« Condo of the Day: 320 Washington Avenue, #1B Brooklyn Flea Expanding to Brooklyn Bridge Park! »
April 28, 2009
House of the Day: 475 8th Street
It'll be interesting to see what 475 8th Street ends up selling for. The three-story brownstone is well-preserved and has plenty of nice original detail but it's definitely doesn't have the "wow" factor that some houses in this part of town have. Of course, at $1,700,000, it's also priced lower than such houses. Given its location between 7th and 8th Avenues, we bet this will fetch within 10 percent of the asking price—which has to be considered a win in this market!
475 8th Street [Brown Harris Stevens] GMAP P*Shark
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/9484
Comments
FIRST!
Posted by: bklyndodger at April 28, 2009 1:18 PM
Nice location. Haven't seen too many cheaper houses in this very nice part of the Slope. God knows what it will sell for in this market though. You would think 1.6 would get it done but who knows anymore.
Posted by: wasder at April 28, 2009 1:23 PM
Uh ... what's with the fridge in the dining room?
Looking at the floor plan, I think the whole parlor level would really need some walls moved and probably a remodel on the whole kitchen.
If I had it, I'd probably offer $1.3mm. Nice neighborhood but the house needs work and you're trapped on the F.
Posted by: cwbuecheler at April 28, 2009 1:32 PM
If the house in Gowanus (one of last week's biggest sales) sold for 1.45 million, I'd have a difficult time imagining that this would go for less than that.
8th Street is a really terrific block...I think it's one of the blocks which won the "greenest block" somewhere last year, if I'm not mistaken.
Posted by: 11217 at April 28, 2009 1:39 PM
it is a small two-bedroom home with a one-bedroom rental apartment. It's much smaller and less luxurious than most million-plus apartments. And here's the real kicker: the owner's unit only has one bathroom! Could you imagine buying a million-plus-dollar house and getting just one bathroom?
If I were spending this much money I would want more space and more luxe.
Posted by: mcKenzie at April 28, 2009 1:39 PM
great locale!!!
but the house seems soooooooooooooooooooooo plain inside and that kitchen in the far corner is blahzay blah!
anyway the price is solid for that part of the nabe and I still think they can get about 1.55mil for it
11217 - am shocked by Gowanus house - shocked!!!!
Posted by: gemini10 at April 28, 2009 1:40 PM
11217 - Valid point about the gowanus house, altho apparently it has a bunch of unused FAR or something?
Posted by: cwbuecheler at April 28, 2009 1:40 PM
What is FAR?
sorry to be a dummy!
Posted by: gemini10 at April 28, 2009 1:43 PM
Floor Area Ratio
Unused FAR implying the possibility you could tear down and replace with something bigger, or make an addition.
Posted by: Bklnite at April 28, 2009 1:47 PM
I think it's Floor Area Ratio.
Basically it's how much square footage you're legally allowed to build on a given lot. And apparently that house in Gowanus isn't using all available square footage, so it'd be legally allowed to, for example, build another story onto it.
Posted by: cwbuecheler at April 28, 2009 1:47 PM
don't be greedy - take anything close to 1.4M
Posted by: more4less at April 28, 2009 1:49 PM
cwb - this house has unused FAR, too. a lot of brooklyn's 3-story houses do, as long as they're on full lots (100ft or +). this one isn't renovated like gowanus house (though who knows the quality of that reno)...but it's also not in gowanus!
Posted by: i disagree at April 28, 2009 1:52 PM
for a 2-bedromm 1-bathroom house? definitely take 1.4 million and count your blessings.
Posted by: mcKenzie at April 28, 2009 1:54 PM
yep, soon these rich suckers will wake up and realize shoot, why the heck did I drop 280k deposit, 250k renov, deal with a tenant, live in 2 bd 1 bath unit,....
Posted by: more4less at April 28, 2009 1:58 PM
Agree with most of the comments above about 2bed 1 bath house.
WHY????? Oh Why???
There is so much room for improvement on this house. Start with the price.
Bring it down so someone will be tempted to invest in it and add a bath to top floor and move the kitchen and add powder room to parlor floor and re-work that rental.
Posted by: bayridgegirl at April 28, 2009 2:03 PM
"yep, soon these rich suckers will wake up and realize shoot, why the heck did I drop 280k deposit, 250k renov, deal with a tenant, live in 2 bd 1 bath unit,...."
Or more likely by the looks of this place, these middle class folks bought in 1970 for 30K and woke up 40 years later to sell for a 1.5 million dollar profit and retire happily...
Posted by: 11217 at April 28, 2009 2:05 PM
the people buying this for 1.4M aint going to be enjoying those kinds of profits 40 yrs later. but hey, people can dream. For me, I view better odds of achieving that dream via $1/wk buying megamillion
Posted by: more4less at April 28, 2009 2:09 PM
One wonders if "this 3 story brownstone has been in the same family for over 60 years" is code for "needs new mechanicals."
Posted by: SnarkSlope at April 28, 2009 2:12 PM
Not a bad price, but there are some odd things about the property.
The kitchen that cannot fit a refrigerator. The office attached to the smaller bedroom (do you give your kid the master bedroom? or the office?). The long thin entryway/stairwell chopping up the parlor/garden levels.
Brownstoner: What's the point of letting people put in a 40% over ask appraisal bid? Someone is obviously just doing it to piss on your little app on every single property you post.
Given the current market, you should restrict the upper limit to 15% over ask, which is unlikely enough.
Posted by: northsloperenter at April 28, 2009 2:15 PM
More4less...
I can pretty much guarantee you that the sellers of this place (if they really did buy back in the day and this is obviously a fictional story, but there are plenty of real ones like it) had NO CLUE they'd be able to sell their house for over 1.5 million dollars today.
How can you be so sure about what's going to happen by 2049?
You just want me to fight!! ;-)
Posted by: 11217 at April 28, 2009 2:16 PM
The house has potential. for starters you need to live in the whole house, its too small to rent out a portion. next re-do the interiors add a bath upstairs and make a master bedroom and bath addition on the roof set back from the front so as to conform with Landmarks rules. Then you would have something. But those projects would add something like $700,000 to the house.
Posted by: mcKenzie at April 28, 2009 2:20 PM
11217, true. but I suspect if this was a bet with your own $$$, you would bet against buyer buying this @ 1.4M and be able to sell it for 46x (~65M) in 40 yrs (avg's ~23% appreciation per yr).
Posted by: more4less at April 28, 2009 2:25 PM
more4less...we need someone at the firm here who can predict the market 40 years out. How can I get your resume????? I'm sure we can pay you close to 10X what you're currently making.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at April 28, 2009 2:28 PM
I know this might surprise you, but I don't really give much thought about how much my apartment is worth right now or how much I could sell it for down the road. I guess some people do...we usually call them speculators or flippers. I certainly didn't buy anything with the intention that it would appreciate 23% a year. I make no predictions about real estate 40 years from now...I don't even know what it's going to do 4 months from now.
Posted by: 11217 at April 28, 2009 2:29 PM
"you need to live in the whole house, its too small to rent out a portion"
I love when people issue blanket edicts like this. I live in a house exactly this size (different layout) and we rent out the garden apartment. We could afford not to (we bought when things were way, way cheaper), but we don't feel we need the space -- with two kids -- and we'd rather have the extra income. And people certainly pay more for less space in Manhattan.
I mean, I believe that some people wouldn't want to live in the space of that duplex, but other people demonstrably do. Sure, size affects price, but how much would they be asking if this were four stories and 20 feet wide on this block?
Posted by: basementalist at April 28, 2009 2:31 PM
I have a question. In a set up like this, does the renter get the the backyard to himself? There's a back door on the floor plan, so he at least has access out there. Is it shared?
Posted by: Nomi at April 28, 2009 2:34 PM
Yes, basementalist...I'm quite comfortable with 1,700 sq. ft, a deck and the yard and I rent out the garden level as well. Not all buyers are married with 4 children.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at April 28, 2009 2:36 PM
Thank you for your rational mind, basementalist. Not everyone needs a ton of space, and not everyone wants to pay large portions of their income on housing.
Some people (and lots in this neighborhood) choose to own vacation homes elsewhere, travel often, dine out frequently, spend tons of time out in the park or in the garden and don't find that they want or need more space.
Not to mention the fact that the blanket statement has no relevance to family size. Would the house be too small for me as a single person? I don't get the bigger is better mentality, though.
Posted by: 11217 at April 28, 2009 2:38 PM
Nomi: it all depends on what arrangement the landlord and tenant agree on. Some get backyard access, some don't, some share.
Posted by: basementalist at April 28, 2009 2:38 PM
>"its too small to rent out a portion"
Depends. Not too small for a couple with no children. (Me!) And, as basementalist says, it can work even with children. These things -- space needs -- are quite individual.
Posted by: Nomi at April 28, 2009 2:39 PM
DIBS, I make 250k a yr. I'm a reasonable guy, so I'll just take $1M / yr salary (no bonus needed).
I can't predict where things will be 40yrs later but I can sure can tell when a 40yr+ prediction looks like low odds
Posted by: more4less at April 28, 2009 2:42 PM
This place has the same floorplan on the top floor as my building. You incorporate the bathroom into the large shared WIC and make it an ensuite bath for the front bedroom and you add an additional bath where the office is in the back. No additional soil pipe necessary, a relatively easy plumbing job. Closets can be built for the rear bedroom and still be a large bedroom and there's more than enough space for closets in the front room especially after incorporating that hallwau WIC.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at April 28, 2009 2:45 PM
"the people buying this for 1.4M aint going to be enjoying those kinds of profits 40 yrs later."
I'd call that a prediction. Its always so bizarre how Team bear members know with such certainty, so far out what the market will look like.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at April 28, 2009 2:47 PM
11217 is the one who said the 46 bagger is possible (30k - 1.4M something that can be replicated in another 40 yrs) and I chimed in slim odds
Posted by: more4less at April 28, 2009 2:52 PM
Well --what per cent of national wealth would housing be in forty years if it appreciated at the same rate as the previous forty? Would that per cent, ceteris parabus, make any sense at all?
Posted by: Whuh at April 28, 2009 2:52 PM
DIBS, if you believe 23% is possible then you're investing in wrong area. 23%/yr and you can live in it - don't know what investmt would beat that
Posted by: more4less at April 28, 2009 2:53 PM
I don't think DIBS is suggesting real estate will appreciate 23% a year at all.
I think he's saying the same thing I am saying...it was as unfathomable 40 years ago that this house would sell for this price today as it is that it will be worth a ton more in another 40 years.
(If you take ANY 40 year stretch in U.S. history, the price of housing has increased significantly in those 40 years, so I'm not really quite sure what your point is more4less)
Posted by: 11217 at April 28, 2009 2:56 PM
"More4less...
You just want me to fight!! ;-)"
- Posted by: 11217 at April 28, 2009 2:16 PM
Someone has been reading the OT!! Otherwise how do they know that More4less wants 'him to fight'!!!
Would you like a Walnut, 11217?
Posted by: bayridgegirl at April 28, 2009 2:57 PM
Team bear always pulls these very precise numbers out of their asses....where does the 23% come from????
It will be worth a lot more in 40 years, probably a lot more in 10 years and we may go through 3 cycles between now and 2049.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at April 28, 2009 3:00 PM
Ha, BRG. Caught me.
I glanced in yesterday and then realized after skimming a few posts, that I was lost and out of my element. I did see the "11217" which kinda stood out, and saw something about more4less wanting me to fight.
I'm too shy for the OT though. ;-)
Posted by: 11217 at April 28, 2009 3:02 PM
11217, rare stuff happens but to assume good odds of that rare event happening again is slim. Not saying it can't happen but odds are slim. Guess the diff is I view a 46 bagger (23% compound rate over 40 yrs) on real estate is rare and you it's common or high odds.
Posted by: more4less at April 28, 2009 3:03 PM
11217 --not sure what your point is. If you're looking at large swaths of time as a predictor of future prices, then you're assuming the power of reversion to mean, and in this instance, housing probably won't appreciate much at all for the next twenty years, in real dollars. I think the Team Bull/Bear baiting is juvenile, but it really is DIBS who keeps insinuating that the past thirty years offer some guide to future performance...
Posted by: Whuh at April 28, 2009 3:03 PM
m4l just wants a good fight to read during his lunch!!!!
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at April 28, 2009 3:04 PM
Never said it was common. You seem to either like putting words in my mouth, or just want me to provide you with entertainment by continuing down this fruitless path of conjecture about the year 2049.
Either way, I feel as though this thread is about played out for me.
Posted by: 11217 at April 28, 2009 3:05 PM
DIBS, correct my math if it's no good. 30k to 1.4M in 40 yrs (per 11217) is 23% compound rate per yr
Posted by: more4less at April 28, 2009 3:05 PM
This is a three story brownstone that has been chopped up into two apartments. By its very nature, the owner's duplex will have only one bathroom.
Posted by: mopar at April 28, 2009 3:05 PM
mopar...what's to stop anyone from adding a second, third or fourth???
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at April 28, 2009 3:07 PM
"DIBS, correct my math if it's no good. 30k to 1.4M in 40 yrs (per 11217) is 23% compound rate per yr"
Snark appropriately noted before that this house has been in the same family for 60 years, not 40, so your math could use some tweaking. You are simply making up the 23% per year because of a fictional story I made up.
Now I need a walnut to read THIS thread!! ;-)
Posted by: 11217 at April 28, 2009 3:07 PM
"Either way, I feel as though this thread is about played out for me."
Join us in the OT, 11217. They're talking about TV shows now. Maybe we can script a TV show together set in Park Slope.
Posted by: bayridgegirl at April 28, 2009 3:07 PM
was responding 11217 post on 2:05pm. if I mis-read it then oops I mis-read. if anyone one thought that meant something else, what did it mean?
Posted by: more4less at April 28, 2009 3:08 PM
What would that be called, BRG? "The Biggest Losers" :)
Yes, 11217, join us in the OT, more4less is there too.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at April 28, 2009 3:09 PM
> "Would you like a Walnut, 11217?"
Sometime you feel like a nut...
Posted by: SnarkSlope at April 28, 2009 3:09 PM
OT is that way>>>>>>>>>>
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at April 28, 2009 3:10 PM
11217, I just re-read your 2:05pm post, you said 40yrs and btw, you enticed me to respond when you rang the bell w/ that post.
hey, let me repeat what I said on the OT yesterday. I like 11217. The guy is feisty and keeps on punching. He brings the heat the posts.
Posted by: more4less at April 28, 2009 3:13 PM
I can't get sucked into the OT today...daddy needs to do some work after being gone all last week!!
I'll pop in unexpectedly and make a comment sometime soon.
BRG...sadly...they already beat us to the punch....
http://www.nypost.com/seven/04302008/news/regionalnews/call_it_slope__the_city_108772.htm
Posted by: 11217 at April 28, 2009 3:13 PM
DIBS, you can add them -- if there's space. I have seen many houses like this in the past nine months, and the owner's duplex usually contains only one bathroom. Furthermore, it's generally on the English basement floor, and the bedrooms are generally on the parlor floor.
Posted by: mopar at April 28, 2009 3:15 PM
Oh yes...you are correct more4less...I did say it, but then Snark pointed out that the house has been in the same family for 60 years, so my fictional 40 years soon became bunk.
This isn't NEARLY fun enough to fight about though. Let's hope that tomorrow will bring to light something far juicier! ;-)
Thanks for the compliment. I like to think I do more than just fight though...
Posted by: 11217 at April 28, 2009 3:16 PM
11217, you know it would be no fun if we all agreed on everything
Posted by: more4less at April 28, 2009 3:21 PM
That may be so, but I am in TOTAL agreement with you on that more4less!! :)
That's why the OT doesn't appeal to me as much. I've never been a circle jerk kinda guy....I'm not as interested in the lovey dovey cat stuff as I am a good debate. Not that there's anything wrong with it!
Posted by: 11217 at April 28, 2009 3:26 PM
11217 is just a contrarian spirit. He likes to disagree regardless of what is being said. predictable.
I maintain my position that this house is too small to subdivide and live in comfortably. Sure, you can make do with a small, cramped space, most people do I guess, 11217 does, but we are talking here about a house that is on the market for 1.7 million dollars. As such it is being marketed to a very elite sort of person. One who does not want to camp out in the living room or share a bathroom with the cleaning person or the gardener. In other words, a grown-up affluent, succesful person. Sometimes I get the feeling some of the posters here have never even met such a person.
Posted by: mcKenzie at April 28, 2009 3:58 PM
mcKenzie, if you're single, two floors (1,630 sq ft in this case) is enough for most single people. Unless you have a family with a bunch of kids, I don't get it.
What does "camp out in the livingroom" mean when that's only about 1/4 of the whole unit.? I suspect you've never even had a cleaning person and a gardener whom you would have to "share a bathroom with."
I get the feeling that some of the posters here live in a make-believe world.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at April 28, 2009 4:08 PM
did anyone address why on banister is red? is it paint so some left over holiday decorations?
the rental layout is odd -that you have to walk through the bedroom to get anywhere in the apt.
mckenzie - i agree, i would want more for 1.7M! geez
Posted by: bkny at April 28, 2009 4:23 PM
1.655 million and not a penny less. Address is PRIME.
Posted by: Adam Dahill at April 28, 2009 4:28 PM
mckenzie:
That's an ancient argument at this site. "Well, for X dollars, I would want..."
You would want more space. Someone else would want a certain location. Someone else would want a full-service high-rise and someone else would want outdoor space. Someone else would only live in Manhattan for that price and someone else would only live in an outer-borough neighborhood walkable to their synagogue... There is no one right answer, which is why NYC is full of varieties of housing stock, and why America is full of places where a million bucks buys you more than it does in NYC.
There may be any number of reasons that this house is overpriced. But the idea that "elites will not pay seven figures to live in this space" is disproved by the fact that they have, and do. If your logic held true, New York would have become a ghost town decades ago.
(Having said all that, I agree that the rental layout looks weird, the lack of photos makes me suspicious, and a "dining room" is not the place for a refrigerator.)
Posted by: basementalist at April 28, 2009 4:54 PM
Dave, are you trying to tell me that the market for this house is a single or childless couple? In Park Slope? for 1.7 million?
Also, I have a small garden and I would prefer that my gardener not traipse up to my bedroom floor to watch his hands or pee, yes. That's why I have a powder room. I frankly don't know where my cleaning lady goes, she has the run of the house I guess you're right there, but she is a cleaning lady and she leaves everything clean.
Bottom line: 1.7 mil can buy you a lot more than his house in today's market. This house? 1.4, tops -and that's only because of the location.
Posted by: mcKenzie at April 28, 2009 4:57 PM
"Dave, are you trying to tell me that the market for this house is a single or childless couple? In Park Slope? for 1.7 million?"
Almost everyone I can think of who lives in either one or two family brownstones on my particular block in the North Slope are either childless couples or a couple with one child. I think there might be a family or two with two kids. All of my immediate neighbors are childless in their 40's and 50's.
"Bottom line: 1.7 mil can buy you a lot more than his house in today's market."
Bottom line...1.7 can buy you easily a lot less than this house also. Like practically everything in Manhattan.
Posted by: 11217 at April 28, 2009 5:23 PM
McKenzie,
Are you by any chance "Sam's" alterego?
Do you know Sam?
Posted by: 11217 at April 28, 2009 5:37 PM
If this were spiffed up a bit, I'd say $1.7 isn't out of reach. But this is definitely a second-tier PS brownstone (3 stories, non park block, limited to F train); I've seen some prime PS brownstones listing for close to the magic $2 million line, so this one looks like around $1.4, maybe even less if the mechanicals are in need of an upgrade. For example, i wonder what the total amperage is and how many 220 v lines exist?
Posted by: Bolder at April 28, 2009 7:33 PM
11217
Sam who? If you all think I'm being obnoxious or silly I will stop posting. I's not doing this to upset people. it's just a little diversion from other things. I do think this is a cute house, but not if it is cut up, that's all.
PS: you are a little contrarian.
Posted by: mcKenzie at April 28, 2009 7:47 PM
I don't think you're obnoxious at all. Far be it from me to suggest who should and should not comment. Sounds like you are very knowledgeable, so keep on posting!!
I just thought your posts sounded like someone else who used to post here...his username was "Sam"
I'm fine with being called a contrarian here if it encourages a little dialogue. I don't have strong feelings one way or the other about this house, although I do think that if houses are selling for 1.4 million in Gowanus, that prime Park Slope block homes should fetch a bit more. Even if they are cut up and needing some renovation. Who knows though...
Posted by: 11217 at April 28, 2009 9:44 PM
This house reminds me of 356 1st Street which also started out five or six months ago at $1.7 million. The asking price was eventually lowered to $1.5 million and the listing now may be in contract, at what price I have no idea.
In my opinion, both houses basically look to need total renovations. I prefer 356 1st Street myself because the garden faces south and gets awesome light.
Posted by: IronBalls at April 29, 2009 8:42 AM
I just want to add I think most NYC properties are currently overpriced by about 30%.
Folks I know have been buying NYC apartment buildings at about 30% below ask, so I figure the same discount should apply to smaller "houses" like this one as well.
Individual home owners may be more stubborn to lower prices, but eventually they'll have to.
Posted by: IronBalls at April 29, 2009 8:48 AM
this realestate agency consistantly over price all of there offerings
Posted by: martinv at April 29, 2009 1:07 PM
Re: 356 1st Street - last I heard (from friend on the block following that house closely) the owner was considering an offer at 1.1 mil (from initial ask of 1.75). And that was in PS321. Given all the work needed on this house (probably at least 300-400K), and the less desirable location compared to 1st St, I think it's worth 1.1 tops.
Posted by: Miss Muffett at April 29, 2009 10:11 PM
Latest Restaurant Additions
-
Le Barricou
added November 20, 2009 12:00 PM in Williamsburg -
Der Schwarze Kölner
added November 19, 2009 12:00 PM in Fort Greene -
Oak Wine Bar & Café
added November 18, 2009 12:00 PM in Williamsburg -
Mr. Wonton
added November 17, 2009 12:00 PM in Park Slope -
Casa Rosa
added November 16, 2009 12:00 PM in Carroll Gardens -
Cousin John's Café & Bakery
added November 13, 2009 12:00 PM in Park Slope -
Elote
added November 12, 2009 12:00 PM in Williamsburg -
Miracle Grill
added November 11, 2009 12:00 PM in Park Slope -
Phoebe's Cafe
added November 10, 2009 12:00 PM in Williamsburg -
Ruthie's
added November 9, 2009 12:00 PM in Clinton Hill, Downtown Brooklyn
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.