« Co-op of the Day: 110 Hicks Street Streetlevel: More Crunch on Flatbush »

August 14, 2008

House of the Day: 132 Cambridge Place

132-Cambridge-Place-0808.jpg
Well, there's not a lot we can say about this three-story house at 132 Cambridge Place other than the asking price of $599,000 has got to be the lowest price we've seen for a house seen in Clinton Hill in years. The three-family house is bound to need a considerable amount of work, but we wouldn't be surprised if there's an historic facade lurking behind the linoleum siding. (And if there's not, LPC will make you recreate one!) Has anyone been inside?
132 Cambridge Place [Century 21] GMAP P*Shark
Photo by Scott Bintner for Property Shark




Posted by Brownstoner at 1:14 PM | Comments (58)
Categories: Clinton Hill, HOTD

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/5876

Comments

Greenpoint styling AND price.

Posted by: dittoburg at August 14, 2008 1:17 PM

I'd buy it.

Posted by: KHuebbe at August 14, 2008 1:17 PM

Excuse my ignorance, but what does "LPC" stand for?

Posted by: Turtlejam19 at August 14, 2008 1:21 PM

I'd buy it too if I had the time/money/patience for a gut reno.

Posted by: TownhouseLady at August 14, 2008 1:23 PM

Landmarks Preservation Commission

Posted by: brownstoner at August 14, 2008 1:23 PM

Landmark Preservation Commission

http://www.nyc.gov/html/lpc/html/home/home.shtml

Posted by: Fort Greene Place at August 14, 2008 1:23 PM

I see from the description on the C21 site that it was built by Vander, though that needs to be "varified"

Posted by: dittoburg at August 14, 2008 1:24 PM

pretty reasonable price, although i wonder about the condition inside. regardless, i appreciate seeing a diff kind of property than we usually see on here...

Posted by: bktycoon at August 14, 2008 1:27 PM

A complete lack of interior photos tells me and everyone else that this place is a train wreck. It looks like it's near collapse: if that is the case, would LPC allow for new construction?

For some reason I keep thinking of back in the day when Ebbets Field was razed, the demo team had painted the wrecking ball to look like a baseball; what would be a fitting wrecking ball tribute for this place, if one could tear it down?

Posted by: Fjorder at August 14, 2008 1:27 PM

linoleum siding? i don't think so.

I agree that this would make a great project at this price...under $250 psf!!!!!

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at August 14, 2008 1:28 PM

I'm sure Landmarks won't let this be torn down. If it's standing, they'll insist that it be restored. A great project for someone, although I doubt it can be lived in while it's being restored.

Posted by: Shahn Andersen at August 14, 2008 1:34 PM

woof!
is this in the historic district?
if not, it's a tear-down.

Posted by: sam at August 14, 2008 1:35 PM

is this really historic district Mr B?????

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at August 14, 2008 1:37 PM

Oh yes. It's definitely in the historic district. I'm 99% sure it's not a legal three family house though. They have an HPD violation for converting it to three units, and there is no MDR number. Any building that is legally converted to a multiple dwelling, or was a multiple dwelling back in the day would have an MDR number. Still, an interesting property.

Posted by: Shahn Andersen at August 14, 2008 1:45 PM

oh please - tear-down? I'm sure there's great stuff under the facade.

Posted by: gkw at August 14, 2008 1:45 PM

I saw this listing the other day. 132 Cambridge place does not look like this house on google streetview. Not sure if google is wrong....or if there is something fishy going on here.

Posted by: brooklynluv at August 14, 2008 1:46 PM

It's Landmarked!
There's also an ECB violation. I beleive, You have to clear that up, otherwise DOB won't issue a permit for new work.

Posted by: bayridgegirl at August 14, 2008 1:47 PM

nice color :)

Posted by: qis4quincy at August 14, 2008 1:51 PM

Anybody know if LPC allows Hardieboard for use as a replacement for clapboards. That stuff is amazing. This would make a beautiful house with a Mansard roof.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at August 14, 2008 1:52 PM

qis4quincy...rather "quincey" don't you think!!!

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at August 14, 2008 1:53 PM

I'm not sure if its Landmarked. According to the Map;
http://www.nyc.gov/html/lpc/downloads/pdf/maps/clinton_hill.pdf

The last house on that block that is landmarked is 128 Cambridge just making 132 short of landmark status. Unless somthing has recently changed.

Posted by: Brooklyns_da_Boro at August 14, 2008 1:55 PM

brooklynluv - Google Streetview has a glitch (I noticed it before) at the southern end of Cambridge Place. The screen view changes to Lefferts Place between St. James and Grand Avenue if you move to close to the intersection of Fulton Street. You can get to about 142 Cambridge Place before this glitch happens. Have a look at 142, then rotate south to look towards Fulton. If you zoom in, you'll see it on the right.

I think this is a deal if there are no tenant issues and if you can live somewhere else while doing the overhall and restoration. Downside is the proximity the brightly lit CleanRite onthe corner of Fulton, though you might not be able to see that from this house, I'm not sure.

Brooklyns da Boro - it is part of the landmark district (see the DOB site).

Posted by: 1842 at August 14, 2008 2:03 PM

That's if the DOB site is correct, which is not a given in my experience!

Posted by: 1842 at August 14, 2008 2:06 PM

I do see it - thanks for the clarification 1842.

Posted by: brooklynluv at August 14, 2008 2:08 PM

brooklynluv:

I also had the same problem locating the house on Google streetview. Google actually has the wrong streetview of the beginning of Cambrodge pl. Dont know what happen there.

Posted by: Brooklyns_da_Boro at August 14, 2008 2:08 PM

Weird. The DOB has it listed as Landmarked on their site. Maybe you could get Landmarks to issue a ruling on it. I have a building that is half landmarked and half non-landmarked, but it took me six months to get the LPC to issue that as a ruling. Buildings on the other side of Cambridge Place are landmarked up to 135, so maybe it's a mistake at DOB and you could get the LPC to issue a ruling.

Posted by: Shahn Andersen at August 14, 2008 2:10 PM

1842:
Thanks for clearing that up, maybe not having this house landmarked can workout better for the buyer. They won't have to deal with the Bureaucracy of the LPC. Then this house would be worth every headache. Including that Ghetto Building right next to it.

Posted by: Brooklyns_da_Boro at August 14, 2008 2:15 PM

Chances are the DOB got it wrong, but who knows.

Posted by: 1842 at August 14, 2008 2:23 PM

Never trust the accuracy of the DOB site.... we're involved with a property and the DOB site has the CO for a building three doors down as the CO for our property!!!!!!

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at August 14, 2008 2:25 PM

DIBS --

Agree on the Hardiplank. We did it on our frame (not landmarked). Trick is to get the plain, not the woodgrain. The fake grain makes it look like vinyl. Without the grain, it paints up to look like wood. Wish we had the funds to go mansard, or at least fishscale, at the top. With that little ledge above the second floor, and two instead of three windows at the top, Cambridge is a prime candidate for such treatment. Lots of 1939 tax photos show fishscale or diamond patterns on the siding of frame houses.

Many frames on our block have been resided with Hardiplank to replace the old tar shingles or vinyl. One flipper is renovating now up the block, however, and he's told me last week he's going vinyl. With the values where they are in the S. Slope, there's just no excuse for that anymore. Here's hoping Cambridge gets a nice facelift.

Posted by: slopefarm at August 14, 2008 2:38 PM

Yes slopefarm. I've used it on two homes. I love it...and definitely the plain side. The fake grain is realy fugly.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at August 14, 2008 2:44 PM

The place should be bulldozed. I like the apartment building to the left. Far more socially useful and attractive.

Posted by: Polemicist at August 14, 2008 2:52 PM

for your "medium density" program Pole??? Forgive me if that wasn't you spouting that a few weeks ago but I'm sure it was.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at August 14, 2008 2:59 PM

As noted, the big ifs are tenant and violation issues. If they can be cleared up relatively easily, this is a pretty good deal for someone with money and time.

I'd guess, conservatively, that you could restore the facade for around 60k, including a cornice and new windows. As for the interior and mechanicals, if you assumed the worst and did a gut, guessing 100k per floor. So for around $1 million you have a pretty nice wood-frame house in a decent neighborhood.

Wonder what the comps would be for a move-in condition 1 family in this area? Think I've seen 1.2 to 1.4 million asking prices.

Posted by: Bolder at August 14, 2008 3:12 PM

If this was in Park Slope, it would be 1.6M

http://realestate.nytimes.com/sales/detail/2942-C21BL20168/16-ST-NY-11215

Posted by: CobbleHilller at August 14, 2008 3:18 PM

The ECB violation is not a big deal. Nothing a boiler repair company can't remedy.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at August 14, 2008 3:21 PM

CobleHilller (not the original cobblehiller btw) that's about as useful as tits on a boar.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at August 14, 2008 3:24 PM

Anyone have any idea what it would cost to either clapboard or handiplank the rear facade of a frame house which is currently covered by asphalt shingle? Would be about 650 square feet. The front facade is clapboard and looks great. The rear looks terrible.

Posted by: Boerum Hill at August 14, 2008 3:43 PM

Missing big yellow dots on the facade....

Posted by: troll at August 14, 2008 3:48 PM

CobbleHilller -
The Park Slope place has a lot almost double the size and R6 zoning (and no Landmark) - that one is being marketed as a tear-down.

Posted by: Bklnite at August 14, 2008 4:22 PM

The Park Slope Lot is on sort of a ramshackle section of 4th avenue. I think Cambridge Place is a better location. Landmarking is a mixed bag. It's a pain if you want to make any changes. On the either hand, no developer is going to be able to build the Novo right next to you.

Posted by: Boerum Hill at August 14, 2008 5:04 PM

DIBS and others--LPC will definitely approve Hardiplank and in fact encourage it as an affordable alternative.

Posted by: tinarina at August 14, 2008 5:06 PM

This house is absolutely landmarked per the LPC map:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/lpc/downloads/pdf/maps/clinton_hill.pdf

Posted by: tinarina at August 14, 2008 5:10 PM

Tinarina - Hardiplank on the front? or just the sides/back?

What's the size of this house? The city says it's a 22x25 footprint with over 3000sf, which doesn't make sense.

Posted by: NorthHeights at August 14, 2008 5:14 PM

I got approval for the side of my house, but there's two houses around the corner from me, in a landmarked district, that have Hardiplank on the front. The facades were definitely approved by LPC.

Posted by: tinarina at August 14, 2008 5:24 PM

Could be a doll if done right. In a bull market, the price would be attractive. These days it'll depend on the condition of the interior and the buyer's risk tolerance. Great for someone who do much of the work themselves. Glad to hear that Hardiplank is OK with the LPC. Didn't Shahn Anderson have trouble with the agency when he wanted to use it on his big Cambridge Pl reno that was featured on this site?

Posted by: NeoGrec at August 14, 2008 6:11 PM

it is not just the money, it is also the effort that has to go into something like this. it is basically replicating a second empire style wood frame house from scratch -believe me, the more layers you remove the more rotten crap you reveal- it ends up being a new house following the old pattern, which is fine if you really like the old pattern and if you really love the block. the lpc will ok hardyplank but you will need to use natural slate on the mansard and all wooden windows and trim, which means a fortune in copper flashing or it all turns to shit in two years. I have been there, I have done it, I have the divorce papers to prove it. it is no easy thing.

Posted by: Gary Cooper at August 14, 2008 7:56 PM

I like all the abbreviations in the ad. Ud Thnk for 6% Of 600k Thy Cud Writ the Wrds.

Posted by: denton at August 14, 2008 8:07 PM

Or tk dcnt pix.

Posted by: Brooklyn Chicken at August 14, 2008 8:41 PM

I would be incredibly surprised if there are not rent-controlled and/or Section 8 tenants in the house. Does anyone know the status on that?

Posted by: MrMinerva at August 15, 2008 1:05 AM

Watch out with that horse path on the side, could be a source for water or mold in the cellar/basement. The house would be better if attached on both sides, not only for structural reasons but for heating as well.

Posted by: werner at August 15, 2008 1:26 AM

Thats gotta be one emaciated horse to squeeze down there.

GC- How much IS copper flashing for that amount of house?

Posted by: dittoburg at August 15, 2008 8:32 AM

Compare the two photos--Mr. B's and Bibi's on the Realtor's site. Gotta love those fish-eye lenses. Do they THINK we can't tell???!!!

Posted by: Minmin at August 15, 2008 8:49 AM

I went by this house last night. The alley on the right is only about 2' wide and 10' deep--then the house next to it widens and there is no longer an alley. Kinda strange, but at least you don't have to redo the whole side wall.

Posted by: tinarina at August 15, 2008 9:38 AM

Oh fuss fuss fuss. Where I live (Bushwick) all the turn-of-the-19th-century houses have this fake-o siding. Doesn't mean there isn't a sweet old place inside. Or a half-renovated-in-the-1950s-by-someone's-brother wreck. You never know.

Posted by: mopar at August 15, 2008 9:51 AM

Hi People, sorry to burst your bubble but this house has illegally been put up for sale! That is why it is so cheap and why there are no interior photos... Think about it, the price is too good to be true.

Posted by: thaitea at August 15, 2008 12:58 PM

There is definitely an odd deed history on this place, but how are you so sure it's being sold illegally?

Posted by: Shahn Andersen at August 15, 2008 1:32 PM

Yes there is some issue with the deed and I have a very good source- this is NOT speculation. It is an unfortunate function of the sub-prime crisis. People are being taken advantage of all over the city.

Posted by: thaitea at August 15, 2008 2:39 PM

Post a comment

Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.

Latest Restaurant Additions