« Last Week's Biggest Sales House of the Day: 1809 Glenwood Road »

June 9, 2009

Condo of the Day: 100 Jay Street, #16H

Here's a pretty swanky three-bedroom pad at the J Condo in Dumbo that's particularly notable for the fact that its asking price of $1,349,000 is firmly on the south side of the $1,000-a-foot mark where most of the other listings in the building seem to hover. Couple that with the fact that the apartment is family-sized (1,592 square feet) and immaculately put together and we could see this place getting some traction with buyers. Not necessarily at the asking price of $1,349,000 (cuz who pays that anymore?) but realistically within 10 percent of it or so. You think?
100 Jay Street, #16H [Douglas Elliman] GMAP P*Shark

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/10083

Comments

This is very nice I must admit. And one of the advantages of living at the J condo is that when you look out your window it doesn't spoil the view.
I like this apartment a lot. And there's a garage and a gym. I definitely think my days (or years) as a brownstone stair-shlepper are numbered.

Posted by: sam at June 9, 2009 12:59 PM

Nice. But I'd happily ditch the half bath for more closet space. Offer 900,000.

Posted by: SnarkSlope at June 9, 2009 1:03 PM

I can see the appeal. My guess is that it'll get close to asking (within 10% or so).

Posted by: Kensingtonian at June 9, 2009 1:04 PM

yuck yuck yuck yuck. disgusting architecture, the most hellishly cookie cutter lay out with over sized bedrooms and undersized railroad living room. I just can't stand this type of apt, and can't believe brownstoner that you are encouraging the "when will it end" inflated prices of these horrible condos.

Posted by: gkw at June 9, 2009 1:05 PM

Same thing that usually bothers me about these luxury places -- the common area doesn't feel like enough. AND, there's no common area to go and close the door. Have to go into bedroom to get away for kids and other humans.

Posted by: Nomi at June 9, 2009 1:07 PM

I'm pretty familiar with this building. One reason for the price differential between the upper floors and the lower floors is that views are much more protected the higher you go, particularly given the likely build of Dock Street at 17 stories.

Posted by: dumbomom at June 9, 2009 1:09 PM

a garage, 16th floor view for 900/ft, nice looking inside and out, great hood... and a chance to live in a place named after a joint. which would you rather live in, the "J" or the "Argyle"? easy choice. brownstoner you chose the name, didn't you?

plus you get a nice little park on the water, a new middle school coming in...and with the way condo buildings are going vs brownstones, it won't be long before the price/foot is the same at the top end (500). A free parking spot should be part of any deal so they can keep the contract prices up.

anyone know how much of it is sold? is it bankrupt or falling apart or anything? are they building a 17 story building right in front of the window?

Posted by: joe_the_bummer at June 9, 2009 1:13 PM

I like. I wish I had $1.3 mill. Yes the design does not scream originality but it is pragmatic and efficient.

Joe - how is this even a comp for you with the Argyle? Seriously - how?

Posted by: crimsonson at June 9, 2009 1:27 PM

"Not necessarily at the asking price of $1,349,000 (cuz who pays that anymore?) but realistically within 10 percent of it or so."

What's the difference?

***Bid half off peak comps***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at June 9, 2009 1:28 PM

Looks like this sold in 2007 for $1.13m.
This is what I keep looking for - resales on relatively new condos.
So this was essentially bought height of market? and now asking 15-20% higher than then. Even Brownster very conservative appraisers are calling it pretty much even from 2007.
So where is that 10-20% drop in peak prices?
any comments?

Posted by: Petebklyn at June 9, 2009 1:37 PM

> So where is that 10-20% drop in peak prices?

They can ask for as much as they want. Let's see what it actually sells for.

Posted by: SnarkSlope at June 9, 2009 1:40 PM

hmm- that living room is tiny. Wow - it's really tiny
It's kinda cool - I see the appeal, I wish the LR was larger though
I guessed 1.175

Posted by: gemini10 at June 9, 2009 1:41 PM

no way anyone should pay more then a million for this. Maybe they could find the guy who bought the Brooklyn bridge close by

Posted by: brickoven at June 9, 2009 1:41 PM

crimson, I'm only comping the names. one is named after a sock, one after a valuable herb.

pete good catch. they must have set it at "cost +15%" expecting to give up 15% and break even. that's gonna be disappointing. bid 850.

Posted by: joe_the_bummer at June 9, 2009 1:45 PM

I think Richard Meier is a better comparable than Argyle.

Posted by: JENNYFROMTHEBLOCK at June 9, 2009 1:52 PM

13x21 is a tiny living room? most brownstone parlors aren't that big!

Posted by: BH76 at June 9, 2009 1:52 PM

The main thing for me is that it really feels like it should be a two bedroom with a larger, more open living space. As it stands, the "dining room" feels like it was snugged into the foyer, and the Master bedroom feels like it should be part of the living room.

Seems rather pricey for a two bedroom.

Posted by: Nokilissa at June 9, 2009 1:52 PM

Layout isn't particularly pleasing -- and that's a lot of money for a jumped up railroad with small closets, even with a garage. But I'm finicky about layouts and have come to dislike the open kitchen/lr/dr - it just seems lazy, cookie cutter design. Nice building amenities though.

Posted by: bridges at June 9, 2009 2:08 PM

a typical house in USA in 1970 was 1400 sq ft. This condo is almost 1600sq ft. Of course now houses are up to 2350 sq ft. but to call this a 2 bedroom seems pretty out there or very entitled or someone who dreams of living in a McMansion.

Posted by: Petebklyn at June 9, 2009 2:15 PM

1600 sounds pretty darn big to me. I thought pretty much all hi-rise layouts were economical like that, never seen any different. I think if you rule out the "open kitchen thing", you're kind of limited.

F it. Unless they build "The Blunt" next year, this is my apartment.

Posted by: joe_the_bummer at June 9, 2009 2:24 PM

Family friendly perhaps. But what school is that family supposed to go to? There's no elementary school down there and the one you'd be zone for is nothing to write home about to say the least.

And then there's that whole slave to the F train thing. No thanks!

Posted by: BrooklynSteve at June 9, 2009 2:33 PM

People think those rooms are small? Are you folks insane? That apartment has more square footage than the house in South Brooklyn that I grew up in.

Posted by: BrooklynSteve at June 9, 2009 2:37 PM

And let's put this into perspective... here's what 3 bedrooms are going for in the Forte are starting at now:

3 Bedrooms/2BA $775,000

That's almost half of what they are asking for in this building. Come on owner, you bought at the height of the market and you may have to take a loss. $1,000,000 at the most and that's only because of its DUMBO address even though it's on the wrong side of the Manhattan Bridge.

Posted by: BrooklynSteve at June 9, 2009 2:40 PM

One main difference between this place and your average 1970's 1400SF house is that the 1970's house very likely would have had 3 bedrooms and 1 bath. Today people insist on a bathroom for every bedroom. That cuts into your livable square footage. Take out the extra 1.5 bathrooms in here and you've got much more space for living and/or storage.

Posted by: TD at June 9, 2009 2:44 PM

For $90,000 less, you can pick up a three bedroom, three bath duplex atop the Toren and have use of a pool! A POOL! Need I say more? Come on folks... do some comping before you list your place at a ridiculous price. $1.39 million for a simple, uninteresting single floor three bedroom, or $1.3 million for a duplex three bedroom with bigger rooms, a pool in the building and you're within a few blocks of every subway line that runs through Brooklyn as opposed to just the F train.

Posted by: BrooklynSteve at June 9, 2009 2:47 PM

I didn't know the manhattan bridge had two sides.

Posted by: joe_the_bummer at June 9, 2009 2:57 PM

This is a sincere question - no snark intended.

why does dumbo command such a premium?

Posted by: dirty_hipster at June 9, 2009 3:02 PM

The views and the big loft apartments in the rehab'd warehouse manufacturing buildings. I've been inside a few. The apartments are relatively massive with high end fixtures and many of them have great views of the Brooklyn Bridge.

Posted by: BrooklynSteve at June 9, 2009 3:07 PM

"why does dumbo command such a premium?"

Proximity to Farrugut Houses for that yayo.

***Bid half off peak comps***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at June 9, 2009 3:11 PM

BrooklynSteve -
the only worst comparison to this building with the Argyle is Forte. Seriously. Do you people just randomly select a building - anywhere, any kind - and compare it? Because I am pretty sure I can find a 3BR/ 2BA in Queens Blvd that goes cheaper than Forte. Then I can beat that one with a Jamaica Ave low income housing that is a foreclosure sale. Then beat that with an open lot some where in Upstate NY. Then finally end up in a favella in Brazil.
What kind of perspective are you referring to?

Posted by: crimsonson at June 9, 2009 3:12 PM

I get you like Toren steve, but to many people DUMBO is preferable to living on Flatbush and Myrtle. Just respect their opinions too. It is not a slam dunk one over the other and generally they are pretty = pricing.

Posted by: Petebklyn at June 9, 2009 3:24 PM

the long and the short of it is this is an incredibly generic apt in an ugly building and it's absolutely absurd that the owners are asking for more than they paid at the very very peak of the market.

Posted by: gkw at June 9, 2009 3:29 PM

guys --- argyle comparison. joke. lighten up.

Posted by: joe_the_bummer at June 9, 2009 3:36 PM

Why do people not like Forte? What about OPP comparison? Toren is good because I think J is in the middle of nowhere despite its dumbo address like Toren...

Posted by: JENNYFROMTHEBLOCK at June 9, 2009 3:39 PM

J is right in front of the subway stop. put that in your pipe and smoke it, Jenny.

Posted by: joe_the_bummer at June 9, 2009 3:45 PM

Jenny - the F train SUCKS! S-U-C-K-S!!!!!

Posted by: BrooklynSteve at June 9, 2009 3:54 PM

Once all is said and done and one moves in here and parks the car downstairs, how different is it really from a tower condos in Jersey City likr the Newport? I'm sure the 3-bedrooms are much cheaper there, the parking, cheaper, and the PATH gets you to manhattan and is nicer than the F.

Posted by: sam at June 9, 2009 4:00 PM

cause you can walk to Union Sq from J in 40 minutes and for what it is worth DUMBO has the interesting shops, art exhibits, St. Ann's warehouse, and F train isn't any worse than any other line and just a couple stops to Smith St. restaurants and much quicker(and more frequent) to midtown than any PATH train.

Posted by: Petebklyn at June 9, 2009 4:16 PM

dirty hipster - I think its because of all the pollution from the BQE and the bridges that everyone was raving about yesterday.

Posted by: dittoburg at June 9, 2009 4:53 PM

"Family friendly perhaps. But what school is that family supposed to go to? There's no elementary school down there and the one you'd be zone for is nothing to write home about to say the least."

Not sure what this is all about. PS 8 is well-regarded (and well-attended by other J Condo residents). Packer and St. Ann's are walkable (or you can wheel your SUV out of the garage and drive over in 5 minutes, like lots of other parents do).

Posted by: NorthHeights at June 9, 2009 5:32 PM

Sigh. I voice my opinion over a rather odd layout having the living room smaller & narrower than the bedrooms, which might make for a more pleasing two bedroom, saying NOTHING about square footage, and I get called an entitled idiot desirous of a McMansion. You may think you have me pigeon-holed Mr. Bklyn, but you do not.

Posted by: Nokilissa at June 9, 2009 7:41 PM

Packer & St. Ann's: the perfect schools for anyone willing to pay 1.349 for this.

Posted by: bkbornandbred at June 9, 2009 9:15 PM

i'm not much for living in Dumbo, but if you haven't seen these apts, you don't quite get it. they are not cookie cutter, falling down or average. they are really really nice. i looked at them out of curiosity, and thought they were terrific apts.

re location: for me, not a fan of the dirt, the projects, but especially the noise! it's soooo loud in that particular spot. i'm a person who absolutely needs tons of outdoor space, and even if you have a balcony, you'll never use it because it's so freakin loud.

Posted by: wine lover at June 9, 2009 10:41 PM

If you see living room as narrower and smaller than bedrooms - then you were not looking at same floor plan I did. LR was 13' wide and bdrms 11'.
Sounds more like - let me quickly look at something and let me come up quickly with something negative to say no matter if makes sense or not.

Posted by: Petebklyn at June 10, 2009 9:25 AM

"cause you can walk to Union Sq from J in 40 minutes and for what it is worth DUMBO has the interesting shops, art exhibits, St. Ann's warehouse, and F train isn't any worse than any other line and just a couple stops to Smith St. restaurants and much quicker(and more frequent) to midtown than any PATH train."

Petebklyn, are you kidding? The F train does not run as often as so many other lines in Brooklyn. The B, Q, N, R & A are much better lines. The 2 & 3 come much more often than the F. It's a fact! And try to squeeze on to the F during rush our at that stop in DUMBO heading into the city. Sardine can doesn't begin to describe how packed it can be. The Q train... from Dekalb Ave. it's 2 stops to Union Square. How man stops is it to Union Square on the F? Hmmm, let me see... oh yeh, the F doesn't go to Union Square. But it does go to East Broadway. Thank god! I mean I'm always looking for ways to get to East Broadway. (yes, read with sarcasm please)

Posted by: BrooklynSteve at June 11, 2009 12:26 PM

« Last Week's Biggest Sales House of the Day: 1809 Glenwood Road »

June 9, 2009

Condo of the Day: 100 Jay Street, #16H

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions