House of the Day: 213 Congress Street

Across the Street is 200-220 Congress Street Co-ops. An apartment there was featured some time ago. Here. It is not project. Yes, it was built in 1949-50 as rental apartments and turned Co-op in 1980. NOT a project. I lived there for 7 years quiet happily and around the neighborhood for 20 years until buying a house in Ditmas Park.

May not be the prettiest of buildings, but is well run, the building is set back with very well kept grounds in front. At the intersection of Congress and Court is St. Paul's church:

From the AIA Guide, it would seem that much of this church was designed and built about 1838 by Gamaliel King, allowing St. Paul's parish to claim that their church is the oldest Catholic church in continuous use in Brooklyn. The steeple was added in the 1860's, and other enlargements were made. The church fronts on Court Street, the chapel and rectory on Congress Street. For a while, the parish had three names: St. Peter (from the parish on Hicks Street that is now a condo), Our Lady of Pilar, and St. Peter. The signs now name it as the parish of St. Peter and St. Agnes, with services alternating between the two church buildings. St. Agnes is on Sackett Street.

Crappy streetview indeed.

Posted by: 1910 at January 26, 2009 2:28 PM

And may I add that every Spring the shareholders get together and plant flowers in fron of that "some sort of project" and tend to the through to Fall.

Among the residents when I left in 2005 included a few people who lived in the building since it was brand new, several lawyers, a judge, banking execs, two artists, teachers, and newer young professionals.

On the other intersection across from the "project" is Cobble Hill Park.

Look on NY Times a few apartments may be up for sale in 200, 210, or 220 Congress for an idea of interiors.

Posted by: 1910 at January 26, 2009 2:39 PM

The view out your front window and down your street is as important as the amenities inside.
Location, location, location. The view out your front window and down your street is as important as the amenities inside.

- Um, a well overlooking a well maintained building with community minded residents and board, with a historic church to the left of your street view and a park to the right of your street view?

Posted by: 1910 at January 26, 2009 2:46 PM

I think those buildings 200, 210 and 220 are very unpleasant to look at. Especially for 4.4 million dollars. I'm sure someone will be fine with it, but for that much money, I agree that the location outside the door should be more beautiful.

Posted by: 11217 at January 26, 2009 2:54 PM

The gardens and landscaping ARE beautiful.

But for 4.4 million, you can find a house that looks out onto a much less depressing looking grouping of buildings.

No one is arguing that Cobble Hill and the block are nice, but for this price, I would prefer a house on a park block, or one with at least all townhouses.

You do realize that the reason WHY they spend so much time on the flowers and landscaping is precisely BECAUSE they know the buildings are unattractive.

Same goes for the Clinton Hill co-ops. Lovely landscaping and grounds to make up for less than beautiful buildings.

Posted by: 11217 at January 26, 2009 3:12 PM

Sam, Petebklyn, cobblehiller, DeLepp have it right.

I do think you need to walk the block to get a better feel for the buildings and surroundings and how they affect the street as a whole before passing judgement.

Posted by: 1910 at January 26, 2009 3:16 PM

Yes, location does indeed seem to be subjective.

Posted by: 11217 at January 26, 2009 3:27 PM

the "Brownstone Experience" should become a big catch phrase on this site.

It encapsulates self entitlement so well.

Posted by: 1910 at January 26, 2009 3:32 PM

Was a joke, not pointed at you.

BUT If you are going to shout and start using language because others may have a different opinion and then make sweeping statments about getting "whatever I want" if I shelling out $4.4 million for a house - then quod erat demonstratum!

Posted by: 1910 at January 26, 2009 3:49 PM

So Warren Street was asking 8 million and closed for 5.4 million?

I think this one needs to be discounted on that same level.

If I remember correctly, Warren is a much more beautiful street and that house was FAR more beautiful inside as well.

Posted by: 11217 at January 26, 2009 3:52 PM

Are you really telling me that for 4.4 million dollars, you want to look out the window at this...??

http://www.brownstoner.com/brownstoner/archives/2008/03/coop_of_the_day_101.php

Posted by: 11217 at January 26, 2009 4:04 PM

I just realized that on the write-up of the brownstoner article I linked about this, it says it is pre-war, but I believe it was built in 1952.

Posted by: 11217 at January 26, 2009 4:08 PM

I'm not sure what you mean, Dave. Break it?

I'm not that computer savvy.

Can you just click on the link so it highlights itself, then cut and paste or no?

Posted by: 11217 at January 26, 2009 4:12 PM

http://www.brownstoner.com/brownstoner/
archives/2008/03/coop_of_the_day_101.php

better?

Posted by: 11217 at January 26, 2009 4:16 PM

I say 3.5 mil

Posted by: 11217 at January 26, 2009 4:20 PM

I've seen the "unsightly" buildings many times in person, and I wouldn't want to live across the street for it if I were paying 4.4 million.

In fact, I'm not sure what amount of money would do it, when there are plenty of other beautiful blocks with less expensive houses not across from 3 huge hulking ugly brick buildings.

But as Dave has said, if you love it, go buy it.

We are each entitled to our own opinions.

Posted by: 11217 at January 26, 2009 7:32 PM

Waterfront,

Can you read? I said twice already today that I've walked this block many times. I've seen the buildings. Give it a rest.

Many not so nice looking buildings all over the city (I can think of 2 huge ugly buildings in Murray Hill) which spend a lot of time and care on the landscaping outside, no doubt to spruce up the lackluster exterior.

It's really not rocket science.

I love how many boosters there are on today for these Congress Street buildings, but the SECOND something is posted about some far less hideous new construction place of 4 stories or more, you are all over letting everyone know how truly out of place and ugly it really is.

Posted by: 11217 at January 26, 2009 8:50 PM

Cetus, that house looks absolutely amazing!

Posted by: 11217 at January 26, 2009 8:55 PM

Sam, you've said it before yourself haven't you...? Location, location, location is the mantra for real estate.

In this housing bubble, people's ideas of location were skewed in some cases in the pursuit of high profits which clouded their judgment, but I think we're going back to a more "normal" state where people are a lot more picky.

3 years ago, people would have bought this sight unseen because they thought it would be gone in a day or sell for 5 million 6 months later.

Now for 4.4 million, people can stand to be a little more picky with regard to location. The buyers have the upper hand again. They can afford to have qualms about 3 bland, but well kept monstrosities across the street from them, if they please.

This stuff matters again more than it once did. It's just a natural progression in the deflation of the housing bubble, it would seem, and reflects the changing nature of the real world as well as the threads on this blog.

Posted by: 11217 at January 26, 2009 10:07 PM