« Development Watch: Urban Green Still Stalled House of the Day: 204 Washington Park »
August 2, 2007
Condos of the Day: No Buyers for 45 Third Place
Justice continues to prevail in the case of the Carroll Gardens Atrocity. The addition is now complete and both the upper and lower duplexes, listed for $1,555,000 and $1,595,000 respectively, continue to sit on the market. If it weren't for the butchery of the exterior and complete disregard for the community on the part of the developer, these things might be doing a little better, as the interiors look decent. Could it be that potential buyers are afraid of the social shunning that could happen if they vote with their wallets in favor of this place?
3rd Place Condo - Lower Duplex [Brown Harris Stevens]
3rd Place Condo - Upper Duplex [Brown Harris Stevens]
A Current Look at Third Place Horror Show [Brownstoner]
Price for CG Atrocity a "Fantasy" [Brownstoner] GMAP
Real Photos of Carroll Gardens Bastard [Brownstoner]
Carroll Gardens "Bastardization" Hits Market [Brownstoner]
CG Atrocity: There Goes the Neighborhood [Brownstoner]
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/1759
Comments
I am so glad it's not selling. that thing is a monster.
Posted by: amy at August 2, 2007 12:54 PM
I actually don't think it's that bad. I walk by it all the time. It really doesn't stick out horribly. I think the prices are nuts however.
Posted by: anon at August 2, 2007 12:59 PM
I think the fact that these units have monthly real estate taxes of $1,300+ isn't helping. That's $16K a year on top of your mortgage. I've never seen a tax like that in Brownstone Brooklyn.
Posted by: Anonymous at August 2, 2007 12:59 PM
Brown Harris Stevens should be embasased for representing this crap!!!
And lets hope this developers other peice of crap on 3rd doesnt sell either.
Posted by: Anonymous at August 2, 2007 12:59 PM
I'm not sure about "social shunning", but it's a really shame what the developer did to this beautiful house.
It will sell, lots of worse crap does.
Posted by: jdhs 91 at August 2, 2007 1:01 PM
HA HA HA HA, New York City Capital of The arts, home of the sophisticated, THE CITY that does not sleep. BLAH BLAH BLAH. Seems REDNECKS are every where...
Posted by: Anonymous at August 2, 2007 1:06 PM
Who keeps allowing these monstrosities to be built? Those beautiful brownstones are being destroyed. If I ever see anyone on those balconies, I might be tempted to throw feces at them!
Posted by: GHB at August 2, 2007 1:21 PM
It looks like the new construction part of this building is trying to eat the original one! Like a big snake on a rat!
Posted by: anon at August 2, 2007 1:23 PM
I don't think the building looks that bad as I walk by it everyday as well. I do agree that the prices, maintenance and taxes are insane. Thats the biggest reason why it's not selling.
Posted by: Anonymous at August 2, 2007 1:26 PM
GHB, cut the hysteria. There are very few brownstones being destroyed in Brooklyn compared to what has happened to historic houses in many other cities in the country. The preservationists have done a pretty good job, here in Brooklyn. But they can't win out every time, that's just the reality.
For me, the problem or offense is not that they altered or added onto the existing structure but that they did it so badly. NO imagination, no creativity, no taste. Any one of we lay people could have done a better job designing this extension. Who was the architect?
Posted by: Anonymous at August 2, 2007 1:28 PM
Saw the inside a few months ago during an open house. Poor reno quality with awful black floors already warping badly. Also, bedrooms are small and cut up very oddly.
Posted by: mln at August 2, 2007 1:31 PM
I ,too ,don't think it looks that bad.
It's certainly honest!
Posted by: pete campbell at August 2, 2007 1:34 PM
I ,too ,don't think it looks that bad.
It's certainly honest!
Posted by: pete campbell at August 2, 2007 1:34 PM
1:28 I agree with you. I know that overall, Brooklyn is doing nicely with these houses, but this one is just heartbreaking...
Posted by: GHB at August 2, 2007 1:36 PM
There are better ways to add on
and still be in context of the home's history. This is not one of them.
Brown Harris Stevens usually has
better taste and quality.
They need to rethink their goals if
they still want to be respected.
Posted by: anon at August 2, 2007 1:41 PM
There are ways to do this kind of thing properly. This isn't it.
Posted by: Rascal at August 2, 2007 1:47 PM
taxes are ridiculous! is that the yearly maybe? is that a mistake? does the maintenance include utilities? very strange.
Posted by: condo dweller at August 2, 2007 1:50 PM
Good idea, Anon 1:28-- hey, Mr. B, what about naming the architect and publishing their contact info so that people know where to send flowers--or whatever seems appropriate....
By the way, a thread on this addition would not be complete without the words "hideous carbuncle."
Posted by: bob999 at August 2, 2007 1:58 PM
This is why God invented the Landmarks Commission. As annoying as they are, at least they keep this from happening in the historic districts.
Why didn't they just tear the old house down? This addition is like an alien monster in a Sci-fi flick where the creature hatches inside the body and takes over the shell of the person. Ugh, double Ughh.
Posted by: Anonymous at August 2, 2007 2:02 PM
Not to infer any inadequacy for the words "hideous carbuncle," but I am reminded of a nice turn of phrase from the medical literature: "engulfed by tumor mass..."
Posted by: Brenda from Flatbush at August 2, 2007 2:25 PM
When say a 50 gallon hot water heater is a feature of your property you are in trouble.
Posted by: Anonymous at August 2, 2007 2:35 PM
Doesn't seem they are dropping the price at all. Sticking firm.
If this were done to some other house it wouldn't bother me so much.
But this was one of my favorites.
Posted by: Anonymous at August 2, 2007 2:38 PM
My friends in the garment industry always remind me that "ugly sells".
The problem with this place is the taxes. Where do they think they are? Montclair?
The taxes are....hideous.
Posted by: Anonymous at August 2, 2007 2:43 PM
They have broken so many cardinal rules of architecture and design, as well as adaptive reuse of buildings here. If that extension was made of mostly glass, or if it had an exciting/interesting surfacing material like brushed aluminum, it would at least be excusable. The interiors looks nice, however, the upper level of the upper duplex is mostly situated in the former attic of the old house, therefore 2 out of the 3 bedrooms have tiny windows and awkward positioning.
Really, who was the architect of this hot mess? They should re-evaluate what they put their stamp on and/or go back to Design Basics 101 that all architects and designers should just know by common sense.
What a damned shame this is.
Posted by: Justin at August 2, 2007 2:45 PM
...and those taxes are seriously atrocious. No one should pay such high taxes to live in that ramshackle pile of plywood.
Also, the master bedroom in the lower duplex is in the "basement," as are all the bedrooms (everyone wants to pay $1.5M to sleep in a basement!), therefore passersby on the street can look DOWN into your bedroom... Not good. Another cardinal rule of design completely ignored... Ugh.
Posted by: Justin at August 2, 2007 2:49 PM
I get the idea of contrasting styles, but this looks like a warehouse on the back. The developers should take lessons from the institutional buildings that have done this beautifully. Are these eyesores designed by architects or are the built by gc-s that think they are designers? Packer in the Heights did an amazing job a few years ago and Poly is following in their footsteps with their Park Slope addition.
I was looking at the building at Flatbush and Plaza (the subway bomber residence) and thinking- that is really ugly. I'll bet the neighborhood was in tears when that went up. Somehow I really don't notice it. Wonder if that will happen with this new wave of ugly?
Posted by: anon at August 2, 2007 2:53 PM
When say a 50 gallon hot water heater is a feature of your property you are in trouble.
Posted by: Anonymous at August 2, 2007 2:59 PM
Yeah, we had a lot of fun last year outdoing one another with wildlife metaphors for this "hybrid" structure. Other than the "ain't it awful" repeat of that exercise, I am guessing that this house/block wasn't landmarked. OR is it because this addition does not affect the facade, this was approved?
Regarding the difficulty selling, I suspect that it is the price, taxes and quality and not the possibility of social ostracism. God, the pressure...
Posted by: donatella at August 2, 2007 3:13 PM
The image brings to mind a big, strong Doberman mounting a lovely, delicate Whippet. Just wrong on so many levels.
Posted by: GHB at August 2, 2007 3:15 PM
I toured this place out of morbid curiosity and nearly shat my pants in apoplexy at the quoted prices.
I told my wife, there wasn't a chance in hell they would get those prices, and here, months later, I haven't been proven wrong.
Sure, you could rent those places, because they're spacious and in a great neighborhood. But what person in their right mind, with a $1.6MM budget, would say, "THIS is IT! My dream home!"
Also, the basement smelled moldy.
Posted by: Gary at August 2, 2007 3:22 PM
Dunno who the architect is, but here's the developer. Most of the other projects shown on the site don't appear to involve additions, and the company showed some taste on the interior work. So maybe a few letters begging these people to never again ruin a historic building might be in order...
http://www.asrnllc.com/120th.htm
Posted by: bob999 at August 2, 2007 3:25 PM
The hood is not landmarked. In a historic district--at least this is my understanding--LPC will not allow drastic changes to anything viewable from the street, front, side, or back.
Posted by: bob999 at August 2, 2007 3:27 PM
justin...i'm so interested to hear you use this phrase...
hotmess.
someone recently called me this, but i took it as a compliment.
my bad.
Posted by: slopehead at August 2, 2007 3:31 PM
its the price not the design of the extension.
Posted by: armchair_warrior at August 2, 2007 3:57 PM
A nice yellow clapboard(?) house on degraw or sackett between smith and court was just taken down. What's going up? We all know it is going to be big and ugly and its developers are going to totally unapologetic. This is life in this neighborhood. Too many people with money but no class!
Posted by: j at August 2, 2007 4:12 PM
Holy crap! Forget the house; what's with the music on the developers website?
Posted by: Anonymous at August 2, 2007 4:32 PM
Slopehead, Sweety, I called you hotness, not hot mess.
Posted by: Dopehead at August 2, 2007 4:35 PM
Brown Harris should be ashamed...how about some integrity?...geez
Posted by: Anonymous at August 2, 2007 5:22 PM
As bob999 says, this is not a landmark district. LPC does approve visible, even cutting edge, additions - both Packer and Poly mentioned above were approved by LPC, as was the front entrance to the Brooklyn Museum. LPC would NOT approve this addition, for the simple fact that (as everyone has noted) it completely overwhelms to historic building. And its ugly.
Posted by: Halden at August 2, 2007 5:25 PM
What's the right word . . . . hmmm. . . . Oh yeah . . . . bile.
I just spent more time thinking of the right word to describe this development than the developer spent thinking about how his building looks.
Posted by: John at August 2, 2007 5:38 PM
I think the word is "vile"
Bile is something made in your liver,
So maybe you're right.
Posted by: Anonymous at August 2, 2007 8:18 PM
This bastard spawn is reminiscent of the Republic Bank (now HSBC) building at 40th and Fifth across from the NY Public Library:
Mammon satan humping the old, stylish doyenne. Pure and simple. Money and sex.
Posted by: NoIkea at August 2, 2007 8:28 PM
You know, I don't know why this area isn't landmarked. I was driving along the beautiful Clinton St. (don't know if it was Carrol Cardens or Cobble Hill) but noticed that the streets weren't landmarked, despite the rows and rows of gorgeous brownstones.?????@@@!!
Posted by: donatella at August 3, 2007 10:49 AM
Some of the garden blocks are landmarked. I get the impression that until recently the longtime residents were not pro-landmarking because they didn't want anyone butting into their business and telling them what to do. Cobble Hill next door IS landmarked. Seems sentiments have been changing recently.
Posted by: Carol Gardens at August 3, 2007 11:26 AM
May they lose their shirts. They've already lost their souls.
Posted by: Brooks of Sheffield at August 3, 2007 11:42 AM
im down for nyc to look more like tokyo
Posted by: tom sugarcubes at August 3, 2007 1:49 PM
I live in the neighborhood and have watched this construction from the start, you'll see my photos from back when it was poorly kept by the Dr. who used to own it. Yeah it is big, but personally I think it is a huge improvement to what was there, but that is my personal opinion like everyone's on here.
Price: go look at other properties in the neighborhood, things are getting expensive. You might have lived here all your life, so now might be the time to sell. The asking price might be high, but I know that things have sold for more than 900 sq ft in the area. New buyers know that this is going to be an even better place in 2-5 years. All I can do is be thankful, because that means my property value is going up! When I saw the property at an open house, I was also told that both units are close to being sold, and that the lower unit has more than one potential buyer. They really are nice spaces, yeah the kids rooms were a bit small, but most are in this neighborhood, and they really were as large as they could make them given the space. I thought the layout was great.
I know the garage spaces have a waiting list (I am on it) Who has parking these days?
Taxes: Not sure why people always balk at the developer. Having worked for the NY tax assessment department. It is a matter of math based on numbers, not the asking price of a property. The developer is at least honest, some developers underestimate to get you to buy. He estimated high so that you would be pleasantly surprised later.
I suggested to the developer (who seemed nice) that some vines would be nice on the facade... a big wall of green is what I would like to see.
Photos attached.
Posted by: Fran Z. at August 4, 2007 9:58 AM
Hey, Fran thanks for posting those photos, and something intelligent other than a one liner.
At first I didn't like the addition myself, and wondered why the architect designed the outer volume as he did, now I know there was room for an addition. (RE: Justin's response above, I am not certain your suggestion of brushed aluminum would been better, but then again that is why taste is personal.)
The interior space is actually really nice. As for the lower unit's layout, I think the space was used wisely. You sleep in your bedroom, so the basement is quiet and has less light, so it seems appropriate to use the parlor (main level) as living space.
Seeing the photos of how it was (THANKS AGAIN FRAN), it does look better now, and I remember how poorly kept the property was when it had tenants.
I personally wish this website had less of a bitchy attitude in general, and more productive angle.
If you want the area to be landmarked, go sign the petition to landmark the area. Once it is landmarked, be ready to wait 6 months for them to be able to tell you what you can and can't do with the home you've lived in for years.
Fran is right, bitch at the State for the taxes not the owner or developer, they would love to have others complain as well. I know mine just went up recently.
Posted by: JakeArchi11231 at August 4, 2007 10:58 AM
Some good points (and good photos) from Fran and Jake Architect, but I personally still think the color of the facade on the extension is really unfortunate if not bizarre. Also the balconies and other details are unattractive. I think the statement still stands that it wasn't the most creative or interesting architect in the world, that designed this extension. When this could and should have been an exciting project that would encourage a lot of imaginative ideas. By the way, I completely agree with whomever said a currugated metal facade would be a better solution. If you aren't going to match the original details, then you need to make a statement and do something, ANYthing, interesting and attractive. But no more ugly, vaguely "contemporary", milquetoast architecture anymore please.
Posted by: Anonymous at August 5, 2007 1:01 PM
I remember for years walking past the building and saying, "She's a beaut, but I wish they'd get rid of that slightly out-of-kilter brown aluminum siding on the bay window."
Careful what you wish for! This is as bad as the white mausoleum some other inspired person build a few doors down from my house on Union St.
It's time to get on the city for landmark status.
Posted by: Sobeit Union at August 5, 2007 10:46 PM
The northernmost basement/ground floor window has now been smashed three times on the property. So much for "security" or "safety" for $1.5 million.
Posted by: No Ikea at August 5, 2007 11:11 PM
The window was broken by kids, yup kids playing in the neighborhood. Was there the day it happened.
Posted by: Fran at August 6, 2007 10:21 PM
how come you only bash the architect when it happens to be two specific architects.
Posted by: guest at November 30, 2007 8:50 AM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.