31 PM
Thanks Schultz- it didn't seem likely someone of his caliber and reputation would have designed that awful renovation. So what does happen when a LPC renovation changes hands midstream? Do the new owners refile (I guess they would if they wanted to change the original plans on file)? I'm guessing the present owner didn't even bother to file new papers with the LPC or if they did, perhaps they simply dropped in Porter's name since he was on the original filing. they don't seem overly worried about legality.
what can the LPC do now that it issued a violation?
Posted by: bxgrl at July 23, 2008 4:37 PM
Well slopefarm & Schultz...in the real world if you're the one that signed on the dotted line then its your responsibility. Torts & Contracts.
he's the one getting lynched because it involves an architect and apparently there's only one name anyone can come up with!!
I know that anything to do with DOB and Landmarks and for that matter most of the government isn't the real world.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at July 23, 2008 4:42 PM
Regarding the mullioned windows--they were like that before the fire in that building 5+ years ago, but painted black. These look like reasonable replacements, but don't look so good white.
Posted by: tinarina at July 23, 2008 4:45 PM
Were the old mullions actually original to the building? Agreed black would be a better color and I happen to love mullion windows but maybe didn't think they were original because the white threw me off. Which I guess is another point- doesn't the LPC require the color be black?
Posted by: bxgrl at July 23, 2008 4:52 PM
Those mullions, if they've been there for some time, look like any of the typical tasteful additions that many brownstones became victims of in the 1960s, 70s or 80s...take your pick of any decade!!!
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at July 23, 2008 4:56 PM
Dave, Maybe it's hindsight but I don't think I've used the word tasteful in the same sentence as "1960's, 70s or 80s in a long time.
Posted by: bxgrl at July 23, 2008 5:12 PM
Actually, I think the original mullions were quite old and looked rather charming, particularly in the bay windows.
When they put the new windows in, I kept waiting for a paint job, as I can't imagine white is acceptable to LPC, but it never happened.
Posted by: tinarina at July 23, 2008 5:28 PM
tinarina, Dave and bxgrl, I appreciate the insight. Dare I say, thanks a mullion?
Posted by: Biff Champion at July 23, 2008 6:08 PM
Schultz, you should be more responsible when throwing the term lynching around. I really dont think people commenting about how ugly a building is qualifies....
Posted by: gatesave at July 23, 2008 6:11 PM
I believe Schultz was referring to the various attacks on Brent Porter as a "high tech lynching", Gatesave. If you look up the actual definition of the term "lynching" and not just the most common usage, you will find that it was an appropriate and interesting use of the term.
Posted by: Shahn Andersen at July 23, 2008 7:42 PM
Biff- what can we say? I mean, besides, "how could you?"
gatesave, Schultz was merely commenting about people saying things like
"I wonder if his students have seen this disgrace.
If any of you are on here please bring this to the attention of the rest of the class."
Sorry, dave. That was wrong to say without knowing all the facts. I can't see that "in the real world if you're the one that signed on the dotted line then its your responsibility." means it's on Porter's head, especially since the building changed hands and also architects. He was responsible for the original plans, not the project completion and then those plans were superseded and not followed in any case.
Things posted on the internet have a way of taking on an ugly life of their own even from a blog like brownstoner. Anyone who got that Obama is a Muslim email 800 times knows what I mean. Having that architectural mutation associated with his work could seriously impact Porter's credibility, and for no reason.
Posted by: bxgrl at July 23, 2008 7:49 PM
As I'm sure Shahn's aware, high tech lynching is a reference to Clarence Thomas's claims re: the coke bottle and Anita Hill. Controversial when initially spoken, of course. I think it's an interesting turn of phrase for this attribution of bad architectural taste to Brent Porter - whom you can be sure had nothing to do with this eyesore - not meant to have any racial under or overtones.
Posted by: Woofer Plantation at July 23, 2008 9:53 PM
I can attest to the fact that Mr Porter was very aware of and distressed by the fact that the storefront was completed in a fashion not in accordance with his original plans. I know this because he is my neighbor and is prone to airing his grievances quite loudly and publicly to anyone within earshot. One morning I heard him wailing as if he'd been gutshot. "You HAVE to call Landmarks and tell them that the storefront isn't being completed properly- it's supposed to be wooden and they're doing this horrible brickwork....PLEASE call them and tell them".
Why he believed I would have any pull with the LPC remains a mystery to me...
Posted by: houseowax at July 24, 2008 11:54 AM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.