« Condos of the Day: 10 South Oxford Street StreetLevel: Mystery Frozen Yogurt Shop on 7th Ave. »
February 7, 2008
House of the Day: 72 Middagh Street
When we first wrote about 72 Middagh Street, an old wood frame house in Brooklyn Heights, back in 2006 it was in need of a major makeover both on the inside and out. That didn't stop it from fetching the full asking price at the time of $2,395,000. Now, exactly two years later, the new-and-improved version is back on the market with the Corcoran broker who bought it in '06. To our eye, she did a fantastic renovation job, preserving the original elements while putting in modern but tasteful kitchens and bathrooms. Given the private driveway and carriage house, the new asking price of $2,995,000 seems reasonable to us. The neighbors must be happy too.
72 Middagh Street [Corcoran] GMAP P*Shark
House of the Day: Woodframe on Middagh [Brownstoner]
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/3767
Comments
Love these old brooklyn heights woodframes. This one is funny- looks like it's wearing a burger king hat.
If I had Corcoran broker money, I would do this kind of reno to as many greenwood houses as I could find- that neighborhood would look incredible if it started to have a real mass of renovated woodframe houses.
Posted by: Park Place at February 7, 2008 1:37 PM
i couldn't afford this myself, but for brooklyn heights, this seems like a pretty good deal.
Posted by: z at February 7, 2008 1:40 PM
Don't know if it's really 3,000 sf of living space...looks smaller, plus it's now 2 apts. I love the 3rd/4th floor transition. Also hard to tell the quality of renovation...I don't think they've improved the facade with what looks like some sort of synthetic siding.
But the garage is a HUGE plus.
Think this is priced about right to sell quickly, but I'd want an extremely careful inspection first.
Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 1:40 PM
It's a house. In Norwalk, CT it would sell for $299K.
Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 1:42 PM
In Greenpoint it would be 700K
Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 1:44 PM
brilliant, 1:42. and in the west village it would sell for $8 million. so what?
Posted by: z at February 7, 2008 1:44 PM
The looks of this house could be improved dramatically with a little judicious nip and tuck. It's not bad as it is, sort of 1910 vernacular alterations to an early 19th century house. The garage is fantabulous. You could lease those spaces out for God knows how much. It is a good buy. Move right in or Martha Stewartise.
Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 1:45 PM
Anywhere in the south $80K tops.
Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 1:45 PM
1;42...you are an idiot. It is not in Norwalk, CT. Its in Brooklyn Heights. Why post such idiotic and pointless comments. You might as well say..."if it was in the outskirts of Bagdad it would sell for $1600.00"
Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 1:47 PM
1;42...you are an idiot. It is not in Norwalk, CT. Its in Brooklyn Heights. Why post such idiotic and pointless comments. You might as well say..."if it was in the outskirts of Bagdad it would sell for $1600.00"
Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 1:47 PM
So, doesn't this kind of give the lie to not only those myriad "at least $100k per floor" renovation numbers that are thrown out generally on this site but also to the million to two million dollar reno numbers that were being thrown around here when this property was the HOTD? $3 million selling price now, less the sum of a 2006 $2.4 million purchase price plus over a year's worth of carrying costs means the buyer is either losing money (which I very much doubt) or accomplished this very nice looking restoration for about $200k to net a 5% profit.
Posted by: johnife at February 7, 2008 1:50 PM
The point is that you can sell a phone booth for $million if it's in the right neighborhoods ('great light, good access to telecommunications').
99.99999% of the people of this country would laugh at anyone who pays $2.9 million for this house.
Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 1:51 PM
johnife... aren't you a clever dick.
Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 1:52 PM
1:52,
Both the adjective and the noun are probably accurate :-)
Posted by: johnife at February 7, 2008 1:56 PM
John Ife, when the $100,000 per floor prices are thrown around on Brownstoner it is referring to a gut renovation where you are also dealing with plumbing and electrical. As someone who recently did this, I can tell you that $100,000 per floor is the low end of the spectrum on these renovations. If you are doing your own contracting you could come in lower but must are not up to that task. I would be willing to bet that they did very little beyond cosmetic renovations otherwise they would not have been able to make a profit.
Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 1:59 PM
I know this is a great location and is probably worth the $$ because of that, but, IMO with it's pathetic little entranceway, undersized windows, and strange '20s top profile this is a REALLY ugly remuddled house.
No accounting for taste, I guess.
Posted by: Bob Marvin at February 7, 2008 2:00 PM
Those beams and fireplaces are some yummy goodness. The garages are making me tingly. I also like the contemporary tub upstairs.
Actually it seems almost underpriced--which is bloody refreshing. I mean, how much is a parking space alone worth in the Heights?
Speaking of which, maybe a Heights resident can answer this for me: I was walking through the hood and saw a street sign (maybe on Remsen?) that said "Parking on Tuesday ONLY." Why would you only be allowed to park on a street one day a week? Anybody?
Posted by: Rehab at February 7, 2008 2:02 PM
reahab it's called alternate side parking for street cleaning and it occurs on every block in the city
Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 2:06 PM
Wow, what a difference some paint and siding can make. They did a nice job inside too. I liked the original wood on the garage, but understand why you would paint it. The private yard and carriage house would sell it for some, no matter what they did or didn't do inside. Even with the slowdown and wariness of the real estate market today, I would think that an unusual piece of property like this, priced very well for the area, may even go a bit higher than ask. Mr. B, please do an update on this one.
This, is of course, just my layperson's observer opinion.
Posted by: Montrose Morris at February 7, 2008 2:06 PM
700K in Greenpoint? I wish. You need to catch up.
Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 2:08 PM
to further 2:06's answer - the other side of the street does not allow parking on tuesday.. so parking on tuesday only on the alt side (while the other side gets cleaned). common with narrow streets with room for only parking on one side.
Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 2:08 PM
Since talking about the brokers, especially those from Corcoran, doesn't seem to be considered bad taste here, I'll mention that I got a chuckle when I saw the co-brokers are Denise LaChance, versions 1 and 2. Seems her taste in clothes hasn't changed, even as her hairstyle has.
Rehab, you can park on one side of the street you visited ONLY on Tuesday, and other side any day BUT Tuesday.
Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 2:10 PM
Well, I just bought my Mega Millions ticket.
If I win, I'm buying this house and filling the garage with three muscle cars to fulfill my suburban highschool fantasy.
Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 2:10 PM
Bob, it would be interesting to see if the Historical Society has any original pictures of when it was a school. Maybe they built it with smaller windows to keep kids from gazing outside, or even for the practical reason of keeping heat in, and left the aesthetics for residential buildings. The gate to the driveway is strange, but if they had put up an iron fence, for example, there goes your privacy. I could deal with an ugly barn door, knowing I had that wonderful private garden and carriage house back there.
Posted by: Montrose Morris at February 7, 2008 2:11 PM
2:06 -- from what I understand, 2:02 was describing the reverse of street cleaning: ALL WEEK NO PARKING, ONE DAY PARKING. That's a lot of street cleaning, huh.
Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 2:12 PM
This place is in South Slope, right? Sure looks like it from the outside.
Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 2:12 PM
People in the $3 million range want a house that at least makes some modest impression. This house looks so cheap and ordinary. Like something you'd find near the RR tracks. YUCK. It's like trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.
Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 2:13 PM
In answer to Rehab's question, many Heights blocks are too narrow to ever allow parking on both sides at once. It's sort of alternate side parking, but more severe than on wider streets in most other parts of the City.
FWIW, I just looked at the "before"photos, and the things I complained about were all done to the house in past years. Although it looks MUCH better now [although still quite ugly]. I think the owner missed a chance to"un-remuddle" this house,
Posted by: Bob Marvin at February 7, 2008 2:14 PM
Although it seems cheap, it may be priced this way for a reason: it sits directly next door to an active firehouse. Moreover, the brokers selling the house are also the people who bought and reno'd it. Frankly, I think, given its location, that they overpaid for it first time around. Having said that, everything's a trade off, so perhaps the noise won't bother some people.
Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 2:16 PM
To 2:10 PM: Actually, the co-brokers are Denise and Debra LaChance. Must be identical twins. Guess they still like to dress alike!
Posted by: Park Sloper at February 7, 2008 2:16 PM
the point John Ife was making was that unless the flipper-broker got it for a lot less than you guys think, this ain't going to turn out to be a great investment.
he's right.
even if they get the asking (not a slam dumk IMO), they make maybe $200K, after you take out costs.
not a lot, when you factor in the capital and risk involved.
don't forget, it could sit there for a while or tank in price.
a lot of people don't a crappy looking frame house, even if it is in a killer nabe
Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 2:18 PM
Isn't this place right next to a firehouse? Gotta be annoying.
This is a great contrast to the South Oxford condos posted right before. Judging by the price, it doesn't seem like they invested very much into the finishes, and yet this Brooklyn Heights building looks phenomenal on the inside. And by phenomenal, all I mean is: anyone walking in there would be happy to stay. It's not about onyx bathrooms or la cornue stove crap, it just takes NOT being completely vulgar and tasteless, and just making a space feel good and look attractive. I don't care if it's martha stewart/suburban whatever. This place will sell, might even get a bit of a bidding war, purely because it's attractive. (Attraction being kind of a major primal instinct in humans, like it or not).
I wonder if this is priced so low to get a lot of attention and start a bidding war? I know that sounds silly these days, but some brokers do prefer the strategy of underpricing, especially when a place is really charming.
Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 2:19 PM
They sure to a LaChance on this one.
Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 2:24 PM
Dang it, server ate my comment.
Downsides to this one, besides the hideous facade, are the firehouse next door (idling engines, sirens, NOISE), the firefighters who double-park their cars all over the sidewalk and create a pedestrian obstacle course every day, and the constant car traffic that uses this block of Middagh as an access point from the Brooklyn Bridge to the Heights. Surprisingly, the broker seems to have taken some of the negatives into account when she priced this. Not cheap, but not bad for Corcoran or for BH.
Posted by: zeebee_in_bklyn at February 7, 2008 2:26 PM
i agree 2:18 that is alot of headaches and work for a small profit
they could have bought a cd and made the same with less stress
Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 2:26 PM
I don't care what neighborhood it's in. This is the uglies house I've ever seen.
Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 2:27 PM
If you assholes think that you will get a mortgage on this, you are smoking some major shit. 2.6 in 06 dress up the pig and sell for 2.9??!! They put ketchup on the shit sandwich but, that don't change the taste. I don't know if you the memo this shit is over. Come into 2008 the water fine.
Here read this fucktards. This is Mr. Buffet, I think he know something about economics.
Buffett: Bank woes are "poetic justice"
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN0631767220080207?sp=true
The What
Someday this war is gonna end.....
Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 2:28 PM
I can't believe Landmarks approved this facade. Shame on them.
Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 2:28 PM
Ummm, 2:28, did you even look at the "before" photos in the link to when it was HOTD in Feb 2006?
Posted by: johnife at February 7, 2008 2:32 PM
The driveway through the house is interesting.
Would you be inclined to back your car in?
Or back it out?
Posted by: Hal at February 7, 2008 2:35 PM
This house looks like former HOTD Hall Street pretty cousin...
Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 2:36 PM
i am selling my beanie babies, and cashing in my pets.com stock options and buying this
place
Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 2:38 PM
2:35, I'd say front-in, three-point turn in back yard, and front-out. May not be an option for Hummer owners, however.
Posted by: johnife at February 7, 2008 2:42 PM
yay! the What is back!!!
where ya been the last few weeks?
Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 2:43 PM
2:18, I interpreted Johnife's comments a little differently. I read him to be suggesting that this reno shows that you can do a serious reno for much less than the $100k per floor number that people often post here. His comment assumes, I think, that the house is priced to reflect a significant profit. Which leads me to agree with 1:59, who distinguishes between a gut reno and lighter fare and seems to imply -- and I will go ahead and say it -- that the pricing suggests that this was probably a cosmetic touch-up restoration, with nice fixtures and appliances. The ad doesn't seem to represent otherwise. Not that I have anywhere near the money, but I would be reluctant to pay even that 25% mark-up which is largely a renovation premium, if it were not, in fact, a real renovation and if I thought I were taking the risk that I would have to do it all over again to deal with the innards. If the seller and broker are honest about what was and wasn't done, that's fine (as long as no lurking problems were found and ignored), but I often suspect that there is the hope that the nice finishes will create the impression that there is nothing to worry about underneath. Buyers ought to kick the tires hard on this one, but I suspect many won't.
Posted by: slopefarm at February 7, 2008 2:46 PM
Hey Asshooloos!!!! The 30 year Treasury Auction was a fucking disaster today. I know most of you are fucking clueless and don't know what that means. Interest Rates will be going up very soon. That will put the last nails in the coffin of the Real Estate Mutant Bubble.
Here Asshats read this. Yummy fun from Bloomberg. Chew it down now, no gaging. LMMFAO!
Exploding ARMs Roil Bernanke's Drive to Calm Markets (Update3)
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aX74xQnVfBfI&refer=home
The What (Whoo Hoo!!)
Someday this war is gonna end...
Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 2:46 PM
The What: So What?
Let people make their mistakes. You can't protect people from their need for having a fancy house in a fancy hood. And why would you expend that much energy on people who obviously have way too much money to begin with? Let them lose it. They might learn a little humility in the process.
Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 2:50 PM
2:32 Johnife wrote - Ummm, 2:28, did you even look at the "before" photos in the link to when it was HOTD in Feb 2006?
Who cares what the old facade looked like. Landmarks approved THIS facade. Landmarks doesn't say 'Well, at least this facade is better than what's there, let's approve it."
Get a clue. Learn some architectural history and what these houses looked like.
UGLY! UGLY! UGLY!
Landmarks should be disgraced over this. The commuinity should be up in arms over this facade.
Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 2:56 PM
I think this house is great. A diamond in the rough. There are several top-notch architects that dedicate themselves to restoring and rehabbing vintage Brooklyn residences. In the hands of one of those guys, this could be transformed into something really splendid. The pass-through driveway, originally meant for horses I'm sure, is a super amenity. Anyway, the house could be turned into a showpiece and given its location, it probably will be.
The national economy will go up and down but the money in Brooklyn Heights will endure.
Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 3:03 PM
2:56, please educate we philistines with your knowledge of what the facade configuration and cladding material was on this modest frame house when it was originally built.
Posted by: johnife at February 7, 2008 3:09 PM
Gadzooks, that house is homely!
For $2,995,000 I would buy a gorgeous house in Park Slope or Fort Greene instead of this clunker.
Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 3:11 PM
I agree with JohnLife. This was done for much less than 100k per floor and since I've renovated two brownstones for less than 100k per floor I know it's not necessarily a bad job.
I'd bet all the elec was redone. And some plumbing but not all. As my very respected plumber says, I'll take any plumbing done before 1950 over anything done since 1970, including yesterday. It's not the pipes only, it's the crap workmanship that happens. Beams cut thru, etc.
I think it looks great. I love Middagh St -- would prefer one block down, but eh, can't complain. I WOULD KILL (or kill for you, this is a proposal!) for parking. And I think it's priced to sell at asking or over -- another thing I've done and think it's the only way to go.
Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 3:12 PM
3:03, it was supposed to have been turned into a showpiece. Believe it or not, this is renovated.
Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 3:12 PM
The facade of the garage is more interesting than the facade of the house.
Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 3:15 PM
3:03 -- who are these top notch architects who specialize in restoring buildings? Looking for one now.
Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 3:26 PM
I'm pretty sure the house would have had wide clapboards on the front (narrower cheaper clapboards on the sides and rear). Nice six-over-six windows with exterior shutters. Nice window trim like it has now, a wood stoop leading up to a doorway with a transom. A wooden denticulated cornice with a wood shingle roof and dormers. The horse alley would have been open, with perhaps a wood or wrought iron gate. A wood or wrought iron fence around the front areaway or garden. That's it, simple, New England chaste. Perfect.
Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 3:27 PM
Went by this house many times while it was being done. Was one step away from a complete rebuild.
Posted by: Johnny at February 7, 2008 3:32 PM
I would just center doorway beneath the center window, build a little classical style
portico, add an areaway fence, and remove the little projections from the top and add a Federal style cornice. Voila! Showpiece.
Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 3:41 PM
slopefarm and 3:12,
I think you're both right, actually. I agree that totally gutting a house down to the structure and completely re-doing electric, heat, partitions and finishes is going to cost in excess of $100,000 per floor (probably well in excess). But, as 3:12 points out, such a drastic re-do is not always (in fact, I would argue, is seldom) necessary and, as he also says, may actually result in some of the fabric of the house being in worse shape than before it was tinkered with. I come from a generation and economic stratum that eschewed replacement for repair and I have serious misgivings about the the whole concept of "consume and dispose" versus "retain and restore". I guess that's why I have difficulty in understanding the concept of ripping out stuff that has endured for generations for the sake of a modest increase in convenience or with the intent of creating a "showplace".
I also think it likely that, since the people that re-did this place are brokers, they likely had connections to the most cost effective design and construction teams and knew how to work with them to get the best "bang for the buck". Do people who undertake major home renovations typically get any outside advice regarding cost cost effective solutions, or do they give their architects free rein? I know from my estimating background that the latter is not a good idea. Sometimes I wonder if I'm missing an opportunity to become a cost consultant in the home reno field.
Posted by: johnife at February 7, 2008 3:44 PM
Johnife--
I agree that ripping everything out of an old house is often wasteful, and destroys much that might be desirable and beautiful. But if there are structural or other major issues with the house, restoration actually costs more than a gut if those problems are also addressed. I have no knowledge as to whether everything in this house -- plumbing, electrical, joists, etc. are up to snuff for a $3 mil home -- but I suspect that at the mark up they seek, not much exploration of these issues was made. What's the use of preserving all the detail if in a year significant water damage occurs due to a problem that could easily have been identified and addressed during the renovation, but will prove more costly by an order of magnitude after the fact. Even in a caveat emptor world, I am concerned that a pretty finish conveys the impression that the innards got the once over, when that sometimes is not the case.
Posted by: slopefarm at February 7, 2008 3:54 PM
On BH parking, none of you seem to really get it. The deal is, given all the courts and gov't agencies that are in Downtown Brooklyn, BH is the only nabe in the city where you can actually drive to work and park every day. You can get in by 7AM or so on that Tuesday, park, and drive off by 6PM. Sweet.
Posted by: denton at February 7, 2008 4:09 PM
I'm an architect, I rarely get free rein to do whatever I want.
The projects that I did get free creative license, came out amazing and the clients couldn't be happier.
Most of the time I get alot of interjection from the client. It's aggrevating and fustrating. I hate to admit it but sometimes, I shut down and could care less what the space looks like in the end.
This house is terrible looking from the outside and seems small on the inside.
Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 4:11 PM
I like what 1:42 said. This house would be $299,000 in Norwalk, CT. What he forgot to say is that downtown South Norwalk is a hell of a lot nicer than Montague Street.
It would be $350,000 in the nice Fleetwood section of Mount Vernon, 25 minutes from Grand Central Staion. And downtown Fleetwood is a hell of a lot more vibrant than Monatgue Street.
Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 4:23 PM
Mostly the pics look good and it's certainly an improvement over the "before" but two choices I question:
1. Why recreate that funky 20th century bad renovation roofline? When you're working with siding (as opposed to masonry) it's much easier to recreate an authetic-looking cornice. It would have restored the original 19th century appearance, integrated the dormer windows, and given the exterior much more curb-appeal.
2. Why a double duplex? Given the smallish overall dimensions of the house, wouldn't it have been better to create a simplex and triplex? As it is, the interiors look pokey.
But you gotta love the garage! And, yes, I would back in and nose out.
Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 4:40 PM
boy, I know what architect I never want to hire....
Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 4:57 PM
Yes, imput from clients. The people who own the property? Who will live in the property? Tres annoying. You're the one with the vision! It's so "aggrevating and fustrating".
But what do I know? I wouldn't trust a person who doesn't know that "a lot" is two words to wash my car.
Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 5:09 PM
Oh, 4:57pm, you silver-tongued flatterer...
Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 5:10 PM
Here's a link to the house in the 1920s/1930s:
http://digitalgallery.nypl.org/nypldigital/id?705713F
Look at the house (half of it, anyway) in the extreme right of the picture.
Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 5:34 PM
I guess landmarks didn't see this picture....Oops
Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 5:58 PM
But how could they change the roofline without literally obliterating the rooftop addition?
Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 6:06 PM
I just checked the DOB site and Permits were only pulled for the facade and shed. No permit was filed for general constrution....HHHMMMM.
So, I guess, they didn't change any door openings, move any walls, do any plumbing work, etc....very interesting.
Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 6:08 PM
that picture isn't the same house. that's a block down on the other side. house numbers have changed since then
Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 6:17 PM
I disagree with 3:32. Saw this renovation being done and was surprised at how modest and quick it was on the front. No idea about the interior or backyard.
Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 6:18 PM
I saw the old place. From these pictures, the layout looks the same so I'm not shocked walls weren't moved. You can do some plumbing without permits too.
Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 6:23 PM
I think Montague Street is a convenient and sweet little neighborhood shopping street.
It isn't Rodeo Drive, but who would want that?
Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 6:24 PM
So wait a minute. They just painted it and changed the bathroom fixtures? Even if their asking price is only $500,000 over what they bought the building for, that's still some expensive paint/decorator/bathtub, kids.
Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 6:40 PM
The What was at an anger-management camp. It didn't work.
However, his creative vocabulary continues to impress: "Asshooloos." Outstanding!
Posted by: Rehab at February 7, 2008 6:44 PM
A wood frame house across the street sold last fall for $1.3 million. Probably the cheapest house sale in Brooklyn Heights in at least a few years. Bought by the builder who lives next door. I think HE'S going to make out like a bandit when he flips it.
Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 7:16 PM
Chop off the dormers and the flourishes on the top and this house may as well be on the Graham L stop.
Add a gutter and a meter on the front and it might as well be in Canarsie.
Hideous! And for just shy of $3MM??? Yeah, this market is about to bite the dust.
Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 7:29 PM
I swear I walked past this house a ton of times and could see through it. Nothing but sticks!
And the house that went for 1.3 is interesting. Was for sale for 875k about 5 years ago. Teeny thing. Literally no finish whatsoever. Was an artists studio - with no heat and no hot water. Sold to a developer who did a nice job but the place is basically three studios on top of each other. Small kitchen and dining space (not room) on the ground. Open bed and small bath on 2nd floor, open bed and small bath on 3rd. Stairwell runs through all the rooms with no dividers. No outdoor space.
That said, a great space for the right person.
Posted by: Johnny at February 7, 2008 7:48 PM
Johnny:
They have a number of similar homes in Philadelphia. They are known as "trinities" and were typically where poorer families lived. One room on each floor: Kitchen, living room, bedroom, no dividers. I think they definitly have their charms and some have been redone with some very unique results. I agree that for the right person they could make a great and interesting home.
Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 8:18 PM
Some people on this blog have no real understainding of architecture. I find it surprising how clueless people seem to be when confronted with an historic building that is not a cookie-cutter 1880-1890's brownstone fronted rowhouse. They have no concept of the pre-Victorian buildings of Brooklyn. Total architectural Neanderthals.
Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 8:29 PM
...and just for the record a trinity house has nothing in common with this house. It's a perfect architectural nonsequitir.
Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 8:34 PM
8:34-- This is 8:18. I was drawing the trinity comparison to the house that Johhny described above NOT to the house of the day.
Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 8:45 PM
Were the kitchens and baths actually re-done?
If you click on the original 2006 listing for this house, featured above, you'll see that it says "Modern amenities include 4 full bathrooms, 2 kitchens, and amazing storage space. " And the pictures in the old listing are the SAME as the ones in the new listing. That might explain why they're not seeking windfall profits--it appears they just gave it a paint job and a new facade.
Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 11:15 PM
So this house had a garage cut into its heart. That's basically the gist of it. The dimensions of the living room are evidence of the surgery. Tiny and narrow quarters.
Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 11:16 PM
6:17 is wrong - the NYPL picture shows this house at the extreme right of the image. House numbers changed in the 19th century, not 20th. You can tell that it's this house by the painted ad on the brick apartment building next door that says "Flats for Rent by James...Real Estate." That ad is still there today, and it's next to this HOTD.
Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 11:39 PM
Something's wrong with the pictures on the old lising on the Corcoran website (I guess the brokers mucked around with it). I saw this house in 2006 and I can assure you it had crappy interiors that have been since torn out.
Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 11:42 PM
How do they calculate 3000 square feet? Sure doesn't look like it based on the measurements in their floor plan.
Posted by: guest at February 8, 2008 12:18 AM
11:15 -- you solved the mystery. The old ad looks like it even has some of the same photos. Johnife -- our dialogue on this topic is moot. Whatever interior renovation went on, whether a restoration or gut, must have happened before the last sale. It looks like the main work here was to re-side the house with hardiplank and paint it. I hope they put in insulation. Not sure that plus changes in the market warrants the $600k mark-up, but you never know.
Posted by: slopefarm at February 8, 2008 12:58 PM
The original 2006 listing photos are here:
www.dropshots.com/72middagh
Posted by: guest at February 8, 2008 3:07 PM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.