House of the Day: 631 3rd Street

Judging from the Townsley website, it looks as though they recently sold another 3rd street house which was asking 3.449 million

Posted by: guest at May 22, 2008 1:32 PM

Considering Townsley sold, what looks to be a very similar Limestone for 3.49 or whatever they got, I'd say this is possible. The finishes, kitchen and bath on this one look to be amazing.

The entire place is stunning. I like this more than the Connelly mansion, in fact...

Posted by: guest at May 22, 2008 1:38 PM

I was just going to say, the layout works way better than the jennifer connelly place.

Posted by: guest at May 22, 2008 1:40 PM

I actually believe this house is worth it. Usually I think the HOTDs are overpriced but this one looks like it could sell for close to asking.

Posted by: guest at May 22, 2008 1:42 PM

Wow 1:38 -- brokers out in force today:

"Considering Townsley sold, what looks to be a very similar Limestone for 3.49 or whatever they got, I'd say this is possible"

1) If it is similar, it is overpriced by 25%

2) It sold for 3.449 not 3.49 --

your fake mistake notwithstanding, still very very overpriced.

Wall Street is laying people off, economy is pulling back, seriously, this place is far overpriced.

Posted by: guest at May 22, 2008 1:44 PM

I walk past this house every day with my dog and love to try to peer inside, though they don't have the goldfish effect going and I can never see inside much. Pity there aren't more pictures. It backs up to Safran Foer's place, or at least is adjacent to his open lot. It's a young couple, wonder where they are going. I figured he was a banker (what can I say, I'm a story person.) Truly a lovely house in the perfect location.

Posted by: guest at May 22, 2008 1:46 PM

I am not a broker and I think this place is nicer than the one that sold for 3.449 (thanks for the correction...but I didn't think it really mattered since that was the asking price and I don't actually know what it SOLD for).

This house looks nicer to me than the other, thus the higher asking price.

Stop being such a troll, 1:44. Can we not have a civilized, mature conversation around here for once?

Posted by: guest at May 22, 2008 1:48 PM

call me a broker , but i think it will sell for $4. it's gorgeous. (I'm not a broker, by the way.)

Posted by: guest at May 22, 2008 1:53 PM

judging from the pictures i DO see, this place looks freakin gorgeous. the part of the kitchen we can see through that doorway looks pretty sweet.

Posted by: guest at May 22, 2008 1:55 PM

The thing about a place like this is that it is so special, it will always hold its value. The market may go down or already is, but you can be pretty assured that a house like this will be worth 5 million in 10 years, 6 million in 20 years, etc...

It's like buying a fine Italian made violin. They don't make any more of them and are works of art, in their own right.

Posted by: guest at May 22, 2008 1:57 PM

me likey!!!

Posted by: guest at May 22, 2008 1:58 PM

When I see a house like this and remember what it's like to walk up 3rd Street towards the Park, it's easy to forget about all the Park Slope hate and realize what really makes the area so special...These homes are simply beautiful.

Posted by: guest at May 22, 2008 2:00 PM

This area is so fringe. $750K tops.

Posted by: guest at May 22, 2008 2:06 PM

Yep, they'll get it. Fab block. Plus they get to look out over Jonathan Safran Foer and Nicole Krauss' Volvo.

Posted by: guest at May 22, 2008 2:07 PM

some house! next to an apt building though. Has anyone seen it, how does it compare to the other house on 2nd street?

Posted by: guest at May 22, 2008 2:11 PM

No master bath for 4.2m?

Posted by: guest at May 22, 2008 2:11 PM

What is the most expensive home ever sold in Park Slope. Anyone know??

Posted by: guest at May 22, 2008 2:11 PM

I believe this house was on the Park Slope House Tour last year. If so, its perfect and I often reference it as my ideal home.

Posted by: guest at May 22, 2008 2:12 PM

The exterior is beautiful and the interior nicely finished, but for $4 million, I'd have liked a master bath next to the master bedroom instead of down the hall and shared with a second bedroom. And the kitchen, though nice, is relatively narrow and eats up most of the backyard (you can see better pictures of it on the architect Paul Cha's website).

Posted by: guest at May 22, 2008 2:14 PM

I hope they get 4 million. Looks like they've done an excellent job on the renovation. Perfect mix of old world charm and updated modern convenience. I'm not easily impressed, but this house really does it for me.

Posted by: guest at May 22, 2008 2:15 PM

I can't wait to see how much these houses actually sell for. This one seems really expensive, but we have not seen closing prices on houses that have recently gone in to contract. I really do think limestone commands a higher price than brick or brownstone. Maybe that is just my preference.

Posted by: guest at May 22, 2008 2:16 PM

This will test the upper limit of the market. Maybe not four million, but close.
It is a lovely old pile.

Posted by: guest at May 22, 2008 2:18 PM

Let's compare this for one second to yesterday's House of the Day....

2.75 million for an ok (but still lovely) home on Underhill needing some work, near the site of recent drive by shootings in a nice, but still needing to be improved neighborhood with very poor schools.

4.195 million for a perfectly restored home with an award winning architectural design, featured in a magazine with great schools, on probably one of the nicest blocks in all of Brooklyn.

Hmmm....So either this house is way underpriced or yesterday's was absurd.

Posted by: guest at May 22, 2008 2:18 PM

I agree, all the priciest houses in the slope are limestone.

Posted by: guest at May 22, 2008 2:19 PM

I agree, all the priciest houses in the slope are limestone.

Posted by: guest at May 22, 2008 2:19 PM

I can't imagine why someone in the West Village or Upper West Side wouldn't want to cash out of their similar home (which would sell for 15 and 10 million, respectively) pocket the difference and move to Park Slope and never work again...

Posted by: guest at May 22, 2008 2:20 PM

limestone is brighter, and its also grander looking.

Posted by: guest at May 22, 2008 2:23 PM

Thanks for the tip about Paul Cha's website. This place is amazing. Can't imagine living like that. How could you possibly be unhappy if you lived in a sweet place like this? For some reason, the last photo of the bathroom reminded me that, despite the fact that our incomes are dramatically different, we're all human at the end of the day. I think it was the toilet paper that did it for me.

http://www.paulchaarchitect.com/3rdWeb/main_fset.htm

Posted by: guest at May 22, 2008 2:27 PM

You REALLY have to look at the pictures on Paul Cha's website. My lord.

This place is something special. Thanks for that link, 2:27.

Posted by: guest at May 22, 2008 2:32 PM

*Yawn* Almost as boring as the place yesterday and the day before. 4 mil+ for a bland house that needs work on a sketchy block in the South Slope? I think not.

Posted by: guest at May 22, 2008 2:42 PM

No denying that is a real nice place.

Tell me the other bathroom has a big tub and I'll go buy a lottery ticket!

Posted by: guest at May 22, 2008 2:45 PM

2:42 = has never been to Brooklyn

Posted by: guest at May 22, 2008 2:45 PM

bland on the inside--especially the reno work done by the architect. You people are so easy, unless of course those that are raving have a vested interest in this house.

It's a beautiful house on the outside, but, with the exception of the dining room, is nothing special on the inside.

Posted by: guest at May 22, 2008 2:45 PM

Park Slope is the dumps, give me Cobble Hill any day.

Posted by: guest at May 22, 2008 2:46 PM

2:45 = doesn't know a joke when he/she reads one.

Posted by: guest at May 22, 2008 2:49 PM

I'm clearly the laziest person on the planet. I look at this place and start counting blocks to the subway. Too many for me, but I guess the owners will simply call their driver.

Posted by: guest at May 22, 2008 2:50 PM

Cobble Hill is nice also, 2:46. But it's also about 5 blocks wide and long. It's a tiny micro-neighborhood. If you think 3rd Street or Park Slope is "the dumps" you really don't belong in NYC.

Posted by: guest at May 22, 2008 2:50 PM

hmm... so if you buy this house you'll be surrounded by very rich 30-somethings. Those are the types that own the houses directly behind and adjacent to this house. Writers, entrepreneurs, lawyers, etc. It is like Stepford...

Posted by: guest at May 22, 2008 2:52 PM

"I'm clearly the laziest person on the planet"

yep, i'd agree. it's 6 short blocks down 7th. maybe 5 minutes, tops. unless you're handicapped or obese.

Posted by: guest at May 22, 2008 2:53 PM

but it has recessed lighting. . . .

Posted by: guest at May 22, 2008 2:54 PM

I heard they are moving to Europe...

Posted by: guest at May 22, 2008 2:54 PM

"hmm... so if you buy this house you'll be surrounded by very rich 30-somethings."

yup...just like most of manhattan...

Posted by: guest at May 22, 2008 2:59 PM

Hey, thanks 1:46! It must be family money from the Netherlands, then!

Posted by: guest at May 22, 2008 3:02 PM

I don't mind a small yard. Just a place to have a smoke, a cup of coffee or dinner would be great with me. It's the city, afterall. If you really need a large back yard, the burbs are probably better for you.

Any outdoor space in NYC is a plus, in my book...

Posted by: guest at May 22, 2008 3:07 PM

1:46 -- good find. Yes, must be family money from the Netherlands. No way an associate at a law firm could afford this house otherwise.

Posted by: guest at May 22, 2008 3:16 PM

the interior of the house is very nice it's nothing to swoon over though. kind of a nicer version of west elm. the new buyer will probably gut the place anyway and start over. once you get to that strata of money nothing is surprising.

Posted by: guest at May 22, 2008 3:20 PM

Not feeling the modern interiors.

Posted by: guest at May 22, 2008 3:27 PM

The loss of the yard to the modern extension makes it feel too big for the space. It makes me a bit sad that a large house like this wasn't considered enough, and an extension was added.

Posted by: guest at May 22, 2008 3:41 PM

3.20 -you and other guys talking about the neighbors are very creepy.

Posted by: guest at May 22, 2008 3:41 PM

How much indooor space can you actually use? The loss of a decent sized yard would not suit me.

Posted by: guest at May 22, 2008 3:46 PM

4 million and you still have to look for parking

i would want nice fedders ac's thru the wall and pave over the garden to park my suv

Posted by: guest at May 22, 2008 3:47 PM

The fact that even the nicest blocks in brooklyn do not have service alleys speaks of how mean-spirited our forebears were when laying out the city.
Now we are stuck with palatial homes and no place to park or put out the garbage. Walking down even the nicest street on trash day is disgusting. Its just one of those things we put up with for the privilige of living in the greatest city ever blah..blah...

Posted by: guest at May 22, 2008 3:56 PM

This is a nice pretentious house for a nice pretentious family. I'm sure they will have their "man", who is sensible enough to live in the suburbs, pick them up in the towncar whenever they need to visit Prada or the plastic surgeon's office.
As for the rear yard, it has been my experience that rich people in the city seldom if ever step outside.

Posted by: guest at May 22, 2008 4:04 PM

On the Paul Cha link check out the modern chelsea penthouse with the glass floors! Oh to be 15 again and under the care of a firm yet gentle young Brazillian house keeper with a windex obsession...

Posted by: guest at May 22, 2008 4:14 PM

I would Rent this townhouse out to porn shoots.

Posted by: guest at May 22, 2008 4:15 PM

this house is NOT nicer than J. Co's house.

Posted by: guest at May 22, 2008 5:34 PM

The window in the kitchen is a really a great idea. I'm trying to imagine this space with all my mail and the kids crap lying around.

Posted by: guest at May 22, 2008 5:36 PM

I much prefer it to J. Co's house. The layout of this one works MUCH better.

Who needs 8 bedrooms anyway? Way too much...

Posted by: guest at May 22, 2008 5:39 PM

Well, from the picture on Cha's site, you can very clearly see the extension of the neighbor's house, which apparently goes RIGHT up to the lot line and almost into your kitchen! No thanks.

Posted by: guest at May 22, 2008 6:24 PM

Comparing this house to the celebrity mansion on PPW is like comparing apples to horse apples.

Posted by: guest at May 22, 2008 6:26 PM

right, 6:24 because i'm so sure that's the only reason you don't like it.

not that you don't have 40 bucks in the bank, much less 4 million.

Posted by: guest at May 22, 2008 7:46 PM

oh, 7:46, if you only knew...

Also, in sticking to the point, I haven't seen any brownstones or limestone mansions where the extension of the neighboring home comes all the way up to your lot line. And I've been looking at many houses. That is, to me, a big negative.

And I must ask, why did you take my objective comment so personally?

Posted by: guest at May 22, 2008 8:18 PM

There are plenty of people out there with $4M in the bank. All you need is one to fall in love with the house and you've got a sale. I think it goes for the asking price within three months.

Posted by: guest at May 22, 2008 8:25 PM

8:18 - eat sh*t and die.

Posted by: guest at May 22, 2008 8:29 PM

3:56 PM,
Regarding NYC not having service alleys:

We should all bear in mind the lifestyle of the first owners when this house was built. The may have kept a carriage at a nearby building or simply rented out when they needed one or, took "cabs" (from "cabriolet", a type of carriage). And even though cars were coming in at this time, "parking the car out front" was not something anyone would have dreamed of. Carriages dropped the owners off at their door and, unless you lived in a house with a stable on the property (like in Clinton Hill) the driver brought the horse and carriage to the stable where the horse was boarded. Again, many people didn't own their own equipage but paid on a needs basis much like we pay for car services today if we want a certain number of hours.

You mention the lack of service roads.

In terms of garbage collection, garbage removal in US cities was not handled the way it is now. For a house like this, a maid would probably have carted out the garbage pail when the garbage men brought the wagon down the street during the day. Refrigerators, TV, old microwave ovens, etc. wouldn’t bulk up the trash. All the plastic, packaging, newspapers, metal and glass would not have loaded up the trash.

There was a lot of “recycling”…and very end-specific at that. Rags, for example, were collected for papermaking by special collectors, not thrown in the trash…that collected when they were truly rags, and had no more life left in them. Many things were never thrown out. Clothes were nearly always repurposed. Unwanted furnishings would be removed, often by the company supplying new furnishings, and end up in another home…sometimes, in fact, in what were consider middle class and well-to-do homes, the furniture was rented.

Not that there was no problem with garbage and trash in NYC when this house was built…

In some cities in the US, even largish ones, garbage was left in the middle of streets up the center line for foraging pigs to eat. Ah…the good old days when stepping out the door could mean stepping into manure. We can’t imagine the smells.

BTW, in the area of Brooklyn in a swathe from BH to FG built up quite a bit earlier than PS, human waste was also probably carted off on a cart back in the day. Chamber pots were carried right to the cart as it went by and dumped...as in "take a dump" out the door. Our house wasn’t built with indoor plumbing but may have had one sink for dumping all household wastewater and handling the rainwater off the roof. Many of our houses have dry wells in the yard with a brick conduit from the house to the well.

There *are* the type of service roads running behind houses down the center of blocks in parts of NYC, just not brownstone Brooklyn. Most of them in NYC probably were built after the advent of the Model T. like in Queens. But, in some cities in the US, in the late 1800's and early 1900's, these back service roads were built in toney places as mews for stables and housing staff. There are mews in the NYC but they only occasionally seem to be access roads. They are usually part of the fabric of the grid.

Sorry for the lesson. At least Polemicist usually seems to appreciate the read.

Regarding this house. I have to say, the details of the house's era were kind of austere and generic (beaux arts), a neoclassicism that can be easy to live with but is fairly bland and reproducible…there is A LOT of it in the US. Compared to it the many earlier styles in brownstone Brooklyn: the neo-rococo of the Italianate, the rarer Greek Revival, the hints at federal which harkens back to Georgian, the neo-grecque. The earliest neoclassical surviving in NYC are the pre-1800 buildings but their charm continued into the early 1800's. When neoclassicism waned in favor of romanticism, things went in all directions...and some very funny ones at that. Eventually, though, many elements pulled back toward neoclassicism by the time the colonial revival kicked in at the time of the Centennial…but really blossomed as a general style well after 1876. A renewed interest in Georgian and colonial architecture was keyed to political and social issues of the moment and eventually boiled down through beaux art into the "colonial" we got in the 1920's-1940's eventually overlaying onto 60's and 70's suburban houses and apartment complexes and now mcmansions…oh, can can’t forget the Greek Revival of postmodernist architecture.

This house is okay but Cha does not seem to worry much about “green”…unless he’s trying to get into it the last year or two. But then, when you’re designing for people who don’t know from “green” what is an architect to do?

Posted by: guest at May 22, 2008 8:45 PM

Sorry,
Ms. Wordy here,
I meant to write that earlier houses had one sink to handle wastewater which went to a dry well which also handled the rainwater off the roof. I made is sound like the rainwater was being dumped into the one kitchen sink on the ground floor...duh.

Posted by: guest at May 22, 2008 8:49 PM

Meh.

Posted by: guest at May 22, 2008 10:21 PM

I saw this house. It is the nicest house reno I've ever seen in Brooklyn. Lots of details and great light. Not a small feat. It's like living in a work of art. I would love to see this architect's other houses too just to see if they had such beautiful finishes and everything. I wish I could afford it. Somebody will buy it and love it. I'm not the broker btw. I don't think the question is whether they will get their price. The question is how quickly.

Posted by: guest at May 22, 2008 10:33 PM

I saw this house. It is the nicest house reno I've ever seen in Brooklyn. Lots of details and great light. Not a small feat. It's like living in a work of art. I would love to see this architect's other houses too just to see if they had such beautiful finishes and everything. I wish I could afford it. Somebody will buy it and love it. I'm not the broker btw. I don't think the question is whether they will get their price. The question is how quickly.

Posted by: guest at May 22, 2008 10:33 PM

Yeah, the yard is not deep enough with the extension (even if just to mainly look out at), and the lack of a garden in the lot behind also is not so nice.

Would have preferred house with dining area in central parlor - and kitchen where dining room is, with only a small deck where the first half of the kitchen is to allow for access to stairs to garden. But, given that the central parlor is clearly a central parlor, I can see why they added a kitchen extension - though they sacrificed the garden to do so.

Posted by: guest at May 22, 2008 10:53 PM

8:29 = owner.

Posted by: guest at May 22, 2008 10:59 PM

It does look like a very nice house, but I also think the lack of a decent sized garden seems a bit weird at that price point. Breaking the 3 barrier is pretty ballsy and you'd think they'd have had to offer at least a drive way. I think someone will fall in love with it, but I would be surprised, in this market, with everyone a bit tentative, if they got their ask.

Posted by: guest at May 22, 2008 11:51 PM

Maybe you can rent a parking spot from the writers next door.

Posted by: guest at May 23, 2008 12:30 AM

I don't think they need the money next door.

Posted by: guest at May 23, 2008 10:25 AM

Actually, I prefer the master bath not being en suite - it can wreck the flow of some of these old homes. I prefer it close but separated (down the hall like this is fine.)

And please, you aren't 'sharing' the bath with another bedroom - you've got 2 more bedrooms upstairs with their own bath. I'd use the bedroom on the floor of the master a as a sitting room, or for a small child - in which case, you are sharing your life with them at all hours anyways.

Posted by: guest at May 23, 2008 10:30 AM

So, am I missing something? How was this house renovated in an environmentally friendly manner? Other than an energy-efficient A/C system (which can't "be" LEED - does the broker even understand that it's a rating system for a building?) If the building were actually LEED certified, I'm sure there would be a lot more mention of it.

Seems like now all someone has to do is put in a bamboo floor or energy star appliances and people accept the claim that it's green. How can a 4,100 sq ft living space for one family be "environmentally friendly"?

Posted by: guest at May 23, 2008 10:48 AM

best

house

ever

Posted by: guest at May 23, 2008 11:24 AM

There are SO many rave reviews of the house on this thread, I can't help smelling something fishy. Look, it's a charming house that has benefitted from a classy, high end renovation. But I saw it on the house tour and it's NOT grand, it's NOT super-large (18.5 wide and with an English basement so not a full 4 floors even) and has a TINY yard that puts you almost in the lap of the rear neighbors (and who in their right minds cares that they are -- slightly -- famous?). For that price, I'd want a few category killer features like a sauna, private parking, an amazing roof deck etc. So I'm saying it's too expensive by a cool million.

Posted by: guest at May 23, 2008 11:41 AM

"it's NOT super-large"

um...it's 4100 square feet.

where are you from? dallas??

Posted by: guest at May 23, 2008 12:14 PM

Private parking would be nice.
Few of us rent out carriages any more.

Posted by: guest at May 23, 2008 12:15 PM

Considering much less grand homes have sold in the past year in Park Slope (Berkeley Place and 8th Avenue for 3.4 million, smaller home on 3rd for 3.6 million) I think this price seems quite fair.

Posted by: guest at May 23, 2008 12:17 PM

I agree ... something is fishy with this thread. I smell broker plants.

Anyway, nice house but not a $4.2MM one.

BStoner, please re-post when it sells so we can see who's right.

Posted by: guest at May 23, 2008 12:20 PM

The front rooms are 18-4 wide, so the lot must be 20 feet wide. Brick load-bearing walls are thick.

The critical flaw in this house, considering they are asking four million, is the master bedroom with no adjacent bath. That is just unacceptable at this price point. It's a-ok for normal people, but not for top-top-of-market. I agree with some of the prior posters on that point.

Posted by: guest at May 23, 2008 12:24 PM

New poster and I have to agree with previous 2 -- it's a beautiful house, but at a 4.2 million price point it should basically be perfect. I also agree having only 2 full baths for 4 bedrooms isn't great if you have 3 kids and want your own. Also, I personally prefer a laundry room on the bedroom floor instead of having to lug laundry up and down 2 and 3 flights of stairs. And while I know some poster will exclaim that people buying 4 million dollar properties have maids to do their laundry, there's certainly not enough room in this house for a "live in".

Also, this is a 3 story with English basement, not a proper 4-story with another "cellar/basement" underneath the ground floor for storage and mechanicals.

I think it's just a question of what the rare $4 million buyer is willing to do without for their money. But I have seen 3 and 4 million dollar homes not as nicely renovated, but with all the conveniences that people may insist upon.

Posted by: guest at May 23, 2008 12:51 PM

Actually the "prior" posters said they didn't mind the bath right outside the master.

As the owner of a 3 plus million dollar home, I find it perfectly acceptable.

Not everyone is a snob like you, 12:24.

Posted by: guest at May 23, 2008 12:52 PM

This is a 10-30 million dollar home in Manhattan.

Someone will snag it.

Posted by: guest at May 23, 2008 12:54 PM

It's not 4,100 sq ft. Unless you believe everything BHS tells you. It's under 3,000 sq ft without the basement (no photos, please note) -- which isn't meant to be included in the stats anyway.

Posted by: guest at May 23, 2008 1:03 PM

2.8m tops.

Posted by: guest at May 23, 2008 1:08 PM

en suite bathrooms are gross. this isn't some cheap hotel. the bodily functions room should be separate from the bedroom.

Posted by: guest at May 23, 2008 1:45 PM

hahaaha, 1:45, idiot.

Posted by: guest at May 23, 2008 3:00 PM

There shouldn't be quite so many compromises at the $4m price point.

Posted by: guest at May 24, 2008 11:57 AM

Interesting mixture of Modern deatailing & Classical sensibilities. Paul Cha Architect's website actually shows Park Avenue projects as well- rare to see an architect doing both Modern & Classical. Lets see if the owner get what they asked for.

Posted by: guest at May 27, 2008 4:15 PM

4 PICS What are they selling a 500sq ft studio. This place looks really nice but the realtor has to do a better job.

Posted by: guest at May 27, 2008 4:16 PM

I saw the house at the tour & I agree with 4:16- neither the realtor's nor Paul Cha's websites do the rear kitchen addition justice- the light and openess is amazing. The architect also did a great job preserving the original house mouldings & woodworking details, even with the central AC addition in the walls & ceilings. But then again for 4 million..........

Posted by: guest at May 27, 2008 5:37 PM

You tards oozing over the thought of seeing Safran-Foer next door need to get a F*#%ing life. Did you ride to school on a short bus?

Posted by: guest at May 28, 2008 11:07 AM

No master bath. You're nuts.

Posted by: guest at May 28, 2008 11:21 AM