« 20 Bayard's Been Rental Since February Open House Picks: Six Months Later »

March 27, 2009

Checking In On The Vermeil

When we wrote about some price cuts at The Vermeil, the 22-unit development at 133 Sterling Place at the corner of 7th Avenue in Park Slope, there were only four units left, according to StreetEasy. Now, strangely, there are six available. There haven't been any price cuts since then, though it looks like some of the apartments were temporarily pulled off the market in February and brought back again last week. The remaining units range from a 1,532-square-foot two-bedroom for $1,100,000 to a 1,711-square-foot three-bedroom for $1,299,000.
More Price Cuts at The Vermeil [Brownstoner] GMAP
Checking in on The Vermeil [Brownstoner]
Changing of the Guard at The Vermeil [Brownstoner]
First Closing at The Vermeil [Brownstoner]
Condo of the Day: Price Cut at The Vermeil [Brownstoner]
Update on the Vermeil [Brownstoner]

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/9008

Comments

I walk by these places every day and while I love North Slope, I can't imagine paying over a million dollars to live on that stretch of 7th. It's really loud. Almost as loud as the part of 7th I live on. :P

Also, they STILL haven't prettied up the sidewalk in front of the building.

It is a really long building tho, so I guess if you got one of the apartments way back on Sterling, it might not be as bad, noise-wise.

Posted by: cwbuecheler at March 27, 2009 11:39 AM

I haven't followed this one, nor can I remember seeing pictures previously.

NOW THAT IS WHAT A NEW DEVELOPMENT SHOULD LOOK LIKE. KUDOS TO THEM!!!!

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at March 27, 2009 11:42 AM

Do they still have the "no parking" sign on the door of the garage held on with duct tape? I thought that was a particularly ugly touch.

I would happily rent one of these places for $3k or so per mo.

nsr

Posted by: northsloperenter at March 27, 2009 11:45 AM

I walk by this place everyday too. I don't know what it is about it, but it feels cheapy. That one brick that fell out and was replaced like 2 months after really turned me off to it. I am not sure about the prices because that depends on what you want from your home, but qualitywise it looks a bit underwhelming. I like the place on Lincoln that use to be a whorehouse. Its beautiful, but I have never been in there either so who knows.

Posted by: LincolnSlope at March 27, 2009 11:45 AM

I would bet there are more than 6 available. There are at least 7 uninhabited units on the 7th Ave. side of the building.

Since these apartments became available I've seen several other nearbly buildings sell out. I think most these apartments have pretty thoughful layouts - good closets, good transitions from room to room. The biggest problem is that, at least initially, and maybe even still, the apartments were priced way too high.

Other problems, from my perspective:

- the bathrooms I saw at an open house were done in a far too specific color palette

-the exteriors still have not been fully punch list completed - corner and set back detailing, lighting fixture surrounds, and the biggest one, dormers on brownstone building

- the sidewalks haven't been replaced. This one just seems the most half-assed of all to me. It suggests to me that there may be other things that one can't see that may only be partially done.

Posted by: Bessie at March 27, 2009 11:46 AM

Heres what I dont get - its got to cost the developer a fortune to sit with these units empty and unsold...

The fact that so many are empty and unsold has got to make even interested buyers hesitate - not to mention any bank lending on them

So just cut the frikkin price on a couple of units really low and start the sales going.

Posted by: fsrg at March 27, 2009 11:46 AM

According to some of the other posts here, while my accolades to the architecture may still be appropriate, apparently the actual construction falls far short.

That's what first time buyers really need to research in a new development. Is the roof going to leak in 3 months, are the bricks falling off, etc? Any new development is buyer beware.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at March 27, 2009 11:54 AM

This place is terrible... out of context architectural nightmare!! And it's ridiculous that they didn't preserve any of the original detail!

Posted by: tybur6 at March 27, 2009 11:56 AM

I have followed these units pretty closely for the past couple of years. I will repeat what I have said in various other threads:

1. The developer asked for the moon (and the sky) when these first when on the market. I really think they would have sold a while ago at prices above current ask if they hadn't had such high list prices to begin with.

2. They have been chasing the market down for a while, but always staying above it. Classic mistake in a bear market. They should just chop the hell out of these and get it over with if they want to avoid going rental.

3. I like the units and seriously considered buying one (might still consider it in fact). They feel well built as compared to many other new developments. The developer's mistakes all relate to price. I think they actually did a good job with the construction.

4. I also walk by almost daily. At night I see no evidence that anyone lives there (as opposed to the old whorehouse on Lincoln, which hit the market much later and appears occupied at night).

5. This is really on the fringe of Park Slope. In my mind the slope doesn't really stary on 7th Ave until after St. Johns.

Come to think of it, Mr. B, I am very curious for an update on the whorehouse on Lincoln, if you are so inclined at any point.

Posted by: lechacal at March 27, 2009 11:58 AM

tybur6 - we get it. :)

The development fits in almost as well with the neighborhood as the hooker house does. I just think the prices are obscene for the area it's in.

Posted by: cwbuecheler at March 27, 2009 12:01 PM

What a nice looking building. I don't understand the oomments that it is cheap or cheap looking. It looks like a solid job to me, especially compared to the usual dreck that most non-landmark neighborhoods are subjected to.
The units are not selling because, guess what? units are not selling anywhere. It is a bad sign of the times that even here, in such a nice new building, in such a nice location, the inventory is not selling.

Posted by: sam at March 27, 2009 12:06 PM

Lechacal- the fringe of Park slope?? That is funny. Good Luck on your search for Real Estate in NYC.

Posted by: billyboomer at March 27, 2009 12:20 PM

Wasn't this the site of the early 1960s plane crash?

Posted by: Brenda from Flatbush at March 27, 2009 12:22 PM

there is no sense in speculating on construction quality. just get it inspected if you are serious like you would on any other property. if there are minor issues, the inspector's report will normally get the developer to fix it for free prior to closing. big problems, then walk away.

also, if you have any construction or architects buddies, bring them along one time.

Posted by: wine lover at March 27, 2009 12:22 PM

It is indeed a very handsome looking building. I think it's relatively well constructed also, and has some nice features (in case you are unaware, the "brownstone" next door is also a part of the Vermeil, and they did a nice job with that as well as the newer part on the corner). As mentioned before, it's the details of this place that have been totally neglected. The sidewalks, the light fixture, the broken window/s, the green stuff seeping down the Sterling side from the copper, the lack of planters out front, etc.

Those details need to be addressed, and it boggles my mind, because we know that in the 5 or so times this development has been highlighted here, at least ONE broker has read about these issues that many speak about. And done nothing.

The disregard for these little things (which are important when you're spending this kind of money) make me disappointed, especially since I've spoken so highly of the place in the past. They obviously don't care.

I agree completely with lechacal's comments about this place chasing the market down. They were extremely overpriced, and as the economy worsens, seem to continually be as such.

I've shifted my North Slope condo love to the Lincoln Place brothel.

p.s. I have seen more than a few lights on in here from time to time, but it's certainly no where close to full.

Posted by: 11217 at March 27, 2009 12:23 PM

Brenda... yes, 7th and Sterling was the site of the plane crash.

Posted by: buttermilk channel at March 27, 2009 12:30 PM

billyboomer: Yes, this is the fringe of Park Slope. It's barely a block from Flatbush. None of the Park Slope restaurants, shops etc. start until after St Johns. Granted, it actually can claim to be Park Slope (unlike those new condos on Park Place), but yes, very much fringe.

Posted by: lechacal at March 27, 2009 12:34 PM

The brownstone to the right is the same building? That's actually pretty nifty. Not nifty enough for a $1 million, but still pretty nifty.

Posted by: tybur6 at March 27, 2009 12:34 PM

yes, there's a good photo and writeup of the 1960 crash here

http://www.nyc-architecture.com/PS/PS.htm

Scroll down the page to "Pillar of Fire
Recalling the Day the Sky Fell, December 16, 1960"

Posted by: Bklnite at March 27, 2009 12:34 PM

Oh, lincoln place whorehouse, how I do love thee ...

The BHS on the corner of union and 7th has a bunch of listings for the brothel up in their window. Basically everything in it that's below a million bucks seems to have sold, and all that's left are the gigantic, $1.2mm+ floorplans (mostly 3 BR's and a 2 BR duplex).

Posted by: cwbuecheler at March 27, 2009 12:36 PM

Yep, tyburg....the newer brick building at the corner, and the attached brownstone is all the Vermeil.

That's how they fit 22 units (and some quite large) into this sucker!

Posted by: 11217 at March 27, 2009 12:36 PM

I think they did a good job keeping within the context of the neighborhood. If they didnt start out asking crazy prices when they first went on sale, they would be 100% sold now
CUT.THE.PRICE.EVEN.MORE!
I hope "they" are reading

Posted by: gemini10 at March 27, 2009 12:44 PM

This is the plane crash site and was a funeral parlor until it got demo'd for this place to be built.

Very funny that someone complained about lack of original detail above. Do you really want funeral home detail in your apartment?

Posted by: Troy McClure at March 27, 2009 12:48 PM

Troy McClure - If it means I get a cool elevator in my basement where the floor on the first level opens up and I can ascend into my dining room while looking somber ... then hell yes!

Posted by: cwbuecheler at March 27, 2009 12:51 PM

Is this really what people want NEW developments to look like? I never really understood how with our cars, phones, PDAs, bicycles, stereos, appliances, books (graphics), etc we want something that reflects the spirit of our times. However with architecture, people's aesthetic tastes seem stuck somewhere between 1840 and 1910.

Posted by: wpg at March 27, 2009 12:52 PM

hell yes, this is what most people want new development to look like.

Posted by: sam at March 27, 2009 12:57 PM

This is especially what we want new developments to look like inside historic districts.

Posted by: 11217 at March 27, 2009 12:59 PM

So this is on the site of the McCaddin Funeral Home. Does it also include the site of the ironically-named Pillar of Fire church, which burned in the plane crash?.

Posted by: Bklnite at March 27, 2009 1:10 PM

How is it there there is room for Federal, Greek Revival, Flemish, Queen Anne, Romanesque Revival, and other styles spanning close to 100 years but come 1900, nothing new can be added to the neighborhood (landmarked or not). Scale, proportion, massing, rhythm are not exclusive to historic periods. I agree that many (many!) new developments are quite awful for a multitude of reasons (often scale), I don't however think as a progressive society we should limit our pallets to 19th century pastiche.

Posted by: wpg at March 27, 2009 1:12 PM

This is certainly what Brownstoner posters want in new developments - and yet once again here is more evidence that buyers generally dont care that much about exterior architecture (which makes sense to me but apparently not to most who read or post here).

The developer is either a diehard Brownstoner, an idiot or just a haza (sp?) - He's got a really nice product (inside and out) but he is pricing it too high - cut the price, move some units - its not that complicated.

Posted by: fsrg at March 27, 2009 1:17 PM

wpg: Because those styles you cite reflected some sense of aesthetics. The reality is that developers, left to their own devices, will build the Novo and the Argyle and anything else that squeezes every bit of FAR possible out of a lot at the expense of beauty. It's very hard to police a code that requires some basic sense of aethetics, but requiring buildings to follow historic patterns is a reasonably (albeit limiting) proxy.

Posted by: lechacal at March 27, 2009 1:19 PM

The pillar of Fire Church may have been across the street.
The crash destroyed many buildings on both sides of Sterling Place.

Posted by: sam at March 27, 2009 1:21 PM

We do not replace buildings as we do cars or cell phones. And there is a certain construction that seem to be time-tested. Glass walls conduct noise, heat, cold. Although they may be very popular now, I think that many people will not be happy actually living in proverbial fish bowls. Generally people know what to expect with brick buildings regarding maintenance and repair. Does anyone know what a leak in a facade like Toren's will require in 10 or 20 years? An engineer said that there are a lot of new buildings that could end up being major money pits in 10-15 years. Hence, buildings like the Vermeil, the Stern buildings, are attractive.

Posted by: BH76 at March 27, 2009 1:24 PM

Sorry but I dont buy it BH76 - A brick building has INFINITELY more seams than a glass or other 'modern' facade - and brick itself is porous and requires periodic maintenance - Therefore , while it is possible that new buildings will be money pits in 10-15 years; it is also possible that a brick building will be as well, if not more so depending on construction (most modern facades are actually designed with the unskilled laborer/installer in mind).

Rightly or wrongly (and sometimes both) the only legitimate reason for historical districts is as lechacal stated - to maintain a basic aesthetic

Posted by: fsrg at March 27, 2009 1:33 PM

I agree with BH76 and would add that there is nothing particularly 19th cenutry about this building other than it was built using right angles and is clad in brick and limestone rather than glass and titanium. No one with any working knowledge of architectural history would mistake this for an historic building. The Landmarks Commission generally likes to strike a balance between traditional materials and massing, and clean, contemporary details. Occassionally a very talented architect will wow them with something very modern that is also contextural and they will approve it. For instance Aldo Rossi's SoHo building or Renzo Piano's additions to the Morgan, or Henry Smith's little angled builing on Hicks Street in Brooklyn Heights, but they usually do not get outstanding architects presenting imaginative designs, they usually get developers wishing to make a profit and so need to work with what they are given.

Posted by: sam at March 27, 2009 1:34 PM

When you put new 'historic-looking' developments in historic neighborhoods, invariably the new will look like a cheap imitation of the original. New should be new, old should be old.

Posted by: wpg at March 27, 2009 1:34 PM

The Morgan addition works precisely because it is contemporary- it clearly delineates between the new and the old.

Posted by: wpg at March 27, 2009 1:38 PM

The Morgan works, the addition to the poly-prep academy on PPW works, but this works too. There is no value added in being strictly doctrinaire about what is "correct" and "incorrect" modern building styles. That doctrinaire approach, going back to Adolf Loos equating ornament with crime, is what is retro. Very pre-war European intellectual elite. As Rob would say: move on! put it behind you!

Posted by: sam at March 27, 2009 1:50 PM

I agree Sam. This definitely works.

And the modern interiors should appeal to those who want their homes to reflect the gadget oriented lifestyle so many seem to have embraced.

I'd take a slab of crown molding over a fancy stove any day, though.

Posted by: 11217 at March 27, 2009 2:18 PM

I hate this new trend of frosted glass, not-in-counter sinks that look like flying saucers and generally have really ugly hardware to go with them.

Posted by: cwbuecheler at March 27, 2009 2:29 PM

I looked at these units - three things I didn't like:
1) The price. These units are consistently about 20% over market. I don't know why they think this place deserves that premium, but it clearly doesn't.
2) Bathroom finishes are heinous. Really, I'm the last person I ever thought woud have a strong reaction to bathroom fit outs. I just do my business and get out. But these bathrooms made me want to puke.
3)Kitchens are tiny. I know that most NYC kitchens are small and most new yorkers do a alot their eating in restaurnats or via take out, but even by nyc standards these kitchens are small. Espcially since many of these units are family sized 3BR's. If you've got 2-3 kids, you can't afford to go out for dinner every night or even do take out. You gotta cook. I couldn't really figure out how I'd cook in those kitchens.

On the plus side, the units had nice layouts, good light, many were family-sized, which is rare. and a couple had outdoor space.

Posted by: bkre at March 27, 2009 2:31 PM

The bathroom sinks are not great. But I would not give that too much weight. I agree that the prices are last year's prices.

Posted by: sam at March 27, 2009 2:45 PM

lethacal-- so park place is not park slope? Your an idiot. That is so funny.

Posted by: billyboomer at March 27, 2009 5:58 PM

Burn it down its not park slope. Its one block from St Johns which according to some asswipe here is the start of Park slope. Because the restaurants start after St Johns, except the restaurants on 7th all suck so really Park Slope does not exist at all cause it is just crap from St johns to 16th st. Really 5th Ave is the true park slope cause I see more moms and strollers on 5th. Park slope it really only exists in ones mind.

Posted by: billyboomer at March 27, 2009 6:03 PM

I looked at the whore house & thought it, too, lacked a lot of thought to the details. A very small example: the common area walls are done w/ a plastic-looking textured material that has lines of ridges just waiting to pick up dust & that same stuff is continued over window ledges - very short-sighted.
Closets w/ washer/dryers didn't appear to be vented &, where it was a small closet the units were stacked & where it was large the same units were side by side taking up space where an ironing board or shelving might go.
Lots of silly, little things put me off it.
Plus, I thought they'd told Landmarks & CB 6 that they'd preserve the gorgeous old staircase that was the only "detail" left when it was still a brothel but it's gone & there's just ugly wrought iron.

Posted by: Arkady at March 27, 2009 6:08 PM

The only people I know who considered one of the more expensive apartments in this building crossed it off their list when they learned it was the site of the plane crash. I wouldn't be surprised to learn they weren't the only ones. I mean, everywhere you buy has a history, but there are going to be plenty of people for whom "site of a famously terrible plane crash" isn't the sort of history they want to plunk down a million-plus bucks for.

Posted by: phbalanced at March 28, 2009 10:00 AM

wow, billyboomer -- meow! ffft! fft! You should dial back the invective if you want to be taken seriously.

I think very few people would consider Park Place and Flatbush to be Park Slope (except for anyone who owns an apartment there, of course, but their motives are pretty transparent). I don't consider that Park Slope. Neither does the Mrs. And nor do any of our friends who have ever looked at apartments there. I looked at the Vermeil with several friends a while back and our uniform conclusion was that even the Vermeil was pretty fringe. As for the new condos at Park and Flatbush, I frankly don't think they can claim to be in either Park Slope or Prospect Heights. They are stuck in some sort of a Flatbush purgatory.

If you consider that to be Park Slope, that's fine. As long as you are comfortable with your own conclusions you shouldn't feel upset about any of this. But if you are trying to convince others to share your views I would suggest you have quite an uphill battle. Your responses strike me as insecure and defensive.

Posted by: lechacal at March 28, 2009 2:09 PM

I cant believe it the tenants on Brownstoner are now defining Park Slope's borders. I'm outta here.

Posted by: Cant Truss It at March 28, 2009 9:33 PM

Given the atrocities that typify new construction in our blessed borough, this development is more than decent. The prices are of course absurd and a total miscalculation -- had the developer started lower this would have been fully sold months ago. But its the friggin sidewalk that beggars belief. It's like leaving an egg stain on your tie or spinach in your teeth.

Posted by: 1929 at March 28, 2009 10:22 PM

« 20 Bayard's Been Rental Since February Open House Picks: Six Months Later »

March 27, 2009

Checking In On The Vermeil

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions