HOTD: The Common Courtesy of a Wrap-Around

I'm not a big fan of wood frame homes. Though, this one is kept-up nicely.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 26, 2006 12:02 PM

here we go again. more anti-wood-frame-housing paranoia. not sure about location, but these are amazing houses to live in if you can afford it. have family who have lived here for over 30 years, and was always jealous.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 26, 2006 12:10 PM

Take a pill 12:10PM. Was the 1st poster addressing you? No, then keep your trap closed regarding him.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 26, 2006 12:25 PM

point proved 12:25. did I offend your girlfriend/boyfriend? did you not take your medication today?

Posted by: Anonymous at October 26, 2006 12:38 PM

DeKoven is a very quiet cul-de-sac, in Midwood Park, which we've been over a thousand times here. Beautifully maintained area. Not so close to Cortelyou or the Park. Big houses. Note: houses at the end of DeKoven neighbor the subway track cut.

The price, in my mind, is high. $1.6 million is what I would pay for a house in fab condition in PPS (have they gotten their 2 million there yet) or Ditmas Park. I think they are asking at least $200K over what they could get, perhaps more.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 26, 2006 12:53 PM

back on track now...I live nearby. This is a nice house in a nice quiet area. Plus side, it's 2 blocks to the Q or Express B at Newkirk. It's a virtually traffic free "cul de sac" street that branches off of 17th street which is one of the nice planted streets with the median thing running it's length. It's in Midwood Park so it's on track for landmarking pretty soon supposedly- wheteher that's a pro or a con is a matter of personal preference (mine being pro). The only real downside I can see is the fact that these "Courts" terminate at the subway tracks so there might be occassional train noise. Though I think that this house is far enough removed from the tracks that it wouldn't really be a problem.

All of that being said, 1.6 is a pretty ambitious price. I know some places have recently sold in MP for around the 1.3 range and that it's a really nice hood, but not sure if 1.6 is right. Then again, I haven't seen the inside...Anyway, definitely worth a look, in my opinion.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 26, 2006 12:53 PM

a bit of a correction for Brownstoner. Cortelyou kind of runs East-West, so this house is really SOUTH of Cortelyou. But yes, it is down towards Brooklyn College

Posted by: Anonymous at October 26, 2006 12:56 PM

To add to my 12:53 post, and to support the above post:

The pix on MKG website don't indicate that there are brand new custom kitchens and baths (which I would expect with a 1.3 asking price in this nabe...). Also, there is way to much painted woodwork to justify the high price. Not only is it money to strip it, but also inconvenience and potential health hazard. If I was going to pay that money (and I'm looking again now in that range out here), I would want all woodwork never painted or already stripped. That would be a deal breaker for me.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 26, 2006 12:57 PM

The common courtesy of a reach-around. Haven't heard that one in quite some time. Nice Brownstoner! Nice!

Posted by: Anonymous at October 26, 2006 12:58 PM

I checked out a house on that street. The train noise is awful if you're within 3 or 4 houses of the tracks.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 26, 2006 1:06 PM

Midwood Park is not part of the area described as "brooklyn college." That is South Midwood, and it is on the other side of Ocean Avenue. Midwood Park is between Ditmas Park and Fiske Terrace.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 26, 2006 1:17 PM

Brenda- just to clarify and echo 1:17, this house is in Midwood Park an area that has remained blessedly free of any sort of teardowns. The few Stucco jobs that I can identify in Midwood park are unusually tastefully done for the category. Anyway, the reason why Midwood Park is so nice- and the reason why it was identified for landmarking- is that the vast majority of the homes in the area have remained mostly original.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 26, 2006 1:32 PM

>Also, there is way to much painted woodwork to justify the high price.

Not all woodwork was intended to be left "au naturale". One of the ghastliest things about so much so called "renovation" is this mania people have for stripped "wide plank floors" (normally subflooring used under carpeting or under hardwood floors, the Victorian version of particle board or plywood) and stripping every vestige of paint from antique paint grade pine moldings. It WASN'T all shiny varnished wood. Sometimes painted wood was ALWAYS painted wood.

The "country shabby-chic" stylemakers have blinded way too many people to what might be authentic. Hallmark Cards Historic Rehab, here we come!

Posted by: Anonymous at October 26, 2006 1:32 PM

12:58, it says "wrap-around" but we know where your mind is at...

Posted by: Anonymous at October 26, 2006 2:08 PM

I am the one who wants the wood stripped. I understand about the pine. My second floor is all pine (unusual here) and always meant to be painted. Unfortunately, the huge expanse of tiger oak on my ground floor is also covered in the stuff.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 26, 2006 2:13 PM

2:08
Brownstoner substituted "reach" with "wrap" in the above title, which he lifted from the movie Full Metal Jacket. Where is his mind at?, is the question.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 26, 2006 2:22 PM

Agreed on the painted wood. I live in one of these old victorians and was told by an expert it was always painted. Also - I love some exposed wood (for instance in a library or parlor) but living in this area, I have been in a number of neighbors houses that have huge amounts of dark, unpainted wood and it can be a bit oppressive, make the house darker and less homey and seriously limits the choices you can make in furniture/decor because not a lot of styles go with heavy dark mahogany trims. Anyway - seems like anything that was well maintained and has decent kitchens and baths in this area is going in the $1.1Mil to $1.6Mil range, depending on the section of flatbush it is in (with Prospect Park South being the most desired/expensive) and size. I would think this house would go for $1.3 - $1.4Mil.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 26, 2006 4:08 PM

Probably right - my parlor and dining room (tiger oak) are not painted but some of the upstairs rooms (pine) are.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 26, 2006 5:26 PM

This block has long been sought after. It is really beautiful. The house might be overpriced, but check the area and the block out and even if you don't fall in love--wood-frame isn't what everyone is looking for--you will probably be impressed by the beauty of the area and the homes.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 26, 2006 5:32 PM

What kind of updates in terms of new windows, insulation and energy efficiency are done in these houses? I'd think at well over a million these kinds of updates have been done. Anyone buying one of these wood frame Victorians needs to calculate the heating cost just like it was property tax or mortgage per year. Because it's a LOT.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 26, 2006 9:45 PM

Is it a lot? People in Brownstones always preach doom and gloom about that issue . My woodframe is around $3000 per annum to heat. I don't think that's terrible, and it's certainly not unaffordable.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 26, 2006 9:54 PM

Windows that are not landmark quality are NOT desirable. Would rather have the original sash windows.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 26, 2006 9:59 PM

Windows that are not landmark quality are NOT desirable. Would rather have the original sash windows.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 26, 2006 9:59 PM

Victorian Flatbush is expensive - even if it is not fetching the same price tags as some other Brownstones neighborhood. This is because it is composed of single family wood frame homes that require some upkeep. People moving here now do not need tenants to foot the bill for them. It is a family oriented neighborhood for those who can afford larger families, frequently more than the typical 2.2 found elsewhere, and can afford the yards, 6 bedrooms, etc... that make for a comfortable family life in a city which is often not terribly family friendly. It's a particular type of buyer. One that might consider the suburbs for space issues, but really is not inclined to leave the city. Victorian Flatbush now caters to a fairly affluent, family -focused buyer.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 26, 2006 10:03 PM

Amen - 1.3 million buys you a junior 2 bedroom in Manhattan, with a $1500/mth maintenance or a tiny brick townhouse in Park Slope with a rental in the basement. Although there are costs to maintain these houses, it is no more than the typical maintenance charge for a coop apartment. I live in Victorian flatbush and most of the new people in the neighborhood are 30-40 year old professionals with growing families who can afford $1.3Mil and $1500/mth maintenance/heat, etc... but want some real space for that money without having to flee all the way to the burbs, take on renters or totally give up the urban feel. If that is what you are looking for, there aren't many choices. I don't really think that most of the people buying here now are choosing the neighborhood because they can't afford to live anywhere else and, therefore, going to be shocked at a $3000K a year heating bill. They just like the feel and the space they get here more than the alternatives and they are choosing to be here.

It isn't for everyone, but for some, including me, it is my first choice. I love the history of the area; the diversity of both the housing styles and the people; the fact that light comes in from all sides of my house and it feels like a true family home; being able to have a driveway and garage to park my car and put up a basketball hoop; being able to drive into manhattan on a whim on a Saturday afternoon in 15-20 minutes; having a front porch to sit on and drink coffee in the morning and a mojito on a hot summer night; the juxtaposition of a bustling city street with fish markets, mexican restaurants, subway lines and buses being around the corner from a quiet oasis of beautiful homes and lawns; the fact that all the neighbors know each other and automatically pick up each others newspapers if out of town and the fact that my children's neighborhood friends are the sons and daughers of lawyers, taxi cab drivers, musicians, nannies, professors and from all different races and religions. I could go on and on.

I do think the house above is a bit overpriced, but a number of houses in the area have gone for over $1Mil without the updates the poster above expects at that price because the buyer fell in love with the house and the neighborhood and chose to/could afford to do the updates themselves. Just as many houses in Park Slope or Carroll Gardens that needed new facades, boilers, a renovation to combine apartments into a single family, new roofs, a restoration of historical details, etc... have gone for far in excess of $1Mil because the buyer loved the neighborhood and the house. I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 27, 2006 12:37 AM

I'm the one who posted about considering the cost of heat when thinking about buying.

Someone said this:

"It's a particular type of buyer. One that might consider the suburbs for space issues, but really is not inclined to leave the city. Victorian Flatbush now caters to a fairly affluent, family -focused buyer."

And to that I'd say, exactly right. I wasn't saying otherwise and I wasn't saying don't buy this house. The whole purpose of this site is to help people who either own an older property or are considering buying one, and all I was doing was pointing out something that buyers should think about before buying a freestanding wood Victorian. It's easy to fall in love with a pretty house and not think everything through.

But instead you people are essentially saying, no don't think about it, because it will lower the value of our homes? That's selfish. The best thing to say is "yes there is upkeep, yes you pay for that, don't buy it if you can't afford it but if you can this is a great option".

Posted by: Anonymous at October 27, 2006 12:46 PM

I think that is what the reply poster was saying - it is expensive but most people who are buying in the area now can afford it. I think any person of average intelligence would understand it costs more to heat an older frame house with lots of windows. In addition, for the record and also seemingly obvious, these houses need to be painted every few years, trees overhanging them need to be trimmed, the owner needs to pay to have the sidewalk in front and driveway shoveled in the winter and leaves removed in the fall and gutters need to be cleaned more often. I don't think those of us who live in the neighborhood are trying to selfishly fool the newcomers into buying houses they can't afford in order to increase our property values by telling them to ignore the additional costs. I don't really want the houses in my neighborhood to end up on the foreclosure block or to see young families struggling. Clearly no one who can't afford a $3-$4K per annum heating bill should be buying a $1.6Mil house.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 27, 2006 1:21 PM

While it is true that a lot of middle class families have lived in Victorian Flatbush for decades, the sad truth is that many of these families have not been able to maintain their houses due to the high costs of doing so. They were the buyers snookered in by the cheap price tags in the early 70s... many of the owners could not afford the upkeep and have let maintenance slide year after year. The new, more affluent buyers are renovating and restoring these magnificent homes, which were never intended to be maintained on a middle class income. They were built for the well-off. Yes, it means displacement for some long term families, but you could argue that these families were lucky to get into the neighborhood in the first place - when lots of wealthier families fled to the suburbs, bringing down prices to shocking levels. Now they are able to cash out for more than they could ever imagine. Of course this is not the case for every single family that bought into Victorian Flatbush 30 years ago, but it is a pattern you see again and again. It's not ideal, I know, but it's the truth.

As for developers - this is why the entire area needs to be a) rezoned and b) landmarked ASAP.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 27, 2006 8:48 PM

I disagree, as I am sure many other the middle class people will disagree. They certainly can maintain these homes because they got them for so cheap. Most of these families they either have no mortgage or a very small monthly mortgage payment, probably much cheaper then what people are paying in rent.
Heck, I know a couple of them who own country homes….

Middle class people are not poor and middle class people in Brooklyn certainly are not poor...

Many people who are not maintaining these homes are the elderly (not all of them, I do not want to get in trouble!!!). They have lived in these homes for over 30 to 40 years and the homes just become too much work for them to take care of. The other group does not matter if you are rich or middle class is the group who where just not meant to own a home. Some people are just not cut out to own and maintain a large home.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 28, 2006 9:13 AM

I have seen many instances where people bought in this neighborhood (with gov't aid) in the early 70s, and these houses have never really been maintained. I do think it is because these families just had no idea how much it would cost to do so. Sure, there have always been families here who can maintain homes - they're certainly not all falling down! But the point I'm making is the same point someome made about warning buyers today - these houses are not cheap to maintain. Someone today might think... oh, this is so much cheaper than that two family in PS or wherever... but it ends up being more than they can afford due to upkeep costs and lack of tenants to offset the mortgage. People buying now are the most affluent buyers here since the sixties... It will make a big difference in terms of how the neighborhood holds up in ten years. Also (except for those who choose the alumnium siding or worse yet, red or yellow brick path...), the majority of the new owners are sensitive to the architectural history of the neighborhood and are spending money on restoration. You see LOTS of insensitive 70s renovations out here often because that was the cheapest way to do it, and people coudn't afford to do it right. People chose siding so they didn't have to keep with the cost of maintaing a wood frame home. Those choices have degraded the neighborhood and it was because the owners could not afford to maintain their homes. The new, affluent owners are slowly repairing that damage.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 28, 2006 12:18 PM

I rented a house in Ditmas Park for two years, and found it breathtaking at first because of the reasons listed above (space, beauty, greenery). However there are drawbacks, and as has been said many a time, it's not for everyone. In my opinion, it had many of the disadvantages of the suburbs (lack of nice restaurants, cafes, life being much easier if you drive) without the advantages (peace, quiet, cleanliness, less crime). Perhaps it was my bad luck to live in a noisy part of DP, but the constant rumble of the subway train and the street noise of Ditmas Avenue was stressful. We got lonely after a while too -- neighbors although pleasant mostly kept to themselves, and my kids were usually the only ones biking up and down the sidewalks. We eventually decided to move back to Park Slope.

But the houses are lovely, I miss the space, and if you are a city person, I certainly would recommend moving there over moving to the suburbs.

This is my experience.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 28, 2006 8:33 PM

9:13am, that's not what we have witnessed when we go to open houses in DP. The homes I've seen did NOT have high quality updates done and yet the owners were certainly middle and upper middle class. One home (still on the market, all summer and all fall) was owned by a doctor, and they're obviously people of some means and taste, but the kitchen and basement desperately needed a total gut renovation plus a bathroom added to the upper floor. Seeing that kind of thing doesn't give the impression at all that these houses are affordable for the middle class to maintain. These people obviously maxed out their income on school for their kids, saving for retirement, and doing the basic repairs and upkeep for the house. But it was apparent that did NOT leave money left over for fabulous renovations. And it's simply what people should be smart and keep in mind, when they see these homes.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 30, 2006 6:14 PM

6:14 - most houses in the rest of the country are wood frame and many are historical and somehow, someway, middle class people manage to afford them. I live in the neighborhood and I think a lot of the older people in the neighborhood, like my parents and grandparents, just don't care if their kitchens are state of the art or their basements have full gyms, so they chose not to spend their money on these things. In fact, some of them actually think their 1960s kitchens are the cat's meow, because that is the style that was in when they first started making it in the world. Same reason lots of older folks still like to wear their 1960s clothing, even those that could afford to go to the GAP and update their look.

It is so funny to me how this generation (mine) assumes that anyone who could afford to would redo their kitchens and baths every 5 years or so when they are perfectly functioning. This was not the norm for most generations and many in those generations actually think it is wasteful and silly to fix something that isn't broken. A lot of these houses have not had these types of updates because they have had the same owners for a very long time and their owners are from a generation that would be embarrassed to say that a three story, 6 bedroom, 2 1/2 bath house "NEEDED a bathroom added to the upper floor." ;)

Posted by: Anonymous at October 30, 2006 9:20 PM

9:20pm, that's very true, sometimes older people live with inconveniences because they have different standards. But they need to price their homes much lower then because dude, I'm not being super picky here. The other DP house I'm talking about needed another bathroom added upstairs because the "2nd bathroom" advertised was a tiny one badly cheaply done, added in the 70's in the scary basement that was cheaply finished into a faux-wood-paneled, low-ceiling, den. The kitchen was not a funky cool 60's one. I owned a house with the original 20's kitchen cabinets and I never touched it - I loved it. But taste is taste. A kitchen that is cheap and crappy and dated communicates to buyers the owners didn't invest much money in their property whether that was by choice or by circumstance, whichever. That's all I was saying before.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 31, 2006 12:18 AM

12:18 - Fair point - I agree that they often overprice these unrenovated houses, I was just saying that it doesn't always mean they couldn't afford to renovate them or maintain them. Many of them just don't care to do it. I live in one, am middle class and, have afforded to maintain it and do the renovation I wanted. I, like you, would not have paid $1.6mil for it unrenovated, however.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 31, 2006 9:38 AM