Houses of the Day: Head-to-Head on Clinton Street
Two owners within two blocks of each other on Clinton Street in Cobble Hill have decided to put their houses on the market at the same time for almost exactly the same price. Number 274 (left), which is listed with Brown Harris Stevens for $2,900,000, is a 3,600-square-foot three-family that has been in the same…
Two owners within two blocks of each other on Clinton Street in Cobble Hill have decided to put their houses on the market at the same time for almost exactly the same price. Number 274 (left), which is listed with Brown Harris Stevens for $2,900,000, is a 3,600-square-foot three-family that has been in the same family for six decades. Number 299 (right), listed with Halstead for $2,895,000, is smaller at about 3,000 square feet but has a corner location with a parking garage taking up most of the rear yard. Both houses are brownstone and both houses have only 68-feet-deep lots. The corner property has been recently renovated and most likely has higher taxes. Tough call. Which would you buy if you had this kind of dough to drop?
274 Clinton Street [Brown Harris Stevens] GMAP P*Shark
299 Clinton Street [Halstead] GMAP P*Shark
I don’t understand the anti-3/4 family comments. I live in a four family, the rental income pays my mortgage, taxes, insurance, utilities, maintenance, and leaves me a profit at the end of the year, and I live for free. I own another four family and a three family that produce an even larger profit. Obviously the commenter does not own any four family houses.
I’ve been inside 274 Clinton. The woodwork is in great shape and the entrance is stunning. However, several ceiling have been dropped, kithens/baths need updating, and all the fireplaces but one have been removed. The bonus of buying from an owner who has lived in the building since she was ten is that fact that the owner doesn’t carry a mortgage and has less of a bottom line when it comes to negotiating a final price.
If you have a kid, then no yard (299) becomes an big issue.
Beg to differ on those that assume they’re are not people interest in 3 or 4 family in high price range.
There are those like myself that have lots of equity (as in no mortgage) who would consider trading up the Clinton st. that do not have the incomes of single family househunters.
re: Anonymous at March 15, 2007 5:00 PM
if you spend $3 mill on a 4 family and live in one apartment you’ll never cover your mortgage. even if you get $3000 per floor which is highly unlikely you’ll still only cover maybe $1.5 million of mortgage. then you’ll still have taxes, maintnence and have paid $1.5 for floor of a brownstone. doesn’t make sense. at $2mill maybe, but not at $3.
One key reason that it’s a good thing for a home to have had the same owner for a long time is that there haven’t been a succession of newbies to splatter yet another coat of paint on the joint–especially on the woodwork. It’s true that old-timers are less likely to have kept the place up-to-date, but personally, I prefer to be the person who makes those choices. (What if they had renovated my kitchen in 1985–yecch, mauve!) My place needs a lot of help on the electrical and a little on the plumbing, but at least most of the woodwork has its original, 130-year-old finish–just the way I want it to.
I own 3 family and do not understand the comment. Rents go up. We could live for free in our apartment in 3-4 year if rents continue to grow even modestly. and we bought 2 years ago. Rents could cover our loans, taxes and about 1K in maintenance.
227 kane recently sold for around $2.3 and it’s less than 18ft, has no garage and funky layout half parlor on 3rd floor). but it was in nice condition and wasn’t on the market long. i’d say this place is worth $2.9 due to the garage and larger size. i don’t think any 3 or 4 families are worth $3 mill, and even most 2 families are worth that. if you ahve $3 to spend on a home you dont’ need rental income and if you do you’re an idiot for speding that much on a house. elliman has 2 townhouses on clinton; on 4 family for $3.5 which will never sell at that price. who’d pay that for a 4 family!? and it makes no sense for an investor or developer either!
More historical info also here in this 1983 NY Times article:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9905E4DE163BF931A35753C1A965948260
But yeah, BoCoCa name is totally contrived, and definitely grates my ears to hear it.
Anonymous 3:10p,
No, it’s been Cobble Hill for well over 200 years, and actually used to have a really big hill until that was flattened and used as landfill to create parts of Red Hook, Columbia Street Waterfront uplands, etc.
Read up:
http://gsedwards.blogspot.com/2007/01/how-cobble-lost-its-hill.html