« Co-op of the Day: 423 Atlantic Avenue, #2M Streetlevel: Free of Video Free Brooklyn on Fifth »

December 11, 2008

House of the Day: 167 Baltic Street

This 4,500-square-foot brick house at 167 Baltic Street in Cobble Hill was purchased by the current owners in 2006 for $2,750,000. It appears the three-family house was then renovated before being put back on the market last spring for $3,900,000; after not selling, the price was increased to $3,995,000. Some of the choices don't work for us (the cabinetry is a little too dominating in our opinion but that could be because of the lack of furniture and decoration), but overall it looks like a good-quality job. Seems pricey though, no?
167 Baltic Street [Corcoran] GMAP P*Shark

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/7559

Comments

Well as it hasn't sold they clearly should increase the price to 4.1 mill.

Posted by: dittoburg at December 11, 2008 1:19 PM

ditto...you clearly can't think like a broker...$4,099,000.

The range itself is worth about $300,000

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at December 11, 2008 1:23 PM

Its true, I always let my wife price anything we're selling on Craigslist.

Posted by: dittoburg at December 11, 2008 1:26 PM

Is that laminated wide planking I see there?

Posted by: dittoburg at December 11, 2008 1:27 PM

Looks great, but this is just the sort of property that's going to be hard hit. If I've got the means to buy a $4 mil. home, I probably won't want to live in a 2 bed duplex. I'm sorry they paid so much in 2006, but this just feels like a $3 mil rather than 4 mil home. I think they're going to have to be happy with a small loss. (and yeah, that's a 10k-plus range...)

Posted by: Bolder at December 11, 2008 1:31 PM

I was so confused with the kitchen photos. Similar cabinets and ranges.

#1 shows a kitchen with ugly wallcovering.
#4 shows a kitchen with bare walls.

The ranges are also different, one with red knobs, one with black.

Posted by: bayridgegirl at December 11, 2008 1:31 PM

Christ I hope not ditto. That's a deal killer.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at December 11, 2008 1:31 PM

I just don't get these prices downtown. You get less house for more money... HOTD in Crown Heights starts looking better everyday.

Posted by: Amzi Hill at December 11, 2008 1:32 PM

seems pricey?? i guess i'll state the obvious - it's outrageous! for that money and you have a tenant on the top & bottom floors - so you are living between tenants - which means that the middle 2 floors are either oddly blocked off or you have to keep all of your doors locked - i know someone who does this and i found it rather odd to be sitting in the living room behind a locked door b/c of tenants.

Posted by: bkny at December 11, 2008 1:33 PM

BRG, there are two similarly configured and styled kitchens in this house, one on the garden, and one on the parlor. Furthering the confusion is their having stripped the wallpaper in the parlor kitchen. The are using an old picture.

I've always liked this house, but it is overpriced by at least half a million. IMO.

Posted by: Nokilissa at December 11, 2008 1:35 PM

Oh, and no Ditto, the floors are hardwood. Unless it is the best damned laminate I've ever seen.

Posted by: Nokilissa at December 11, 2008 1:36 PM

I think we need to send someone to investigate.

Posted by: dittoburg at December 11, 2008 1:40 PM

There's something off about this house. The proportions don't seem quite right.

But they might get the price. The house is across the street from possibly the hottest public school in Brooklyn, PS 29. That's a savings of six years' of private school (currently about $30K per year per kid) for the owner, plus a premium in the rent. I've known people who rent for a year in 29's district just to get a seat there.

Posted by: Brooklyn Chicken at December 11, 2008 1:46 PM

let's face it - wood plank, is a stained sub floor. what a joke.

Posted by: bkny at December 11, 2008 1:47 PM

This house seems disjointed and awkward.

Pass.

Posted by: TownhouseLady at December 11, 2008 1:48 PM

We were in the house when it belonged to the old owners. While it is a legal three family, it works best as a two family. That's because there was no separate stairway/entrance to the third floor apartment - the tenants basically walked through the owners living room and by the second floor bedrooms to get to their unit. (Cobble Hill was much mellower then.) Not sure if current owners fixed this....but as a two family, it's a great house (irrespective of the price.)

Posted by: wjcohen at December 11, 2008 1:50 PM

An idiotic renovation to accompany the Alfred E. Newman pricing.

To expand on bkny's comments, the duplex is essentially a one bedroom. To enter/exit the master suite, you have to pass through a common hallway. To make this a much more attractive triplex over garden rental requires significant renovation, including the removal of a kitchen on the top floor. Also, there dont seem to be any pictures of the garden level. For many years this was a rent controlled unit. I wonder if its been renovated at all.

Two other nits to pick - no central AC, and the building has almost no garden, as it abuts property on Henry Street.

Posted by: very bored at work at December 11, 2008 1:51 PM

that's what i was saying above - for you to have a tenant above and below the layout would be odd. i am not a fan of having a tenant walk through my space. i know several people with that situation and i just don't understand it at all!

Posted by: bkny at December 11, 2008 1:53 PM

very bored at work - i love that alias, it suits my situation perfectly, every day.

Posted by: bkny at December 11, 2008 1:55 PM

bkny -

The jokes on you re: pine plank floors. Yes, there is no subfloor beneath them. Many people have reclaimed these and they are considered desirable by people who like an old fashioned look. More rustic/less fancy than parquet. Some vendors are specializing in harvesting these from old buildings and selling them for restoration jobs at $20-30/s.f.

Posted by: slopefarm at December 11, 2008 2:21 PM

Beautiful house, great location. Don't understand the "awkwqard" comments. Just because there is a kitchen on the top floor does not mean you have to rent it out to tenants. The problem here is the price, which is a bit high.
However people with a lot of money by and large still have a lot of money. It is the working class that is getting hammered in this recession, so I would not be surprised if this sells for close to ask. Again, it is the location and the house's good bones that will sell it.

Posted by: sam at December 11, 2008 2:25 PM

Mr. B. is trying so hard to be charitable. The wood is tacky.

Posted by: mopar at December 11, 2008 2:33 PM

The kitchen is probably southern yellow pine and I think it looks nice especially being wide. I doubt that any of it is laminate. I hope I'm not wrong.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at December 11, 2008 2:36 PM

Most of the Civil War era houses had wide plank flooring. Parquet did not come in until the 1880's. I see nothing tacky about wide plank floors in a house of this vintage.

Posted by: sam at December 11, 2008 2:40 PM

slopefarm - how is the joke on me, when you just proved my point. my sub floor is wood plank and we decided to refinish & stain them, since it was saving us a ton of money instead of putting a new wood floor on top of it - since this is the new 'in' thing now. so i have that same look and it was my subfloor. i also have parquet covering it in the dining & living room which was in great shape - we just refinished it.

Posted by: bkny at December 11, 2008 2:52 PM

Yes sam. You could basically say that the older the house the wider the flooring!!!

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at December 11, 2008 2:53 PM

"a house of this vintage."

I like this phrase very much , can I use it Sam?

Posted by: bayridgegirl at December 11, 2008 2:59 PM

All subfloors are wood plank (until plywood came along). Not all plank floors are subfloors.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at December 11, 2008 3:05 PM

This is really silly. A 3-family house, with the owner's apartment, because that's all it is, an APARTMENT, sandwiched between two tenants, for $4 million???? Come on--that price would be considered ridiculous at the height of the market. Add to that the current state of the economy, and this listing becomes outright laughable.

Posted by: nyc87 at December 11, 2008 3:11 PM

BRG, you may certainly use my "of this vintage" line and you may also use my unique spelling of "awkwqard".

Posted by: sam at December 11, 2008 3:17 PM

I don't really see this as a three-family layout although the wacky realtor describes it that way. I love the idea of a small kitchen upstairs next to the playroom. The kids can have their meals there, or you can invite friends or family to stay there as a nice separate little apartment. What's not to love? And the 25-foot width is very, very nice. It will be interesting to see what it sells for. It is one of the nicest properties showcased here in a while.

Posted by: sam at December 11, 2008 3:25 PM

Thanks, Sam

"awkwqard".
Only an asshat, would use that spelling.
Okay, I'll use it!

Posted by: bayridgegirl at December 11, 2008 3:25 PM

I am with nyc87. $4MM can buy much better. And this is not even a pretty house on the outside. And to live across the street from a school????

Posted by: BH76 at December 11, 2008 3:30 PM

Sam, your posts are always so positive -- no offense, but are you a broker?

Posted by: Schultz at December 11, 2008 3:35 PM

Sam - no one said wide plank floors are tacky - that would be a very odd position to take.

Posted by: dittoburg at December 11, 2008 3:58 PM

bkny -- I took issue with your comment of "what a joke." It sure sounded like you were referring to pine plank floors themselves as the joke. If the joke is on those trying to replicate the look with laminates or by buying old planks and installing them, I am in agreement. I didn't read it that way in your first post, mainly because I didn't think those are laminates in the photo.

Posted by: slopefarm at December 11, 2008 4:10 PM

the 2:33 post says that the wood is tacky. I assumed he/she meant the floor as prior posters were commenting on the floor but perhaps he meant the cabinets. I don't find any of it tacky.
I am not usually that charitable, In fact I am often downright crabby. I hate houses that are chopped up into tacky little apartments for example. This house appeals to me. It is a lovely, 25-foot wide house with a nice floorplan, beautiful kitchens, including a little kitchen upstairs (which I first saw used in a house on Columbia Heights, the little kitchen was the one the family used for small informal meals)it appeals to me.
Am I a broker? Heaven forefend!! A broker would never say that the asking price is too high, which was my initial comment.
I also really like Cobble Hill. I like it better than most other neibs, and I could have bought there cheap years ago and didn't. Oh well, maybe history will repeat itself, although I hope not.

Posted by: sam at December 11, 2008 4:14 PM

I also want to add that most brokers cannot write as well as I do.

Posted by: sam at December 11, 2008 4:16 PM

I don't follow Cobble Hill too closely but if Brooklyn Heights is any guide, where such a house would be struggling in this market to even hit the $3.5 million range, I think they shouldn't expect much north of $3 million. Sam's appreciation of the top-floor kitchen notwithstanding, I think most buyers will look at it as a built-in renovation expense. Plus, for the commission that Corcoran could expect off of that price, you think they'd spring for some neutral re-painting and better staging.

Posted by: NorthHeights at December 11, 2008 4:17 PM

So what do you think the owner's duplex would rent for? Let's go crazy and say $10,000. What about the other two rentals? $3,500 each? That's equivalent to a $17,000 rent role on this place. Bankrate says that a mortgage on would be at least $22,000 and that is after you put down $800k. So that puts you way in the hole by my estimation. I know, I know, rich people don't need to do mortgages. Nevertheless, it seems like a very expensive duplex.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

Posted by: blamebla at December 11, 2008 4:29 PM

A house like this in Brooklyn Heights would be at least 6 million.
Location still matters.

Posted by: sam at December 11, 2008 4:47 PM

This house wouldn't have been $6 million in BH even in 2006-7. Only a small handful of super-houses on Columbia Heights or Remsen ever got those prices. This is just your average townhouse, not even a full lot deep.
Show me the houses that are selling for $6 million, please.

Posted by: NorthHeights at December 11, 2008 5:52 PM

Agreed NorthHeights. I recall two of the last houses of this size in Bklyn Heights selling for below $3 million--one on Orange Street, and another on Cranberry Street. Both houses needed updating but were absolutely stunning and had great curb appeal. Not every house in the Heights is a $6 million pad.

Posted by: nyc87 at December 11, 2008 6:31 PM

24 Remsen Street sold for what? 10 million? OK, take away the carriage house and you have 6 million.
The Moonstruck house sold for what? 4 million? so it was recorded, who really knows? if it really sold for that it must have been a disaster inside, which is very possible.
There have also been recent sales on Willow Street and Garden Place for five million plus.
This ain't Crown Heights or Fort Greene, you know? People on this blog forget about the premium payed for an elite location.

Posted by: sam at December 11, 2008 6:34 PM

nyc87, do you remember the specific addresses? I don't recall anything (entire homes) on either of those streets going for under $3MM recently.

Posted by: Biff Champion at December 11, 2008 6:35 PM

Here are the 2008 sales in BH:

Address SF Price Recording Date
35 Love Lane 1,050 $ 984,000 10/22/2008
150 Henry St 4,312 $2,450,000 10/16/2008
88 Remsen St 8,282 $10,800,000 10/2/2008
19 Cranberry St 4,160 $3,850,000 8/12/2008 Moonstruck
30 Orange St 2,400 $2,775,000 7/30/2008
71 Atlantic Ave 3,800 $1,620,000 7/18/2008
36 Grace Court 3,392 $3,325,000 7/7/2008
281A Henry St 4,560 $3,700,000 7/1/2008
69 Joralemon St 3,040 $2,792,500 6/18/2008
42 Garden Place 3,420 $4,500,000 4/9/2008
38 Cranberry St 2,344 $2,700,000 4/2/2008
82 State St 5,460 $6,300,000 3/14/2008
152 Hicks St 4,480 $4,400,000 1/23/2008

Posted by: NorthHeights at December 11, 2008 7:00 PM

Sam, I did mean the cabinets. At least with those counters.

Posted by: mopar at December 11, 2008 7:28 PM

Not every house in the Heights is a $6 million pad.

Agreed!
But if this house, 167 Baltic Street, were somehow transported to Brooklyn Heights, it would be a six million dollar house.

What is the sense in denying that Brooklyn Heights is very expensive? I don't get it.

Many of the house that sold for 2 and 3 million in the Heights were either small or absolute dumps inside; owned by spartan WASP families some of whom had not renovated since the early 1960's and some whom had never renovated.

36 grace Court is getting a whole new facade and has been gutted. 42 Garden Place is being gutted, 69 Joralemon STreet is 14 feet wide at most.

Posted by: sam at December 11, 2008 7:38 PM

Biff--see NorthHeights list above.

Posted by: nyc87 at December 11, 2008 7:54 PM

If you want, I could post all of the sales data from the past 5 years. You'll see the number that sold north of $5 million - literally just a handful. But I don't think it would convince you. I normally agree with you, or at least respect your opinion, but on this one, you're enamored with the idea that BH prices are in the stratosphere and ignoring reality. Besides a few megamansions on the promenade or other special houses, they weren't ever that high, and certainly aren't that high in 2008.

Back to this house, my point is, this house is nothing special that would vault it into that rarified category, on this block or on any block in the Heights. It's nice but not spectacular.

I'm not denying that BH is expensive, I just don't see why you insist on saying this particular house would be $6 million there - it's just not reasonable. Do you mean that when this house was a dump before their $1 million renovation that it would have been a $5 million house in the heights? So show me the $5 million dumps there.

Posted by: NorthHeights at December 11, 2008 8:26 PM

It is a 25-foot wide four-story house. those are rare in the heights without 18 rent-control tenants in residence.

Posted by: sam at December 11, 2008 8:46 PM

Totally ridiculous. I think the folks at Corcoran have really lost a screw. I've seen similar pricing on other of their properties -- home purchased in 2005-6 at top dollar and now seller looking to make money on it. Here there was work, but as many have said, pretty poor work, above home depot quality.

As for PS29, it is no longer considered the best PS in Brooklyn, in part because it is horribly overcrowded, much like the prized 321 in the Slope. Bloomberg warns a 5-7% cut, how do you think 29 will be looking then?

Posted by: househunt at December 11, 2008 9:14 PM

oh hooray! thank goodness we can benefit from the delta-minus brainwaves of househunt for guidance.
He should either go back on his meds or ask his doctor to up the anti-depression medication. if there is anything worse than a know-nothing dope, it's a depressive know nothing dope.

Posted by: Inigo at December 11, 2008 9:38 PM

PS29 was never considered "the best" school in Brooklyn. It is a very good school, but considering it "the best" just comes down to the subjective judgment of the neighborhood.

Posted by: dittoburg at December 12, 2008 8:29 AM

NorthHeights and nyc87, thanks for the info. Out of interest, I added up the total price ($50,196,500) and square footage (50,700) of the sales he listed to come up with an average price per square foot of $990. Applying that to the 4,500 square foot home above totals $4.455MM.

Before anyone jumps on this, I recognize every home is very different, the markets (real estate and stock) have changed since the sales above, etc., etc...just for fun, I wanted to see what number I'd get.

Posted by: Biff Champion at December 12, 2008 8:33 AM

Here's another way of looking at it: the current owners bought it for 2.75 mil. Say they put in $200,000 to $250,000 in renovations. (Not sure they did.) That brings it up to $3 mil. If they price it at $3.3 mil, there's a 10% return on investment, less whatever corcoran gets. Yet the pricing is about 30% return, less what Corcoran gets. Talk about unrealistic expectations.

Posted by: Minmin at December 12, 2008 8:45 AM

*I shouldn't have assumed NorthHeights is a he. Sorry.*

Posted by: Biff Champion at December 12, 2008 8:53 AM

This is Baltic Street, not Brooklyn Heights. The rental value of this place is probably $12k /month ($3000 per floor).

That means that an investor hoping to make 8% wouldn't pay more than $1.5m assuming no further effects of the recession.

Looked at another way, 4500 ft x $300 psf = $1.35m replacement cost.

These are two of the three methods bank appraisers are required to use, and increasingly they are going to be the key ones to determine what the banks are willing to lend. (The third one, comparative sales, is useless, since the comps are all based on unsustainable bubble prices). With bank appraisals coming in at these numbers, how long will it take before buyers are neither willing nor able to go much higher?

If my rental or construction cost guesses are right, anything over $1.5m is either pure bubble speculation (it's ok to overpay, because someone else will overpay even more next year even without bank help), or based on a strange belief that rents are about to soar, or pure consumption -- like buying an expensive car knowing that it will be worthless in a few years.

If I'm wrong about rents or replacement cost, give me more realistic numbers. The asking price implies a rental value of about $28k/month, which seems ludicrous to me.

Posted by: FinanceGuy at December 12, 2008 11:19 AM

« Co-op of the Day: 423 Atlantic Avenue, #2M Streetlevel: Free of Video Free Brooklyn on Fifth »

December 11, 2008

House of the Day: 167 Baltic Street

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions