« BREAKING: LPC Approves Eberhard Faber Historic District Streetlevel: Northfork Bank for Clinton and Fulton »
October 30, 2007
House of the Day: 1375 Dean Street
Calling all history buffs! After narrowly escaping destruction when LPC designated it an individual landmark in record time last October, the Civil War-era woodframe house at 1375 Dean Street is in need of some serious love. Recognized by LPC as "one of last vestiges of the suburban past in the northwestern section of Brooklyn’s Crown Heights neighborhood," the George B. and Susan Elkins House, as it is known, is back on the market for $875,000 $799,000, a year after the stymied developer paid $800,000 for it. There aren't enough interior photos to get a good enough feel to comment accurately on the $875,000 asking price, but we suspect this is going to have to be a labor of love not of profit anyway. The one-family wood-frame house is 40 feet wide and sits on a lot that's 50-by-114 feet. There's some original detail left ("The house has retained many of its historic features and characteristics, and remains a unique surviving example of a type of house that is believed to have all but vanished from northwestern Crown Heights," according to LPC) and what a great front porch and yard combo this could be! Not only is the house an individual landmark, but it's within the Crown Heights North Historic District boundaries, so whoever buys this place will have to work closely with the Landmarks Preservation Commission on the exterior. Maybe Adrian Grenier's looking for another project.
1375 Dean Street [Corcoran] GMAP P*Shark
Landmark Status for Elkins House [LPC]
Photo by Gregg Snodgrass for PropertyShark
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/2731
Comments
What's that area like?
Posted by: guest at October 30, 2007 1:48 PM
land marking sucks!
but hey those who love land marking should go and buy the house!
Posted by: armchairwarrior at October 30, 2007 1:50 PM
Wow, the price dropped already! Now $799,000 on the Corcoran link.
Posted by: johnife at October 30, 2007 1:52 PM
Actually, Corcoran web site lists asking price as $799K. Is this a symptom of the falling market in NYC? See today's NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/31/business/30cnd-econ.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Posted by: guest at October 30, 2007 1:53 PM
What's the area like? It's lined with outstanding examples of limestone, brownstone, and brick buidlings.
Posted by: guest at October 30, 2007 2:12 PM
"those who love land marking should go and buy the house"
Exactly--AND restore it
AND happily live in it for many years.
That's why landmarking WORKS.
Posted by: Bob Marvin at October 30, 2007 2:22 PM
hi, i think this house is cute and would make a nice weekend home
josephine
-jcondo resident
Posted by: guest at October 30, 2007 2:28 PM
If we didn't have landmarking, the only historic buildings we would have left would be the mansions of the rich, and even most of those are already gone. Landmarking is not a perfect operation, but the alternative is a bland, uninspiring city of ticky tacky buildings and indifferent architecture.
This house needs a wealthy and dedicated preservationist to restore it to its glory, regardless of its cost or resale value. A labor of love, for sure. It was saved, literally at the last minute, and is the oldest house in Crown Heights.
This block is an architectural melange, with really nice brownstones, limestones, and semidetached brick homes all along both sides of the block. Many of the limestones are of the English basement variety, and in combination with the stooped houses, and a couple of gorgeous semidetached brick houses, make up an interesting block. This house is sandwiched into the middle of the block. It's hard to imagine it once looked out onto fields. It definitely should be preserved and restored. I wish I had the money.
Posted by: Montrose Morris at October 30, 2007 2:31 PM
Montrose, how much money do you think it would take to restore it completely, to make it look like it was originally? Ballpark figure. $1 million? More?
Also, is the area good for a young family?
Posted by: guest at October 30, 2007 2:37 PM
Oh, look, A Tree Grows in Brooklyn!
It is lovely and a steal at 799+.
Plus, a great porch and front yard.
But, if Adrian Grenier were to buy it, would he not live here too?
Posted by: guest at October 30, 2007 2:38 PM
Adrian Grenier might have officially "bought" the Clinton Hill house, but everyone knows it was really his mother's project/investment. He never had/has any intention of actually living there.
Posted by: guest at October 30, 2007 2:40 PM
jeez get over it
its not that charming
u guys try too hard
Posted by: guest at October 30, 2007 2:41 PM
Property Shark shows it suffered extensive fire damage in the late 1990s. All these woodframes (Lefferts mansion, Joralemon house too) seem to have had major fires. Too bad.
Posted by: guest at October 30, 2007 2:48 PM
The only-known freestanding, mid-nineteenth-century, wood country house remaining in north-
western Crown Heights and the former home of a prominent figure in the neighborhood’s history, the
George B. and Susan Elkins House is located at 1375 Dean Street in the northwestern Crown Heights
section of Brooklyn. George B. Elkins was a prominent figure in the neighborhood’s early history, a
professional broker who was actively involved in the real estate trade of what would become
northwestern Crown Heights.
The two-and-one-half story house, cubical in form, with a flat roof and wide front porch was
constructed between 1855 and 1869 on the former Lefferts farm. This modest residence predates the
hundreds of late-nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century row houses, flats, and apartment buildings
that fill its surrounding blocks. The defining characteristics of the George B. and Susan Elkins House
include its wide front porch, floor-length parlor windows, and dramatic, deeply overhanging
cornices, which were typical features of mid-nineteenth-century country houses. The house features a
three-bay main façade, flat roof, molded entrance-door surround, and attic windows with delicate
cusped surrounds, as well as a broadly overhanging and beautifully detailed wood cornice decorated
with bead-and-reel moldings.
The landmark site is located in an R6 zoning district. With an allowable floor area ratio (FAR)
of 2.43, the zoning lot could be developed with approximately 13,902 square feet of floor area.
The George B. and Susan Elkins House contains approximately 3,900 square feet of floor area.
Therefore, there are approximately 10,002 square feet of floor area theoretically available for
transfer.
Pursuant to Section 74-79 of the Zoning Resolution, a landmark building may transfer its unused
development rights to a lot contiguous to the zoning lot occupied by the landmark or one which
is across the street and opposite to the lot occupied by the landmark building, or in the case of a
corner lot, one which fronts on the same street intersection as the lot occupied by the landmark.
There are approximately nine receiving sites available for the transfer of the landmark’s unused
floor area.
All landmark buildings or buildings within Historic Districts are eligible to apply for use and
bulk waivers pursuant to Section 74-711 of the Zoning Resolution.
There are no projected public improvements or plans for development, growth, improvement or
renewal in the vicinity of the subject landmark.
Posted by: guest at October 30, 2007 3:02 PM
http://eagle.brooklynpubliclibrary.org/Repository/getimage.dll?path=BEG/1887/02/07/4/Img/Ar0043701.png
Posted by: guest at October 30, 2007 3:06 PM
http://eagle.brooklynpubliclibrary.org/Repository/getimage.dll?path=BEG/1870/07/20/4/Img/Ar0040001.png
Mr. Elkins had some major debt.
Posted by: guest at October 30, 2007 3:11 PM
I walk by this house several times a week and day dream about sitting on that porch if it were restorored. I had no idea it was landmarked. None of the other houses on the block are like this one (although still nice) so it really stands out. If there were a DIY purchaser, you could probably restore a great deal of it without spending the bank but it needs some LOVE...
Posted by: guest at October 30, 2007 3:23 PM
Wow. I hope the right person gets ahold of this and takes the time to make it the gem it could be.
FWIW, I looked at and offered on a similar property in another landmarked district in Brooklyn - frame, (semi-)detached, around 2300 square feet, some original details, no systems updated since about 1960, needed total mechanical and cosmetic overhaul including a possible structural issue with one wall. Not counting the structural issue, I got back-of-envelope estimates in the $750K to $1 mil range for doing a historically sensitive rehab job.
Posted by: zeebee_in_bklyn at October 30, 2007 3:26 PM
What does all of that transferring of FAR business mean in plain layman's English?
In answer to your question, 2:37, I honestly don't know. I've never been inside. If they ever do an open house, I'll be there, just to satisfy my curiosity, and do some theoretical restoration. I guess it would depend on what fire damage there is, and I'm sure you would have to totally rewire and upgrade the plumbing, in addition to cosmetic changes, new kitchen, bathrooms, etc, etc. It was a rooming house for many years, I can only imagine the worst. Since it is a landmark, the exterior would have to have serious work, and all would be aimed at restoring the original facade. I don't know if there are any old photos earlier than the 1940's tax photos. I don't know what the back yard looks like, but that probably needs a lot of work too.
Long story long, it's a 152 year old house which probably has been neglected for at least half its life, so somewhere between $700K and a million probably is a good guesstimate. On the plus side, houses of that style and era had large, gracious rooms, and were not overly ornate, as a later Victorian might be, so a modern open plan incorporating whatever historic detail is left would be in character, and one could have a beautiful house.
I'm always bullish on the neighborhood, but I live several blocks away and don't pass that way all that often, so I don't know the particulars. I have walked down there at night a couple of times and didn't feel unsafe, but I feel safe in most of CH, and for the record, I am a middle aged woman. Kingston Ave is still kind of seedy, but this part of it is not bad, and is slowly getting better. Brooklyn Ave is totally residential and just fine. One could catch the C train at Kingston and Fulton, or walk much farther to the A at Nostrand and Fulton. Dean Street is on a bus route - the B65 coming from downtown, and so usually has traffic and pedestrians, but is still a quiet block.
Posted by: Montrose Morris at October 30, 2007 3:30 PM
Thanks Montrose. Your post was extremely helpful.
Posted by: guest at October 30, 2007 4:16 PM
Hi folks, I am the agent for the property. It definitely needs a lot of work. I don't think as much as 1 mil but you're definitely looking at $500k. The home was unfortunately vandalized and is now missing a lot of the details (mantles, banisters, etc) that existed when I first saw it. I think the price is right for the condition , size, and rarity. A few houses down on the opposite side of the street are two beautiful homes that are miniature versions of 1375. The potential is awesome. Someone call me!! :-)
Lois Thompson 718-210-4034.
Posted by: guest at October 30, 2007 4:23 PM
Hi Lois,
That is terrible -- the house was vandalized recently? And people stole bannisters, mantles, etc. --- what, to sell them to salvage yards? Restorers beware -- those may be hot pocket doors!
If I had the money I'de be right there. Hope someone will come up with it!
Posted by: guest at October 30, 2007 4:46 PM
Montrose Morris and Armchair,
I don't hate landmarking but I do hate last-minute emergency landmarking. I know we all hate developers here, but it's ridiculous that someone should take a bath on a legitimately purchased property because the preservationists suddenly realized, "Oh, shit! We never got around to landmarking that thing!"
I know, the landmarking is legal, and if a developer doen't want this to happen to him, then he shouldn't buy old buildings whose razing people might object to. But "It's OK to do it because it's legal and we can get away with it" apparently isn't good enough for the developer, so why should it be good enough for preservationists? Because their cause is morally superior?
Posted by: guest at October 30, 2007 4:47 PM
Dark and musty and devoid of most of its architectural details in a not so safe neighborhood. I'll pass.
Posted by: guest at October 30, 2007 4:49 PM
Hey Dumbasses! The Fed meets tomorrow.
Fed seen set to take out recession insurance policy
A quarter-point cut in the federal funds rate is expected on Wednesday
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/fed-policymakers-ready-take-out/story.aspx?guid=%7BC54D3B7E%2D2E8A%2D4052%2DBFEC%2DFF4DC9E68F67%7D
Plus, Housing is getting rocked!
S&P/Case-Shiller® Home Price Indices
http://www2.standardandpoors.com/portal/site/sp/en/us/page.topic/indices_csmahp/0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0.html
Happy Hunting!
The What
Someday this war is gonna end
Posted by: guest at October 30, 2007 4:54 PM
Why, praytell, must you refer to us as "Dumbasses"? Are you mentally ill? (And why am I responding to you)
Posted by: Putnamdenizen at October 30, 2007 4:57 PM
I propose that we make this house into a section 8 building! After all, we need more affordable housing, right? Let's give it to a family living on public assistance - everyone deserves the chance to live in a bona fide house.
Posted by: guest at October 30, 2007 5:22 PM
Who rehabs it first 5:22? Or would you like to give it to them in its current state?
Posted by: guest at October 30, 2007 5:25 PM
Lois, are you planning an open house? Nosy neighbors want to know!
Posted by: Montrose Morris at October 30, 2007 5:28 PM
4.47, the reason it was an expedited review was because this house was within the then proposed (now officially approved) Crown Height North landmarked district. There was concern that the developer was trying to demolish the place as soon as possible to get in before the landmark district was to be approved, so individual status was granted on a priority basis. The unethical behavior, imo, was that of the developer who was trying destroy an historic building knowing that was to be a part of the then pending landmarked district.
Posted by: guest at October 30, 2007 6:03 PM
someday The What is gonna shut te f*ck up
Posted by: guest at October 30, 2007 7:50 PM
i rather see 10 ugly units there, that thing wasted space in a urban environment. cities need to grow.
when things are more spread out, it waste energy and space.
Posted by: armchairwarrior at October 30, 2007 8:48 PM
I'm one of the most anti-downzoning people in Brooklyn but there is a place for landmarking. Preserving really old unique buildings is probably one. But really this is a museum issue not a housing issue. The city has serious permanent demand for housing and the willy nilly downzoning and land marking of entire neighborhoods drastically diminishes the supply of housing available and drastically increases the price of what is available. And, the FAR shuffle in places like Fort Green, and now Bed Stuy only allow the connected inside traders who bought property on the upzoned avenues who can benefit. Everyone else loses property rights and/or pays higher rent.
Posted by: guest at October 30, 2007 9:56 PM
Hello, we're talking about one double lot here, not vast swaths of land being denied the chance for development. Not only that, on this double lot sits the oldest house in Crown Heights, which is obviously worth preserving, if for no other reason than that. On top of that, the original owner is an important, and rather colorful character in the history of the area, and if we save houses because someone slept there once, we can save a house because this family lived and worked from a farm house that overlooked fields. The house survived the initial development of the area, the good times, the bad times, and survived a fire, the crack epidemic, and a bulldozer. It deserves to stand proud, and deserves to be restored.
Whenever landmarking is brought up, people all of a sudden start hollering for affordable housing. No one is denying the need for housing, but since this is a landmarked district, at best, you could put up a six or eight unit building on this lot. That hardly solves the problem. If you want affordable housing in that area, I suggest we pressure the city to renovate and put back on the tax roles at least six multi-unit buildings that are abandoned and boarded up right around the corner on Kingston Ave. We don't need to tear down our history to put up craptactular POS buildings when we haven't even attempted to explore revitalizing what is already here.
Posted by: Montrose Morris at October 30, 2007 11:57 PM
only problem with land marking is everything in america becomes instant history. when would people stop and think, should we save everything?
to me land marks is almost the same as made up instant traditions and instant collectibles.
if we preserved everything that has someone famous that slept there or just a old house. we wont have any change at all too stagnant.
Posted by: armchairwarrior at October 31, 2007 1:35 AM
Vandals do not steal baninsters. They break stuff and spray paint walls.
Something smells fishy.
Nobody will buy this house without some period interior details and the seller must know this.
Who wants an expensive small historic house that looks old on the outside and modern on the inside in Crown Heights? In Greenwich Village sure, but Crown Heights?
Posted by: guest at October 31, 2007 7:37 AM
Excellent point 7:37.
Posted by: guest at October 31, 2007 7:42 AM
7:37, so what are you trying to say? If you are intimating that the seller sold off the detail, what purpose would that serve, as it would lessen the price? He still isn't going to be able to tear it down, so why would he do that? The broker, Lois, who has as much right to write here as anyone, has no motive to tell us there was detail, and now it's gone, because that doesn't make good business sense. As per the history of looting artifacts from historic homes in poorer neighborhoods, I have no problem believing that someone who knew exactly what they were doing, broke in and took those items that had the best chance of easy sale and resale. Some salvage companies don't check too closely on the provenance of their receivables, and don't care if they were obtained by shady means.
Furthermore, I am insulted by the implication that a house that's modern inside and period outside could not exist in Crown Heights. There are plenty of people here who have the taste and the means to do whatever they want. Taste and style certainly is not comfined to geographic boundaries. That's just a ridiculous statement. Also, if someone wanted to buy and restore this house, and was committed to the time and cost that this would entail, having to replace a couple of mantlepieces and bannisters is really not a big deal.
Posted by: Montrose Morris at October 31, 2007 10:50 AM
Honestly, you people need to visit the neighborhood. It's hardly unsafe. This house deserves to see another day and there are TONS of people renovating their homes in crown heights. There are at least 8 in our 5 block radius. Sorry but Crown Heights is a great neighborhood.
Posted by: guest at October 31, 2007 1:40 PM
Wow, you guys are scaring me. Trust me when I tell you the "theft" was not the work of the developer. It was horrible and sad.
Anyway, the Open House is this Saturday, November 3rd from 11am-12pm. Come in peace and bring a flashlight! - Lois
Posted by: guest at November 1, 2007 10:41 AM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.