« A Karl Fischer Building for South Slope's 5th Avenue House of the Day: 352 Argyle Road »

October 1, 2008

Co-op of the Day: 147 South Oxford Street, #3C

147-South-Oxford-Street-0908.jpg
This two-bedroom at 147 South Oxford Street in Fort Greene looks like one of the better deals we've seen in a while. Even discounting the fact that the pre-war apartment has magazine-worthy stylings, the asking price of $525,000 for a real two-bedroom in an elevator building so close to the C train seems very reasonable to us. Decide for yourself: There's an open house tomorrow from 5 to 6:30.
147 South Oxford Street, #3C [Brown Harris Stevens] GMAP P*Shark




Posted by Brownstoner at 12:39 PM | Comments (23)
Categories: Co-ops, Fort Greene

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/6470

Comments

the living area looks spacious and nice, but the bedrooms are tiny. the price seems reasonable.

Posted by: z at October 1, 2008 12:43 PM

That is a good deal by any measure. The only negative thing I could say (besides small bedrooms) is that it is slightly off the beaten path in terms of the part of the neighborhood that most people want to be close to (FG Park, DeKalb restaurants etc). But there is some cool stuff on Fulton right near there and the subway access is really good. Low maintenance as well makes this a very affordable two bedroom apt. Bravo for realistic pricing.

Posted by: wasder at October 1, 2008 12:46 PM

Yes, not the most prime block in Fort Greene, but attractive building, attractive apartment and attractive price.

Posted by: guestula at October 1, 2008 1:05 PM

Isn't the real question $ per sq ft? What is the footage, anyway?

Posted by: househunt at October 1, 2008 1:09 PM

Agreed about the tiny bedrooms, z. I am guessing it feels cramped in there... notice there is no info about sq. footage. And look at the aspect ratio on that fisheye lens! Ceilings also look low. If I'm paying half a million dollars to live in Brooklyn, I want a little more feeling of space.

Posted by: mothra at October 1, 2008 1:13 PM

Wow, tiny bedrooms!

Posted by: PHfamily at October 1, 2008 1:14 PM

decent amount of windows, though...

Posted by: mothra at October 1, 2008 1:16 PM

this is gonna get chopped 100k

Posted by: Santa at October 1, 2008 1:18 PM

nice starter apt. Once the banks settle down, they will get close to ask. Prob. $515 (As long as the building corporation is in good financial condition).

Posted by: sam at October 1, 2008 1:32 PM

Isn't $500K a lot for a starter apartment?

And, is a starter apartment really what you want to be buying in this market? It seems like anything you plan to sell in the next few years better be seriously cheap to be worthwhile right now.

Posted by: serpentor at October 1, 2008 1:49 PM

I think it's an attractive apartment, but it's really more of a junior four than a true two bedroom...doesn't the bedroom off the kitchen reek of converted "dining area." But it could work as a two bedroom, if the small bedrooms work for people, and the price isn't bad. That's an interesting comment about whether now is the time for a "starter" apartment. I really have to think about that.

Posted by: Minmin at October 1, 2008 2:06 PM

Won't this be living in the shadow of Atlantic Yards someday?

Posted by: vinelod at October 1, 2008 2:13 PM

I don't think 500,000 is too much for a starter apartment at all. Especially for a couple with two incomes. I assume a couple would buy a 2-bedroom, not a single. When the baby comes, they have the other bedroom and when another baby comes they move up to a house.
That's the way it worked for me.

Posted by: sam at October 1, 2008 2:18 PM

That is exactly how it worked for me too Sam.

Posted by: wasder at October 1, 2008 2:34 PM

I went to the open house last weekend. Very cute apartment and I think it is reasonably priced. There is already a dining room "nook" so I don't know about the conversion of the dining room into a bedroom. We actually thought it would work better to open up that bedroom and combine with the dining area to make a bigger bedroom and use that as the master bedroom. AS it is now the master bedroom is teeny. Barely room to move around the bed that is there; no room for a dresser or much of anything else in there besides the bed. Both bedrooms are currently baby sized- would seem roomy enough for a crib, but not roomy enough for adults.

Also I had the same thought about it facing Atlantic Yards. Was assured by the broker (I know, I know) that it was too far down and away from the footprint and therefore the sunlight (which is currently good) wouldn't suffer.

Posted by: verovee at October 1, 2008 2:47 PM

verovee, the broker is paid to say stuff like that. . . do some research, please

Posted by: ontheparkway at October 1, 2008 3:35 PM

not only are the bathrooms ridiculously small, they are both placed awkwardly. One at the entrance and the other looks like it's off the "dining room". The pictures aren't much help, either.

Posted by: amt230 at October 1, 2008 4:22 PM

my bust: *bedrooms*

Posted by: amt230 at October 1, 2008 4:23 PM

My aren't you snotty, on the parkway. I've done my research - thus the "i knows" in parenthesis. I was trying to pre-empt comments exactly like yours.

Posted by: verovee at October 1, 2008 5:27 PM

Yes, close to the C train, Brownstoner...AND two minutes up from all the trains at Altantic-Pacific, hello.

There are some very nice houses and institutional buildings on that block. There's the yellow set back clapboard house with the big front garden and the huge, interesting brick Florentine-styled Henry James era building (using "Henry James era" the way anything from 1950 is now sold as "Eames era").

The apartment looks a little small to me but my perspective is skewed.

Posted by: BrooklynGreene at October 1, 2008 6:37 PM


i saw 9 of these apt. in 1999. Eva Daniels was selling for the owner (he owned all 9). There was a co-op issue with 1 person owning that many units. They ranged from 1-2 bedrooms. The 1 bedrooms were nicer and larger but again 1 bedroom. The 2 bedrooms all had small bedrooms. The owner was being forced to sell by the board and was offering 100% financing (thru himself). The most expensive apt was $190k - which i thought was alot, almost 10 years ago. I was single and passed. Had a few regrets but ending up buying a brownstone in bedstuy in 2003. So i still made out. I have a friend that still lives in the building and it is quiet and very pleasant. Close to all transportation.

Posted by: bkny at October 1, 2008 7:12 PM

The bedrooms are small -- but bedrooms aren't for entertaining or hanging out, they're for sleeping, and other, um, bed-centric activities.

The place works well for someone who lives alone and wants a separate bedroom for an office, or for a young family who seriously needs a separate bedroom for the kid but can't afford to pay more. Or maybe for parents buying for two siblings.

If the bedrooms each had another ten square feet, you'd be paying an extra 100 grand for the place. Also an extra 100 grand if this were in a building on the west side of Fulton. Anyway, my opinion -- Fulton is much more interesting (and has more conveniences) than DeKalb.

Posted by: dianabanana at October 1, 2008 7:20 PM

FYI, the apartment does not face the Atlantic Yards, and should not be affected by any construction that may or may not ever happen there. And yes, eminent domain sucks, but do we really want train yards there? Have you no vision? Wouldn't it be better for the community if there was some development there - even if it were a park? And as far as this not being the prime Fort Greene spot...if it were on the park, you'd be spending a whole lot more. And if walking 3 blocks to the park is too much for you, then I feel sorry for you.

Posted by: anthroart19 at October 2, 2008 10:15 AM

Post a comment

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

Latest Restaurant Additions