« Ikea Misrepresenting in Court, Blog Says Sustainable Development in Red Hook »

June 30, 2005

House of the Day: Antebellum Glory

antebellumOur heart skipped a beat when we saw this listing. We have no idea how it escaped our notice at the end of last week--it must have been added after we did our Open House picks. Anyway, it's not often you see one of these old mid-19th century frame houses on the market. The listing says Clinton Hill but doesn't give a street (Argghh!), but we suspect it's probably Eastern Fort Greene, somewhere like Clermont. At first glance we thought the asking price of $1.75 million looked low but then realized we might be letting our excitement over the house's special exterior architecture get the best of us, so we looked at the rest of the interior shots. Nothing special shown but certainly not bad. And as partial as everyone knows we are to the area, this still looks like a great deal to us compared to something like yesterday's dinky $2.15 million offering in Park Slope. Just no comparison really. We'll be interested to see if everyone thinks we're overly enthusiastic on this one, though we suspect the market will bear us out. Accuse us of boosterism if you must, but we bet this'll be another 41 Monroe with multiple bids over the ask.
Clinton Hill Antebellum [Location Location Location]




Posted by Brownstoner at 11:33 AM | Comments (22)
Categories: Properties

Comments

I could be wrong, but this looks closer to Greene Ave., maybe on Adelphi or Carlton. There's a nice row of these in a sweet location, that must be why the price is so high.
Didn't know you were a fan of these, Brownstoner. You sure are a Traditionalist. If you think this is a good price, then you should be championing the one on Corcoran's site that needs a rehab listed in the 600k's. But it is right next to the BQE.
Still, if you're a fan of this style, and you think 1.75 is a good price then 600k plus renovation would be a bargain.

Posted by: renogirl at June 30, 2005 11:31 AM

It's all relative...

Posted by: Brownstoner at June 30, 2005 11:33 AM

That house is in Fort Greene, used to live nearby. It is on Cumberland between Lafayette and Greene if I remember correctly. There are about four similar houses that are quite unique in style. I believe I saw a write up of them on some web site about Ft. Greene years ago.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 30, 2005 11:38 AM

According to the map from the NYT listing, it's on Hall Street, between Myrtle and Park, a half block from the BQE. If it were over by Greene Avenue the price might seem better, but if it's down by the BQE and the Fort Greene houses (the projects), then I think it's too high. Looks nice, though, from the pictures. I like the wood frame ones also, there are some nice ones around South Oxford and Atlantic (I think, can't remember the exact location).

Posted by: Sloper at June 30, 2005 11:47 AM

The cheaper one on Corcoran is nearer the BQE--pretty sure this one is not. Previous poster said Cumberland between Lafayette and Greene.

Posted by: Brownstoner at June 30, 2005 11:51 AM

I dunno, haven't walked around there recently, just clicked on "Map of Area" to the left on the NY Times listings that you linked to. If you go to the "Location Location Location" website (the broker named on the NYTimes listed), they don't have any info, not listed at all.

Posted by: Sloper at June 30, 2005 11:58 AM

It is definetly not around BQE it is solid fort greene (nyt map is not right) and i think it is fair prised.(if you into frame houses)
Ther is something very cool about porches (verandas) like that, however it is not in New York tradition.(where is a stoop?)

Posted by: malymis at June 30, 2005 12:13 PM

Please correct me if i am wrong but it looks like greek revival too me. I know that in this period porches or outside coloneds were hot.
I guess it is from around 1840 or 1850.
Probably there was a stoop to the parlor floor.

Unfortunatly it is 4 fam. so it would requied some work.

Posted by: malymis at June 30, 2005 12:23 PM

for that money, I would rather live on Hicks Street in Brooklyn Heights. Much better location in a much more solid neighborhood:

http://www.corcoran.com/property/listing.aspx?Region=NYC&ListingID=787178

Posted by: Anonymous at June 30, 2005 12:29 PM

It's definitely on Cumberland, b/t Lafayette and Greene, nice block. Get Charles Lockwood on it, I know I saw a write up years ago about the unique mixture of architectual styles of this row of houses.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 30, 2005 12:48 PM

For wood frame houses, prices on the low side (and I have no idea if thats what this is, I'm just going with bstoner's speculation) can indicate major structural issues (like termite damage) in need of massive intervention. With a brick or brownstone, its much easier to see what you are getting structurally. I wouldn't even consider making an offer on a frame house without bringing in an engineer and talking to the neighbors (who will know what the block's moisture & termite situation is.)

Posted by: Naomi at June 30, 2005 2:41 PM

No one can acuse you of boosterism on this one. She almost makes me weep she's so beautiful.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 30, 2005 3:11 PM

Are we sure it's wood frame? A lot of the similar houses in Fort Greene are actually brick with a clapboard fronting.

Posted by: Willing at June 30, 2005 3:16 PM

In response to Naomi' remarks regarding frame houses..."With a brick or brownstone, its much easier to see what you are getting structurally"

Not true. Your brick or brownstone has wood beams, joists, lathe and framing that can be susceptible to the same issues that a frame house can, as well as masonry issues that are difficult to detect unless you have a skilled mason, or engineer with you during your inspection. The bottom line is that any old house that has had years to settle, and has not had the best of upkeep requires a thorough investigation.

The only reason to be partial against frame houses is fire, which is why frame rowhouse construction stopped in the late nineteenth early twentieth century.

Posted by: crownstoner at June 30, 2005 3:58 PM

In an earthquake it will be the frame houses that are left standing.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 30, 2005 5:38 PM

Clearly, I read your blog way way too much, Browstoner! Isn't this the same exact house you posted a pic of on March 7th of this year? There was talk of the exact address back then too.

http://brownstoner.com/brownstoner/archives/2005/03/monday_morning_1.html

No wonder your heart skipped a beat...

Posted by: JC at June 30, 2005 6:02 PM

Geez, JC, good memory! We'd completely forgotten...

Posted by: Brownstoner at June 30, 2005 6:11 PM

frame houses with porches were common between myrtle and park ave. there is a new yorker article about walt whitman's house built around 1850 which is on ryerson st. they are timber frame with brick fill and front porch. the article said they were "mechanics houses", meaning blue collar and i think a lot of craftsmen lived in them, working in the navy yard and also for people on clinton and washington aves.

Posted by: tony at June 30, 2005 6:19 PM

This house is 295 Cumberland. It's 20 x 35--ie, SMALL. Charming, no doubt. But very expensive per square foot (though with tons of allowable building room in back). Don't let your heart get you into debt. Bstoner, this is charming and on a nnice block, but it is NOT a deal.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 30, 2005 8:21 PM

Wood Frame houses are a fireman's nightmare. Rows or attatched wood frame houses like this have a "cockloft". This means the "attic" crawl space between the top floor ceiling and roof (about 2 feet high) are all attatched. Which means there is nothing separating the houses in there. In a brick construction that area has bricks that seperate the houses. What happens in a fire is once it gets in the cockloft it races both directions and invades all the houses next to it very very quickly. That is why you see those fires in Jersey City and Newark spreading so quickly all the time. When one house burns 4 or 5 others also burn.

Posted by: Tom at July 1, 2005 8:49 AM

crownstoner is right... I should clarify. What I meant to say is that in the case of a brick or brownstone, the manifestations of structural damage in the masonry shell >>interior frame >> lath walls can be clearly detected in the buildings interior and exterior by a practiced eye (types of plaster cracks, specific things out of plane, specific things out of plumb...)When it comes to termite damage however, the resultant structural problems may not yet have manifested themselves. In the case of our house, we had major t. damage in the wood frame of our basement floor and walls (yes, you read that correctly...below-grade wood joists) that was not "presenting" although very little wood was actually left. This required lots of expensive, intrusive work, but nowhere near as much as would have been required if our house's primary structure had been wood. Termites don't seem to get much press in NYC, but Greenpoint had an infestation several years ago which makes me think that it must be an issue in the rest of Brooklyn too. Unless the little buggers just really prefer toxic postindustrial soils.

Posted by: Naomi at July 1, 2005 9:46 AM

the houses like this i have seen don't have an attic. the top floor sits under the roof with no separate space. and there is brick between the buildings next door.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 4, 2005 7:26 PM

Post a comment

Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.

Latest Restaurant Additions