« Brooklyn Food & Drink Round-Up Big Fire on 9th Street? »

March 25, 2009

Co-op of the Day: 114 Clinton Street

114-Clinton-Street-Brooklyn-0309.jpg
The place at 114 Clinton Street in Brooklyn Heights looks like a meaty fastball right across the middle of the plate. The two-bedroom co-op has tons of prewar charm and appears to be in excellent shape. We're also digging the long foyer. The sliver of the kitchen visible in one of the photos doesn't look to encouraging though and some people won't like the fact that there's only one bathroom. The monthly maintenance is just $875. Asking price: $795,000. We have no idea if it'll fetch the asking price, but this seems like the kind of place there will always be interest in. Reactions?
114 Clinton Street [Brooklyn Heights RE] GMAP P*Shark




Posted by Brownstoner at 12:38 PM | Comments (25)
Categories: Brooklyn Heights, Co-ops

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/8967

Comments

It needs at least one of the following:

a) and eat-in kitchen
b) a dining room
c) a larger living room that will comfortably fit both a dining and living area

Posted by: SnarkSlope at March 25, 2009 12:42 PM

Dang typos.

Posted by: SnarkSlope at March 25, 2009 12:43 PM

1. EIK
2. DR
3. LR/DR

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at March 25, 2009 12:44 PM

The wallpapered (hand-painted) foyer looks great.

Posted by: Fjorder at March 25, 2009 12:47 PM

I would sure hate to have my apartment called a meaty fastball.

Posted by: Bessie at March 25, 2009 12:47 PM

Like the large windows in the LR and the moldings. Bedrooms appear to be large and even in size, which is a positive.

Posted by: etson at March 25, 2009 12:49 PM

The living room window is on an interior "court" (or shaft), which is a non-starter for me. Having one or both bedrooms on the court is OK, but not the lvining room.

Posted by: shillstoner at March 25, 2009 12:54 PM

14x20 for living dining is a decent size. Most post-wars are 12x20. Plus a fireplace and large bedrooms, will go close to ask. A half bath would have easily put it over.

Posted by: DeLepp at March 25, 2009 12:54 PM

better than a wobbly spitter or tricky knuckleball or a cheap curve!

Posted by: denton at March 25, 2009 12:55 PM

Lovely but it does not appear that a half bath is doable -- look at the floorplan for the plumbing. For a single --perfect.

Posted by: BH76 at March 25, 2009 12:58 PM

Oh, and the listing appears to be with Brown Harris Stevens, not Brooklyn Heights RE.

Posted by: etson at March 25, 2009 1:02 PM

so only a SINGLE person can live in an apartment with one bathroom? you people are certifiably INSANE!

*rob*

Posted by: PitbullNYC at March 25, 2009 1:04 PM

> "I would sure hate to have my apartment called a meaty fastball."

How about a feisty meatball?

Posted by: SnarkSlope at March 25, 2009 1:08 PM

I'm married and share a single bathroom with my wife and two cats. Somehow we survive ...

Posted by: cwbuecheler at March 25, 2009 1:08 PM

have you ever hit a fastball?

meaty is not the word. maybe a hanging curve. or a floating knuckleball.


definitely not a fastball.

Posted by: bkn4life at March 25, 2009 1:10 PM

My friends call my Mexican bf "the meaty chalupa."

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at March 25, 2009 1:13 PM

The "closet" in the main bedroom is a joke.

Posted by: InsertSnappyNameHere at March 25, 2009 1:17 PM

No shots of the bathroom or kitchen means... y'all know what it means. Take off $100K and we'll get started on negotiations, particularly if it's in a good school zone.

i am f**king dying for a wood-burning fireplace.

Posted by: Fjorder at March 25, 2009 1:23 PM

I second the lack of dining space. The entryways on both sides of the LR cut off optimal use (you need some egress room by the doorways) so the actual dimensions of the room prhibit muti-use.

You can get similar apartments on the UWS for this price - which points to this price being a tad too high. Location is pretty dran good - close to subway and stores - though the block is not the prettiest in the Heights. I'm guessing it goes for no more than $750K.

Posted by: saminthehood at March 25, 2009 1:25 PM

PitBull Rob,
I totally agree with you. These folks are insane. But for almost a MILLION dollars the least there could be is a second bathroom... and 3 more bedrooms, a private roof deck, a "gourmet" kitchen, a nice view, and a parking space.

Posted by: tybur6 at March 25, 2009 3:34 PM

guessing this might sell for $735k - ie still have a lot of people with $$$ and willing to overpay. Particularly those who can cash in a more overpriced unit in Manhattan to buy this relatively cheaper unit in BK.

Price complaint aside, pretty good looking unit

Posted by: more4less at March 25, 2009 4:23 PM

Eh. I'd rather have a dining room than a second bathroom.

If I were forced to live in this terrible neighborhood with the high maintenance, I'd put in a second kitchen door where the washer/dryer is so the common rooms feel more connected and spacious. I'd move the w/d somewhere else in the kitchen, which I'd re-do in lovely 1920s style. Maybe with marble counters.

Put in a lot of oriental carpets. Definitely set up that common room as a joint LR/DR. Built-in bookcases next to the fireplace.

Make the wallpaper in the entry a whole lot crazier. Get rid of that insipid white/beige/brown color scheme.

Could be cute. But the apartment yesterday in Prospect Lefferts was cuter and a much better deal.

Posted by: mopar at March 25, 2009 5:11 PM

"Could be cute. But the apartment yesterday in Prospect Lefferts was cuter and a much better deal.

Posted by: mopar at March 25, 2009 5:11 PM"

If you add up the listed square footage based on the dimensions in the floorplans, they are not that far apart despite this one having an extra bedroom.

So you're paying $239k for the apartment and $556k for the location.

Posted by: the chicken at March 25, 2009 6:59 PM

Wow, it's almost as if location had something to do with the price of real estate. Whodathunkit?

Posted by: SnarkSlope at March 25, 2009 9:48 PM

that's exactly my point Snarky - what price location?

Of course, you would expect to pay more for the same house in metro NY than upstate NY but what is the appropriate premium for properties within the same general vicinity?

On the one hand, you could say that it's difficult to place a monetary value on having trees on your block or a good restaurant around the corner, or being close to the subway. These are all subjective - being in a good school zone has zero value for someone without kids, if the subway goes right to you office then it is worth more to you than if you cycle to work.

However, I think there IS a way that location can be valued (at least crudely) - by comparing rents. We found comparable apartments to yesterday's COTD for about $1,200 a month. I don’t know if this apartment for $2,900 (http://newyork.craigslist.org/brk/fee/1092238867.html) is comparable to this COTD but you can adjust the calculation accordingly if not.

So rental difference is $1,700 per month, or just over $20k per year. Using a dividend discount model (1/ r-g) and assuming r-g of 5% means we would apply a multiple of 20x to the annual difference. $20k x 20 years = $400k. So based upon prevailing rental rates, the current market “fair value premium” for a one-bed in Brooklyn Heights over Prospect Lefferts should be $400k / 700 sq ft = $571 per sq ft.

Of course, rental prices change over time – reflecting changes in the economy as well as those particular locations. If the rents fall to $2k and $1k for the BH and PL apartments respectively, then the fair value premium per sq ft would fall to $343 per sq ft.

I’m curious to how others work out what value they place on location.

Posted by: the chicken at March 26, 2009 4:43 AM

Post a comment

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

Latest Restaurant Additions