« Condo Beat: Sky High in Boerum Hill Update on Carlton Avenue Lots: Relief Abounds »
March 22, 2006
Brooklyn Beauty A Bit Much for Our Tastes
We know this house--at $14.5 million, the most expensive in Brooklyn right now--is supposed to inspire awestruck oohs and ahs, and while we wouldn't kick it out of bed for eating crackers, it just ain't doin' it for us. The bathroom? Come on, this isn't Versailles. The kitchen cabinets, which we're sure cost tens of thousands of dollars in custom labor, leave us a little limp. And the fact that the fireplace was modeled on Tina Turner's? Big whoop. Clearly, the location of the house is unbeatable and the facade is perfection. But we can't in a million years imaging paying this kind of dough for someone else's over-the-top renovation. We love traditional design if it's the real thing but when it comes to new design, give us true modern over "new traditional" any day. In the end, when it comes to these historic houses, we like an occasional creak in the floorboards. Sometimes having too much money can be a really bad thing.
Brooklyn Beauty [Forbes]
Daily News Article [Corcoran]
Cloumbia Heights Listing [Corcoran]
Comments
God, I'm with you. I like real estate porn as much as the next person but this left me unsatisfied to say the least! I have seen more interesting stuff in apartment therapy's tiny apartment contest. It's true, money doesn't buy you taste. That bathroom is terrible and the kitchen is just blah.
Posted by: Anon at March 22, 2006 10:48 AM
This is a house in Brooklyn for someone who would rather live in Boca Raton and who probably does.
Posted by: David in NY at March 22, 2006 10:51 AM
I'd move in tomorrow if I could. Love it.
Posted by: Anonymous at March 22, 2006 11:04 AM
"Wouldn't kick it out of bed for eating crackers"! I will tuck that one away!
The Boca crack above is spot-on. Thanks for making me a tiny bit happier today to be living in a half-renovated former boarding house--at least I don't have to wash up in Sybil Fawlty's dream loo!
Posted by: Brenda in Flatbush at March 22, 2006 11:08 AM
Totally agree.
Posted by: lp at March 22, 2006 11:11 AM
After the monumental windows, with to-die-for views, gym, and media room, I would probably close the coffin on the rest of it. Of course, if the seller wanted to just give it to me, I suppose I would not refuse. :)
Posted by: GardensGal at March 22, 2006 11:17 AM
thats so weird, I was just looking at this house yesterday as I was doing my daily real estate cruise on the Corcoran website and I thought to myself this is so gawdy, that bathroom is right out of Donald Trump's page of design... there's no way in the world I pay that kind of money for someone else's excessive taste. this is the kind of property that speaks for itself, its a beauty without all the extras and like Brownstoner said the location is unbeatable but in my opinion the bathroom lowers the value of the house. someone idiot may buy it though.
Posted by: blkbuttrflie at March 22, 2006 11:42 AM
thats so weird, I was just looking at this house yesterday as I was doing my daily real estate cruise on the Corcoran website and I thought to myself this is so gawdy, that bathroom is right out of Donald Trump's page of design... there's no way in the world I pay that kind of money for someone else's excessive taste. this is the kind of property that speaks for itself, its a beauty without all the extras and like Brownstoner said the location is unbeatable but in my opinion the bathroom lowers the value of the house. someone idiot may buy it though.
Posted by: blkbuttrflie at March 22, 2006 11:43 AM
I certainly wouldn't pay 14.5 for it, but is the person who chose ikea cabinets for his kitchen really calling this kitchen blah? I think that although a little over the top for my taste, this house is great. Then again I will never be able to afford it so it really doesn't matter.
Posted by: anon at March 22, 2006 11:50 AM
Anon 11:50
Cheap jab. He said clearly he planned to replace with a custom kitchen in the future when the money was available.
I have formica cabinets in my place and I think that house is ugly too.
Sorry, if you don't think I'm "worthy" enough to speak my mind too.
Posted by: Ebomb at March 22, 2006 12:12 PM
What price is the Pfizer mansion asking?
Posted by: iceberg at March 22, 2006 12:21 PM
Oh boy! I think that there are different standards of finish at this price level than the below 2M residences that the rest of us must be happy with. Let's say that the house and it's location would add up to at least 7-10M if it needed a full reno. Then add 2M for the current finish job and you get 9-12M or so. At these prices you can't be too frugal. So if it is your cup of tea it is probably worth the asking, if not maybe offer 10M and plan on redoing the over the top bathroom and whatever.
Being in the mid reno stage I just look and laugh when seeing what could be done if I was someone else with someone elses money.
Posted by: Anonymous at March 22, 2006 12:30 PM
I'm no cheerleader for anyone but as far as the IKEA cabinets are concerned, I don't think you have to necessarily spend a lot of money on a kitchen or anything else for that matter to identify an ugly one. while you do make a good point if you're trying to say the pot can't call the kettle black I would argue that this may not be the case since there's a distinct difference between design on a budget (which sacrafices beauty) and design with a clearly limitless budget and still choosing some of the ugliest shit on the market to put in your overpriced property and then try and sell it for much more than its worth. for the most expensive house in brooklyn everything counts, if Brownstoner tried to sell his pad with an ugly interior for say 5 million today I'd rip it a part too. you put a property on the market for this much money you should at least try to fool us into thinking its worth it...
Posted by: blkbuttrflie at March 22, 2006 12:46 PM
The views are to die for, but you can't live in the window forever. Like you said, I wouldn't kick it out of bed, and I guess if I had that kind of money, re-doing the bathroom wouldn't be a big deal. (so Trump!) Purely as houses go, I'd take the Pfizer mansion over this one - and it's a bargain - 10 mil cheaper!
Posted by: CrownHeightsProud at March 22, 2006 12:48 PM
Wow- some bathroom. I'd rip it out in a heartbeat. Actually I think it makes Trump look a little subdued.(Is that possible?). That house screams McMansion - why would anyone want to do that to a wonderful period house?
But I'm with CHP- I've seen houses that I fell in love with, at far less money than that. The views are spectacular- no doubt about it. The location is prime. The house still has beautiful bones but the renovations smack of thinking you're making a silk purse out of a sow's ear, when it was a silk purse all along.
Posted by: Bx2Bklyn at March 22, 2006 1:16 PM
very bad thing, indeed.
Posted by: kcf at March 22, 2006 1:26 PM
who cares about the bathroom or kitchen? both could be easily redone by anyone who can actually afford a house like this. my complaint is the small stoop and relatively unimpressive facade. sure they are in great condition, but as compared to the stoops and facades of other mansions in the neighborhood this house's extior is blase at best. 14.5 million should get you some massive front living room windows and a giant stoop that doesn't have metal railings.
Posted by: Anonymous at March 22, 2006 2:08 PM
14.5 million and it is still too much. When this house first entered the market it was listed at 20 million. It came down to 15 and then 14.5. I live down the street. I can see the same view for free. No knock against the house as the view is great if you want to impress visiting guest. However, keep in mind the fact that for 14.5 million, you still have to move your car for alternate street parking (every tuesday on this block).
Posted by: GMan at March 22, 2006 2:30 PM
with a 14.5 million dollar house you wouldn't own a car that you would be willing to park on the street, you'd get a garage. so alternate side of the street parking is irrelevant.
Posted by: Anonymous at March 22, 2006 2:43 PM
Very odd--it looks like they moved furniture in just to take the photos (no chairs or rugs in the dining room even though the table is set, kitchen seems empty, other furniture seems sterile). Have the owners already moved on (hard to imagine at the price).
Posted by: Anonymous at March 22, 2006 2:43 PM
do you think it is meant for a european big spendor?
Posted by: Anonymous at March 22, 2006 3:20 PM
wasn't this house on the market with browh harris last year for $20 million? all of these overpriced houses and it seems to me that the only one that went was last year on columbia heights for less then half of this. come on, all of these people are speculators. if they really wanted to sell it would be a whole lot less. for this price, people will choose to live in manhattan.
Posted by: Anonymous at March 22, 2006 3:24 PM
Whoah, this is EXTREMELY tacky -- another example of money not buying taste. And no European would be caught dead in a place like that!
Posted by: babs at March 22, 2006 3:48 PM
When Sandy and Kirsten Cohen's kitchen from the "OC" looks more tastefully done than this $14.5M rowhouse, somethings wrong...
Posted by: Anonymous at March 22, 2006 3:52 PM
i think the bathroom is pretty ugly, but have no problem with the kitchen. it's a little much, but it would be AWESOME to have a kitchen like that.
Posted by: Anonymous at March 22, 2006 4:01 PM
in the daily news article the owner said they haven't sold the house for some of the offers they've recieved because "we're not always in the mood to sell" are you kidding me?! either that's a complete lie seeing as though they should be excited to even get a bid on a house so grossly overpriced when they bought it for 2 mil in '99 or they're exactly the type of ppl I would expect to have a bathroom like that.
Posted by: blkbuttrflie at March 22, 2006 4:14 PM
is that couch crush velvet? this house is almost a horror compared to what it could be.
Posted by: Anonymous at March 22, 2006 4:15 PM
I see a $10.95m house on CobbleHeights web site on the Promenade also. Wonder how they compare in size, taste, condition, etc.
Posted by: Anonymous at March 22, 2006 4:27 PM
The Forbes article was amusing, with all of the "impressive" names of products and sourcing thrown around. Personally, when I put something in my house, it's because I like it, (and I can afford it). I don't care if it came from Paris, France or Paris, Texas. Taste is in how it all works together, antiques alongside flea market finds, with a touch of tongue in cheek to keep it real. It's supposed to be your home, not a decorator showroom. Sheesh, it's not THAT important, in the scheme of life, and God forbid, you have a fire, it will burn just as quickly as the cheap stuff in the apartment in the projects. It's too bad there's nothing left of the original house except the bannister. An original house would be worth a few million in that location, and would sell in no time.
Posted by: CrownHeightsProud at March 22, 2006 4:31 PM
So when is everyone publishing photos of their places so we can trash your design taste and style choices?
I doubt that any of you has the $15 mil to buy the place so it's really moot if you like the bath or not.
p.s.: If anyone does have $15 mil to buy the place, can I marry you?
Posted by: Anonymous at March 22, 2006 5:00 PM
clearly no one with 15 million likes the bath either or it wouldn't be on the market.
Posted by: Anonymous at March 22, 2006 5:13 PM
There's a really great back story to this house. Before it was restored, it was the property of an elderly lady who's college professor hubby had passed a way a year or so before.
When the wife died, in her will was instructions on how to divide their assets among various Brooklyn charities. The assets . . . $750 million.
Now how did our little old lady who was married to a college professor amass $750 big ones? Well, her husband was a chldhod friend of a Mr. Warren Buffett, and they'd been investing their savings with Mr. Buffett since the 50s.
Yup. True story.
Posted by: John at March 22, 2006 5:18 PM
What is wrong with you people? Can we focus on the important details? What are the corcoran ladies going to do with the chedda if they manage to sell the place?
Posted by: Anonymous at March 22, 2006 5:55 PM
propertyshark shows that they estimated their costs of renovation at $510,000 so, by my count $2,000,000 + $510,000 = $2,510,000. So basically, they are trying to make a $12,000,000 profit.
Posted by: anon at March 22, 2006 6:26 PM
plus a few years of inflation, so let's say that's a $10m profit. Not bad.
Posted by: Anonymous at March 22, 2006 8:02 PM
WOAH...there are lot of people with green eyes on this site!
You would all kill to live there, get real!
Posted by: Anonymous at March 22, 2006 8:13 PM
Aww, lighten up! Most of us here in the real world are not in that income bracket,and never will be, so we just like to have some fun speculating and wishing, and yeah, some cheap trashing. No one cares what a bunch of anonymous people on a blog think about their house, they're laughing all the way to the bank.
We reserve the right to say "You may have a lot of money, but your taste is all in your mouth!"
Posted by: C at March 22, 2006 8:27 PM
Don't tell me the Othmar's did this to the house, John! Must have been somebody else after they died. They must have had better taste than this.
Posted by: David in NY at March 22, 2006 8:51 PM
john--
i had read that story about 10 years ago in the ny times, i think... i still tell that to people. i never realized they lived in the nabe.
i also remember Warren being quoted as saying he has other friends who invested with him early in simiilar situations.. VERY wealthy but they live very modestly and no one knows.
Posted by: anonymous at March 22, 2006 10:07 PM
The rumor in the hood four years ago was that they put four million into renovation. Don't know if it's true. You may not like the features - but seems like they did a great job of turning a dark townhouse with a warren of small apts into a bright, beautiful showplace that takes advantage of a Woody Allen caliber view of the city. Given that you'd spend 14 million to buy it, it's chump change to adapt the surfaces you don't like. Seems like all systems were upgraded. From the Promenade, they did a beautiful job with wrought iron and such...
Posted by: Anonymous at March 22, 2006 10:14 PM
The house is lovely and the views are amazing however one huge problem I have with it is that the dining room is on a different floor from the kitchen. I know this is how these houses were set up originally but these days, who has a staff of servants to bring your meals up the elevator and the dirty dishes back down again. Are the servants even allowed to use the elevator?
The other house on the Promenade on Cobble Heights' website has also been on the market for about a year. Vickie Negron of Corcoran also has it listed on her website with better pictures of the owner’s apartment and a better description (at least everything is spelled correctly). This house has incredibly grand details and proportions. However, it's cut up into 8 rent stabilized apartments. If I had that kind of money I'd buy the Cobble Heights/Vickie Negron house and restore it.
Posted by: Anonymous at March 23, 2006 8:30 AM
"these days who has a staff to bring you meals?"
I think every single person who has $14 million to blow on a house has a staff including a cook, no doubt. Think about it. I know a lot of people who spend A LOT less on their housing who have staff. I think that's a given in this price range.
Posted by: Anonymous at March 23, 2006 1:29 PM
I would have to disagree with whoever was complaining about the unimpressive facade of this building. I love the elegant clean lines of federal bricks like these. Their facades are far better proportioned than the most of the more ornate brownstones.
Posted by: Anonymous at March 23, 2006 3:52 PM
Think about getting a Thanksgiving dinner from one floor to the next and all of the dirty dishes back again. They may have a cook and other help but not the large staff required to serve a meal like this. Wealthy people do not squander their money. It's how they stay wealthy.
Posted by: Anonymous at March 24, 2006 6:58 AM
This is a small thing, but every time I see the spelling "mantle" in these ads it sticks in my craw. I grew up thinking it should be spelled "mantel," like "lintel," and a "mantle" is something you wear. But everywhere I look it's mantle, mantle, mantle. How did this happen?
Posted by: BedStuyMama at March 24, 2006 8:18 AM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.