« Condo of the Day: Carroll Gardens Two Bedroom Thursday On The Record »
February 15, 2007
House of the Day: 57 Lincoln Place
This place looks like a pretty good deal. The 3,500-square-foot brownstone on Lincoln Place between Fifth and Sixth Avenues looks to be in very good shape with plenty of historic details. The double-duplex configuration also makes it financially within reach for a lot of folks who couldn't otherwise afford a house in this part of town. Taxes are low and there's even a little FAR left over. It's also the 4th most-viewed listing on Corcoran.com right now. This should go in a flash, don't you think? There's an open house on Sunday from 2 to 4 pm.
57 Lincoln Place [Corcoran] GMAP P*Shark
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/540
Comments
I smell bidding war
Posted by: Anon at February 15, 2007 12:35 PM
Shark says building size is 16 x 40. Not exactly roomy - and notice no floor plan on corc. listing.
Posted by: cc at February 15, 2007 12:36 PM
just an inane comment, again, having extra FAR does not mean you can build more, there are several other limiting factors and zoning calculations that have to be looked at with FAR to determine if and where you can add square footage.
Posted by: jp at February 15, 2007 12:38 PM
seems like a good deal.
great looking house, great block.
Posted by: anonymous at February 15, 2007 12:48 PM
16 feet wide is small BUT look at the prices of the stuff that has been selling in that part of the Slope.
Also, look at 722 Sackett (crap) at $1.3, 19 Prospect Place (will never sell at) $1.675, even that tiny cute dollhouse way further south at 393 6th Ave for $1.695.
Hmmm, pay $1.695 for 6th Ave/6th St or prime Lincoln/6th Ave for $100k less and 1 foot wider? Not a tough choice.
Posted by: berto at February 15, 2007 12:56 PM
Those rooms look a bit tight and the 4th floor doesn't leave much head room for us 6'+ types. That said it's priced within reason.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 15, 2007 12:59 PM
Looks like a nice house, too close to the school for my taste, but not a bad deal.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 15, 2007 1:03 PM
Well, actually...and I'm 99% sure it's the same place --This is a listing that Warren Lewis had for months. I believe it started at 1.795, then down to 1.695...and now here it is at Corcoran. I was interested in the house, even brought a contractor and I can tell you, it needs updating. You'd want a new kitchen, new bathrooms, and there's no bathroom on the top floor. The owners seem really nice but this to me is a case of people saying, "hey look what the guy/gal next door got! I should be a ble to get "X"." But the deal with this house is that nothing has been updated in twenty years easy. Not the stuff I mentioned, nor the electrical, nor the plumbing. Zilch. I agree that everyone should be able to cash in somewhat, but to my mind, you get out what you put in...the owners could barely be bothered to straighten up the place so it showed well.
Considering what the contractor told me, it was going to need, I was going to offer 1.4. Not that I would necessarily have gotten it for that, but I knew I was looking at a couple hundred thousand to upgrade (in fairness, I wanted to make it into a triplex with garden rental). And it does feel narrow inside. Although, cleaning up upstairs, taking some furniture out, would have gone a long way toward helping that feeling. It just got my goat that people feel like that they can put in no effort and all and make a fortune (but that's probably just because I spent a bunch when I put my apartment on the market.). In the end, I held onto my money for a couple months and bought a big house in Ditmas. Apples and oranges, I know. But I had to ask what I was getting for my hard-earned $$.
Posted by: west at February 15, 2007 1:07 PM
i agree with West. I saw this a few months back. Narrow and needs updating. Tilting floor? it felt very narrow on the top floor or maybe that was because of too much junk around
Posted by: Anonymous at February 15, 2007 1:13 PM
Yes, serious tilt upstairs that kind of needed to be dealt with asap because the doors don't close. Also, the main staircase was separating from the wall. I'm not trying to screw things up for the owners but with all this debate these days about what the site should be, this is what I think the Brownstoner community can be great for: buyers sharing valuable info with each other that no broker will ever tell you. And that said, let me say that the listing agents from Warren Lewis were incredibly nice and honest. That's probably why they lost the listing to the Evil Empire!!!
Posted by: west at February 15, 2007 1:18 PM
This looks like a decent deal to me. I think it will go for ask or better.
Have to take issue with the cirtics of a 16 foot house, since I own one. When we were looking, our choice seemed to come down to this. We could afford to buy a 20+ foot house and use it as a triplex + rental or we could pay less for a 16 foot house and have the whole place to ourselves. We chose the latter and have been happy with the choice.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 15, 2007 1:23 PM
hey, jp, thanks. like almost everybody that reads this blog, i have never heard of the zoning resolution, rear yard requirements, height limits, the landmarks preservation commission, etc. i also make all my own decisions and never talk with attorneys or architects or even my spouse. i almost bought this building cause jon brownstoner told me that i could add a big addition, or whatever it is that he actually said. whew! you really saved the day. have a nice one, day, that is.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 15, 2007 1:35 PM
I am interested in people's comments on skinny houses because mine is narrow. I tried to create a sense of spaciousness in different ways with the renovation: lighting, integrated color schemes, properly scaled furniture. I think about this a lot - your standard American furniture seems to be so Mission and bulky and could be a killer in a little house such as this. That being said, it looks like a pretty one. I wish though that people would use standard lenses to shoot ad pictures. About the renovations, tilting floors and separating staircases are all fixable but aren't little jobs. The rule of thumb for rebuilding a staircase is $5,000 a floor, though you can get it cheaper.
Posted by: donatella at February 15, 2007 1:50 PM
My view on 16-footers:
The 4 foot difference between a 20 and 16 doesn’t seem like a huge deal until you realize you need, say, 7 feet for the staircase and hallway.
That means the 16 becomes 9 feet wide and the 20, 13 feet wide.
(13 - 9) / 9 = 45% wider in the "living" space … that's serious space in my humble opinion.
Posted by: berto at February 15, 2007 2:16 PM
"I smell bidding war"...12:35 PM
I think you may actually be smelling your own broker BO.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 15, 2007 2:26 PM
Berto,
It depends on how the stairs are configured. The stairs in my 16 foot house go up the center of the house. On each of the upper floors, the stairs turn on to a landing in the center of the house. In that area of the house, you losed about 4 feet to the stairwell. To the rooms at the front and rear of the house however, there is no stairwell nor hallway, so the rooms are a full 16 feet wide. In our house, the area off the landings has been used for bathrooms which are about 8 feet wide. There is no room where you are losing 7 feet to a staircase or hallway.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 15, 2007 2:32 PM
well - its 16.67 wide not 16'.
Propshark says 16.67' wide and 40' deep.
Am trying to figure out how end up with 3500 sq ft then. Corcoran doesn't mention 'extension' -
and at this width - house would need to be 52.7' deep to come up to 3500....which would be a bit unusual.
PS - often in the 'narrower' houses - stairway is narrower also. I know - mine is 16.67.
Definitely don't have grand parlor rooms of big brownstones - but rooms are comfortable and no smaller than would find in condo, etc.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 15, 2007 2:38 PM
You are right anonymous 2:38. The rooms are comfortable. The stairway is narrower and is also steeper, particularly is you go higher in the house. Not an issue now, but those stairs are going to look steep to me when I'm a sneior citizen.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 15, 2007 3:01 PM
Talking about width, I live in a 14 footer (aghast!) There are no load bearing walls, so all the front and rear rooms are full width. In fact they are the same width as my old house which was a 22 footer.
Sold it to cash out on my equity to be able to buy a house that I could live in the whole thing. Just in case you were wondering.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 15, 2007 3:02 PM
2:32 & 2:38 et al:
I started a 16.666667 versus 20 war and I don't even own a brownstone (yet)!
My comments were geared towards the house at hand: 57 Lincoln Place (pics 2/3/4 on Corcoran) and the "standard" townhouse/brownstone layout.
I'm not disputing that there will be some rooms (such as the "back" rooms in "standard" townhouse/brownstone layout) that will be the full width of the house, just that there is a bigger difference than most people realize between a 16 or 18 footer and a 20 footer … more than what most might think over 4 or 2 tiny feet.
Also, if your stairs go up the center of your house and are 4 feet wide, assuming some width for the walls, you have two 5-foot wide rooms in the middle of your house. Again, my opinion, but I don’t think that's ideal either, although I'm probably missing something in your description.
Posted by: berto at February 15, 2007 3:04 PM
Overhead two guys on the subway talking about this house. They couldn't beleive the price but thought it needed some work. As an aside, why can't this site open to another window when we select a link? It's annoying to backtrack.
Posted by: North Sleeper at February 15, 2007 3:15 PM
We took out a load-bearing wall in our 16+' house and replaced it with a steel beam, opening up the entire parlor floor. (Before everyone freaks out, any original detail on that floor was gone long before we bought it.) Added only a couple thousand to the renovation. An open floor is not for everyone, but if you like that look, as I do, you save a few feet that would have been a hall.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 15, 2007 3:35 PM
Anon 3:35: We are thinking of doing the same....what contractor/architect did you use?
Posted by: Anonymous at February 15, 2007 3:44 PM
Berto,
You are misundestanding the description. There is no point in the house where you lose more than 4 feet. The stairs are in the center of the house but are all along the same wall. It is very efficient in terms of maximizine usable floor space. I've never understood the stair design where you have a hallway running parrallel to the stairs. In that design, you are losing about an 8 foot slice of you house.
Before I lived in a 16 foot house, I lived in a 14 foot house. If I didn't measure, I wouldn't have noticed the difference. I think there are layout constraints though as compared to a 20 foot house. For example, in every bedroom it seems likes there is really only one place you can pur the bed without blocking a door, a closet or a window. So, you have to live with that.
Still, you can buy a narrow house for less and have the entire place to yourself.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 15, 2007 3:46 PM
The architect, unfortunately, no longer does residential renos. And while we had a good experience with the contractor, we know enough people who later had a bad experience that I would not want to recommend. The architect's more important in this instance, tho.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 15, 2007 3:48 PM
I have lived in an 18-foot wide brownstone with the side staircase
and now in a 20-footer with the staircase in the middle.
Both houses are great, but it is AMAZING to me how much difference the additional width makes.
When I go back to the old place (which is still a gorgeous home) I feel physically constrained!
I'm not dissing anybody's skinny brownstone, but the open space makes all the difference, IMHO.
Posted by: tripster at February 15, 2007 3:53 PM
tripster - when you say "staircase in the middle" you are saying that it runs perpendicular to the usual side staircase, right? (it cuts across the building the short way)
Just checking.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 15, 2007 4:14 PM
When you walk into the parlor floor, you walk straight from an entry alcove into the open living room.
The staircase starts in the middle of that room.
It has maybe 5 steps perpendicular to the side wall then goes up along that wall.
Posted by: tripster at February 15, 2007 4:18 PM
I think it is pretty unusual to have load bearing walls in the interior of a 16 foot house. Your joists reall should not be stressed at that width.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 15, 2007 4:29 PM
sure it needs some work. but its liveable. and at that price?
daaaayum.
i'm buying lotto tomorrow.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 15, 2007 4:46 PM
Update:
I just took out a 120% 5-year ARM mortgage and closed on a 12.33-footer (yes, all in the last hour).
I am quite happy and cozy and no longer wish to do posting battle with the "teeny weenie townhouse brigade."
Just kidding. And yes, now I understand what you mean by "staircase in the middle." I do like this as a alternative to the side stair in smaller width townhouses. Side stair + steel beam open layout … now we're talking.
Posted by: berto at February 15, 2007 4:46 PM
The remark about gargantuan furniture being wrong for so many NYC homes, brownstone and otherwise, is dead-on. This drives me crazy. I have had good luck buying pieces at Room & Board in Soho (an outpost of a midwestern chain). They have great contemporary stuff and more traditional looking stuff, and it's not HUGE like most American furniture. And the quality/prices ain't bad. Crate & Barrel is ok, too, but you're pretty likely to see your sofa in your friends' houses...
Posted by: Bob999 at February 15, 2007 6:10 PM
it seems everyone is forgetting that houses have walls. a 16ft house is generally 14ft brick to brick (maybe 14.5' if it has think party walls as many old houses do), not including any studs, sheetrock, insulation, etc. so unless it;s completely opened up, the difference is notticible. then again if you open up a 20' house it feels huge which i think is very nice.
Posted by: anon at February 15, 2007 7:17 PM
Hi North Sleeper at 3:15 PM
If you want to open hyperlinks in new tabs, just try the FireFox browser - it allows you to right click on a link & open in a new tab - much cleaner & easier to use than IE (and more stable, too)
You can download at www.mozilla.com
Posted by: FireFox at February 15, 2007 7:18 PM
I live in a narrow house (13ft) and I don't find it to be that big of a deal. Of course, I'd love more space...but Im thinking surburban sprawl kind of space. Not a few extra feet.
Every house, no matter how amazing, has pros and cons. The extra width is only going to be worth a huge jack up in price for some.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 15, 2007 7:23 PM
The house has structural problems $1.4 is about right..
Posted by: Anonymous at February 15, 2007 7:40 PM
I'm in a 16 footer all by my lonesome..... LOVE IT!
It looks tiny from the outside.... like Miss Marple's doll house.
I would buy the Lincoln Pl house in a second if I wasn't drowning in debt in Crown Heights. I'm suprised those houses go so cheap.
It's not just about the width..... my place is 67 ft deep with the extension, which makes a huge difference. Some of these wider houses are only 40 ft deep and feel stubby. There's just as much Sq Ft in a place like mine as some 3 story houses.
Posted by: ImNotYourDaddy at February 15, 2007 7:44 PM
West - how are you liking living in a house in Ditmas??? Thinking of similar move and coming from Manhattan. Have spent some time in the nabe and it seems doable. Just curious to get your take. Thanks
Posted by: Anonymous at February 15, 2007 8:53 PM
Haven't moved in yet but I'm sure there are plenty of people here who can fill you in. What an oasis coming from Manhattan though. I grew up there and wouldn't move back for all the tea in China. Once you get used to seeing the sky and having a backyard you can't really go back.
Posted by: west at February 15, 2007 9:24 PM
Donatella and Bob are so right about large-scale, chunky American furniture. I hate big clunky furniture and not just in small NYC spaces. I had a large house in CA with large living room and super high ceilings, and still went with vintage smaller scale chairs and sofa. You don't give up comfort getting smaller scale furniture if it's designed well and the cushions are comfy. As for narrow houses, I've always loved them, and again not just in the context of NYC. They are like dollhouses, it's true. If it works okay for how someone lives in a house, then there's nothing wrong with it as a general concept.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 16, 2007 12:26 PM
I completely agree with the comments about over-scaled furniture. I get particularly infuriated about armchairs so deep that my legs dangle off the floor (I'm just a normal 5' 6" female). I'm convinced Restoration Hardware seating was sized using basketball players as models. We have a mix of mid-century modern and antique furniture, all of which is appropriately scaled for brownstone living. Oh, and haven't you noticed how all the windows, doors and fireplaces in brownstone interiors also make it a necessity to choose smaller rather than larger pieces?
Posted by: NeoGrec at February 16, 2007 1:08 PM
Floor plan now up on website
Posted by: TC at February 17, 2007 8:41 AM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.