« Last Week's Biggest Sales House of the Day: 657 East 24th Street »

February 24, 2009

Co-op of the Day: 360 Clinton Avenue

This massive prewar apartment at 360 Clinton Avenue in Clinton Hill just hit the market and looks pretty interesting. With its current price tag of $850,000, the 1,972-square-foot apartment is priced at about $430 per foot; given that there's not a doorman, the monthly maintenance of $1,673 doesn't seem like a bargain (but is probably explainable by the fact that, from all appearances, this big spread is likely the result of combining two apartments). Waddya think?
360 Clinton Avenue [Douglas Elliman] GMAP P*Shark

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/8542

Comments

cool! My old building. This unit is comprised of two apartments that were combined. Never seen a space that large in that building. That is why the maintenance is so high---two apts worth. The doorman is part-time, 4 til midnight. Its a great great building but I highly doubt they will see that price.

Posted by: wasder at February 24, 2009 12:44 PM

i think i need someone to lend me 850,000... I can pay the monthly fee.

Posted by: missing_cobblehill at February 24, 2009 12:46 PM

Nice place but given location I can see maybe $3,000/mo rent max. Let's see...20% down, mortgage payment $4,500/mo., only 3K negative cash flow a month! Great investment!

Posted by: thedudeabides at February 24, 2009 12:53 PM

Oy Vey!

Posted by: PropJoe at February 24, 2009 12:55 PM

They're not going to rent it out, dumbass

Posted by: PropJoe at February 24, 2009 12:56 PM

Wall colors remind me of a now-defunct California diner chain in all shades of berry.

Didn't you read buyers don't like to repaint now?

Posted by: mopar at February 24, 2009 12:57 PM

This place is huge. It is also beautifully done. The maintenance is not high considering how large a place it is.
It is 20,000 a year, and part of it is tax-deductible because it includes real estate taxes and interest payments on the underlying mortgage.
This is a really good deal for a large family. $20,000 is what many suburban home owners pay in real estate tax. Brownstones in the area pay much lower RE taxes but they are still ridiculously over-priced and many are in shambles requiring a lot of reno costs. 800,000 for a huge, move-in condition co-op is not bad at all. Plus all the rooms are on one floor (unlike a brownsone) and there is an elevator. I like it.

Posted by: sam at February 24, 2009 12:58 PM

i thought prewars always had high ceilings. what is up with those? they look like 7 feet high. i do like the decor tho.

*r*

Posted by: PitbullNYC at February 24, 2009 12:58 PM

this place would rent for around 4k maybe more. maybe

its huge.

Posted by: Santa at February 24, 2009 1:01 PM

Ceilings in this building are 9 feet Rob.

Posted by: wasder at February 24, 2009 1:01 PM

Alot of space, and yet alot of wasted space.
The layout can be so much better.
Hello, master bedroom suite w/ private bath?!?!?!?

Posted by: bayridgegirl at February 24, 2009 1:02 PM

alot of wasted space.

Its because of the nature of combining two apts with two separate entrance ways and foyers etc.

Posted by: wasder at February 24, 2009 1:04 PM

quote:

Ceilings in this building are 9 feet Rob.

that's still shorty pie for a pre-war.

*r*

Posted by: PitbullNYC at February 24, 2009 1:05 PM

If this rents for $4k, then the owner gets 2,327 after maintenance. x 12 / 850k = 3.3% return. Pretty shabby. Goes up to 4% if you can get $4,500 which is still crappy.

Would probably do better to split it back into two apartments - just need to board up the office and install a $10k ikea kitchen.

Posted by: the chicken at February 24, 2009 1:11 PM

Chicken I think you are right that the seller would make more dough selling this as two units.

Posted by: wasder at February 24, 2009 1:12 PM

The first "Family-size" apartment I've seen in awhile at a decent price. I do think the maintenance is high though. Sam points out that the 20K a year is what you'd pay in the burbs for taxes, but in the burbs you're paying for good free schools. Nonetheless I can see this aparement having some appeal for a family.

Posted by: shillstoner at February 24, 2009 1:19 PM

PropJoe...finally something sane out of your mouth. Thanks, he was a dumbass.

It's not an investment property people. No one would look at it as such. So many people with so little grasp here.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at February 24, 2009 1:21 PM

Can't imagine it would cost more than $20k to do including legal and I bet there are a lot more people willing to spend $400k on an apartment than $800k right now.

And yet despite that, I do quite like it. If only the maintenance weren't so high....

Posted by: the chicken at February 24, 2009 1:22 PM

Either you're rich, and you buy this because you want a ton of space in a pre-war (not easy to find), or you're not rich, and you don't buy this. I agree with Sam that it's not the type of property that attracts investors/flippers/etc. It's a totally different class of buyer.

Posted by: cwbuecheler at February 24, 2009 1:32 PM

That maintenance is the deal breaker for me.

Posted by: BrooklynButler at February 24, 2009 1:37 PM

PropJoe, Daveinbedstuy: Anyone who would shell out almost a million dollars for an asset and not consider cash flow is the dumbass. Unfortunately, as you illustrate, this describes a good portion of Americans and goes a long way in explaining the mess we are currently in

Posted by: thedudeabides at February 24, 2009 1:37 PM

Combining apts, doesn't necessarily have to mean wasted space. This one is just laid out very very badly.
btw - looks like they're using the 12'-1" x 17'-8" 'bedroom' as the dining room.

- They should have sealed off one entrance.
- Or considered buying some of the public corridor and creating one entrance (facing the windows) and a squared off 'office' area, by knocking down that north wall, that could have been used as the dining area.
Is that too far from the kitchen?? Then they could have left the other kitchen location, which I bet is where the 'office' is. Enlarged it a bit (would have had to fight the co-op board for that) and made the family room the dining room.
- or 'family room and the 'bedroom' to the right combined to create a master bedroom suite with walk-in closet, sitting area and private bathroom.

Oh, and there aren't enough closets for an apt. this size.

When combining apts. the possibilities are plenty.

Posted by: bayridgegirl at February 24, 2009 1:38 PM

Remember seeing in 2002 the huge 2 bdrm units (bigger than the 2 bdrm of this combined unit) for ~340k and similar 1 bdrm units for ~260k. relatively to those price pts ~6-7 yrs ago (units then not as good condition as this), it's actually one of the more modest mark-up (~250k appreciation over 7 yrs) I've seen in a long time. 850k is not cheap but see more expensive listing out there currently. Think an offer of 725k has any shot of being accepted?

Posted by: more4less at February 24, 2009 1:51 PM

"Think an offer of 725k has any shot of being accepted?"

I bet yes. Maybe not right away but in a few weeks when they haven't hit their ask probably so.

Posted by: wasder at February 24, 2009 2:01 PM

"wasted space" is what makes a grand apartment really grand.
I like the idea of having all those rooms. 11!
I think some posters are not understanding how big a place this is. I would imagine the rental for this would be at least $6,000 a month. it has four bedrooms and three bathrooms and an extra study.
Combined apartments are farly common in the nicer parts of Brooklyn where people are willing and able to pay for space.

Posted by: sam at February 24, 2009 2:07 PM

that apartment is huge and for that price, a very good deal. i would definitely buy it.

Posted by: girlongrand62 at February 24, 2009 2:13 PM

guess the wait is on.

Posted by: more4less at February 24, 2009 2:17 PM

Well, it's not THAT big. It's 1,900 square feet, which is slightly larger 2 floors of a full-size brownstone.

Posted by: shillstoner at February 24, 2009 2:17 PM

thedudeabides...obviously you have no experience with buying a higher end residence, something nice, that you want to live in. Fool.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at February 24, 2009 2:19 PM

But its 1900 square feet all on one level, no stair and stairhall. Its huge. How many floors would yo need to climb to get eleven rooms in a brownstone?

Posted by: sam at February 24, 2009 2:26 PM

Sam...maybe 'Grand' for me is not so much about size but about how things are laid out.
You can have a 'grand' 600 sq. ft. 1 bedroom apt., if it's done properly.

In my 'grand' 1900 sq. ft. apartment I'd like a master bedroom with a walk-in closet and my very own private bathroom, not one I have to go out into a hall, fearing my kids seeing me butt naked.

Posted by: bayridgegirl at February 24, 2009 2:30 PM

daveinbedstuy....if you think that place is worth $850K not for income potential but because someone will pay more for it in the future, my theory is that you are the greater fool! (look it up)

Posted by: thedudeabides at February 24, 2009 2:35 PM

BRG...you're right. A "drand" home has to have a large ensuite bath. There isn't even an attached bath to the larger master bedroom. that was the one thing I spent money on upgrading when i bought my place...a big 10' X 14' ensuite bath and then another one down the hall for the guests.

It's harder to reconfigure units in these pre-war high rises to accomodate such things.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at February 24, 2009 2:36 PM

Wasder... do they allow W/D's in the apartments of this building? I'd ask Minsky, but he's too slick.

Posted by: buttermilk channel at February 24, 2009 2:36 PM

"grand"

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at February 24, 2009 2:36 PM

dude...you're such a fool. People don't buy a primary residence to flip it in 2-4 years. They'll eventually make money on it. Get rid of your "renter mentality"

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at February 24, 2009 2:38 PM

buttermilk...you might not get a correct answer from the broker. Ask the super....and if he says no, ask him if that's cast in stone. My condo in Manhattan didn't "allow" them but many had them and all you had to do was make sure the delivery went smoothly by tipping the super.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at February 24, 2009 2:40 PM

Wasder... do they allow W/D's in the apartments of this building? I'd ask Minsky, but he's too slick.

buttermilk--they definitely do not allow W/D in these units, much to some people's consternation. However they have a very generous laundry facility in the basement that I never had a problem with...

Posted by: wasder at February 24, 2009 2:43 PM

thedudeabides, they also probably don't allow owners to sublet their apts to renters. Few coops do.

Posted by: mopar at February 24, 2009 2:53 PM

Rob, these nine-foot pre-war ceilings always look short partly because they are and partly because the 1930s rooms are so ridiculously long. I like brownstones much better.

Posted by: mopar at February 24, 2009 2:56 PM

Thanks very much Wasder and DIBS. The Minskster would have given me the old runaround.
This is a very nice apartment. I could finally have an air-hockey room.

Posted by: buttermilk channel at February 24, 2009 2:58 PM

buttermilk--its a really great building over all. offer 750 and see what happens.

Posted by: wasder at February 24, 2009 3:01 PM

well sure, there's grand and then there is deluxe grand.
I agree that a master bedroom should have his and hers baths and walk-in cedar lined closets and an attached dressing room. But for $800,000, this is pretty good.

Posted by: sam at February 24, 2009 3:03 PM

Yes, sam, that's a good reality check. I bought my brownstone for $820 and didn't expect it, so I put it in afterwards. This is a good price for this unit.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at February 24, 2009 3:07 PM

Guys, I think your comments are a little beside the point. When determining how much an apartment is worth, you need to consider how much an equivalent apartment would rent for (in fact, when computing the CPI, the gov't uses "owners' equivalent rent" not housing prices). If rents get too out of whack with prices, people will choose to rent instead of buying, driving sale prices down, and vice versa when rents get too high (say in 1997)

I completely agree with the concept of looking at a place as a home rather than an investment, but when considering how much one is willing to pay for a given place one looks at prices on comparable apartments, which are effectively set by rents as per the logic above.

In fact, buying a place solely because you think someone will pay more for it in the future is the definition of bubble mentality, as described by the greater fool theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_fool_theory

The ignorance in this country about fundamental economics is astounding and worrisome. That said, I have some real estate to sell you. You should pay whatever I ask because the more you pay, the more money you will make when you sell it for more in the future!

Posted by: thedudeabides at February 24, 2009 3:10 PM

I think it sounds expensive for what/where it is.

I absolutely don't think it's worth over 750K. Especially not with that maintenance. Those costs don't go down...they only go up. And for that monthly nut, you should AT LEAST have a full time doorman. I can't imagine spending a million dollars on an apartment to go into the basement to do my laundry.

Nothing about that is "grand"

Posted by: 11217 at February 24, 2009 3:17 PM

Wasder, that's wrong. why R U telling buttermilk to offer 750k when I'm waiting in bushes to offer 725k?

Posted by: more4less at February 24, 2009 3:19 PM

11217--as someone who lived in this building I can say with some assurance that you wouldn't buy here if "grand" were your first and primary motivation. However, for how much space this is its a pretty damn good deal. And the location is second to none in Clinton Hill, this block and the ones on either side of it being as prime as Clinton Hill gets. That is a ton of space if you are a two income family and need room for kids.

Posted by: wasder at February 24, 2009 3:20 PM

Its a crap load of space, but yes, it does have som ewasted space. I would wanrt to expand the kitchen and break down a wall or two. But, hell, I would love to live in that much space.

Posted by: saminthehood at February 24, 2009 3:22 PM

What I don't like about it is, for such a large apt, that it has a tiny kitchen and no FDR, only a tiny 'dining area'.

Posted by: denton at February 24, 2009 3:27 PM

more4less---sorry! I forgot what number you had mentioned. One of you guys should buy this place.

Posted by: wasder at February 24, 2009 3:28 PM

Does anyone understand thedudea's point?
Why would I think of how much I can rent my home for?
Why should that be a consideration of my purchase? I don't think I get it.
Especially in New York where rents in pre-war buildings tend to be out of whack with reality thanks to rent regulations. Where can you find, for rent, a comparable apartment to this? In the Apthorpe? The Belnord? Where in Brooklyn?

Posted by: sam at February 24, 2009 3:28 PM

It doesn't seem like THAT great of a deal.

Here is a 2300 sf place in Park Slope (3 bedroom/3 bath) for 1.295 million but has maintenance of $800 bucks a month.

Obviously it's a lot more expensive (so I'm not comparing on that point) but it also quite a bit larger and seems to have more amenities for half the maintenance.

http://www.corcoran.com/property/listing.aspx?Region=NYC&ListingID=1389117&ohDat=3/1/2009%2012:00:00%20AM;

Posted by: 11217 at February 24, 2009 3:30 PM

11217---that is an interesting listing. But that apt is right off 4th Ave. I would much rather live on Clinton Ave then in that part of the slope, not to start that conversation again (haha). cost wise, with the lower common charges it is somewhat the same but the monthly nut is still about a grand less on Clinton. All things being equal I would take the Clinton Ave apt.

Posted by: wasder at February 24, 2009 3:35 PM

sam...he's one of those OCD people who will never buy a place unless all the numbers agree. He doesn't understand that many people might actually pay up to live in a place that really fits their needs, they are in love with and want to live there for a long time. He's probably not a very happy person. Lives alone. Nitpicks at work and is a generally annoying person to be with. He will split the bill at a restaurant item-by-item.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at February 24, 2009 3:37 PM

This used to be my old building too, Wasder. Loved living here (2001-2007). I know the owner of this apartment, and yes it is two combined. She has put extensive time and money into renovations. The people who used to live above her also had the apartments combined (without much renovation. when it came time to sell, they couldn't get as much for the whole, so they put a wall back and sold the two apartments individually. Made at least a million -- or very close to it -- if I am not mistaken. Might be something to consider here -- although theirs was for sale in 2007. Anyway, good luck to the seller! Certainly wish her luck.

Posted by: MacD at February 24, 2009 3:40 PM

Some of you need to familiarize yourself with craigslist sometime.

Here is a 4 bedroom 2200 sf loft in Clinton Hill renting for $3595 a month.

http://newyork.craigslist.org/search/aap?query=clinton+hill&minAsk=3000&maxAsk=max&bedrooms=

Maybe it's missing the PT doorman, but so what. It's 2K less to rent this LARGER space than it is to buy the one listed here today.

There are PAGES of listings for nice huge, family friendly places in Brooklyn (in MUCH better locations than this with good schools) for less than 4K a month.

The dudeabides is correct.

Posted by: 11217 at February 24, 2009 3:41 PM

MacD--lived there from 02 until about 6 months ago.

Posted by: wasder at February 24, 2009 3:41 PM

Wasder, fair enough. I think Clinton Ave is probably prettier also, but if I had a family big enough that I needed this much space, I think I'd prefer to save the 30K per child on school and take the PS place.

There is SOME difference for loving something enough to buy over rent, but not when the numbers are THIS out of whack.

I just found 100 listings of 1500 plus square feet in Prime Brooklyn neighborhoods for 4K a month or less.

So why would you buy something exactly the same for 6K or 7k a month?

Posted by: 11217 at February 24, 2009 3:44 PM

Here was the actual craigslist link...

http://newyork.craigslist.org/brk/fee/1047661724.html

Posted by: 11217 at February 24, 2009 3:45 PM

This is arguably in a better location and costs at least 1-2K less per month (to rent) than to buy the Clinton Hill place...

Right on Plaza Street, elevator building...4800/month

http://newyork.craigslist.org/brk/fee/1037006342.html

Posted by: 11217 at February 24, 2009 3:49 PM

Here's 4 bedrooms, 3 baths, Elevator, Doorman, etc in Prospect Heights/Park Slope for $4900 a month.

http://newyork.craigslist.org/brk/fee/1027224067.html

Posted by: 11217 at February 24, 2009 3:53 PM

I just found 100 listings of 1500 plus square feet in Prime Brooklyn neighborhoods for 4K a month or less.

So why would you buy something exactly the same for 6K or 7k a month?

Fair enough. You would really have to want to live in Clinton Hill for this deal to make sense I guess. According the mortgage calculator I looked at the nut on the Clinton Ave house could be as low as 5,500 per month depending on the interest rate. But obviously if you can get that much space in a neighborhood you like for 2G less per month its hard to argue with.

Posted by: wasder at February 24, 2009 3:54 PM

At today's rate for a jumbo loan, wasder, my figure for the mortgage on this place came closer to $6500, but then you also have to factor in the mortgage interest deduction, of course...in which case the number is probably closer to yours.

I just don't think it's as much of a deal as many have said. It would be a deal for 600K. Certainly not for anything like 850k with that monthly maintenance to have a doorman for a few hours and laundry in the basement.

Posted by: 11217 at February 24, 2009 3:57 PM

Posted by: MacD at February 24, 2009 4:02 PM

1 bad thing about pre-war units is the wooden flrs dont dampen the noise, to neighbors below, of kids running & jumping around. That is the 1 advantage of the cement flrs of post-war bldgs.

purely from investmt standpt, hard to convince oneself to invest this much $$$ buying a residence over rolling the dice later on in the stk, bond, or commodities mkt. Let's not kid ourselves, it's anyone's guess what is the go-forward real estate appreciation rate post this credit bubble. When buying for the need for space, valuation is only relevant from standpoint of understanding cashflow vs. rental option. The days of banking on juicy future appreciation to justify the expensive decision today are over or at best TBD. Buy it cause you can afford it, have no other better use for the $$$, and cause you want / need the space. if prices do pop, consider that to be a pleasant surprise when you sell it.

Posted by: more4less at February 24, 2009 4:05 PM

Thanks for the voices of sanity above.

Agree that if you love a place the numbers might make sense to you even if the potential rental income doesn't support the price. However, when making the major decision to purchase an apartment in NYC, I think it is important to understand what someone else would be willing to pay for the place in the unfortunate circumstance that you need to sell (lots of people losing their jobs these days).

Regarding your other comments:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Posted by: thedudeabides at February 24, 2009 4:41 PM

"thedudeabides...obviously you have no experience with buying a higher end residence, something nice, that you want to live in. Fool." ~dibs

Yet another classic from a guy who is living in a "high end" residence smack in the ghetto. YOU CAN'T MAKE THIS SH8T UP!

Posted by: cornerbodega at February 24, 2009 5:21 PM

If you're questioning the price on this, then those condos at Claremont Greene going for 750K make NO sense at all.

This is zoned for ps 11, which is a good school. It's a block from the subway on a gorgeous, well-kept block. Yes, maintenance is high, really high, but for that amount of space this is one time I'm gonna say, so what? If this were a fantasy world and I a lottery winner (who had recently lost a bidding war on the Empire mansion across the street) I would totally consider this.

Posted by: Heather at February 24, 2009 5:25 PM

This is a good deal. Under $1 psf maint. is low -- and that's the metric you should be using. Now, the argument about renting a comparable place isn't a bad one, but you have to weigh how long you want to live here. I don't think anyone is buying now to flip in 2 or 3 years, so if you like the area (I do), like prewar (I do) and can afford it...

I don't think I'd buy anything anywhere right now if i thought it wasn't going to be a long-term (minimum 6-7 years) investment.

Posted by: Bolder at February 24, 2009 6:03 PM

many of the posters on this blog, and I have been reading it for about two weeks, do not understand the concept of "maintenance" in cooperative apartment.
It is not a penalty you have to pay for not owning a house, it is not "rent" as several have termed it. It is the carrying costs of the building. In a good co-op a good chunk is tax-deductible, true that is only a good thing if you are making money, but most people are, even now.
But the most astonishing, even childish comments, are the ones about splitting up the units again. Combined, the apartment is worth much more than divided. Big apartments like this, with such reasonable carrying charges are quite rare. This is a lovely apartment I love the wasted space, and many of the super high-end apartments I have been in on Fifth Avenue and Park Avenue have workable but small kitchens. 11217 is the most irrational of the posters. i think he is Mr. Contrarian. I wonder how old he is.

Posted by: mcKenzie at February 24, 2009 6:49 PM

Just to step into the fray: I am surprised that the dude's point about value/rent ratios is so mystifying to folks around here -- it's not all that arcane. Assuming away NYC's many market distortions, he's basically right. When ratios head upwards of 30, for instance, something's got to give.

Of course someone may find an apartment that's perfect for them and buy it without a thought for its rental value or resale value. But even if you plan to stay in your apartment until you peacefully and painlessly pass away in your sleep it's helpful to consider the future trajectory of home values, as it will affect your taxes and ability to refi when you lose that cushy sinecure in the financial sector.

Posted by: tonewlots at February 24, 2009 7:01 PM

mckenzie - most of all the high-end apartments on 5th, park etc were built with small kitchens because the owners NEVER went in there to cook. In fact some of the building had (a few still have) dining rooms on the first floor for the residents. The staff cooked. I would imagine someone looking for that type of space in brooklyn has one or more younger children and would spend mucho time in the kitchen and dining area - as do almost every family with younger children. For that price and that space you would certainly want to have a bigger kitchen - the owner was stupid not to do the reno herself.

Posted by: saminthehood at February 24, 2009 7:27 PM

I didn't move to new York City to spend my time in a big old kitchen. Screw that!
I like small kitchens, tucked away so nobody sees the stains on the stovetop. Big kitchens are usually just show-off stuff. I was raised by an urbane mother who thought that any day she did not step into the kitchen was a good day. I'm with her.

Posted by: mcKenzie at February 24, 2009 8:11 PM

I can't believe that no one has mentioned that Jerry Minsky is selling this place. I think it is gorgeous and, certainly, a deal for this kind of square footage. I'm sure it will sell quickly.

Posted by: cobble hill girl at February 24, 2009 8:48 PM

sam in the hood: oops!
better think twice before advising women that what they want is a big kitchen so they can spend a lot of time there with the kids. That is a little too retro. mcKenzie's response made me laugh. Screw that!
Actually most over-the-top kitchens are designed for men.
The usually can't cook and definitely will not clean up, but it's a macho thing to have a stove that can burn as much fuel in two minutes as NASA's latest booster rocket.
-the "other" sam

Posted by: sam at February 24, 2009 9:02 PM

How Brooklyn of you. My comment wasnt posted at women, but at parents with kids. Dads and moms. Look, in most of this country the kitchen is the heart of the home. Only in NYC is that not true. And from someone who loves to cook, a big kitchen with tons of counter space is worth every penny. My point is if you have the space for a big kitchen, dont waste it.

PS - I also dont like people seeing the stains on my stove and the dishes in my sink, which is why I hate open kitchens.

- the "real" sam ;)

Posted by: saminthehood at February 24, 2009 9:56 PM

well Sam, you know New York is special.
Folks have to have a lot on the ball to move here and make it. It's not anywhere USA. Most folks who have two million dollars to buy a century old home are not usually the type who just want to have kids and make pasta sauce in the kitchen. That was Brooklyn maybe forty years ago. But I also think that as much as we have changed, most men still do not really cook for the family except in emergencies, and we think about kitchens mostly in terms of showing off to our friends, that's just the way we're wired, I'm as guitly as the next man. My wife only wants to know one thing about our kitchen: will the caterers love it?

Posted by: sam at February 24, 2009 10:15 PM

McKenzie, speaking as a person that used to own two adjoining properties that were split up to maximise the sale price, I'm sorry that you find my comment childish.

Posted by: the chicken at February 25, 2009 3:30 AM

I grew up with a galley kitchen. You know where we spent time? In the dining room. Or the living room. I'd rather have seating for 10 than a 6-burner stove.

Posted by: Heather at February 25, 2009 7:28 AM

Great building and even a better neighborhood

Posted by: cbrock at February 25, 2009 9:36 AM

« Last Week's Biggest Sales House of the Day: 657 East 24th Street »

February 24, 2009

Co-op of the Day: 360 Clinton Avenue

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions