« Condos of the Day: Price Cuts at 192 Spencer StreetLevel: Gowanus Publisher Thinks Inside the Box »
November 28, 2007
House of the Day: 915 Sterling Place
The four-story house at 915 Sterling Place is a little on the narrow side (17 feet) but makes up for it with an extra-deep lot (120 feet). The listing claims that the house is "loaded with original details" but the one interior photo included isn't too convincing; the fact that it's divided up into four units also doesn't bode particularly well for the preservation of interior details, but this part of town does have some great woodwork so maybe there's something to it. And what about the asking price of $895,000? We suspect it'll go for a little less, especially since the seller is already being touted as "motivated." Anyone been inside?
915 Sterling Place [Elliman] GMAP P*Shark
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/3039
Comments
The sprinkler pipes are an attractive touch.
Posted by: guest at November 28, 2007 1:33 PM
Listing actually says 7 family, not four. Must be full of tiny 1brs or studios at 17'.
Posted by: guest at November 28, 2007 1:36 PM
Four units in a 17 foot wide three and a half story house? holy crap! what part of Calcutta is this?
Posted by: guest at November 28, 2007 1:39 PM
WTF! Why is there a bed and a table in the same room?
Posted by: guest at November 28, 2007 1:43 PM
Seven Family? Well that explains bed in the dining room.
Posted by: guest at November 28, 2007 1:44 PM
I live on this block, and although there's a small bit of a rough element, it's a wonderful, neighborly group in general. I LOVE IT HERE. People care. The buildings are beautiful and well kept, except for a few abandoned houses {go figure}, so weird. Backyards are extra deep with huge old trees that rustle in the breeze. I would buy this house in a second if I could.
Posted by: guest at November 28, 2007 1:45 PM
Well, better sprinklers than an ugly fire escape. You have to have one or the other for this multiple family dwelling.
This is a quiet, nice block. The architecture is interesting, and I have several friends on the block, all of whom are very active in community organizations and their block associations.
Turning this into even a three family will be a lot of work, if every current apt has a kitchen and bathroom. If there is any detail left that someone would want to keep, that means a careful full renovation, which is not the same as a gut renovation. Some original floors, walls, ceilings could certainly be saved, if that was what a buyer wanted. If it only needed cosmetic touches, or electic/plumbing upgrades and maybe a new kitchen or bath, the price would be a tad high, but negotiable. With all of the work needed to just turn it back to a solid 3 family, I think the seller is going to have to adjust his/her reality downward.
Posted by: Montrose Morris at November 28, 2007 1:45 PM
The listing also says "investment opportunity" which tends to be code for "full of rent stabilized tenants that will never leave so you will lose money every month you own this place." Which is probably what is motivating the seller.
Posted by: guest at November 28, 2007 1:49 PM
If that beautiful building in stuy heights could not get a million, what makes anyone think that this place, which clearly needs much more work and has no detail, could get anything close to $900,000?
Posted by: guest at November 28, 2007 1:54 PM
Since the building has seven units, it is regulated under rent stabilization and therefore converting it to fewer units could be extremely difficult. Unless tenants are willing to leave voluntarily (not likely if the rents are low) you are stuck with them for a long as they want to stay. Anyone who wants to buy this and live in a portion of building better be prepaired to spend a lot of money and time in court to get anyone out.
Posted by: guest at November 28, 2007 1:56 PM
a tiny bldg full of rent controlled tenants in the heart of brown heights for 900K???
um, no thanks
Posted by: guest at November 28, 2007 2:03 PM
Piece. Of. Shit.
Posted by: guest at November 28, 2007 2:05 PM
You are correct, 1:56. Chances are many of the tenants have been living in their kitchenettes for many, many years. I couldn't do it, especially since the choices of where seniors or people on small, fixed incomes would go in the neighborhood are getting fewer every day. Sometimes it's easy to forget the human cost involved, which I admit I did, in thinking about what a nice block this is, etc, etc. 1:54 has it right - yesterday's house on Bainbridge is a much better deal in all ways.
Posted by: Montrose Morris at November 28, 2007 2:08 PM
ok, seriously. "brown heights"? enough with the racism. PLEASE.
Posted by: guest at November 28, 2007 2:10 PM
is this in beirut?
Posted by: guest at November 28, 2007 2:12 PM
Ah, 2:03, you are so witty. You can call it "brown heights" all you want. We don't care, we love it here anyway, no matter what it's called. Whatever the perceived failings of one house in a huge, beautiful neighborhood, Crown Heights will certainly survive and thrive.
Posted by: Montrose Morris at November 28, 2007 2:15 PM
I love Crown Heights!
Posted by: guest at November 28, 2007 2:16 PM
"thrive"
that's a bit of a stretch, even for you montrose.
this is one of the most poverty stricken areas in brooklyn.
please don't ignore that.
Posted by: guest at November 28, 2007 2:17 PM
1:56 just because it has seven units does not make it rent stabilized. It would apply to this building only if it was built between 1947 and 1975. I don't know when this building was built, but I am guessing well before 1947. Secondly, it would be important for the buyer to find out if the owner legally converted the house to a seven unit house. Many of the rooming houses in Crown Heights operated illegally for years. But if the house were legally converted, and the house was built BEFORE 1947 than "houston, we have a problem". Anyone that moved in AFTER 1971 is protected.
Posted by: guest at November 28, 2007 2:34 PM
Nope, I meant "thrive". I live here, and on a less attractive block, too, and I am fully aware of my surroundings.
While certainly not as well off as many neighborhoods, I don't think we are "one of the most poverty stricken areas in Brooklyn." We have always had a hard working, home owning, core of middle class families here, even when the neighborhood was at its worse, especially in the brownstone blocks.
Way too much poverty and unemployment? No argument from me there, but CHN is improving every day as more and more people invest money and sweat equity and heart into it. We certainly will continue to thrive, and in doing so, do our best to bring needed services and opportunity to as many as possible. It will take time, but it will happen.
Posted by: Montrose Morris at November 28, 2007 2:34 PM
I meant "worst", not worse.
Posted by: Montrose Morris at November 28, 2007 2:37 PM
I believe the only services people are interested in bringing to Crown Heights are the ones that are of interest to the 1% of people in the neighborhood with money.
We're not stupid.
Posted by: guest at November 28, 2007 2:40 PM
The Stuyvesant Heights house seems like a better deal to me...
Posted by: guest at November 28, 2007 2:42 PM
Hate to agree with the haters but they are 100% right this time.
Crown Heights is a great neighborhood and this is a pretty nice block.
But this is a lousy, rotten, bad deal, even if they cut $200K off the asking price.
Why would anyone want to pay that kind of money for a narrow rabbit's warren of a building.
Clear out all the tenants (a tall order) and you still have a narrow rabbit's warren of a buildng that you have to spend money an d time to rehab.
Btw, this place has been on the market for ages. I saw the sign out front months ago.
Posted by: guest at November 28, 2007 2:45 PM
neighborhoods like Ft Greene and Park Slope had houses for half this when they were gentrifying.
these prices can really fuck an area up.
Posted by: guest at November 28, 2007 2:49 PM
they already are, 2:49.
the great disparity in super rich and super poor in crown heights and bed stuy are creating for very unstable neighborhoods.
in park slope, ft. greene, even prospect heights, gentrification has been a slow and steady process over the last 20 years.
in bed stuy and crown heights you have newcomers paying a million dollars for homes surrounded by mostly people who make 20K or less a year.
not good.
Posted by: guest at November 28, 2007 2:54 PM
2:54, I agree that there is a disparity in income as reflected by some of the housing prices in both Bed Stuy and Crown Heights, at least as reported here. But consider that here, we see mostly the higher end firms and their higher end listings, and not so much from independant brokers who don't have extensive web presence, not to mention those who have none at all. The latter two deal with many properties, some on these same blocks as Corcoran, Prudential,listings, many of which are selling for much less. So our Houses of the Day are not the full market.
And I have always argued that pricing in our neighborhood needs to reflect a slow steady growth which reflects a rise in services, safety concerns, and overall income levels.
However, I must strongly disagree with the implied notion that almost all of us are poor. That just isn't so, and never has been. Why is it so hard for people to conceive that Caribbean and American black people have been historically solidly middle class, not to mention wealthy, as well as ghetto poor? Let me say, hopefully for the last time, that Bed Stuy, Crown Heights, Harlem, and other predominantly black communities, have ALWAYS had a solid middle class base that has kept these neighborhoods alive. These are the people, and their children, who paid for their homes when these areas were totally red lined. They had to have solid sources of income. There are too many people here who may only make 20K a year, but they are NOT the majority.
That is why we have survived, and our neighborhoods are now on the radar. This could not be possible if everything was absentee owned or entirely populated by the very poor.
Posted by: Montrose Morris at November 28, 2007 3:22 PM
"the great disparity in super rich and super poor in crown heights and bed stuy are creating for very unstable neighborhoods.
in bed stuy and crown heights you have newcomers paying a million dollars for homes surrounded by mostly people who make 20K or less a year."
You couldn't be more wrong. Many Crown Heights residents are longtime African-American homeowners who are middle class to upper middle class. Many of them don't post on brownstowner, so you don't know about them, 'cause you've obviously never spent any significant time in Crown Heights. Other homeowners (like myself and my next-door neighbor) are young black (and white) professionals who have good jobs and bought in 2000-2002, and have nice homes we are always improving. There are LOTS of these people in Crown Heights, and I know 'cause I LIVE there. I've been able to watch nice middle class folks, black and white (including lots of mixed couples), buy homes around me and the neighborhood gets better all the time. We walk our dogs in Brower Park, talk with each other and love our neighborhood.
Stick to talking about someplace you know actually something about, not one you've just READ about.
Posted by: guest at November 28, 2007 3:27 PM
This building wins the award for most radioactive deal of the week.
YUK!
Posted by: guest at November 28, 2007 3:31 PM
Income info for Crown Heights:
Median Household Income: $32,135
State Average: $43,393
Median Family Income: $36,188
State Average: $51,691
Per-Capita Income: $16,775
State Average: $23,389
So HALF the households in Crown Heights make 32K or less.
Posted by: guest at November 28, 2007 3:33 PM
3:27...please see 3:33 for REAL FACTS...not just your idea of what the neighborhood is like.
those are incredibly low income levels.
Posted by: guest at November 28, 2007 3:36 PM
no one is saying theres no middle class in these neighborhoods. Paying for a million dollar home puts you well over middle class. Shit paying for a 400k house puts you way over middle class. Middle class in "normal" america is someone making around 50k a year which buys you nothing that fits a family in crown heights. This was ok when the brownstones were 200k a piece not when they are now 900k.
also crown heights still has some serious drug problems. I know plenty of people that live there and bitch about it.
Posted by: guest at November 28, 2007 3:39 PM
400K is also the going rate for a 1 bedroom in Seattle, Portland's Pearl District, Boston, San Francisco and West Los Angeles, to name a few.
Not sure why some people here think that 400K is too much to spend on a 1 bedroom in New York City.
Posted by: guest at November 28, 2007 3:53 PM
^ haha wrong thread.
Posted by: guest at November 28, 2007 4:01 PM
Monstrose,
You misspelled tyhe word "independent" in your 3:22 post. The correct spelling is i-n-d-e-p-e-n-d-e-n-t, not i-n-d-e-p-e-n-d-a-n-t. Tsk, tsk, tsk.
Posted by: guest at November 28, 2007 4:38 PM
3:33, you obviously know very little about reading statistics. Median obviously means "middle", as to income in this case, but it certainly doesn't mean "half", when you are speaking of the numbers of those who have those incomes.
I am neither blind nor naive as to the economic realities of Crown Heights. However, affording a row house, at a middle class income of $50K is certainly doable, if you have one or more tenants, which is something probably not possible in most of the rest of "normal America". I know, I am doing it. It's not mint julips and vacations in Paris, but is possible. Most of my neighbors and friends who live here are more like me than either extreme of the income spectrum. All of us have tenants, pinch pennies wherever possible, and get by somehow. And we are the majority here. As I said before, there are way too many desperately poor people here, and much needs to be done to address their needs, but to say that the majority of people here totally misrepresents reality.
Posted by: Montrose Morris at November 28, 2007 4:44 PM
50K a year qualifies one for a mortgage of 150K.
200K tops.
Not sure where you are finding rowhouses for those prices, Montrose.
Posted by: guest at November 28, 2007 4:58 PM
And, Mr.Chips, you misspelled "the". I hardly think my spelling is the point of the discussion here. Sheesh.
Posted by: Montrose Morris at November 28, 2007 4:59 PM
I thought the point was that people in Crown Heights don't know how to spell because of the low income and low education levels.
No?
Posted by: guest at November 28, 2007 5:02 PM
Gentrification in Crown Heights and other 'hoods will discontinue until no sooner than 2020.
Posted by: guest at November 28, 2007 5:04 PM
50k will buy you a parking spot
Posted by: guest at November 28, 2007 5:04 PM
I just moved to new york and its pretty funny to see how everything is going to shit.
maybe my rent will go down
Posted by: guest at November 28, 2007 5:06 PM
Ok, 4:58, I grant you it's harder now, but it was possible 8 years ago when I bought my house. Most of the black middle class people I was speaking of earlier bought about the same time or earlier, not to mention the people who have been here since the 50's, which was the point of my argument. Middle class people do live here, and have been living here for some time.
5:02 - No.
Posted by: Montrose Morris at November 28, 2007 5:11 PM
These are some of the most prosperous times New York City has ever seen, 5:06.
You might want to think about going back to Akron where things are less shitty.
Posted by: guest at November 28, 2007 5:11 PM
being middle class and living here since 1950 is not what we're talking about. Those people are not middle class anymore. and they're old and not working and I bet rarely leave the house
Posted by: guest at November 28, 2007 5:14 PM
I hear you, Montrose.
But the point is that now these same homes purchased 8 years ago are now a million.
They are no longer within reach for the middle class.
There will soon be NO middle class in these neighborhoods. That is the part that needs to be worked on. The middle class is the backbone of our society, and they are no longer able to buy in areas like these, which are still quite poor in a lot of senses.
Do you see how odd it is that middle class can not afford to live in a poor area???
Only very wealthy and very poor.
The only middle class are those like you left over from decades past, but there is very little new middle class folks moving in...you know...those that make 40K, 50K, 60K, 70K a year...
Posted by: guest at November 28, 2007 5:14 PM
it was cooler when everyone in NYC was from Jersey and not from Ohio.
AM I RIGHT!!!
also Akron is way more dangerous and nasty looking than NYC
Posted by: guest at November 28, 2007 5:17 PM
i was being sarcastic, 5:17.
akron is a pit.
as is 90% of the u.s.
there's a reason why there's 8.25 million of us here.
it's not a coincidence.
Posted by: guest at November 28, 2007 5:21 PM
This is a nice block and great house on the outside. Too bad it's a 7-family. Anyone contacted the broker to confirm if it will be sold with the tenants in place? It's really close to the trains..
Posted by: CrownGardener at November 28, 2007 5:21 PM
5:14, you certainly have some valid points, and I hear you. Buying homes anywhere in Brownstone Brooklyn is very hard for the middle class, and to do so on $50K will take some creative financing, such as having a very large down payment, so the mortgage is affordable, having at least 2 market rate tenants, and perhaps buying with another person or persons. I realize everyday that I was fortunate to be able to buy when I did, and probably couldn't now, unless I follow my own advice.
But as to living here, now - while it may be very difficult for the middle class to buy here, it is still possible to rent a very nice apartment for a reasonable sum. The choices are more than to ve landed gentry, or to be on welfare. The large population of middle class renters also help fuel the economic engines here, and they are a vital part of our community's growth. So there are still middle class people moving in.
Posted by: Montrose Morris at November 28, 2007 5:52 PM
Brownstoner,
I really enjoy the coverage of Crown Heights, whatever the tussles among the bloggers.
Sure, the house shown is small and narrow, but it's a nice representative of the kinds of town houses I knew in the neighborhood as a youngster. (When you're a kid, who cares about the difference between 17-feet and 25-feet lots, something parents with children should think about when prospecting in the neighborhood.)
Crown Heights row houses were terrific in the 50's, as they are today. My family lived an apartment (very nice, with wainscotted walls, French doors to the living room and dining room, parquet de Versailles floors, faux fire place, pantry with swinging door to the dining room, deep window seat and high casement windows in the living room, etc.) but nothing beat my friends' houses. These were tall, deep, dark, and a little mysterious, whatever my friends' parents' attempts at being "modern." No low-slung sofa or Scandinavian furniture seemed to brighten these places up, which was fine with me. The carved wood, steep stair cases, and high rooms had an Adams Familyesque quality that was a real kick.
And boy, were they great for parties, especially the kind that would spill onto the stoops into the areaways next to the sidewalks and into the backyards, where occasionally a tent was put up. One friend had an especially magical place. It was off Grant Square on Pacific or Dean Street, I think, with not just front and backyards, but a sideyard, so birthday parties could stretch a hundred feet outdoors. This particular house was in grey brick (or maybe it was just soot-encrusted) and was every child's dream of the haunted house. (I wonder if it's still there.) The irony was that the owners were among the most brightly stylish of my parents' friends with 50's technicolor furniture, wall-to-wall carpeting, and a maid in a bright pink uniform (Charles Adams on the outside; cinema-scope on the inside).
Also, Crown Heights row houses provided neighborhood services. Our dentists, orthodontists, pediatricians, and general practitioners all had their offices in either the ground or parlor floors. Most of them were older, long-time residents of the neighborhood. Very dignified and (to use an outmoded term) courtly. And they were both black and white, men and women, which was important for kids to see.
Looking back, I now realize that the architects of these places were terribly inventive. The oldest of them were single-family, but newer ones (meaning those built a little before or after the First World War), often were two-family, with duplex miniatures of the private house placed one on top of another. These homes were smaller and had lower ceilings, but were brighter, given their decades' preference for painted as opposed to exposed wood. And they were my favorites, probably because I had to climb a narrow stairhall from the street then pop into a hearth-lit living room on the third floor. (A nice surprise for somebody who lived in a single-floor apartment.)
One incident makes me chuckle. A friend had a backyard party near Brower Park. His mother was very grand. Their house, she kept repeating to her son's guests, was CUSTOM designed, a fact imparted to get us to respect the property and all it meant to the family. This house did seem the newest of the ones I visited, a red-brick neo-Georgian number (putting it somewhere between the 20's and 40's, if I'm correct) which may or may not have been built for the family. (I won't discount the possibility that the lady's prestige was borrowed.)
I'll repeat what I've written in earlier posts: for all of Crown Heights' qualities, the 50's and 60's were times of enormous changes for it and the city as a whole. But to this day, the emotional part of me doesn't fathom why so many middle-class people fled the city during that period. Not when they had buildings and streets this good. If only the FHA guaranteed low-cost mortgages to racially-integrated neighborhoods and not just white suburbs, what a different city New York (and most others in America) would be.
Thanks again, Brownstoner, for reminding me of the time back in the day.
Nostalgic on Park Avenue
Posted by: guest at November 28, 2007 6:10 PM
The house is whatever. Montrose, you're a gem! I Really enjoy and support your stance.
Posted by: guest at November 28, 2007 7:05 PM
The crown heights income stats are skewed by the under-reporting of income by the huge hasidic community that nobody is mentioning.
Posted by: guest at November 28, 2007 8:18 PM
hey montrose you are inspiring and i think most of your comments are well thought out. That being said this place is a total dump for that kind of $$...
Posted by: pierre de taille at November 28, 2007 8:44 PM
I suspect 8:18 is right, but it's not like the hasidim are really part of any community they inhabit. I.e., they ain't gonna invite you over for coffee and scones...
As for this house, the wonderful essay above notwithstanding, I don't find anything remotely inspiring about it, at any price. I'd have to see the rent rolls, but i don't see any investor parking their down payment here in hopes of making a killing....
Posted by: guest at November 28, 2007 8:50 PM
Just a note about the middle class buying homes these days. My husband and I each make salaries of about 75K which I used to think was decent but now that we are seeking a house, we feel pretty poor. That said, we have a big chunk of capital from 2 different real estate investments (an apt we live in, and another we sold) so we are looking at homes in the 1m-1.5 m range, ideally with a tenant, but not necessarily so. We were hoping to buy in PS, and despite what this blog leads people to believe, have seen some PS homes in the last year in this range (modest, but nice ones), though inventory is currently low. We're not ready to move to Crown Heights, but are considering Prospect Heights, Windsor Terrace, Gowanus, etc. So my question is: are we considered "middle class" - a family of 4 with annual income of about 150K but assets of about 1million? It's all so cockamamie now, that I no longer have perspective, and I suspect that there are a lot of folks out there like us who are not necessarily pulling in huge salaries but have a relatively high net worth due to earlier real estate investments - but that those investments do not make them "rich" in a city where a million dollar brownstone is considered cheap.
Posted by: guest at November 28, 2007 9:27 PM
9:27 there are a lot of us like you who have an income from 2 hard-working adults well enough into their career to make 100-200k together. We've delayed childbirth, we've scrimped and saved for many years, maybe someone got a small inheritance. In some way, some of us put together a reasonable downpayment. Now we are faced with trying to find a home of our own (to probably share w/ tenant), and we're told we're not middle class, but wealthy and therefore evil landed gentry derided by those on this blog that bought in the 70s, 80s, or 90s. Rich people are able to buy a home long before they reach 40. Having $1M does not make you rich in NYC or many other places in the US these days. You are middle class. Those making 50k for the entire household in ny are working class, not middle class.
Posted by: guest at November 28, 2007 9:55 PM
be nice to montrose. he is brave enough to attribute a name to his opinions -- right or wrong -- and he's usually thoughful enough to give the rest of us some facts so we can make up our own minds about what he's saying. that said, can other crown heights residents speak up? does this house just happen to be in a particularly ugly section of crown heights that should be avoided? -- anna
Posted by: guest at November 28, 2007 11:24 PM
Actually, guest 8:18, my understanding is that much of the Hasidic community lives under the poverty line, spends most of their time studying the Torah and observing odd, quaint rituals such as not using elevator buttons on certain days, and accepting community assistance from their congregation, no? I don't think many of those cats are hiding buckets of riches and skewing the Crown Heights stats. I could be wrong.
Posted by: Rehab at November 28, 2007 11:53 PM
Thanks for the kind words, 7:05, 8:44, and 11:24. I'm just an unabashed booster for my neighborhood, which I am glad to live in, problems and all.
Nostalgic, you tell the best stories. It's like reading a novel set in a familiar place - I can see exactly where the story is taking place. Your two family duplexes are called Kinko houses, and mostly in the area near St. Gregory's church, around Brooklyn Ave near Sterling, St. John's, and back towards Kingston Ave. They were built to house the many new families moving into CH right around WWI, and were a deliberate attempt at attractive and affordable middle class housing. How appropriate is that to this discussion?
The neo-Georgians are a group of semi-detached and stand alone houses almost on the corner of St. Marks and Brooklyn Ave, across from Brower Park. They were built in the 20's for a Mrs. Schwartz, one of the few female developers on record. They replaced the grand mansions that used to line this block, and have garages in the back. Your friend's mother may have been right, and the house was built for them. These are now in the Landmarked district. The Kinko houses will be in Phase 2, due to be landmarked in the near future.
I guess I'm working class. If I were the posters above, and wanted to buy but couldn't afford to go where I wanted to, I think I'd either buy an apartment or rent one, and spend my money buying a second home upstate somewhere, where you can still get bang for your buck. It's still real estate, and would be a welcome respite from the city. It's rough out here.
Lastly, anna, this isn't a bad block at all. The reasons this is a "bad" house is that it's currently almost an SRO, which involves a lot of tenant issues, it will need a lot of work and money to reconfigure in any way, it's kind of narrow, and costs too much. The block itself is nice - brownstones on both sides, most very well kept up, close to the 3 train at Eastern Parkway, and on a block that will be part of Phase 2 in landmarking. As you can see in the photo, the architecture is unusual and interesting. I'm going from memory, but I think that particular group of houses alternates facades with the plainer one next door, and this facade is repeated one or two other times in the group. It looks to be a nicely kept home. It's just too expensive. It's that simple.
Posted by: Montrose Morris at November 28, 2007 11:59 PM
I find this discussion about class fascinating. So with 150K+ in income, and 1m+ in assets, we're middle class? That seems so strange. Do you think the distinctions of upper middle vs. plain old middle class still apply? As for buying a country house instead of a NYC home, I don't see it. We are urban people and love to spend weekends in the city. Plus it seems like you should put your money where you spend most of your time - your principal residence. We do own a 3BR apt but with 2 kids and not much square footage, it's feeling small. How are schools in Crown Heights by the way? The main reason we want a house in PS/WT/CH/CG is for the schools - but we also like the amenities, being close to the park, sense of community etc.
Posted by: guest at November 29, 2007 12:04 AM
OK, I was responding more to this house's exterior in my post about Crown Heights row houses. (With its asymmetrical parlor floor, center-bay bow, and twin third-floor windows, it looks like a rectangular pumpkin -- kind of neat!) But give a glance at the little apartment inside. The bed cover and curtains match and complement the table cloth; small rugs circle the floor; and there are flowers in the windows and a plant overhead. Everything neat and cared for, deserving of respect. I hope the buyer doesn't kick the tenants out. They've obviously made this place home.
Nostalgic on Park Avenue
Posted by: guest at November 29, 2007 12:07 AM
Wow, Montrose! You're absolutely right! I haven't thought of St. Gregory's Church in years. And these "Kinko" houses were on Brooklyn Avenue! I remember a play date with a little girl who lived in one of these. My father dropped me off in the vestibule downstairs, and I climbed up the narrow stairs. At the top I found my friend's very prim mother (in blouse, pearls, and tweed skirt), knitting next the fire place. She kept me waiting for her daughter to appear. In those days, little boys were trained to wait for little girls, preparing us for the dating world that lay
ahead. Thanks for sharpening my memory!
Nostalgic on Park Avenue
Posted by: guest at November 29, 2007 12:23 AM
3:27, hi neighbor. I too love Crown Heights, own a house there and go to Brower park all the time (I probably see you on a regular basis LOL).
A few posters on this board think very little of Crown Heights. I learned to let it go. We get to enjoy our "good thing" without all the naysayers.
Posted by: guest at November 29, 2007 12:25 AM
12:04, I may know a small bit about architecture, but I freely admit I know next to nothing about local schools. I don't have any children, and most of my friends in the area have grown children, some of whom went to local public schools, some to parochial schools. Many of my friends went to those same schools, but that was a while back. There is an Episcopal day school in the area, on Brooklyn Ave near President Street. There are a couple of magnet schools in the community, but I couldn't give you any more accurate info. Sorry.
Posted by: Montrose Morris at November 29, 2007 12:27 AM
Nostalgic, that's great! Very Father Knows Best, and Donna Reed. I remember my mother dressing that way, too.
I don't know if you remember, but the interiors of many of these Kinko houses are very Mission/Craftsman styled. Lots of deep green plain glazed tiled fireplaces with plain oak mantles and Craftsman style sconces, built-ins and quarter sawn oak woodwork. A total distancing from nearby High Victorian brownstones.
Posted by: Montrose Morris at November 29, 2007 12:36 AM
You're right, Montrose. The finishes helped make the "Kinkos" light, airy, and spacious-feeling, even though they were smaller than the big brown- and limestone houses nearby.
I'm convinced that the choice of housing-types helps assures Crown Heights' future. From Art-Deco swag to patrician neo-Classical, the neighborhood's styles will also attract buyers.
But why call the duplex numbers Kinkos? That's a new one on me.
Nostalgic on Park Avenue
Posted by: guest at November 29, 2007 12:45 AM
I don't know, Mr. N.
When the very efficient researchers at Landmarks wrote their original report for a larger landmarking area encompassing more of Crown Heights North than the current district (hence the Phases 2 thru 4), they found the name "Kinko's Houses" in a broad reference to these 2 family double duplexes. No one has been able to come up with an explanation. Obviously, it predates the printer/copy company of the same name. They are very cool - most in a neo Medieval/Tudor/Olde English style, some in a more classic Renaissance Revival limestone. The upper duplexes all originally had roof gardens, and they all have separate entrances, side by side, or on each end of the building, one labeled with the house number, the other one, the house number plus "A". The A is always the upper duplex.
I've only been in two of them, but they are very spacious, precisely because they were designed as two family homes, not altered, like a one family traditional brownstone. It really makes a big difference in the flow of space.
Posted by: Montrose Morris at November 29, 2007 1:01 AM
For what it's worth, this past House of the Day is technically a Kinko house.
http://www.brownstoner.com/brownstoner/archives/2007/08/house_of_the_da_359.php#comments
Posted by: Montrose Morris at November 29, 2007 1:05 AM
Thanks, Montrose, and good night. See you soon on Brownstoner.
NOP
Posted by: guest at November 29, 2007 1:07 AM
Montrose - be careful when you criticize someone about how s/he reads statistics when your own knowledge is lacking. Median means middle as you say, but the middle in that half are above and half are below. It is a precise term and means exactly the thing you don’t think it means. You are probably thinking more of mean or average. 3:33 does not cite the source, but assuming the numbers are correct, the conclusion that half of the households have income below that level is also correct.
Posted by: guest at November 29, 2007 9:07 AM
I beg to differ, 9:07. Simplistic example: you are polling the incomes of 400 people. 350 of them make $30,000. a year. Fifty make $1,000,000. The median income of this group is $151,250.00. It would be misleading and utterly wrong to then say that half of the people are above and below that amount. The smaller number of people making vastly more, skews the numbers upwards. This is why the median income of the entire population of Manhattan is always higher than the rest of the city. There are more enormously rich people living there.
Conversely, a larger number of people on the lower end of the spectrum could conceivably pull numbers down. This may be true in Crown Heights, maybe not. There just isn't enough information given to explain the methodology used in the poster's statistic. Certainly not enough information to gleefully exclaim that half the people in Crown Heights are abysmally poor.
Statistics are useful tools, but most should be quoted only with huge sidebars explaining their data, as the face value is often quite misleading. That is why they can be used to say almost whatever you want them to say.
Posted by: Montrose Morris at November 29, 2007 11:05 AM
"3:27, hi neighbor. I too love Crown Heights, own a house there and go to Brower park all the time (I probably see you on a regular basis LOL)."
3:27 here - Thanks! See you soon, neighbor!
Posted by: guest at November 29, 2007 11:58 AM
11:05: you too are mixing up "mean" and "median" in your statistical example. Mean = "A number that typifies a set of numbers, such as a geometric mean or an arithmetic mean. The average value of a set of numbers."; Median (Statistics) = "the middle number in a given sequence of numbers, taken as the average of the two middle numbers when the sequence has an even number of numbers: 4 is the median of 1, 3, 4, 8, 9."
For your example, the median income would be $30,000, not $151,250.00. So the original poster, using the median to say "half the people earn less than x" is correct. They would be incorrect if they used the mean, but they did not. Phew. Hope this settles the statistical terminology debate here.
Posted by: guest at November 29, 2007 12:41 PM
This isn't currently in the historic district, right? Where can i get specific information on the subsequent phases of the landmarking for Crown Heights? Will this house be in either phase?
Posted by: iwannabrownstone at November 30, 2007 8:12 PM
Latest Restaurant Additions
-
Le Barricou
added November 20, 2009 12:00 PM in Williamsburg -
Der Schwarze Kölner
added November 19, 2009 12:00 PM in Fort Greene -
Oak Wine Bar & Café
added November 18, 2009 12:00 PM in Williamsburg -
Mr. Wonton
added November 17, 2009 12:00 PM in Park Slope -
Casa Rosa
added November 16, 2009 12:00 PM in Carroll Gardens -
Cousin John's Café & Bakery
added November 13, 2009 12:00 PM in Park Slope -
Elote
added November 12, 2009 12:00 PM in Williamsburg -
Miracle Grill
added November 11, 2009 12:00 PM in Park Slope -
Phoebe's Cafe
added November 10, 2009 12:00 PM in Williamsburg -
Ruthie's
added November 9, 2009 12:00 PM in Clinton Hill, Downtown Brooklyn
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.