House of the Day: 341 Sackett Street

341-sackett-022311.jpg
Okay, so this listing at 341 Sackett Street in Carroll Gardens isn’t exactly easy on the eyes but it does have a few other things going for it: location (between Court and Smith), price (mid-1′s) and a second house in the rear! You gotta assume this will be a complete gut job by whomever buys it, in which case some of the, ahem, aesthetic shortcomings don’t really matter. It’s all about the location and the per square foot costs. Does this one add up?
341 Sackett Street [Fillmore] GMAP P*Shark

0 Comment

  • Two dumps for the price of one!

  • Sloping roof + frieze-band windows . . . looks like a Greek Revival. Probably very old. There might be cool large ceiling joists or wide-plank floors to expose.

  • Isn’t it the building with the fire where the façade fell in the street last year? If so, gut rehab + structural issues. It’s a shell disguised as a wreck.
    The good news is that it’s vacant.

  • HMMM – I wonder if that “carriage” house is even legal? still I think 1.5mil is absurd

  • TOTAL clusterf**k, headache, marriage-destroyer.

  • My thoughts exactly, g10.

  • This looks like a very old farm house. Maybe 1835 or so. The rear building is also old. There is no way to get a carriage back there so it cannot be a carriage house. Both houses would need to be almost entirely rebuilt from the ground up, or demolished and replaced with a modern house. In either care the asking price is basically just for the lot and seems very high. Perhaps someone has comps for buildable lots in the area?

  • “Sloping roof + frieze-band windows . . . looks like a Greek Revival. Probably very old.”

    “This looks like a very old farm house. Maybe 1835 or so. The rear building is also old.”

    Had the same thought as ilb and minard as soon as I saw the pics. This house is reminiscent of many of the houses upstate in Hudson, which were built in the late 18th c. and early 19th c.

  • It didn’t have a fire, the front just delaminated due to the wire lath not being attached properly and then heavy stucco being slathered on overtop. They removed the stucco/faux stone and replaced it with vinyl, but I have to say, it is probably one of the worst siding jobs I have ever seen. There is six inches of house wrap sticking out on one side, huge gaps, crooked, a real hack job. I mean come on, you’re so busy renovating you cant trim back the house wrap? That being said, I’m about to sell my house and if this is still on the market and there’s some flexibility in the price, I’ll try to buy it. Fixed up it will be a killer, but it certainly isn’t for the faint of heart.

  • Front and rear house (or rear tenement, depending) – I’d assume it was never a carriage house as well. The side alley is often referred to as a “horse walk”, but I’ve always had my doubts as to whether a horse could even fit down there – certainly no carriage does. And looking at the foundation of the rear house, it was built as a house, not for horses or carriages.

    As for legality, the rear house has probably been there since before there were such laws, so it is probably grandfathered. The front house is probably 1820s to 1840s, as Mindard says; rear house probably likewise.

    These kind of properties make great studios, offices or guest accommodations (put the in-laws out back!). All this assumes it is not just a teardown, though.

  • it’s described on the broker website as “semi-detached”. har har.

  • This was probably built mid 1850s. Vernacular greek revival with some italianate and federal details.

    Everyone assumes these need to be knocked down and rebuilt- where does that come from? Looks like these are currently inhabited? It seems that most of the time readers on brownstoner too closely associate the facade with structural stability of the house. Who has been inside this one? Looks interesting-

    For houses like these with older existing rear buildings, they usually predate dob permit system, and the lot will probably be noted with two buildings. C of O will be irrelevant. Ours was like that. In fact, our rear building was probably knocked down and replaced in the 40s/50s with a much smaller shed, but records have always shown two, and the title company and city don’t seem to bother with it. No trouble getting a mortgage.

    This one seems to make sense if you could live with old finishes. Assuming both are inhabitable, you could live in one while redoing the other, then immediately rent one out, and and save up to redo the other.

    If it’s all aesthetic, you could also just go slow, room by room, and have plenty of space to stay away from the dust.

  • listing picture appears to have been taken before the facade fell off!!

  • “Calls to landlord Mohammed Abuhamdeh were not returned — perhaps because he can’t get back into his home.”

  • OK- I take it back- just read the fire comment above and saw this story from brooklyn paper:

    http://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/33/42/cg_sackettfacadefall_2010_10_15_bk.html

  • Also, the owner is in default on his loans, and the bank has been paying the city’s property tax. I think the price is designed to see if there is a sucker out there to make the bank whole, not based on the market.

  • I’ve taken on a few gut rehabs but nothing like this at a price even approaching $500,000 so this just seems absurd, especially given the cost of doing things here in NYC.

  • Awesome Taj Mahal-esque dining room!

    I think this building is hellah early, at least 1850s, if not before, due to the slope of the roof and those belly windows on the third floor. It has lost all its detail, and if what other posters say about the fire is true, then the facade reconstruction is poor, indeed.

    That’s just the tip of the iceburg, in terms of problems. Does anyone else see a major bow in the roof ridge of the first photo?

  • “marriage-destroyer”

    Nice one, Fjorder.

  • Wow! What comments!
    Here’s the real deal. The 2 buildings are on a 24′x100′ lot, a very sought after commodity in this neighborhood, where wide townhouses can approach and eclipse the 3 million dollar level.
    You can have up to 4,800 sq ft on that lot.
    Both buildings are salvageable, and having that 2nd building for a guest house/office/studio/workshop, is extremely rare.
    Scoff if you like, but someone is going to buy this for a tad under 1.5m, put a million into it and for under 2.5m have one of the most unique and grand homes in the neighborhood.
    If you would like to have a look, give me a call.
    Thanks,
    Sal Cappi/718-643-0040

  • Holy Batman! 1.5 MILLION dollars for a fire-damaged, storm-damaged, facade-less, antique farm house, devoid of any and all interior detail, that has clearly not been loved or looked after for years, in Carroll Gardens? I would seriously think this place might get, reasonably, 500k for the lot or the necessary funds to gut renovate the place.

  • Nokilissa, look at the bright side, IT’S THE CHANCE OF A LIFETIME!!!

  • Oh… Mid-1′s means Millions… I saw the picture and that’s not what came to mind.

  • Have been in. Serious structural problems, it’s a complete teardown.

  • The front house may well have had a drive-through opening that allowed carriages to the rear house. On properties like that the original architecture can only be seen in the basement ceiling beams as the changes over the years have wiped the front and rear facades clear.

  • hahaha – I agree with Noki!

    I wonder if this little abode was someone’s tavern back in the olde days where the ship men would come up from the sea and stumble in there to grab a pint -haaaa

    yeah the price is outrageous considering everything and like I said I would’t be surprised about the back house being illegal and that most likely would have to be ripped down

  • This is more than a rehab this is a turbohab. A real old-house lover could have a field day. Peeling off the layers, returning the house to an early 19th century look, exposing the timberwork perhaps. But it would be a labor of love, not real estate.
    Many houses in Greenwich Village have rear houses. They are handy.
    Some are done up as apartments, some as guest houses, etc. Originally they housed servants or the inlaws or teenagers, whatever you don’t want in the house.

  • “create your own private compound”

  • quite a few houses in this area have rear houses also. doubt a farm house ever.
    24′ wide lot. price depends on how much sq footage can rebuild. Don’t have to restore to some other era. Something modern, simple clean, new sells for what around here $750 sq ft?

  • 24′ wide is the magic number… Tear down… 5 story Omnibuild type cookie cutter condo development in its future.

    Looks like 1 million will close the deal.

    Shares the rear property line with large parking lot for 344 Degraw

  • I hate to say it, but a teardown is likely and a condo will replace it. That kind of thing keeps happening on blocks between Court and Smith. So do it better than others.

  • Whoops…”some” not “so”. Still wish I could edit a quickly-written post on here!

  • what is the cost of construction for a new condo? If you buy at $300 per buildable sf, does it leave enough room to build apartments, market them and still make a profit?
    Reading the broker’s post, he’s hoping for a rich person with $2.5M in cash who will choose to take this shell on. There are much better houses, already done, at that price point.
    I can totally see an alt-2 from the ground up 5-family condo, but the numbers have to make sense to a developer.

  • But is this priced fairly for a tear-down? I don’t think one can build very high here.

  • “create your own private compound”

    Haha, Minmin, that made me laugh too.

  • If the owners remove that painting hanging too high above the sofa, they will add $25k to the value of the house.

  • don’t think it has to be tear down. What was spent on those houses on lower Smith – the old Russo compound that had pictures on thread on brownstoner recently. Same vintage – sloped roof wood frame/(brick filled?) …
    They were looking pretty nice in those pictures.

  • The problems with garbage like this are never just cosmetic.

  • Sal… Great Listing.. will DEFINATELY get a great price.

    Im sure that if any of the posters here OWNED this property, they wouldn’t give it away either.

    The property owner picked a GREAT AGENT!!

    Howard

  • first of all That house was built In 1910, 2: the rear building is 100 percent legall and has absolutley nothing wrong with it. U guys talk like you’ve actually been inside any of the buildings. @@@@MOPAR stop being so racist, what if they started talking about Our religion ( Christianity ). They woykd be considered terrorists right? Keep it between buildings not religion!!!

  • First of all That house was built in 1910 second of all The rear house is perfectly Fine i knw them and I have been to their house before nothing is wrong with it, @@@MOPAR stop being a racist prick.

  • “Petebklyn” is a ASSWHOLE, your comment about the poster was very disrespectful and unnecessarily, it was so childish for you to say that. All you guys are commenting about this house that half of you probably didn’t even take a look at it. It doesn’t matter what condition the house is in, its in a great neighborhood, its the biggest square foot on the block, and its the only house that has another back house in the back, so I’m saying the price for it is good I think the owners should ask for more, you people are just PATHETiC. Stop guessing and assuming things about the house and just go take a look at it yourselfs. Ignorant people these days and you guys especially “Petebklyn” prove that by your own comments.