Fully Vacant (Except for the Lady Watching TV)

We've seen our share of strange photos included in real estate listings but this one may take the prize. Is that a nightgown the woman is wearing? What makes the photo choice even more questionable is that the ad emphasizes the house is "fully vacant." As for the house itself, which is located on Gates Avenue in Bedford Stuyvesant, it looks solid enough from the outside but appears to be lacking in terms of interior charm. For $800,000 in this neck of the woods, we'd expect a little more.
Charming 4-Family Brock [Ettelson RE]

Comments

weirdorama: "buy this house, kick the old lady out;, and sit yourself down in her chair to watch some telly!"

Posted by: Anonymous at October 4, 2005 11:04 AM

This reminds me of the a house in Jersey City we looked at where the broker and the old lady who was the seller wanted it in the contract that they'd get to live there indefinitely after we bought the house. And it was a single-family ...

Posted by: Russell (SI) at October 4, 2005 11:31 AM

I must say this house doesn't look too bad from the outside. the inside pictures actually take away from the interest as far as I'm concerned. that bathroom is awful not to mention the lady who looks as if she's moving the couch? I love the way they have this listed as 'clinton hill/bedstuy' I think that practice is so stupid that its borderline brilliant. OBVIOUSLY a single house can't be in two neighborhoods at the same time and since we know that bedstuy isn't so liked in the re market that it would increase the value of the home we can reasonably assume that if it were actually in clinton hill bedstuy wouldn't even be mentioned. I love it! now for the price... 800k ehhh I'm not too sure. I'm hesitant to give my usual 'overpriced' stamp seeing as though it IS a 4 family (hypothetically legal) and its 5bdrms. all else equal, if the owner's place is a 2bdrm and you can pull a combined income of 2500-3000 (wishful thinking) from the other 3 units it might not be that bad. that doesn't, however, suggest that this price is justified because we all know it clearly needs some kind of work from the bathroom alone. 700k is my price tag.

Posted by: stuy blkbuttrflie at October 4, 2005 11:37 AM

hey, why don't we take turns guessing what she's watching on tv?

my vote is HGTV or perhaps Martha Stewart? are those sugar cookies they're baking?

Posted by: stuy blkbuttrflie at October 4, 2005 11:41 AM

This reminds me of an open house I attended in Gowanus several years ago, where there was a different elderly or divorced relative living on each floor, watching tv while people poked around. The whole thing was so depressing on so many levels...

Posted by: Naomi at October 4, 2005 12:48 PM

Why would they even post that pitcure?

Posted by: Anonymous at October 4, 2005 1:58 PM

This realtor wants to let you see the person who paid 50K for this place years ago so that you can actually SEE who's getting rich off of the buyer's dime.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 4, 2005 2:07 PM

Poor lady. She probably doesn't even know that she's all over the internet in her pajamas. I saw a listing once for a very expensive Brooklyn home where the owners didn't even make their bed before letting the broker take pictures. And there was a close up shot of the master bedroom and all these rumpled sheets. It made you angry that for the money they were asking, they coudn't even make it look good.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 4, 2005 4:20 PM

That's so strange. Yikes.

Posted by: DN at October 4, 2005 4:42 PM

Hey,the 11:26am poster is really rubbing me the wrong way with those "big momma" comments. Hoping it was a bad attempt at irony.

Posted by: Roz at October 4, 2005 5:28 PM

I'm not into censorship, however, I thought the
11:26am comments were highly inappropriate and am glad to see that they are gone. Those comments left me with a queasy feeling.

Posted by: anony at October 5, 2005 10:01 AM

Yeah, I'm not into censorship either, except for things that I find very offensive.

I also thought that post was completely obnoxious, but fact is, if you believe that "highly inappropriate" comments should be deleted, then you are "into censorship." (Or choose your euphemism -- "moderation," "community standards," etc.) Which is totally defensible, but you can't have it both ways.

And by the way, I acknowledge that Brownstoner has every right to censor comments on his own site, for any reason he chooses.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 5, 2005 10:24 AM

I did not say that I thought the comments SHOULD be deleted, I'm just "glad to see that they are gone". If they had remained, my life would have continued and another topic sould have come up and we would all move on.

Posted by: anony at October 5, 2005 10:33 AM

clomid side effects http://www.noonhost.com/clomidsideeffec/clomid side effects http://www.gogetforum.com/clomid/clomid.html

Posted by: buy clomid at June 30, 2006 3:14 AM

« Checking In on the Washington Condos HOTD: Prospect Heights Estate Sale »

October 4, 2005

Fully Vacant (Except for the Lady Watching TV)

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions