« Painful Side Effect of 4th Ave. Firehouse Reno House of the Day: 1252 Dean Street »

August 26, 2008

Co-op of the Day: 193 Sterling Place

This floor-through co-op at 193 Sterling Place in Prospect Heights looks pretty nice to us but could benefit greatly from a little staging. The bulky, not particularly charming, furniture and the clutter make the apartment feel much smaller than it actually is and prevent its strengths—the original architectural detail—from taking center stage. Given that there's a good-sized private roof deck and a relatively low monthly maintenance of $391, the asking price of $575,000 seems reasonable to us, especially if the seller's can improve their presentation.
193 Sterling Place [Corcoran] GMAP P*Shark

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/5995

Comments

who cares about presentation?
This is a great affordable apartment.
If you can't afford this, you really need to
think of moving to Buffalo.

Posted by: sam at August 26, 2008 12:57 PM

Agreed that this seems like a pretty sweet deal. Between asking price, location, roof deck and low CC this apt should move fast. Also agreed that the crappy pics don't do it much justice.

Posted by: wasder at August 26, 2008 1:07 PM

at least they made the bed.

Posted by: z at August 26, 2008 1:08 PM

Awesome place...Love it.

I'd buy it, if I were in the market for a larger pad.

Posted by: 11217 at August 26, 2008 1:09 PM

not bad. Would be a phenomenal price if there were 2 baths but alas, the world is not perfect.

Posted by: offthegrid at August 26, 2008 1:15 PM

While it doesn't have six stoves like the 24 Monroe joint yesterday, I'm excited at the prospect of playing chess on the backsplash while waiting for my souffle to rise.

Posted by: Biff Champion at August 26, 2008 1:15 PM

$575,000 might be an acceptable price if this were a two bedroom apartment, but as one bedroom, it is laughably high for this location.

Posted by: SnarkSlope at August 26, 2008 1:17 PM

Very nice!!

Crappy pics, ugly kitchen- Who cares! Great space, great price!

Posted by: TownhouseLady at August 26, 2008 1:18 PM

Not to be a downer, but I'm not entirely sure how this is a true 2 bedroom. Yes, the 2nd bed has a closet and a window... but it's tiny and must be entered through the main bedroom.
I'd have to call it a 1.5 w/ office. Nice block though.

Posted by: ennuiater at August 26, 2008 1:19 PM

This place is in subway heaven. Near the B,Q, 2, 3 & 4!
I love the space and the low maintenance. Should move quickly.
If not then I may make a low ball offer :)

Posted by: 7andfive at August 26, 2008 1:19 PM

It's not bad, but it does look a bit small. Less than 700 sq. ft (excl. deck) if the floorplan can be trusted.

Also, the 2nd "bedroom" is 6 ft wide and only accessible from the main bedroom, so I think this is more of a 1 bedroom with den.

And there is nothing wrong with that -- and this looks like a nice place for a single person or couple w/o kid over the age of 2.

Location is a little noisy for my tastes (1/2 block from flatbush), but as I remember it is a nice block and is certainly close to the subways.

Posted by: northsloperenter at August 26, 2008 1:20 PM

Isn't this the house that's leaving giveaway junk on its stoop every other day?

Doesn't look like a two-bed to me. Where, exactly, is the 2nd bedroom located? For a 1-bed, it's a very nice layout. And the deck!

Bet that this location gets very noisy with traffic on Flatbush, and traffic waiting at the light on Sterling. This might explain the price. Also, because the building on Flatbush backs onto the opposite side of Sterling here, I always find that end of the block to be a bit uninviting. Still, is that major objection? Probably not.

It's nothing to sneeze at, and if I were in the market, I would be at this open house.

Posted by: BrooklynButler at August 26, 2008 1:35 PM

Agree with all that this is a not inexpensive one bedroom. If you could take down the wall between the bedroom and "office" you might be able to make it more livable. Low maintenance -- but then no services. For over a half million you have a walk-up and have to go to a laundromat. Only in NYC...

Posted by: BH76 at August 26, 2008 1:35 PM

The top floor of a prospect heights brownstone just around the corner at 169 Park just went for $625k. That was a true two bedroom, had a working fireplace and was I think closer to 900 sq ft. but I don't think it had private roof access. This looks like it's priced ok if you're willing to trade a bit of indoor space for outdoor privacy. Maybe it's a touch high but not completely unrealistic.

Posted by: prospectplacer at August 26, 2008 1:42 PM

People, this is NOT a 2 bedroom. It is a 1 bedroom with home office, or 1 bedroom with nursery, or something like that, but no way does this get to be priced like a 2-bed.

So what should a good-sized unrenovated 1-bed plus home office and roof deck but with no landry, crappy closet space and only one bath go for in Prospect Heights? They aren't shooting for the stars, but I also don't think this is at all underpriced like some seem to be suggesting. If I were in the market for a 2-bed I wouldn't even bother looking at this. If I were in the market for a 1-bed I would look at it and depending on all sorts of variables maybe make a non-insulting offer.

Posted by: lechacal at August 26, 2008 1:50 PM

BH76- I always justified the walk-ups I rented by saying I didn't have to go to the gym. Walk-ups do wonders for those gams! Also, portable washer/dryers are a godsend.

You're right, only in NYC do we think this is a good deal!

Posted by: TownhouseLady at August 26, 2008 1:50 PM

I wonder if that deck is legal. It looks similar to the "not" legal one on my building... can realtors [legally] advertise it if it's not a legal deck? Just curious.
And, yeah, that's NOT a 2 BR. Decent-sized 1 BR, though.

Posted by: broadwayron at August 26, 2008 2:10 PM

Yeah--hadn't looked at the floor plan when I first posted. For a one bedroom plus den its not quite the same deal. A couple without kids would do well here but the lack of second bedroom certainly limits the kind of buyer that is a good fit.

Posted by: wasder at August 26, 2008 2:19 PM

I am thinking this is high too..
My friend bought a 2nd story floor-through on Sterling between Underhill and Washington for a similar price and maybe a tad less in the height of the market. Theirs is a lovely wide building, has a large deck, 2 real beds, 2 full baths. It was newly renovated and the reno was high-end (and I tend to be picky about these so-called high-end renos but it was a job well-done). It seems like a slightly better block not being so close to flatbush but close enough to the amenities.

Posted by: offthegrid at August 26, 2008 2:38 PM

Corcoran ought to be ashamed of themselves—wait, they have no shame—for listing this place a 2BR. However, I am surprised and grateful that there's a floorplan in the listing: I'm shocked at the former because I would've thought they'd be more cunning and dragged people from all over Brooklyn and Manhattan to the open house, only to disappoint nearly all with an obvious bogus listing; and for the latter, I'm grateful as it reaffirms my mistrust of these snake oil salespeople.

Posted by: Fjorder at August 26, 2008 2:42 PM

what??? crap neighborhood. crap kitchen, no central A/C, no landscaping, no renovated bath. YUCK!

ridiculous property - chop by a lot. there are brand new apartments in better areas for less money with more everything including laundry which is helpful when you live on the top floor.

if you don't think you are right up against the hood here, you are totally fooling yourself.

triple yuck.

Posted by: wine lover at August 26, 2008 3:09 PM

wine lover -I am imagine the majority of people on a site called Brownstoner are not really seeing the appeal of a "brand new apartment." Triple yuck right back at you. Most 'brand new apartments' have little soul and probably have numerous identical counterparts thus making them invaluable in this market. I will reno my own thank you instead of entrusting a development company to make aesthetic decisions on a budget.
Maybe the price is high but I think you have maybe not spent much time in PH. It is quite nice on this block and well on its way. Someone could make this a nice pad without having to spend too much.

Posted by: offthegrid at August 26, 2008 3:24 PM

If this place has charm, where's it hiding? Guess the value here is in the roof deck b/c the unit itself has very little going for it. I wonder how much to redo that roof deck?

Posted by: LilBitOfLuck at August 26, 2008 3:37 PM

Hello...roofdeck! Before I had a backyard I would have killed for that outdoor space. Think of the possibilities!

Posted by: TownhouseLady at August 26, 2008 3:38 PM

This pricing is bit high. We recently sold a real 2 bdrm (1 bath) in this area for $600K and it had a renovated kitchen and bath, in unit w/d, a working wood burning fireplace and a back garden. I think more appropriate pricing would be between $530K - $550K. But Prospect Heights is red hot right now and is showing no signs of slowing down. If you think you want to buy a starter apartment in this area, no time like the present. I imagine prices are not going to drop significantly, if at all.

Posted by: jurist at August 26, 2008 3:42 PM

(This may post twice, sorry.)

Posted by: jurist at August 26, 2008 3:44 PM

Sooo... if you got a 30-year mortgage for the full amount (yes, I know, just a experiment), plus the monthly maintenance. You'd be looking at around $3700-3900 per month.

Is that what places like this RENT for in Prospect Heights?

Posted by: tybur6 at August 26, 2008 4:04 PM

I think this is priced correctly for the market. It has an extremely low maintenance plus a really nice outdoor space.
The layout is very nice, we know it is not a two-bedroom but it is a very nice one-bedroom plus office. I don't get the negativity. This is not even Brooklyn Heights.

Posted by: sam at August 26, 2008 4:11 PM

"You'd be looking at around $3700-3900 per month.

Is that what places like this RENT for in Prospect Heights?"

No. I looked at 2 bedrooms to rent in PH last year for $2500-3000/mo.

Posted by: northsloperenter at August 26, 2008 4:11 PM

sam,

I'm not sure what "this is not even Brooklyn Heights" is supposed to mean. People would be more positive if the place were in Brooklyn Heights rather than Prospect Heights.

I'm not sure people are being that negative, it's just that if this really were a 2 bedroom, the price would be quite appealing. Since it is a 1 bedroom+, it's not quiet as appealing.

I think it is a fair enough starting price that if I were in the market for a 1 bedroom I'd at least look at the place and consider it. I doubt it will sell for that, but it might be pretty close.

Posted by: northsloperenter at August 26, 2008 4:14 PM

See... NorthSlopeRenter... that's the thing. You would normally charge rent at a rate MORE THAN what it costs you. Of course, you're buying your beautiful home with the roof deck to live in, not rent. But you sort of have to look at it that way a little, right?

If I'm not willing to pay more than $2400-3000/mo for rent, why would I pay 30-60% more just to own it. And the flip side, if I had to rent out my apartment for some reason, would I be able to ask $4500/mo for this 1-bedroom apt? (that's a 20% mark-up for rental)

My figures are rough... but you get the idea.

Crazy, no?

Posted by: tybur6 at August 26, 2008 4:25 PM

"roofdeck...Think of the possibilities!"

TownhouseMan is surely a very lucky guy!

Posted by: Biff Champion at August 26, 2008 4:27 PM

tyburg6,

I think historically 15x annual rent is considered a baseline for fair sale price -- so by that metric $3000 (assuming it could go that high because of the roof deck) x 12 x 15 = $540,000. If it will only rent for $2500, then x 12 x 15 = $450,000.

So by that metric it is pricey, but recently things were selling at well over 15x annual rent, so who knows what it will sell at.

I wouldn't pay that much for it, tbh.

Posted by: northsloperenter at August 26, 2008 4:34 PM

"You'd be looking at around $3700-3900 per month"

A 30 year mortgage on this place would be $2908 with today's mortgage rate. With maintenance, that makes it $3299 per month.

With the tax deduction, more like 2500.

So yes, I do think it's relatively comparable to rent. Perhaps a bit more to own, but really not that out of whack.

Posted by: 11217 at August 26, 2008 4:52 PM

Out of whack or out of weck?

Posted by: Biff Champion at August 26, 2008 5:06 PM

biff- whine lover is over here too? I know it's hard to see with those little eyeholes in the hood but maybe he got lost on the way to his bonfire?

Posted by: lurker in the mist at August 26, 2008 6:52 PM

I don't understand this argument about the relative merits of buying versus renting. It is the most fundamental reality of our economic system. Owning a home is the keystone of most Americans' financial health. One rents when young and carefree, but when one marries, or starts getting long in the tooth, one had better buy.
Rents will always keep going up and you build no equity. Buying is expensive initially but over time will become very comfortable and even cheap. And of course the beauty part is that the equity is building up and making one a "person of property" and not just a shmutz who rents.

Posted by: sam at August 26, 2008 8:03 PM

Sam...

I TOTALLY agree with you. The problem is that people don't seem to be buying as a long-term thing anymore. They never get to the point where it is comfortable/cheap. They are looking to trade up or flip or whatever you want to call it after 2 or 3 years.

And the *problem* is that these folks get the crazy, not in line with reality 30% return on their investment... after 3 years. But that's not going to keep happening.

So my point about buy vs. rent is that if your buying like you're renting, you should buy so your monthly expenses are similar to renting. Otherwise you're being dumb. But I'm 100% with you... one should buy to buy. Not buy and act like a carefree renter.

Posted by: tybur6 at August 26, 2008 8:25 PM

tyburg
I don't know anyone that fits your description, I suppose those kind of people are out there, but so what? they are the exception, not the rule. Most people buy to make a home, if things go well, they move up, what's wrong with that? Home ownership baby, that's where it's at.
If you can't afford it here, then move there. really, it's that important.

Posted by: sam at August 26, 2008 8:38 PM

"not just a shmutz who rents." Do you people ever listen to yourselves? The arrogance and condescension just oozes out of your pores. As if being a homeowner makes you a better human being? Not judging by this thread.

Posted by: east river at August 26, 2008 8:52 PM

east river, give it a rest.
owning a home does not make one a better person, but it makes one a richer and more secure person.
does rentng make you a better person?
who are you? the world's last living Marxist?

Posted by: sam at August 26, 2008 8:57 PM

Anybody else here wary of buying into a four unit co-op?

Posted by: SnarkSlope at August 26, 2008 9:26 PM

I'm very wary of living in a four unit co-op. I actually chose to live in an larger building rather than brownstone to avoid an ultra small coop like this. The fact that the maintenance is soo low is also worrisome in such a small coop. Wonder what the reserves look like. On another note, PH is really hot though. This is a great block and so close to the train, I'm sure it will go. Has anyone hear anything about the new italian on Vanderbilt close to Le Gamin?

Posted by: phmylove at August 26, 2008 10:39 PM

Guess it does sam- Renters aren't the ones posting that homeowners are schmutzes.

And I believe you mean "financially secure." Psychologically secure people don't need to denigrate those who rent instead of own.

Posted by: east river at August 26, 2008 11:41 PM

"I don't understand this argument about the relative merits of buying versus renting."

Renting is undeniably better than buying when:

1. The cost of renting is less than the cost of owning. This happens (1) when housing costs are wildly inflated (2005-2007) or (2) home values are dropping (2007-2010).

2. Your life is likely to change in the next 3 years in a way that will make you want to move (e.g., change in jobs, getting married, having kids, kids getting older, etc.).

These two situations are pretty clear (#2 is pretty much what you said).

But there are other reasons to rent rather than own:

1. When you rent, repairs and maintenance are somebody else's problem.

2. When you rent and find that you cannot happily live near your neighbors and your neighbors are unlikely to go away, you can easily move in less than a year.

3. When you rent, you can often live somewhere nicer than where you can afford to buy. In this situation, you are trading the financial advantages of ownership for the personal happiness of living where you want to live. Now, I understand that for some people $$$=happy, but for others, the whole point of having $$$ is live happily.

There are undeniable long term benefits to purchasing a good property in a good neighborhood at a good price, but buying a bad property in a bad neighborhood at a bad price is a great way to make yourself poor and miserable.

Anyone who says that "buying is always better than renting" either hasn't thought the situation through clearly or is selling something...

Posted by: northsloperenter at August 27, 2008 9:17 AM

beautifully said, northsloperenter. Thanks for putting it into persepective than everyone can understand.

Posted by: bxgrl at August 27, 2008 9:38 AM

Filthy, ancient, and hideous are words that come to mind about this property. We visited this, and it was a total shame. The entry and the stairwell are very run down, with the stairs covered in old greasy carpeting, and each step creaking very loudly. What impressed me most about the apartment was the thick coating of black dust on the moldings and the ceiling fan (it is right next to Atlantic Ave., so I guess it is exhaust from the cars). Seemed like the sellers and broker really didn't give a damn about making an effort. While there are a few cute details, it is not enough to save the place. The kitchen was ancient and hideous, as was the bathroom. The floors have detail but are very worn and need to be redone. In all, it felt like they haven't renovated since the 50s. Regarding the layout, it's a one bedroom plus den, but has a lot of wasted space. You might be able to knock out a few closets to improve that. The private roof deck is actually a sagging and rotting thing with a rather unsafe spiral staircase leading up to it. The place is all slopes and sagging angles, so I don't know what's going on structurally. In all, this place would have been a great cheap rental, but this is a joke, especially in this environment. I do not find this listing cheap, considering the amount of work you may have to put into it. I expected better for a Corcoran listing -- at least that the place be clean and emptied by at least one third of the junk. Beware!

Posted by: meerkatz at August 27, 2008 10:10 AM

"it is right next to Atlantic Ave., so I guess it is exhaust from the cars"

It's actually no where near Atlantic Avenue. You are speaking about a different place apparently. Look at the map above.

Posted by: 11217 at August 27, 2008 11:10 AM

Sorry, I meant Flatbush Ave, not Atlantic. You can see Flatbush Ave. out the living room windows.

Posted by: meerkatz at August 27, 2008 1:18 PM

« Painful Side Effect of 4th Ave. Firehouse Reno House of the Day: 1252 Dean Street »

August 26, 2008

Co-op of the Day: 193 Sterling Place

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions