sales-under-a-mil-11-05-2009.jpg
Some of the sales recorded last week that went for $1 million or less:

$250K or under: CLINTON HILL
195 Willoughby Avenue, #109; Price=$165,000 GMAP
The listing for this co-op said it’s a 450-sf, 1st floor studio. It was asking $199,000. Maintenance=$335/month. Closed on 10/27/09; deed recorded on 10/29/09.

$250-$500K Range: COBBLE HILL
200 Congress Street, #5C; Price=$475,000 GMAP
This 725-sf, 1-bedroom co-op was listed for $499,000 in June. Maintenance=$678/month. Closed on 10/14/09; deed recorded on 10/29/09.

$500-$750K Range: SOUTH SLOPE
421 17th Street; Price=$700,000 GMAP
This 972-sf house was listed for $799,000 in late May, according to StreetEasy. Property Shark says it last sold for $450,000 in ’04. Entered into contract on 8/13/09; closed on 9/1/09; deed recorded on 10/30/09.

$750K-$1 Million Range: SUNSET PARK
551 57th Street; Price=$780,000 GMAP
This is a 3,072-sf, 2-family, according to Property Shark. Entered into contract on 7/24/09; closed on 10/9/09; deed recorded on 10/26/09.

Photos from Property Shark.


What's Your Take? Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

  1. Shocker – sounds like no one on Brownstoner (sans Rob) has actually BEEN inside an apartment in the projects. They are BIG, good floorplans and very sunny. Built pretty solid as well (you won’t hear your upstairs neighbor’s kids running around)

    So the best of both worlds would be a building LIKE the projects, but doesn’t have hallways that smell like piss. I would imagine the CH Co-ops fit into that category.

  2. Cute widdle house in South Slope with crooked lintel sells for $700K. Thus, the “recession” was either (a) very overrated, (b) very over, or (c) passed over us like the angel of death over every crooked lintel upon which was painted the blood of the lamb.

  3. Such disdain for public housing. There are some very architecturally distinguished housing projects in NYC, which lead the way in creating solid, healthful housing for the underpriviled. No need to be so snooty about “public housing being crap” that’s just know-nothing talk.

  4. tybur, I stand by my original assessment, and agree with Pete. The layouts don’t work for me personally – at least none of the available units I’ve seen. But, it’s an affordable building [ducking for cover now] for many people who might otherwise be completely priced out of Cobble Hill.

  5. That’s actually my point Pete. It’s aesthetically terrible. It’s a soviet-style apartment block. It’s utilitarian and drab.

    The projects are “crap” in the sense of low quality… the fact that they stand the test of time, neglected with almost no maintenance by the gov’t after they are built, well, that proves that they are well-built.

    I dunno. Maybe I’m putting too much on the aesthetics… but to pay $1/2 million for a seriously utilitarian building seems crazy to me. (Though, it seems to have other things going for it — mostly the location… errr… and the lawn?)

    Is it well-maintained? Probably. Are your neighbors nice? Hope so. Is the building a crappy maximization of space with nothing but pure ‘function’ figuring into the design? Absolutely.

  6. “As far as a building is concerned, it’s a crap building that fulfills all of the requirements of being low-income/welfare housing. It just happens to sell its units for $1/2 million instead — that’s the difference.”–
    ok – it has brick exterior and boxshaped. SO?
    Like lots of other bldgs of that period…from low income to high income. What makes it ‘crap’…?
    Even the ‘projects’? how are they crap? have you ever been in them? Smaller rooms usually (from ones I’ve seen), public spaces more utilitarian or drab if you prefer. Same with kitchens and baths….And in this congress st bldg I don’t think the kitchen and bath were so generic or low-income.

  7. I like the block that South Slope house is on. And I like the block. (ok, so yeah, this is my neighborhood). If I had the money, I would have bought it. Looks to be the perfect size for me and two cats.

1 2 3 4