« LPC Putting Vic Flatbush Nabes on the Calendar Northside Retail Space: 46 Hundo a Month »

August 30, 2006

354 Franklin Avenue: A Positive Development

house
A block away from the controversial development at 333 Greene, there's an 8,000-square-foot residential development in mid-construction. When we walked past it earlier this week, it struck us as Scarano-esque, which is not surprising because, as it turns out, it is a Scarano project. While we haven't always been easy on the man or some of his designs (though we did opine favorably on this one recently), we have to say that we think this building is a positive development (no pun intended) for the nabe. It's also interesting to note that it is being built for $250 a square foot. We don't know exactly how much a Fedders building costs to construct but it can't be a whole lot less. If the developer can acquire the land at $100 a buildable foot, build it for $250 a foot and sell it for $450 a foot, everyone's a winner, right? GMAP




Posted by Brownstoner at 10:15 AM | Comments (18)
Categories: Development

Comments

$250 per Sqft. $450 per SqFt $100 Sqft. Where do you get your numbers? This is not a game of Bingo. Everyone is a developer now?

Posted by: Anonymous at August 30, 2006 10:51 AM

I agree that this building is looking pretty good, especially in comparison to all the Fedder's crap we've seen lately. I really wonder how many units are in the building and what the prices will be. Any idea when this project might be finished?

When I walked by yesterday, they were pumping in soy-based "green" insulation.

Posted by: clinton hillbilly at August 30, 2006 11:41 AM

You also need to add in between $20 - $30 a square foot for financing and $20 - $30 a square foot for soft costs.

I'll bet a Fedders building can be built for $125-$150 a square foot. That's why they build that way. It's cheap.

If these people are really building for $250 a square foot, then trust me, they don't expect to be selling for $450 a square foot. It's more likely they are projecting sales prices of $550 a square foot - or more.

Posted by: Shahn Andersen at August 30, 2006 11:59 AM

We defer to your judgement, Shahn. $550 it is.

Posted by: brownstoner at August 30, 2006 12:03 PM

Peeking at public records(ACRIS) it looks like 354 Franklin LLC, acquired the property in Aug 05 for $800K. The lot has a buildable FAR of 4242 sqft. That puts the cost/ft sq @ $188.6 per buildable foot.

They then turned around and took out $1million in loans, which i take is for construction. Construction/loan costs would be $235/ buildable foot.

Right now, the LLC has incurred costs of almost $425 per buildable foot.

Is it really feasible for the LLC to turn around and sell it for $450 a foot?

If in fact the developers cost basis was $425 a foot, what's a 'fair' mark up? A
$100 a foot mark up on $425 is just under 25%.

So $525 a foot seems closer to the mark.

Posted by: ItAWrap at August 30, 2006 12:04 PM

Has anyone discussed (or even merely identified) the new condos being constructed on 1st street between 5th and 4th; or the big condo bldg on 4th ave several blocks down? Neither are on Developers Group website, and not on any realty website I can find. I just feel so shut out of that condo market, b/c I don't understand how people find out about them. Yet many or all units often sell pre-construction. I asked my realtor and she herself didn't know about those particular buildings I mentioned. It's a mystery! Thanks for any info anyone can give.

Posted by: jo at August 30, 2006 12:48 PM

8000 square foot building on 4,242 square foot buildable lot. Something's not adding up. That would be a lot of mezanines.

Posted by: Anonymous at August 30, 2006 12:49 PM

Oh and to address the topic, I like this Scarano building. I like the other one too, the one that looks like a 70's school building - I've always thought those 60's and 70's school buildings were cool! I know I'm odd woman out on that one.

Posted by: jo at August 30, 2006 1:00 PM

I'd like to propose a thought experiment. How could the Brownstoner brain trust convert one of the "Fedders" buildings into something palatable? Could these be redeveloped with our superior aesthetic eye in a way that would make them saleable to the pseudo-intelligentsia?

I ask because some of these developments are actually on decent blocks and can be purchased at a discount relative to the more enlightened designs. Is there a taste arbitrage opportunity here?

Thoughts?

Posted by: MrLomez at August 30, 2006 1:26 PM

Sorry. Here are the Specs of our hypothetical "Fedders" building.

Steel Frame and cinderblock construction.
Brick Faced
Small Window Openings
Exterior Utility Meters
Contractor/Home Depot grade, windows doors, cabinetry, counters, fixtures, wood floors, appliances.

Posted by: MrLomez at August 30, 2006 1:34 PM

1. Get structural engineer to confirm that corners were not cut when the foundation was installed.

2. Replace el-cheapo brick with something nice that will weather well and not look like sawdust in a few years. Add some poured concrete accents that require some real creative thought.

3. Remove the single window from the front and break holes in the concrete blocks so that new two-over-two windows can be installed, with each undersized window being replaced by two good windows.

4. Move utility meters to the basement where they belong.

5. Replace the crappy hollow synthetic interior doors with solid pine doors that they ALSO sell at home depot, but for $145 rather than $70.

6. Pull up crappy wood floors, level floor with self-leveling light concrete, install decent oak or even bamboo flooring.

Posted by: Shahn Andersen at August 30, 2006 3:02 PM

Adding to Shahn's- do something interesting with the brickwork. Old buildings used to lay brick creatively. And not that godawful pink or white stuff. Something softer and more earth toned. Don't use those fancy/but cheap wrought iron fencing. Simple, black fences look so much nicer. And play with the concrete- it's an amazingly versatile material that can be beautifully colored and made to look like other materials.

Maybe put some money into a really nice front door. If you go for one with leaded glass, get the leading in a dark color, not bright gold or silver. THose look really cheap.

Please- no more speckly blk/wht granite countertops. Or that awful dreary grayish shiny marble tile. Simple tile or a solid color stone. Corian is also a beautiful artistic material. Slate. Terracotta.

There's a huge variety of reasonably priced and nice looking fixtures (including knobs and drawer pulls)in Home Depot- don't just get the cheapest ones. Go for something on the classic side that won't look dated in 5 years- or overly ornate so that your place looks like the Versaille that failed.

And paint- good quality paint and pick your colors wisely. Great fixtures finishes that look more expensive are brushed nickel, bronze, antiqued copper- and they often don't cost that much more.

One last thing- fedders buildings are modern in style and though eclectic is a great look, Victorian style fixtures won't make it a brownstone. Pick things to enhance the style, not make it look like what it isn't. DOesn't mean you shouldn't use a great period style chandelier- but make it a statement of choice, not a wannabe.

Posted by: Anonymous at August 30, 2006 4:04 PM

sorry- my post above. forgot to sign-in.

Also thought that if you're handy and the style accomodates, a small porch or overhang for the front door can really add something. Wood from HD and a little creativity.

Posted by: jennyanne at August 30, 2006 4:07 PM

I've seen these buildings go up and the construction is so shoddy. As bad as the outside looks, the inside is 10X worse. I agree that there are many cosmetic fixes that you could make, but ultimately the poor quality construction will result in problems. Buyer beware...

Posted by: clinton hillbilly at August 30, 2006 4:51 PM

Not to be argumentative CHb, but steel frame and cinderblock construction is pretty straightforward. As long as the foundation is deep, level and dry, the basic structure isn't going anywhere. I'm sure there are some lousy ones, but there are some lousy brownstones too.

My proposition is based on a structurally sound basis. Maybe a little sloppy, but structurally OK.

Posted by: MrLomez at August 30, 2006 5:20 PM

I pass this building all the time and it does look okay from the view in the photo but on the Franklin Avenue side it is extremely narrow. Given all of the glass and the lack of depth inhabiting this building will resemble life in a hamster wheel. I find this true of many low to midrise buildings that developers have been trying to squeeze into small lots in Williamsburg. I imagine a lot of them are Scarano projects as well, the man seems to be ubiquitous these days.

Posted by: thesupersleuth at August 30, 2006 5:45 PM

Just get rid of those ugly A/C sleeves in those bdlgs. Just black or dark colored grating. Doesn't cost much. And hopefully a year later the building won't have those rust stains from the cheap sleeves running down the front.

Posted by: Anonymous at August 30, 2006 8:40 PM

What is going to be double dog fun for the buyers who move into that building (I assume it won't be cheap, since a number of rooms seem to have double-high ceilings) is discovering how hard it is to get DEP or 311 to do anything about their neighbors, as that fabulous round window looks down on an autobody shop whose fumes are about what you expect from an auto body shop; past the autobody shop is Five Star Label and Tag which takes deliveries at all hours of the night. The other night a tanker truck showed up at 2AM and commenced pumping.

I'm hoping that some fancy pants move in there soon so's they can at least get 5 Star to stop backing up their fork lifts (beep beep beep beep beep) all night long.

Posted by: Clean Air Planet at September 1, 2006 4:08 PM

Post a comment

Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.

Latest Restaurant Additions