House of the Day: 135 Joralemon Street (Revisited)

I love this house and think they've really done a great job restoring it. Don't know about price, but they did a really lovely job I think.

Posted by: guest at November 21, 2007 1:31 PM

The asking is over $2000 per sq ft. While its a special property, its way to high. Can't see this going for over $4mm when you have brownstones all around which may not be as unique but are larger going for less.

Posted by: guest at November 21, 2007 1:43 PM

I saw the place during the summer and thought it's a lovely one. The restoration work was unfinished (several last touches remained to be done, including finishing the banister, painting throughout, and others... good for making it right for the new owner but still, at least another 150k I estimated.
The house looks lovely but I didn't like the dark kitchen and found the 3 bedrooms quite small.
I thought it was overpriced and still is but I really haven't seen so many houses like this one in that area, so who knows.

Posted by: guest at November 21, 2007 1:48 PM

maybe a museum will buy it.

or a conservation group

Posted by: guest at November 21, 2007 1:50 PM

did it sit there for a year and half? I thought it sold pretty quickly after fire.. but then took a while to get renovations underway.

I love this house, but I think the location is just a tiny bit off for this price. Is this house was just as it is, but on Garden or lower Remsen or Columbia Heights, it would get $2000 per sq foot. But it's not.

Posted by: guest at November 21, 2007 1:50 PM

This is a joke. It is 5+ million for a wood frame house that isn't large, isn't very light, is a huge PITA to take care of. The coop next door has an apt for sale that is much much nicer inside, is 1/2 the size and 1/4 of the price.

For 2k/foot, where's my pool, my valet, my helicopter, etc?

This house is a screaming reason why landmarking should be revoked -- the lot could have been used for an apartment bldg housing many many more people

Posted by: guest at November 21, 2007 1:57 PM

THIS is a $5.25 million house?!?

hahahhahahahahahahhah

give me a break ... kitchen and bath are nothing special (mid-line cabinets with some Joey Buttafuco marble).

The mantles aren't even that nice.

Corco, please remove head from ass.

Plus, who knows what structural stuff got f'd up in the fire (that is now covered with nicey nice sheetrock).

Posted by: guest at November 21, 2007 2:03 PM

1:57 are you joking? Time to move out of NYC and into your mcmansion....

Posted by: guest at November 21, 2007 2:04 PM

not not worth it. can do/get a lot more out 5 million.

Posted by: guest at November 21, 2007 2:35 PM

You have got to be kidding me. It's a cute house, sure. But for that price...

This is probably the most blatant example of optimistic pricing I've ever seen. They need to trim about $1.5-$2 million from the price if they actually want to sell it.

"someone who collects old houses" will love this and buy it? really? gonna be a long wait.

Posted by: guest at November 21, 2007 2:54 PM

There isn't a recession yet (or a bottom) if sellers can afford to sit around for a year trying for a stupid price.

Posted by: guest at November 21, 2007 2:55 PM

With the caveat that it's impossible to assess the quality of the reno w/o examining the finishes in person, I'd say this is pretty damn gorgeous and y'all are being naysayers. Look, Brooklyn Heights is the most comparable to Manhattan of all the Brooklyn brownstone neighborhoods. In spite of some tightening in the financial industry, there are still plenty of people on Wall St who can afford this; who love the idea of a one-stop subway commute; who will be very happy to avoid coop approval (even if perfectly well qualified, it's still an intrusive pain); who need space when the in-laws visit; and who will simply fall for the charm of the place. IMHO, the kitchen is the most disappointing room in the house -- the cabinets are too generic looking. But the attic room with exposed timbers is extraordinary and quite unlike anything you'd find in a late 19th century brownstone. Also the comments about maintenance don't really add up. The house was gut renovated down to the studs. Only the exterior will require painting periodically. Frankly, the biggest problem with the house is that the price was set too high originally. RE buyers are notoriously nervous and superstitious so now there may be interested parties worrying that they will either overpay or that there's something wrong with the house that has caused the price cuts.

Posted by: guest at November 21, 2007 3:37 PM

Nowhere is immune.

Posted by: guest at November 21, 2007 3:42 PM

must have great light in that backyard with two massive buildings next door. NOT

Posted by: guest at November 21, 2007 3:59 PM

I see the holiday brings out the best in some people. I love the house, overpriced but...Happy Thanksgiving to all!

Posted by: guest at November 21, 2007 5:32 PM

AWKWARD.

What were we talking about?

Posted by: guest at November 21, 2007 5:34 PM

I think the owners are being a little greedy.

Posted by: guest at November 21, 2007 5:34 PM

Sorry I missed all the action here.

Posted by: guest at November 21, 2007 7:12 PM

This is not only a beautiful home it is famous. So many books have a picture of this building. It is a star. Of course it is worth the asking price. They do not give away big perfect houses in brooklyn Heights you know. The interiors are exquisite the whole thing is exquisite. I hope that someone that truly appreciates antique architecture buys it.
Mayor Bloomberg: You could use a house in Brooklyn and your daughters would love it.
You could have big barbecues and invite Hillary. It's a must for you!

Posted by: guest at November 21, 2007 7:30 PM

Some people have no concept of what money actually is and how hard it is to earn, keep and spend.

Posted by: guest at November 21, 2007 7:33 PM

Dear 7:33, Money is harder to earn for some people than for others. No one with this kind of money had to work very hard for it. Are you new to the capitalist system?

Posted by: guest at November 21, 2007 7:44 PM

Mayor Bloomy here. Already have a big town house on the east side where this shack would be an outhouse. Already bought the daughters big co-ops in the city. No thanks.

Posted by: guest at November 21, 2007 9:01 PM

Well, considering a fire gutted this house, all or most of the original details were destroyed. For my money, a restoration done with replicas of everything, as opposed to the originals, don't warrant that much dough.

Posted by: guest at November 21, 2007 9:30 PM

I looked at a co-op next door on the ground floor and the subway shook the entire place. I would think it has to affect the lower floors of this house.

Posted by: guest at November 21, 2007 10:09 PM

7:33, I can't agree with you more. All those gazillionaires INHERITED their brains, determination and talent from their parents, for God's sakes. Shouldn't those qualities be equal for everyone everywhere? Shouldn't we hold back kids who show signs of distinction in a given field? Life is so unfair in America!

At least in Europe, they pass money and status down to their kids regardless of their brains, competence or character. Here, nobody gives a fk what your name is or who your daddy plays golf with; you actually have to have your daddy's (or mommy's, or uncle Vinnie's) gift for something to stand out and survive.

What a scam.

Posted by: guest at November 21, 2007 11:06 PM

Well, the current owner bought it for $2.4 almost exactly one year ago. Of course they did not put $3 million into restoring this house. So screw them, restoration or not.

Posted by: guest at November 21, 2007 11:28 PM

Mr B,

Please remove the 12:10am guest link to a suicide video. Its real and there is no reason for it to be posted here.

Posted by: guest at November 22, 2007 12:26 AM

Meh.

Posted by: guest at November 23, 2007 1:46 PM

Is there a special authority to monitor these sites?

Posted by: guest at November 24, 2007 7:11 AM

Shouldn't there be a difference between a nicely reconstructed house and a truly authentic "historic" house? If 75% (or whatever) of the building has been replaced with new material, albeit material that evokes what the original might have been, its no longer a circa 1835 (or whatever) house. Its a 2007 reconstruction.

Posted by: guest at November 24, 2007 2:11 PM

Exactly, 2:11. Thank you. It merits a discount because the majority is not original and was burned away.

Posted by: guest at November 24, 2007 2:59 PM

@9:30 and 2:59 - the place wasn't gutted. It was a small electrical fire in the basement which caused smoke damage elsewhere. I doubt that there was any impact on the interior detailing.

Posted by: guest at November 24, 2007 3:52 PM

3:52's rebuttal to 2:59 shows exactly what is so useless about Brownstoner - most here like 2:59 have no problem with posting total crap misinformation. Except for Forum, this site is for pure entertainment, nothing else. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but some of you really should stop pretending to be experts.

Yes this house is still priced too high. That's the only fact that's come out of this discussion. All the rest consists of blathering brain farts and renters ranting, as usual.

Posted by: guest at November 25, 2007 2:55 PM

"Rebuttal" to 2:59? What makes you think this supposed "rebuttal" is any more accurate than the posts that talk about the fire? Are you kidding me? All you have to do is look at the previous Brownstoner post pictures, of the BURNT house before it was bought, and read comments and articles related to the house, and you'll see it was NOT a small fire, but rather a larger one. One post has a contractor talking about a total interior gut. And just look at the pics! Give me a break.

Posted by: guest at November 26, 2007 3:09 AM

Dear 3:09, hows about we cite some primary sources from the time: http://www.brooklyneagle.com/archive/category.php?category_id=27&id=3507

"Pearsall added that the basement has had severe damage, but the parlor floor and above are intact."

The reason that the house looks such a wreck in the pictures from just after the fire is that it was a wreck BEFORE the fire. The elderly owner had neglected the house for many years.

Interesting that the true story has been lost in subsequent postings and articles.

Posted by: guest at November 27, 2007 1:46 AM

It is overpriced, plain and simple. Brooklyn Heights has lost its cache, sadly. I think the Heights Association has hastened the decline - bunch of old farts who spend their time trying to keep people out. Like their support of condos inside Brooklyn Bridge Park and no access to the park from the Promenade. People have moved on to other great neighborhoods in Brooklyn.

Posted by: guest at November 27, 2007 6:02 AM