« New Wine Store Pending in Fort Greene Evidently, Rats Enjoy Brownstone Living, Too »

September 13, 2006

HOTD: Another Washington Avenue Classic

house
People couldn't seem to agree whether yesterday's House of the Day at 241 Washington Avenue was a decent deal at $1,789,000. Since real estate is relative, we thought it would be useful to look at a similar house just down the block at 298 Washington that Corcoran has on the market for $1,695,000. The listing is a little thin on the photos and description so it's hard to make too detailed a comparison, but our guess is that these places are pretty similar. The interesting thing to note about this place is that it has had very few owners over the last century and change. (We heard only three families have lived there.) This is generally a big positive when it comes to the preservation of details and not such a great thing when it comes to modern upgrades. From the few pictures on the site, we'd say the historical character of the house looks intact. What we really need is to hear from someone who's been inside both places recently. NB: Some new photos have been added to the listing and above.
298 Washington Avenue [Corcoran] GMAP P*Shark




Posted by Brownstoner at 11:35 AM | Comments (24)
Categories: Properties

Comments

VERY thin on photos. Also, you'll have to some work to make it a triplex with a rental. It says it has central air, so if they've upgraded to include that, what's been doing with the rest of the place?

Posted by: west at September 13, 2006 12:22 PM

why would you wnat to make it a triplex with a rental. 1 family homes should sell for a premium in my opinion. not everyone wants to deal with being a londlord and losing the privacy of their garden.

Posted by: anon at September 13, 2006 1:30 PM

why would you wnat to make it a triplex with a rental. 1 family homes should sell for a premium in my opinion. not everyone wants to deal with being a landlord and losing the privacy of their garden.

Posted by: anon at September 13, 2006 1:31 PM

We had upgrade the pipe from the water main to get higher pressure. before that, top floor shower barely worked.

Posted by: Anonymous at September 13, 2006 1:44 PM

Few people can afford such an expensive single family home. Having a rental really helps offset the pain of paying such a large mortgage.

Posted by: Meryckawick at September 13, 2006 1:51 PM

Looking at the photo must have been on market awhile. At least since last snowstorm. You'd think they could update the pics so listing wouldn't look so stale.

Posted by: Anonymous at September 13, 2006 2:00 PM

yes, I'd like to know who these people are who talk about buying 2 mil dollar homes like a new car. and a very expensive car. no benz or BMW will do. we're talking Rolls Royce and Ferrari's.

Posted by: Anonymous at September 13, 2006 3:46 PM

I also prefer the single family house. Would rather have a smaller single family house than a lerger two-family(triplex + rental). Figuring a rental apratment can carry about $300K worth of mortgage, I'd rather have a $1.5 million single family than a $1.8 million two-family.

Posted by: Anonymous at September 13, 2006 5:11 PM

A friend of mine is trying to sell his magnicent FG brownstone for around 2. We talked the other day. He looked at it this way if the buyer puts down half a million cash money, that should cut out a few people, and gets the balance of 1.5 mil for 6% that leaves about 90,000/yr in interest before paying the thing down over thirty years. Just the 90 by itself leaves about $7,500 before you even start really buying it. How many people are there with that kind of scratch?

Posted by: Nicolo Macchiavelli at September 13, 2006 7:43 PM

Guys, this should be obvious but I guess it needs to be spelled out.
Plenty of people are moving to this kind of place from another property that they made a big profit on during the last few years. . .

Posted by: tripster at September 13, 2006 8:41 PM

What kind of bla bla bla is this ???? now for a 1.7 M price tag you are asking yourself, what kind of people, who's buying......
what about those houses that they sell for over 2M ???
This hood has changed, this is Brooklyn not the ghetto anymore and yes those people are Lawyers, Doctors and professionals that as a famyly they bring home at least 250K this is the reality, live with it!

Posted by: Anonymous at September 13, 2006 11:55 PM

You've got to be kidding, people. Don't you realize the median income in Manhattan is $90,000. Per person. That's $180,000 for a two income household. That's the median. The median person does not buy a $2MM brownstone. Try multiplying that number a few times. And if you think investment bankers make that much, you're really crazy. Maybe vps, but Directors earn much more, and MDs into the seven figures. $90,000 a year is nothing. What do you people do for a living.

Posted by: Anonymous at September 14, 2006 4:33 AM

Yikes, this is a good endorsement for the FSBO site on brownstoner. If noone here can buy anything..methinks the readership is poor. Uh oh.

Posted by: anon at September 14, 2006 7:49 AM

The sad thing about this argument is that there are dozens of us posting about how we can't afford 2mm brownstones but the fact is there are so few of these properties available at any one time that all it takes is one of those above-mentioned wealthy professionals to snap it up. You're talking about such a relatively small number of purchases throughout a whole year that it makes perfect sense that there are a lucky (very) few who can afford them.

Posted by: west at September 14, 2006 8:16 AM

Better check your stats on Manhattan median income. That $90K per cap median income is for upper east side of manhattan not the whole borough.
(about 1/2 of that).

Posted by: Anonymous at September 14, 2006 9:52 AM

Is having one of these 3600sq ft homes as single family any different then the Hummer/McMansion un-green mentality that is so often condemned on this site.
Or is it allowable/given a free-pass to occupy so much because one has such good taste ?

Posted by: Anonymous at September 14, 2006 9:56 AM

250K a year is nowhere near enough scratch to buy one of these. You're talking about most Wall St. people, maybe some older docs (at least 40 yrs. old - med school loans are beastly) or lawyers in their 40s (and probably only if they are partners at big firms and owned property before - lawyers don't do as well as you think).

Or let's just say what we all really think a lot of it is - family money from mom and dad.

Posted by: Anonymous at September 14, 2006 9:56 AM

To the poster who said 90k is wrong: you are wrong. Dept of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics: 91,000 per year for Manhattan.

Posted by: Anonymous at September 14, 2006 10:32 AM

Anon 9:56 got it right. About a week ago, the NYTimes posted a story about starting salaries for NYC attorneys at big law firms going up to $145k/yr...but that's a small percentage of the legal community. By comparison, starting salary for a non-profit attorney in NYC is usually $30-40K; for City attorneys it's $44-$45k. Medical residents are in the same boat....and there's still the issue of student loans to consider. Even at these low income levels, I still exceed HPD's maximum income requirements for some of their "affordable housing" lotteries. I know there are other folks out there in other professions who are feeling the squeeze as well. At least we can read this board and dream.

Posted by: Anonymuse at September 14, 2006 10:46 AM

You people are laughable. You rely on a newspaper for compensation data? You've got to be kidding, right?

Posted by: Anonymous at September 14, 2006 11:19 AM

Anon 11:19. The NYT article was a point of reference. As a municipal attorney, I have first-hand knowledge of civil service salaries (yes, you can actually find the salary of every single municipal employee in a repository online--- it's rather disconcerting). As for the private sector...I've interviewed with "big aw" and have friends who work there. As exorbitant as it may seem, the salaries are correct. I wasn't complaining, by the way...I only mentioned it to put things in perspective for the people who see one random article and assume that all attorneys/doctors/engineers or others are making big bucks.

Posted by: Anonymous at September 14, 2006 12:57 PM

And Anon 11:19, I'm anon at 9:56 and didn't realize we had to post our personal lives but here goes - I am an attorney at a smaller firm, but pretty well paid for the firm size, and my husband is at a big firm (my father is also at a big firm). My bank account tells me everyday what private sector attorneys make, and it's in line with the NY Times article. Which means that I know for a fact that attorney's salaries on the lower levels are nowhere near enough money to afford a place like this. I should also mention that I am familiar with younger doctor's salaries, as we have those in the family as well.

Thank you other anonymous for posting the public sector info.

Posted by: Anonymous at September 14, 2006 1:12 PM

I am pretty sure anyone responding on this blog is making less than 90k per year (like myself) or else you wouldn;t have time to review this garbage

Posted by: Beef Stu at September 14, 2006 2:47 PM

i agree, ppl with money dont waste time on sites like this, they go out and make things happen

Posted by: gosh at September 22, 2006 8:26 PM

Post a comment

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

Latest Restaurant Additions