« Condos of the Day: Price Cuts at 936 Fulton Street StreetLevel: 5th Avenue Gets Fresh »
October 25, 2007
House of the Day: 1216 Albemarle Road (Revisited)
When 1216 Albemarle Road came on the market with early last summer for $1,900,000, it didn't take a genius to know that there was no chance in hell buyers would take the bait. After all, the botched project included a partially-finished structure and LPC-approved plans to return the house to its 1965 (rather than original) design. Earlier this month, the listing moved from Mary Kay Gallagher to Corcoran, where it restarted its "time-on-market" clock with an asking price to $1,595,000. With the market still unimpressed, the price was axed another $395,000 last weekend to its current ask of $1,200,000. We gotta say we think the owners are still deluded. Do you agree?
1216 Albemarle Road [Corcoran] GMAP P*Shark
House of the Day: 1216 Albemarle Road [Brownstoner]
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/2674
Comments
Bizarre...
Posted by: guest at October 25, 2007 1:46 PM
Given that the appeal of this area is the Victorian (Well, Edwardian really, as somebody pointed out) homes, is it any wonder this McMansion is sitting on the market?
Posted by: guest at October 25, 2007 1:50 PM
The neighborhood legend I've heard is that LPC *makes* them return it to its 1965 state since the original house burned, some goofy technicality in the landmarking rules. It sure would be nice to raze it and put up a meticulous reproduction Victorian, just for the heck of it! But apparently it must be "preserved" in some way in its early-60's amber...
Posted by: Brenda from Flatbush at October 25, 2007 1:56 PM
I don't understand--this means you HAVE TO finish the house the way it looks in the plans?
Posted by: guest at October 25, 2007 2:07 PM
Its a lot of dough to have the smallest and least historical house on the block. I think the money is better spent on some of the others houses on mary kay's site.
Posted by: Argyle Road at October 25, 2007 2:12 PM
If I had the money, and I don't, I 'd be willing to pay about 200,000 less than what they are asking IF I were able to rebuild a new "Victorian." It would be great to have all of the modern comforts and conveniences but in an older looking home. I love the location but as previous poster stated why have the least historical house on the block. LPC is doing this house and this block a diservice.
Posted by: guest at October 25, 2007 2:26 PM
I'm looking in that area and in that price range, and I totally covet Albemarle Rd. and I don't think I'd give you $500k for that trainwreck.
You're going to need hundreds of thousands of dollars to complete it, not to mention all the headaches that go along basically building a house from scratch, and when you're done you've got a small ugly house and neighbors that will resent your very existence.
Posted by: guest at October 25, 2007 2:49 PM
Don't get why they wouldn't let them build something that fit into the neighborhood's style of houses. That is, if the owners even wanted to.)
I have friends who bought a Queen Anne style house, built about 20 years ago, that from the outside looks exactly like the hundred-year-old houses on their street - it's in a landmarked area in another city, so the builder had to make it fit in.
It looks great, and my friends think they have the best of both worlds, it being new construction made to look like old (though I still think I prefer the old originals, myself.)
Posted by: guest at October 25, 2007 3:11 PM
Anyone looking in that price range should explore more of Victorian Flatbush....Albemarle is not the end all be all of the neighborhoods.
Beautiful tree lined streets and well preserved facades dominate the Midwood Park area - I think it's unfortunate that an already landmarked site will still result in someone's horrible 60's afterthought.
Posted by: guest at October 25, 2007 3:15 PM
It would be a shame if they were to build this house this way. So what if this house was put up in this style in the 60's. The neighborhood is landmarked for the other victorian homes. And I believe that on this corner a victorian was either burned down or torn down and three houses were put in its' place. So why can't landmarks let the owner put up a victorian style home. it would definitely ruin the look of that block.
Maybe someone can call up the Corcoran broker and ask them to talk to the owner and have him try to get approval and plans for a victorian style home. This way he could sell the house with approved plans for a victorian. It would take some time, but he might be able to get rid of that property. He's already sitting with that house forever and probably losing money. So why not try this. Someone might even want to build on their own a new victorian style house. Brownstoner, what do you think? Maybe you can get the ball rolling?
Posted by: guest at October 25, 2007 3:57 PM
Wow, LPC is not only ineffective in general, they're plain idiotic. This is a total embarrassment. I recently went to the lecture on brownstones by Charles Lockwood, and he was highly critical of LPC. Maybe someone could enlist his help?
Posted by: guest at October 25, 2007 4:44 PM
I feel bad for the original agent, who probably tried real hard to sell the house. I'm sure the SELLER set the original price, and then they pulled the listing and gave it to another broker, at a lower price. If MKG couldn't sell it, it was overpriced. Seller should have relisted it with her, unless there was some otherwise undisclosed issues.
I'm an agent, and i HATE when this happens. MKG is a class act.
Howard
Posted by: howrealnyc at October 25, 2007 4:55 PM
2:49 PM:
I live a couple of blocks away, so not a neighbor, but I go by this corner daily. I don't think anyone would resent someone for buying this trainwreck and finishing SOMETHING there. True, it would be great if LPC could use common sense and allow new construction that looks like and fits in with the 100 year old houses. But if that can't happen, and it can't be razed and annexed to extend the yard of a house next door, turning an abandoned lot into a home would be an improvement over the plywood walled eyesore that's been there for what seems like forever. Seller just needs to drop the price to about 500K.
Posted by: guest at October 25, 2007 5:34 PM
howrealnyc: Given how well real estate brokers have done over the past ten years, perhaps it's appropriate to decline a listing where the seller insists on an unreasonably high price. Perhaps such a declination actually helps credibility. I have no doubt that you believe MKG is a class act, and that she tried very hard to sell the house at $1.9 million, but there is a rule of reason here and (it probably is naive of me) it would be nice to think that brokers have ethical standards in connection with listings and prices.
Posted by: PPSer at October 25, 2007 6:30 PM
I purchased my home through Mary Kay and found her to be a class act as well. That is more than I can say for my experience with Corcoran who I reported to HUD for discriminatory practices. After an extensive investigation they were proven to indeed engage in discrimination. Perhaps listing this house at that price was a momentary lapse in judgementon her part.
Posted by: guest at October 25, 2007 7:08 PM
This is what I hate about landmarking. What a big bore. If I had to build an all-new house, heck no would I want to attempt to recreate a Victorian. Might as well buy one of those horrid subdivision houses and have it built here in Brooklyn - you know how the latest thing in suburban subdivisions is the Victorian style and Craftsman style.
I'd want to build a completely modernist house. Make a statement about OUR time, to go along with the homes the people of the past built in Brooklyn. If you go into the wealthiest communities all around the country you see a very eclectic array of architectural styles and you'll see an older house next door to an all glass modern house. It totally works, especially if it's high quality and well designed. I'm not against requiring homeowners to submit designs for review, but the LPC would be so much better if it wasn't so rigid and were so unimaginatively solely focused on preserving details that existed before. They should support changes and new ideas if they look good.
Besides, the big joke is most the Edwardian houses in that neighborhood are covered in vinyl siding and are aren't at all interesting architecturally. There are so so many more significant houses from that era and Victorian era upstate, if we're going to focus on New York State.
Posted by: guest at October 25, 2007 8:43 PM
Wood frame houses, I mean, when I say upstate has the superior Victorian and Edwardian houses.
Posted by: guest at October 25, 2007 8:46 PM
and thats great- if you want to live upstate.
Besides that I would agree- the whole neighborhood would have been better off if this place could have been rebuilt with some sort of point of view- modern or otherwise.
Posted by: guest at October 25, 2007 9:55 PM
Someone building a modern ranch home in the 1960's, prior to landmarking, is why this house is not selling. Clearly anyone buying in this area is buying into a certain aesthetic and this house is not it. Sure there are beautiful Victorian/Edwardian - referring only to a time period and not a house style- frame homes in upstate NY. There are also a lot in Queens. Not so many in Brooklyn, which is why we need to preserve the few that we have remaining.
Posted by: guest at October 25, 2007 10:19 PM
1) This owner is still on crack... purchased for around $300K in foreclosure? Put maybe $100K in, if she paid the contractor?
2) The story is that the architect and owner worked the Landmarks approval process pretty well - PPS asked Landmarks to require something more historic - Landmarks, also on crack, said they don't make out of character houses rebuild in character. Then insisted the owner replicate the 1960's multicolor brick!
3) Would have been easy to design a small, in-character house that would've sold in a minute, similar to the small Tudors on Rugby, one of which is in contract for $1.1MM http://marykayg.com/html/0503.html
Posted by: guest at October 25, 2007 10:22 PM
The only way this house will sell at ask is if the seller can convince landmarks to raze the current structure, which, by the way, does retain the original 60s brick and picture window, but otherwise is a new design. Look at the other two shoeboxes built next to it on the original corner lot that once was home to a particularly grand Victorian that did indeed burn.
Above poster is correct that Landmarks eschews "historicizing designs," i.e. new houses that simple look old. The Modernist is in with a good chance on this one, especially if the house sells for a song. Landmarks is far more likely to approve a cutting edge contemporary design, despite the 100 year old neighbors. They did actually approve a house which is far larger and a completely different plan than the two neighboring 60s homes (identical), so long as the builder incorporated the brick and the window. Idiotic, I know, but I'm betting that someone could come in with a better architect and build a far better house.
Posted by: guest at October 26, 2007 8:43 AM
MKG was a clown for listing it at 1.9.
Posted by: guest at October 26, 2007 9:41 AM
I agree with several of the above posters re: $500k for this "trainwreck" (as someone very aptly called it).
And granted, I am only going on the pictures presented and overall knowledge of what is otherwise a wonderful, classic Victorian neighborhood, so bear with me.
But in all seriousness, who in their right mind would pay to inherit the current state of this specific property...
- the partially completed, conspicuously less attractive non-historic house in a historic neighborhood
- all the legal red tape
- the need to pile in massive additional amounts of money, and still not get a classic home in that historic neighborhood
- all the other related headaches in spades
...for any more than $500k.
At least if they had completed it they would appeal to at least some of the much larger majority of home shoppers seeking move-in-condition.
If it were completed and in move-in condition (with C of O), they could probably get as high as $1.2 for it, perhaps from some former condo types looking for more space and a nice block, if things were really in demand nearby at any given moment. Probably not the case at the present moment, but just saying.
With the less attractive, McMansion style of this house (paled in comparison by surrounding nicer, historic Victorians), they definitely won't appeal to most of the smaller, gut-reno home buying minority crowd that has the tolerance for buying homes in need of major works, as much of the gut reno crowd in that area would probably be looking to by and reno a classic Victorian.
The neo-classic-burb, garage-as-centerpiece (eek) design of this home probably serves to alienate most who come to that neighborhood seeking a classic grand dame of a home to restore.
So, incomplete for the move-in condition types that might pay more for the convenience, and totally not the house for the gut reno restoration crowd.
Again, $500K. (to get the privilege to dump in another $500-800k on a conspicuously blah-looking, red-tape-and-hassle-bound house).
As for listing it at $1.9 (or anything above $1.0)?
If that was the seller insisting that price, I would think that brokers careful of preserving their reputation would simply walk away from such "opportunities," as taking it on with their name representing it and attempting to sell it to others at that absurd price would (and does) clearly reflect poorly on their reputation as a trusted source for real estate properties and advice.
It just reeks of greed and opportunism, the kind that a broker should take great care to avoid.
If any sellers out there want to be outrageously greedy and attempt to push garbage for utterly unrealistic prices, fine, they should be allowed the chance to do so and risk learning the hard way.
It's a free market, their option to hang themselves if they insist.
But, in a free market, no one has to take that business either.
I would think that any self-respecting broker or brokerage would want to have certain realistic standards (at the very least a gut check) that call for them to avoid those deals like the plague to maintain their own good name, lest they more permanently be associated with rip-offs and dead horses.
So, giving the benefit of the doubt to the above-mentioned brokers who have represented this property and hoping that it's just the seller that is nuts here...
Why would these brokers take on this business?
Isn't it better for their name to avoid the taint of shady transactions?
Posted by: jeffrey at October 26, 2007 11:53 AM
Guest at 8:43 am, is me, and I didn't mean they would get ask for the lot if they razed the house, my mistake. I meant sell at all. And I thinkg $500K is realistic for this lot, given the neighborhood.
You're never going to get a "historicizing Victorian" past landmarks. But maybe a Corbusier knock off would fly. I don't know, even if I was a Queen Anne neighbor, a really beautiful contemporary house is still a beautiful contemporary house. And certainly better than the current eyesore or the other little 60s shoeboxes.
Posted by: guest at October 26, 2007 12:29 PM
Yes, recreate a Le Corbusier! Yum.
http://www.essential-architecture.com/PA/PA-022.htm
Look, the plans are right there.
Posted by: guest at October 26, 2007 9:51 PM
10/26 @ 9:51,
I hope you were kidding. Or were you being sarcastic in regard to the crack head remark of 12:29. If not, I have a question for you. Are you on crack?
Posted by: guest at October 27, 2007 1:00 PM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.