« Co-op of the Day: 45 7th Avenue Streetlevel: Closeout Shop for the Slope »
November 11, 2008
House of the Day: 72 Hicks Street
Recently reduced to $3,750,000 from a starting price of $4,995,000 earlier this year (with a couple of intermediate stops along the way), this gorgeous woodframe house at 72 Hicks Street in Brooklyn Heights must be coming into range for some well-heeled buyer. After all, this is one of the oldest houses in the Heights, dating back to the 1820s, and it's a 25-footer. On top of that, it looks extremely well-preserved. By comparison, Brown Harris still has this house at 19 Garden Place listed at $3,995,000. Which do you think is a better deal?
72 Hicks Street [Kevin Carberry] GMAP P*Shark
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/7108
Comments
don't let the old-fashioned layout fool you, bring your architect and turn this into the all-white minimalist loft of your dreams.
Posted by: sam at November 11, 2008 1:25 PM
sam......you should be banished for a week!!!
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 11, 2008 1:27 PM
I love that place. nearly 200 yrs old too.
I like the way wooden houses seem to breathe.
Posted by: dittoburg at November 11, 2008 1:30 PM
well-heeled, not well-healed, please!
Why no pictures of bedrooms or bathrooms?
Posted by: cobblehiller at November 11, 2008 1:31 PM
Odd thing about the listing is that they show the same two rooms over and over, with and without food on the table etc., but no kitchen, bedrooms, baths etc.
Posted by: 1842 at November 11, 2008 1:31 PM
Do some of the pics seem blurry or do I need glasses? Couldn't Kevin Carberry at least take some clear shots for his potential $200K+ commission?
This will sell for $3,400,000. Throw in the crudités on the table and it'll go for $3,400,275.
Posted by: Return_of_The_What at November 11, 2008 1:37 PM
The two rooms that they show are stunning. They make me woozy.
(Sam- Shame on you!)
Posted by: TownhouseLady at November 11, 2008 1:37 PM
I love that old yellow house.
Posted by: I_haz_TWO_toilets at November 11, 2008 1:37 PM
We only want to hear from the real What.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 11, 2008 1:39 PM
Charming to say the least.
Early brooklyn architecture. Before there were the brownstones, limestones, brickstones, glass towers, and feders...there were the frames. There are some great ones in the heights.
Would love to see pics of the kitchen where they prepared all that food. And pic of the bathroom where one will go after eating all that food.
Posted by: bayridgegirl at November 11, 2008 1:39 PM
I vote The What for QOTD!!
That was hysterical, I almost did a spit take.
Posted by: TownhouseLady at November 11, 2008 1:40 PM
What the hell is that "How I lost 1Lb Per Day" advertisement on here?????? It almost looks like I'm surfing porn when that thing pops up next to the HOTD
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 11, 2008 1:41 PM
That's the fake Return_of_The_What, THL
Posted by: cobblehiller at November 11, 2008 1:45 PM
A gracious, well preserved and beautifully classic Federal gem. When I think of what houses must look like in that part of Bklyn Hts, this is it. I'm sure this very formal look, complete with Duncan Phife and Chippendale, appeals to the old guard way of looking at having made it. Not my style, but way better than the new bling.
Gotta put a zinger in here and say, goes to show how well a well built old building holds up, even if it did get a couple of tune ups along the way. No McMansion would look as good after almost 200 years.
Posted by: Montrose Morris at November 11, 2008 1:45 PM
"What the hell is that "How I lost 1Lb Per Day" advertisement on here?????? It almost looks like I'm surfing porn when that thing pops up next to the HOTD"
DIBS, you really need to find better porn sites, if that's the case. Plus, I have a feeling the ones you're looking at don't involve individuals named "Jessica".
Posted by: Biff Champion at November 11, 2008 1:45 PM
Correct Biff. More like Jesse
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 11, 2008 1:46 PM
Oh, maybe that's why it was funny rather than inflammatory.
I like Fake What better.
Posted by: TownhouseLady at November 11, 2008 1:47 PM
Save yourself a million smackers and buy this jewel:
- http://www.awayerealty.com/new_developments/1205TodtHill.htm
Posted by: SnarkSlope at November 11, 2008 1:48 PM
"That's the fake Return_of_The_What, THL"
AWESOME! It's been so long since we've had an old fashioned login ID controversy!
Posted by: Biff Champion at November 11, 2008 1:48 PM
I am drooling over the sideboard!!
Posted by: TownhouseLady at November 11, 2008 1:48 PM
DIBS, and it's probably more like "How I Gained 1 Inch Per Day". Sorry, back to the HOTD...
Posted by: Biff Champion at November 11, 2008 1:49 PM
Back on topic...The house is gorgeous. It's the type of place that would make me seriously consider selling other places outside on NYC and settling down here for retirement. It's definitely my taste. I have that same camelback and similar armchairs in my place here now. I've got the same dining room set in Philly. I WANT IT!!!!
Is it really too much to ask to show pictures of more than just two rooms in a house that has about 15???
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 11, 2008 1:50 PM
SnarkSlope, that's a sweet pad. But those pictures have been stretched so wide it looks like Verne Troyer would have to bend down to fit inside the rooms.
Posted by: Biff Champion at November 11, 2008 1:51 PM
What did they use, a "smack down" lens??
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 11, 2008 1:53 PM
"AWESOME! It's been so long since we've had an old fashioned login ID controversy!"
Yes, we're having "a login issue".
Real What: Return of "The What" or "What"
Fake What: Return_of_The_What
Posted by: cobblehiller at November 11, 2008 2:01 PM
^^^^^^^^^
Say What?
Posted by: Biff Champion at November 11, 2008 2:03 PM
"AWESOME! It's been so long since we've had an old fashioned login ID controversy!"
You have to click on the login ID to see which it is. I'm hoping it will get bored and go away.
Posted by: cobblehiller at November 11, 2008 2:04 PM
The underscores make the difference. The real What has no underscores.
Posted by: cobblehiller at November 11, 2008 2:05 PM
So WHAT are you saying, cobble?
Posted by: bayridgegirl at November 11, 2008 2:05 PM
I don't really see too much here that looks federal style except the dining room mantle but the place is very attractive whatever it is, and it will probably sell for a high number. There are always those short-sellers who make money during a finacial crisis.
Posted by: sam at November 11, 2008 2:05 PM
BRG, you've been on a roll lately...how much coffee have you had today!
Why do we only see photos of the dining room and livingroom and everyone loves this house? Usually you guys RANT if you don't see the kitchen/bathroom. Uhm, that mantel is nice, but...You're confusing me!
Posted by: cobblehiller at November 11, 2008 2:08 PM
"There are always those short-sellers who make money during a finacial crisis."
AHA, I've just figured out why the ceilings are so low in SnarkSlope's listing. Short sellers!
Posted by: Biff Champion at November 11, 2008 2:10 PM
'and it will probably sell for a high number'...sam, it got over a million dollars of chops on that cutting board.
It's finally coming down to where it should be. Give it another dice or two.
Posted by: bayridgegirl at November 11, 2008 2:12 PM
I can see a bidding war once it gets cut to $1.9MM
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 11, 2008 2:14 PM
Cobble...kitchens and bathes are some of the costliest things to renovate. It's nice to see if they're in good shape or not. It makes a huge impact on the price of a house.
No coffee for me..beleive it or not.
Agreed, this house has some great details.
Posted by: bayridgegirl at November 11, 2008 2:14 PM
I know, that's my point BRG! Where are they! I hear people saying they love this house, but we've only seen two rooms and the front!
Posted by: cobblehiller at November 11, 2008 2:16 PM
'I can see a bidding war once it gets cut to $1.9MM'
I can see it SOLD once it gets to 800K - Hoboken in the heights.
Posted by: bayridgegirl at November 11, 2008 2:16 PM
"I can see it SOLD once it gets to 800K - Hoboken in the heights."
Hmmm, maybe we should lock in the login ID "BROOKLYNHEIGHTSROCKS" and sell it to HOBOKENROCKS once he finally buys his $800K brownstone of his dreams.
Posted by: Biff Champion at November 11, 2008 2:20 PM
I don't think people should use more than one login
Posted by: Bold type guest at November 11, 2008 2:22 PM
Hmm, is that
Real Bold type guest: Bold type guest or
Fake Bold type guest: Bold_type_guest
Posted by: Biff Champion at November 11, 2008 2:25 PM
Dave...unfair. Is that you doing the fake What? C'mon.
Posted by: cobblehiller at November 11, 2008 2:27 PM
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. That was not me doing the fake What login though, just Bold type guest.....I also did another one "back in the day"...
Brook Lynne
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 11, 2008 2:28 PM
Cobbler, at least we haven't heard from Cobblehilller in a while. Maybe s/he's the Fake What!
Posted by: Biff Champion at November 11, 2008 2:31 PM
Sorry, cobble, got confused. Maybe I should start drinking cofee.
I don't understand why they don't offer pics of important rooms. Some photos that realtors show are really bizarre. I don't want to look at the furniture up close. I want to see the room. I want to see the size. I want to see the details. Don't put cheese, bread and butter on a table. I know you're going to take that with you after you sell the house.
Staging is important, people need to see the illusion of them living in the space; but not for me. I can visualize the potential of a house.
This house does have great details. You have to like this style of house. It's def. not for everybody.
Posted by: bayridgegirl at November 11, 2008 2:31 PM
I only have one login and proud of it.
Bayridgegirl
Thinking of changing it though:
Notorious BRG
Posted by: bayridgegirl at November 11, 2008 2:34 PM
As to Sam's point about identifying the style of this house - my guess is that the exterior, at least, has been altered several times. The early frame houses didn't have such high windows and would have had only 2 stories plus attic, not 3 full stories. And according to Clay Lancaster's "Old Brooklyn Heights", this house was covered in 'composition shingles' in the 1960s.
Posted by: NorthHeights at November 11, 2008 2:35 PM
Ok Dave, I'll turn my evil eye away from you for now....
I think CobbleHilller changed his name! I have no idea who he is now! But I'd like to thank him! Maybe a piece of chocolate or two from the Chocolate Room?
It's ok, BRG...I'm thinking they're old and crap. Looking at the furntiture - says to me that this place hasn't been touched in 25 years. Maybe painted, but not much else. The fabric on the armchairs is circa 1984.
Does that livingroom look uncomfortable to anyone besides me? It's like a formal victorian visiting room - make the seating uncomfortable so people don't stay too long!
Posted by: cobblehiller at November 11, 2008 2:36 PM
But I think Cobbler's point, which is a good one, is how people can fall so in love with this place without seeing the kitchen and bathrooms, which typically bring out strong opinions amongst the 'Stoners. I assume it's because, without the pics, people are extrapolating how they imagine those rooms might look, although we all could be in for a rude awakening at the reality of their appearance/condition.
Posted by: Biff Champion at November 11, 2008 2:36 PM
"this house was covered in 'composition shingles' in the 1960s."
As were many attendees at Woodstock back then. Fortunately, the condition is curable.
Posted by: Biff Champion at November 11, 2008 2:38 PM
I believe that the front door treatment and the small roof over the entrance was an addition in the late 1800s as well. The door is definitely not of the 1820s federal stle nor are the brackets above it and the panelss to the side.
I think the living room firplace mirror is also a Victorian addition, as would be the plaster work above the picture rails and the picture rails themselves.
That said, none of that looks bad at all. I just hope there isn't a "quaint" pull chain toilet in the bathroom!!!
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 11, 2008 2:38 PM
Correct Biff, that was my point precisely.
Posted by: cobblehiller at November 11, 2008 2:38 PM
Ok, biff, you got a shot for Quote of the Day.
I'm starting to understand what Mr. B looks for, and your 2:36 maybe it.
But, sweet pea don't be sad if it's not. I'll remind you again tomorrow that I've been Quote of the Day and you haven't.
Posted by: bayridgegirl at November 11, 2008 2:41 PM
"It's def. not for everybody."
-at 3.7 million, there's an understatement!
Posted by: sam at November 11, 2008 2:41 PM
cobblehiller...I'm sure this home has, in addition to that formal living room, a more usable family room. God knows there has to be someplace to watch TV. I have the same setup...formal LR and DR and then a laid back sofa with a big flat screen where I spend all of my time that is not spent in the bathroom :)
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 11, 2008 2:41 PM
They are only beginning to get shingles in their old age. It was a different herpes when they were at Woodstock. Way, way, way off topic.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 11, 2008 2:42 PM
oh, boy, DIBS, you really do set them up don't you.
I'm staying quiet, people!!
Posted by: bayridgegirl at November 11, 2008 2:43 PM
Yes, yes, of course there SHOULD be, but is there!
Of course in my tiny apt. the livingroom is the diningroom and the kitchen, and the bedroom is the den and the other TV room, and the guestroom is my office, and my step daughter's room!
But how would we know that Dave, with out a floor plan or more photos!?
Let's not get into your bathroom habits! ; )
Posted by: cobblehiller at November 11, 2008 2:48 PM
DIBS, why don't you kill two birds with one stone and just put a laid back sofa with a big flat screen in your bathroom?
Anyway, whoever is buying this doesn't care about TV. They'll be reading Flaubert's Madame Bovary by the light of the kerosene lamp.
Posted by: Biff Champion at November 11, 2008 2:50 PM
'"It's def. not for everybody."
-at 3.7 million, there's an understatement!'
I meant style, not financial. Not everybody can live with periord details. or details from certain eras. It's a matter of taste.
Believe it or not, not all details are created equal.
Posted by: bayridgegirl at November 11, 2008 2:50 PM
"Anyway, whoever is buying this doesn't care about TV. They'll be reading Flaubert's Madame Bovary by the light of the kerosene lamp."
Or the Federalist Papers! A federal mind living in a federal house!
Posted by: cobblehiller at November 11, 2008 2:53 PM
BRG...when I saw those pictures of just those two rooms I got so excited I couldn't get up out of my chair.
Those are some of the nicest period details we've ever seen in a HOTD. Period.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 11, 2008 2:54 PM
Such restraint BRG! very impressive...
Posted by: cobblehiller at November 11, 2008 2:54 PM
cobblehiller...BRG is just trying to sound intelligent and on topic so she can get another QOTD.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 11, 2008 2:56 PM
"Not everybody can live with periord details"
I'm trying to wrap my brain around this on a site named "Brownstoner".
Posted by: sam at November 11, 2008 2:56 PM
'put a laid back sofa with a big flat screen in your bathroom?'
ugh...There is nothing more ostentatious than a huge bathroom with furniture. Do you really need to lounge around and look at the toilet, or someone to sit there and look at you.
Throw in some columns, mirror behind the jacuzzi...and DIBS, you might as well move to Mill Basin.
Posted by: bayridgegirl at November 11, 2008 3:00 PM
Well, seeing as how I've had my own QOTD moment recently (like how I worked that one in?), I can undestand, it's sort of like what it must feel like to be Sarah Palin...the limelight is hard to give up!
Posted by: cobblehiller at November 11, 2008 3:01 PM
I can see a small screen in the bathroom to listen to CNBC in the morning while I'm shaving. The one in the bedroom is really too far away. I would take up Biff's idea though and read a romantic Victorian novel while in the soaking tub though.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 11, 2008 3:03 PM
If you look at the Streetview, this house is across the street from some vacant lot and a not-so-nice looking apartment building. $900k off for that shit.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 11, 2008 3:07 PM
"Not everybody can live with periord details"
I'm trying to wrap my brain around this on a site named "Brownstoner".
-Sam
Sam, let’s not get into aesthetics.
(by the way what ever happened to derwood??)
You lopped off the end of my phrase, where I said ‘or details of certain eras'.
There are clearly defined periods of architecture. I’m not going to sit here and rattle off every single style. This house is definitely of a certain style. You either love it, indifferent to it (because you don’t know the disparity), or you hate it.
Evens forbid, we acknowledge the fact that there are brownstones without details. I said it people. To some ears, that’s probably, the lewdest comment I’ve made.
Posted by: bayridgegirl at November 11, 2008 3:23 PM
I hope you're joking, DIBS. That's Plymouth Church and its playground.
Posted by: NorthHeights at November 11, 2008 3:28 PM
it did look like it might be a playground albeit one that's in poor shape. I didn't see the church, only the building to the right.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 11, 2008 3:30 PM
Spell check...that's supposed to be 'Heavens forbid'
Posted by: bayridgegirl at November 11, 2008 3:35 PM
BRG: What do you mean whatever happened to derwood?
I don't get it.
Posted by: sam at November 11, 2008 3:36 PM
Darn. I thought you were doing your Liza Doolittle impersonation.
Posted by: SnarkSlope at November 11, 2008 3:38 PM
Sam: I got into a heated post over aesthics.
http://www.brownstoner.com/brownstoner/archives/2008/11/horror_show_fri.php#comments
Now that I scanned the previous post...it wasn't even with derwood (sorry), it was with fsrq.
Can't we just all get along.
Posted by: bayridgegirl at November 11, 2008 3:44 PM
I don't think you can use the word "aesthetics" in any discussion of those three properties.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 11, 2008 3:46 PM
that modern building yesterday really got under sam's skin.
Posted by: z at November 11, 2008 3:57 PM
Well, you have to admit, z, it's a little odd to take a Brownstone - essentially a period building and strip it down to a minimalist design.
That place really needed a rug and some art on the walls. it felt cold to me.
Posted by: cobblehiller at November 11, 2008 4:00 PM
coblehiller...i think that article said that there were no architectural detail left to begin with. That being the case, the modern design probably is the best way to proceed. Yes, that particular place felt cold and uninhabited but not poorly designed if I remember. It's not my taste or preference but I've lived like that before. Now I want history, details and restoration (except for the kitchen and bathroom).
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 11, 2008 4:04 PM
Yes, yes, I read that Dave, and I like modern design. I just find it odd to do that in a Brownstone.
Posted by: cobblehiller at November 11, 2008 4:10 PM
Cobble...unfortunately with the density of NYC...there aren't avaialbe tracts of land to build a modern townhouse. So one modifies and existing.
Posted by: bayridgegirl at November 11, 2008 4:14 PM
and should be an
Posted by: bayridgegirl at November 11, 2008 4:17 PM
Also, as I mentioned yesterday, regardless of how much original construction and detail is removed, those involved will naturally try to minimize it.
There have been several houses in Park Slope and the Heights which have been stripped of beautiful and well-preserved interiors in order to create loft-like modernistic spaces. This house could be next, hence my sarcastic first posting.
I think it is a troubling trend. It is not just the one house featured here yesterday.
Posted by: sam at November 11, 2008 4:20 PM
I agree with you sam that if the architectural details are there they should be preserved and restored and not stripped. But if some a-hole gutted a place or there was an all-consuming fire then it's fair game for a minimalist modern interior.
I also agree that to tear the building down and rebuild a modern facade in a neighborhood full of brownstones (landmarked or not) would be a travesty.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 11, 2008 4:31 PM
cobblehiller - whether it's odd to modernize the design of a brownstone or not depends on the circumstances. it really does matter how much detail there was in the first place, whether it was of good quality and whether it was salvageable. it really does matter how much it will cost to replace what's missing, mostly destroyed or gunked over by years of crap renovations. it really does matter how wide the place is, and how much light it gets. it really does matter whether that person wants to live in a house with a yard in brooklyn as opposed to a loft in an apartment building with maintenance costs and finicky neighbors or a new house in some godforsaken suburb.
and, sam, those "involved" in removing original construction and detail will only try to minimize it if they're embarrassed about it. i renovated a brownstone and i will tell you quite proudly exactly what we did and did not do to remove, salvage and replace detail. and i will tell you exactly why. whether you choose to believe it is not a matter of my credibility but a matter of the bee in your (perfectly period-appropriate, i'm sure) bonnet.
Posted by: i disagree at November 11, 2008 4:37 PM
i am more skeptical of sam's statement that there is a "troubling trend" of homes being "stripped of beautiful and well-preserved interiors in order to create loft-like modernistic spaces." now THAT sounds like an exaggeration. when i walk around brownstone neighborhoods and peek in windows, i am always impressed by how many homes DO retain their original details.
Posted by: z at November 11, 2008 5:08 PM
Which houses have been stripped of beautiful and well-preserved interiors? Certainly there have been some renovations that resulted in modern interiors, but like the house profiled in last Sunday's NYT, I think they all had been stripped of original detail long ago.
Posted by: NorthHeights at November 11, 2008 5:11 PM
I like old houses and I like when they are treated properly. If they have had things stripped or gunked up, it is the responsibility of the enlightened owner to undo the gunk and restore the missing. Lately, the trend has been to just gut these houses and to start from a "blank canvas" there are several architects out there who are currently active in brooklyn, who are paticularly to blame for this. Actually, there is one in particular, and it is not DiDonno, who is usually a good guy.
It costs a lot of money to completely denature a house and the owners are usually quite wealthy and do not purchase mediocre houses. They often purchase the best houses with the best finishes and then hire the design nazi to talk them into removing everything that predates him. Those of you knowledgable of the upscale reno world know who I am referring to. And it's not bullshit. Two houses on Willow Street in BH have recently been "gutted" and these houses where among the loveliest in the area.
Posted by: sam at November 11, 2008 7:17 PM
Denature: Perfect choice of words, Sam.
Posted by: mopar at November 11, 2008 11:26 PM
It's funny that somebody who writes, "it is the responsibility of the enlightened owner..." would accuse somebody else of being a "design nazi."
Posted by: SnarkSlope at November 12, 2008 12:48 AM
Well, I'm not knowledgable of the upscale reno world which is why I asked to find out which houses you're talking about. I'd be curious to see these Willow Street houses if you'd ID them (or the architect/designer).
Posted by: NorthHeights at November 12, 2008 1:12 AM
I used to live across the street, up a block and I love that house. It is a lovely neighborhood too, a block from the 2, 3 at Clark or A at High Street. Very very pretty.
Posted by: donatella at November 12, 2008 12:12 PM
Latest Restaurant Additions
-
Chickadee Chick
added November 6, 2009 12:00 PM in Park Slope -
Vutera
added November 5, 2009 12:00 PM in Williamsburg -
Park Cafe
added November 4, 2009 12:00 PM in Park Slope -
Bahia
added November 3, 2009 12:00 PM in Williamsburg -
Aqualis Grill
added November 2, 2009 12:00 PM in Fort Greene -
Wombat
added October 30, 2009 12:00 PM in Williamsburg -
Organic Heights
added October 29, 2009 12:00 PM in Park Slope -
Giardini Pizza
added October 28, 2009 12:00 PM in Carroll Gardens -
Rye
added October 27, 2009 12:00 PM in Williamsburg -
Bati
added October 26, 2009 12:00 PM in Fort Greene
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.