« Brooklyn Food & Drink Round-Up House of the Day: 10 Schermerhorn Street »

June 10, 2009

Condos of the Day: 707 Carroll Street

This ~~four-unit~~ eight-unit condo conversion at 707 Carroll Street in Park Slope hit the market back in February and underwent a price reduction in April. Four of the eight units are currently available at prices ranging from $595,000 to $695,000. The developer certainly gets points for keeping the original woodwork in place; he gives them right back, though, for designing cheesy kitchens. Anyone looked at these?
707 Carroll Street [Brooklyn Properties] GMAP P*Shark

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/10103

Comments

Ugh, one narrow railroad. 13 feet wide at best? Yikes.

I personally hate those particular designed room dividers, but that's just me.

Price per square foot at least not outrageous, but they look like cheap rentals.

Posted by: MoneyForNothing at June 10, 2009 12:48 PM

i mean really, how hard would it be to put in an ikea kitchen? or are these home depot jobs really that much cheaper?

Posted by: randolph at June 10, 2009 12:53 PM

can anyone read the floorplan details (comes up blurry on my monitor)? looks super narrow, and shows 3 bedrooms that are walkthrough? no thanks. original detail doesnt overshadow functionality and space.

Posted by: goldie at June 10, 2009 12:54 PM

Mr. B - it's is getting really annoying when you comment on EVERY renovation done in a Brooklyn - 95% negative. Seriously, do you now consider yourself the preeminent authority on this subject because you live in one? I hope I don't sound like too much of a dick, but seriously, let the other readers opine while you continue to just present the product in an unbiased manner.

Posted by: 7182713 at June 10, 2009 12:54 PM

ugh - where do I start
totally cheap rentals. pink bathrooms, ugh! and the kitchens double ugh

sorry - but imo overpriced!

Posted by: gemini10 at June 10, 2009 12:55 PM

The location is excellent, in the "original" Park Slope. The interiors were nicely done and the woodwork is distinctive. I think the two things that will sell these units is the woodwork and the low maintennce. The prices seem a bit high for a building with no services and no elevator. But everything is negotiable today.
I think the layouts are kind of fun. These long apartments actually seem bigger when you're in them than they really are.

Posted by: sam at June 10, 2009 12:57 PM

nice location. would that be a load-bearing wall in the middle of the first floor? how about combining 1L and 1R into one? it would totally work. the kitchens and living rooms are back to back, so you just strip out that ikea stuff and do it right, and enjoy separate basement playrooms for your spoiled park slope kids who hate each other.

Posted by: joe_the_bummer at June 10, 2009 1:00 PM

The kitchen cabinets seem nice. I think it's the counters, lack of space and lack of appliances that give it a cheap look.

Posted by: dt at June 10, 2009 1:04 PM

I'm glad someone decided to keep the period detail - kudos for that. It's the only thing keeping the apartments from being cookie cutter ordinary. I must pick a nit in saying it wouldn't cost that much, or be that hard, to find someone to repair the fretwork. Those ball and stick pieces do not require the skills of a Grinling Gibbons to repair, and for the amount they are charging for these apartments, it's the least they could do.

Posted by: Montrose Morris at June 10, 2009 1:11 PM

Those floor plans are unmitigated disasters. Would have been better to do full floors.

Posted by: the chicken at June 10, 2009 1:12 PM

"I think the layouts are kind of fun"

If you mean Fun by having to walk through both your childrens' bedrooms at night to do anything, then yeah, it's a blast.

I know I think it's totally awesome when I wake up my 18 month old to!

RR apartments suck, plain and simple.

Posted by: MoneyForNothing at June 10, 2009 1:12 PM

Montrose:

They didn;t repair the work (I agree, horrible) because they ran out of cash of course. Hence the craptacular kitchens.

Anything finished in the last 12 months by a developer will have corners cut as we know. Prices cut, not so much. Corners, definitely.

Posted by: MoneyForNothing at June 10, 2009 1:14 PM

Do they even know their market here? Nobody with children would buy a place where you have to tiptoe through bedrooms to get to the other bedrooms during nap times and bedtime. Plus no privacy once kids are big enough to open doors. Bit clueless of the developer to do that in family oriented neighborhood.

Railroad layouts in general aren't all that bad. We had a more typically laid out railroad Park Slope coop apt with LR/DR/kitchen in front and bedrooms in back with bathroom and long hallway between. The thing that's really nice about that layout is somebody can be watching TV or have guests over and the kids (or anybody who is sleeping) are well separated from the LR. If you have bedrooms directly off your LR space nobody is going to be sleeping all that easily while there are people and TV in the LR. I think the long hallway separating BR's from LR in a railroad layout is the next best thing to a house or duplex where the BR's are on another floor.

Posted by: traditionalmod at June 10, 2009 1:15 PM

MFN: Quite right. They wouldn't be fun for everyone.
I would never recommend a walk-up for anyone with children regardless of the layout.

Posted by: sam at June 10, 2009 1:16 PM

there is a good reason why the prices are low --> bad renovation & rent stablized tenants!!!

Posted by: ZooLander at June 10, 2009 1:17 PM

TadMod: Ok, I agree...lay our a RR nicely, and it can work. Not my preference, but Ok.

You're totally dead on abt brain-dead layout in family nabe.

That said, a 13 ft-wide RR isn't exactly my idea of a 1/2 a mil dollar investment. Or a particularly soothing place to spend the next 10+ years of my life.

Starter apartment for people with no kids...

Posted by: MoneyForNothing at June 10, 2009 1:19 PM

honestly I don't see anything wrong with the prices. at 750/foot for the above-ground space, they are only asking an extra 100K (250/ft) for the basement. that's assuming 800ft for the upstairs and 400ft for downstairs.

Posted by: joe_the_bummer at June 10, 2009 1:21 PM

this condo fell right in the center of my radar when I was looking for a place. there aren't that many prewar condos in (for me) prime park slope (i.e. above 5th ave and above 10th st-ish) in this price range (even now). but one look at the floorplans+the kitchens and I didn't even consider them worth going to see. ended up deciding on something slightly smaller, less recently renovated, less expensive and with a much much better floorplan. i don't have kids - and still, not a fan of 800sqft of wide hallway. also, i'd rather tear out an old kitchen than pay for a new one before I tear it out.

Posted by: perhaps at June 10, 2009 1:23 PM

718-
The fact that we have an opinion is kinda the point...

Posted by: brownstoner at June 10, 2009 1:30 PM

I find it amazing that anyone in their right mind would undertake a renno in a building like this & preserve this absolutely horrible railroad layout!
I live nearby in a very similar building but with a 100% different floorplan - just as traditionalmod described - LR/DR/KIT on one end & 2 BR's [each w/2 windows] & 1 1/2 baths [plus laundry] down a long, narrow back hallway. It rocks!
Honestly, the crapola kitchen is the least of your worries...
I also doubt the advertised top-floor unit has 'private' roof rights - wouldn't they be shared with the other top floor apartment? And notice that 'roof rights' doesn't mean there's actually a roof deck or even stair access to the roof. Many of these buildings only have hatch & ladder access - a big expense to convert into proper roof access.
Finally, there's one thing I'll say in-defense of this place: sam, why the hate for walk-ups? My building has 2 kids in upper-floor apts & it's not a problem! Maybe you need to get a little exercise... and walking-up stairs is a great way to start!

Posted by: parkedslope at June 10, 2009 1:43 PM

not a 4 unit condo. 4 units are available - but looks like an 8 unit bldg.

Posted by: Petebklyn at June 10, 2009 1:52 PM

PDS: I definitely need a little more exercise but that isn't the point, I live in a house. I feel sorry for the moms (its usually the moms) hauling up the kid and the stroller and the groceries two, three or four stories. I know a lot of people do it, God bless them, but I would not recommend it to anyone who could possibly afford a more convenient home.

Posted by: sam at June 10, 2009 1:54 PM

I agree this layout seems terrible but will also agree with parkedslope that ragging on stairs in PS is a bit odd, given that many, many families in the hood live in walk-ups, to evidently no ill effect. That said, when I lived in one, I did long to have that StarTrek ability to be beamed up...

Posted by: Miss Muffett at June 10, 2009 1:55 PM

I guess when you're doing four kitchens, saving 10-15k on each one adds up. And, though many will want to redo them, I bet it's still psychologically better to have a new crappy kitchen there than nothing, or an old one. (Though nothing would be great in my mind -- save demolition cost, and do what I want instead of having to rip out lame one.)

But walking thru one bedroom to get to another? That's what one settles for when you're renting and you have no choice financially. NOT what one would buy.

Posted by: Nomi at June 10, 2009 1:57 PM

I saw these apartments when they first hit the market a couple of months back. At first, we thought they sounded like a great deal -- in the heart of the true Park Slope, right next to Berkley Carroll St. School -- and with outdoor space and the potential to build out the bottom level. Sweet! Then we went to see them -- not sweet AT ALL. The kitchen is in the back of the apartment and is DISGUSTING. The bedrooms are teeny tiny dark rooms that look out onto air shafts. The worst part -- you could almost touch both walls at the same time with outstretched arms. This apartment was about as narrow as a bowling alley. So, for all of the money you would have to put into it to make it livable (thought you can never undo the lack of width), it's a ridiculous price. It needs at least $100-150K. I knew these would still be on the market months later. They're totally not worth it after inspection.

Posted by: bkoriginal at June 10, 2009 2:02 PM

When did it start being okay to call rooms without windows "Bedrooms" ?

Posted by: melanarchy at June 10, 2009 2:02 PM

Melanarchy - never. Rooms without windows are dens at best. Seems developer majorly screwed-up by not combining the 2 apartments for something livable. Their greed will cost them now.

Posted by: Miss Muffett at June 10, 2009 2:06 PM

what bkoriginal said. I looked at these apts because they appeared to be priced well. This is one of the worst conversions I have seen. I walked in and walked right back out. Told Mrs. Jackal there wasn't any point in unloading the kids so we could all look at it together.

Posted by: lechacal at June 10, 2009 2:07 PM

I would go so far as to say that I think this is a rare example of a conversion actually reducing the aggregate value of the building. Absolutely nothing of value was added other than dividing up living spaces. This place is more valuable as a single living space. The basic premise that a conversion leads to higher per square foot value for smaller units completely falls apart if you don't do the work to add the value.

I got the strong impression when I looked at this place that the developer ran out of money. I feel sorry for anyone who puts blood sweat and tears into something like this and comes up short (people should, after all, be rewarded for taking risks like this), but sympathy doesn't change the product that isn't being sold.

Posted by: lechacal at June 10, 2009 2:13 PM

i mean the product that is being sold - typing too fast today

Posted by: lechacal at June 10, 2009 2:13 PM

lechacal, I think you unconsciously got it right the first time - these pads ain't gettin sold anytime soon...

Posted by: Miss Muffett at June 10, 2009 2:16 PM

it's cheesey, not cheesy

*rob*

Posted by: PitbullNYC at June 10, 2009 2:25 PM

> Those floor plans are unmitigated disasters.

Ditto what Chicken said.

Posted by: SnarkSlope at June 10, 2009 2:27 PM

they really put the kitchen/living room in the wrong place. the front bedroom should be the living/eating part, with bedrooms in the back, otherwise you're hanging out in teh cramped, dark part and sleeping in the prime spots. wish it were reversed--i'd be interested.

Posted by: lisa at June 10, 2009 2:28 PM

Does anyone know what the layouts in buildings of this type were like when they were originally built? I assume they weren't originally floor through bedrooms.

Posted by: Peter18 at June 10, 2009 2:33 PM

i saw this last weekend along with 705 (same space, different layout)that they are asking $799K for and they have put stairs down to the basement

http://www.corcoran.com/property/listing.aspx?Region=NYC&ListingID=1560928

Posted by: BRKNYC at June 10, 2009 2:35 PM

"he gives them right back, though, for designing cheesy kitchens"

Why go buck wild on the kitchens when your buyers are gonna pimp 'em out anyway?

COTD's need our appraisals too. $600K to $700K with no 2nd baths? The madness must cease.

***Bid half off peak comps***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at June 10, 2009 2:38 PM

rob "cheesey"? Is that the New Zealandish spelling?

Posted by: sam at June 10, 2009 2:38 PM

"many families in the hood live in walk-ups, to evidently no ill effect."

It's no fun going up to the third floor with a baby, the mail, a diaper bag, and a bag of groceries. And with 3 bags of groceries, it's really really not fun.

Can it be done? Sure.
Do people do it all over the city? Yeppers.
Will I be doing it anymore after my lease is up? Nope.

Oh, and those narrow layouts with walk through bedrooms make me sad.

Finally get the kid to bed after a long day, relax and have a scotch or two or three, get ready for bed yourself, then trip over toy, curse, wake the kid up, get yelled at by your wife for waking the kid up, have to stay up with the kid for 45 minutes til he goes back to sleep, hear some pointed commentary about your scotch intake in the morning...

No thanks. I need a place safe for scotch drinking.

Posted by: northsloperenter at June 10, 2009 2:48 PM

northsloperenter - Hilarious. And so, so true.

Posted by: lechacal at June 10, 2009 2:52 PM

Peter- i think they may have been similar to the place I used to live on Schermerhorn. It was designed as flats, and they were left to right but the livingroom/front parlor was where the bedrooms are, then walked back to a middle room, a dining room, then kitchen. The back room- probably bedroom was where th kitchen is in these.

Also, towards the back half of the apartments ran a hallway so a bathroom and bedromm opened up off of that but I can't say for sure if the hallway was original or put in when the divided each floor into 4 apartments from 2. Basically they seemed to have originally been a big fron RR flat going into a more usual hallway layout. But for certain, the bedrooms were not in the front and I can't imagine why these layouts are so ass backwards.

Posted by: bxgrl at June 10, 2009 2:57 PM

Do you think that basement could be anything more than a den, i.e. move the living room/kitchen downstairs, dig down and make french doors to the garden?? Just trying to think how to take advantage of the square footage.......

Posted by: BRKNYC at June 10, 2009 2:58 PM

So they took 4 nice apartments and turned them into 8 cracker box tenements. Another redeveloper who should go bankrupt.

Posted by: williamsburgguy at June 10, 2009 3:11 PM

dont complain, take advantage. Am sure he knows his mistakes by now and so does his bank - ie prime time for massive low ball offer. buy 2 units if you can squeeze 40% off

Posted by: more4less at June 10, 2009 3:22 PM

how about buy one, get one free?

Posted by: BRKNYC at June 10, 2009 3:26 PM

One last plug for walk-ups: in a co-op or condo, you usually get to park the stroller under the ground floor stairs. As for lugging groceries, kids, etc., you do multiple trips. Problem solved!
I wouldn't trade my top floor light, quiet, air & roof-deck for anything [except, maybe, a nice backyard]!

Posted by: parkedslope at June 10, 2009 3:32 PM

bring back those dumb waiters. to use the dumb waiter area for storage is a big big waste

Posted by: more4less at June 10, 2009 3:36 PM

"As for lugging groceries, kids, etc., you do multiple trips. Problem solved!"

Your definition of "problem solved!" does not equal my definition of "problem solved!". This may be because I'm a lazy schmuck who gets cranky living on 4 hours of sleep. I won't argue that point.

But...

30 steps up to the apartment. Drop off some stuff. Throw kid in crib. Kid screams from being left alone.

30 steps back down to get more stuff. (note to self: do not lock self out of apartment)

30 steps back up. Spend 15 seconds trying to convince kid you are not leaving him to be eaten by wolves.

30 steps back down to get more stuff. (note to self: do not lock self out of apartment)

30 steps back up.

150 steps traversed and a screaming mad child does not equal "problem solved!" when it needs to happen 2 or 3 times a week.

Posted by: northsloperenter at June 10, 2009 3:40 PM

> northsloperenter - Hilarious. And so, so true.

Ditto what lechacal said.

Posted by: SnarkSlope at June 10, 2009 3:44 PM

it's only 10 steps per flr? thought it was more

Posted by: more4less at June 10, 2009 3:47 PM

went to open house couple of months ago and the broker told us that there are 8 units in the building, 4 are available for sale and 4 have RENT STABILZED tenants!!!

Posted by: ZooLander at June 10, 2009 3:49 PM

with that info add'l piece of info, let the offer come in at 60% off

Posted by: more4less at June 10, 2009 3:52 PM

i know its not ideal but what is so bad about rent stabilized tenants?

Posted by: BRKNYC at June 10, 2009 3:59 PM

BRKNYC Bite your tongue! Don't you know they are the scum of the earth? And should be thrown out into the street in the middle of winter?

Posted by: cmu at June 10, 2009 4:10 PM

that's not the point. the point is it's another excuse to squeeze for better price.

Posted by: more4less at June 10, 2009 4:11 PM

Saw these a few months ago and agree with previous posters: completely useless layout for anyone with children or wanting privacy at any time. Hubby saw the basement, which was a completely raw space. It did have a window at the back, which could be changed for a door to the back yard, so the deck off the kitchen could be removed to preserve the backyard space.(big run-on) But, seriously, for the price, it's insane how much work would be needed to make it livable, so you're not tripping over your children. Looked it up on property shark, and the owner paid way too much for it to be able to do any real renovating, like $2.5m, I think.

Posted by: sharpg at June 10, 2009 4:24 PM

shit sandwich.

Posted by: z at June 10, 2009 7:00 PM

northsloperenter -- hilarious and 100% on point. we do it now with 50 steps (fourth floor) and it ain't fun at all. anyone with a kid or two knows to stay away from the "multiple trips" resolution. that's not "problem solved"; that's problem magnified.

Posted by: bkoriginal at June 10, 2009 7:36 PM

These appear to be the original layouts. In each apartment, the front room with the fireplace is the original parlor - actually a double parlor (there is an open room right next to it). The back room with the fireplace (next to the kitchen) is the original dining room. The two small rooms in the middle are both bedrooms.

Note that the apartments have several entrances, and it is not necessary to walk through the bedrooms.

These layouts were very common in the 1890s. I live in one.

In fact, you have an immense amount of privacy. If you're in the back, you can't hear what's going on in the front. Also, these apartments are on the first and second floors, so not many steps. By the way, the second parlor was probably meant for a piano.

However, I agree, the apartments are much too narrow.

Posted by: mopar at June 11, 2009 12:43 AM

Is this actually a condo? I dont see anything showing a conversion on the department of buildings website indicating a change from an eight family.

Posted by: lmgash at September 13, 2009 12:45 AM

« Brooklyn Food & Drink Round-Up House of the Day: 10 Schermerhorn Street »

June 10, 2009

Condos of the Day: 707 Carroll Street

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions