« Inside Third & Bond: Week 57 House of the Day: 1380 Dean Street »

October 9, 2008

Co-op of the Day: 50 Sterling Place

50 Sterling Place in Park Slope is a classic four-story brownstone that has been divided into three co-op apartments. The owner of Apartment #2 paid $599,000 for her second-floor two-bedroom floor-thru in 2006 and is now putting it back on the market for $669,000. We don't mind the fact that the living room is located in the middle of the apartment where there are no direct windows; it means that the kitchen space is more than a small alcove. (The kitchen finishes themselves, however, look a little below par.) Even if the psychology in the market improves, though, these townhouse apartments are going to continue to feel pressure from the coming glut of new-construction condos that are similarly sized. What do you think this will ultimately sell for?
50 Sterling Place [Brown Harris Stevens] GMAP P*Shark

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/6604

Comments

My view is that brownstone condo conversions will see the biggest price drops in the next few years.

Posted by: lechacal at October 9, 2008 12:43 PM

"My view is that brownstone condo conversions will see the biggest price drops in the next few years."

Woohoo! That'll probably be the first thing I can afford to buy. And I'd rather a brownstone condo than a concrete shoebox condo.

Anyway, this one seems ok, but I don't love that the bathroom is jammed in the middle of the living room. It'd be better if it was closer to the bedrooms.

Very nice location, tho.

Posted by: cwbuecheler at October 9, 2008 12:50 PM

I like the LR/DR and open kitchen layout. That said, this is a one bedroom. Anyting less than 10' wide and no closet does not constitute a bedroom. A nursery maybe. that space forming the small hallway between the two bedrooms is wasted space!!

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at October 9, 2008 12:50 PM

Interesting. Personally, I would not even consider living in a big impersonal building when I could live in a intimate human-sized townhouse. It's not hard to evaluate the financial stability of one or two fellow co-op owners.

Posted by: Susan Elkins at October 9, 2008 12:51 PM

I wouldn't hold my breadth for a big drop in the price of brownstone condo conversions. I think the typical brownstone condo purchaser might have an aversion to a lot of the new developments. Also, the brownstone condo conversions are still a somewhat affordable choice for those who want to live in desirable hoods but can't afford the multi-million dollar pricetags on an entire townhouse.

Posted by: johnqp at October 9, 2008 12:56 PM

I just looked at the floor plan which is better than I anticipated. I've seen worse recent renovations that can't even accommodate modern day furniture ( the building on 46th st in Sunset park comes to mind, a 2 bedroom there is 419K) I would say 550K at best

Posted by: binnyG at October 9, 2008 12:57 PM

Note by pricing that the seller is probably not expecting any profit. $669,000 asking means $600,000 actual in my book.

Posted by: mopar at October 9, 2008 1:06 PM

offer 425K

Posted by: Xander Crews at October 9, 2008 1:11 PM

I'm going to offer $210k and see what happens.

Posted by: tybur6 at October 9, 2008 1:14 PM

I don't know. I'm not sure at all about the lack of windows in the living room. Kitchen needs an update. Should I ask about the bath? Sterling can be a busy street. Maybe $600K.

Posted by: BrooklynButler at October 9, 2008 1:14 PM

Good call mopar. If they get 10% below ask, after brokers fess (etc), they lose money.

Posted by: SnarkSlope at October 9, 2008 1:17 PM

Agree on the comment re: wasted space in front of bedrooms - strange layout. Seems to me that these sellers are just hoping to cut their losses now before they get even steeper. Other sellers might be wise to do the same.

Posted by: Miss Muffett at October 9, 2008 1:25 PM

"What do you think this will ultimately sell for?"

No more than $500K if bought soon (1/4 of a full brownstone comp of $2M which includes a co-op risk factor). $350K if it lingers (what a bath that would be).

Nice location but not a true 2-BR. 7'2 x 12'8 aint slicin' it. More like 1.5-BR.

Posted by: DOW8000SP800 at October 9, 2008 1:41 PM

I think it looks nice. I like the little anteroom btw bedrooms and living room. So much better than opening directly off living room. I have no idea what it will sell for but 2006 level sounds about right.

Posted by: Ringo at October 9, 2008 1:47 PM

It can be nice to have a hallway between common rooms and bedrooms, both as a buffer and because it creates some extra space for storage, even if it means sacrificing a little space in the bedrooms. Or it can make it feel like a rabbit warren, it just really depends on the space. I agree that a bigger second bedroom would be ideal. But come on, this place packs a lot in, in a cute space in a nice location, for not a crazy amount of money. They'll do okay.

Posted by: i disagree at October 9, 2008 1:49 PM

One problem with your math DOW...I haven't too many comps of 2 million for a nice brownstone in the North Slope for a couple years. Much closer to 2.5 or 2.7. In some cases 3 and above.

Posted by: 11217 at October 9, 2008 1:49 PM

IMO, single floor-throughs do not make good browndos and brown-ops. Larger buildings, old or new, offer far more superior layouts.

If you're going to condo or co-op your brownstone, go duplex over duplex. That's where the advantage is.

Posted by: DOW8000SP800 at October 9, 2008 1:50 PM

A living room to be considered legally habitable needs windows.

Tear down that wall between the kitchen and 'living' room and it might be acceptable.
Get rid of the wall between the two bedroms and let's call it what it really is - a ONE bedroom.

Posted by: bayridgegirl at October 9, 2008 1:52 PM

Makes that one on Berkeley Place look like a STEAL for the same price.

Posted by: 11217 at October 9, 2008 1:56 PM

Not bad. Maintenance is good. I live in a 50-unit co-op so I don't know much about these types of units: I'd like to see financals before I make an offer of $609K: What happens when this place needs a new boiler or roof? Does the maintenance skyrocket?

IMHO, I don't mind small(ish) bedrooms too much. The second BR is great for a nursery or for a elementary school-aged child; also, the unit is zoned for PS 282, so that's a plus.

I'd rip out that double entranceway to the kitchen, fast (of course keeping the load-bearing beams, if they're there above it).

Posted by: Fjorder at October 9, 2008 2:00 PM

"A living room to be considered legally habitable needs windows." Huh? I've heard this for bedrooms but what would that even mean for a living room? I'm not allowed to watch TV in a room that doesn't have windows?

Posted by: i disagree at October 9, 2008 2:01 PM

Am I missing something? Nobody has an issue with the fact that the bedrooms are nowhere near the bathroom, thereby making one have to traipse through the living room to and from their shower? This isn't exactly ideal, particularly during cold days and/or when company visits!

Posted by: Biff Champion at October 9, 2008 2:06 PM

I don't see the problem with the LR. In the photo I can easily see the windows in the kitchen/dining from the living room, through the arched doorway and large, arched pass-through. It still provides some natural light in the LR. If the kitchen and wall weren't there that would still the same distance to the windows from the LR fireplace conversation pit area, regardless. I'd have more problem with the 2nd BR being teeny with no closet, than with the LR and kitchen.

Posted by: traditionalmod at October 9, 2008 2:06 PM

I figured a gross comp of 2.5, 11217. But the risk factor I cited (see yesterday's QOTD) would be about a 20% ding.

Posted by: DOW8000SP800 at October 9, 2008 2:06 PM

I would bet this gets pretty close to ask actually. My sense is that there are still plenty of people who want to live in the Slope and this price range is pretty reasonable for that market. Looks nicely finished too. Solid apt in my opinion.

Posted by: wasder at October 9, 2008 2:09 PM

hey Biff- send the in-laws to the Holiday Inn Express on Union St. Done and done.

Posted by: Fjorder at October 9, 2008 2:11 PM

That's quite a hit they're taking on this place considering all the closing fees (broker!) etc. if they get what people are talking about the place actually going for. Would probably be in their best interest to hold on to it for a bit longer.

Posted by: justinm at October 9, 2008 2:17 PM

small, cramped, and assuming that there's no central A/C or washer and dryer in unit. ugly! so very ugly. the vibe of this place is somewhere between right out of college and old lady living on a fixed income.

decent rental but horrible purchase.

Posted by: wine lover at October 9, 2008 2:34 PM

i disagree and TA...the NYC building code is very specific about light and air requirements. You can not legally call this a living room, there are no windows in this room.

Sure you can watch TV in a room with out windows, just be careful what you call the room.

Posted by: bayridgegirl at October 9, 2008 2:44 PM

Call a room a room.

No cross ventilation unless you keep the bedroom doors open and the door to the stupid "anteroom" open!!!

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at October 9, 2008 2:51 PM

husband: "honey, can you bring my briefcase to the living room?

wife: "sure, just a sec."

[CRASHING SOUND -- FOUR MEN IN RIOT GEAR WITH "DOB" LOGOS BREAK THROUGH FRONT DOOR]

dob agent 1: "did i hear someone refer to that windowless space as a 'living room'?"

dob agent 2: "i sure did. and he's gonna PAY!" [CRACKS KNUCKLES]

husband: "oh no! i'm so sorry! i meant 'storage area'!"

dob agent 3: "well, that's not what you said. you said 'living room'. and now -- now it's a DYING ROOM."

wife: "i told you we never should have bought this place!"

Posted by: z at October 9, 2008 2:55 PM

z is for zinger!

Posted by: SnarkSlope at October 9, 2008 3:01 PM

interesting. i've always wondered whether real estate advertisements are subject to requirements of the building code in how they can "legally" describe something. i wouldn't think a description on a website intended for laypeople amounts to a warranty that building code requirements are met, but i'm not a real estate lawyer.

in any event, some quick research suggests that all they need to do in order to make the room habitable is to have a sufficient opening between the windowless room and an immediately adjoining windowed room. which this has, and seems to be described that way on the floorplan, at least.

Posted by: i disagree at October 9, 2008 3:10 PM

i would like to withdraw my nerdy comment and adopt z's much cooler comment. thank you.

Posted by: i disagree at October 9, 2008 3:13 PM

No windows in the living room? -sure, no problem. Bedroom that is only seven feet wide? -hey it's New York, housing here sucks. A three unit co-op that is dependent on everyone keeping their jobs or everyone is in trouble? -hey that's just the way it. It's co-op roulette.

This will hopefully sell for about 400,000 to another occupant in the building who will also buy the third unit and turn this building back into a mid-size house.

Posted by: sam at October 9, 2008 3:21 PM

The DOB rules on windows and living rooms certainly would indicate wiggle room in negotiating the contract don't you think!!!!

I assume the plans that were submitted on the renovation and conversion were approved. Maybe. Maybe not.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at October 9, 2008 3:24 PM

People in Pakistan live in caves. What's the big deal about a living room without windows? Americans are so entitled.

Posted by: sam at October 9, 2008 3:41 PM

Did Sarah Palin ever live in an igloo?

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at October 9, 2008 3:43 PM

as far as i know, caves don't cost US$669,000, except maybe in tribeca.

Posted by: z at October 9, 2008 3:44 PM

i_disagree, your nerdy analysis sounds right. :)

Posted by: z at October 9, 2008 3:47 PM

I think there's a sushi restaurant in tribeca where 669 people can eat for $669,000

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at October 9, 2008 4:00 PM

I remember a newly built condo development in Ft. Greene a year or two ago that had a similar layout and the LR was in the middle of the condo unit and truly windowless. Look at any loft in Manhattan: there are interior windowless rooms with only ventilation over the top of divider walls. And those rooms are located way further away from the windows than in this place. Even when there aren't dividers in a loft, there are kitchen and bath and living spaces located in the back of the loft very far away from windows. This LR gets more light and air than those types of spaces. And we know the prices of those lofts. They sure aren't less than $700K. People line up to live in lofts. I don't think this layout will keep this place from selling. When the alternative is more often a tiny kitchen somebody will go for this larger kitchen. Kitchens (and bathrooms) sell properties, not living rooms.

Posted by: traditionalmod at October 10, 2008 11:20 AM

« Inside Third & Bond: Week 57 House of the Day: 1380 Dean Street »

October 9, 2008

Co-op of the Day: 50 Sterling Place

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions