Rental of the Day: 126 4th Avenue
When we first posted about the big new rental on 4th Avenue and Baltic a couple of months ago, the general consensus about the building’s design was more or less summed up by one comment: Beaten badly by the Ugly Stick. Again and again. Nevertheless, the development brings the first batch of new-construction rentals to…
When we first posted about the big new rental on 4th Avenue and Baltic a couple of months ago, the general consensus about the building’s design was more or less summed up by one comment: Beaten badly by the Ugly Stick. Again and again. Nevertheless, the development brings the first batch of new-construction rentals to the Boerum Hill-Park Slope-Gowanus border area on 4th (the avenue has, of course, otherwise been flooded with condos builds), and so it’ll be interesting to see how much demand there is for these apartments. Listings have gone up for one- and two-bedroom units in the building at 126 4th Avenue (ready for move-ins by March), and they’re looking to get between $2,400 and $2,500 for the one-bedrooms and around $3,000 for the two-bedroom, 1-baths. Amenities include central air and many of the units have terraces, but tenants have to pay for their own utilities. Rosetta Farrell, the Heights Berkeley Realty agent who’s handling the listings, says the rents are standard for the area, and that she expects the apartments to be snapped up quickly given the dearth of new rentals in the Slope. Considering all the amenities and the fact that it’s a new building, I think they’re very reasonable, says Farrell.
126 4th Avenue (click thru for listings) [Heights Berkeley]
Development Watch: 126 4th Avenue [Brownstoner] GMAP
Interior shots from Heights Berkeley Realty.
typical Brownstoner commentary – not an interesting or informative one in the bunch!
I love the B.S. “renters dont care what the building looks like” – HELLO – most apartment buyers don’t care all that much what the exterior looks like. I mean sure all things being equal most people would rather live in an attractive building BUT all things arent equal. So how much of a premium do you think someone is really will to pay (in rent or price) for a “more attractive building” – if you think the premium is more then 15% you are nuts.
Now whether these rentals are expensive or not is yet to be determined, and the beauty of a rental is the owners can negotiate or raise and lower the rents in direct response to demand but all you people whining that b/c you think the building is ugly=the apartments wont rent is just ridiculous. Last I looked they have no trouble renting (at very high rents BTW) in Stuyvesant Town and that is essentially a “project”.
And this building wasnt built as a condo or a hotel 1:27 so your comment is (typically) uninformed
lebron will be a knick soon enough, 1:33
It was never to be a hotel or condos, 1:27.
Whoever told you that gave you false information.
This is appropriately craptastic for gow-ANUS.
“Someone needs to put a giant LeBron billboard on the side of that monstrosity.”
No! STRAHAN. This is NYC!!
Someone needs to put a giant LeBron billboard on the side of that monstrosity.
Failed as a hotel. Failed as a condo. Will fail as a rental until the prices come down.
Thanks, 1:16 and 1:20. I wouldn’t, and clearly didn’t, know the Papa John’s logo if/when I see it. Glad I didn’t make a presumption about the 12:55 post. But my main point stands, why aren’t there stores in the base of this building? — 1:14
I say fratboy whorehouse. Think of the revenue possibilities!