HOTD: Greenpoint Home For The Aged Hits Market
Holy smokes! The historic Greenpoint Home for the Aged (which the AIA Guide calls an “eclectic brick manion with Italianate massing and Romanesque Revival arches”) has just become available. The 5,000-square-foot mansion is not for the faint of heart, though. In addition to the 13 SRO tenants currently residing there, making use of the almost…
Holy smokes! The historic Greenpoint Home for the Aged (which the AIA Guide calls an “eclectic brick manion with Italianate massing and Romanesque Revival arches”) has just become available. The 5,000-square-foot mansion is not for the faint of heart, though. In addition to the 13 SRO tenants currently residing there, making use of the almost 15,000 square feet of air rights won’t be a simple matter given the 1887 building’s landmark status. The asking price is $2,500,000. This place is very hard to value, however, for the reasons cited above. Getting free and clear of the SRO tenants would take at least three years, we’d think; we’re not even sure a developer could get them out — and it’s going to be hard to find an individual with the deep pockets who plans to use this as a private residence and leave the unbuilt FAR unused. One possibility? A developer might just build around the existing tenants, essentially buying the property as a development venture. We don’t know the layout of the lot very well but it’s not apparent to us how the LPC will ever let anyone build 15,000 square feet here. What this calls for is a patient, eccentric multi-millionaire!
137 Oak Street [Massey Knakal] GMAP P*Shark
Droolworthy: Greenpoint Home for the Aged [Brownstoner]
AIA on Greenpoint [Ragette.org]
You can’t kick out the SRO tenants. You can either relocate them or buy them out.
Those are the facts. You folks making this into a rich developer versus poor tenant issue are just blowing steam.
In the end, everyone will be better off. I’d be willing to invest as a partner in that building, but I would never do the whole thing myself.
Talk about a headache.
Lot’s of chatter. Let’s get back to the basics.
Has anyone seen the property yet??? Any word on what it’s like inside?
Sylvia said: And as much as I think that kicking SRO residents out on the street is wrong, maybe the outrage could be taken a little more seriously if people admitted that no-one here is advocating development “at the expense of human life”.
I say: That is exactly what Brownster advocates.
Sylvia: I mean seriously. Kicking people out of an SRO is not the moral equivalent of sending them to the gas chamber.
I say: Yeah, making someone homeless & living out in this weather is A-Okay. We only have 100,000 homeless in this city, what’s another? Hey–they all want to be on the streets anyway.
Brownstoner said: Do you really think someone’s going to pay $2.5 million for this place and not try to kick out the SRO tenants? Last time we checked most developers and homeowners were not in the charity business.
—————————————–
This is a really disappointing & obnoxious comment. Good to know that when you have money you automatically can look down from your pedestal :thumbs up:
I don’t know, if the original layout was all divided up, it would be pretty difficult to make this into a one-family residence. I would bet that it ends up going to someone who wants to make condos (or, given the market, rentals?) out of it, kind of like what they did with the old Interfaith Hospital in Crown Heights. They ripped out all the individual hospital rooms and divided it up in to apartments. Does $2.5 million sound about right, then?
And as much as I think that kicking SRO residents out on the street is wrong, maybe the outrage could be taken a little more seriously if people admitted that no-one here is advocating development “at the expense of human life”. I mean seriously. Kicking people out of an SRO is not the moral equivalent of sending them to the gas chamber.
Sorry, brownstoner, it was you who made the insensitive comment that started this in the first place. Bo said it perfectly. A show of concern (or not commenting) would’ve been better. All you comment on is the economics.
And as for 8:16, let’s hope he winds up a tenant with a landlord with his exquisite arrogance.
The issue is less about the “inevitability” of progress than the way it is executed. Little or no attention is paid to the fabric of the city and profit takes precedence over all else. No one expects homeowners and developers to be in the “charity business” but your vision lacks conscience and the city is quickly becoming a cheesy, soulless void driven by greed. History is a nuisance to you people and what you leave behind will be remembered with shame. What a bore. Go invest in Tampa if all your interested in is a quick buck.
5:21,
A landlord’s job is not to run a social welfare agency. A renter lives in a buildig by priveledge, not by right (as protected in NYC as it may be). I own 4 buildngs. Call me when you do too.
This isn’t about us advocating any course of action, it’s about the reality of the marketplace. Do you really think someone’s going to pay $2.5 million for this place and not try to kick out the SRO tenants? Last time we checked most developers and homeowners were not in the charity business.