« Co-op of the Day: 279 Sterling Place Studio Streetlevel: Vermont Market To Re-Open (a Decade Later) »

June 1, 2009

House of the Day: 130 South Oxford Street

This 12.5-foot-wide brick townhouse at 130 South Oxford Street in Fort Greene was purchased for $625,000 in 2003 and subsequently gut renovated in a way that succesfully injects a clean, modern vibe into the 19th-century home without obliterating the sense of history. Whether it merits a mark-up to $1,550,000 is another matter, one that the market will have to decide. In the meantime, we're left to wonder if one of the owners could be a stylist or designer.
130 South Oxford Street [FSBO] GMAP P*Shark

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/9984

Comments

12.5' wide? You said how much?

That widget can;t begin to express what it will sell for!

Posted by: denton at June 1, 2009 1:18 PM

Love it. Wish I could afford it.

Posted by: alsawo at June 1, 2009 1:21 PM

Is this for real? $1.55 million? The reno style is nice, but totally homemade. Nothing to suggest it was a professional, high-quality job. Which even if it was, would not in any way merit its asking price. Do you realize that right now for that money you can get a 20x100 4-story house in Park Slope? Even if you hate Park Slope, it's the comps that matter. Crazy.

Posted by: bk14 at June 1, 2009 1:23 PM

"purchased for $625,000 in 2003"

To be purchased for $625,000 in 2013. Full circle.

Somebody please!!! Bail out this 'homeowned'!!! $1.55M will do wonders for the local economy. We really need it. You can use mirrors to reduce the railroad effect of 12.5'. Full width sofas are overrated?

***Bid half off peak comps***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at June 1, 2009 1:25 PM

This is ridiculous. Team Bull.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at June 1, 2009 1:27 PM

i happened to pass by on Saturday and chatted briefly with the owner. i also thought the asking price seemed high given the size (and it's not the best location either). but the renovation and layout look exceptionally thoughtful and lovely. i wouldn't be surprised if this ends up going for around 1.3. apparently the owner is an architect, so i suspect the workmanship is as good as it looks in these photos.

Posted by: lucybb at June 1, 2009 1:28 PM

DIBS, what's ridiculous? THe price?

Posted by: denton at June 1, 2009 1:29 PM

maybe i'm missing something, but the house is a hallway.

Posted by: slick at June 1, 2009 1:30 PM

this house needs to be WIDER

Posted by: aj at June 1, 2009 1:30 PM

BTW, how's the one right off Fulton doing (featured here months back)? In contract? Anywhere near ask?

***Bid half off peak comps***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at June 1, 2009 1:32 PM

Man, what great style. I wonder what it'll get in the end.

Posted by: iz at June 1, 2009 1:40 PM

2400 sq ft = 600 sq ft per floor, divided by 12.5ft = 50 ft deep. That's a long and skinny house.

Posted by: the chicken at June 1, 2009 1:41 PM

You all need to stop complaining - 12.5 feet is the new 25 foot. In fact it's really a triple wide!! Just a bit to the northwest, they're suggesting you can make two bedrooms out of a 45x4 space. No joke!!

http://corcoran.com/property/listing.aspx?Region=NYC&ListingID=1562358

Posted by: bkhabitant at June 1, 2009 1:41 PM

The renovation does look very well done. And they did a great job maximizing space in that narrow building -- with the stair the way it is the living room is basically as wide as it would be in a 18' wide home if 6' were taken off for a stair hall...
None of which is to say they'll get their price...

Posted by: 11216 at June 1, 2009 1:43 PM

In all seriousness, I really like the look of this house and someone should say congrats to the owner as well - he did a very nice job with the website.

Posted by: bkhabitant at June 1, 2009 1:44 PM

okay bkhabitant, now I seen everything

Posted by: the chicken at June 1, 2009 1:45 PM

The price, denton. The renovation looks nice and his website is great.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at June 1, 2009 1:50 PM

Ok maybe it's me but what about the reno is so great? It seems really "homespun" but not in that cool rustic vibe that I feel they are gunning for, but ultimately miss.

Most of the rooms seem really dark, obviously small - but really dark and sorta scary-boo! Oy and the color choices for the wall make me all nervous inside

not feeling this at all - am sorry
I won't submit a price as I have no clue what this will go for

Posted by: gemini10 at June 1, 2009 1:51 PM

The renovation looks okay, if you like the style (clearly not for everyone...or for me). With that said, however, the house is just too skinny. I cannot imagine paying anything close to $1.55 million for a 12.5 foot wide house.

Posted by: SoSlope at June 1, 2009 1:52 PM

Lovely house, crazy price. If it was on the edge of Ft. Greene Park, maybe it would go for 1.2. Which is not to detract from a wonderful reno, but this is a pipe dream of the first order.

And I have to say, I admire the minimalist format of the website, regardless of its hyperbole. I don't understand where the appeal is in describing something in terms it absolutely is NOT, the way all real estate write-ups are. Is aluminum siding really "charming"? Is 900 sq ft really "huge"? Is a dump really an opportunity to "bring your architect and your imagination"? Is a former crack den on the edges of the Gowanus Canal "the home of your dreams"? Enough already. Someone, please, reinvent this wheel!

Posted by: I came I saw I rented at June 1, 2009 1:57 PM

Seen this house... charming but a weird layout (like ground floor has only a kitchen and full bath). They did a really nice job with the garden. When I saw it they were asking $1.8M, probably a year ago or so.

Posted by: Gravy at June 1, 2009 2:01 PM

The floor plan for that 46' long thing shows a dimension of 46'-4 1/2" in length. it doesn't provide a width. If you consider the door is maybe 2'-8" or 3' then it's probably 8 feet wide.

Posted by: TD at June 1, 2009 2:04 PM

$540 a square foot doesn't sound extreme for a restored home, if it is really GUT-renovated (I mean all new electrical, plumbing, hvac) in this area.

That's assuming it really is 2400 square feet.

Posted by: iz at June 1, 2009 2:09 PM

TD, thanks. Thought it was 46x4 but the numbers were small on my screen.

Even at 6 to 8 feet though, pretty narrow for two bedrooms, unless one is willing to climb over one bed to get to the second bedroom.

Posted by: bkhabitant at June 1, 2009 2:11 PM

oops. I mis-calculated. It's $645 a sq ft, again ASSUMING that the square footage is accurate at 2,400.

That's getting up there.

Posted by: iz at June 1, 2009 2:12 PM

"$540 a square foot"

$540 X 0.75 (multiplier for 12.5' widths) = $405 a square foot. And even then...

***Bid half off peak comps***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at June 1, 2009 2:13 PM

"and it's not the best location either"

lucybb, what's wrong with the location?

Posted by: renttoown at June 1, 2009 2:17 PM

I thought we hashed it all out on this house a month or so ago when it was one of the open house picks...no?

Anyway, the house was renovated and despite the narrowness, has a charming backyard that doesn't feel small. The rooms are cute and do-able...

Now...I thought the house was listed at $1.3 tops. That was when the gals had the listing. Now, it is for-sale-by-owner. I wonder why they raised the price in this market.

Anyway, I like the house and have been in and out of it for parties, a hour tour, open houses over the years and have to say the couple that renovated it (I could swear it was bought by the current owner in the 90's NOT 2003 as stated above). That said, it would be a bit narrow for my taste but heck, I wouldn't mind a huge drawing room 80x40 (with the staff to keep it clean, tidy and gorgeous)...but since that won't be happening any time soon to my knowledge, I'll stick with our 21-wide house. I like the square-ish rooms upstairs and the house isn't narrow and very deep so it's not dark in the middle like some houses.

Posted by: BrooklynGreene at June 1, 2009 2:17 PM

Oh, geez, I'm sorry, I'm thinking of the OTHER house for sale a couple doors down! Sorry, Kids! The eyes/brain aren't what they used to be. I haven't even looked at this house on the inside before. :-)

Posted by: BrooklynGreene at June 1, 2009 2:25 PM

I like how BHO pulls his math out of his ass. If he pulled his head out first he might start making a bit more sense. In this case though he is right.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at June 1, 2009 2:30 PM

I'm going to have to agree with BHO for once, sort of. This one goes for 30% off to get a deal done.

If it's now FSBO, maybe the owners are just putting their line in the water to see if anyone bites. Doesn't sound like a motivated seller. It'll probably languish.

Posted by: FatLenny at June 1, 2009 2:33 PM

Ditto for me on BrooklynGreene's comment. I'm confusing this one for the one for sale a while ago. All the 12.5 footers seem to blend together. This one appears to have a cooler layout.

Posted by: Gravy at June 1, 2009 2:34 PM

This price really is nuts. Forget comparing to Park Slope, how about comparing to 170 South Oxford Street, which is just down the block and sold a couple of months ago:

http://www.corcoran.com/property/listing.aspx?Region=NYC&listingid=1451712

170 had 4,000 sq. ft., was renovated (if not gut reno), had a beautiful yard and sold for $1.5 million. Based on that comp alone, this thing really shouldn't be selling for much more than a $1 million...but regardless, how on earth do the owners think it will appraise for over $1.5, when the neighbors just a bit to the South only got $1.5 for a much larger place? This ain't the bubble years, when appraisers were willing to assume monthly price increases....

Posted by: aishling at June 1, 2009 2:39 PM

"what's wrong with the location?"

Wrong side of Fulton.

"I like how BHO pulls his math out of his ass."

Please keep your preoccupation with ass offline, DIBS. The math is straight forward. $640/SF spread out over a 20-foot facade aint quite the same as that squeezed into 12.5'. Three quarters is generous. I could have busted out with two thirds which is still generous. 12.5' is 63% of your average width. Pure $/SF has its flaws.

***Bid half off peak comps***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at June 1, 2009 3:09 PM

12 ft wide..in fort green. posted on the coop by accident, but I'll reiterate as a question:

should I sh*t of go blind here?

The FSBO aspect is hysterical, BTW. Nice glimpse into the seller mindset.

Posted by: MoneyForNothing at June 1, 2009 3:22 PM

I love overlisting....

price at some obscene value, and 30% off is a bargain!

30% off puts you at 1 mil, and for that you get a 12.5 foot wide home in Fort Green that will drive you nuts.

The comps everywhere for anything this price put this kind of property to shame, and THOSE are overpriced.

oy-vey.

pity the sucker who pays even close to that for this.

Posted by: MoneyForNothing at June 1, 2009 3:27 PM

nice house, ok location, ugly price. could we have a bidding war - ie after it's lowered to 750k (50% off)? if I were bidding, 925k. but suspect someone will pay 1.1M for it

Posted by: more4less at June 1, 2009 3:32 PM

Aishling -- Thanks for the update on 170 S Oxford. That was kind of an unusual house, in location and siting but also very charming. I admit being surpised it went for that much. I was guessing that it would gor much closer to $1.2 or 1.3, but I guess it shows that even in this market there are buyers with lots of cash to spend on the place that fits them best.

As for this house, I think this is a nice location actually(especially school wise if you have young children).

OTOH, it's certainly not what people think of as "prime" Ft. Greene. It's also a little house very close to the Arena footprint (although actually because it is so close to the top of the ridge that runs along here I doubt that it will be covered in shadows too much). I'd be surprised if this sells this year for over $1 million, but you never know.

Posted by: Boerumresident at June 1, 2009 3:45 PM

I think it's lovely. Wish the pics of the 1st floor weren't so dark.

Posted by: new2hood at June 1, 2009 3:47 PM

I love what you've done with the Widget!! A good ol' slap in the face for the realtors/owners that throw in the 150% bids!

Bwahahahaha!

Posted by: tybur6 at June 1, 2009 4:00 PM

The owner is an architect.

Posted by: mopar at June 1, 2009 4:35 PM

I recognize that everyone is entitled to their opinion but how is this the "wrong" side of Fulton because it's on the south side? Isn't this right off Fulton. (Hanson pl doesn't really count.) Is the difference between that side of Fulton and the other really that big of a deal? And where does "prime" Ft. Greene begin and end? Good grief.

Posted by: renttoown at June 1, 2009 4:47 PM

This would be a lovely home for a family of anorexics.

http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t244/kj1987/tights.jpg

Posted by: Bklnite at June 1, 2009 5:27 PM

This is definitely my aesthetic. But, yes, it's way overpriced. I'm actually more stunned that they paid 625k in 2003 than that they're asking more than twice that in 2009.

I lived in a rent stabilized railroad flat that was about this wide, but I don't think I could actually own a space that narrow. I hope the owners didn't sink too much into the renovation and that they at least break even. I'm thinking if they really want to sell, somewhere around $1 million will get it done.

Posted by: Bolder at June 1, 2009 6:52 PM

Given that the house next door, same square footage, also fully renovated just went into contract under 1,275,000 (and who knows how much under), it takes a certain amount of delusion to list this at 1,550,000.
I personally would really dislike living in a place this narrow, but that aside, the seller might find someone who wants a house that is finished. In my opinion, he would be lucky to get 1.2M.

Posted by: Maly at June 1, 2009 7:44 PM

"if I were bidding, 925k"

2/3 brownstone for future whole brownstone price. And then they want to hang me for celebrating when I'm right.

***Bid half off peak comps***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at June 1, 2009 8:15 PM

they could have spent a little money on the exterior. what is going on with the brickwork around the front entry? the house looks bad from the outside. it looks unkempt and damaged.

Posted by: mcKenzie at June 1, 2009 9:00 PM

This is really off the market -- I like the house and think that the owners did a good job on this tiny place, but it is a tiny place and much too much money. I agree with the readers assessment - 1.1 million is aggressive.

Posted by: donatella at June 1, 2009 11:19 PM

The narrow width and some rather dubious layout choices combine to make the price truly laughable. But some idiot who read in the New York Times that Fort Greene is the next "it" neighborhood might fall for it.

Posted by: Oleg at June 2, 2009 12:07 AM

Hey knowitalls! I live in a 12.5 wide and it's perfectly livable. Not at all like 'living in a hallway' and I'm nowhere NEAR 'anorexic'.
The secret is the central staircase. The rooms don't have to be abbreviated to make way for a 6 foot wide stairwell. so they remain a full 12 feet wide. If you consider a 12x20 foot room unlivable, then I would counter that you are some VERY rare and privileged New Yorkers - the biggest place I lived in before I bought this house was 750 sq feet.

Furthermore, while I DO consider this place overpriced, I admire the hell out of the beautiful and thoughtful renovation. Maybe it's not for everybody, but it's one of the better ones I've seen with a great many unique touches. I'm confident that they'll get over 1.1 mil.

Posted by: houseowax at June 2, 2009 10:44 AM

I actually think the renovation is very nice, and the use of space in many instances in quite clever. What throws me though is the top floor, with having to walk through a walk in closet or a bathroom to enter the bedrooms. Also, I can't figure out which half bath has the plumbing to become a full bath, I would hope its the bathroom that's in front of the office or future bedroom, but that looks to small. I think the future owner would probably need to expand that bathroom if they planned on using the office as a bedroom. Asking more than four people to share a single bathroom gets difficult.

I do wish this was on the other side of Fulton, just because I wouldn't want to live near Atlantic Avenue, but the property isn't too bad. I think 1.1-1.2 is probably where this will fall.

Posted by: thetycoon at June 2, 2009 4:49 PM

Sorry folks, but I have to strike a countering note to the customary internet acerbity here. I saw this house on 6/7, and if I had the wherewithal to make a competitive bid at this moment, I would.

Now, determining what a competitive bid is will be left to the market, and this price would indeed seem to be on the higher end of the spectrum, but if you interpret 1.5 as a starting point, which I do, there is no need to get in a twist about it as some here have. Pure square footage is a starting point, just as asking is. I'm not sure I understand why people get so personally offended. Ever bought a car before? No need to get pissed off at sticker, make an offer that you think is reasonable and then you both work towards your limits. The plaintive tones here smack of something other than market savvy.

As houseowax noted, the central staircase allows this floorplan to breathe. The renovation exudes intelligence and warmth, the aesthetic is spare, clean and commodious at the same time. Faithful Victorian Brooklyn renos have completely lost their appeal for me - stultifying antiquity that I find numbing to the imagination. You have to work to find a space that has the virtues of clean, modern, independent minded design wedded to a soulful brick shell. This one does that - for me anyway. The Mansard, dormered faces front and back need some cosmetic attention, but the roof is new, as are all the mechanicals - it appears to be a nearly worry free home from a maintenance perspective. Nice backyard, a very habitable basement level, top notch materials everywhere.

I've spent years in construction and finish work and the fit and finish of this home is to my eye, immaculate. Just wanted to give credit where credit is due.

Posted by: catomatic at June 15, 2009 6:56 PM

« Co-op of the Day: 279 Sterling Place Studio Streetlevel: Vermont Market To Re-Open (a Decade Later) »

June 1, 2009

House of the Day: 130 South Oxford Street

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions