Sign up for the Brownstoner daily email
« Co-op of the Day: 39 Plaza Street West StreetLevel: 4th Ave Ramen Restaurant Ready to Roll »

March 10, 2009

House of the Day: 1234 Dean Street

1234-Dean-Street-0309.jpgThe exterior of this house at 1234 Dean Street in Crown Heights is interesting, and the interior is probably in bad shape but full of old details. Unfortunately, however, the house is still classified as an SRO, even though it's being used as a one-family residence. Why does that suck? It'll be hard to finance and a pain in the ass to change the certificate of occupancy. It's doable, for sure, but we suspect the asking price of $849,000 will need a big old haircut to compensate for the extra hassle and risk in the deal. In its defense, though, this is a really nice block with lots of beautiful houses on it. Still, that's a lot of dough. What do you think?
1234 Dean Street [Douglas Elliman] GMAP P*Shark




Posted by Brownstoner at 1:13 PM | Comments (27)
Categories: Crown Heights, HOTD

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/8737

Comments

See, THIS is the part of the market that makes no sense to me.

In my mind, these kind of houses should be in the 400-500K range.

Posted by: 11217 at March 10, 2009 1:22 PM

Great block, between Nostrand and New York. There have been several houses of the day here, from this block. As I said then, this is an iconic Crown Heights block, and is photographed frequently as an example of the residential architecture in the neighborhood. The block is landmarked.

From the floorplan, looks like the original dressing rooms may still exist on the third floor. Most of the houses on this block still have plenty of original details, as they don't turn over all that often. That said, because of its SRO status, I think the price needs to drop. If it does, someone would be getting a fine house on a very fine block. I live around the corner, and this house is close to the subway, shopping, etc.

Posted by: Montrose Morris at March 10, 2009 1:26 PM

The listing on Elliman says it's being used as a 1 family - so why would a buyer have trouble with it being an SRO -I mean there arent any current tenants to force out...

Posted by: gemini10 at March 10, 2009 1:27 PM

Can someone enlighten me as to why the C of O will be tough to change?

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

Umm... 11217, you're joking I hope?

A million dollar apartment in a building you share with your closest 80 friends, not to mention the crazy maintenance fees is "priced right."

But a 3,000 sq ft house (an a seemingly nice block - thanks google maps street view) with a lower price tage doesn't make sense to you?!

(And no... location does not explain why you suggest a 50% reduction to the asking price. Is it worth $800k? I'd say no. But the Plaza Street apartment is DEFINITELY not worth $900k PLUS $2k a month)

Posted by: tybur6 at March 10, 2009 1:29 PM

There's a lengthy, bureaucratic and very pro-tenant process that you have to go through with HPD before they will sign off on the C of O change; without the C of O change, it will be close to impossible, in this financing environment in particular, to get a dime out of a bank for this.

Posted by: brownstoner at March 10, 2009 1:32 PM

I agree with 11217. It's an unrenovated SRO in Crown Heights, meaning you need lots and lots of cash to make into a livable home. Crown Heights is a beautiful quiet corner in Brooklyn, but it lacks the great public schools and the bars/restaurants/public amenities available in Park Slope.
A bank will require a larger downpayment (if you can finance it at all), and you will need lots of money to bring it up to code, with extra hassles because of the SRO history. I notice the ad doesn't mention a certificate of non-harassment, and I think we all know no news is NOT good news in real estate ads.

Posted by: Maly at March 10, 2009 1:36 PM

Tyburg,

We can agree to disagree. Real Estate is about location, location and location. Between the work needed, the fact that Crown Heights is not Plaza Street West and the fact that it's an SRO. Yes, I believe it's "worth" half.

I have friends who live around the corner from here (renting) and I'm not fond of the area, myself. I can see it being appealing to some, and I can certainly see why it was appealing 2 years ago when people thought their home would double in a year, but today...I don't see as many people wanting to spend this kind of money in *THIS* location for a property with a ton of headaches.

That's just my opinion though. And I'm no expert.

Posted by: 11217 at March 10, 2009 1:36 PM

infinitejester,
Banks lend based on the building's designation and the C of O. Regardless of how it's used the bank will lend based on SRO.

If the C of O was 2 family the rate/level of financing would be different than if it were a 1 and different than a 3 family.

SRO is probably the lowest designation a building can have as far as a bank is concerned with respect to rate and level of financing. Even if it's empty.

Posted by: christopher at March 10, 2009 1:40 PM

Ah, thanks. I'm dealing with a C of O now and it has been pretty formulaic.

Posted by: infinitejester at March 10, 2009 1:41 PM

on the flip side, the exterior of this place looks to be in fairly good condition. SROs rarely do, as they have succcumbed to a good deal of wear-and-tear with no loving owner to make repairs. this case might be different with only 1 family residing on the premises.

as far as financing goes, yes, it's true, it's much harder to get a mortgage. banks used to require that you take out a renovation loan at the same time to insure that you were going to convert the place asap.

rather than going to big banks, potential buyers might want to look to family owned or smaller loaning institutions. the mortgage company on the corner of 7th avenue and 9th street in PS comes to mind. they "work" with the appraiser and assuming you have excellent credit, something might be worked out.

and brownstoner, i thought HPD was only involved in the beginning of the process, when the owner applied for a cert of no-harassment, not in the actual change of C of O. the cert of no-harassment is such a huge hassle, the price should be less on that basis alone.

Posted by: tiptoe at March 10, 2009 1:50 PM

11217 -- I agree with your comments above. This isn't a real gem. I guess my reaction was more the severity of the contrast. 50% chop on a single-family home (ignoring the C o' O issue) seemed pretty severe compared to saying a million dollar apartment was "priced right."

I'd like to reiterate, that I find BOTH price tags only appealing to folks that are a bit squishy in the head. :-)

Posted by: tybur6 at March 10, 2009 2:05 PM

correct--the process we described was the process of getting the Certificate of Non Harassment. After that the actual C of O change at DOB isn't that big a deal.

Posted by: brownstoner at March 10, 2009 2:12 PM

Tyburg,

To be fair, the co-op of the day today is in a Rosario Candela full service building (only one of 2 in Brooklyn).

The same person who brought us 740 Park Avenue and a lot of other really special apartment houses on the Upper East and Upper West sides.

Different strokes for different folks.

Posted by: 11217 at March 10, 2009 2:27 PM

With all the hassles involved in changing the c of o, the easiest route would be just to torch it for the insurance money.

Posted by: Xander Crews at March 10, 2009 2:30 PM

Curiously, if the floor plan is accurate, it reflects the *original* configuration of the house, with only one kitchen, one third-story bath, and one toilet on the back porch. The kitchen setup is the original one, too, with the sink to the right of the fireplace. The plan shows no mantles on the parlor floor. If the plan is accurate, there is no need for renovations to change the function of the house back to a single family.

Posted by: mopar at March 10, 2009 2:35 PM

I was admiring the floor plan and thinking it actually seems to be more reasonable than several of the houses we've seen here lately. Price seems high to me for that location, but the house seems really livable. I wish there were interior shots.

Also, I think there's at least one elementary school around there that looks okay. The Crown or something?

Posted by: Heather at March 10, 2009 2:44 PM

I think you would need to know a lot more about the neighborhood and the interior before you lowball the house at 400-500,000. It may not be worth 850,000 but that depends on the interior and how much needs to be done. The block is landmarked and considered prime.

A Million dollar apartment- ugh.

Posted by: bxgrl at March 10, 2009 3:56 PM

"What do you think?"

$849K(1-fam SRO, are you serious?)/2 = $425K

***Bid half off peak comps***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at March 10, 2009 3:57 PM

"See, THIS is the part of the market that makes no sense to me."

As if any part of the market makes sense.

***Bid half off peak comps***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at March 10, 2009 3:58 PM

The house is used as a one family- so how hard should a certificate on non-harrassment be without tenants still in the building?

From the looks of the floor plan it looks like the house may not have been horribly reconfigured. Houses in this neighborhood becames SRO's with a minimum of money put into them. So instead of ripping out details, they often just covered them up. And again, there seems to be a lot of speculation about how bad the interior is or isn't- since we don't know, it doesn't make sense to write scenarios.

That siad- I've lived around the corner from this house for years. I love the neighborhood and owuld point out again, this neighborhood has been attractive because of the many long time residents who are homeowners and who worked hard to make it a good neighborhood.

Posted by: bxgrl at March 10, 2009 4:18 PM

My other question about this house would be: can it work as an SRO? That is, if you were going to continue to rent rooms out would a bank finance that? It's not something I'd personally consider, but in West Philly where I grew up there were a ton of houses like this.

Posted by: Heather at March 10, 2009 4:36 PM

No one said the "one family" living in the building aren't tenants!!!!!!

Posted by: mopar at March 10, 2009 4:47 PM

with 1265 dean at 995 or whatever, seems high
again, cool block though

Posted by: BK realestate veteran at March 10, 2009 5:00 PM

Actually, the facts about this house are pretty skimpy, period!!!!!!! So why is everyone jumping to assumptions?

Posted by: bxgrl at March 10, 2009 5:35 PM

I'm going to purchase this house and use it as a residence for formerly homeless, mentally-ill drug addicts. As we all know, Crown Heights does not carry its share of social service agencies :)

Posted by: Big Jugs at March 10, 2009 6:04 PM

Crown Heights feels gritty to me.

Posted by: boroughbred at March 10, 2009 9:04 PM

Post a comment

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

Latest Restaurant Additions