House of the Day: 500 Marlborough Road

Uh, the price, Stoner, the price. If it were 300k less, we'd take it.

Posted by: guest at August 29, 2007 1:46 PM

1:46, it's not 2003 anymore.

Posted by: guest at August 29, 2007 1:54 PM

the shingles are unpleasant creosote or tarmac or asbestos based or whatever they are.

I think the price is the main negative, it has been quietly available for a month now at 1.35m firm, and no takers. The backyard is also pretty small compared to what commonly comes up in the area.

Posted by: guest at August 29, 2007 1:55 PM

We've been looking in the area for about two years now, so this doesn't seem out of whack to me at all given the condition of the place. Shared driveway is kind of a drag though. And if the shingles are indeed not wooden another drag.

Posted by: guest at August 29, 2007 2:10 PM

1:54, no, it's not 2003 anymore. It's also not March of 2007 anymore. If you read the papers, you know that the days of substantial year-over-year price gains in housing are done with for a while. Look at that Boerum Hill brownstone that sold last week -- the offer was $200K+ below asking, and the owner took it after the property had been on the market for a week. 1.35 million to live in Ditmas Park at a time when it's increasingly hard to get a jumbo mortgage at a reasonable rate seems absurd to me. Regardless, it's definitely not a "layup."

Posted by: guest at August 29, 2007 2:35 PM

hmmmmm. "1.35 million to live in Ditmas Park..." still gets you a front porch, a house with character, and a driveway (yes shared is a bit of a drawback but not as much of a drawback as paying for a garage or dealing with alt. side parking). I think the market is already priced into this house. It would have listed for more in March. It's listed for this much now. It'll go for less, but not a whole lot less.

Posted by: guest at August 29, 2007 2:44 PM

I totally agree wtih 2:35, a "reasonable" $1.35 (we think its high), most buyers will still need to secure a jumbo mortgage for this property and given the current rates of these mortgages, we think its high.

This really needs to be consisered, because those who don't need to secure a jumbo mortgage are most likely not moving to Ditmas Park.

Suck it 1:54

Posted by: guest at August 29, 2007 2:50 PM

Brownstoner, you've gone too light with the gray for everyone else's comments. Bring it back a notch darker, please.

Posted by: guest at August 29, 2007 2:50 PM

2:50-

While 1:54 is busy "sucking it" as you so constructively offer, I thought i might pose the question; Where do you suggest people live? The point is, there is very little- I'll even say NO- stock of similar quality in the 5 boroughs like that which is available in Ditmas Park and its environs. Houses with character and space. I agree the price may be a bit high, but not by much.

Posted by: guest at August 29, 2007 2:56 PM

Doesn't the subway run above ground right behind this house?

Posted by: guest at August 29, 2007 3:03 PM

Subway's on the other side of the street. You can't really hear it.

Posted by: guest at August 29, 2007 3:12 PM

"It would have listed for more in March. It's listed for this much now. It'll go for less, but not a whole lot less."

That isn't true that it would have been listed for more in march. The MKG glory house in the historic district featured here to oohs and aahs, was twice as nice as this place & went for 1.65m in march .. but it was worth much more than +$300k over this place: larger garden, more wonderful interior, own free standing garage, historic district, nicer block, larger inside.. etc etc..

And now the market has changed too.

You actually have to earn a good salary now to pull down a mortgage. Not just bring a pile of cash and a smile from your last sale.

This is an ok house, but I bet it was priced by the owner rather than the realtor. He'll take a slab less to shift it in a month, is my bet.

Posted by: guest at August 29, 2007 3:21 PM

I think it's a good time to rent for a year.

Posted by: guest at August 29, 2007 3:26 PM

by the way, you're also have to consider how long before cortelyou rd improves to any real degree ..

I live around the corner from the over-stuffed tot lot, and got woken up by smashing glass outside last night (not a bottle, what sounded like plate glass, or a windscreen). Three nights before that we heard a screaming argument then gunshots. Gunshots! even if this is a once a year thing its once a year too many for me.

The new farmers market is a plus but I hesitate to call 5 stalls a "farmers market". The "co-op" shares nothing but the word "co-op" with the park slope co-op. The food at picket fences is frankly pretty bad but doesn't matter anyway - they are closed now for some kind of make-over. Vox pop is well meaning in a kind of anti-capitalism no airconditioning way but manages to muck up even the simplest order. The bike shop around the corner on coney island avenue needs to keep 3 evil tosa dogs behind the counter, presumably to keep the floor stock nailed down. The toddler clothes shop is closed more often than its open & there isn't any other store worth mentioning.

The people are super friendly and you'll see every culture on any given day. I am just being realistic here as well as pointing out that $1.3m already includes an absolutely huge "neighborhood premium" vs the US median house price.

Posted by: guest at August 29, 2007 3:37 PM

I also don't get the idea that people should be expected to pay up for this because it's of such high quality. This house is a perfectly fine house, of the kind you can find in any college town in the U.S. It's in nice shape, but there is nothing special or distinctive about it -- in sharp contrast to the brownstones you see in CH or Park Slope, which really are exceptional (in the sense that there are few things like them). I understand that real estate is all about location, but the Ditmas Park location is mediocre at best and the house is no better than nice. $1.35 million in a down market? No way.

Posted by: guest at August 29, 2007 3:49 PM

Um, all comments on price aside, are you kidding about that kitchen? That is the ugliest kitchen I think I have ever seen.

Posted by: guest at August 29, 2007 3:56 PM

You're trippin'. Drive around any city in the US and you'll likely see buildings comparable to those in Park Slope. Granted, they might be limestone, brick or whatever, but big deal. There's nothing about the design itself that's distinctive. However, what is distinctive is the sunlight deprivation you'll experience if you live in one. I lived in one for seven years and by the end I felt like a mole or a vampire. I'd take a house like this over a brownstone any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Posted by: guest at August 29, 2007 3:58 PM

I like the black vs gray text. It serves to remind everyone of just how juvenile and "clubby" this site has become.

Posted by: guest at August 29, 2007 4:00 PM

But what about Atlantic Yards?

Posted by: guest at August 29, 2007 4:10 PM

I actually think the present system should be taken a step further. Those users who sign in and who do the most posing and butt kissing should have little gold stars next to their user ID.

Posted by: guest at August 29, 2007 4:29 PM

to the brownstone fetishists out there I have said before and i repeat: brownstone houses were mass produced by the thousands. They were faced with the cheapest and worst architectural stone ever quarried. they were built on spec by developers in long identical rows. 19th century critics deplored them. There is nothing at all unique about them. In fact, they are the oppopsite of unique they are all the same.

Posted by: guest at August 29, 2007 4:41 PM

"There's nothing about the design itself that's distinctive. However, what is distinctive is the sunlight deprivation you'll experience if you live in one. I lived in one for seven years and by the end I felt like a mole or a vampire."

I don't agree that it is the only distinctive thing but isn't that something- the darkness? I go through so many lightbulbs and when I step out the door I am stunned for a moment as my pupils wrestle to adjust.

Posted by: guest at August 29, 2007 4:57 PM

Looks like Kuroko just earned a gold star.

Mr. B, you wanna take care of that?

Posted by: guest at August 29, 2007 5:14 PM

[quote]You're trippin'. Drive around any city in the US and you'll likely see buildings comparable to those in Park Slope. Granted, they might be limestone, brick or whatever, but big deal. There's nothing about the design itself that's distinctive. However, what is distinctive is the sunlight deprivation you'll experience if you live in one. I lived in one for seven years and by the end I felt like a mole or a vampire. I'd take a house like this over a brownstone any day of the week and twice on Sunday.[/quote]

are you on crack? This is not true and only stands true for a handfull of cities many of which are expensive as hell.

Posted by: guest at August 29, 2007 6:09 PM

4:41: Then what are you doing on this website douchbag?

Posted by: guest at August 29, 2007 7:38 PM

Brownstones or something close to them can be found in any city whose population is relatively dense. Chicago, Boston, Washington DC, Providence, Baltimore....it's not a big deal. Sure, they're more "rare" than Victorian homes because people want to live in Victorian homes REGARDLESS of setting. However, such 'rarity' is hardly a selling point for brownstones.

Posted by: guest at August 29, 2007 7:57 PM

As far as similar housing stock to Ditmas Park: check out Woodhaven, Forest Park, Kew Gardens and Richmond Hill. These neighborhoods are way out on the J line and hook into the F and E lines on the other end. The writer of "A Tree Grows in Brooklyn" was living in one of these Victorians in Woodhaven at the time she wrote that novel. And before you all go off on me about Queens, realize that Woodhaven Boulevard is where the Ramones and Jack Kerouac once roamed.So don't even...
On another note I've been to Chicago, a great Architectural city, even stopped in a book store devoted to architecture and asked for a book on brownstones. I got a blank look in response. They had nothing. Hadn't even heard of brownstones. Boston probably has a few neighborhoods of Brownstone and perhaps Philadelphia, I wouldn't bet on any others. Brownstones are the archetypical New York abode. Sorry, but even the muppets on Sesame Street live in one.

Posted by: guest at August 29, 2007 8:50 PM

"Brownstone houses were mass produced by the thousands. They were faced with the cheapest and worst architectural stone ever quarried. they were built on spec by developers in long identical rows. 19th century critics deplored them."

The 1890 census showed Park Slope to be the richest community in the United States.

Why would they build such crappy homes? (sarcastic)

Posted by: guest at August 29, 2007 9:04 PM

Ditmas Park which has the distinction of having the largest concentration of Victorian turn-of-the-century homes in the United States.

In Louisville you can browse through the largest contiguous collection of Victorian Homes in the United States. There are over 14,000 houses in Louisville's Landmarks Districts ranging from a simple three room shotgun house to the 12,000 square foot mansion.. And some of them, like the Thomas Edison House, the Brennan House, the Conrad / Caldwell House, and others, are open for tours.

Posted by: guest at August 29, 2007 10:18 PM

I'll tell you what's wrong with this house. The fact that they used bathroom tiles on the the kitchen counter. Looks kinda bauhaus, which just does not belong in this house but more so, I hate to think of the bacteria that get in those grout lines. For that alone the sellers should be docked $100,000 and get their right to flip houses revoked.

Posted by: guest at August 29, 2007 10:32 PM

The idea that there are sizeable concentrations of brownstones (or something like them -- whatever that means) in most big cities is simply false. Baltimore does have some great streets of walk-ups, although the facades are nowhere near as attractive as the CH or PS brownstones. Boston has some. New Haven has literally two blocks of them, Providence a few blocks, and Rittenhouse Square some blocks as well. (Tenements don't count as brownstones.) By contrast, as more than a few people have pointed out, there are Victorian homes -- many of them superior to the Ditmas Park property -- in literally every city (big or small) in the country.

Posted by: guest at August 29, 2007 10:40 PM

3:21-

"The MKG glory house in the historic district featured here to oohs and aahs, was twice as nice as this place & went for 1.65m in march"

Are you sure you're not thinking of the glory house that went for 1.9?

http://www.marykayg.com/html/0469.html

Because that's where the market was for "glory houses" in the spring.

Posted by: guest at August 29, 2007 10:49 PM

"The idea that there are sizeable concentrations of brownstones (or something like them -- whatever that means) in most big cities is simply false."

Actually, it's not false at all. Don't you ever travel? That said, brownstones, as a form of housing, were obviously meant to house people in areas that are highly congested. Since NYC is more congested than anywhere else in the US, it's not surprising that it has more brownstones. No big deal. People who live in other, less congested areas have more options.

"By contrast, as more than a few people have pointed out, there are Victorian homes -- many of them superior to the Ditmas Park property -- in literally every city (big or small) in the country."

Yes, and you find them everywhere for a number of really excellent reasons. They're beautiful. They're spacious. They have windows out the wazoo. They often have gorgeous wraparound porches. And so on...

Posted by: guest at August 29, 2007 11:01 PM

It's the stuff of humor really. In most placed you'd be branded a nut if you said, "Let's build a house that's really long, dark and narrow, with windows mostly at the far ends."

On the other hand, I've seen homes build into the sides of hills, almost like bunkers. To each his own.

Posted by: guest at August 29, 2007 11:25 PM

"Are you sure you're not thinking of the glory house that went for 1.9?"

(patient voice). No, I'm talking about the house that was marketed for 1.65m (and apparently went for 1.69m).
http://marykayg.com/html/0486.html

1.9m was the area record breaker at the top of the market, and a step above again in quality.

Either are pointless as a comp. You're either a local owner up hanging onto your idea of your own dollar appreciation, or a broker, you're pimping this price point so hard! A comp is the new fsbo on east 21st st that is offered at 1.45m (no reasonable offer refused) but is a corner property with a ton more detail, light and space.

And by the way, I was kind in not mentioning the kitchen in this place. It would embarrass a 400k mcmansion.

Posted by: guest at August 30, 2007 5:48 AM

This thread is about sour grapes. The brownstone crowd hates it when their thunder gets stolen, and that's happening now with increasing regularity as more attention is focused on Victorian Flatbush.

That's what this conversation is really about.

Posted by: guest at August 30, 2007 7:52 AM

^^ if thats the case hopefully brownstones get cheaper.

also the town I grew up in had a shitload of victorian homes and it had a pop. of 50,000. They were not very cheap however.

Posted by: guest at August 30, 2007 8:20 AM

Victorian Flatbush has the largest surviving number of freestanding, ONE FAMILY, WOOD FRAME Victorian houses in the United States.

The house is overpriced - but only slightly. Biggest drawbacks are the siding and kitchen. However, given the limited housing stock, this house will sell when prospective buyers realize there's pretty much nothing else on the market. Stock is limited. Houses don't turn over frequently. There's a reason for this.

Houses in decent shape do not sell for less than 1.1-1.2 million in this neighborhood anymore. If you think this is the case, you're not up to speed on the market. Fixer-uppers come in at varying degrees under the million mark. For a nice house under the million mark, try the lovely Georgian brick home on Bedford in South Midwood.

Not everyone out here has a jumbo, by the way.

As for all the negatives above - a few are close to the mark, but not many, IMO.

Erin Joslyn

Posted by: guest at August 30, 2007 8:41 AM

"This thread is about sour grapes. The brownstone crowd hates it when their thunder gets stolen, and that's happening now with increasing regularity as more attention is focused on Victorian Flatbush.

That's what this conversation is really about."

I think that you forget that many people moved to Brownstones long before they were from your perspective purchased to satisfy some snobby dream. Many people grew up in these homes or moved here because they got priced out Manhattan or another BK neighborhood. Do you really think that Brownstone owners don't love the Ditmas houses? Many of them are owned be x-Brownstone dwellers. I don't think that most people who live in Brownstones would say that it is their dream home. It's what we have a lot of- to live in. They obviously have become increasingly attractive for the quality of their construction in a time when building just keeps getting more and more substandard. And as they get older the idea of preserving something historic gives an unpredicted purpose to owning a home that not that many years ago nobody wanted.

Posted by: guest at August 30, 2007 8:57 AM

Anon 5:48 AM
1)The house you linked to on MKG is Contract Pending. It was listed like last month and just received an offer. So it would seem to be a fair reflection of the current market in the area and not the market in march as you so "patiently" have explained.

2) As for the fsbo E.21st? Don't know the property, but i do know that houses on that side of Ocean Ave have gone at a discount in the past owing to a couple more blocks to the subway.

Anyway, I'm not a broker pimping anything. But I do own a house in Ditmas Park. And its really nice. Thanks.

Posted by: guest at August 30, 2007 9:05 AM

Also, the record setting MKG house did go for closer to the 2 million mark - $1.9.

There's a big market for homes in decent to good condition in the 1.2-1.5 range. Comps for this sort of house in Brooklyn outside the neighborhood are pretty much non-existent. There's always going to be more competition in slightly lower price brackets - more eligible buyers. Which is why this house on Marlborough will eventually sell.

More expensive properties in Victorian Flatbush don't sell for what they might be considered to be worth, comparatively speaking. Which is why the owner of the 1.9 beauty that sold in the spring wound up with a relative bargain, despite setting a local sales record.

Truly grand, 8-12 bedroom homes seem to sit on the market for awhile, regardless of condition. Takes a very special buyer - one with deep pockets and a true appreciation for the architecture.

Erin Joslyn

Posted by: guest at August 30, 2007 9:09 AM

Wait, are you saying this house is worth $1.35 million or are you saying it's worth $1.15 million? ("Houses in decent shape do not sell for less than 1.1-1.2 million in this neighborhood anymore.") There's a huge difference between those numbers.

$1.15 million is not "a little less" than what the owner of this house is asking for. It's a lot less -- 15% less. That's what this thread is about: is $1.35 million a "layup" in this market or is it a sign of an owner who doesn't understand that the days of steady, year-over-year price appreciation are over?

Posted by: guest at August 30, 2007 9:18 AM

Also, can we get a cite on this "largest collection of Victorian homes in the U.S" statistic (and not a cite to another blog)? This flyer for a tour of the area with Brooklyn's official historian says it has "one of the largest," which seems both vague and more accurate: www.ohny.org/programs/OHNY_06Program_Event_Guide.pdf

Posted by: guest at August 30, 2007 9:41 AM

Many other American cities may not have "brownstones", that is row houses faced in brown sandstone, but many cities certainly have nighborhoods of row houses, or townhouses, or whatever the local name for these are. Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Chicago, Wash DC, San Francisco, just to name a few of the larger cities. I'm sure there are many more. We got the idea from many different European models that have worked in cities for centuries.

Row houses are an efficient use of urban space, and may be formulaic, but certainly can be beautiful. That doesn't take anything away from the beauty of a freestanding Victorian frame. I've always wanted a huge old white elephant Queen Anne. Impossibly expensive to buy and keep up, at this time and place for me, so I'm glad I have my limestone. They are all wonderful, historic houses made in a day when craftsmanship was de regueur for the rich, certainly, but also the not so rich too. Thank goodness there are so many left of both kinds of houses, and they are all getting the appreciation and attention they deserve, and hopefully the preservation attention needed so that we have them in the future.

Preservationista

Posted by: guest at August 30, 2007 10:05 AM

Not the prettiest block.

The lots are mostly 40' wide so it has a "cramped" look that kinda belies what you'd want moving to DP.

The exterior looks like it need significant work to match the interior.(Did I see a fire-escape on the right side?)

Not bad but the price is full-retail.

Posted by: guest at August 30, 2007 10:11 AM

"Lay-up.?"

Sounds more like a fade-away jumper with the clock ticking down.

Posted by: guest at August 30, 2007 10:13 AM

I never said the house would sell for 1.1 million. Please re-read my post. I predicted it would sell for slightly less than ask. I do not know how much less, as I have not been in the house. If it presents as the listing suggests, I would still slightly less than ask.

I then said that houses in a certain price range sell more quickly than more expensive homes.

I received my information re: largest surviving neighborhood of freestanding woodframe homes from Brooklyn Historian Ron Schweiger (verbally).

Erin Joslyn

BTW - I have logged in as GUEST, rather than Erin Joslyn, because I'm having difficulty registering. Negative guest poster - perhaps you're having the same difficulty?

Erin Joslyn

Posted by: guest at August 30, 2007 10:23 AM

"I think folks who don't sign in are more likely to express opinions they would never express in the light of day."

Can you please explain why you think this? When people sign in to this site, they're asked to create a user ID. The user ID can be anything. They can make it up out of thin air. It need not be their real name or anything even resembling their real name. And if they say something when they're signed in that they later regret and they don't want to take responsibility for their words, all they have to do is create some other user ID and voila...they have a new, history-free identity and can start with a clean slate. So, I don't understand your comment at all.

Posted by: guest at August 30, 2007 10:29 AM

Yes, but a valid email address can be a hotmail or similar address that it takes 20 seconds to create. No problem there.

And yes, please do look over the history of this site (not just a single thread) and just look at where the manipulative, disruptive comments come from. Easily 2 to 1 in favor of people who are signed in.

Posted by: guest at August 30, 2007 10:54 AM

I find the whole business with dark vs light text to be absolutely embarrassing. Are we in grade school? If I don't sign in, will Brownstoner send a note home to my parents?

Posted by: guest at August 30, 2007 11:11 AM

Why do people take any of the comments seriously? It's all masterbatory. There aren't any questions on the forum that couldn't be answered in one second of googling and the news topics don't really require comment. Face it- you're bored and you satisfy your need to sound smart, debate, argue, be helpful or be obnoxious by posting. There isn't one person that is really "out" with their identity, guest or otherwise. Why would you be?

What I don't understand is why Brooklyn doesn't have a designated blog for debate- for meaningless intellectual exercises?

Posted by: guest at August 30, 2007 11:15 AM

"I think folks who don't sign in are more likely to express opinions they would never express in the light of day."

Yes, but that's great. It's a glimpse into what your smiling neighbors really want to be saying. I say no guest is unwanted.

Posted by: guest at August 30, 2007 11:22 AM

Kindly supply your social security number.

Thanks.

Posted by: guest at August 30, 2007 12:21 PM

Chicago actually has a ton of brownstones along the Gold Coast, there are also many beauties in the Lincoln Park and in Wicker Park neighborhoods. The city probably has more brick row houses and greystones, but it definitely has it's share of brownstones.

Posted by: guest at August 30, 2007 1:56 PM

I'm a 20+ year resident of the area. This was a planned suburban community with one or two builders using several architects. As orignialy built some had extensive fretwork, built-ins and stained glass. No two houses are alike inside or outside, and quite a few have no detail left. A shared driveway here is unusual.

Whether it's worth over a million, I can't say, but if someone is willing to pay the price it's worth it to them I wouldn't think of living anywhere else in NYC.

Posted by: guest at August 30, 2007 6:37 PM

Drove by the place today. The asbestos or asphalt shingle detracts from the house. Also, the roof looks kind of old. There is a high probability that it will need to be stripped before reshingling at a cost of $30K plus. On the other hand a house on Ditmas and Argyle that sold a few months ago for $1.4 or so just stripped the roof this week. I guess if you're paying that kind of money, whats another $30k?

Posted by: guest at August 31, 2007 3:36 PM

All of thses homes are basically variations on the foursquare. As a longtime resident I have been in most of them including the majority of the homes on your site, although no two are exactly alike Erin they are basically the same. Beautiful though!

Posted by: guest at August 31, 2007 7:31 PM

Great houses. I have never regretted spending almost $80,000 to buy one years ago.

Posted by: guest at September 2, 2007 3:09 PM

zillow thinks the asking price is 460k too high.

http://www.zillow.com/search/Search.htm?addrstrthood=500+Marlborough+Rd&citystatezip=11226

Posted by: guest at September 5, 2007 5:35 PM

This house just closed at 1.325mm. Looks the the price was just about right...

Posted by: guest at January 27, 2008 10:26 PM

In 1880, Port Townsend, Washington had 917 residents. (http://www.historylink.org/essays/output.cfm?file_id=1932)

How in the world is that an "equivalent population to NYC"?

In 1880, New York City had 1,206,299 residents!

Posted by: guest at February 15, 2008 1:58 PM