Open House Picks

A house like that cost $800K in 1999.
Yes- AY sucks, but this house looks very nice.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 23, 2007 12:45 PM

AY will dramatically increase the value of this property

Posted by: Anonymous at March 23, 2007 1:12 PM

this house is accualy inside AY
poor owners it blows big times for them

Posted by: Anonymous at March 23, 2007 1:33 PM

"Twyford Real Estate"? I like that.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 23, 2007 1:36 PM

18 Sherman looks a couple hundred thousand over priced especially considering it doesn't have central heat or AC and the rental is on the top floor. Anyone paying such big bucks in that area is going to expect more in my humble opinion.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 23, 2007 1:38 PM

Agreed 18 sherman is WAY OVERPRICED esp since 42 just sold for $1.2M and with $400k in renovations it will only be $1.6M and that would be with spectacular finishes.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 23, 2007 2:03 PM

Newstoner, I agree

Posted by: Anonymous at March 23, 2007 2:05 PM

Why are the two Windsor Terrace houses priced so differenty?

Posted by: Anonymous at March 23, 2007 3:53 PM

Regarding Windsor Terrace houses:

One looks fifties and the other looks turn of the century, though by no means as nice as a classic brownstone.

One is seriously overpriced. The other is less seriously overpriced, but needs a buyer not obsessed with the idea of a classic Brooklyn brownstone -- which is hard to find.

I sure wouldn't want to live in a fifties Bayridge style townhouse, but everyone's different.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 23, 2007 4:09 PM

I think the WT houses are priced so far apart because someone on Sherman Street is smoking crack. Is the Windsor Place house really from the 1950s? I would have guessed 1920s at the latest.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 23, 2007 4:19 PM

Yeah, you're right. DOB shows Windsor Place was built in 1914 and altered in the 1930's -- though unclear what alterations were.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 23, 2007 4:27 PM

Sherman street house is a much nicer house than the one on Windsor in terms of style of house (assuming you like brownstones). At least from the photos, its nicely renovated and the Windsor one is not. Its also not located next to a dry cleaners as the Windsor Pl one is.

Whoever said that the Sherman St house is not like a classic brownstone - what is that supposed to mean? Is a limestone supposed to be inferior to a brownstone? Limestone vs. brownstone was just a exterior choice at building time. Interior details are exactly the same. On this block there are limestones and brownstones with the exact same style inside.

I can't speak to this house because Ive never been in it but limestones have beautiful details, woodwork, and the same exact things you'd find of a house of this period and style. To say its not like a classic brownstone implies that its a lesser house and thats just not true.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 23, 2007 4:30 PM

Anon 4:30pm,

You're probably right, but for that price range, I'd personally much rather buy a classic brick and brownstone townhouse. Something about the way the Sherman steet house looks, makes it unattractive to me and I'm sure many others as well.

Of course there are beautiful limestone townhouses, but personally, I don't think this is one of them. For 1.2m to 1.3m, sure, but for 1.8m, no way.

Also, asking 1.8m for a house that hasn't been throughly renovated and doesn't have central AC in Windsor Terrace is nuts. Maybe in 5 or 10 years, but not today.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 23, 2007 4:47 PM

Fair enough..it may not suit your tastes and central air would be nice for the price.

I don't think many people would agree with you about wanting a brick house over a limestone. You may prefer brown stone to beige but Im guessing limestones go for the same premium as brownstones do. But its personal preferance of course.

I think a house on Windsor (anyone know if it was like the one for sale?) went for $1.7M last year. So these prices aren't out of range for the area. They are on the high end - but if this house were a 10 blocks north in Park Slope, it would be going for twice as much. So I don't think its that much of a reach to think they'll get a nice chunk of change for it. Time will tell I guess.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 23, 2007 5:20 PM

I think the Sherman Street house does look nice. It seems like it is totally renovated. The house on Windsor had the owner's duplex renovated and not the top floor rental. For this price what can you get in the Slope? A big gut wreck or a teeny tiny house in the south slope on an okay block. This is a prime block right near the park.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 23, 2007 5:45 PM

Pls show me a 20x100 renovated brownstone/limestone on a good PS block, walking distance to the park and subway for less than 2M. Im not trying to arguementative but I can tell you they do not exist - trust me, I have looked!

For 2M in park slope you have to buy a place that needs a lot of reno, is a long walk from the park and usually has something else major wrong with it.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 23, 2007 6:00 PM

Anon 6:00pm,

The Sherman house does not appear to have been renovated/restored. It appears to have just been moderately fixed up.

To install central AC and hide all the ducts alone is a ton of work. These folks clearly did not do the work to merrit such a high price.

A gutt renovation of the mechanics, bathrooms, and kitchen, would cost at least 300k, probably more. A good paint job, which for some reason is pointed out in the description, doesn't mean jack.

In the low 2m's, you can find homes in Park Slope, in more convenient areas, also close to the park.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 23, 2007 6:20 PM

I don't have time to do search for you, but here's an awesome house that blows Sherman out of the water in Park Slope, near the park for 2.15m . . . Considering the work Sherman needs, these are about equal in price . . . and there's no way you could turn Sherman into this place. . .

http://realestate.nytimes.com/sales/View_Ulisting.asp

Posted by: Anonymous at March 23, 2007 6:36 PM

If its just painted, then you're right. I assuming some renovation here. It may just be that they are glossing over the bad stuff with paint. Im sure that will come out in the wash when it sells.

But its still just as classic as a brownstone despite your dislike of lighter stone.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 23, 2007 6:37 PM

oops, here it is . . .

http://www.halstead.com/detail.aspx?id=1159053

Posted by: Anonymous at March 23, 2007 6:38 PM

and obviously I don't dislike lighter stone! The example I posted on PPW is the type of place I plan to buy one of these days if I can just manage to get some work done and not screw around on these internet websites!

Posted by: Anonymous at March 23, 2007 6:53 PM

I think a done 3 story house on a top Slope block would be close to $3m. It has always been correct and accepted to price similar houses in the South Slope on park blocks to the house prices in Windsor Terrace and that's what this one is doing. Many people would rather live on a quiet Windsor Terrace block instead of being in the traffic/bus nightmare of say 15th Street or the mess of being by the movie theater on 14th and 15th Streets. And this is supposedly a done house on Sherman. The recent sales on 14th and 15th Street weren't done houses. The fact that the prices haven't been publicized in Windsor Terrace is more a product of there not being many sales there and that more people use lame agencies that don't co-broke over there.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 23, 2007 7:03 PM

lol, 6:53, me too!

Posted by: Anonymous at March 23, 2007 7:23 PM

I also think WT house is reaching. FWIW, brownstone v limestone is not just about the facade--PS houses were, for most part, built 10-20 years before WT houses and are bigger and fancier. That said, Sherman St houses are big and fancy for WT. Altho it doesn't have central heat/ac, talk of gut rehab needed is kooky. There is a market for people who want a good house on a good block but have zero interest in doing major rehab work. Also, many (I bet older) buyers will be interested in quiet safe atmosphere and won't be put off by being just one subway stop further from Manhattan than PS. Still,I think this will go for less than asking.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 23, 2007 10:13 PM

Ohhhhh.....no! Not more PS 321 premium bs again on this board? Where do you send your 12 year to school (public) in the slope? Instead of allowing sellers to demand a 321 premium, buyers, on the other hand, should demand the John Jay discount!

Posted by: Anonymous at March 24, 2007 2:10 AM

There are a lot of other good schools serving kids in the areas in and around Park Slope: PS 107, PS 154, PS 39, Children's School, Brooklyn New School. I think there's a house on 3rd Street now that is a 3 story that is at least $3,000,000. And it looks nice but not newly renovated. So value is clearly in the eye of the beholder. This blog is all about smug people just patting themselves on the back for buying 1) when they did. 2) in the neighborhood they did. 3) for the price they did.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 24, 2007 10:17 AM

Limestones are cheery and bright, and often have lots of carved decorations around doors and cornices that brownstones don't have.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 24, 2007 10:55 AM

I agree with 2:10 AM. I'm considering the Slope but I have two young children; 11 and 13 years of age. Where do I send them to school? After 321 there are no legitimate options in Park Slope after the 6th grade. As a result, I'm taking a serious look at Midwood which has excellent middle and secondary schools. IMHO, I don't understand the fixation with 321. You would think that it was K thru 12. Park Slope parents who paid a handsome premium to be in the 321 school zone will end up paying an even heavier and more costly premium when it's time for their children to attend middle and secondary school. Yes, 321 Park Slope might be great for young children but there are simply no options beyond the 6th grade.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 24, 2007 6:35 PM

Can someone tell me what neighborhoods constitute "brownstone Brooklyn" or exist in the "brownstone belt"?

Posted by: Anonymous at March 25, 2007 1:39 AM

"not everyone would include crown heights and bed stuy in this list as these are newly gentrifying, but the housing stock is predominantly brownstone."

6:24 AM, the poster at 1:39 AM asked for a definition of "Brownstone Brooklyn" with "brownstone" being the operative word. What does gentrification have to do with anything?

Posted by: Anonymous at March 25, 2007 10:12 AM

Joey La Penna is right.

352 Halsey was on the market last summer with an asking price of $625,000. Not sure what it sold for in the end, but it was less than a year ago so $750 sounds decent, especially for a house of this size... especially considering the condition of the house.

The positive side of it is that the house seemed to be *extremely* well maintained by the long-time owners (they had been living there for something like 20 years) unlike many of the houses in the neighborhood, which tend to have suffered from poor maitenence and often have chronic (and expensive) problems.

Also it still has some nice details (ie: parquet floors, etc.), however it lacks the grand stuff seen in the older houses in the neighborhood (plaster medallions, etc.) and has lower cielings than the brownstones in Bed Stuy.

Joey La Penna's decription of "brownstone" is totally inaccurate though. It's actually a brick facade.

Compared to 360 Halsey, which was on the market at the same time and had a much higher asking price and was quite a dump (pardon my subjectiveness), 352 Halsey was nicely kept although a bit modest in size.

It would make a good starter home for a small family, but I wouldn't want to live there with tenants. It would be a bit too cramped.

The combination of the fantastic condition the house was kept in and the trends in the Bed Stuy market do justify the price increase.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 25, 2007 11:32 AM

Oh yeah, also re: the Bed Stuy house...

Is that a recent picture of the garden? It looks like the same one Massey & Knackal used when it was on the market last summer.

I'm curious what the garden looks like now. Has the current owner maintained it as well as the previous owners?

Posted by: Anonymous at March 25, 2007 11:36 AM

8:11 PM, then why pay a premium to live in Park Slope?

Posted by: Anonymous at March 25, 2007 9:15 PM

I thought the same thing about clutter--it's like complaining about the color on walls, which is the cheapest thing to change. Re: Midwood Middle Schools--is Hudde really that good? I think the crappy middle school problem is a constant throughout the city, but I may be wrong. (Bay Academy is a hike from Midwood, too).

Posted by: Anonymous at March 25, 2007 11:13 PM

Where do Park Slope parents send their children to high school? Are purchasers paying a high premium to live in the 321 zone only to have to pay 25k per year per child for private education at the middle and high school levels? Everyone on this board appears to accept the fact that there is and should be a high correlation between quality school districts and a higher cost for housing but why does this logic end so abruptly after primary school? I just think that basing your purchasing decisions soley on the first six years of schooling, assuming that you have primary school aged children, doesn't make much sense to me. I would love to hear from Park Slope parents with middle and high school age children. Any out there?

Posted by: Anonymous at March 26, 2007 6:07 AM

"Getting into a a good high school has very little to do with what district you live in. Please check your facts before making those kind of statements."

OE,

So then I would assume that in terms of high school that it makes no difference if you live in Park Slope, Cobble Hill, Crown Heights, Brooklyn Heights, Bed-Stuy, PLG, Fort Greene or Clinton Hill? All children can simply get into and attend other high schools in more superior school districts? That's awesome!! All this time, I was under the false impression that Park Slope had something over the other nabes in the brownstone belt. I didn't really realize that everyone was actually playing on the same leveled playing field. That's great!

Question: wouldn't there be overcrowding at those superior schools, assuming that families in that school district are already happily sending their children there too? At what point do school officals just close the door? I just don't think that it's possible for the good high schools to absorb all of the overflow from school districts with less than stellar schooling options. In the end, for many Park Slope parents it's simply private school or I'm afraid to say....John Jay.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 26, 2007 6:21 AM

Sherman St house is indeed renovated throughout. Its not all top of the line but generally nice choices in keeping with the clean look of the house. The setup is a bit strange as they rent out only the back portion of the top floor and keep the other half to themselves. Im surprised the realtor didn't include photos of the backyard since its nicely decked/landscaped or the bathrooms since they are updated as well.

Its missing many of the great details that old home lovers cherish..so thats a no-go for me but for someone who likes a more modern look, everything is already done.

Not sure about the price but will curious to see how it fairs. Its a nice house in better shape than most of the other houses in the price point

Posted by: Anonymous at March 26, 2007 10:12 AM

Err.sorry, I guess they did put a photo of the garden but it was snow covered so I guess I forgot seeing it.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 26, 2007 10:19 AM

I heard there were already multiple bids in on the Sherman Street house. Any truth to that?

Posted by: Anonymous at March 27, 2007 9:16 PM