House of the Day: 1306 Albemarle Road

WOW! Droolworthy indeed! I would love to be able to walk slowly down the stairs in the morning and just take in all in, and know I could do that every day.

And a five room office? If I didn't already have a business to work out of at home, I'd start one. It would have to be a very successful business, as upkeep on this castle is expensive, as is the price, but hey, a girl can dream!

Too bad no pix of baths and kitchen, but even if they aren't that hot, if you can afford to consider this place, it really doesn't matter.

Great house!!!!

Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 1:33 PM

On top of everything else, look at that porch! Sigh!

Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 1:36 PM

This was the most impressive house on the Open House tour this year. The oval dining room was swoon worthy.

Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 1:40 PM

Now, this is a house. In contrast to the last Victorian that Brownstoner showcased -- http://www.brownstoner.com/brownstoner/archives/2007/08/house_of_the_da_364.php#comments -- which seemed completely ordinary, this is a genuine one-of-a-kind property. And so, while I thought $1.35 million for the Ditmas Park property was absurd, this price looks at least in the ballpark.

Speaking of pricey properties, does anyone know what happened to that 53 South Elliott Pl. townhouse with the absurd $3.7 million price tag that was showcased here last week? It's no longer listed at Corcoran.

Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 1:44 PM

There are not a lot of houses like this one, even in Kensington. It's been a while, but I'm pretty sure this is the exact same house at which an MTV commercial I acted in was shot. It looks about right, with the corner lot and everything, and the address sounds familiar.

If this is the case, then the first floor and porch are the selling points -- some of the upstairs rooms were not as nice.

Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 1:48 PM

Gorgeous... but there just ain't a whole hell of a lot going on in that neighborhood. And Coney Island Avenue has got to be one of the ugliest strips in Brooklyn. But if you live in a house like that, why go out.

Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 1:50 PM

This house is beautiful. The more I look at it, the more I am in disbelief of the asking price for that home at 135 Joralemon St.Brooklyn Heights or not.

Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 1:56 PM

I'm pretty sure the house had a lot of siding damage to it recently but is in otherwise really good shape. Still, 2.6 is a ridiculous amount of money, given its proximity to Church Ave. Wasn't the house across from it (#1305) being offered at something close to $4mil a few years ago? MKG is overdoing it IMHO.

Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 1:59 PM

While everyone seems to be in disbelief about the prices, they are selling. And they are selling fast.

3.7 million S. Portland gone in weeks.

The Berkeley Place FSBO fixer highlighted here a couple weeks ago at 2.7 million is sold. Less than a month.

Yet people come on here and say time after time that these prices will never happen.

They ARE happening.

Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 2:00 PM

Sorry, it's really not for me. Too dark, too oppressive, too "precious." I'm glad there are people out there who love it though because it's obviously an interesting house from a historical perspective.

Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 2:05 PM

Well it's certainly in MKG's interest to use her particularly nice properties to drive up prices in the neighborhood she specializes in. It doesn't mean the house is actually worth these prices, but she knows it only takes one buyer to fall in love and go for it.

The thing that makes me pause is what's not shown. Like the office. I have a hard time believing it's all that beautiful. If it's zoned to be an office can it be used as a residential rental instead? Not everyone wants a doctor's office in their house. So that's money to spend to convert back to some form of living space. Next, are the kitchen and bathrooms new? No pictures, which always makes one wonder about that. If the current owner has been there 12 years the kitchen and bathroom are likely at least 12 years old. Just office, kitchen and bathrooms would cost anywhere from $200,000 to $500,000 additional investment for renovations. Also she doesn't say mechanicals are new, except for the roof.

Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 2:10 PM

2pm, Berkeley Place is NOT the same as this location! Get real. This might be a nice enough neighborhood but it will never be comparable to prime Park Slope.

Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 2:12 PM

Someday this war's gonna end. That'd be just fine with the boys on the boat. They weren't looking for anything more than a way home. Trouble is, I'd been back there, and I knew that it just didn't exist anymore.

Captain Benjamin L. Willard - Apocalypse Now

The What
Folks the end of money is here. Due to this mutant Real Estate shit will be fucked for years to come. 100 Dollar oil and 900 gold. Your money is worth shit now. The American Dream requires you to be asleep.......

Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 2:13 PM

"Sorry, it's really not for me. Too dark, too oppressive, too "precious." I'm glad there are people out there who love it though because it's obviously an interesting house from a historical perspective."
If you want that whole sunny, open, light/bright, then look at something like http://www.brownstoner.com/brownstoner/archives/2007/09/condo_of_the_da_63.php#comments
(which makes me shudder just to look at it).

A proper Victorian has dark wood details, and isn't an open plan (could you imagine trying to heat a home 100 years ago that was just one huge open space)?
I adore all that dark wood and cozy rooms, I have plans to strip the white paint off my wood details and put in more doors to close off the rooms.

Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 2:15 PM

But that's what 2:05 was saying, 2:15. This kind of interior is for some people (like you) but not for them. I hardly read 2:05's comments as offensive. Yours however sound defensive and superior.

I myself do like some Victorian interiors but even I find this house TOO over the top Victorian. It's too much for me when it's more like a movie set than a home. Which is a perfectly reasonable assessment to say out loud. This thread is all about how appealing this property is to the widest range of qualified buyers possible - the only way it will get its asking price.

Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 2:20 PM

2:10 mentions it. What about the mechanicals. I would very much worry about leaking pipes and electrical in a woodframe 1905 house. If the previous owners have such long tenures, it doesn't seem either would have redone all the wiring. Plus, this rambling woodframe house, unless it has been expertely retro-insulated must be an immense nightmare to heat. This is too much dough for the location in my opinion.

2PM referred to "3.7 million S. Portland". What property is that? I thought (E)L's house on the park was one of the highest yet and it sold in the lower 3-point-somethings.

Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 2:20 PM

True, 2:20. I've lived in a large Victorian that wasn't expertly retro-insulated and I had many a night standing shivering over the radiator to get warmed. And this wasn't even in a place as far north as NYC.

Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 2:23 PM

Yeah, what's the $3.7 million S. Portland house that 2 pm is referring to? There was the $3.7 million S. Elliott place that I asked about earlier, but I didn't see that that had sold.

Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 2:29 PM

The five-story brownstone at 30 S. Portland is still on the market -- http://www.brownharrisstevens.com/detail.aspx?id=727404 -- at $2.6 million.

Does 2 pm actually have a link to the property he was talking about, or was he just shilling as usual?

Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 2:36 PM

meant s. elliot.

Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 2:37 PM

I could never live in a house like this. I would feel like a doll.

Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 2:45 PM

The house is beautiful!!!!!! I know that Mary Kay has had a couple in the 2 mill price range that have ben on the market for a long time... I am curious to see how quickly and for what price this sells at...

Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 2:47 PM

That S. Elliott place did sell:

http://corcoran.com/property/listing.aspx?ListingID=746311&Region=NYC

But there's no price listed -- is there any way to find out if this actually sold at asking?

Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 2:51 PM

Aw, come on! Assuming you've got the money to buy it, and upkeep is not an issue, nor is doing any renovating, what's not to love? (I don't have anywhere near that kind of money, so this is all speculation)

If you strip the old varnish, it will probably come out a warmer, lighter brown. Paint! Use light, warm colors and brighten up the rooms. Buy light colored furniture, sheer window treatments, or light colored shades - get rid of the heavy drapes. Use brighter task and accent lighting. I would keep that original looking wallpaper in the dining room, however. One dark room isn't a bad thing. Upstairs looks light and airy. It's possible to make this place much lighter in feel, and even more contemporary without losing the period feel of the home, and still leave every stick of wood and original trim in place. This would be a fun place to decorate.

The interior's also much more in the Arts & Crafts, post Victorian style, which gives you great options to include lighter weight Victorian pieces, Mission and A &C, and even more clean contemporary pieces like some of the better stuff from Pottery Barn, which would look nice in here. The present owners have gone with a formal Colonial Revival look that does't look too comfortable. Often it's not the house, it's what you do with it.

I love this place - if I could afford it, I'd be all over it in a minute.

Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 2:51 PM

I saw a crappy house 1 block and a half away on Argyle (outside of the PPS historic district) sell for recently for 1.45, and the new owner is doing lots of crappy renovations on it. For this nice a house that's over 5000sf 2.6 doesn't sound outrageous. Might need to use the 5 room office for the staff you'd need to keep up with this much house.

The place across the street was on the market 2 years ago for a ridiculous $4mil. I don't know but I'd guess it sold for more than half that.

Here's what NYT Published: October 17, 2004
"Tara in Prospect Park South
$4,000,000

BROOKLYN: 1305 Albemarle Road

This 20-room, nine-bedroom mansion built in 1905 is on a corner lot. Among its features are six bathrooms with original fixures, gas fireplaces, double parlors, a library with coffered ceiling, a dining room wth original mahogany paneling, a butler's pantry, a pool room, a grand ballroom with oval windows, and a wine cellar. Mary Kay Gallagher, Mary Kay Gallagher Realty (718) 282-3141; www.marykayg.com

TAXES: $7,919

PROS: The house is surrounded by others of equal stature. Southerners will recognize this as the real thing; northerners wil respond to its graceful, familiar architecture. The perfectly scaled rooms are more hospitable than intimidating.

CONS: Prices have started breaking the million-dollar mark, but this list price is far higher than that of any property ever sold here. "

Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 2:55 PM

here's the thread from the s. elliot place last week.

http://www.brownstoner.com/brownstoner/archives/2007/09/house_of_the_da_368.php

now tell me why i should believe anything anyone says on here.

the comments were so adament that the price was nuts, and now it's sold 6 days later.

i would have to believe that the place sold for close to ask if it's already off the market...

Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 2:59 PM

I'm a bit perplexed by the whole S. Elliott thing. The Brownstoner posting made it sound like the property had just come on the market. But it is possible that that the deal went into contract and closed in five days, two of which were on the weekend?

Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 3:08 PM

There is no way the South Elliot house sold for that price, or that it even really sold yet. It might be "in contract", but no way it closed yet, and definitely not for that dough. It's just typical Minsky bullshit antics.

Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 3:09 PM

On Minsky's page, it's in the list of sold properties, not the list of "in contract" properties. I'm not saying it's not antics --I'm just wondering whether that listing has actually been around for a while, and Brownstoner only noticed it recently.

Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 3:15 PM

There is something very fishy about the South Elliot place. The listing itself was removed from the Corcoran website about 4 days ago, soon after being listed. And only today has it reemerged with the SOLD label on it--not even "in contract," as usually occurs. And right after a weekend?? I bet you it was transferred to a family member or friend, as it was always intended to be, so we'll never see the actual sale price. It was probably all a ploy by Minsky to make people believe that it sold on the open market. This is a common deceptive practice in RE. Sorry folks. Don't forget it was ACROSS THE STREET from a humongous high school. Total deception.

Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 3:16 PM

They don't put sold on the online listing, unless it SOLD.

That doesn't mean it closed...that takes months. It means they have a signed contract.

And even if it sold for a couple hundred thousand less than asking (which i doubt) that's still a helluva lot of money.

Please stop with the Bush speak trying to get around the fact that you all said last week the property would never sell.

The fact that you are asking about if the home has closed, means you know nothing about real estate. Closings do not happen in 6 days, but the property is considered sold when the contract has been signed, not at the close.

It's silly. Just click on the link. The home has been sold.

Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 3:17 PM

You think it is common to put a sold sign on a property that is trying to be sold?

hmmmm... what interesting logic you have.

I hope you aren't in sales...

Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 3:18 PM

Ever think that Minsky purposely put a huge "SOLD" sign on the listing instead of the usual "in contract" as a nose up to all the brownstoners who admonished the price!?

I would not be surprised and good for him for selling it so fast.

I bet he's gonna be a busy man.

Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 3:27 PM

I love it: "just click on the link." Is there any detail on the linked page about how much it sold for, whether, as 3:16 suggests, it "sold" to a friend or family member, etc.? No, just a big sign that says SOLD. Oh well, I guess we were all wrong, and it sold for $3.7 million in two days. Hurrah! The market is booming again! Three cheers for Jerry Minsky!

Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 3:27 PM

they never list how much properties are sold for on a real estate website.

get a clue.

Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 3:29 PM

Yeah, exactly. So why are you so ready to jump to the conclusion that it sold for $3.7 million -- which is, after all, what this thread is about?

Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 3:32 PM

No, actually this thread is about a Victorian home in PPS.

With regard to the S. Elliot Place house, I guess we'll have to wait and see. I highly doubt that if the home was highlighted as a house of the day on Brownstoner 6 days ago that the owners would have taken an offer much less than the asking price. Most people were saying it was listed a million dollars too high.

Do YOU think it sold for 2.7 million if it really did sell?

Nope. Probably not. Which means that 99.9% of posters on that thread don't know their ass from their elbow when it comes to real estate.

Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 3:36 PM

I heard that S. elliot was taken off the market, not sold. And people are right, Corcoran always lists things as "in contract." I think this is a case where the owners realized that they couldn't get their dream price and decided not to sell.

Either way, it is irrelevant to this listing which is in a different area. Say what you will, but I would bet this doesn not sell for near the asking. It isn't the same market was weeks ago. And how many people who can spend 2.6 want to live in Victorian Flatbush? Fort Greene has arrived, in a way that VF most certainly has not. Not matter how much one believes that the current RE meltdown won't be felt in NYC, everyone is more concerned about putting their money is "safe" neighborhoods. 3.7 in FG is certainly a risk, but not nearly as much as 2.6 in this "still-developing" area.

Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 3:38 PM

Yeah, 2:15 (who responded to my post), I get it! It's Victorian! It's supposed to be like that. I'm just saying it's not for me. And for the record I own a brownstone and have cared for and restored a number of original details, I'm just not a slave to them and my house is, for me, a good mix of old and new. Just so you know, it's not a choice of either this or some condo that makes you "shudder."

And thanks to 2:45 ("I could never live in a house like this. I would feel like a doll."), who said something similar just a lot funnier!

Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 3:39 PM

Mary Kay Gallagher does, actually, list what the houses sold for on her website. For instance, the last one in this neighborhood featured on this website you all said was overpriced and too drippy Victorian at $1.69M asking is now listed in her "sold" as having gone for $1.75M and it was far smaller than this and did not have the unique details this house has. This will be a record for the neighborhood if it goes for this. But if this house were in Park Slope or a tony suburb, it would be asking in excess of $5M. It is unique and huge.

Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 3:39 PM

So if the owners of S. Elliot decided not to sell, you don't think they would have just deleted the listing from the website instead of putting sold on it?

I don't agree.

Especially when the home was featured here, knowing that people would be checking back in on it.

That seems way too dishonest, even for Corcoran.

Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 3:42 PM

In the broker's "sold" page for South Elliot Pl it says "Estate" -- so a plausible explanation is the owner died ... the heirs couldn't agree ... somebody wanted to live in it, others wanted to sell and take the cash... those that wanted to sell were greedy and and got the broker to post it with an exorbitant price... after getting some sense of the demand from buyers they pulled it back and the heirs cut a deal. Imagine you've got a 1/3 interest in this place. You want your evil siblings to pay you at least $1.25 mil to go away, otherwise what kind of lousy place can afford for less than that? Otherwise maybe you stay and get a floor or two and just give them dirty looks as you pass by the front door.

Was this a section for comments about 1306 Albemarle?

Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 3:48 PM

I think people are underestimating the extent to which rich manhattanites are getting priced out and coming to brooklyn. they're selling their 2-3 bedrooms in manhattan for upward of 2 mill and snatching up these houses in brooklyn which to them seem like bargains. even the richest are finally seeing the light about brooklyn, which means the rest of us are getting pushed further and further out. but it's a good thing for brooklyn i guess - returning it to its former glory...

Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 3:57 PM

I don't what this is a section for anymore. The "Estate" explanation for S. Elliott doesn't fly, though -- I believe this property was sold two years ago, and then I think renovated.

As for the fact that the quick sale means that it must have sold at asking, maybe. I can easily imagine a different scenario, where the sellers get an offer for $3.2 million, think about what's happening in the markets, wonder if prices are going to keep going up, and decide to take the money and run. But obviously none of has will have any idea until Minsky comes in here screaming "In your face, unbelievers!"

Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 4:04 PM

All the rich manhattanites I know still give me blank stares and say "oh" when I tell them I live in Brooklyn. Then they ask how long the commute is and when I anwser they say "ohhh" like I just told them I had cancer. Some of them seem to have "discovered" the Heights, the Slop, and Forte Green but I can assure non of them have so much as heard of Victorian Flatbush!

Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 4:13 PM

Actually, South Elliott was listed at the end of August at the latest -- http://www.onehansonplace.com/2007/08/minsky-another-35mm-listingho-hum.html -- so it might very well have been on the market for a couple of weeks by the time it sold, which seems to take away much of the mystery -- though not the amazement, since I still can't believe they got $3.7 million for it when there are spectacular places available in the Heights for not much more.

Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 4:20 PM

PPS is less of a haven for Wall Streeters than for physicians and other professionals who work in Brooklyn. And to say "if it were in Park Slope" is crazy. PPS is so different -- if you wanted to live in PPS you would never want to live in Park Slope. This is an entirely residentail neighborhood --quiet, little traffic, and your own garage!

Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 4:21 PM

"All the rich manhattanites I know still give me blank stares and say "oh" when I tell them I live in Brooklyn. Then they ask how long the commute is and when I anwser they say "ohhh" like I just told them I had cancer."

You are hanging out with the wrong crowd. Either that, or watching too many sex and the city reruns.

Most people I know moving to these areas of Brooklyn are from Manhattan.

You must have a lot of upper east side friends.

Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 4:43 PM

I lived on Westminster for a few months in a rental. (The landlord got around the zoning laws pretty easily). It's a beautiful neighborhood, and it was great living in a huge house with a yard and deck, but "Kensington," as this area is known, is 10 or so square blocks that feel very different from the surrounding areas (Church / Coney Island Aves) - it's a crossing-the-tracks kind of feeling.
And even though Courtelyou is an "up-and-coming" bar/restaurant area, there is really nothing around here except a fantastic traditional Mexican joint. Your entrance to the park is on the sketchy side, not really that safe to walk around at night. Manhattanites, I am sure, would rather be in Westchester.

Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 5:04 PM

Obviously you are a little behind the times, 5:04. Most Manhattanites these days would in fact, prefer to stay in the city.

Do you not read the NY Times? It's been plastered all over the news lately.

People are sick of the suburbs.

Part of the reason for the huge run up in real estate prices is the huge demand for homes (especially large ones for families) in urban settings.

The people I know who prefer suburban living are not very cultured and tend to be on the conservative side.

If that's your thing, go for it.

Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 5:08 PM

5:08, that is one of the silliest things I've ever read. Almost everyone in my office lives in the suburbs and many have moved there recently. I am one of handful of Brooklynites here. The "news" you refer to is Real Estate section pieces about people deciding to stay in central Manhattan so they can be 10 minutes from the office--I don't think any of those people are considering PPS, or any other part of Brooklyn (unless they're wall streeters, in which case the Heights is possible). As for suburbanites being conservative, there was just a NY Times article (in the News section) about the fact that Westchester is now 75% registered Democratic since so many manhattanites have been moving there in recent years. You should try reading other parts of the paper. I can't imagine living in the suburbs, but let's try to base our intolerance on reality, please.

Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 5:27 PM

I live in a building of 17 people in Ditmas Park.

Every single one of us formerly lived in Manhattan.

That reality enough for you?

Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 5:37 PM

I agree with you 5:27, especially if you live near a University, or in many of liberal pockets across the north shore of Long Island.

My point was that I can't imagine spending 2.6mm on a house in a relatively unsafe neighborhood, that's a far commute from your job, with no amenities within walking distance, (at least what you'd be used to in Manhattan).

Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 5:40 PM

Ms. DiFiore’s move mirrors a shift in county politics that began in the early 1990s, when Westchester, which used to lean Republican, swung more Democratic. According to the latest party enrollment figures, there are 217,091 registered Democrats in Westchester and 137,206 registered Republicans.

Last I checked, that's 60% not 75%.

But what's another 15% among friends.

Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 5:41 PM

Actually, that is not the article I was looking for and not the percentage that was quoted. I'll try to find it, now that I know that footnotes are required.

Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 5:51 PM

That article was from August 2007.

No need for an update.

Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 5:54 PM

66% of voters in New York City are registered Democrats, which makes Westchester just slightly less liberal.

Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 6:00 PM

That's skewed because of Staten Island which is nearly all Republican.

Doesn't matter. If you want to argue about the suburbs over New York City, I'm not stopping you from moving there.

Let me know when Fashion Week moves to White Plains Mall, and perhaps I'll consider the move too.

Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 6:03 PM

When you consider that there are so many more people in the city, that means we have a ton more Republicans! How scary.

Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 6:04 PM

6:03, sure NYC has Staten Island and Westchester has Yonkers. Remove those two places and both are probably 100% Democratic. And I don't think anyone was arguing "the suburbs over new york city," just pointing out your totally inaccurate statement about those who live in the burbs. Some of my best friends live there, and they are quite liberal, intelligent, artsy, and interesting, thanks.

Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 6:10 PM

Fashion Week? If that's your reason for living here, please do leave!

Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 6:12 PM

5:27 is right. People in media, arts and IT choose Brooklyn or the suburbs (mainly upstate NY) when they have a family and need more space. Those in banking or finance are not moving into Brooklyn except maybe Brooklyn Heights. There's a major prestige and social networking factor to where they choose to live, and the CEO's and CFO's they aspire to be someday all live in Manhattan or CT.

Every single one of our Brooklyn neighbors in Park Slope is in media or design. Not one is in finance or banking.

Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 6:18 PM

Hey, here's a concept - maybe a deep pocketed person/family will buy this house because they love everything about it. They are still living in New York City, and they have this way cool, huge house with a yard. Obviously they have big bucks, so local schools, shopping and amenities aren't that important. What's important is lots of rooms, period details, an historic, diverse neighborhood, and all of the good things that Vict. Flatbush offers, without enormous property taxes, and the ease of being able to be in Manhattan in less than an hour, if need be, and bragging rights to still being a New Yorker. They probably don't care that the S. Elliot house exists, or that some people won't like their new neighborhood, or that you can get a house just like this in Oneonta, NY for only $900K. They will be supremely happy in their new home, and that will be that. What's so wrong with that?

Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 6:25 PM

Since Prospect Park South was explicitly developed and marketed at the turn of the century as a bucolic suburban alternative for well-heeled businessmen wanting to move out of congested areas like Manhattan and raise families, the whole "who's leaving Manhattan" debate is pretty funny.

Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 6:46 PM

I live in PPS and drive in with my wife to Tribeca for dinner once a week...I'm there in 12 min. Let me repeat 12 MIN and parking is easy in tribeca since there are no one parks overnight. My commute to downtown is also 18 min on the express bus from church down the prospect exp and through the battery tunnel. That's faster than park slope or the east village was for us. Darien is 1.5 hours door to door. No thanks. Of course is downtown...midtown is a different story but no more than 40min...shorter than I remember the upper east side to downtown was.

Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 6:47 PM

I love that someone thinks that those in media in and design are the only ones buying 2.5 and 3 million dollar brownstones in Park Slope.

You need to get out more.

Either that or I need to become a graphic designer.

Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 7:39 PM

These are good points for living in Brooklyn, but we've just decided to move to northern westchester. Many of my friends and colleagues (in media!) live in the Croton area and just love it. There is more than enough to do there, more than enough restaurants, theaters, music etc, and the city is still close. Getting more space is part of the appeal, but honestly it's the total lifestyle that sold me. I want my kids to have lots of outdoor space and to be able to take hikes in the woods, swim in the lake, and experience nature on a regular basis. I want them to go the local public school with all of their neighbors. We've spent lots of time up there and I've been amazed at the number of ex-Brooklynites living there, the cultural amenities, and the natural beauty. For me it is the best of all worlds. The trip back and forth with the kids never feels difficult at all--the train ride is very plasant (and beautiful) and the car ride is just 40 minutes. Personally I find it much easier than taking them into Manhattan now on the subway. But I'm sure I'll miss parts of Brooklyn having been born and raised here. Sorry, I know this is a Brooklyn site and I know that you'll be offended, but I couldn't resist.

Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 8:15 PM

yes, i love westchester so much i spend my days on brownstoner.com telling people how much i love the suburbs.

interesting...

if you have to write a sales pitch for the place, you probably don't love it quite as much as you say you do.

your comment sounds like a real estate ad.

btw, you may think you are doing your kids a service, but do a poll of kids raised in the burbs and ask them how much they loathed it.

i think you'll be overwhelmed with the response.

i was raised in an upscale one, and would never subject a child to that sortof life. it's narrow, it's suffocating and it's empty.

Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 8:23 PM

I know over a dozen families who have moved from Manhattan, Brooklyn and Queens to the Westchester area over the years.

One moved to the West Coast after two years and 8 have moved back to the city.

The others take a whole lot of pills.

Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 8:31 PM

As a matter of fact, I did do a poll of where people grew up. Two of my coworkers who live in Croton grew up there and moved back to raise their families there. Everyone I talked to who grew up in the more rural burbs loved it and talked about how great it was to have the benefits of growing up in the country and also be able to experience the city. I grew up in Brooklyn and quite frankly it's not the life I want for my kids. I and my childhood friends all agreed that are best memories of growing up where from when we got to go to the country. These are among the reasons I'm moving. I suppose I should have known that I'd get that response from Brownstoners.

Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 9:02 PM

If you knew that would be the response, what exactly was your reasoning behind posting on brownstoner?

I don't get it.

Sounds like someone who wanted to talk about their decision on an anonymous forum in the hope of convincing themselves they are making the right decision by egging on a bunch of strangers who obviously prefer city life.

Now you can make your move thinking...those damn Brooklynites...they are rude and THIS is why I'm moving to Westchester.

Kinda sick, no?

Don't see too many of us in Brooklyn posting on Suburbia.com about how great city life is, do ya?

Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 9:11 PM

I'm always shocked at the defensive vitriol that ensues on this site whenever someone mentions the burbs. Most of my coworkers live there quite happily and I do know well over a dozen families who have moved there and stayed there and seem quite content (some in Croton, actually). I do know one couple who moved to Long Island and then came back, but none of those who moved to Westchester have. It seems clear that some people are quite happy there. So why can't we just say good for you, good luck? It reminds me of when people found out that I wasn't breast feeding! So, dear 9:02, it sounds like you have given this great thought and I'm sure you'll be very happy.

Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 9:21 PM

Couldn't agree more Beverley square west. I moved from park slope because we had two kids and frankly were not really out at the bars or restaurants that much in park slope or east village. We pretty much were at home 98% of the time so the driveway, space, and sun on all sides of the house were priorities and if we wanted amenities its a 5 min drive to park slope. I go out to the same places as much as I did when I had two kids living in those nabes. I also had many conversations with older park slopers who all said that victorian flatbush felt like park slope in the 90's. So I think the amenities will come as they have over last two years but on a smaller scale, but again all I ever needed was one bagel shop, a few good restaurants, a coffee shop, etc and its already here. Again I don't think it will ever be an urban neighborhood but I still hear fire engines, buses, and can explore by foot or subway so its a perfect mix of city and suburbia for me.

Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 9:22 PM

I grew up in Eastern Long Island (not the Hamptons) and I am sure I will go back to the suburbs once our kids are a little older. Just as my grandparents did, moving from Yorkville to Nassau County, and then my parents who spent their 20's/early 30's in Queens, and then moved to Suffolk county. It's what a lot of New Yorkers do, and obviously for a reason.

Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 9:25 PM

people who live in city: good
people who live in suburbs: bad

Tarzan 101

Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 9:52 PM

If you pick the right town upstate, there ARE coffee shops and good restaurants and all that. It's absolutely absurd to say EVERYBODY in the suburbs are so miserable they're popping pills. I can't believe somebody actually put that idiot statement in words, here. Then again, knowing how smug the new Brooklynites are, maybe it's not so surprising. Btw no, I don't live in the suburbs, I live in Brooklyn. But I don't get all loony and judgemental about people who choose not to live here. I am mature and secure enough that when I hear someone say they chose the suburbs, I'll understand why they did that. Come on, doesn't that seem the normal thing to do?

Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 9:54 PM

Awesome, 9:52pm! You said it. So much more eloquently than I did.

Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 9:56 PM

Guys, guys, remember... we're supposed to be encouraging folks to decamp to the suburbs so things stay more affordable yet elitist in the city. Please check your inboxes for the talking points memo.

Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 10:15 PM

I grew up in the NY burbs and had a great childhood. It was the perfect place to be a kid. My husband inherited a country house, which we go to most weekends and for a month in the summer. Without that regular contact with nature I would never raise my kids in the city. I like to think that they're getting a healthy balance, but they do seem much happier in the country. Personally I am happiest there too--I love the privacy and the personal space. And I find car life so much easier with kids than dragging them in and out of the subway and trying to get them to walk here and there. Nothing makes me happier than watching my kids play by themselves outside for hours. I've been to the Croton area and I see that you can get that country feel there, but still have gourmet stores and the other "essentials." So it seems like a good choice. The bottom line is that it is a personal decision and even though this is a Brooklyn site, we shouldn't be deriding how others choose to live.

Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 10:32 PM

wow... the parlors are to die for, but 91 comments and not one person said... ALUMINUM SIDING! Are buyers in this price range willing to pay $2.6MM to move into a tin can. And since there are no pics I imagine the kitchen and baths are nothing to write home about either.

Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 10:50 PM

I'm quite happy to have those that enjoy the suburbs decamp to their respective McMansions and leave those that enjoy the city for those of us that choose to do so.

It's the transplanted suburbanites that are ruining NYC anyway. They need their Starbucks, their Gaps and their banks on every corner. They are so used to driving everywhere, that we need more of them than ever because they are too lazy to walk another couple blocks.

New York City was never such a bland homogenius place before the influx of all the suburbanites in the late 90's through today.

See ya.

Notice even on the new shoe store opening thread that some people would rather shop at DSW than a nice, new ORIGINAL shoestore. Bet ya the DSW lover came from the burbs.

Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 10:54 PM

10:54 - DSW lover here. Not suburban. Just not willing to spend a lot on shoes.

Posted by: guest at September 11, 2007 11:36 PM

Sept 11, 10:50, I mentioned siding way earlier up in the thread. It's one of the low points about this house - it's a shame too. What's worse is that it was either recently replaced or painted last summer.

Posted by: guest at September 12, 2007 12:30 AM

That house does not have aluminum siding. I live on the same block. It does not have aluminum siding.

Posted by: guest at September 12, 2007 12:38 AM

Vinyl siding?

Posted by: guest at September 12, 2007 1:05 AM

Wood shingles. As is clear from the photo.

Posted by: guest at September 12, 2007 1:33 AM

12:38... you're cracking me up. It is, without a doubt, circa 1966 "Tin Man" aluminum siding... and if you live on the same block and can't tell aluminum from wood, that's scary. (next time you walk by go rap your knuckles on it) There are a lot of otherwise lovely Victorians in Flatbush that were sold siding products in the 60's; alumunium, asbestos shingles, and the always lovely, asphalt shingles. This beautiful mansion's former owners succumbed to the Tin Men.

The new eyesore trend in non landmarked areas of Vic Flatbush is ripping off the wood on a shingle style victorian, and replacing with pseudo-stucco, complete with faux stone seams, and then of course removing the wood railings and replacing with oversize cement balusters. Classy.

Posted by: guest at September 12, 2007 7:10 AM

It doesn't have to be all or none when it comes to suburbia.

There are historical towns along the Hudson (such as Croton) that are walkable though on a small scall. Not everyone lives in McMansions. There are 'towns' too, with age and character, not just sidewalk-less post war crappy architecture.

Here in the NYC tri state region, you do also have access to the city. You could live in a lot of places and still be an hour away from nothing.

Posted by: guest at September 12, 2007 9:14 AM

The house was PAINTED a few years ago... it was sided in the sixties.

Posted by: guest at September 12, 2007 10:17 AM

This house has been sided for a long time sadly. I also live down the street and I am shocked that the neighbor above thinks this isn't siding. It is. It isn't the worst siding I've ever seen, however, and for all of you talking about the cost of maintaining these things, the fact it is sided will cut that cost tremendously. I hope the person who buys it rips off the aluminum - it is no longer allowed in the neighborhood due to landmark status but houses that had it prior to landmarking, like this one, were allowed to keep it. A lot of the people buying in Vic flatbush have been completely re-shingling with the real stuff - although the above poster is right - a few outside the landmarked neighborhoods have gone the stucco way. I don't think they could do stucco here because of landmarking.

Posted by: guest at September 12, 2007 10:56 AM

who cares?

it's going to be bought in a week, siding or not.

give it a rest.

Posted by: guest at September 12, 2007 10:57 AM

Sorry, but siding takes at least 100K off the price. Residing with shingle would cost a fortune and be a mjor ordeal. Not residing and leaving the aluminum would be a horrible humiliation.

Posted by: guest at September 12, 2007 11:33 AM

It's true, 11:33, it's the embarrassment of aluminum siding that makes it a necessary point to consider, when adding up renovation costs. Low maintenance is a nice aspect of it, but are there any studies on environmental impact of aluminum siding? If aluminum cookware causes alzheimers, why wouldn't siding? Interesting. Never thought of that before.

I do shop at DSW, for the bargains. But yes, it's dang ugly signage and store. We're considering going upstate eventually. How funny if the artists continue fleeing for the small Hudson towns upstate, and DSW and Gap loving suburbanites keep on moving to the city, and everything switches?

Posted by: guest at September 12, 2007 12:22 PM

Everything is switching.

In case you didn't know, more people than ever are moving to the cities.

Reversing white flight to the burbs.

Posted by: guest at September 12, 2007 12:29 PM

Well it's not just white-flight inward to the cities, but it's white suburbanites coming to the cities. White artists traditionally have no problem living in diverse neighborhoods, and also seek more space for less money because they work out of their homes. So there is a trend for artists to move out of the city into particular communities upstate, now. Also gay couples are choosing houses outside of the city. And as we know, according to the Gay Bohemian Index report in the news recently, where gays and artists go, the real estate market goes up. We ourselves are looking at bargains in towns that are attracting a lot of those people upstate.

Posted by: guest at September 12, 2007 12:34 PM

...not that upstate NY is "diverse" as much as the city is! But I was addressing what 12:29 was referencing, which was whites moving to the cities and blacks starting migrate out to suburbs and down South.

Posted by: guest at September 12, 2007 12:42 PM

Small towns are great...but they are just that.,.small towns upstate.

They are not the largest urban center in the country (and the world, for that matter) filled with a plethora of activites, shopping, dining, museums, culture and the ability to meet different walks of life every single day.

Comparing the two is idiotic.

If you don't like the city, leave.

There are more than enough people who need more than one coffee shop and a main street with a gallery or two to be happy.

To each his/her own.

Posted by: guest at September 12, 2007 1:05 PM

Mirroring what others have said, this was the best house on the tour this year, and the worst aspect of it (of the parts that were on display) was the siding. In fact a lot of the tour houses were really unbalanced in terms of all the work and money going into interiors while the outsides still had crappy siding. I was also struck by how few people in the neighborhood did anything better than the minimum in terms of their roofing jobs. I don't recall what it was on this house, but a nice architectural asphalt shingle like Certainteed Grand Manor, combined with copper flashing, makes quite a difference in the look of an old house. Of course the material costs about 5 times as much as a standard 3 tab, copper is far from cheap, and the extra weight adds to installation times and costs.

Posted by: guest at September 12, 2007 2:56 PM

1:05pm, see the post at Sept. 11, 9:52am. He's talking to you! You Tarzan.

Nobody says a small town is comparable to a big city. Where did you get that exactly, from these comments? Can you point it out?

Instead some comments were about space for the money. Artists and people who work at home need more space at home, than most normal humans (even fairly affluent ones) can afford in NYC. Also, those who can't afford $20,000 per year PER KID for private middle school and high school, eventually go outside the city. Sorry, as hip as you want to be, if you have children you'll be confronting the same dilemma. Unless you're a smug richie rich like you do sound to be.

Posted by: guest at September 13, 2007 11:24 AM

Sorry, I gave the wrong time of the Tarzan post, it's 9:52p.m not a.m.

Posted by: guest at September 13, 2007 11:26 AM

I am rich. What's your point?

You jealous?

Sure sounds like it.

Posted by: guest at September 13, 2007 11:37 AM

I can't speak for 11:24, but no Richie Rich, I ain't jealous. Just repulsed.

Posted by: guest at September 13, 2007 11:56 AM

Don't let the door hit you on the way to Hotlanta, 11:56!

Posted by: guest at September 13, 2007 12:00 PM

"most normal humans"

how would you know what those are, 11:24?

Posted by: guest at September 13, 2007 12:03 PM

I'm rich too, 11:37. I was commenting on your total disconnect with the real world and the vast majority of people in it, in labeling you after a spoiled comic strip kid.

Posted by: guest at September 13, 2007 1:44 PM

Tarzan 1:02

Brooklyn good.

Everywhere else on the entire planet bad!

Posted by: guest at September 13, 2007 1:45 PM

What on earth is your nasty comment reacting to in my post, 12:03?

Only on Brownstoner can someone speak up simply pointing out the concerns of those who can't afford a house AND huge tuitions for private schools in NYC, and get attacked in such a nasty way! This is why people hate the limousine liberals. The smugness and hypocrisy is unbelievable.

Posted by: guest at September 13, 2007 1:51 PM

I can't believe somebody actually put that idiot statement in words, here.

Brooklyn good.

The smugness and hypocrisy is unbelievable.

hmmmm... what interesting logic you have.

now tell me why i should believe anything anyone says on here.

get a clue.

I was commenting on your total disconnect with the real world and the vast majority of people in it,

I am rich. What's your point?

This is why people hate the limousine liberals.

You jealous?

I ain't jealous. Just repulsed.

Sure sounds like it.

I'm rich too.

who cares?

Folks the end of money is here.

You are hanging out with the wrong crowd.

give it a rest.

That reality enough for you?

You need to get out more.

Someday this war's gonna end.

See ya.

Posted by: guest at September 13, 2007 4:08 PM

2 months later and it is still sitting on the market

Posted by: guest at November 20, 2007 2:23 PM