« Inside Third & Bond: Week 64 House of the Day: 177 Maple Street »

December 4, 2008

Condo of the Day: 264 Cumberland Street

When the new conversion at 264 Cumberland Street in Fort Greene hit the market last May, the units were priced pretty affordably, which may, in part, explain why there haven't been a whole lot of price cuts during the dark times of the last couple of months; to be fair, though, the cheapest units on a per square foot basis are those on the ground-floor with large subterranean rec rooms. To date, five of the 13 apartments are spoken for. The remaining ones range in price from $615,000 for a 912-square-foot studio-plus-office to $925,000 for a 1,874-square-foot duplex with outdoor space. And then there's this space (shown in photos) at the top of the church for $685,000.
The Sanctuary Condos [StreetEasy] GMAP P*Shark

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/7462

Comments

Wow...I'm really diggin these...I especially love that one at the top of the church!!!

Posted by: 11217 at December 4, 2008 12:43 PM

Looks like something from a Kubrick movie. I swear Alex and the droogs could have a party in that church loft. Price seems a tad steep but I'm lovin' it.

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

Ughhh...I think I'd be mighty uncomfortable "carousing" in these spaces. No thanks, I'll pass.

Posted by: TownhouseLady at December 4, 2008 12:47 PM

I don't think that's a new bldg on the right of the church...it's the old rectory. There is a new bldg on the left of the church, at 268, but that's a different developer.

Posted by: noah at December 4, 2008 12:48 PM

This droogie is digging the loft space, but $1100/sf?

Posted by: SnarkSlope at December 4, 2008 12:49 PM

There's be a lightning strike if I were to move into a church.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at December 4, 2008 12:51 PM

685k for a 600 sqft attic in a church? i know the location is great, but there are certainly much nicer apt's in this price range, many of which comes with 400 more ft, a second BR, and maybe even a garden.

Posted by: bktycoon at December 4, 2008 12:56 PM

Sorry I sound like the What with that typo above.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at December 4, 2008 12:56 PM

Most of these floorplans seem kind of ... cumbersome and overworked? Seems like the interior space of the buildings could've been better-used.

Posted by: cwbuecheler at December 4, 2008 12:57 PM

even tho i am against all buildings not condos being turned into condos i would give anything to live in that. ANYTHING. id even do anything. ANYTHING! i love it

*Rob*

Posted by: PitbullNYC at December 4, 2008 1:12 PM

And rob, that is exactly why churches came about to begin with...as a means for the confession of those things that you would do!!!

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at December 4, 2008 1:15 PM

My wife and I looked at these when they first went on the market. Probably would have bought one of the spaces with the ground floor rec room but the one we wanted was the first to go to contract. Excellent location, tons of character and a cool vibe are all positives. Wacky layouts in some units are a major negative.

Posted by: AndYouWillKnowUsbyTheTrailofRenters at December 4, 2008 1:24 PM

with the exception of the top unit being somewhat unique, what's alluring about the other 2 at those prices? plain interiors. nice exterior, but you live inside, unless you plan on chilling in a lawnchair with a beer across the street admiring your exterior.

Posted by: goldie at December 4, 2008 1:25 PM

this should go down well with academics and other pointy-heads

Posted by: dittoburg at December 4, 2008 1:34 PM

Maybe PropJoe would be interested in the top unit. His KKK Grand Wizard hat would fit in with the roof perfectly.

Posted by: Biff Champion at December 4, 2008 1:42 PM

$600k for a 900 sq ft studio... just talking about this in a VAGUELY approving way is farking disgusting to me.

And a million $$ for a 1-bedroom, 1-1/2 bath apartment... dead jesus on a stick.

What is wrong with you people!? And my "you people" I mean all of you that even contemplate paying this sort of scratch for ANYTHING. Even if these units were "full of character" with lots of details and fancy mouldings and a $3000 kitchen sink. WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU!?

And you wonder why we are in an economic crisis. It's because of YOU!

Posted by: tybur6 at December 4, 2008 1:45 PM

yes- there might even be a handy inflammable cross lying around

Posted by: dittoburg at December 4, 2008 1:45 PM

Good one, ditto!

Posted by: Biff Champion at December 4, 2008 1:48 PM

Flammable and inflammable...most people learn the difference the hard way!!!

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at December 4, 2008 1:56 PM

the pointy-roof unit would be a great place to rent, but not to own. i bet the novelty will wear off quickly and its charm will wear thin.

Posted by: z at December 4, 2008 1:57 PM

Saw them at an open house. Some of the floor plans were "unique" and lacked flow. Some also lacked light, but the finishes were quite nice. The kitchen islands were enormous, almost too big to be useful though.

Posted by: DeLepp at December 4, 2008 1:57 PM

Sorry, but I have to add my two-cents. We live nearby and popped in for a recent open house. I think the old townhouse, chapel and new building are all one project, by the way. Someone above mentioned they were not.

Anyway, I found Terry, the real estate agent, to be unbearable. I hope Kathyrn reads this. I'm sure she will. She needs to tell him to tone it down a little. He seemed over-caffeinated.

I frankly didn't care, but I just want to make sure the oversell doesn't turn away many potentional buyers.

The ad states the project is right off the park. No, it is all the way at the other end of long block from the park. The project is right off Lafayette Avenue, which takes a little walking time off of the morning trip to the subway.

One thing I thought was ill-planned: the balconies in the rear of the building are all open-work metal grates. I'm not sure why they built them this way because any watering of plants, eating of food or spilling of coffee and drinks will wind up hitting the heads, chairs, plants, etc. of the residents below. The group as a whole will probably have to decide to, and then pay to install some sort of permanent barrier on the floor of each balcony to prevent this kind of thing from happening.

*** *** ***
One thing that really irked me with the building of the new structure: the lot was a community garden with wonderful cherry trees. AND, I remember it was a PARKS DEPT. space meaning it should NOT have been lost to the community and sold off for development. Only HPD-owned sites should risk that fate at this point.

I would really love to know how this all happened... The developer wrecked the garden and trees while working on the chapel conversion and then went ahead a ripped out trees before the new building's basement was built. It was all a surprise to me. I assume this must have gone through CB meetings...anyone have any info on this?

Posted by: BrooklynGreene at December 4, 2008 2:06 PM

I've always wanted to live in a church or rectory building, preferably with gothic and/or stained glass windows. You see them much more in English home magazines, and I've saved every one of the articles. This looks great. It may not be practical, or for everyone, but I'd be just fine.

Well, maybe someday, somewhere.

Posted by: Montrose Morris at December 4, 2008 2:13 PM

brooklyngreene - i just confirmed that they are 2 different developers (264 http://www.sanctuaryfortgreene.com/home.html vs. 268 http://www.theclassicmodern.com/). and the cherry trees are still there in the back of 268...but yes, would be very interested to know how/why the community gave up the garden space.

Posted by: noah at December 4, 2008 2:28 PM

MM...hubby and I looked at a church last summer to convert to a residence (it had partially been started) in upstate NY. It was gorgeous. I didn't like the town, and it was alot further from the catskills, than I wanted to be.

If we ever find such a thing, you're invited over.

I also wouldn't mind living in a lighthouse. I keep my eyes open for those.

Posted by: bayridgegirl at December 4, 2008 2:37 PM

Interesting...thank you. I would bet the two "developers" are really one with two different corporate identities to limit liability. If you look at the yards, interestingly, the various buildings seem to have a rather coordinated court area in the back.

In fact, cherry trees were removed. They had to be for the new building to be put in there. Hhhh... Yes, though, one or two survived.

If the space was truly a Parks Dept. lot, then there must have been some something going on for them to sell it off. I would love to know. The community gardeners who "leased" the lot from Parks would not have much say in the matter I believe. If Parks wants to sell a lot, they can once approved. I just was not aware of any brouhaha over this at the time. Simply one day, the garden was closed and became the staging area for the "Sanctuary" project.

What are you going to do?

And yes, the marble islands are too big in the flats.

Posted by: BrooklynGreene at December 4, 2008 2:40 PM

"I also wouldn't mind living in a lighthouse. I keep my eyes open for those."

So you can see your ship coming in or two ships passing in the night?

Posted by: Biff Champion at December 4, 2008 2:45 PM

Biff...stop...I was engagine MM.
Your ship is sinking!

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

"I was engagine MM."

re-write, please...

Posted by: Biff Champion at December 4, 2008 3:07 PM

re-write

Biff...stop...I was engaging MM.
Your ship has sunk!

Posted by: bayridgegirl at December 4, 2008 3:18 PM

We live nearby as well but couldn't make the open house. These spaces are very attractive and that upper loft space is simply amazing. Wish some rich artist buys it but the pricing is a touch too steep in our opinion.
BrooklynGreene while a community garden is nice we think this is an excellent use of that space especially since an effort was made to preserve some of those beloved cherry trees. There is a community garden just 2 blocks away on Dekalb Ave & South Oxford ? that doesn't get much use at all even in the warmer months plus Fort Greene Park is very close if lack of open spaces was the concern.

Absolument fantastique comme espace mais en meme temps trop chere!

Posted by: pierre de taille at December 4, 2008 3:22 PM

"but the pricing is a touch too steep in our opinion"

How is it just a touch? You must all have inhaled too much dust from your granite countertops... and all enjoy enormous amounts of extra cash on hand. (And by extra I mean hundred and hundreds and hundreds of thousands.)

Posted by: tybur6 at December 4, 2008 3:41 PM

Tyburg6,

What's your deal today? These are maybe a little overpriced, but not by much...

These are comparable to apartments you'd find in Portland, Oregon's Pearl District, Seattle, Boston and San Francisco.

Posted by: 11217 at December 4, 2008 3:54 PM

I don't give two craps about "comps" in Portland, Boston, SF, Seattle or even Brooklyn... This irrational pricing of real estate is one of the sources of our economic downfall.

I don't care what the location is... you're going to tell me that a rational mind shouldn't have a problem paying around $4,000 a month for a studio apartment?!?!

Or around $6,000 a month for a 1-bedroom apartment?!?!

Seriously?

You think that this is sustainable and acceptable? The fact of the matter is that a HALF-MILLION has become basically the entry-level for owning anything in this retarded city. How many people can afford that? What is the percentage of this fine city's population with an income of over $150,000??

OK - if you don't make this much, then you rent. BUT NO! The real estate prices have gone NUTS so owners have to charge astronomical rental prices as well.

It's not sustainable or rational or even smart to keep thinking that $600k for a damn studio or almost a Million $$ for a 1-bedroom is acceptable. Simple as that.

Posted by: tybur6 at December 4, 2008 4:24 PM

My point is... these aren't "Dream Homes" that one should be salivating over. These are serviceable apartments for a single person or a couple in a decent neighborhood.

I *almost* understand $1 million and $2 million price tags for homes with many bedrooms, a little back yard, a couple toilets, and such.... ya know, a single-family brownstone. (and I want to stress *almost* because we're still talking about needing a household income deep into the 6-figure range... deep in that range.... or a nest egg from exploiting the irrational market over the last 5 years.)

But when we're looking at paying $4,000 to $6,000 a month for a little apartment... and the reaction is "it's a touch expensive" "maybe they should shave off $10k from the price" "it's in line with comps" etc etc etc. This just makes me angry.

Posted by: tybur6 at December 4, 2008 4:38 PM

Tyburg,

I hear you, but these units seem special. Studios do not average 600K in this fine city, nor do 1 bedrooms normally go for 1 million.

You can still find very nice studios in Park Slope (arguably one of the nicer areas of Brooklyn) for 300K and under. That one for 250k on Park Place finally sold, btw. That's about 1500 a month for mortgage and maintenance BEFORE you factor in the interest deduction. Not bad, I don't think.

You can take the train out an extra 5 stops and still find studios for 100K, 1 bedrooms for 150K, and 2 bedrooms for 200K.

You just aren't going to find those prices within 20 minutes of what many consider one of the greatest cities on the planet, that's all.

BTW, these prices are determined by market forces. Not GOD. If so many people didn't want to live here, the rent prices wouldn't be high. Simple as that. Supply and demand. Clearly you are willing to put up with it, because if you didn't you can move to Phoenix and find a 2 bedroom apartment for 800 bucks a month.

Posted by: 11217 at December 4, 2008 4:43 PM

"My point is... these aren't "Dream Homes"

And Ty, as a single gay male, a "studio" or 1 bedroom like the one above IS my dream home. I don't need a lot of space, and even if I ever partnered up, I won't ever want or need more than a 1 bedroom plus a den or a 2 bedroom apartment.

I simply don't want or like living in a large wasteful space. Not to mention, that smaller living will be the wave of the future, whether we (the U.S.) like it or not.

52% of NYC's residents live alone. There are a TON of people out there who would, in fact consider these places dream homes.

Posted by: 11217 at December 4, 2008 4:46 PM

Thanks, BRG, I'll be watching out for your post saying you found your lighthouse or church. I'll help decorate!

Posted by: Montrose Morris at December 4, 2008 5:01 PM

11217, I accept the point of your first post... but I will add that it's just proof that the market is sick - and I mean this as literally as I can... NYC's real estate market (both buying and renting) suffers from a disease of some sort.

You second post, I have to take exception.

I was using "Dream Home" in a descriptive sense... I'm not a proponent of wasteful space either. But, since you like comps so much, let's compare. Why am I paying the same price for a Studio apartment that I would pay for a 4000 sq ft detached home in most cities? It's not just slightly more expensive... it's CRAZY expensive.

I know this is NYC, but this is NYC operating in an unsustainable way.

So... you're suggesting "smaller living" should be just as expensive as "larger living." Break a single-family home into 4 units, but charge the same price for each unit that you paid for the WHOLE BUILDING?

The fact of the matter is that it has not been uncommon for a property to be purchased for 1/2 the prices it is sold for only a very few years later. That's the ONLY reason folks find these price tags acceptable -- they have $400k in the bank from selling their old place to a unsuspecting buyer lacking reason.

The free market is going to do fine... but soon New York is gonna see a terrible demographic shift. And it's gonna be a city of extreme poverty and extreme wealth... I guess living in harmony because anyone in between is gonna give up on this fine city unless something changes. Maybe everyone in the middle will take over Detroit.

Posted by: tybur6 at December 4, 2008 5:04 PM

it would be my dream home too. only if i could add some hello kitty coffins with pink satin interiors for guests to sleep in. and a tire swing. id def. want a tire swing in there.

*Rob*

Posted by: PitbullNYC at December 4, 2008 5:05 PM

Tyburg,

I just don't know where all the people you suggest should take over Detroit are going to go.

Many of us work in the arts...in publishing, in the burgeoning NYC movie and television production business, in advertising, etc. Many of these fields are based here in New York and many of these same people are so liberal minded, that a move to a lesser city in the Midwest really isn't going to be on their radar. Politics play a role in all of this I think, and I don't see a mass exodus of left leaning New Yorkers to Dallas or to St. Louis, or to Detroit or to Cleveland, or any of these other less costly cities.

The nice cities in this country are expensive. They are expensive because they are nice to live in.

I see your point, but given the economy and the job situation, I don't see how it's better in any other city and if one has a job here, I don't see these people leaving in large numbers to go find cheaper housing in another city.

We saw that happen in Phoenix and Las Vegas and look what's happened to those two cities...they have been DECIMATED by the housing bubble. Huge job growth there in the past has turned to negative job growth with thousands of people literally abandoning their homes and moving to other cities because of this.

Posted by: 11217 at December 4, 2008 5:24 PM

Tyburg -- I have lived in NYC almost 30 years and as far as my experience is concerned, to afford NY, you have to be willing to move out to the next neighborhood, pre-gentrification. When we bought, our neighbors thought we were nuts. People now think we are geniuses for buying what we did and when we did. I compare it to the settling of the wild west -- you have to be willing to go to the wild frontier to stake your claim. High risk, hopefully, eventually high reward.

Posted by: Schultz at December 4, 2008 9:06 PM

Allo Tyburg,
lets first say we are extremely happy our comment "a touch expensive" has brought out such interesting and riveting discussion with even 11217 sympathizing.
You are 100% right RE in NYC is totally absurd but our comment was meant to be taken in context of other similarly located and sized apartments. Remember just yesterday 141 Lafayette which is an inferior place in our opinion was priced @ around the same.
Maybe we should have said significantly overpriced but hopefully you get our drift now.
As far as NYC becoming a dichotomy of only the very rich and the poor we are equally fearful but remember this is the price of capitalism we all pay for. Despite all the socialism in this city with things like massive taxing of the well to do, tax incentives for affordable housing, and laws that are vastly tenant favorable; the city is still proving to be un-affordable to the masses. Whats the solution? Not an easy problem. In Paris for example all the poor live in the suburbs because the city is too expensive even with all the vastly superior social services there.
Part of the solution we are afraid is very difficult but its exactly what Schultz did i.e. to be competitive one has to take a chance on less desirable areas. Yes the whole thing is like Darwinian Natural Selection of the fittest but it is indeed the only proven way.
Tyburg we agree unsustainable speculative growth is the reason we are in such trouble but please appreciate that this RE downturn is necessary and is infarct very healthy ( on a general scale) as it provides a checks & balance system that will hopefully allow for later sustainable growth...reference Lipsey.

Posted by: pierre de taille at December 4, 2008 10:24 PM

2010 this will be one of many of those that might come up in a conversation "Remember those apts in that church for $1mil? hahahhaa LOL, idiots"

Posted by: cornerbodega at December 5, 2008 11:14 AM

« Inside Third & Bond: Week 64 House of the Day: 177 Maple Street »

December 4, 2008

Condo of the Day: 264 Cumberland Street

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions