« Sheepshead Bay Gets Sexy House of the Day: 49 8th Avenue »

November 2, 2009

Condo of the Day: 85 North 3rd Street, #207

The Mill Building at 85 North 3rd Street has long been a favorite of ours. The conversion hit the market in better times and was popular with buyers. One such buyer is now moving on though and putting his second floor loft on the market. The 1,750-square-foot pad, which originally went for $872,000, is asking $1,200,000, and before everyone jumps to the conclusion that that's too big a mark-up, consider that, despite the plethora of new construction condos clogging the market, there's actually a paucity of nice conversion properties available. Witness the overwhelming demand for Mason Fiske recently. At under $700 a foot, this place is priced competitively with the Mason Fiske apartments.
85 North 3rd Street, #207 [Corcoran] GMAP P*Shark

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/12087

Comments

wow i totally <3 that kitchen!!!

*rob*

Posted by: Butterfly at November 2, 2009 12:53 PM

I like the dark floors and the one bathroom shown in the pictures. Does the oversized painting of the women remind anyone else of Demi Moore's apartment in St. Elmo's Fire? Where's DeLepp when I need someone for an '80s reference?

Posted by: CarrollGardened at November 2, 2009 12:54 PM

"paucity of nice conversion properties available"

Paucity of "new investors" available too.

$872K ("Ownership Society")
$XXXXX
$XXXXXX
$XXXXXXX
$XXXXXXXX
$1,200,000 (CIT bankruptcy et el)

***Bill Thompson for Mayor (TUESDAY!!!)***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at November 2, 2009 12:55 PM

Let me beat the naysayers to it
>>> 1.2 million for a one bedroom apt in a neighborhood with 10,000 condos coming on the market in the next year? 600k tops.<<<<

Mill is a special building. High quality conversions in the 11211 have been trading around 700psf.

Posted by: dirty_hipster at November 2, 2009 12:55 PM

c-gar, the memory is failing on st elmo's fire reference. Blame Canada

Posted by: DeLepp at November 2, 2009 1:06 PM

DH, the apartment looks really nice, and that's a lot of square footage, so I don't think the ask is so out-of-line, and I bet they'll get close.

Posted by: CarrollGardened at November 2, 2009 1:07 PM

I really like the Mill building. It was a very good conversion. As for high quality conversions trading for $700, I don't know. There are not any comps besides Mason Fisk, and those were first generation sales. Furthermore, I think most units sold for below $700 a foot (I didn't check though). There really isn't many high quality condominium conversions in the neighborhood to know what kind of pricing this should achieve. However, I remember looking at pricing when it was first selling out and the numbers were pretty low on a $/SF basis. Although the price points were pretty high. The Mill Building contains a lot of BIG units.

Posted by: king of the burg at November 2, 2009 1:13 PM

the listing says 2 bathrooms but i don't see the second. my eyeballs aren't doing so good today but is there a second bath on the floorplan? very nice apartment though! i like it, but it does remind me of those 80's young tycoon bachelor pads like the charlie sheen character's apartment in wall street.

Posted by: CG_ups at November 2, 2009 1:23 PM

There appears to be a bathroom in the master suite and a smaller one right off the utility room.

Posted by: dirty_hipster at November 2, 2009 1:41 PM

I don't see any reason why this wouldn't sell for $1.1 MM.

Posted by: king of the burg at November 2, 2009 1:50 PM

C-Gar -- That must be Demi Moore's designer... if you remember from the movie, he friend asked her how she could afford the design... her response was CREDIT! How true it is.

Posted by: tybur6 at November 2, 2009 1:53 PM

The square footage alone accounts for the 1.2 and the fact that it is in the mill building is a bonus. Its has so much more character than the other condos going up in the burg. A great investment, when is the open house?

Posted by: 1981 at November 2, 2009 2:00 PM

HAHAHA... $1.2 million for a 1 (and a half?) bedroom apartment is a "great investment" and "very nice."

I guess I'm just not part of that stratum of society to think these thoughts... I'd love to be able to, but I can't. I could afford the monthly maintenance and taxes, but I may have a problem with the other $1.2 million. I mean, you need $80,000 a year just to cover the mortgage, taxes and maintenance. For a ONE BEDROOM apartment.

My god. What is wrong with some of you?

Posted by: tybur6 at November 2, 2009 2:14 PM

tybur, her neighbor was the designer, but she had a full wall mural in her living room, of Billy Idol wearing an earring, I believe, and the earring was 3D (and may have lit up).

Posted by: CarrollGardened at November 2, 2009 2:21 PM

Is this Barbie's Dream Pad?

Posted by: mopar at November 2, 2009 2:28 PM

"My god. What is wrong with some of you?"

If people are paying 250k for an old 10x10 room in some dude's house, this is worth 1.2 mill.

are both overpriced - probably

so is red bull, gasoline and going to the movie theater.

Posted by: dirty_hipster at November 2, 2009 2:30 PM

Here is is C-Gar... http://www.apartmenttherapy.com/images/uploads/elmo-1.gif

Posted by: tybur6 at November 2, 2009 2:30 PM

This one was in Curbed Open House Sunday Sales feature. It's at The Gretsch. Didn't have a chance to stop by yesterday, but what do you think? I've heard good things about that building...

http://www.60Broadway.com

Posted by: MurrayStop at November 2, 2009 2:36 PM

@tybur6 - it's a 1,700 square foot one bedroom, which works out to less than $700 a foot. If that's not enough bedrooms for you, get some studs and drywall and add more.

Posted by: WBer at November 2, 2009 2:40 PM

This apartment is almost 1,800 square feet. That is much bigger than your typical one(and a half) -bedroom unit. You have to make sure you are comparing apples to apples. Can it get $700 a foot? No, likely not. but can it get the low $600's per foot? A quality building like this, sure.

Posted by: king of the burg at November 2, 2009 2:43 PM

tybur, thanks! Almost exactly as I remembered it. I had forgotten Billy's neon hair though.

Posted by: CarrollGardened at November 2, 2009 2:48 PM

I'm imagining some great times were had in the 'black' bedroom under that big chandelier.

Nicely laid out apartment.

Posted by: Tara in the Slope at November 2, 2009 2:54 PM

Everyone... I am slowly coming to grips with the fact that apparently there are lots and lots of people that seem to have both the *ability* and the *desire* to pay $1.2 million + $1200/mo for an apartment suitable for a single person or a couple without children.

And I am coming to grips with the fact that I have ABSOLUTELY NO ABILITY to understand why this is the case...

So, keep buying your reasonably priced $1.2 million apartments and I'll hope and pray my salary (considered almost princely most other places) will keep up with my housing costs and/or pray I become far more tolerant of commuting for hours and hours per day... something I currently can avoid.

Posted by: tybur6 at November 2, 2009 3:11 PM

Not the desire, tybur, but for an apartment with that much square footage, those are the prices I'm seeing. I would've expected prices to fall more than they have, and I still expect them to fall further but not drastically. Maybe the $8,000 tax credit is boosting prices, or maybe every seller thinks someone from Goldman Sachs is going to use their bonus this year to buy their apartment. Who knows? But $1.2 million doesn't shock me for a nearly 1,800 square foot apartment, with nice finishes.

Posted by: CarrollGardened at November 2, 2009 3:36 PM

The square footage keeps being quoted... But these aren't 1,700 *livable* square feet. This place has gallery/museum proportions. It's 1,700 open square feet. It's a 600 sq ft living room!

Don't get me wrong, I think the openness could be really nice. But the $700/sq ft should be discounted, no?

But then again -- I have no concept whatsoever about a single person or a couple spending $1.2 million plus $1200/mo on an apartment. I guess this is normal.

Posted by: tybur6 at November 2, 2009 3:46 PM

Personally, I'd rather have larger living room, dining room, and kitchen than bedrooms.

Posted by: CarrollGardened at November 2, 2009 3:51 PM

"The square footage keeps being quoted... But these aren't 1,700 *livable* square feet. This place has gallery/museum proportions. It's 1,700 open square feet. It's a 600 sq ft living room!"

Floorplan is ideal for a single person/couple who likes to throw bitchin parties.

Posted by: dirty_hipster at November 2, 2009 4:07 PM

DH, it does look like great entertaining space.

Posted by: CarrollGardened at November 2, 2009 4:28 PM

A comparable property in the Esquire Building was just on the market for 1.1million. (high floor, 1600s/f, 20ft ceilings etc...). It went thru a price chop and sold for 985,000 to a foreign buyer. The Esquire also has less than half of the monthly costs.

Posted by: eastriverman at November 2, 2009 4:46 PM

I am just confused. Is this a swinging bachelor pad for someone who thinks they are Warren Beatty in Shampoo? Or is it a woman's apartment? Or a gay man? Honestly, the line is so metrosexually blurred with the cultural signifiers, I can't tell.

And for some reason, it bothers me.

Posted by: Heather at November 2, 2009 7:05 PM

I have been thinking about this some more. Not, like, obsessively, but just randomly. The pink kitchen. I admire it. It is a bold choice. But that wall mural is so godawful faux warholian that it makes my teeth ache. Still, I want to know the rest of the narrative. Is this Shalom Harlow's apartment and she's checking into rehab? Getting married and buying a tudor in Greenwich? An art director at Cookie or Domino who got canned?

Not that it's important, I just wonder. I mean, okay, I admit it, except for that mural, I actually like the decor.

Posted by: Heather at November 2, 2009 8:28 PM

Looks like a 3-br in this configuration, no? (yeah, no windows, no bedroom...).

I think this may actually go for ask. That's a great part of williamsburg, close to the train, very interesting shops,clubs, restos. East of Bedford doesn't interest me all that much, probably because I'm over 40.

Posted by: Bolder at November 2, 2009 9:22 PM

Heather -- funny.

Posted by: Nomi at November 2, 2009 10:38 PM

tybur6 -- why begrudge people with money spending it however they want to?

This is one of the most desirable places to live in the world. And you live here too. It IS possible to live here on what is a modest income (modest here, well above average in many other states). If buying is a priority, then you'll figure out how. But many people rent in NY their whole lives. Happily. Nobody bought in my mother's generation, save the truly wealthy.

Posted by: Nomi at November 2, 2009 11:25 PM

NOMI!!! How do you possibly come to think that *rental* prices are somehow magically disconnected to *purchase* prices?!

There is a direct relationship! You buy a house for waaaay to much money, so you rent the garden apartment for $2700 instead of $1200 to try to cover your monthlies... Someone pays that ridiculous prices and BAAAAM! That's the new "standard" for some mediocre crap whole with low ceilings.

That affects ME... a renter.

Posted by: tybur6 at November 3, 2009 8:42 AM

and sorry, that would be "mediocre crap HOLE"

Posted by: tybur6 at November 3, 2009 8:44 AM

This is a nearly 40% markup from the 2007 sale price. Someone simply stating there's a "paucity of nice conversion available" is not enough to justify that kind of increase, especially in today's market.

Property Shark shows the unit above this, #307, sold recently for $885k!

Posted by: salvo007 at November 3, 2009 9:07 AM

tybur -- I do not think they are disconnected. Rents are higher in NY, probably proportionately to purchase prices. But renting is less expensive (not considering any build up of equity) than owning. I am saying that you ARE living here; I am living here, probably on a similar income from what you've implied here and there.

Yes, we do have a philosophical difference: I do not see these high prices as "way too much money." I see them as a reflection of demand. I generally believe a house or anything else is worth what someone pays for it.

I don't like how much that has increased the price of real estate in NY; it's extremely frustrating. But I do not see it as a moral wrong that should be corrected. I feel that that kind of enforced "fairness" is more harmful than what we have now.

Posted by: Nomi at November 3, 2009 11:40 AM

salvo007-That unit was an unrenovated one that was an artist occupied unit. So it had none of the upgrades. Bathroom, kitchen, etc.

There was another sale in the building #410 for $1.250 million. That was a new unit.

Re: Esquire, they have no doorman and no garage. The Mill has both.

Posted by: therealflyintheointment at November 3, 2009 12:00 PM

Hi there, my husband and I own this apartment. I'm a fashion designer if that explains the decorating at all and yes my husband has perhaps been emasculated by the decor (he wants me to say he's an open minded creative genius - let the people decide) It is a significant mark up but we got a great deal at the time and the apartment is huge and gorgeous, we put a lot of effort into it and love it. The listing does not do it justice, you could easily fit a family in the apartment, the home office is huge and we actually have a bed in the laundry room for guests. And the big image in the living room is not a Warhol knock off thank you very much, it is a carpet reproduction of a Richard Phillips painting, perhaps no less tacky but wanted to set the record straight.

Posted by: yupster at November 3, 2009 12:31 PM

I like your apartment, but wouldn't it be nicer to stick the guests, at least the ones you like, in the home office rather than the laundry room?

Posted by: mt_molehill at November 3, 2009 3:10 PM

thanks for the info on that

Posted by: salvo007 at November 3, 2009 3:33 PM

thanks for the info on that yupster.

Posted by: salvo007 at November 3, 2009 3:33 PM

Good answer, owner. Thank you. Funny, Heather.

Posted by: mopar at November 4, 2009 12:18 PM