« Flushing Avenue Finally Driveable Co-op of the Day: 110 Hicks Street »

January 12, 2009

A Couple of Sales

sales-011209.jpg
PROSPECT PARK SOUTH $1,260,000
169 Stratford Road
103-year-old center-hall colonial; front porch, quartz counters, commercial-grade appliances, family room, den, pocket doors, deck, 50-by-100-foot lot; taxes $4,512; listed at $1,260,000. Broker: Mary Kay Gallagher. Listing here; OHP here.

PROSPECT-LEFFERTS GARDENS $710,000
325 Fenimore Street
Three-family brick house, 3,240 square feet, with two-bedroom, two-bath unit under two three-bedroom, two-bath units with balconies; home features garden and parking. Taxes $3,000. Asking price $749,000, on market one week. Broker: Rodolfo Lucchese, The Corcoran Group.
Residential Sales Around the Region [NY Times] GMAP
Just Sold! [NY Post] GMAP




Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/7922

Comments

Why is 169 Stratford Road listed as recent sales when it closed last summer?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/02/realestate/02hunt.html

Posted by: jasetheace at January 12, 2009 12:12 PM

In these finacial times, last summer is the new today!

Posted by: bayridgegirl at January 12, 2009 12:35 PM

I'm torn between wanting Fedders houses, like the Fenimore Street one, to NOT sell, to discourage such bad design, and not wanting to see empty houses in my neighborhood. On balance, I guess it's better to have an occupied house, however ugly.

Posted by: Bob Marvin at January 12, 2009 12:35 PM

"Why is 169 Stratford Road listed as recent sales when it closed last summer?"

It wasn't. "Couple of Sales". But in this case, 2003 closures should be listed. That would better reflect where the market is going.

***Bid half off peak comps***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at January 12, 2009 12:41 PM

As much as everyone hates bad design it's way worse to have abandoned unoccupied buildings and houses in a neighborhood. Gosh I don't even understand the dilemma. It's not like during the worst recession we've seen somebody will tear the building down if it doesn't sell and builds a more expensive prettier building. If the thing is there it's there. The best scenario is for it to sell to somebody who gets residents in it who improve its appearance. If it sits unsold it becomes an eyesore and contributes to blight.

Posted by: traditionalmod at January 12, 2009 12:54 PM

169 Stratford went into contract in August 2007 and I believe closed in October.

How is this a relevant comp in this market?

Posted by: manofelt at January 12, 2009 12:56 PM

traditionalmod,

If these things languished unsold, while more attractive buildings were purchased it would be a disincentive to build more of them and just might encourage better design. However, I agree that "if the thing is there it's there" and, in the real world, an occupied house is preferable.

Posted by: Bob Marvin at January 12, 2009 1:36 PM

What happened to listing dates for going into contract and closing?

Posted by: Miss Muffett at January 12, 2009 1:45 PM

Fenimore dog features "garden and parking." Obviously not adjacent to one another. Total pave-over, a Barbara Corcoran dream!

Posted by: Brenda from Flatbush at January 12, 2009 2:04 PM

I can't believe someone paid $710K for that POS on Fenimore. Where does the Post get its info? There is no sale listed on either PropertyShark or ACRIS since the builder of that eyesore bought the beautiful frame house with circular windowed porch (check out the photo on PS) to tear it down and replace it with these twin horrors.

The Corcoran selling broker, incidentally, now has two units here listed for rent at $2000 each, which is pretty substantially above market rents for the area. Another Corcoran agent has the new building on Lefferts Ave between Nostrand and NY with 2 BR 2 bath apartments at $1975, and they aren't moving either.

Posted by: babs at January 12, 2009 2:13 PM

BABS I am sure they say the same thing about the guy or gal who picks up a 3000 sq ft brownstone for 2.5 million... I mean is a brownstone truly worth that much more than a modern semiugly home with the same sq ft..

Posted by: HOBOKENROCKS at January 12, 2009 2:19 PM

Brownstones don't sell for $2.5 million in this area, either. Closest comparables might be the two-family house on my block, in the PLG historic district, that just sold for $708K in October. I think that's a better answer to your question, Hoboken, and in that case, I would say emphatically YES.

Posted by: babs at January 12, 2009 2:33 PM

The home on the right looks eerily similar to some of the places featured on the blog on Horror Show Friday. Clearly there is a market for these homes.

Posted by: Biff Champion at January 12, 2009 2:56 PM

Unfortunately, the market for these homes is generally unsophisticated and unqualified purchasers who are told by the unscrupulous sellers (usually the developer, as in this case) that they will be able to offset all their mortgage expenses via the rental income.

Posted by: babs at January 12, 2009 3:05 PM

babs, heaven knows I'm not defending these homes (which is clear by my comments in past Horror Show Friday threads). Just saying that we can criticize the developers who are building them all we want, but they'll keep on being built as long as they're selling.

Posted by: Biff Champion at January 12, 2009 3:30 PM

Not everyone wants to live in a brownstone with "timeless" architectural and interior details and I'm not just talking about myself here. It also makes me wonder whether some residents of brownstone Brooklyn have been outside of the city. In addition to that, when it comes to renovating the interior of a brownstone, I'm surprised how nosy the brownstone crowd is. It makes me think that the communism is alive and well.

Those new houses are fine if you look outside of the city. I don't think we should expect them to build brownstones these days.

Posted by: Gravis at January 12, 2009 3:55 PM

Gravis,

"Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer, we'll keep the red flag flying here"

Bob Marvin
Commissar for preservation of Victorian details :-)

Posted by: Bob Marvin at January 12, 2009 4:02 PM

as someone who has lived around the country I can say those things would be ugly anywhere.

Posted by: Santa at January 12, 2009 4:04 PM

In my post on Friday I stated that while I think that these houses are ugly, I have many friends who love them. They were more than qualified purchasers and most put down 20% or more to purchase similar homes throughout the city. They are mostly first generation Americans from all over the world and they would never even think of buying an old house. One co-worker told me that after visiting my home for the first time that she thought that I must have been mishandling my money because I owned such an old house! She simply couldn't understand why I would buy an "old house with all that wood all over and nothing shiny." She sends photos of her three family Fedders home back to her family so that they can see how well she is doing. I don't think a Brownstone would give the appearance of prosperity in her eyes. I am certain that her next stop is some mini-mansion in New Jersey or on Staten Island - filled with shiny stuff. So she and others may be unsophisticated by our standards but I would not assume that they are unqualifed because they prefer new ugly houses.

Posted by: Chaka at January 12, 2009 4:12 PM

Chaka,
It's one of a million reasons not to buy a brownstone, but what you said is very much true. That doesn't mean though that 2nd, 3rd [and so on] generation Americans only buy brownstones. I like brownstones myself but what's the overall percentage of them in US, %5 to %10?

Posted by: Gravis at January 12, 2009 4:46 PM

Unfortunately, Chaka, most of these houses are poorly constructed and your friends who love them may be in for some headaches in the near future.

Whereas the walls of older buildings are usually two or three layers of bricks, modern construction is concrete blocks with only one thin layer of brick over them (or sometimes, as in the case of side and back walls, not even that!). Concrete is pourous and unless the builder has installed weepholes, directing water out from between the blocks, mold and humidity problems may begin.

Additionally, these houses are much less well-insulated than traditional brick construction, meaning increased energy costs.

Finally, that valley in between the two peaked roofs will collect snow in the winter, which will melt. If the construction is good it will be directed off of the roof, but if not the roof will leak.

I certianly hope your well-qualified friends who love these houses had the ones they bought inspected for these and other problems beforehand.

And that has nothing to do with aesthetics.

Posted by: babs at January 12, 2009 5:07 PM

I am sure that they did have inspections. While I agree that homes were definitely better constructed in the past, older houses comes with their own share of headaches, especially if they have not been well maintained. I know from experience that Brownstones and Victorian frame homes with structural/roof issues can be just as, if not more troublesome and expensive to repair than a newer home. That has everything to do with aesthetics.

Posted by: Chaka at January 12, 2009 5:36 PM

"I know from experience that Brownstones and Victorian frame homes with structural/roof issues can be just as, if not more troublesome and expensive to repair than a newer home. That has everything to do with aesthetics."

How does this have anything to do with aesthetics? I agree the preference for one look over another does, but structural/roof issues?

The only consolation in seeing these hideous things pop up all over is knowing that they are too poorly built to stand up for 100 years -- I'll be long gone but at least future generations won't have to look at them, although g-d knows what new crap the marketers to people who like "new, shiny" things will have come up with by then.

Posted by: babs at January 12, 2009 6:18 PM

About incentives to build better, there already is incentive to build better and nicer but that doesn't mean all developers understand or embrace that. These Fedders style buildings are being built because there is an especially large community of cheapo developers in this borough who strive to make a minimal investment first and foremost. That's all they care about; they're not responding to trends in the market nor do they care about appealing to the new wave of buyers in brownstone Brooklyn. The concept of larger profit after larger investment by appealing to a different market is totally lost on them. They'd never spend what it takes to hire a decent architect. There are buyers for these condos as Chaka describes (sounds like my first-generation FIL who is the Anti-Aesthete he cares so little about design). The recession might keep buyers away but not the design. The only disincentive the market really offers is for the land in one's neighborhood to become too expensive for these bottom-line dudes.

BTW, not that I'm in love with it, but this one is not as bad as a lot of these buildings in Brooklyn. At least the windows are large and nice unlike the typical tiny postage stamp size window on these things. Where you see an ocean of brick and then one or two tiny windows. Baffling.

Posted by: traditionalmod at January 12, 2009 7:00 PM

Bizarre. It's not like these Fedders houses are either (a) McMansions or (b) cheap. These Fedders houses are not desirable. Get outside NYC, there are zillions of more attractive, brand new, shiny homes that appeal to loads of people who don't like old houses and wouldn't like a Fedders house either. These look like schools and orphanages I used to build on missionary trips.

Posted by: mopar at January 12, 2009 11:05 PM

Post a comment

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

Latest Restaurant Additions