House of the Day: 643 Jefferson Avenue
When we noticed that the price on this four-story brownstone on Jefferson Avenue had been cut last week from $840,000 to $775,000, we decided to do a drive-by this weekend to get the lay of the land. The house is just East of Stuyvesant Avenue on quite a nice block. The exterior is lovely and the photos of the interior (the woodwork in particular) make us want to do another reno. The question is, given how much work needs to be done, whether this place isn't still a bit overpriced. It's hard to see how you could bring this place back into shape for less than $300,000. So the question is: Is a house on this block — even a beautifully restored one — worth close to $1.1 million?
643 Jefferson Avenue [Corcoran] GMAP P*Shark
16 Comments
By anonymous on October 23, 2006 12:19 PM
By west on October 23, 2006 12:25 PM
Yes, you come off looking pretty bad when you make a joke about spelling and then spell another word wrong. The price is still high unless you like having black garbage bags over your windows. (Take 'em down before you take your photos next time, huh?)
By supergirl on October 23, 2006 12:35 PM
Both "mantle" and "mantel" are correct. Get a grip.
By anonymous on October 23, 2006 12:36 PM
anon 12:19 here - I have nothing against Lois Thompson, I've met her and she seems like a smart, pleasant broker - the mantle/mantel thing just happens to be my pet peeve. But it's so pervasive by now I should probably give up. If people started spelling it correctly they would be derided.
By CrownHeightsProud on October 23, 2006 1:05 PM
oops! posted this on the sty hgts thread but it belongs here:I saw this house when Brownstoner first featured it about 5 months ago. It needs a total gut rehab. I'm usually pretty low on estimates of these kinds because I am a die hard do it yourselfer, and would never spend the amounts of money usually tossed around here, so if I think $300k is low, there is a lot of work to be done. Make that $500-$800K. All of that wonderful woodwork, architectural detail and the great built-in that's still there need to be labelled and removed so that the entire house can be rebuilt. Aside from the aforementioned period goodies, the rest of the house is too far gone to even work with. Floors and ceilings too water damaged to repair, as are the walls. Fortunately the place has been emptied of all furniture, junk, old rooming house kitchens, and bathrooms, so you can really get a good idea of the enormity of the job.
Having said that, it could be an absolutely wonderful house. I think that the opportunity to totally rebuild and upgrade and then reinstall that great period detail would result in the best of the 19th and 21st centuries. If I remember correctly, you might have to get some new mantlepieces, but there is a complete oak butler's pantry and icebox on the ground floor, a wonderful built in cabinet/china closet on the parlour floor, and lots of great woodwork. I would also want to salvage a set of beautiful plaster corbels in the master bedroom. I think there was a clawfoot tub still there too. This is the kind of property that used to be pretty easily available in parts of Bed Stuy for a song. I have a friend who was picking them up 10 years ago for around $200 - $300K. When I was at the open house, I ended up walking around the house with a couple of contractors/investors who wouldn't pay over $500K. Corcoran is out of their mind on this one. The property is steps away from the historic district, and is on a very nice block, but they are obviously having a hard time selling this for the same price as other houses in the same area that one could at least move into and work on. This one is totally uninhabitable. The plastic on the window is there for good reason.
By anon on October 23, 2006 1:20 PM
a couple of things:
1. aside from the misspelling, i think we should at least recognize that this broker is being honest about the situation. we all have long lamented about brokers being misleading, and at least one is not.
2. crownheightsproud, i respect your opinion, but to say the renovation might cost $800K seems a bit of an overreach. i too saw this house, but to say it would cost $250/sf to renovate the house seems crazy. as previously discussed on this blog (and in the ny times), one can tastefully renovate a house for $125-$150/sf (or approx. $400K for this house), and that is if everything single thing needed renovating.
just my two cents. i am wearing protective equipment, so jump on me if you must.
By supergirl on October 23, 2006 1:55 PM
Will people stop mentioning the nonexistent misspelling. Geez.
By Anonymous on October 23, 2006 3:11 PM
"mantle" and "mantel" are NOT both correct, supergirl.
By CrownHeightsProud on October 23, 2006 3:36 PM
Aw, anon 1:20, I'm not that tough! However, I am a woman who knows how to use a reciprocal saw, so watch it! ;)
My high end estimate was for the full monty - super duper kitchen appliances and furnishings, top of the line heating and central air, (now's the time one could add radiant floor heating) new roof, foundation work, entirely new plumbing top to bottom, and brand new electrical systems with cable/wireless, etc. I would also want the woodwork and period details stripped, restored, repaired, replicated where necessary, and reinstalled. That's not cheap, either. Then there's all of the finishing work, hardware, lighting and plumbing fixtures, tile, bathroom appliances, etc, etc. I would want plastered walls, not sheetrock. Let's toss in any facade and back building work, new windows and a decent backyard. New furniture, too. Assuming the homeowner does very little of it him/herself, I can see all of that really adding up to $800K, easily.
Now, if it was me, I like to think I'd bring it in around half of that, as there would be a lot of sweat equity on my part, and some creative solutions for many other things. I also am not interested in top of the line kitchen appliances or whirlpool Jacuzzis either. One could certainly get a lot done with $300K, so I'm not sneering at it, I just think in this case, it's a bit low, unless you are an experienced renovator/restorer, something most people on this board are not.
By anonymous on October 23, 2006 4:08 PM
Okay, I'm the one who started this whole mantle/mantel firestorm, so let me attempt to lay it to rest. Here's the Merriam-Webster entry for MANTLE:
"1 a : a loose sleeveless garment worn over other clothes : CLOAK b : a figurative cloak symbolizing preeminence or authority
2 a : something that covers, enfolds, or envelops b (1) : a fold or lobe or pair of lobes of the body wall of a mollusk or brachiopod that in shell-bearing forms lines the shell and bears shell-secreting glands (2) : the soft external body wall that lines the test or shell of a tunicate or barnacle c : the outer wall and casing of a blast furnace above the hearth; broadly : an insulated support or casing in which something is heated
3 : the upper back of a bird
4 : a lacy hood or sheath of some refractory material that gives light by incandescence when placed over a flame
5 a : REGOLITH b : the part of the interior of a terrestrial planet and especially the earth that lies beneath the crust and above the central core
6 : MANTEL"
Aha! So the 6th definition would seem to suggest that "mantle" IS a marginally acceptable variation of "mantel" (and naturally when you look up "mantel" the only definition you get is the thing over the fireplace).
So I'll concede that Lois - oops, I mean "supergirl" - is technically correct. However, I still maintain that if we all stuck to "mantel," the world would be a saner and classier place.
By supergirl on October 23, 2006 4:10 PM
To 3:11,
According to the dictionary both spellings are correct. Maybe you have a better source.
By supergirl on October 23, 2006 4:13 PM
4:08,
It's okay to admit error :)
The other one is that Lois and Supergirl are not the same character ;)
By Anonymous on October 23, 2006 8:59 PM
Gee, I'm really glad we could get that straightened out. Wasn't there a house being discussed here?
By Anonymous on October 24, 2006 7:29 AM
hopefully the lawyer guy will appear again in his cloak (not mantle) of misspelling protection...
these spelling people on blogs have to be the epitome of sadness...
By anon on October 24, 2006 7:34 AM
Mr. B.
Can we ditch the spelling nerds from here?
By cc on October 25, 2006 11:25 PM
We went to the last open house here about 2 weeks ago. We live on the block and love the block. Great neighbors.
Spoke to a realtor who was sittiing in for the actual realtor. We told her (before it was reduced) that it was outta control and had to go lower or it would never sell. (Yes, we want a neighbor, not an empty house.) The realtor said it was totally the seller and not Corcoran who was insisting that the price remain high, and that they would turn the seller loose if she didn't agree to lower it.
The big problem, no floor in good enough shape to live on while you work. We suggested to the realtor that this be done. The current owner really hasn't done much except they have cleared out all the junk and the first floor or two I beleive they started doing a little stripping. Note: we were not able to enter the basement and to my knowledge, no one else has either. There is no electricity in the house at the moment so assume boiler must be replaced. The woodwork is amazing and I don't think anyone really needs central air or radiant heating.
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.

From the ad: "wainscoting (and yes this is the correct spelling)"
But in the same ad she cites fireplace "mantles" - call me crazy, but isn't it supposed to be spelled "MANTEL"? Much like "lintel"? A "mantle" is something you wear, no? If the realtors start telling me about "magnificent lintles" soon I am really going to lose it.