75 Clinton Street Nixes Condo Sales; Goes After “Booming” Rental Market

The gruesomely unattractive condo conversion at 75 Clinton and Montague streets (above Rite Aid) has scrubbed plans to sell the saltine box’s 74 units, instead vying to go rental. The building’s new owner, Dallas-based investment firm Invesco, will bring the project to market early next month, according to Crain’s.

Good luck: Prices range from $2,800 to $7,000 a month. Marketing Directors VP of Sales Angela Ferrara, the building’s marketing firm, says Invesco decided to take advantage of the “booming” rental market.

Before plans were approved in 2007 to go residential, 75 Clinton Street was a bankruptcy court. Is there a waft of irony there, perhaps?

Share this Story:


  • Topham Beauclerk

    “Gruesomely unattractive?” Don’t you think that description better applies to the renovation at the corner of Clinton and Joralemon?

  • ruben

    I think the conversion is a great improvement over the original. Too bad the Rite Aid is still there.


    There is a term for the design and look of its facade. It’s known as “el cheapo.” This approach does a good job for roadside budget motels, too. It may also signal to the observant potential tenant that the insides probably reflect a similar constraint on the budget.

    Meantime, down the street, the building opposite Packer cornering on Joralemon, shows a respectable attempt to harmonize with the Heights organic mix of brick and limestone and brownstone, breaking up the facade with pleasing texture and color variations. It is a world apart from 75 Clinton and its owners deserve kudos for trying. It will be interesting to hear the comparisons of their respective apartments.

  • http://selfabsorbedboomer.blogspot.com Claude Scales

    The photo is of the truly unattractive 75 Clinton before the conversion.

    I find myself agreeing with Topham and disagreeing with my friend Martin. I think the new 75 Clinton is sensitively designed and harmonizes well in bulk and color with the former Franklin Trust building directly across Clinton. The redone building at the corner of Clinton and Joralemon, on the other hand, seems to me truly “cheapo.” It’s a Friedrich building, which puts it one step above a Fedders building.

  • Hayley

    that’s exactly what I was going to say. This one isn’t great, but the one on Joralemon is an eyesore.

  • Elvin Jones

    Does anyone remember what the building at the corner of Clinton/Joralemon looked like prior to the renovation? Regardless of how much of an eyesore it may be, it is still an improvement on what existed prior.

    Unfortunately, short of taking the DeLorean to 1850 and performing the renovation back in time, there is probably nothing that could have been done to the building that would have satisfied the aesthetic values or standards of most of the neighborhood residents.

  • Jorale-man

    The real question now that we’re pretty stuck with both buildings is what will go in the ground floor spaces. The Joralemon building used to have as many as five storefronts including the bodega (which was a huge convenience). How these buildings serve the community partly depends on whether the owners put in something useful like another grocery store or restaurant, or useless, like a bank branch-combo-nail salon.

  • stuart

    I agree with Claude, 75 Clinton is really kind of interesting architecturally. It is clad in terra cotta units with no mortar between the blocks. Rain is supposed to go through the facade and drain behind the cladding. It is a popular new facade treatment and I think it is much better than standard cheapo red brick, or even worse, red and cream stucco panels like on the Joralemon and Clinton mess of a place.

  • Flashlight Worthy

    Clinton and Montague? I actually love this building (except for the balconies) and think its a vast improvement over the previous building. Clinton and Joralemon? Hands-down the ugliest building in the Heights. Maybe if the stucco was a less garish color than the Daily Eagle building would beat it… But in its current color (not to mention the mismatched colored patches) its really a train wreck.

  • WillowtownCop

    It looks like it belongs in suburban Dallas.

  • Andrew Porter

    This is also NOT a “condo conversion”, which would be of an existing rental building. This is all-new construction of a former office building, to which several floors were added.

    I was walking past with someone the other day and the windows at 75 throw light on the former Franklin Trust Building, enhancing its appearance. I’m sure the apartments there appreciate getting sunlight in the late afternoon.

  • Andrew Porter

    In reading the initial post, this is blatant editorializing, and not reporting at all. “Gruesomely unattractive”, “saltine boxes”, “good luck”, and the entire last part, “75 Clinton Street was a bankruptcy court. Is there a waft of irony there, perhaps?” should never have been in this post. I do not want personal opinions inserted in the BHB’s news coverage. In my decades of writing news, I never did this, and don’t want it here.

  • Publius

    BHB is a weblog, not a newspaper. It’s all about opinion and editorializing. You want “news”? read the Eagle.

  • Slide

    I agree with the other commenters that are taking exception to the description “gruesomely unattractive”. No, of course it does not have the exquisite charm, rich detail, and undeniable beauty of the century old buildings that we are so fortunate to have surround us in Brooklyn Heights, but I have seen much worse. I guess the word I would use is, inoffensive.

    Oh and I agree, this is not a newspaper. It is a blog in which opinion, conjecture and reportage are not expected, nor desired, to follow journalistic objectivity. We then get to disagree, which is so much more fun.

  • Andrew Porter

    So there’s no news here? It’s all opinions? That’s not correct at all. The opinions are in the comments; they shouldn’t be in the basic news stories.

  • Andrew Porter

    And of course you can say anything you want, because you use a pseudonym, and there’s no downside to stating something outrageous or controversial.

  • Master Of Middagh

    I think that’s a little presumptious of you. How do you know his (or her) first or last name isn’t “Slide”? Next thing you know, you’ll be accusing Mr. and Mrs. Middagh of not having named me “Master” at birth. And before you even ask, yes- “Of” is my middle name (after my Ukrainian grandfather).

  • Bette

    I am so surprised that people seem to like the building on Montague To my eye, the one on Joralemon has pleasing details and lovely windows. the one on Montague looks like a dorm, or a hospital. Check out the fake gray brick facade on the sides where someone took a stick (I assume) and drew lines in the concrete to simulate individual bricks. Classy!

    I visited the Montague place to look at the apartments and they were cheaply made, narrow, and terribly laid out, with finishes meant to be contemporary: stainless steel and concrete countertops, that were made of the crappiest material you can imagine. I think the apartment I looked at was a one bedroom for $700K or something like that. I told them that perhaps if they lowered the prices by $200K someone might be (barely) interested, but that they weren’t going to have any luck at their current price point. They told me they’d sold 5 – I highly doubt it. there’s not a curtain or a light in any window.

    Now that it’s going to be a rental, I think they’ll have slightly more luck. But not much. Take a tour – it’s amusing to see what superficial cladding developers think people will fall for.

  • Willow St. Neighbor

    Gruesomely unattractive apartment building?
    Seriously, there is a brownstone on my block that is pretty disgusting looking from the outside. I am sure the owners are getting a pretty penny in rent for the apartments. Not everything old in the Heights is beautiful and not everything new is gruesomely unattractive. As far as I am concerned the only gruesomely unattractive building is the courthouse at the end of Montague Street. Now that’s ugly!

  • Slide

    Thank you for rushing to my defense. And yes, Slide is my real name. Well in actuality I shortened it from Slip-n-Slide. Our family was in the lawn entertainment business..

    So no, I did not hide behind anonymity to spew my outrageous and controversial comment that the building at 75 Clinton Street was “inoffensive”. I will endevor however, in deference to your sensibilities, tone it down a notch.

  • AEB

    (RIP reply button. So sweet, so short….)

  • Villager

    These buildings are just setting us up for the distinctive and much more contemporary design coming soon to 30 Henry St.

  • EHinBH

    The apartments are very nice. You can see them here (which is an awsome website, if you have not seen — can look up any building in NYC): http://streeteasy.com/nyc/building/75-clinton-street-brooklyn

  • Joe

    “Gruesomely unattractive” is a bit severe. I’d say it’s pretty…pretty ugly.