State Street 9 Townhouses Almost Done

We took a walk around 301 State Street last week, one of the 9 Townhouses on State Street between Hoyt and Smith. Construction is wrapping up, and Corcoran broker James Cornell told us the first of the townhouses closed last Thursday for $3,650,000. Four others are in contract and contracts were sent out on two more. Two are still available, including the largest of the townhouses, a 4,800-square-foot home asking $4,300,000.

The row at 301-309 State Street was designed by Rogers Marvel Architects, which also designed 14 Townhouses down the street at 267-287 State Street. The four-story, 4,300-square-foot house at 301 State (asking $3,650,000) has four bedrooms, four baths, a small private garden, roof terrace and a cellar. The garden floor has a family-room alcove next to the front door, then the kitchen, dining room and french doors leading out to the garden. The parlor floor has a large living room with a fireplace, and the top two floors have two bedrooms each. The development is aiming for LEED certification and has locally made, environmentally friendly kitchens from Pure Kitchen.

When we last visited in July, workers were adding copper sheeting to the facade of the last townhouse in the row.

Click through the jump to see pictures of the interior!

9 Townhouses Nearly Done as Workers Add Copper to Last Facade [Brownstoner]

Garden floor:

Parlor floor:

Second floor:

Third floor:

Master bed/bath:

Roof terrace:

12 Comment

  • Brownstoner -

    I cannot be the only one who thinks these are just plain ugly, right? They look like new-construction elementary school science labs on the outside and cheap new-construction hospitals on the outside. I do not believe these will beautify the area, but simply take away as they are not traditional, but some awful contemporary aesthetic.

    Anyone else feel these are out of place? Let’s try to keep these areas in tune with classic architecture — a great example, I think, is the new building on Henry St. called “The Heights,” that looks fantastic and blends in seamlessly!

    • You aren’t the only one. I agree. But there are plenty of people who think modernism looks good, and they pay the big bucks.

      • Modernism is not a style, though many have used such reductive language to speak about certain buildings, Modernism was not about style. It was a social movement. These homes look quite nice next to those Victorian structures in my opinion. The copper facade might be over the top though. I’m on the fence on that one. The homes also seem well constructed with a strong attention to detail. There is a difference to something that is not your cup of tea and recognizing when something was designed well. This place is def. designed well! A little generic on the interiors, but so were the Victorian brownstones during their time.

        • It is built in the modern era, therefore it is modernist, ridiculous art-world nonsense be damned.

          • Sorry bens, your wrong. Contemporary would be far better suited. Modernism portrays was an era that extend far beyond STYLE. It was the anti stylist movement if anything. I think this point that you bring up is why we have such crappy things being developed today. Developers think by imitating amazing architects such as Mies, Corb, Niemeyer on such a superficial level they can provide what people want, but in actuality they are just phony knock offs with crappy materials. These architects were more than a style, they are inventors in their own right, creating amazing structural systems that would blow your mind. Look a Mies plan, I guarantee your mind will be blown. His plans look empty – Literally, which is crazy when have a massive TOWER, and the structural supports look so minimal. Now I love a a brownstone as well, but I understand the beauty of the modern movement. Look at the Brasilia Project by Niemeyer – Fricken amazing!

          • What Omar said.
            My pet peeve is people using modern or, worse, modernist, when they mean contemporary, which is a more generic term but also loosely corresponds to a style. Also new construction not designed to be neo-something old isn’t necessarily modern in style, rather it is contemporary. Style-wise, Mies is modern, Phillipe Starck is contemporary. As a lover of modern design, I agree that most new construction is underwhelming, due to lack of design knowledge as well as cheapness.

            I saw these townhouses during the Modern House Tours. The exteriors look a little bare, but I actually don’t mind them so much on the block. The interiors I”m surprised they are so generic and flimsy looking given the prices of these things. Especially when compared to the other homes, of a similar style on the tour. I think anything built for sale rather than custom built for the owner is always going to be less inspired, though.

  • Just saw a new construction townhouse this weekend that made the exterior look like a traditional brownstone with older looking bricks, brownstone lintels and a cornice. The irony is that it’s right next door to the other new Rogers and Marvel townhouses on Sackett Street. Which are even uglier than the State Street 9 townhouses. Why does every architect feel like they need to reinvent the wheel and prove their creative mettle. By the way the townhouse I saw was at 288 Sackett Street.

  • Ugly, perhaps- that’s your perogative. They are fine. Not great, not adventurous, not bad. Just fine. The j-crew of development. Generic isnt bad, it allows the end user to do their own thing……and add what they want. Quiet facades aren’t bad either……not challenging…but not bad.

    • Loukahn, I believe what you are talking about is mediocrity! I agree, they’re not horrible, but definitely not good. Thus, mediocre!!!

      Nonetheless, Omar I appreciate your input. Not my cup of tea, perhaps.

      NewYawker, I agree, why are we constantly re-inventing the wheel!? I suppose this works for Cobble Hill/Boerum Hill, but I would not be too pleased to see it on my block in Brooklyn Heights! Call me old fashioned, but I love the traditional brownstone look.

      Bens, I agree, they do pay the big bucks, unfortunately, that is!

      • Ha! I think these are well designed as Omar suggested. They are well resolved – for what they are. Not everyone is going to like them. If you want to see mediocre……look at Hello Living in Prospect Heights.

  • Is it just me or do the bathrooms look worse then in the original 14 townhouses (http://www.corcoran.com/nyc/Listings/Display/2455472)? Also the kitchen…..white upon white upon white? No gray accents or any color at all?

    • I have to agree with you, the interiors are a bit boring. This may have to do with how they are managing their cost though. I don’t follow the market in this area, but I would imagine if the interiors had more bells and whistles, given that your practically living in Manhattan with the A/C trains right next door and all the amenities you could desire at the your fingertips, I imagine the price would have been much higher. The property you showed is a resale I believe, I’m not certain it came with those pops of color walls. Also their facades are much simpler in dsign than this particular set. The property you mentioned does feel much more lively, but it’s also complete as well. I guess we’ll have to see what happens as they finish.