Co-op of the Day: 150 Joralemon Street, #7B
We like the idea of getting a real two-bedroom in Brooklyn Heights for $500,000, but other than that, we can’t find too much to get excited about with Apartment 7B at 150 Joralemon Street. There’s nothing offensive about it either—it’s just kind generic. And the maintenance of $1,315 also seems on the high side. It’s…
We like the idea of getting a real two-bedroom in Brooklyn Heights for $500,000, but other than that, we can’t find too much to get excited about with Apartment 7B at 150 Joralemon Street. There’s nothing offensive about it either—it’s just kind generic. And the maintenance of $1,315 also seems on the high side. It’s priced well enough, though, that it should probably sell within 5% of the asking price, we’d think.
150 Joralemon Street, #7B [Dougas Elliman] GMAP P*Shark
What are all you people talking about when you say capital projects should not be paid for through an increase in the maintenance? That happens all the time in apartment buildings large and small. Very often the reserve fund is not large enough to cover the cost of a needed project. Or it’s done indirectly through an increase in the maintenance to cover the payments for a large loan rather than have to deplete the reserve fund entirely.
Yes, the larger the building, typically the larger the reserve fund. But that doesn’t mean a reserve fund is always going to be enough to cover the cost of required maintenance. Nor does it mean that it can be built back up quickly after it is accessed for a project. So maintenances are increased. This is exactly why maintenances are unusually higher all over Brooklyn Heights as compared to other Brooklyn neighborhoods. The buildings are older there and as they were converted from rentals to coops/condos, capital improvement and general maintenaces projects were done over time. The cost was passed on to current and future owners through higher maintenances.
Also, it makes no sense to pay for an expensive project through a one time assessment. That means current owners wind up paying out of pocket for projects that will benefit future owners. The cost needs to be amoratized over time so that it’s spread out through successive owners. Hence, the higher maintenance to cover the cost of a capital loan perhaps in this case.
Any owner that agrees to a one time assessment for a large scale capital improvement is foolish in my opinion. You’re paying for someone else’s future benefit.
Here’s another in the same building with a better looking kitchen and perhaps a better layout at $499k:
– http://www.brownharrisstevens.com/detail.aspx?id=884297
As for this unit:
01/24/2008
Listed in StreetEasy with Elliman at $530,000
06/23/2008
Price decreased to $500,000
Wow, tough crowd.
Agreed that the hardest thing to swallow about this apartment, apart from the hefty maintenance, is that odd little “comprimised” kitchen. And that you must enter to the side of it and pass through it. I’m trying to imagine a more practical kitchen arrangement…
Nope. Can’t do it.
DOWhat felt like he needed to get his spelling more in line between his two personas. Hence the “comprimised kithen” and the weird grammatical structure of the sentence in which it was contained.
“Not too much feeling the comprimised kithen layout neither.”
WTF is a “comprimised kithen”?
daveinbedstuy: no worries, I was actually quoting an owner in the building, not a broker, when saying that common charges were raised for “meaningless building work.” I have no idea what the work is, or the percentage that was raised for cc’s.
you know, i think he may.
you think he still lives at home??
btw… that is the son.