« Brighton Beach Getting a Rezoning Too House of the Day: 150 Bond Street Revisited »

January 21, 2009

Co-op of the Day: 310 Windsor Place

The kitchen and bathroom aren't our favorites, but the rest of this three-bedroom co-op at 310 Windsor Place is certainly attractive and, at $649,000, not a crazy price for a "family-sized" apartment within steps of the park; we also like the fact that the maintenance is just $731 for a 1,150-square-foot pad. The major drawback of this place, as we see it, is the fact that there is only one bathroom. It's one thing for a two-bedroom, but it seems like a three-bedroom could really use an extra toilet at the very least. Thoughts on the price?
310 Windsor Place [Dwelling] GMAP P*Shark

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/8049

Comments

The grammatical mistakes ^^^^^would make BRG look like a college English professor.

Aside from that, how can a one bedroom be a "family-sized" apartment???

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at January 21, 2009 12:57 PM

You sneaky devil...you caught the obvious one.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at January 21, 2009 12:58 PM

We live in a 3 br, 1 bath, with 2 kids. Not so bad, but the tradeoff for us at our price point was the extra br. Now if we're still there when are kids are teenagers, it could be a more serious issue.

I've always thought WT was underpriced compared with Park Slope/South Slope. I don't live there but if things pick up in 5 years or so we would seriously consider buying a big co-op or small house there.

650k is a fair ask, given that sellers would probably take 600. Low maintenance is a big, big plus. The kitchen isn't great, but it looks functional and isn't a dealbreaker by any means.

Posted by: Bolder at January 21, 2009 1:06 PM

I think it was Bob Marley who said: No floorplan, no buy.

Posted by: cwbuecheler at January 21, 2009 1:09 PM

650 is fair price to be this close to the park and to park slope. obviously the 1 bathroom thing is a set back, which is why the place isnt priced at 750 or 800.

Posted by: bktycoon at January 21, 2009 1:14 PM

Bolder, is your apartment about the same size--under 1,200 square feet? If so, hats off to you all. I would sooner kill myself than live in such a small place with 2 kids. Or more relevantly, I would sooner leave the city than do so. No way Brooklyn is worth squeazing into this with a family of four for me.

Posted by: shillstoner at January 21, 2009 1:15 PM

I have friends in that building, they are 2 BRs with DRs, same layout all around. And the Baths are very tiny. So I can't figure out where the 3rd BR is in this one. A floorplan is needed. Apartments in that building sold for mid-500s 2 years ago, hard to justify such an increase, IMO

Posted by: WTbound at January 21, 2009 1:21 PM

3-bedrooms and 1-bath is a problem.
I bet either the living room or the dining room was turned into the 3rd bedroom to appeal to the "huddled masses" market. As a result, the kitchen/dining/living area looks very cramped.
There is no mention of a doorman or elevator.
I just can't see the draw here.
If the co-op is healthy and has over 70% sold shares, I would bid 500,000, maybe you could add a bathroom at great expense and hassle.
If the co-op is under 70% onwer-occupied then keep walkin'. It could fail in today's climate.

Posted by: sam at January 21, 2009 1:23 PM

Sorry, I meant bathroom at 12:57.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at January 21, 2009 1:29 PM

Woah. I just looked at a one bedroom apartment that totaled 1150 square feet. That place must be teeny.

Posted by: serpentor at January 21, 2009 2:00 PM

Shill, ours is 1275 sf. 3 br with dining room and maid's room off kitchen.

I'm not saying this place is a palace, but if you think of it as a 2 br with study, then the 1 ba doesn't seem undoable. I've often fantasized about wedging a half bath into the maid's room but I don't think I can use the same plumbing stack as the kitchen, and it would be pretty complex at any rate.

WTbound seems to have more insight on the floorplan, though, and while I don't think 1150 sf is tiny in NYC, it could feel really cramped.

Posted by: Bolder at January 21, 2009 2:24 PM

Bolder, as I said, Hats Off! It's not something I could or would do with 2 kids. Or even one, really. But different strokes.

Posted by: shillstoner at January 21, 2009 3:07 PM

I would bet that this apartment, sight unseen, is a maximum of 920 rsf (real square feet).
That is the typical size for a walk-up 2-bedroom 1-bath unit from the WWI era.
It is a nice apartment for a couple with a kid, but not two kids. Making these alterations (including the demo of the kitchen) just cheapens the unit and makes it less attractive to a lot of people, in my opinion.

Posted by: sam at January 21, 2009 3:25 PM

Saw this one when Corcoran was listing it this summer. The puny single bathroom is one problem but that fact that two of the bedrooms can barely hold a double is worse.

Posted by: househunt at January 21, 2009 4:00 PM

If the bedrooms are really small, then it is probably closer to 820 real square feet.

Posted by: sam at January 21, 2009 4:07 PM

I grew up in a similar but smaller apt with both a brother and sister. Yeah, sharing that one bathroom was fun! Never do it again tho, but still, I'd do just about anything to avoid the burbs.

Posted by: denton at January 21, 2009 4:08 PM

I'm sure it is fine for some people. Personally, I have friends who live in suburbs that I would be perfectly happy living in where 650K can buy a nice farmhouse on an acre or a cool 60's contempo in the woods. I would much prefer that to cramming into a little apartment. I'd miss parts of city life, but I'd be happy to be surrounded by trees and be close to hiking, biking, swimming and other things. Personally, I could go either way--and if this is all I could afford, the burbs is the way I'd go.

Posted by: shillstoner at January 21, 2009 5:38 PM

I agree with shillstoner, this is a fine apartment for a young couple or maybe even a couple with a baby (although it's a walkup) but at some point, people want more. More space, more amenity, not just the basics. That is why people moved to the suburbs in the first place. Because of little apartments with one little bathroom like this. It is ironic in a way that now one is seeing young families who want to stay in the city so much they would cram themselves and their children (who are not given a vote) into a mean little "Honeymooners" walkup.
As I said, this is a great pad for two, or even better, for one -like a divorced Dad who has the kids over now and then, but for a family? forget it! This isn't Bangladesh.
There are options out there.

Posted by: sam at January 21, 2009 6:45 PM

everyone wants more...not everyone can afford it.

Posted by: slick at January 21, 2009 7:42 PM

If you can afford this, you can afford a better deal.
Think about this, a single Mom of two or three on welfare looking to be placed in housing, would reject this apartment. She would want two bathrooms, an elevator, and possibly parking. It is so weird that working people in NYC have such low expectations. They should take a page from the book of the smart poor. Demand more!

Posted by: sam at January 21, 2009 7:52 PM

Theres idiots born every day and anybody paying even 500k for this place - esp in a rapidly deteriorating environment - would unequivocally qualify as an idiot. Most with half a brain and in this income class would rent vs stretching oneself long term in a debilitating, depreciating asset.

Posted by: cornerbodega at January 21, 2009 8:45 PM

Do you people live in NYC? Parking?? Who has parking in their building in NYC? I am thinking about all of my friends who are raising families in Brooklyn and Manhattan. Only a couple families have two bathrooms and none have an elevator. And absolutely no one is poor. If you want to live in the nicer neighborhoods in Brooklyn, that is the reality of life... and the thing is, we all love living here and our kids seem to have a good time, too. I live in a two bedroom with a dining room (and just one measly bathroom, tho quite a nice one) with two kids. I have a neighbor who used to rent in our building before it went co-op in the 80s. Nice, Irish woman who lived in our building in the 50s and 60s. She raised seven kids in the 4th floor apartment. Now that is a bummer.

Posted by: wishinone at January 21, 2009 9:19 PM

most public housing projects have parking for their residents.
it's just a fact.

Posted by: sam at January 21, 2009 9:43 PM

> "Who has parking in their building in NYC?"

Basically all of the post-war apartment buildings in Kensington and Ditmas Park for starters...

Posted by: SnarkSlope at January 21, 2009 9:50 PM

« Brighton Beach Getting a Rezoning Too House of the Day: 150 Bond Street Revisited »

January 21, 2009

Co-op of the Day: 310 Windsor Place

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions