« Development Watch: 184 Eagle Street House of the Day: Kensington FSBO(B) »
January 23, 2007
OH Post-Mortem: Price for CG Atrocity a "Fantasy"
Unbeknownst to us, there was an open house at 45 Third Place last weekend, a property we've expressed disgust with on several occasions. Luckily, a reader was able to stop by and provides us with his impressions below:
Here's the skinny: 2 units, both duplexes. Upper 2 floors and roof space, $1.55MM. Lower 2 floors and basement, $1.59MM. The two parking garages behind the structure are being offered seperately for $85M each. The upper unit has cathedral ceiling in living room area, and sole access to a large roof space. The lower unit has a basement that smells moldy, will be partly finished and will have W/D. Also, downstairs has a separate door to one bedroom on ground floor which may be used as a home office. The basement, which had that not-so-fresh feeling, will contain a finished rec room, so I believe they are counting basement space in the square footage. In my opinion, the upper was a much better unit than the lower...but the price for either one is a fantasy.
We haven't seen been by in a couple of months. Can anyone snap a photo for us?
3rd Place Condo - Lower Duplex [Brown Harris Stevens] GMAP
3rd Place Condo - Upper Duplex [Brown Harris Stevens]
Real Photos of Carroll Gardens Bastard [Brownstoner]
Carroll Gardens "Bastardization" Hits Market [Brownstoner]
CG Atrocity: There Goes the Neighborhood [Brownstoner]
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/380
Comments
they painted it, the color doesn't quite match and the texture certainly doesn't.
It still looks horrible.
the prices are fantasy, especially in view of the $2k/month you shell out in maint and taxes, but it seems that carroll gardens to cobble hill can get up to and sometimes past 1000/psf (per real square foot) now -- which is so insane, as that is the price in town as well.
I guess when it is actually nicer to live in carroll gardens than it is to live on the upper west side, the catch-up was inevitable. But, ugh :(
Posted by: Anonymous at January 23, 2007 11:42 AM
I believe a finished rec room is required by code. Either an indoor or outdoor recreation area is required now.
Posted by: djr at January 23, 2007 11:50 AM
It's just awful. Dreadful.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 23, 2007 11:55 AM
I will snap a pic when i get off work. It is even more hideous with the paint job - it clashes with the brick.
1.55 is insane for a condo in a converted house. If you have that coin and don't want a house, you would do better at the place on 2nd by Court - which is also overpriced, but much nicer.
And 85K for parking?! Gimem a break. I bought a garaged space for 1/3 that two years ago!
Posted by: chickenmadness at January 23, 2007 12:08 PM
Indoor or outdoor recreation area is required by code? I am not saying it is not a great idea, but that sounds pretty unlikely to me. For this amount of money you can get a four story house on the Clinton Hill-Bed Stuy border and fix it up. But location, location, location...
Posted by: putnam-denizen at January 23, 2007 12:09 PM
The craziest thing is that the monthly real estate tax is listed at $1,300/ month! That's huge for CG, where the average brownstone is often only $300 month in taxes for 4 floors. You can buy an entire brownstone at the price, and save a huge amount per month in taxes.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 23, 2007 12:18 PM
the funny part is if they had just made this into a really nice, top of the line everything 1 family with parking they could have gotten over 3 mill and hit their price point. it probably would have been less expensive too since it'd only be 1 kitchen and master bath and they wouldn't have to pay a lawyer 20k to file a condo offering plan.
Posted by: anon at January 23, 2007 12:40 PM
I'm another neighbor -- I walk by this place every morning on the way to the train. Just ... ugh. It seems really sloppy in some details and over-the-top flashy in others. Really a disappointing use of a great corner-lot location.
Posted by: shelz123 at January 23, 2007 12:45 PM
Phyllis Norton-Towers should be ashamed of herself. She knows better than to take a listing like this...
Posted by: Anonymous at January 23, 2007 12:47 PM
Wow, an 85 million dollar parking space. Is this a new record?
Posted by: Bryan at January 23, 2007 12:57 PM
ha ha ha ha. That townhouse has herpes, or a boil. Or both.
Posted by: AnonymousNegro at January 23, 2007 1:31 PM
The only saving grace of this house is that it inspired the funniest of blogs ever on Brownstoner.
Posted by: anon at January 23, 2007 1:44 PM
Recreation space is not required by code in a two family house. Only multi-family dwellings with more than 9 units developed under the Quality Housing Program require recreation space accessible to all tenants, usually in the form of a roof deck. The recreation room in this project (and many many like it) is a designation for finished space in the Cellar level that does not count towards zoning square footage. A bedroom, living room, kitchen or bathroom with more than three plumbing fixtures is not permitted in a cellar. The recreation space is considered 'accessory' to the primary dwelling directly above.
Posted by: Smarty-tect at January 23, 2007 1:50 PM
Not to nick pick, but for any of you budding developers out there, the term is "physical culture", not "recreation space". And it is indeed required.
Posted by: Max at January 23, 2007 2:20 PM
Bryan - M is the Roman numeral for thousand; MM is million.
Every time I see the words "CG Atrocity" I laugh out loud. But then the tears start for what might have been.
Posted by: Brooklynite at January 23, 2007 2:28 PM
I like this place - it's a little eccentric, but it's a fun, post-modern take on traditional form. Love the addition w/ its diagonal tile and stacked double doors & rails. Given the price of brownstones in that region, and the increase in square footage, what's up with all the whining? It's not like all brownstones are being altered - it's one building, one creative exercise. It's also not a boilerplate "Feders" building.
Losers.
Posted by: Ed at January 23, 2007 2:32 PM
I cry too - when I realize that Brooklyn is full of so many narrow, uncreative, conservative whiners!
Posted by: Ed at January 23, 2007 2:38 PM
fucked that poor building up .
what the hell was this greedy prick thinking ?
this is the type of property that's gonna sit on the market a long time
Posted by: eletricgreek at January 23, 2007 2:43 PM
I love the fact that it looks like the dark part of the building is humping the red one. Is it just this building, or all of Carroll Gardens that's getting f*cked doggy style by this development?
Posted by: Anonymouse at January 23, 2007 3:04 PM
85M? I really really really really hope this is a typo!!!!
Posted by: m at January 23, 2007 3:15 PM
It doesn't have diagonal tile in real life - it has maroon-brown paint
Posted by: chickenmadness at January 23, 2007 3:40 PM
Says it is near PS 29, which isn't true. Plus it's gotta be zoned for PS 58, which is much closer. It's closest to PS 146, Brooklyn New School, but that's a lottery school, so closenesss doesn't count for anything with admissions there.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 23, 2007 4:22 PM
Look - some people are challenged. They can't think outside the box. The silly moralism going on in this thread has nothing to do w/design. Yawn. Dumb. Makes the whiners look like they deserve Feders because they can't tell the difference.
Posted by: Ed at January 23, 2007 4:48 PM
Ed--Have you seen this up close? It really is ugly. Not everyone who dislikes this particular "update" is super conservative about architecture.
Posted by: Carol Gardens at January 23, 2007 5:02 PM
I agree with Carol Gardens. I live in a 2-yr old apartment that would make some "brownstoners" cringe (I love new buildings), but this is just not a welcome addition to the 'hood.
I also agree with the poster who added the always true "location, location, location" comment. We could come up with a list of properties on the market around our great boro, more space for the same $$$ but this area is where some people want to be. So they'll pay to make it happen.
Not all of us are silly moralists Ed, but we are all entitled to our opinion. Chill out a bit. Seems like you have an interest in the place maybe?
Posted by: Anonymous at January 23, 2007 6:03 PM
Ed, it is seriously ugly. I like to see some of the modern designs scattered in among the old, but this one just screams 'make money fast'. it is a huge sucking black hole of negativity. It looks like a cinderblock car-park toilet is attempting to borg a bownstone. Buy that and you couldn't even make friends in the area because they'd smirk, even the ones renting studios. Even the italians with a plaster virgin mary out in their front garden. Even the stray dogs wimper and cross the road.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 23, 2007 6:08 PM
Ed, you scabrous tool, this building is hideous. Conservative? You're way off, buddy.
I don't cry over every new development and like modern development as well as classic. This is an abortion.
It may end up being lovely on the inside but the outside appearance is execrable.
Posted by: Brooklynite at January 23, 2007 6:24 PM
aesthetics aside, what is the price per sq and how does that compare to the condos at 2d pl. and court?
Posted by: hola at January 23, 2007 6:58 PM
Ed: This building looks like a guy trying to blow himself...
Posted by: Anonymous at January 23, 2007 7:09 PM
Funny, one duplex says it's "close to PS 29", and the other is "zoned for PS 58". It's definitely PS 58. Not that that's a bad thing, actually, as PS 58 is now comparable to 29 and many, if not most, of the new Carroll Gardens residents no longer seek out variances and send their kids to the school.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 23, 2007 8:40 PM
Turrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrd. Turd. No excuse.
Posted by: Bob999 at January 24, 2007 2:02 AM
Max, you are wrong re: recreation space. In a two family house this is not required, but provided. "Physical Culture" establishments are places "equipped and arranged to provide instruction, services or activities which improve or affect a person's physical condition by exercise or by massage". (ZR 12-10)
Pretty sure massage parlors are not mandatory in new development. Actually I'm positive. You don't know what you're taliking about.
Posted by: Smarty-tect at January 24, 2007 9:54 AM
this is so sad. a 21 year old bought this house and this is what he turned it into.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 25, 2007 9:00 PM
This is nice. Much better than those hideous ancient brownstones.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 29, 2007 7:29 PM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.