« Walentas Putting Clocktower Manse on Market? Scarano Opens Up to The Brooklyn Paper »

June 11, 2009

Cobble Hill Towers Condo Plan Drops

We're hearing that some tenants at the historic Cobble Hill Towers have begun receiving their Red Herring Condo Offering Plans in the mail. The wheels for the conversion were set in motion a little more than a year ago when long-time owner Frank Farella entered into a joint venture with the Hudson Companies to reposition the 186-unit complex. From what we gather, current tenants (or any new tenant that rents an apartment before the condo plan is approved by the Attorney General towards the end of this year) will have the option to purchase their units at an insider price of $500 per square foot; they'll have 90 days from when the plan is approved to exercise this option.
Cobble Hill Towers May Go Co-op [Brownstoner] GMAP
Exclusive: Hudson To Partner on Cobble Hill Towers [Brownstoner]

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/10137

Comments

Why would they buy here when they can pay a zillion dollars per square foot One BBP?

Posted by: dittoburg at June 11, 2009 10:38 AM

wow that is a gorgeous building!

*rob*

Posted by: PitbullNYC at June 11, 2009 10:43 AM

500 per sq ft is even more gorgeous

Posted by: more4less at June 11, 2009 10:47 AM

...So is the view down into the BQE trench!

Posted by: bowl of dicks at June 11, 2009 10:52 AM

Is $500/squ foot really such a great bargain? What kind of shape are the apartments in? Given how low the rents have been historically, I'd imagine they aren't in the best of condition, and are there dishwashers/washing machines? Maybe during the height of the market, but as prices return to where they were historically, it doesn't seem like such a great deal, especially if you can rent a similar apartment for less than your mortgage and maintenance.

Posted by: CGfan at June 11, 2009 10:52 AM

500 is a steal considering how well they were thought out.

Posted by: DeLepp at June 11, 2009 10:52 AM

CGfan, I'm big supporter of rent now buy later. but if you're going to buy NOW in that hood, I doubt you'll find anything comparable at 500/sq ft

Posted by: more4less at June 11, 2009 10:57 AM

Apts have multiple exposures (even 1 bedrooms) and you have your own entrance. Beats any cookie cutter one bedroom anyday.

Posted by: DeLepp at June 11, 2009 10:59 AM

Here's a current Craigslist listing for Cobble Hill Towers: http://newyork.craigslist.org/brk/nfb/1207370574.html

Decent shape, but looks to be lacking original details.

This truly is a gorgeous building (at least outside), but the location right near the BQE makes it not really feel like part of a neighborhood. It also seems to be a hike from the subway...

Posted by: alsawo at June 11, 2009 11:01 AM

It's an interesting building...

... exterior stairs and hallways, no elevator, the iron work is great, but it hasn't been updated much since it was built.

I've been in one of the apartments recently, top floor walk up, and it wasn't renovated. Small dining area, small living room, 2 "average" (double/queen bed 1 dresser) bedrooms. Bathroom.

The kitchen is basically a hole in the wall off the dining area. About 1 foot of linoleum between the wood floor of the apartment and the fridge (not full size) and the cabinet (it's small enough that I specifically used the singular).

I'm not sure about the washer/dryer situation but I can't imagine where you'd put on in the unit (condo style), maybe common ones in the basement...

It's a great looking building but it does overlook the BQE. It's down the block from PS 29....

... there are definite merits to it, but from the shape of the unit I was in $500 sqf is a hundo or two too much...

Posted by: christopher at June 11, 2009 11:01 AM

So does this mean that the people that are currently renting either have to move out at the end of their lease or buy?

Posted by: Mpmav01 at June 11, 2009 11:19 AM

christopher, my point exactly. $450,000 for a 900 square foot apartment, especially for one without a decent kitchen and that requires walking up 3 or 4 flights of stairs, isn't exactly a "bargain" except according to the inflated real estate prices of the recent bubble. It's still barely affordable for most middle class families with kids who need 2 bedrooms. Even if they stretch to afford something costing half a million dollars, they'd likely prefer getting a basic luxury like a dishwasher for their money. I'm not saying there isn't someone out there willing to pay those prices -- I just don't know who those people are.

Posted by: CGfan at June 11, 2009 11:20 AM

"basic luxury"

I like it

Posted by: dittoburg at June 11, 2009 11:32 AM

CGfan, you and I are on the same page...

... I looked at that Craigslist link, that is nothing like the unrenovated unit I've been in. Night and day difference. Not that I'd pay $450k for that Craigslist apt, but if the renovated 1 bed is $450k the unrenovated ones, 1 or 2 bed, had better be $300k or less...

Posted by: christopher at June 11, 2009 11:38 AM

Beautiful building...disappointing offering plan. I'm a renter. The "insider price" was expected to be $500/sq. ft. but it varies considerably among apts. (from $400-$600 or so per sq. ft from cheapest to most expensive) But even that is erroneous b/c the developer has inflated the square footage (perfectly legal) by including the exterior portions of all apts (mid pt between apt. walls, window sills, fire escapes, door vestibule) in the calculations. If the actual floor area of your apt is 800 sq. ft, the Hudson offering plan calculation could be as much as 15 or 20 percent more (960 ft)!! So if you thought you'd be looking at a $400,000 apt, it's actually $480,000.
If you buy it and wish to sell it one day, chances are you'll have to sell it for its ACTUAL USABLE Sq. footage (800 sq.ft) which is $600/sq ft. That's the hell of square footage calculation. But it's not the only thing wrong with this plan. They will have a lot of negotiating to do if they want this to fly, starting with significantly lowering either the sq. footage calculations or the price. or both.

Posted by: Zed at June 11, 2009 11:42 AM

I've seen about 10 units in this building, and while the renovations are nice... I would guess they are about $30k worth of work. So I'm not sure how much they can justify a greater increase based upon that.

I do like the apartments, however.

Posted by: Mpmav01 at June 11, 2009 11:44 AM

This was built in the 1800s by Alfred Tredway White as "model" housing for the working class.

The exposed stairs and balconies were used to reduce tenement crime and prostitution, common to slum hallways at the time.

Remarkable how our standards for housing have declined!

Posted by: NOP at June 11, 2009 11:46 AM

I just looked at that Craigslist link, too. You are right, those apartments are renovated with dishwasher, etc. But, the asking rent is $1,650 - $1,800 for a 1 bedroom, and $2,450 for a 2 bedroom/2 bath. I don't know the size of these, but if this is market rent, it seems for cost effective to rent rather than pay mortgage and maintenance if your costs are so much higher.

Posted by: CGfan at June 11, 2009 11:47 AM

The lower $1650 price on Craiglist is for a renovated 1br. However, it was on the 5th or 4th floor walk-up, and was small enough to feel like a studio.

Posted by: Mpmav01 at June 11, 2009 11:51 AM

CGfan, once the conversion is effectuated, those juicy rents wont be available anymore

Posted by: more4less at June 11, 2009 11:53 AM

more4less, what do you mean? Are those rents under rent stabilization? If not, is there some reason the owner wants to offer them below market?

Posted by: CGfan at June 11, 2009 11:57 AM

CGfan, if you bought per teh conv plans, you aint turning around to rent it out below your monthly outflow. if you the sponsor, why rent when you've waited eons for this day to sell it for bigger profits. net net is I see no reason why anyone would renting out the units at these rents post the conversion being effectuated.

Posted by: more4less at June 11, 2009 12:03 PM

The building is really nice looking from the outside and back in the day it was built for the working class. The $500 psft insider deal is a ripoff. This is the lowest ceilings I have ever seen for residential living. It is sub 8'. Can't do anything about that. The $500 psft is a rip-off considering market rate projects will have to drop to around $450-$550 to sell.

Posted by: CookieCutterBrownstone at June 11, 2009 12:29 PM

Been kicking the tires on renting here with the intent on buying, but waiting to see the details of the OP. Gotta say, I'm pretty disappointed w/ $500/sf. Even more wary of what zed describes above. Having been inside two apartments here, 500 is way off the mark. What a shame. Please do keep us updated on what's happening here though. thanks.

Posted by: cwt at June 11, 2009 12:34 PM

is the $500/sf locked or that something that can be negotiated individually btwn buyer and sponsor?

Posted by: more4less at June 11, 2009 12:41 PM

This is an absolute betrayal of the building's original purpose. They were built by philanthropist Alfred Treadway White, who believed the poor, working people deserved to live an attractive, comfortable housing. In today's New York, White would be laughed out of town.

Posted by: Brooks of Sheffield at June 11, 2009 12:46 PM

Alfred White's philosophy was "charity plus five percent"
Meaning that he expected his good works such as this complex and the one in Brooklyn Heights to return a profit. The tradition of building decent, modern, airy housing for the working poor was continued through the twentieth century by the State and City governments. Many of the housing project, disparaged by some on this very blog, did provide housing that was a huge step up from the filthy, dark, fire traps where many poor and near-poor citizens raised their families.
One of the important amentites of this building is the interior courtyard, which is like a private park. However there are no elevators and while there is cross-ventilation in every apartment, they are small units. I think the offering price is high and will probably be reduced through the usual process of negotiations that take place in a non-eviction plan such as this one. Many who pay a pittance in rent will probably not deem it worth it to buy, and they could be right, renter's rights are extremely strong. But in general the conversion of this fine building to owner-occupancy is a good thing. I do not believe White would mind, as long as the sponsor makes a decent profit.

Posted by: Minard Lafever at June 11, 2009 1:23 PM

Zed - that's not inflated. That's how all apartment square footagesd are calculated in all offerings plans. SO in fact, that is an "apples-to-apples" comparison with other prcing on the market.

Posted by: bkre at June 11, 2009 1:30 PM

OMG, I cannot believe this is turning condo. The builder was an idealistic private developer who created this building as an enlightened improvement for working class people. There was, however, an unusual choice that might be considered a tiny glitch today: The bathrooms and the kitchens were communal and were located in the basement. I kid you not.

Posted by: mopar at June 11, 2009 1:36 PM

Mopar: I recall the original plans for this complex.

Their great improvement over contemporary tenements was that they provided each family with a lavatory and separate kitchen.

The lavatory wasn't a full bathroom, more of a toilet closet. And the kitchens and "livingrooms" were often combined. But even these minimal amenities marked a big advance for working people who were accustomed to toilets in the public hall or backyard.

White, like other reformers of his period, was anxious to enforce the family autonomy missing in the "promiscuous" public life of slum tenements at the time.

But he suffered the limitations of his period, too. Occupancy was limited to white Christians -- at a time of explosive immigration by European Jews and when African Americans were squeezed into Manhattan's "Tenderloin."

Posted by: NOP at June 11, 2009 1:49 PM

Our toilet was in the backyard until we moved house in 1976. As a kid I was petrified of going to the loo in the dark.

Posted by: dittoburg at June 11, 2009 1:52 PM

bkre,

I understand that it is an accepted practice. It is not how it is done in ALL offering plans, however. Perhaps NY, i don't know. There have been plenty of discussions on this board about this and the problems it creates for buyers/sellers--brokers that refuse to market an apt for say, 1000sq. ft, simply because that's what the seller paid for it--when it's actually 900sq ft of USEABLE FLOOR SPACE.

That it is an "accepted" practice, doesn't make it any less palatable to a buyer/seller since you won't be LIVING in the entryway OUTSIDE your door, on your FIRE ESCAPE (which is large, mind you), or INSIDE the wall, halfway between my apt and my neighbors.

Posted by: Zed at June 11, 2009 1:55 PM

Dittoburg: Were there still out houses in NYC at the time? I thought these were outlawed in the 1870s. Or did you grow up somewhere else? My great grandparents had a farm, and Dad remembered his "a** freezing off" when he had to use the loo during vacations.

Posted by: NOP at June 11, 2009 2:10 PM

I was in London (UK) NOP, I should have made that clear. We had to wash in the kitchen sink, though my mum called it the scullery sink. All of the victorian rowhouses (or terraced houses as we called them) on my street had privys.

Posted by: dittoburg at June 11, 2009 2:39 PM

I visited this building a few years back - a wonderful piece of Architecture. Some of the best blocks in the city that shows off Brooklyn's revolutionary past.

Posted by: Crownlfc at June 11, 2009 9:52 PM

This building is mostly rent stab but I believe HUDSON has been decontrolling units as they become vacant. Just say a one-bedroom, under Rent stab, rents for $1,000.
When the tenant leaves, HUDSON puts $32,000 in renovations into the unit. 1/40 of these costs are put into rental charge. This, plus vacancy increase factors, brings the unit price to $2,000 a month. THe apartment is taken out of rent stab and HUDSON can rent for anything they want.

I believe less desirable one bedrooms go for $1600 and more desirable ones go for $1750. This is a quirk of rent stab.
The legal rent not actual (preferred rent) must be over 2000 to take out of rent stab.... If there is a J-51, the unts stay in rent stab no matter the monthly rent of the unit

Building is old and needs a lot of work. Dont know about boiler, plumbing and other systems. There is no laundry room -- people go to the laundromat on Henry bet. Baltic and Kane. Typically it is hard to put washer/dryers in these units due to limitations of gas lines and water system. Because building is pre-1931, it is subject to NYC Local Law 1/2004, the lead-based paint law, which can be very expensive to follow... I guess the maintenance/common charges will be high. Maybe, they will initially be low but operating expenses will probably push maintaince/common charges much higher.

Posted by: Cobblehillite at June 12, 2009 7:41 AM

I'm in a renovated unit, which is at current market rental rates (comparable to similarly sized units across the 'hood that i saw). They did a really great job with the renovations (stainless steel appliances, dishwasher). We face the BQE and barely hear it. For this type of unit, the offering price could be a steal. Not sure about for the unrenovated units. I have a feeling this offering is a better deal for newer tenants paying market rates than those who have been there for ages.

There will be laundry for the complex within the next few weeks-- another one of the improvements they have been making.

Posted by: PsycheNYC at June 12, 2009 12:24 PM

I recently looked at a rental in this building. Does this mean I will be kicked out if I don't decide to buy?

Posted by: AJoy at August 5, 2009 12:27 PM

« Walentas Putting Clocktower Manse on Market? Scarano Opens Up to The Brooklyn Paper »

June 11, 2009

Cobble Hill Towers Condo Plan Drops

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions