In his new “My 2 Cents” column, Donald Brennan presents unbiased, hands-on evaluations of properties on the market that he’s visited and examined inside and out—and gives you his unique perspective as an architect, developer and appraiser.
For the adventurous, a chance to buy buildable space.
Less than two weeks ago I stopped by the open house for this single-family row house with one of my buyer clients. It’s listed for $1,295,000, or $761/square foot—pricing I find to be a bit aggressive. The property shows well—it’s in good shape, clean, well-decorated, and has extensive original detail. At closer look, it does have a few drawbacks, though, but it also presents a good add-on opportunity.
Local Externalities—This three-story, 1,700 square-foot home is located in a transitional neighborhood–and it’s clearly in Gowanus, not Carroll Gardens or Cobble Hill, as claimed in some of the marketing materials. The home is situated between Hoyt and Bond streets—and that stretch of Bond is industrial—and less than two blocks from the Gowanus Canal Superfund site. (Parents with kids or expecting them, take note!) While the other homes on the block are of similar height, vintage and style, a few have been extended—in ways not always consistent with the surrounding architecture. Since the block is not in a landmarked area, almost anything goes regarding renovations and additions—meaning the look and character of the block could change at any time.
Architecture/Appearance— Reportedly built in the late 19th Century, 452 Sackett Street is a Federal-style brick row house, with some brownstone finishing at its base. It consists of three stories, including the garden floor, with a 16.7’ width and a 34’ depth, and sits on a deep 100’ lot. Some of the exterior features of this home include an attractive high stoop and a transom window that allows light into the narrow entry hall inside. Used now as a single-family home, it’s being marketed as “easily convertible” back to a two-family—although with only 1 ½ baths and one kitchen in the home now, the conversion would, in fact, be quite involved.
I’d consider the interior of the house to be rustic—since it hasn’t been updated. But it is rich in detail—with original wood doors, crown moldings and marble fireplace mantles; as well as high ceilings and exposed brick. All three fireplaces are not operational, however. And the wood plank floors have a deflection (mild sloping) across the width of the building— but this is not unusual in a building of this age. The layout of the home is a bit awkward, since the kitchen (in need of updating) and half-bath are on the garden floor, not the first/parlor floor. (The top floor contains the full bath and two bedrooms; with the third bedroom on the parlor floor.) At the open house, entrance to the cellar was not permitted, so I can’t speak to the shape of the mechanical systems and the storage space; and the yard was also snow covered so not revealing.
Rehabilitation—A major selling point of this house—not mentioned at all in the marketing materials—is the ability to almost double the size of the building. The allowable space on this lot is 3,334 square feet—and the structure there now is only 1,700 square feet. Other buildings on the block have expanded, with one property adding 1 ½ stories. And for the buyer, since this area is not landmarked, you’re not limited by landmark guidelines—so you can be creative as you’d like in your renovation!
So I see two options for renovating this home: Updating without reconfiguring, and the two-family conversion plus added space. Basic updates, in keeping with the current single-family layout, would include upgrading the kitchens and bathrooms, as well as relining the fireplaces to make them functional. This would run about $100,000 – $125,000. To convert this home to a two-family, the building would need to be extended out the back to make the garden floor a suitable rental unit and to improve the flow of space throughout the entire home. Such a project would add another $225 – $250/square foot to the price of the building, bringing the total all-in cost to about $1,000/square foot.
And that would make this property a multi-million-dollar home in a neighborhood that now does not warrant such a price. Might it be a good investment in the long run? Possibly. The area has improved over the years and let’s hopes it continues to do so. In a few years the nearby Atlantic Yards project will be complete, bring an infusion of new people and dollars. And with the Gowanus Canal cleanup expected to be finished by 2025, you’ll then be just a few steps away from the city’s newest waterway. It just might happen.
Donald Brennan 917-568-6525 dbrennan@brennanrealtyservices.com
Please contact me if you’re in the market to buy and would like to learn about my buy-side services, or if you’re thinking of selling your home and would like to learn more about my sell-side services and to receive a complimentary comparable market analysis.
For additional “My 2 Cents” columns, click here.
2 Comments
well, seems not that aggressive of price since closed at $1.25.
but what I disagree with is calling area transitional, calling it gowanus and thinking that ‘superfund’ is close enough to be a factor.
As a long time resident of area -several blocks away – this has always seemed very solid family block of more modest homes but very much Carroll Gardens in feel and location.
Personally I would not use term gowanus for anything west of the canal. Subway, shopping, schools for this block are all very much Carroll Gardens community.
From my recollection, most of this ‘superfund’ is several blocks south – this is no closer to that than many blocks in Carroll Gardens landmarked area.
Hey Pete – thanks for the feedback. I really appreciate you sharing your thoughts. Definitely some strength in the market right now – lack of supply has really helped support pricing. Since it closed for 3.5% off ask versus at ask, which almost all correctly priced properties do right now, I will stand by my “pricing I find to be a bit aggressive” statement.
As far as “transitional” goes I guess it depends on how you define the word. I am using it to represent the current and more intense use of the real estate on a per property basis. We are in the part of the cycle where families are turning over their long-lived-in homes and developers that acquired properties in the last run up are finally returning them to market fully rehabilitated and reconfigured for modern needs. And as you can see there is more of a need to add space, either up or out, to give newer homeowners the amount of space they require.
I am also using “transitional” to include pending future plans that will impact use on a neighborhood basis – the development of commercial property for residential and/or community use on both sides of the canal.
I won’t argue with you over what the neighborhood should be called, Carroll Gardens versus Gowanus, as I agree with you in principal. I just go along with what sites like Streeteasy label them so our marketing efforts are consistent and realize that most neighborhoods don’t have a hard line of demarcation. Also, the lines of “community” which were more prevalent in the past and had more to do with ethnicity and religion are no longer as visible.
I hear you on exact location of where the main pollutants were located but I do believe the presence of a body of water and high ground water table has increased the geographic boundary of the pollution significantly.
One Trackback
[...] 452 Sackett St. 1,295,000 30 [...]