« Narrower Loss for Toll Brothers 'Across the Board' Hits in Brooklyn »

December 4, 2008

392 3rd Street Goes Condo

392-third-street-1208.jpg
Though it's still a rental building for now (here's an old Streeteasy listing for a $6,950 three-bed, three-bath), 392 3rd Street, between 5th and 6th Avenues, is going condo. The NY Times has the listing, with six 1,500-square-foot three-bed, two-bath units going for $1.299 million (that's $866 per square foot), with $247 of common charges monthly. The other two units are 2,700-square-foot duplexes: three-beds, three-baths with private patios. Common charges are $416 a month. More factors in the luxury makeover: Jacuzzis, marble steam showers, private laundry, Viking and Bosch appliances and — the biggie — PS321 school district. Think they'll get their asking price? GMAP
392 3rd Street [NY Times]




Posted by lisa at 10:02 AM | Comments (22)
Categories: Condos, Park Slope

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/7455

Comments

The duplexes, at $648 psf, seem like a great deal. The bathrooms look great and with a little plaster over the exposed brick these could be quite nice.

The big question of course: Will there be a doorman? Not with CCs that low.

lisa...your GMAP is wrong.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at December 4, 2008 10:10 AM

i always get sad when i see places like that which are rental go condo, but i guess there's nothing you can do about it. also, sorry, jacuzzis don't belong in row houses. you are NOT Jay Z. on MTV Cribs.. youre a yupster in brooklyn. get over yourself.

*Rob*

Posted by: PitbullNYC at December 4, 2008 10:16 AM

3rd Street is beautiful and I like these apartments a lot. Overall, I prefer these units to the ones on Remsen featured the other day, especially considering the big difference in price per sf.

Posted by: Biff Champion at December 4, 2008 10:21 AM

are the duplexes counting an underground floor? that might explain the psf.

Posted by: Frederick Law Homestead at December 4, 2008 10:24 AM

thanks, dave. fixed.

Posted by: lisa at December 4, 2008 10:25 AM

FLH, they must be counting the underground (garden level) floors since there are six of the 1,500 sf units, which would take up the top three (of the four) floors described in the NY Times ad.

Posted by: Biff Champion at December 4, 2008 10:27 AM

3rd street is the really nice wide street right? with the front yards?

*rob*

Posted by: PitbullNYC at December 4, 2008 10:27 AM

between 6 and 7th it is a wide street, 5th and sixth have slightly deeper yards and much wider sidewalks.

before the depression they were going to make 3rd Street 2 way but then they ran out of money after only doing one block. Since then, 80 years now, there seems to be no need to progress, and considering two years ago they took some driving lanes out of ninth street, I doubt any time in the near future they would revisit that idea.

Posted by: funstraw at December 4, 2008 10:34 AM

A few things interest me about this listing since I walk past this place on my way to the subway every day. The two duplexes are composed of ground floor and basement. I watched them digging the hell out of those basements 2 summers ago (I peeked in once - poor workers) - they made them much higher ceilinged than the ordinary basement conversion and it looked pretty nice down there.

The patios could only be little squares of earth just behind the building since the footprint leaves very little property in back and it backs up against another big apt building on 4th St. (thanks Google Earth!)

The other 5 apts must be rent stabilized - otherwise why not vacate them and sell the whole place? And one assumes, given the quality of the reno that the rent stabilized apts must be well below market otherwise they'd have more easily bought these folks out if they could have - though the MCI's for new mechanicals must be pretty whopping. In any case, I wonder what sort of cash reserves they put in place.

Per Property Shark, they bought the place in 2005 for $2.3M and I assume have been carrying 5 rent stabilized apts for 3 years while renovating 3 apts. Unless they worked some financing magic with the seller, I'm guessing they're ready to get some cash out of this place already.

Anybody know anything about the effects on quasi-luxury apt valuations in a small building that is 5/8ths rent stabilized tenants?

Posted by: MaxOthermoxx at December 4, 2008 10:59 AM

And another thing: does anybody else think it is odd that they completely landscaped the front yard with flagstone and benches but didn't install any fence/gate at the boundary with the sidewalk?

Posted by: MaxOthermoxx at December 4, 2008 11:03 AM

These look incredibly nice to me.

The maintenance is a steal for an apartment this size.

I think these, despite the market, will sell.

Posted by: 11217 at December 4, 2008 11:13 AM

Max, though the nyt ad is not a model of clarity, the posting here suggests there are 8 units for sale, six floor-thrus and two duplexes. where are you getting that 5 are going to stay rentals?

Posted by: i disagree at December 4, 2008 11:19 AM

You know what that means Max...tickets for drinking on the stoop if there's no gate!!!

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at December 4, 2008 11:23 AM

i disagree: a friend of mine, hoping to find a rental apt on a great block, asked someone (a workman I think) coming out of the building just this past fall how many apts were vacant and under reno. 3 was the answer. Obviously, this might have changed since then.
Plus, two years ago while renos were in full swing, I stopped at a stoop sale out front and got an earful from an entrenched RS tenant.
Sorry - didn't mean to sound concrete and facty.

Posted by: MaxOthermoxx at December 4, 2008 11:32 AM

i have no problem with concrete and facty.

Posted by: i disagree at December 4, 2008 11:47 AM

I work with the building's owner (sponsor), and thought I'd respond to some comments here, as well as add my own:

1) Thanks for the various complements. Great care was taken during planning and renovations to retain as much original detail and woodwork as possible.

2) The garden level floor is, in fact, partially underground, but this space is unlike any partially underground space you've seen: 10-foot ceilings, big side windows with plenty of light, exposed brick and wainscotting (see the photo of the family room on nytimes.com). The low psf ($648) does reflect this. It also reflects current economic conditions, and are priced to sell (a year ago these duplex prices would've started with a "2").

3) The patios are 200 sf (10 x 20) of bluestone surfacing and brick perimeter planters with installed sprinkler system.

4) Five units are indeed rent-stabilized. Because negotiations are ongoing regarding insider rights to buy and buyouts, I won't say much more, but the rents aren't terribly below-market. These tenants simply are nice old-timers adverse to change.

5) The front landscaping is not yet complete, and fence/gate will be installed.

6) A floorplan has been added to nytimes.com, and the 2nd floor apartment price has been reduced to $1.249m.

7) I've seen hundreds of Park Slope properties in the past few years, and I've never seen a kitchen that compares with these. And if there's a better value being offered for family-sized apartment condos in The Slope, I'd sure like to know about it.

8) There is a window of opportunity to deal directly with the owner and eliminate the middle-man before these get handed off to the brokerage community (gasp!).

Gary

Posted by: gsnyder at December 4, 2008 12:15 PM

Thanks for the information Gary. I am in the market for a 3-bed and certainly plan to look at these. Whether these units sell at or near asking will be one of the first real tests of whether prices for prime Park Slope properties are going to hold up. I am not going to make a prediction on this one.

Posted by: lechacal at December 4, 2008 12:27 PM

Likewise - thanks for the info Gary. I've been watching your project for years and in my eagerness to speculate on the business aspects I failed to say that everything I've seen from outside and my peeks in, make it look like this job was done right and with a lot of attention to detail.
As for the fence, you might consider electrifying it - those middle schoolers around the corner on 5th Ave are little hormone-soaked hellions.
Good luck with the sales.

Posted by: MaxOthermoxx at December 4, 2008 12:38 PM

gary, thanks for clarifying. given that they're both 3-beds and 2+ baths, i agree with lechacal that this will be an interesting test of the market.

Posted by: i disagree at December 4, 2008 12:40 PM

Looks like it last changed hands in 2004 for $2.3m for the whole building, not a bad trade at all.

Posted by: Fark at December 4, 2008 12:45 PM

Is there a floor plan for the 1500 sf units? I could not see it on the NYT ad (which is a bit confusing). Like that they tried to preserve detail, not so sure about the finishes on kitchen/bath (I'm not big on faux fancy). $833/psf does not seem to reflect a "new-market-reality" discount - lots of nice places sold for that amount during the frenzy (yes, I know there were some 1000 psf but those were pretty rare, and this is not a FSB, no elevator, etc.)

Posted by: Miss Muffett at December 4, 2008 2:49 PM

I walk pass this every morning and evening too. The apartments look beautiful and the landscaping is great. Also, glad a low fence will be going in to keep the block consistent.

Posted by: fawn at December 4, 2008 2:52 PM

Post a comment

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

Latest Restaurant Additions