« Open House Picks: Six Months Later Streetlevel: Garry's Moves Up the Block »

March 27, 2009

Open House Picks

housePark Slope
638 2nd Street
Brown Harris Stevens
Sunday 12-1:30
$2,600,000
GMAP P*Shark

houseCarroll Gardens
329 President Street
Brooklyn Bridge Realty
Sunday 1-3
$2,200,000 (was $3,600,000)
GMAP P*Shark

houseFort Greene
134 South Oxford Street
Maggie Hopp
Sunday 1-3
$1,350,000 (was $1,450,000)
GMAP P*Shark

houseBeverley Square West
239 Westminster Road
Mary Kay Gallagher
Sunday 1-3
$1,150,000
GMAP P*Shark




Posted by Brownstoner at 1:05 PM | Comments (37)
Categories: Open Houses

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/9005

Comments

What a price chop on President Street!

Posted by: wasder at March 27, 2009 1:09 PM

The realtors for the CG place really need to learn how to use a camera. Pathetic. If i were that owner I'd tear up the contract.

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

BSW west house is way overpriced. Not much detail or curb appeal. Over a million?. Although it does have a rental unit, which I would think would make it more desirable than a single family in this market. But over a million? $899 is more like it - if they can sell it in this market.

Posted by: Architerrorist at March 27, 2009 1:20 PM

How about something under a million bucks, please. Unless you've cashed out on an apartment in Manhattan, even these admittedly reduced prices are still out reach for 99% of the people in this market.

You need to post less "glamorous" but more affordable properties if you want this website to remain relevant.

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

That CG price drop is pretty incredible. I can't really comment on whether any of these homes are worth it or not. They're all well out of my price range for the foreseeable future.

Posted by: cwbuecheler at March 27, 2009 1:26 PM

Beverly House is WAY OVER PRICED - I'd say $900K - it's big but kinda blah

2nd street - I don't know - I kinda like it - but the rental kitchen is sooo old and I think asking 2.6 is too ambitious


Oh poor poor President Street, how dreadful to have a broker that inept that they can't post decent pics
oh I would fire them too in an instant

Posted by: gemini10 at March 27, 2009 1:29 PM

Dibs, check out the brokers website. The pictures are great. I think the horrible pix are NYT's fault. I'm starting to really hate the times site.
The CG house has been on the market for a while. I like the look of it overall but still needs a further reduction

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

How is it possible that the 4 story Park Slope Building 0.5 block from park is 2.6 mil and the 3 story Carroll garden (not on the best block) with no pics can ask 2.2 mil? Carroll gardens is way off.

Posted by: jimsullivan30 at March 27, 2009 1:35 PM

BSW is not even big for that neighborhood. That can have it's upside though. Heat, maintenance. But since this is already carved into two apartments, you're not buying it for space (or period charm in this case). However, I would not sneer at rental income in this market (provided buyer could actually afford the house without it in the first place).

Posted by: Architerrorist at March 27, 2009 1:37 PM

Thanks, cggirl.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at March 27, 2009 1:37 PM

Jim, the CG house is on a best block. It's on the landmarked part of President between Smith & Hoyt. It's beautiful

Posted by: cggirl at March 27, 2009 1:47 PM

still though, the Park Slope house is 1 story larger, next to the park, and a beautiful facade. Much better than CG. Should be a million more than CG.

Posted by: jimsullivan30 at March 27, 2009 1:52 PM

When evaluating the BSW (I thought that area was ditmas park?) house, don't neglect that it's got a 2-car garage, too.

Posted by: cwbuecheler at March 27, 2009 1:53 PM

I'm confused. President Street house is listed as a two-family double-duplex on broker's site and single family on Times site. How can it be three stories if it is DD? (Unless we are dealing with basement issue again.) Maybe no one wants double duplexes and it is all about reconfiguring into triplex or single fam?

Posted by: gussy at March 27, 2009 1:54 PM

200 AMP service in the BQW house... it's ready for a basement hydroponics set-up I guess. That would be a great supplemental income.

Posted by: tybur6 at March 27, 2009 1:55 PM

BSW is one of the smaller neighborhoods which compose Victorian Flatbush, which is frequently called "Ditmas Park", which is one of the better known sub-neighborhoods.

Posted by: Architerrorist at March 27, 2009 1:56 PM

President street house has four fully-developed stories but I think one of them is the basement, and thus can't have any bedrooms in it. Floorplans on the NYT site show two duplexes.

Posted by: cwbuecheler at March 27, 2009 1:57 PM

Architerrorist - thanks. I was familiar with the Victorian Flatbush and Ditmas Park terms, but hadn't heard BSW before.

Posted by: cwbuecheler at March 27, 2009 1:57 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beverly_Square_West,_Brooklyn

Posted by: Argyle Road at March 27, 2009 2:04 PM

By the way, I now live in Beverly Square West -- it's very posh here. You step out your door and it's basically a dreamscape.

Posted by: tybur6 at March 27, 2009 2:05 PM

President St. House is three story with finished (nicely) basement.

$1.8MM at best.....

Posted by: aabklyn at March 27, 2009 2:15 PM

i'm not a snob, but president street looks like someone had a fat giftcard for the Ugly Tile Warehouse to spend.

Posted by: i disagree at March 27, 2009 2:26 PM

BSW is posh.

Most houses have more than 4 bedrooms, so having 4 split between 2 apartments on Westminster Rd gives the owner a lot less space than others in the area.

I suppose the rental could cover half the mortgage at today's rates so that would make it affordable.

Posted by: Bklnite at March 27, 2009 2:26 PM

It looks as if the tiled room on President St is the finished basement. On some houses (mine) you can't see the top floor from the street because it's set back a bit. It always fools people.

I don't think the photo pixelation is the fault of The Times. You upload your own photos. They took nice pictures (on website) but it looks like they might've tried to upload thumbnail sized photos.

Posted by: rh at March 27, 2009 2:40 PM

Fish hook on Oxford all but corroded. Narrow facade commands only a narrow price.

***Bid half off peak comps***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at March 27, 2009 2:44 PM

on the times website, you have to click the link on the bottom to get full-sized photos. they look normal once you do that, but it's really clunky.

Posted by: i disagree at March 27, 2009 2:47 PM

South Oxford looks decent but get the feeling there must be something I am missing. I know it's not on the nicer end of teh street. Anything else?

Posted by: etson at March 27, 2009 2:59 PM

maybe the width you missed?
12.5'

Posted by: Bklnite at March 27, 2009 3:03 PM

Ah that explains it, thanks.
Still getting used to the difference between real-estate-photo-world and reality, and only glanced at the floorplan which came out really small on my computer.

Posted by: etson at March 27, 2009 3:14 PM

The 2nd Street has a provenance. The seller is a Brooklyn born and educated writer, Gloria Naylor.

Posted by: BrooklynIsHome at March 27, 2009 3:32 PM

I saw the FG house about a year ago (when they were trying to get $1.8)... it's really cute in a kind of dollhouse way, but there are some weird things too. Like a full bath on the ground floor with a huge tub, but no bedroom down there, only the kitchen. Handy if you want to hop in the bath while your pasta boils, I suppose.

Plus the public row housing along that stretch of S. Oxford makes it not nearly as nice a block as many in FG.

I think the CG house has a long way to go (down, pricewise) to sell in this market.

Posted by: Gravy at March 27, 2009 3:54 PM

The CG house was purchased for $1.15 million about three years ago. It underwent a 2-year gut renovation. It was put on the market initially at over $3 million about a year ago and had several price cuts before it reached the present $2.2 million (more cuts than the two listed on the realtor's website). Open houses have been held nearly every Sunday for months, but not one offer has been made so far. The double duplex refers to the ground floor and finished basement (which, of course, as has been stated already, can't be used for bedrooms). The upper duplex is the parlor floor and floor above. It's certainly an awkward living space for the lower duplex to say the least. There is no additional floor setback on the roof (I can see the roof from my window). From what I've heard, the renovation was, frankly, cheesy and not sufficiently high-end to warrant even the present $2.2 million price tag. The present owner never occupied the house: he purchased it, renovated it, and flipped it. It will be interesting to see how much of a bath he takes on this venture.

Posted by: PresRez at March 27, 2009 4:04 PM

$1.15mm + reno, even gut reno ... shouldn't bring you anywhere near $2.2mm.

I can't see any way that the rent on the lower duplex would be enough to cover half the mortgage, either. Assuming 20% down and 7% interest, you're looking at $6440/month plus property taxes and whatever the mansion tax is. I doubt you could get more than $2500/month for a duplex where one level is a windowless basement that can't be used for a bedroom, and even that price is probably optimistic.

Of course, I know, at prices this high, usually you're not dealing with a standard mortgage and you're more likely dealing with someone who's going to put tons of cash down, or pay entirely in cash. Still, I can't see why anyone would pay $2.2mm for this when the same price can buy them any number of nice brownstones in the area with more logical rental schemes.

Posted by: cwbuecheler at March 27, 2009 4:46 PM

I have to admit, although the South Oxford House is very cute inside, it might need to come down a little considering "what's going on out there"...

The couple who owns this house put in the tub on the ground floor in part, I believe, to avoid lousing up the upstairs floor plans by putting in bathrooms that would be too big. They put in showers, which frankly is all anyone needs most of the time, and thus, the bathrooms are petite. I've seen some odd, large upstairs bathrooms in houses like this one. The large bathrooms end up eating into the back bedroom too much.

I hope they can sell their house soon...actually, I wish they could just keep their house and live between both places. They did a nice job on a lot of the renovations and the backyard is sweet.

Go see the house. It is cute and gracious...and VERY convenient and might make a perfect house for a family. It's move-inable. And you'd end up paying a lot more for a move-in ready wider house in Fort Greene.

Also, it is currently outside the Landmark District so I think, if you want to do work, it is a lot easier getting a permit since you can avoid the whole Landmarks process (we're IN the district...it has its headaches).

Go see it and offer what you think reasonable/what you can afford and go from there. The brokers/agents who have the listing are two wonderful gals. (Disclaimer: I'm not one of them! But I do know them.)

Happy open house weekend everyone! The interest rates are so low I'm asking why we don't refinance.

Posted by: BrooklynGreene at March 27, 2009 10:30 PM

The listings under $1mil are getting closer to the prime areas now...

Posted by: sashae at March 28, 2009 10:33 AM

No way is the Bev. Square place getting over $1 million...but perhaps MKG knows something I don't. Perhaps it's a strategy to get 900k.

Posted by: Bolder at March 29, 2009 3:23 PM

"The listings under $1mil are getting closer to the prime areas now..."

Prime can run but it can't hide. Half off accross the board.

***Bid half off peak comps***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at March 29, 2009 11:09 PM

Post a comment

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

Latest Restaurant Additions