14 Townhouses
When Jim Cornell and Leslie Marshall decided to hike prices at the 14 Townhouses at the beginning of February in the face of reports of slow sales, it looked a little crazy to an outsider observer. After all, as far as anyone knew, there hadn’t been a sale in months. The hikes, in retrospect, were brilliantly timed. According to yesterday’s Brooklyn Eagle, February turned out to be a “record month” for the project, with the result that only one of the townhouses (the model house) remains unsold. Number 269, for example, one of the houses whose price was jacked from $2.75 to $2.9 million is now in contract.

The back-story is pretty interesting. When the houses hit the market early last year, there were three quick sales. Then, for eight months, nothing. Cornell and Marshall pulled the listings towards the end of 2006, rephotographed them, and then threw a big relaunch party in mid-January. They then proceeded to sell ten of them over the next couple months, three to Brooklynites, five to Manhattanites, one to a Greenwich family and one to Chicago family. Frankly, we’re glad to see that the market ultimately rewarded a developer for having some vision and cojones. It also shows that brokers are not a commodity product and that a good one can be worth the price.
269 State Street IN CONTRACT [Corcoran] GMAP
Price Hike At The 14 Townhouses [Brownstoner]
14 Townhouses Update: Slow Going, At Best [Brownstoner]


What's Your Take? Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

  1. re: 2:29
    it shows that because they sold 9 $2.5 million plus houses, in a not great location (too close to downtown brooklyn) in a month. that would never happen if these weren’t very desirable houses. plenty of places over done with details have been languishing on the market for a very longtime, like the $3.6 million dollar house in Ft. Greene and many in park slope. i’m not saying these are undesirable, for many people they are dream houses. but it seems peoples tastes are changing. Many on this site act as if period details are the end all and be all of townhouses, but i don’t think the majority of people still want those. 9 houses in a months helps support that.

  2. 1:49 here again, agreeing with you anonymous 1:55. Would add though that I think the developer is using the arena as loss leader. There is no way he would have gotten the political support he has if he was just proposing high rise offices or apartments. The arena is his trojan horse.

  3. True, 1:49. A mix of 1-3 family homes, with outdoor common areas and smaller commercial spaces for shops and restaurants in AY would have been awesome. They could have thrown in a couple highrise or higher-density buildings in the midst of that and it still would have fit Brooklyn better. What doesn’t fit is the stadium. The stadium is what forces the whole development to become very Manhattan-esque.

  4. I hope this developer makes a good profit because these townhouses are so much nicer than the cookie cutter condomniums that could have been built instead.

    At the risk of getting another AY thread going, I’m sorry that the rail yards couldn’t be developed with a more affordable version of this kind of development (i.e. a stretch of low rise 1-3 family homes). For me, that’s what really defines Brooklyn and helps make great neighborhoods.

  5. house on clinton/kane with parking is $2.9, not $2.4 million. but i still think that’s a good deal. i noticed that BHS just went into contract on a $3.5 million 2 family on degraw that needs a new facade. I’m surprised that the corner house with parking has yet to sell. not sure how long it’s been on the market tho.

    By the way i think 14 townhouses are beautiful, it shows that most people would prefer clean and modern and new instead of over-done details and small claustrophobic rooms

  6. go to 49th between second and third avenue or somewhere thereabouts. there is a block of townhouses and in the backyard is this amazing little private streetscape. yes backyards, yes right in the smack middle of midtown manhattan,yes ppl can peer into your backyard. and they’re probably worth $5mm…

  7. “But what of the facade? Particularly if you had a 20-foot lot to deal with–couldn’t an affordable contemporary exterior along these lines be accomplished, with a rental, perhaps without the double-height LR but maybe with other amenities?”

    If you get a chance, stroll on over and take a look at the facades — looks simple, but they are fairly complicated in their undulations and therefore not cheap to build. The brickwork is fairly precise and there are a lot of “extras”, though of course plenty who would also say that these very restrained gestures aren’t enough.

    The facade also has good, big windows — expensive. In my opinion, well worth it, but we see all the time buildings in which this is the first thing value-engineered out.

    ***

    “What amazes me about the price point for these is that they are going to have a massive development at the bottom of their gardens. I can’t imagine having somthing looming over your backyard with windows where people can look down into your yard.”

    I agree. Maybe they know something we don’t. Or maybe they really don’t envison much use at all for the backyard (low maintenence types).

1 2 3