House of the Day: 491 East 17th Street

Plus it's about three blocks from the Q and B trains and about 4 or five blocks from the new French bistro that's opening soon and a short walk to Cortelyou. Ditmas has a lot of room for improvement in terms of safety and amenities, but this seems like a good price, given the location, even if the bricked-in front porch is an affront to the historic architecture of the area.

Posted by: guest at February 19, 2008 1:31 PM

I wonder if you could make that brick addition cuter by adding larger, multi-paned windows (like you see next door), or would that just be a silk purse/sow's ear scenario?

Posted by: guest at February 19, 2008 1:34 PM

Ah, NO. but if you go to the link and look at listing #0499, now that's a house, but also too expensive.

Posted by: guest at February 19, 2008 1:35 PM

good lookin house, even with the ugly brick.

Mary K always gets her price, so I suspect this will go, even in this economy.

Posted by: guest at February 19, 2008 1:40 PM

This addition was done many, many years ago. Most likely the 30s. You can tell from the window mullions behind the storms. You see a lot of this in Victorian Flatbush and Midwood. The asking price seems high to me, given the exterior alterations. Not much curb appeal. Maybe my house is worth more than I realize...

Posted by: guest at February 19, 2008 1:45 PM

Ouch. How much to undo the damage?

Posted by: guest at February 19, 2008 1:48 PM

I don't know this area that well, but looks like some of the houses are gorgeous.

I think I'll talk a little field trip into this neighborhood.

Any hints as to which streets to hit.

Posted by: guest at February 19, 2008 1:48 PM

1:48 - Ouch. How much to undo the damage?

1.3 million, than you can undo anything you want.

Posted by: guest at February 19, 2008 1:51 PM

Walk to Cortelyou (about three avenues away) to see gentrification in action, complete with a couple of coffee shops, some relatively new restaurants, Bell & Maxie (a kid's store), a nice wine shop and some new condos.

Most of the houses on the named streets (Marlborough, Argyle, Rugby) are great examples of Victorian architecture and you'll find a lot of other nice homes on many of the numbered streets as well. On the other side of Newkirk Plaza, you'll find the Flatbush Malls, nice promenade-like streets with very big houses, many in various stages of renovation.

The B runs express here during the day, so it's a relatively quick commute into midtown Manhattan. The Q runs at all times, day and night.

Posted by: guest at February 19, 2008 1:55 PM

1:55, how long does the commute take when the B is running express?

Posted by: guest at February 19, 2008 2:08 PM

The official MTA timetable will tell you that it only takes about 20 - 25 minutes to get to 34th Street, but my experience is that it's a about 30 minutes if everything is running smoothly. I'm sure other people will have different experiences, both positive and negative, faster and slower, but overall it's quite fast and very easy. Plus, you can transfer at Atlantic for just about any train you need.

The Q makes local stops in Bklyn, but makes up for it by making express stops in Manhattan.

Posted by: guest at February 19, 2008 2:17 PM

By the pics (haven't seen in person) I'm not so sure that front room is an addition.
Brickwork looks same as rest of 1st floor.
Realtor says house is from 1920 - certainly after Victorian era. I grew up in neighborhood of similar vintage - and not uncommon to have enclosed porch as original.

Posted by: guest at February 19, 2008 2:18 PM

So this HOTD (NOT listed with Corcoran) has the price listed.

How interesting...

Posted by: guest at February 19, 2008 2:19 PM

This is a standard Archie Bunker 1920's nothing house, of which there are millions throughout the city. The fact that it is a few blocks from a couple of coffe shops hardly justifies the price. This is a prime example of why prices in some areas will indeed crash.

Posted by: guest at February 19, 2008 2:28 PM

It's also a few blocks from other houses that have sold for around the same price if not more. That influences prices more than coffee shops, of course, but a gentrifying neighborhood certainly helps house values as well, especially as the neighborhood attracts people who are priced out of Park Slope, Cobble Hill, and other neighborhoods. Yuppies need their lattes!

Posted by: guest at February 19, 2008 2:35 PM

Edith?

Posted by: guest at February 19, 2008 2:56 PM

2:28, you are way off. While this house may not look like much from the outside thanks to the unattractive porch enclosure, it is still a lovely Victorian, with many original details inside. There may be a few hundred like it throughout the city, but there are certainly not millions. Good effort trying to plant the seeds of a market collapse, though, and best of luck in your house hunt.

Posted by: guest at February 19, 2008 2:57 PM

Just scroll down on Brownstowner and you'll see that a smaller house in Midwood, not too far away but certainly in a less desirable location than this one in terms of the beauty of the block, the proximity to the subway and other factors, sold for more money. ($1.5 million.) Plus, Brownstowner notes that it might even be a tear-down! Given the interior condition of this house, it seems fairly priced.

Posted by: guest at February 19, 2008 3:25 PM

This is not a Vicorian. It was built in 1920, people. Vicotiran era ended in 1901. Get your eras straight.

Posted by: guest at February 19, 2008 3:34 PM

"This is a standard Archie Bunker 1920's nothing house"

This lace is much bigger than Archie's house, for starters.

Posted by: guest at February 19, 2008 3:40 PM

"This is not a Vicorian. It was built in 1920, people. Vicotiran era ended in 1901. Get your eras straight."

V-I-C-T-O-R-I-A-N. You're welcome.

Posted by: guest at February 19, 2008 3:41 PM

i'm sure the street is nice, but this house is straight beat. the only thing it has going for it is BIG. i would buy in windsor terrace for same price before i would buy this junk... 850k max.

Posted by: guest at February 19, 2008 3:44 PM

Ugly house, so-so neighborhood. Next.

Posted by: guest at February 19, 2008 3:44 PM

This house would do well on Staten Island. It looks like it has the right pedigree.

Posted by: guest at February 19, 2008 3:48 PM

this house is charming. like a 70's leisure suit.

Posted by: guest at February 19, 2008 3:58 PM

This house was most likely built with the bricked in porch. There are hundreds of miniature versions of this house on the other side of Flatbush Avenue (East Flatbush) that look as they did when they were built in the mid 1920s - brick porches and all. Interestingly from the Property Shark record it looks like the owner did one of those facade easements - so getting rid of the brick porch won't be easy.

Posted by: guest at February 19, 2008 3:58 PM

for 1.3mn, you're not really priced out of park slope, just out of prime ps brownstones. unless you have 5 kids, you can live without this house. plus, how would you explain where you live to your investment banking buddies. first hurdle: ewww, brooklyn? ok, so which hood, the heigts? -> second hurdle: dit-what park? do cabs even go there?

btw, person just "discovering" victorian flatbush. first stroll you should take is along church ave. south of the park. wear your running shoes...

Posted by: guest at February 19, 2008 4:06 PM

Queens.

Posted by: guest at February 19, 2008 4:21 PM

in analyzing the asking price, one should factor in a present value analysis of the future heating oil prices as it will take a boatload to keep this beast heated. also, do the same with semi-annual painting and throw in the odds and ends for inevitable maintenance. your total purchase price in excess of something reasonable on these counts is probably $3mn. owning this is like owning a 59 chrysler imperial as your daily driver to connecticut. beautiful and big, but absolutely impractical.

Posted by: guest at February 19, 2008 4:36 PM

As far as safety is concerned, the neighborhood is more or less as safe as some blocks of 5th Avenue in Park Slope were 10 years ago. And who on here doesn't wish he or she had bought a place there 10 years ago? Who on earth would have thought condos would be going up on 17th Street and 4th Avenue. You probably still need "running shoes" if you get off of the subway late at night around there.

Also, I have no investment banking buddies and even fewer friends I need to impress.

As for being priced out, if this place is selling for 1.3, then I'm sure you can find other places (one bedrooms, twos, etc.) selling for a lot less than comparable places elsewhere. So, my definition of someone who is "priced out" of Park Slope is broad. You'd be lucky to get 1500 square feet for a million bucks in PS.

Posted by: guest at February 19, 2008 4:45 PM

Victorian Flatbush is obviously an alternative for families priced out of Park Slope which is why we have so many former Park Slope residents in the area. The prices have not risen as fast as Brownstone neighborhoods which makes it affordable to that demographic. The area most certainly doesn't have the amenities of Brooklyn's Brownstone neighborhoods but the trade off is more private outdoor and indoor living space. Public greenspace is limited but with close proximity to Prospect Park, the Parade Grounds, Tennis Courts and even horse riding stables this too can be conquered. The issue with the schools is the same that would be encountered in any number of Brooklyn's gentrified areas. Public Schools improving but not as good as 321. I have strolled along Church Avenue which I find to be a vibrant, busy thoroughfare. No need to wear running shoes unless that's what you prefer. I have never been bothered while walking there. There aren't too many shops there that suit my personal tastes other than vegetable stands and fish markets. Cortelyou is usually pretty busy and well lit at night. Even Newkirk and Foster Avenues see more foot traffic now and are under surveillance by NYPD cameras. As far as this particular home is concerned, it was more than likely built before 1920. My house was built in 1903 - technically post- Victorian in the Edwardian era, but it is listed as being built in 1920 as well. The same holds true for may area homes.

Posted by: guest at February 19, 2008 4:48 PM

The maintenance and upkeep on these homes is definitely more than it would be if you purchase a condo/co-op or new home but after an initial investment in updating heating system to include zoning, insulation etc... the monthly maintenance would not be much more than any older home. No one needs to paint a home semi-annually (every half year.) I am thinking that you meant bi-annually (once every two years) which is still not necessary. Most of my neighbors who still have cedar clapboards and shingles or those who have removed the artifical siding to restore the original cedar sidings, have paint jobs that last about eight-ten years with subsequent paintings easier to do than the first. The intitial cost of removing that ugly siding is comparable to having a Brownstone refaced properly. Old homes are not for the faint of heart and so homeowners might want to learn to do minor repairs themselves.

Posted by: guest at February 19, 2008 5:01 PM

4:48 afraid he bought at the top

Posted by: guest at February 19, 2008 5:05 PM

Nothing about the details of this house are Victorian, regardless of when in the 20th century it was built. It is 100% Edwardian inside and out.

As for the claim Mary Kay Gallagher always gets her price, the only thing MKG always does is puff up Ditmas on Brownstoner and make it sound like in all the other neighborhoods of Brooklyn everyone gets mugged every day. Do you know how offensive that sounds? Not to mention completely inaccurate. Buyers can look up real crime stats if they want to see them. The fact that every single time anybody in Ditmas obsesses over the crime topic when they talk about their neighborhood on Brownstoner, it's kinda unappealing. Makes it sound like a bunch of panicky yuppies out there. This is NYC, you know that, right? Even if you have a yard you are still in NYC. Diverse NYC in all its gritty glory that most of us manage to appreciate.

Posted by: guest at February 19, 2008 5:13 PM

4:48 here ,

Bought a 7 bedroom, center hall with double parlor in 1998 for less than 200K. Had lots of detail but needed work. Alot of the tedious work like stripping paint I did myself- women are pretty good at detailed stuff like that. No longer have a mortgage. I'm good now, thank you.

Posted by: guest at February 19, 2008 5:25 PM

I certainly wouldn't gloss over the neighborhood's problems. There are good, bad, and terrible blocks around here and with fewer businesses open late at night, it's definitely not as safe as other areas. And, yes, the crime stats here are higher than in most of Park Slope. No panicky reaction, just the reality. That's what these comment sections are for: to talk about the kinds of things that aren't mentioned in the real estate broker's listing.

That being said, lots of neighborhoods in Brooklyn that used to be sketchy are now much safer, even if you can't forget that you still live in the city. DUMBO is certainly a lot safer now, but I wouldn't recommend walking alone from the F train late at night. Do you think anyone was hanging out at the Smith and 9th Street subway stops a few years ago (or even now)? So, if you're smart and patient, willing to invest in a neighborhood that will benefit from invested neighbors, and aware of all of the facts, then DP is a great place to live. Diverse and gritty are all fine and good, but no one should ignore the reality of any neighborhood. There are relative risks in all of them.

Posted by: guest at February 19, 2008 5:26 PM

I have never seen Mary Kay post anything on Brownstoner so I don't know how she would then "puff up Ditmas on Brownstoner and make it sound like in all the other neighborhoods of Brooklyn everyone gets mugged every day." She just doesn't strike me as the blogging kind. MKG stayed in Flatbush and raised her family here when it wasn't fashionable. She could have fled Brooklyn with the waves of others who left for points north south easet and west. Many Brownstone readers obsess about crime and not just in Ditmas Park but in all of the Brownstone neighborhoods too. You are correct that crime stats are available online but even they have to be taken with a grain of salt because one or two hot spots in any precinct can skew the stat's. And you are right, this is NYC. It is one of the safest cities in the USA. Now that's not saying much if you got mugged last night!

Posted by: guest at February 19, 2008 5:39 PM

Staten Island = 350K
Buffulo, NY = 75K

Posted by: guest at February 19, 2008 5:46 PM

yes, except 5th ave 10 years ago was priced for what it was then. this is priced for "imagine what this will be like in 10 years" as if we are already living in that time. these prices have gotten way ahead of themselves, especially given how expensive the houses are to maintain. there simply isn't enough demand from people with that kind of green when they have so many other choices at that price point. for $200k, i say you made a great deal. for 1.3mn, i would feel like a sucker.

Posted by: guest at February 19, 2008 5:49 PM

"it's definitely not as safe as other areas." Where did you get that from? As a previous poster stated, view the crime stats. Yes Park Slope is safe but Ditmas Park is in a very interesting precinct. The 7-0 covers a vast areas with significant socioeconomic differences between the sectors. What happens in one sector affect the overall stats. The SWARM blocks - that's how those of us on-the-job refer to the Stratford, Westminster, Argyle, Rugby and Marlborough blocks are just as safe as Park Slope. The numbered blocks E 16, 17 18 and 19 starting at Beverly and going South also safe. Rugby between Newkirk and Foster has issues but those issues don't generally affect the "gentrified." The eastern part of the 7-0 has many issues, again most of which don't affect the gentrified. The people in the neighborhood always bring cookies or send cards during the Holiday's to the Police and Fire Dept's and are usually quite pleasant. Park Slope people are not as nice. If money were no object- and for me it is. I'd go with Ditmas over Park Slope.

Posted by: guest at February 19, 2008 6:16 PM

5:49, what the effen are you talking about? On a per square foot basis houses in ditmas park are about half the price of park slope. There is the discount for the nabe's amenities amenities, higher crime stats, and somewhat higher maintenance. The point is I remember when Forte greene was discounted to park slope for all the same reasons and guess what...they are very similar priced today because the the nabe gentrified, people preferred the vibe, etc. There isn't enough demand? If you've followed the market in ditmas park at all you would know houses have sold and price points have risen over the last two years and continue to because guess what...it's a discount for price/square foot of other nabes. Its pretty simple. What kind of green...you mean two 5th year associates each making 230k??? They can easily afford the mortgage and more and they are a dime a dozen my friend.

Posted by: guest at February 19, 2008 6:24 PM

one big difference you are leaving out on ft. greene vs. ditmas comparison: ft. greene is right next to manhattan, ditmas is deep in landlocked bkln. that will never change. fyi, associates work long hours and often take cabs home. who wants a 40min cab ride after a 15 hour day? and yes, on a price per square foot basis, ditmas wins hands down. but how many people (e.g. 5th year associates) with that green actually need 3,000+ sq. ft? most would gladly trade for half that space in a much better nabe, with better schools and better commutes. btw, many of said associates lost their jobs/had bonuses cut this year. face

Posted by: guest at February 19, 2008 7:10 PM

6:17,

How do you know that gangbangers get on the train at Beverly or Cortelyou? Because they are young, black and male or young, latino and male? In either case they are more likely to victimize a person of their own ethnic background. NYC is relatively safe but don't rock yourself into a false sense of security anywhere. Many gentrifying areas are faced with the same problems with schools as Victorian Flatbush. The schools here are no worse. In fact they area improving steadily. As more homeowners who can not afford prep schools - as you so eloquently stated we are very poor out here in 11226- place their children in 217 and 139 whic are actually very good schools and 159 which is improving yearly. My children have friends whose mothers are housekeepers as well friends whose mom's are judges. Keeps things interesting. By suggesting Bay Ridge as an alternative you are clearly delusional. That area does not have the housing stock or progressive minded people. If you are going to suggest an alternative it would be more like Staten Island's Georgetown or New Brighton, but you would probably have a problem with those neighborhoods too because people of color live their too.

Posted by: guest at February 19, 2008 7:15 PM

yes, right. i'm affordin' 1.3mn+, but i'm house poor and can't send my kids to a decent school. i only have two kids and 3500 lonely square feet and my house costs a small fortune to heat. get in now before it's too late b/c these things are hittin' $5mn once all the 5th year associates get wind of the area.
why do people who bought nyc real estate before the recent irrational run-up feel like they have to defend their neighborhoods so fiercely. yes, we get it dude, you paid $200k and you're a millionaire on paper. good for you. yay you! what do you care if some of those paper profits come back off. it will keep your hood diverse just like you supposedly want it. not just 5th year associates with good running shoes...

Posted by: guest at February 19, 2008 7:23 PM

To whom are you refering 7:23,

I wish I had bought at 200K! or 300 or 400 or 500K for that matter. I don't know too many 5th year Associates looking in Ditmas either but there are enough of whoever looking because on the two reasonably priced, reasonably sized houses that I bid on, I underbid! The huge mansions sit for a while. Those take a special buyer - usually Doctors. I met two while on the house tour. I 've run into college professors, an opera singer, concert pianist, pyschiatrist, etc... in Ditmas, definitely different buyers than some of the other more popular areas. They are usually older with a couple of kids. I would prefer Ft Greene/Clinton Hill but can't afford it and for that money still too edgy. So like others who came before me, I am willing to sacrifice a longer train ride to just get to own something not too far from my favorite haunts and to stop paying my landlords mortgage for him. I am also considering the Bronx and Queens.

Posted by: guest at February 19, 2008 7:43 PM

Sorry folks, but I know that one of the owners is a retiring prof from Brooklyn College and is moving her family to another state. The house next to it (or across the street) sold for only $800,000 in the last two years and it was renovated as well, just not as big. I'm not sure, but I think greed has taken over in this case. I'd offer much less than that asking price.

Posted by: guest at February 19, 2008 7:54 PM

7:54. There is nothing in the area for 800k that's not a comlete dump, tiny, and on the tracks. Look at the comparables on MKG's site. One across the street in perfect condition and bigger sold for $1.9 1 year ago. One at 500 Marlborough that is similar just sold for $1.325 and another on 18th street that is smaller and needs renovation just went into contract and is listed at $1.19. Maybe you could get this for 1.2 but 800k? Yes nyc is greedy...there are townhouses listed in manhattan for 20-30 million and two bedroom cookie cutters in park slope off 4th ave for $1.3. It's all relative.

Posted by: guest at February 19, 2008 8:07 PM

Ditto 7:54. If a house on that block sold for 800K it must have been a complete dump. Even being a little more conservative with the comps and using sales in the last two months this will probably go for about 1,275,000.

Posted by: guest at February 19, 2008 8:27 PM

I wouldn't want to live in DP now because I am young with no kids and socially there isn't much going on out there for me. I grew up in a two bedroom co-op apartment in Park Slope where my brother and I had to share a room even as teens. Although we did have a weekend house with much more room for a girl to spread out, I couldn't wait to go away to college. My parents sold both their weekend home and their apartment and are giving my brother and I money for our first homes. I am engaged and do plan to have children in about five years and I am thinking that it just might be worth buying in Ditmas now so that when the time comes my kids will have more room. A Fort Greene or Clinton Hill coop would be cool for now but I am looking toward the future and I am starting to think that DP might be the better bargain.

Posted by: guest at February 19, 2008 8:46 PM

$950 this year. $750 next year.

Posted by: guest at February 19, 2008 8:54 PM

There are posts on this thread about demograhics of the Victorian Flatbush buyer but not one mentioned the Jewish families that buy there. There are both Conservative and Orthodox temples all within walking distance. Avenue J and 18th Avenue are only short bus or train rides away. They also seem not to be as afraid as Yuppie stroller mom types to live in racially diverse neighborhoods and they don't have to worry about schools because they send their kids to yeshiva. There are definitely buyers out their for these homes who will pay a premium. I don't think it has to do with greed. It is simply supply and demand.

Posted by: guest at February 19, 2008 9:02 PM

Actually, Archie Bunker lived in Glendale, Queens and the houses are absolutely nothing like Ditmas Park. However, they are not bad either for people who want a nice house, in a nice neighborhood, good neighbors, reasonable commute from a few million good jobs. Glendale is nice. Many of the amenities that are just coming to Ditmas Park (bakeries, coffee shops, artisan butchers(Italian and German)) are long term residents in Glendale. Of course, you miss out on the museum piece bragging rights that go with a Brownstone or Victorian in Brooklyn. All you get is a community.

Posted by: guest at February 19, 2008 9:16 PM

Archie lived in Corona ar 704 Hauser Street. The facade of the home shown in the opening credits was in Glendale. Anyway what makes you think that Victorian Flatbush doesn't have bakeries (Italian, Russian, Pakistani, West Indian and Spanish) coffee shops (No not Starbucks) and artisan butchers (Halal, Kosher & West Indian)? Yuppies would not frequent the already established shops in Glendale anymore than they patronize the many thousands of shops within walking distance of them in Victorian Flatbush. They tend to think that there wasn't a thriving community out here before they came and they prefer the newer trendier spots or going to Park Slope over the longtime neighborhood businesses.

Posted by: guest at February 19, 2008 9:38 PM

December 2007 - East 18th Street, Very Small 3 bedroom Bungalow, adjacent to tracks at grade, one bath, needed new kitchen, partially finished basement went for 935K. This one has that ugly enclosed porch but is priced about 35K over what it will go for.

Posted by: guest at February 19, 2008 9:54 PM

7:54

Nothing on that block sold for as low as 800K two years ago.

Posted by: guest at February 19, 2008 10:03 PM

This house was NOT built in the 1920s. This house is in Ditmas Park (proper)and was bart of the original development built by Louis Pounds.

DOB, and subsequently Property Shark, have mis-dated many, many houses in Victorian Flatbush. My own home, built in 1903 (and I have the original sales photo to prove it), is, according to the DOB and Property Shark, c.1920.

The porch is NOT original. You will find the odd house in the neighborhood has been clad entirely, or partially (first floor only) in brick. You will also find later brick porch enclosures. Although, there are a small handful or houses in the area that were originally brick, or had a brick ground floor (usually pale brick), I know of only a handful that have original brick porches. This house is NOT one of them. The window mullions are dead give-aways - 1930s porch enclosure, most likely influenced by houses built in Midwood in that era.

As for Archie Bunker... Whoever is posting that stuff is talking out his rear end.

Posted by: guest at February 20, 2008 9:09 AM

Gee, nycityguy9, do you mean BLACK people... ?

Posted by: guest at February 20, 2008 9:14 AM

This house has lost much of it's exterior charm, and if it did not have this blight of a porch enclosure, many of you would be praising it's original charm. Fluted columns, dentil moldings, etc... These have clearly gone by the wayside, but his was no "average" house in its day. Unfortunately, it is often too cost prohibitive to resore a porch. Red brick was the black plague of Victorian Flatbush.

Posted by: guest at February 20, 2008 9:20 AM

The far more attractive porch enclosure belonging to the neighborhood house is almost certainly not original, either. I have seen quite a few 1920s enclosures that eschew red-brick and opted for panes set against the original wood frame and columns. A far more successful form of enclosure. So successful that many people mistake them for being original (there are very few original porch enclosures, but they do exist). Even Landmarks distinguishes between "historicizing" and "non-historicizing" porch enclosures. Consult the application for Sunnyside Gardens,available online.

Posted by: guest at February 20, 2008 9:23 AM

Most homes in Ditmas Park are technically "Colonial Revival."

Victorian architecture encompasses the Edwardian era. Within the term Victorian, there are also many different individual styles - Eastlake, stick style, transitional, carpenter Gothic, etc...

Posted by: guest at February 20, 2008 9:31 AM

I'm amazed at the lack of vision some of you are showing towards this house. While it would not be cheap, the bricked enclosure could be turned back into an open porch. Originally it would have come across the front and wrapped around to the entrance halfway down the side. It would probably cost $100-150,000 but with that one change you will have instantly restored curb appeal to the house. And what is now a weak link would become a wonderful asset to what many believe is among the best blocks in Victorian Flatbush.

Posted by: guest at February 20, 2008 9:51 AM

There are not many Orthodox families that buy in Landmarked neighborhoods, such as PPS and Ditmas Park. You see more in the nabes along Avenue J, particularly West Midwood and Ditmas Park West. And they tend to be modern Orthodox.

Posted by: guest at February 20, 2008 10:15 AM

There are not many Orthodox families that buy in Landmarked neighborhoods, such as PPS and Ditmas Park. You see more in the nabes along Avenue J, particularly West Midwood and Ditmas Park West. And they tend to be modern Orthodox, not ultra.

Posted by: guest at February 20, 2008 10:15 AM

Victorian architecture encompasses Edwardian?
eh?

Posted by: guest at February 20, 2008 10:30 AM

9.14 - I doubt he means that, most gangs in NY are latino.

Posted by: guest at February 20, 2008 10:31 AM

As an architectural term, used loosely, Victorian usually encompasses the Edwardian period, also known as transitional, leading upt to Arts and Crafts.

No, I don't need a geography lesson. I realize DPW is north of WM. It is, however, contiguous with WM, hence the trickle down in to DPW. I know the boundaries of the Victorian Flatbush neighborhoods, including those that are now defunct, quite well, thank you.

Posted by: guest at February 20, 2008 10:49 AM

And yes, I realize it's Avenue H that's the cut off. The point is, the Orthodox spill over from the Avenue J and CIA neighborhoods. Why do you have to be such a pill?

Posted by: guest at February 20, 2008 10:50 AM

Victorian does not "encompass" Edwardian. Thats a misunderstanding of the term.

Posted by: guest at February 20, 2008 10:52 AM

Actually, if you walk down any of these streets (Rugby, Argyle, E. 16th, E. 17th) you'll see plenty of Orthodox families. The houses are attractive to them because many of them have large families. Yes, Avenue J and Midwood have huge concentration of Orthodox Jews, but many of them find nice houses around here. Some of my neighbors are doctors and lawyers whose practices serve the Orthodox community.

I find this discussion to be very Manhattan and Park Slope centric, as if those are the only two places from which people come looking for houses. I have lived in this neighborhood for a few years and never in my life lived in Manhattan or Park Slope (or Cobble Hill, Brooklyn Heights, etc.). As nice as some of those neighborhoods are, most of them are too far away from where I work to make living there make much sense. (I'd imagine my Orthodox neighbors have little reason to go into the city every day since the husband works as a lawyer in Brooklyn.)

I'm a doctor with a practice near Brooklyn College and my house on Argyle suits me, my wife, and my son just fine. We're glad that the neighborhood is changing and that new restaurants are opening. Just realize that people buy houses for lots of reasons, and not only because they can't afford to live in Park Slope.

Posted by: guest at February 20, 2008 11:25 AM

It's pretty misleading to tell a buyer a 1920 house is Victorian, suggesting it's just as historical as one of the huge multitude of truly Victorian structures built before 1900. But go ahead and be misleading if that's what you have to do to sell your house.

No city I've ever visited or lived in would call a house built between 1910 and 1920, Victorian. People elsewhere always name the very specific architectural style. They do NOT use "Victorian" as a term that covers all those styles. That is a complete lie. Therefore it proves what I'm saying, that by calling a non-Victorian house "Victorian" in certain markets in Brooklyn you're trying to make the house something it's not because "Victorian" is so valued here.

I love the styles and eras of the 20th century. I love houses built in the 1920's, their layouts are better a lot of times. So can't the historic house community in Brooklyn get educated and use the proper terms, and not lump absolutely any and every house that's older than the newly built condos, into the "Victorian" category? Think how dumb that looks.

Posted by: guest at February 20, 2008 11:49 AM

The house was built about 1903. This is a fact. It is a Louis Pounds house. It was NOT built in 1920, or 1910, for that matter.

Think how dumb the above post sounds, in light of the fact that several posters have noted that their is an error in terms of the construction date on both the DOB website and Property Shark.

And I will say it again. When used casually, the term Victorian frequently is used as a catch all when describing stick style homes and their decendents through the turn of the twentieth century.

Posted by: guest at February 20, 2008 12:11 PM

I agree with 11.49. I also hate "tudor" when people mean mock-tudor. 12.11 - learn from those more erudite than you.

Posted by: guest at February 20, 2008 12:31 PM

12:31 no my friend, 12:11 is enitirely correct. The houses were built as part of developments between 1895-1915 in the Victorian style of which there are many (queen anne, colonial revival, tudor, etc). Whether Queen Victoria reigned or died in 1903 does not factor in whether these houses were built in the Victorian style or not. It is description of the style of the house.

Posted by: guest at February 20, 2008 12:50 PM

12:11, "Casually" is not the approach one should take on a realty listing, or on a site promoting historic preservation. This site should be using the proper terms. Not loosy goosey uninformed casual terms.

Posted by: guest at February 20, 2008 12:51 PM

So those reproduction houses in the suburbs, we can call those "Victorian" too, 12:50, per your definition.

Posted by: guest at February 20, 2008 12:52 PM

yes I can see how loose you are with language. look up "events of 1901", not 1903.

of course if you're a broker you can make it up as you go along, just like you can make up neighborhood names and square footage.

Posted by: guest at February 20, 2008 12:58 PM

What a minute - this guy is now mixing up tudor and victorian?

Posted by: guest at February 20, 2008 1:00 PM

This clearly isn't a Victorian house, but MKG hasn't described it as such, so no problems there. I think she knows her subject matter.

Posted by: guest at February 20, 2008 1:04 PM

guys, a colonial revival or tudor or queen anne or gothic revival built during this period is a victorian. The whole nabe is victorian. Again whether victoria reigned or not. It's a descriptive term of style. Are you seriously going to tell me that an architect who planned a house in 1900 as a victorian but was finished in 1904 after she died is no longer a victorian? Or planned in 1907 as my house was built and is a colonial revival.

and yes the tudors are victorians just like the colonial ones are and gothic and romanesque. Its a revivalist period.

and yes neighborhood names change. This is ditmas park which is part of victorian flatbush which is flatbush. All true.

Posted by: guest at February 20, 2008 3:02 PM

turn of the century - it all changed, people got a new attitude and so did the architecture.

Posted by: guest at February 20, 2008 4:29 PM

Everyone keeps arguing its style is Victorian at the least, but the style is just as much Crafts/Mission as it is Victorian. It's totally transitional.

Many or most of the truly old houses all along Flatbush and in these areas were torn down in the early 20th century. I've never seen any house on the market in Ditmas over the last few years that was older than the late 1890's and the great majority were built after 1910. The area was all farmland during the height of the Victorian era.

Posted by: guest at February 22, 2008 12:35 PM