« Condo of the Day: 88 Quincy Street Thursday On The Record »
August 31, 2006
House of the Day: Lefferts Avenue 2-Family

This three-story gray brick in the Prospect-Lefferts Gardens Historic District caught our eye for both its beauty and its price. Since the agent neglected to give an address, we decided to see if Bob Marvin could clue us in. Bob told us that this has to be Lefferts Avenue, either between Bedford and Nostrand or Nostrand and New York, because this is the only stretch with houses that have these particular terra cotta details. He also told us that this house would have been built as a two-family home, as it remains today. While there is some lovely original woodwork in the hallways and stairwell, other parts look like they've been dumbed down over time. Regardless, we suspect the $750,000 price tag will appeal to some.
UPDATE: A reader identified this as 298 Lefferts Avenue.
PLG 2-Family [Eskimo Omolade] GMAP
Comments
I love the RE agent's name!
Posted by: Crown Heights Proud at August 31, 2006 11:46 AM
Is this house really a limestone? I live on Lefferts Avenue, where this house is. All the houses on the block are brick (the colors of the brick are either grey or red). The center of the front itself is limestone...can it be a brick/limestone combo?
Posted by: Vitucci at August 31, 2006 12:21 PM
Also, letme add that there are no three-story houses on the block (nor is this house featured). Just two-story.
Posted by: Vitucci at August 31, 2006 12:24 PM
propshark shows it (298 Lefferts Avenue) between Rogers and Nostrand.
Posted by: Anonymous at August 31, 2006 12:37 PM
NOw that we look closely, think you're right about not being limestone
Posted by: Brownstoner at August 31, 2006 1:03 PM
This type of house is also very common all over Flatbush. But there must be something special about the ones on Lefferts Gardens to be in the Historical District.
Posted by: Vitucci at August 31, 2006 1:17 PM
See a list of most (as many as I could find) properties for sale in PLG on the spreadsheet on PlanetPLG.com.
There are houses available from $600k to $1.5M.
Have fun.
Gary
Posted by: Gary at August 31, 2006 1:22 PM
No hipsters, thank god. Crime? It's the heart of Brooklyn.
Posted by: Vitucci at August 31, 2006 2:13 PM
the quality of life in Lefferts Manor (the main portion of the historic district) is far better than PLG in general although the Manor falls within PLG, the wider area. most houses in the Manor are architecturally superior and best, maintain their one family status. thanks to the covenant which was established almost 100 years ago.
please note houses in the main historic district fetch the higher prices.
Posted by: Anonymous at August 31, 2006 2:37 PM
298 it is (closer to Nostrand than Rogers). But I didn't know that these were built as 2-family homes, and I'm quite surprised to hear that (but if Bob says so, I'm not going to argue) -- they're really on the small side for that, especially considering the larger families that were the norm when they were built. I live on the top floor of an identical house, and the layout just doesn't make sense -- I can't imagine it having been built that way, it just seems so arbitrary, although all the houses I've seen on the block do seem to be laid out identically. Very strange.
Posted by: babs at August 31, 2006 3:58 PM
Incidentally, sale of this house will displace two long-term (over 35 years!) residents, unless the new owner would like to keep them in place (a very good idea -- they're great people!). The house is being sold following the death of the owner.
At this price, assuming a mortgage of $675K, what rent do people think one would want to charge? There's actually a place on the next block (between Bedford and Rogers) for which the owner is asking $2200, which I think is quite high, but probably (and unfortunately for long-term residents and poor people like me) a sign of things to come.
Posted by: babs at August 31, 2006 4:17 PM
Vitucci,
It LOOKS like limestone in the photo, but the VERY distinct joints are the give away that the details are moulded terra cotta--its a very different look, but clearer in reality then in the illustration.
BTW, I screwed up when I answered Mr. B's inquiry (sorry--I was tired)--these houses are on the Bedford--Rogers or Rogers--Nostrand blocks--the northern (non-Lefferts Manor) part of the PLG Historic District. You can get a PDF file of the HD map by clicking on the link in this page of the LMA website:
http://www.leffertsmanor.org/landmark.shtml
Posted by: Bob Marvin at August 31, 2006 7:48 PM
I viewed this house over the weekend. It's too small for a two family in my book and it's a bit of a mess. Strange reconfigurations of a single family home. Most of all, I would not want to displace the sweet elderly couple who live on the first floor--I hope that they'll get a benevolent landlord
Posted by: abilene at August 31, 2006 7:51 PM
Babs,
I got the information about these houses being BUILT as two family from the LPC's PLG Historic District Designation Report (or actually my RECOLLECTION of the report--I can't get to my copy right now). I'm pretty sure that it's correct.
Posted by: Bob Marvin at August 31, 2006 7:56 PM
Anon, 8:10,
Anyone who's familiar with my posts knows I'm sensitive to claims that PLG is "dangerous" (which I, of course, deny) but If I read Vitucci's post correctly he was only pointing out that SOME crime is to be expected in ANY urban neighborhood.
Posted by: Bob Marvin at August 31, 2006 8:20 PM
There's no way these houses could have been made for two families. I live on the top floor of one these houses and it's cramped with three people. The blue print is 2 bedrooms (a tiny 6x9' office), living room, dinning room, and a kitchen that isn't big enough for a small table.
Posted by: Anonymous at August 31, 2006 8:24 PM
This is the same house that is (or was) listed by Tanya at Location Location Location in July. In fact they have it listed in the Times for $25K less than Ms. Omolade. And this house is in fact brick, with limestone accents. Not worth either $750K or $725K, IMO.
Posted by: noq at August 31, 2006 11:20 PM
Believable to me that a 2100-sq-ft house was built as a two-family--in the olden days, kids used to share bedrooms (and even--gasp!--beds), and people somehow soldiered on without home offices, dens, or media rooms. People didn't have as much clothes (or crap) and an awful lot of life was lived outdoors. I'm sure you're a lovely group of people, but you are mighty spoiled.
Posted by: Anonymous at September 1, 2006 4:46 AM
It's amazing to me when people here say that a 2000+ sf house is "too small" to be a 2-family. What is this, Short Hills? Have you never met a family that lives in an apartment? Living in "only" 2 floors of this house may be less than ideal but plenty of New Yorkers, including New Yorkers with a fair amount of means and options, would be glad to have that much space.
Posted by: linusvanpelt at September 1, 2006 7:26 AM
If you go to Ridgewood, there are hundreds of houses similar to this and they are all two- or three-families. They were decent and desirable housing for industrial and brewery workers in the the early to mid-20th century. Most are still multi-family units today.
No, not huge, but 1,000-1,200 sf is pretty workable for many people, especially in nice old buildings like this.
Posted by: tinarina at September 1, 2006 9:13 AM
We live on the block, we are a family with 2 kids, we use one floor and the english basement.
We have renters on the other floor.
It is fine, not cramped. We have room and privacy.
Those houses are pretty, have nice proportions and a beautiful light because the street is very wide . It is a nice block to live on.
Posted by: Anonymous at September 1, 2006 9:13 AM
as someone who has been in both floors of the house that we are posting about, it's not the s'footage. it's the way it divides up that makes it an awkward sell for two families. BTW I've lived 2 people in 800 sf for 20 years+ and was perfectly happy. It always becomes a class issue on this site
Posted by: abilene at September 1, 2006 9:20 AM
I saw this house when it was first listed by Tanya. It's really beautiful, most of it has never been remuddled, except for the kitchens, bathrooms and two rooms upstairs.
However, it need a lot of work, including emergency repairs.
There were three sources of water damage I could see. In the small room above the stairs on the second floor the leak has been stopped and the wall repaired. There was/is a leak from the roof which appears to have run inside the back wall of the building, this has caused the plaster to separate from the lathe and has rusted out all the electical (BX cable) on that side. This is an immediate fire hazard. The stucco on the back of the building has also separated from the walls where water damage is most severe when seen from the inside. The foundation has not cracked yet, but if the stucco is not removed and the brick repointed. I don't think the brick is an emergency yet. While I would confirm with a structural engineer, it can maybe wait until next summer). The third source of water damage is the leaking fixtures in the first floor kitchen, this has caused the floor beams to rot over a 6'x20' section of the floor (this leak is longstanding). This can be seen most readily in the basement, but in the 1st floor kitchen you can also see a 3"-4" sag wherever something heavy is sitting on the floor. This needs to be repaired immediately to prevent collapse.
Aside from the water damage, much of the plumbing and electrical needs replacement. Obviously where water has flowed in the walls the electical is no longer safe, but there were also illegal and unsafe electrical work you could see and I'm sure more is hiding in the walls. The electrical appears to date from three distinct periods. The original work needs replacing due to it's great age (the plastic has come off the wires), the 50's work is probably salvagable, except where there was extensive water damage, and the 70's or 80's work was done unsafely, with unprotected wiring and potentially aluminum wire. The plumbing has several visible problems, poor drainage on the 2nd floor appears to be the cause of the unflushable toilet, and the extensive water damage in the 1st floor kitchen. This is not unexpected for an old house, but if it were my house I would replace all the plumbing. If you only had a few hundred thousand dollars for the repairs and had to economize, just the drainage pipes and the already leaking pipe[s] needs to be replaced soon.
The kitchens and bathrooms could use another renovation, they appear to have seen their last renovation in the 70's, but obviously this is not an emergency. Thankfully the clawfoots are still there on both floors :)
The good news is that many of the windows, especially on the second floor appear to be original; with nice old storm window inserts for a couple of them. Someone could restore the wood frames with epoxy and with all that original wood work and the gas lighting lines still there, they could really bring this building to it's original condition. With a very comfortable budget of course. There may be more problem I didn't notice, but that's why you hire an engineer to look at a house like this before closing.
I'm sorry to hear about the death of the owner, I didn't know about that. Oh, the older couple really is adorable! The woman reminds me of my grandmother.
Posted by: danielk at September 1, 2006 9:35 AM
Seems to me that we discuss co-ops and condos all the time that cost as much as this house and are no bigger--or course they just might be a tad more luxurious :-)
FWIW I visited someone on this block in July who has the same arrangement as Anon. 9:13. Their apartment looked very nice to me and they anticipate eventually taking over the entire house.
tinarina wrote: "not huge, but 1,000-1,200 sf is pretty workable for many people"
Posted by: Bob Marvin at September 1, 2006 9:41 AM
After reading danielk's post, I guess the condos also need a little less work :-(
Posted by: Bob Marvin at September 1, 2006 9:49 AM
danielk, that was an amazing report--thanks. do you do this for a living?
Posted by: abilene at September 1, 2006 9:51 AM
No, but I am an engineer.
Although this should not be considered an engineering report and I take no responsibility for accuracy, completeness, etc. Hire a P.E. :)
I really liked the house though, it just needs extensive repairs relative to similarly priced buildings on the market.
Posted by: danielk at September 1, 2006 11:20 AM
Bob,
I'm still intrigued by the thought that my house was built as a 2-family, because the layout of the upper floor really makes no sense in that regard. Most of the homes I've seen in Queens and elsewhere that were built as two or three family houses have separate entrances, whereas in these houses one enters through the front door and goes up the stairs inside the hallway. Then, on the second floor landing, there are usually two doors, one going to a hallway off of which one usually finds on one side a large closet and small bathroom (although I've seen other houses that have sacrificed the closet for the sake of a large bathroom) and pn the other side an entry to the dining room, a middle room, with no windows (although some have vents in the walls), and the bedroom. The kitchen is at the bottom of the hallway.
There is also another door on the landing, usually leading to a small second bedroom in the front, which is off of the living room.
Some houses I've seen have added a wall between the living room and the dining room and some (like mine) are open between the two.
Of course many families do live happily in this set-up, particularly if they have the two lower floors. I just don't see how the upper floor, in particular, was originally conceived as a separate dwelling.
Posted by: babs at September 1, 2006 2:49 PM
Babs,
It DOES seem strange. FWIW I've been TOLD that these houses were built as two-family and I'm fairly sure that the LPC designation report says they were built that way. Unfortunately I can't check my copy of the report until after Labor Day.
In the early '70s we lived in a top floor apartment on 14th St. & 8th Ave in the South Slope where we had to walk past the owners' front parlor to get upstairs. However AFAIK that house was originally one family.
Posted by: Bob Marvin at September 1, 2006 3:48 PM
"but If I read Vitucci's post correctly he was only pointing out that SOME crime is to be expected in ANY urban neighborhood."
Yes, that is exactly what I meant.
Also, when I said the houses on Lefferts could have not have been for a two family, i didn't think about the basement. I forgot about that. I suppose it's fairly reasonable to have one family take up the first loor and the basement and then have renters upstairs.
I don't think I'm being snob at all when I say that each of these floors is too small for a family of four.
Posted by: Vittuci at September 1, 2006 5:15 PM
Bob:
you are indeed correct. I checked the LPC's report and this is what it states:
Lefferts Avenue is a wide street containing 108 similar, modest, two-family houses erected in 1905-06. the street also has the only apartment building in the Historic District.
the houses on Lefferts spanning Bedford Avenue to Nostrand Avenue were designed by architect Frank S. Lowe for Kingston Realty. the company used two different designs "A" and "B". one
type with rounded bays ("A" houses) and the other type with three-sided angular bays ("B" houses). The "B" houses are dominated by three-sided angular bays, each clad in terra-cotta. this i believe describes the house at 298 Lefferts.
i think the houses--though built as 2-family dwellings--were constructed mainly to house family members only. because these homes are small they were never meant to be used or exploited as 2-family for rental income purposes.
i think for those unfamiliar with the nabe or those folks just getting to know Lefferts will understand why those folks in Lefferts Manor, the main historic district, can be thankful for the covenant. thanks and hope this helps.
Posted by: Anonymous at September 1, 2006 5:42 PM
babs,
if you're so poor, then how can you afford to maintain residences in both Manhattan and Brooklyn?
Not exactly a textbook definition of poverty!
Posted by: Anonymous at September 3, 2006 10:41 PM
I live in similar sort of house in Windsor Terrace (which I realize is considered no-man's land on this site). I too have wondered about the layout,which is exactly as one of the posters described, and I have become convinced it was built as two-family. Though it shares an entrance with the main floor apt., the second floor apt. seems to have always been self-contained, with the landing forming a sort of foyer and lockable entry way. My contractor said it was built as a mother-daughter type setup, which makes sense.
Posted by: anonymous at September 4, 2006 10:52 PM
It was mentioned that the houses of Lefferts resemble those in Ridgewood, Queens. The difference is that the homes in Ridgewood, which are indeed very nice, do not have the terra cotta limetone detail.
Posted by: Vitucci at September 5, 2006 10:29 PM

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