« Day 63 at Bushwick's "Condo of Doom" Monday Photo of the Day »
February 13, 2006
House of the Day: Woodframe on Middagh
While the exterior of this house looks like it belongs in Greenpoint, it's actually located on one of the more charming streets in Brooklyn Heights. We hope the next owner of this house has enough dough to do the renovation justice. While the house has more of a 1970's suburban vibe right now, the potential, especially given the extra-wide lot, driveway and carriage house, is amazing. With an asking price of $2.395 million, it looks to us like you could put close to a million bucks into fixing this place up and be in a decent place investment-wise. Do others agree or has old Brownstoner lost his marbles?
72 Middagh Street [Corcoran] GMAP
Comments
i'm PRETTY sure that one of your marbles just rolled by my place.
Posted by: suzy at February 13, 2006 12:00 PM
I'd say it would take more like 2 million to make this a nice one family. Need to pretty much gut the interior--not to mention ripping off and replacing the siding. After that, would it be worth 4.4 million? Perhaps...
Posted by: Anonymous at February 13, 2006 12:12 PM
Ummm, no.
The highest and best use of that property is demolition. The improvements contribute minimal value to the land. They should cut the price in half, then you'll have 2.5 million to put up something really nice.
Posted by: Eryximachus at February 13, 2006 12:13 PM
Talking about $3-$4 million as though it's chump change.... Now we've all lost our marlbes.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 13, 2006 12:22 PM
Being that this building is in the BH historic district, is demolition possible? There are number of cute woodframe buildings on Middagh, where I lived for several years in the 1980s. I think this house is right next to the fire station.
Posted by: babs at February 13, 2006 12:49 PM
Wow. You would probably have to demolish the building and build something huge, new and ridiculous to justify the price. I'm sure that Landmarks will have to approve whatever the new owner intends to build.
Posted by: Shahn Andersen at February 13, 2006 12:53 PM
Doesn't the interior look salvageable?
Posted by: Brownstoner at February 13, 2006 1:04 PM
2M to make it a decent 1 family???? Just make the upsairs kitchen a master bathroom/closet and the 2nd floor BR a den - it would be 'decent' to me.
Posted by: David at February 13, 2006 1:34 PM
Demolition? Are you nuts? The interior is very charming, there's an late 18th century/early 19th C house under all of that mess, and if you can afford the place, chances are you can spring for another million to do it justice. I'd get rid of the garage under the house, but the carriage house is wonderful, and could possibly be renovated as a guest house or a studio/office. It's in a primo location, and I think with the help of a preservation minded owner and like minded architect/builder, it would be fantastic.
I personally like later Victorian houses better, but if I had that kind of money, I'd buy it and restore it, if for no other reason than to restore a piece of history and remove a remuddled eyesore from a very old and historic block. I'm sure my efforts would be rewarded if I chose to sell, I don't think Brooklyn Heights will ever see a significant housing slump.
Posted by: CrownHeightsProud at February 13, 2006 2:15 PM
I agree with everyone who says this thing should be knocked down and rebuilt with something more tasteful, charming and fits into the neighborhood. It's an eyesore, inside is not charming, looks like something out of a bad scarey movie from the 70's.
YOu're looking at paying almost 3MM for a lot, add the expense of demolition, architect, etc and you are looking at almost 5MM now...compare that to the beauty of what's out there for 5MM in the Heights and you have a HUGE task on your hands...U-G-L-Y
Posted by: me at February 13, 2006 2:29 PM
Seems wildly over priced, but I'm not sure how it compares to other properties in the area.
We have almost exactly the same set-up in Clinton Hill: driveway, garage, big backyard, extra-wide lot, and it's pretty sweet (although we paid a fraction of that price).
Our house is in similar or worse shape--an eyesore really. But it will only take 25K to fix the facade which will make all the difference in the world. We love having off-street parking and plan to convert our garage into living space. Its like a little compound.
After a few price reductions they may find a buyer with vision who wants a cool alternative to a brownstone.
Posted by: clinton hillbilly at February 13, 2006 2:31 PM
Whoops, that's a potential port a cochere, not a garage, under the house.
I still stand by the rest of my comments. This place could be great. No one seems to be preservation minded here today.
Posted by: CrownHeightsProud at February 13, 2006 2:45 PM
I could be wrong but the interior looks to be in great shape. It may not have all that victorian detailing we love, but I love the space, the brick walls, the french doors. Seems to me the interior is in far better shape than the awful siding makes it look. It's a wonderful little gem- I say restore it.
Posted by: Bx2Bklyn at February 13, 2006 2:47 PM
CrownHeightsProud, I think it's just that none of us are rich enough to be able to wrap our minds around the idea of spending that much money on this building and then restoring it. There is an economics to restoration, unfortunately.
The best restorations happen when someone falls in love with a building and wants to make it their home. This building does have a lot of potential, but in that price range, there are a lot more people who either want a building that someone else has already put love into, or a place where they can start over from scratch.
Posted by: Shahn Andersen at February 13, 2006 3:23 PM
How much would a renovated house of a similar size and location cost? That must figure into the listing price.
Posted by: clinton hillbilly at February 13, 2006 3:26 PM
CrownHeightsProud - Bklyn Hts had a significant slump in the early 90's (as did much of the rest of the city)
as for the calls to demo - its academic Landmarks would never allow it.
Posted by: David at February 13, 2006 3:47 PM
i like it. y'all are too hard on it. I'd put in 500k and make it a gem...
Posted by: Anonymous at February 13, 2006 3:56 PM
I don't see a house slated for demolition when I look at the interiors. ANd who knows what's under that awful siding? The original clapboard could still be there- you just don't know. Sure it's an eyesore now- and I have seen wonderful things done with victorian eyesores too. If the interiors look that good, why couldn't the restoration be more cosmetic than structural? Why would you want to start from scratch and lose all that charm and personality and history? If someone can afford the price tag I imagine they can afford to restore the exterior. ANd the property value will only go up in that area anyway. If you want to live in a landmark neighborhood, restoration and conservation comes with the territory. If a house is salvageable (and in this case better than that)it should be restored. what would happen to those historic neghborhoods if people simply tore houses down. I don't see how anyone thinks a homeowner with that much money to spend on a house would be getting off much more cheaply by tearing down and rebuilding? The townhouse next door to me was a gut rehab and it cost them $1,000,000. That's without having to build a shell. So imagine the cost if you wanted to copy the beautiful exterior. What savings would there be?
Posted by: Bx2Bklyn at February 13, 2006 3:58 PM
I think the interior is very charming and it would be a great investment for someone who can put the sweat equity in. I do investments (much smaller than $2mil) and I love "ugly" homes that I can get inexpensively because lots of folks lack imagination. I don't mean anyone on this board, of course! ;)
Posted by: anon at February 13, 2006 4:01 PM
Shahn, I think in areas like Brooklyn Heights the "ambiance" of the neighborhood is just as important as the appliances you put in. I agree with you that in other areas that either-or situation is more or less true, but in historic neighborhoods, especially landmarked ones, living in that district has a huge appeal all its own.
Posted by: Bx2Bklyn at February 13, 2006 4:04 PM
I agree with CHProud. The wide board floors on the top floor, original parquet below, and tin ceilings are all salvageable; and the groundplan isn't so awful that you'd have to move walls around. Restoration is the way to go. Once a lot of that 70s stuff is out of there and some missing molding restored, it could shape up nicely. The restoration of the driveway area would be the main chore. I'd reincorporate that space back into the house, and restore the original facade...the Heights is so convenient to everything that no rational person should need to blow a hole through their house to indulge a car habit; and anyone with the bucks to buy this wreck can afford to rent garage space close by if they really need it.
Posted by: broadway at February 13, 2006 4:11 PM
Shahn,
Since I don't have the money to work on my own house, let alone buy a big bux place anywhere else, I was just speaking hypothetically anyway. Apparently there are lots of really rich people out there, as evidenced by some of the prices we've seen on this site, and with all of the luxury housing going up in NYC, so I was just hoping that one of them would go for it. I have no problem tearing down something that is hopeless, but you, of all people, should know that almost anything can be restored, with time, expertise and a pile of money. The worst part of the house is the exterior siding, who knows what's under there, it could be the original clapboard in pretty decent shape, as Bx2Bklyn said.
Houses on Mittagh are among the oldest houses in Brooklyn, New York City,even, and it would be a shame to tear it down, unless it was structurally unsound. Once gone, it's gone for good, and that will be one less Federal house in New York, which doesn't have that many to begin with. I'm sure that the price is over-inflated, most RE is anyway, but I hope someone with vision takes it on.
I was just fantasizing what could be done - "if I were a rich man/woman". Deedle deedle.
Posted by: CrownHeightsProud at February 13, 2006 4:17 PM
The listing says the house is NOT in the BH Historic District. Nevertheless, IMO it would be a real shame to tear it down even if it IS possible.
Posted by: Bob Marvin at February 13, 2006 4:22 PM
not sure how anyone can call the interior "charming". it looked like a house I grew up in on LI with the horrible dark paneling and the boring kitchen with wallpaper. Ther is nothing charming about this piece of cr**. There are other "charming" houses on the market worth preserving and being proud to call a Brooklyn Heights Historic Landmark...
Posted by: me again at February 13, 2006 4:28 PM
Although its hard to tell from the little pictures whats going on re: original details, this looks to me like it was a fairly extensive 70's restoration. Doesn't look to me like theres much there there. The floors are original, certainly, but the rest? I suspect that there is a lot of drywall and replacement woodwork (molding & doors), not to mention the stripped fireplaces. In any case, anyone who could afford this place to begin with hopefully wouldn't feel limited to restoring this restoration.
Is anyone attending the open house? Knock on some walls, take a close lookm and report back to us.
Posted by: naomi at February 13, 2006 4:41 PM
To be clear-- the house itself is certainly worthy of restoration, I'd just tear out everything non-original and use the resulting gutted space as my starting point.
Posted by: naomi at February 13, 2006 4:50 PM
We're with Naomi
Posted by: Brownstoner at February 13, 2006 4:53 PM
I wasn't suggesting that it should be demolished, CrownHP, only that at that price it seems to be what will inevitably happen. The fact that the building somehow escaped Landmarks' benevolent jurisdiction doesn't bode well for it either.
I argree with you that it would be great if more people fantasized about what an ugly house could be with a little work rather than how large their bank account could be by developing the site. Love, unfortunately, is far more expensive than practicality.
Posted by: Shahn Andersen at February 13, 2006 4:58 PM
Actually the listing says it is in the historic BH district but not landmarked. They probably did not landmark this particular building because of the changes to the exterior.
While the restoration may look 70's ish, that's cosmetic (at least insofar as the kitchens go). I grew up with that stuff to and hate it. It's easy enough to get rid of the dark panelling and boring wallpaper. Takes vision and imagination to see the beauty of this house. It's a federal house so you wouldn't expect to see all the woodwork and ornate detailing anyway. And I would keep the little underpass- it's a rarity and adds to the charm. It's a far cry from a piece of c**p!
Posted by: Bx2Bklyn at February 13, 2006 5:00 PM
I hear you, Shahn, we're on the same page. I agree with Naomi too, I was just more long winded and less detailed.
Me again - you have to look beyond the obvious, all of what you mentioned is easily gotten rid of and changed.The house is worth saving.
I'm sorry it's not in the historical district, for some reason I always thought all of the Heights was a historical district. That doesn't bode well at all.
Posted by: CrownHeightsProud at February 13, 2006 5:08 PM
On top of everything else, if you kept the garage a garage, you could pay for the renovation with the rent for three cars parking. Have you ever tried to park in Bklyn Heights? Nigh on to impossible. That's probably worth as much as the house.
Posted by: CrownHeightsProud at February 13, 2006 5:13 PM
On top of everything else, if you kept the garage a garage, you could pay for the renovation with the rent for three cars parking. Have you ever tried to park in Bklyn Heights? Nigh on to impossible. That's probably worth as much as the house.
Posted by: CrownHeightsProud at February 13, 2006 5:16 PM
On top of everything else, if you kept the garage a garage, you could pay for the renovation with the rent for three cars parking. Have you ever tried to park in Bklyn Heights? Nigh on to impossible. That's probably worth as much as the house.
Posted by: CrownHeightsProud at February 13, 2006 5:16 PM
What could you rent those parking spots for? $400 a car per month max? I don't see $1200 a month paying for that renovation.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 13, 2006 5:28 PM
Wow, we live right behind this place and have always wondered what it was like inside! I never realized the low building was a carriage house. I hope they don't demo it! I like our view right now!
Posted by: Cranberry 101 at February 13, 2006 5:29 PM
Probably more than that, anon 5:28. When I lived in the Heights some monthly parking was as high as 800$ (Of course enclosed, safe building parking, not the open lots.) FYI Brooklyn Hieghts had a very high stolen car rate.
Posted by: Bx2Bklyn at February 13, 2006 5:44 PM
Probably more than that, anon 5:28. When I lived in the Heights some monthly parking was as high as 800$ (Of course enclosed, safe building parking, not the open lots.) FYI Brooklyn Hieghts had a very high stolen car rate.
Posted by: Bx2Bklyn at February 13, 2006 5:46 PM
Some folks on this thread need to tune in the right side of their architectural/design/creative noggins. Just by restoring the original clapboard siding, this house would be immediately transformed. So much potential, I'm salivating. If only I had the necessary moolah!
Posted by: Thurstan at February 13, 2006 5:55 PM
I call bullshit on $800. The nicest attended, enclosed garage in BH (Love Lane) is under $400/month including taxes.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 13, 2006 5:57 PM
Sorry for posting 3 times above, I have the world's oldest computer here at work.
I was half joking about the garage rent paying for a reno. But think about it, if you restored/replaced the clapboard, restored the front door and entrance, and replaced the garage door with either a period appropriate iron gate, or period appropriate wooden gate, the place would look like a $3mil house, without anyone thinking twice.
Posted by: CrownHeightsProud at February 13, 2006 6:04 PM
I'm telling you what I know. No need to get nasty. I lived in BH for over 20 years.
Posted by: Bx2Bklyn at February 13, 2006 6:08 PM
Sorry for posting 3 times above, I have the world's oldest computer here at work.
I was half joking about the garage rent paying for a reno. But think about it, if you restored/replaced the clapboard, restored the front door and entrance, and replaced the garage door with either a period appropriate iron gate, or period appropriate wooden gate, the place would look like a $3mil house, without anyone thinking twice.
Posted by: CrownHeightsProud at February 13, 2006 6:09 PM
Is there some reason some people can't disagree without sounding like 5 year olds? How about keeping the the bs to a minmum - if you don't agree with someone, disagree like an adult, Anonymous at February 13, 2006 06:00 PM. How about we have more respect for Brownstoner- we're all doing this on his dime. I bet he'd like a little more civility.
Posted by: ee-vile at February 13, 2006 6:14 PM
Is there some reason some people can't disagree without sounding like 5 year olds? How about keeping the the bs to a minmum - if you don't agree with someone, disagree like an adult, Anonymous at February 13, 2006 06:00 PM. How about we have more respect for Brownstoner- we're all doing this on his dime. I bet he'd like a little more civility.
Posted by: bx2bklyn at February 13, 2006 6:18 PM
I think that's Paul Giamatti's house.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 13, 2006 7:10 PM
Among the people that I know, "calling bullshit" on something is just a playful way of disagreeing with something someone says. It is not at all nasty, despite the slight vulgarity. Hard to say whether that was the case here, seeing as how all tone is lost in these quick posts. But I thought I'd offer that up.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 13, 2006 7:17 PM
This has been on the market forever -- at least a year. Not sure what they were asking for it last year.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 13, 2006 7:17 PM
Someone calling "bullshit" is one of the most civilized disagreements I've ever seen on this site. Made me giggle.
Posted by: Amy at February 13, 2006 7:29 PM
oops- my evil twin posted first but we stand by what we- er- I said. :-)
Posted by: Bx2Bklyn at February 13, 2006 7:37 PM
Now if you really wanted to see uncivilized you should have read some of the threads on the old house web. But thanks for the humor, Amy. You made me laugh because you were so right!
Posted by: Bx2Bklyn at February 13, 2006 7:43 PM
since it says it was a former schoolhouse, what exactly would you restore it back to? also, where is the carriage house located, in the back on on the side...it's hard to tell from the photos.
Posted by: sba at February 13, 2006 7:43 PM
I hate it when that happens, when you try to post anonymously and end up posting with your normal Brownstoner name, and it ends up looking like you are arguing to support your own argument...
Posted by: Anonymous at February 13, 2006 7:44 PM
re the landmark issue, I think this is a case of the broker's jumping the gun. I looked on DOB BIS site and saw that the landmark box isn't checked off. Next, I downloaded the BH landmark map and saw very clearly that #72 Middagh falls under the landmark jurisdiction. It's a rather common oversight due to database glitches at DOB that not all boxes/designations are properly labeled. However, just because the "landmark" box is checked DOES NOT MEAN the house isn't landmarked. DOB and LPC will catch up on this discrepancy eventually, so buyer beware. LPC is very clear on their position that all buildings inside the designated map falls under their jurisdiction, NO EXCEPTION.
I had an identical experience with a brownstone in GV, and it was my architect (of all people) who insisted that my house wasn't landmarked because DOB didn't show the designation. Lo and behold, after permits were filed, DOB updated their records and now it shows the house as landmarked. Seriously, the architect's stupidity would have cost me hundreds of thousands dollars and 4 mos in delays. All I had to do was call LPC and asked if such-and-such house is under their jurisdiction, and the woman goes, dude, the entire GV up to Perry St is landmarked.
Posted by: jmc at February 13, 2006 9:01 PM
Edit: I meant to say Washington St instead of Perry St.
Posted by: jmc at February 13, 2006 9:06 PM
this building, according to the city & pshark was designated for landmark in 1996. it has an open violation for the spiral staircase as seen in the pix @ corcoran.
Still, the interior look to be the victim of bad photography and lighting more than aethetic crime. My building can get that "greasy yellow film" in bad photos too, but its a good spot. Betcha its more 40 watt than anything. Redo that exterior and some minor stuff and you've got a gem - if you got the dough... that is. (I don't)
Posted by: mary at February 13, 2006 9:51 PM
what I actually meant to say was,"offer 1.9 and fix up the facade", but then I looked and saw - could this be true - that the city's estimate of the prop value IS 2.3MILLION (values are typically low!). Look at the taxes - 8K.
These old timer's are probably having a time of it in this ecomony. 2.3 is likely not as sweet as it sounds - not that that's an excuse...
Posted by: mary at February 13, 2006 10:00 PM
I just can't stop - this prop also has a FAR of 2-2.9. At 3000sf you could still add 4500sq? even under L.M.? THAT'S HUGE.
Posted by: mary at February 13, 2006 10:05 PM
it was originally a school--
Posted by: sba at February 13, 2006 11:00 PM
sba, it looks like you go through the garage doors on the right, down a driveway to the carriage houses in the back of the house. The garage doors only close off the driveway. It's kinda cool that the house is built over the driveway, it reminds me of a mews house in London that a friend lives in, which is structured just like that (only looks a lot better). I think that the fact that it was a school gives you lots of leeway in setting up the interior, and as Naomi said earlier, you could remove a lot of the new walls, and basically do whatever you want. It really could be a wonderfully special house with a little vision and a lot of cash.
Mega Millions drawing is tomorrow.........I'd better play!
Posted by: CrownHeightsProud at February 14, 2006 12:12 AM
crap crap crap crap crap crap crap
Posted by: me again at February 14, 2006 9:29 AM
yes me, again- you certainly are full of it.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 14, 2006 1:08 PM
not for nothing, but whether or not I am full of it has nothing to do with this house. It is not worth anything. everyone is dreaming about what the history of the house is, was or could be but that is long gone with the CRAP that it became. Level it and bring back a real federal looking house or brownstone. that's what BH is all about. this house brings no historic value to BH or the new buyer. sorry but that's how I see it.
Posted by: me at February 14, 2006 1:59 PM
Why not restore. I have a long background in museum work and there is plenty left of that house to save it and restore. BH is about saving, not destroying and building new-but-old looking. That's why the area has landmark status- to preserve what's original as much as possible
Posted by: Anonymous at February 14, 2006 3:12 PM
Anyone with a little vision can see that putting a new front would add lots of charm and curb appeal. Very interesting space and we need a little diversion from everything brownstone rowhouse.
Those that call it crap have little vision. Great deal for right person.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 14, 2006 4:34 PM
i've never seen bad in any home in historic BH but I agree with me and me again. Restoration is one thing, change is good, but garbage is garbage. Preserving a foundation and changing everything means nothing to the home itself except making it a whole new house....it does put continued value into the neighborhood. The house itself will be a whole new house with any preservation and changes it undergoes, it does not offer any charm or value looking the way it does.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 15, 2006 9:06 AM
I dimly recall this house was for sale back in '97 for 735K. It's location next to the firehouse ruled it out for us.
Posted by: behindthelibes at February 16, 2006 10:58 PM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.