« Co-op of the Day: 160 Henry Street BREAKING: Fire at 335 Adams Street »

March 26, 2009

House of the Day: 182 Rutland Road

This limestone house at 182 Rutland Road in Prospect Lefferts Gardens is beautiful, no doubt about that: Gorgeous original details, attractively updated kitchen, everything in good shape. It is, however, only a three-story house and it's not in the most expensive part of town, so it will be interesting to see whether the asking price of $1,050,000 flies. It was purchased for $450,000 in 2003, though it looks like the current owner is the one who did the renovation work.
182 Rutland Road [Brown Harris Stevens] GMAP P*Shark

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/8983

Comments

Nice house, on Rutland II, one of the most attractive Lefferts Manor blocks. I've pretty much given up on commenting about price--I was never an authority on that and now I simply have no idea (does anyone?)

Posted by: Bob Marvin at March 26, 2009 1:24 PM

I love this house. It's just lovely. I've always been a big fan of the single family homes.

Do people really call these 3 story houses? I have one and we call it a 2 story plus basement. Am I underselling my house?

Posted by: TownhouseLady at March 26, 2009 1:29 PM

THL...it depends if they understand the NYC terminology for basement or if the come from the burbs.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at March 26, 2009 1:31 PM

Its a 3 story...you can live in all three and you're taxed on all three.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at March 26, 2009 1:31 PM

That's a beautiful house. I've always thought those PLG houses were completely charming. But how is the neighborhood? I hear iffy things about it. Good, bad, changing?

Posted by: Brooklyn Chicken at March 26, 2009 1:34 PM

As depicted in the photos, this house is lovely, with one exception. I just don't get the window between the dining room and the kitchen, when there are two doorways in between these rooms anyway.

Posted by: supersleuth at March 26, 2009 1:34 PM

i like this house alot. my only pet peeve is not having a bathroom or half bath on the parlor level. but i'm a bath on every floor type. i think the price is good, considering it is move in ready. we have seen HOTD in this area well over 1M, remember the Rutland I for 1.3M, i think it was like 107 rutland? and only 16 ft wide.

Posted by: bkny at March 26, 2009 1:35 PM

True. It's technically "above grade".

O.k...so this house is a true 3 story.

I guess I'll stop calling mine a basement once we finish it. Being it's not done yet I'd feel a bit pompous counting it in.

Posted by: TownhouseLady at March 26, 2009 1:37 PM

It does look nice, but 1 million+ for LFG in 2009? I think not.

Posted by: househunt at March 26, 2009 1:41 PM

516 8th street in the slope just posted by brown harris stevens has 3 story for almost 2 million. Is that the differential for the neighborhoods? I'd guess each has to drop by at least 2 to sell...really like the houses, though, esp this PL one.

Posted by: gussy at March 26, 2009 1:41 PM

again MR.B - what's with all the Brown/Harris properties.....

cute house - I really like the kitchen - I would say it's priced just right!

Posted by: gemini10 at March 26, 2009 1:42 PM

THL, i always get confused with that 2/3 story thing also. my house is like this and i call it 2 stories b/c it's 2 stories above ground floor. but i guess according to this it would be considered 3 stories?

Posted by: bkny at March 26, 2009 1:47 PM

Didn't we already see this place once? Love the wallpaper in the dining room, hate those tacky passthroughs.

Posted by: mopar at March 26, 2009 1:49 PM

The ground floor counts, if it is a real ground floor. Full windows, etc. Some houses have the parlor floor lower so that the lower floor is actually an English basement.

Posted by: gussy at March 26, 2009 1:51 PM

The ground floor counts, if it is a real ground floor. Full windows, etc. Some houses have the parlor floor lower so that the lower floor is actually an English basement.

Posted by: gussy at March 26, 2009 1:51 PM

Old timers called the garden level the basement and below that was the cellar

Posted by: cggirl at March 26, 2009 1:57 PM

Mr. B what do you mean: "it's not in the most expensive part of town" Do you mean in Brooklyn or PLG? You describe the house as in Prospect Lefferts Gardens, which it is, but it is specifically in Lefferts Manor, which by PLG standards IS the most expensive part of town. This is a landmarked home that has been a one-family house since the day it was built. I would say the price is fair since the other homes here in the most expensive part of town are getting a little more than that asking. I assume the house was in bad shape in 2003 when the owner purchased it, because in 2003 450,00 was on the low side for the neighborhood.

Posted by: tomgee at March 26, 2009 2:00 PM

The ground floor is half underground. Who the hell wants to live like a rat. I like the house though.

Posted by: brickoven at March 26, 2009 2:04 PM

The ground floor of this house is lower than most two story plus basement houses (plus cellar) in Lefferts Manor, but much higher than the typical two story plus English basement houses built c. 1910 by Real Estate Associates on most LM second blocks near Rogers Ave. There are a number of similar houses on this block.I'm not sure which category this parfticular house fits into. I guess it depends on whether there'sacedllar below the "basement." I can't tell by looking at it from the outside. Does anyone know?

Posted by: Bob Marvin at March 26, 2009 2:12 PM

Brooklyn Chicken,

Anyone familiar with my posts here knows that, after 34 years in Lefferts Manor, I think the neighborhood [by which I mean all of PLG] is wonderful. However, don't take my word for it--come and look for yourself. Our 39th annual house tour will be on Sunday May 31st. Be warned though--I went on the tour, in a neighborhood I hadn't previously considered, in June, 1974, stopped looking for a house elsewhere, closed on my house in October of that year and moved in by December.

Posted by: Bob Marvin at March 26, 2009 2:19 PM

I looked at a few of these houses back in 2003, when you could still purchase one in decent condition for under $450. The exteriors are lovely, well maintained. The living areas have lovely period detail. The second stories, to my mind, leave a lot to be desired, especially if you have more than two kids. The master is small and there's no way you can carve out an ensuite bathroom unless you sacrafice one of the tiny second bedrooms. The third bedroom is particularly small - good walk in closet or second bathroom, maybe a study.

I have seen nice things done with the windowed basements. Great family rooms, guest rooms, cedar storage, media rooms, home offices, etc...

I think these homes are delightful for a couple or a family with one child (also easy on the private school tab which is something to consider in PLG). There just isn't enough room on the second story to accomodate a modern day wish list for a family of 4 (or more).

Posted by: Architerrorist at March 26, 2009 2:24 PM

"It was purchased for $450,000 in 2003..."

Beep beep beep beep...

***Bid half off peak comps***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at March 26, 2009 2:33 PM

A three story house is only big enough for a couple or at most a family with one child??? Not enough room for a family of four???

Go back to the suburbs.

Posted by: southbrooklyn at March 26, 2009 2:33 PM

Say what you want, but the second story just doesn't offer the living space of a brownstone, or for that matter, a similarly priced house in Ditmas Park. You don't have to go to the suburbs to find more space - you just have to go somewhere in Brooklyn other than this street in PLG. The second stories of these houses are deceptively small... The third bedroom is a horse closet. It's the truth. Go on the next house tour and judge for yourself.

Anyone spending $1 million plus in Brooklyn is not looking for a cramped railroad apartment. Especially if they are looking at a single family house that can't be carved up into rental units. The buyer for that type of house is almost certainly a family, or a couple hoping to have a family. The living spaces, as I said, are more than adequate for a family. The bedroom and bathroom situation is very limited. Yes, four people can share a bathroom. And there's nothing wrong with that. But at this price point, is that the lifestyle you're interested in buying?

Posted by: Architerrorist at March 26, 2009 2:39 PM

Beautiful house. I also really like the dining room wallpaper and love the kitchen. I understand the pass through, as they use it as an informal countertop dining area, with stools. It just happens to be in the next room. Interesting idea if you don't have a big enough kitchen for eat-in space.

I wish they had stripped or left some of the parlor floor woodwork in a natural state.

Prices, who knows? It is move in ready looking.

Posted by: Montrose Morris at March 26, 2009 2:41 PM

that's a really handsome remodel. kudos to the owner.

Posted by: janelle at March 26, 2009 2:41 PM

"It was purchased for $450,000 in 2003..."

Beep beep beep beep...

***Bid half off peak comps***

Yeah if you are buying in Camden, New Jersey or Bridgeport, Connecticut.

Posted by: tomgee at March 26, 2009 2:49 PM

I ditto Tomgee wholeheartedly. The house is gorgeous, on a great block, in a great neighborhood, in move-in condition and is more than fairly priced.

Posted by: Brooklynista at March 26, 2009 2:54 PM

Stop pressing snooze, tomgee. Wake yo' ass up!

***Bid half off peak comps***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at March 26, 2009 2:55 PM

Has anyone commenting even seen this house? We saw over the weekend and it is beautiful, in pristine condition. The renovations appear to have been done with quality and love. We were told the owners were relocating to Texas and that was why they were selling. If anyone has been house hunting in PLG like we have, you immediately see and feel the beauty and peace of the home. As for not having a bathroom on the parlor floor, who cares there's three well renovated ones in the house. Also, the solarium is to die for. I think its a little over priced for this market though.

Posted by: coffeeinbrooklyn at March 26, 2009 2:59 PM

I agree with Bob: if there is a cellar with the boiler below the ground floor, then it's a 3 story. If the boiler is in the ground floor, then it is a 2 story.

On the price, I'll bet this goes for 900K. I've heard from LM residents that the few things that are selling now are going for well under the asking prices. Regarding the purchase price, my friends bought a renovated house like this one on this very block in 2001 for 550K. Perhaps they over-paid...

Posted by: shillstoner at March 26, 2009 3:01 PM

My house in PLG is similar to this and I'm interested in that pass through idea. It does solve some problems with the skinny-kitchen layout - including the traffic jam when entertaining. The house does appear to have 2 fulls baths; having one in the basement isn't optimal, but let's face it, living in a house like this, you're up and down stairs all the time anyway. What they did with the back bedroom (in blue) is also really great. That room is small but it's more than ample for a child. And yes, Architerrorist - not everyone spending $1MM on a rowhouse needs space for a brood. Some of us have no children; some of us drew the line at one child; some of us have grown children but aren't quite ready for assisted living just yet. There's actually a lot of us in Brooklyn.

Posted by: geekspice at March 26, 2009 3:04 PM

Geekspice - And I'm glad you are all here and I think these houses are perfect for people without loads of kids... Sorry if my post above seemed to say that only families buy single family houses(although I'd bet that the majority of buyers are families or family minded). I have more than 2 kids, and I think PLG is gorgeous. I eventually bought a house in DP back in 2003 primarily because of the space issue (although having a few children made public schools an issue as well). I still drool over PLG on the house tour.

When my older kids are out of the nest, or if I were retired, or childless, I would jump on this house. Just trying to spare families with limited time from getting to excited about such a beautiful house. I still think most families spending at the one million price point are going to want a house spacious enough to allow for some luxuries, like an adult only bathroom. A lot of families want a family room and a formal living room on the ground floor as well. Basement family rooms are great when your kids are older, not so good when you've got little ones.

Posted by: Architerrorist at March 26, 2009 3:13 PM

Since the garden, or basement level has a bathroom, there's most likely a cellar underneath. Also there is no utility room drawn into the garden level floorplan. Either way though its defined as a 3 STORY because there are three habitable stories and you are paying taxes on three stories, the bottom one being more than 50% above grade.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at March 26, 2009 3:15 PM

yes, a couple with a family or planning to start one... buying a house in a still "edgy" neighborhood for ONE MILLION DOLLARS! then they have to send their one or two kids to private school (which invariably involves a horrid commute). that is some serious exuberance/confidence from said family in the near-term economic prospects of nyc. b/c if one of those high earners happens to work on wall street (or law or retail or real estate) and is cut, the whole thing comes unwound. this is for a family of gamblers at this price.

Posted by: jingle mail at March 26, 2009 3:20 PM

Is this neighborhood considered more "edgy" than Stuyvesant Heights??? The A train into Manhattan from Stuyvesant heights is certainly an asset.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at March 26, 2009 3:28 PM

DIBS, According to the floorplan, there is no stair from the basement to a cellar, so I am guessing that this is the bottom floor, with the boiler etc. A renovated basement is useable space, but it is not the eqiuivalent of a full floor. The "three story" houses in LM all have the kitchen and formal dining room on the garden level (and a cellar below that). This is a two story with a finished basement that is more above grade than most.

Posted by: shillstoner at March 26, 2009 3:31 PM

Yes, Jingle Mail - and since you can never convert that basement into a rental apt - no fall-back to pay your mortgage. I'm a former single family owner, but in this market, I think it's safer to buy a building with a rental unit. At least you've got something to fall back on. Provided you can't afford to pay your mortgage without the rental from the get-go.

Posted by: Architerrorist at March 26, 2009 3:31 PM

come play with us danny. forever and ever and ever...

Posted by: jingle mail at March 26, 2009 4:08 PM

"Is this neighborhood considered more "edgy" than Stuyvesant Heights??? The A train into Manhattan from Stuyvesant heights is certainly an asset".

I don't think so DIBS and the Q train is an equivalent asset.

Y'pays yr money and y'takes yr chirce :-)

Posted by: Bob Marvin at March 26, 2009 5:08 PM

This is a 20 foot wide house with the same sized bedroom floor as any other brownstone house in Brooklyn.

Posted by: dt at March 26, 2009 5:20 PM

When my son was a teenager I really wished that I had a four story house--five would have been better and a separate rear building even better [actually, an additional house in another neighborhood would REALLY have been best--parents of teenagers will know what I mean; those of you with young kids will learn. :-)]

Other than that, a three story house, with one floor of bedrooms, was just fine. FWIW there ARE three story colonial revival houses in PLG [and elsewhere] with one floor of living/entertainment space and two floors of bedrooms. They might be more practical, if considerably less dramatic, than a three story high stoop (limestone) "brownstone"like mine, where the ratio of living/entertaining to bedroom space is reversed.

Posted by: Bob Marvin at March 26, 2009 5:39 PM

Like I said, perfect house for a one-child family.

Posted by: Architerrorist at March 26, 2009 6:01 PM

7.5 x 10 is a very small bedroom.

Posted by: Architerrorist at March 26, 2009 6:04 PM

....and the sizes of the other bedrooms? 19.5 X 12 is small?

Posted by: dt at March 26, 2009 6:26 PM

11X15 is small????

Posted by: dt at March 26, 2009 6:28 PM

I agree: It's perfect for a one-child family. It's doable for a two-child family where the less loved child gets the tiny room. It's doable for a three-child family if two share a room. It's also possible to put an older kid in the whatever we're calling the half underground floor. But it's still ideal for a one-child family. That seems obvious.

I'm happy to see the soapstone countertops. I love them. And I think the renovation is lovely.

Posted by: Nomi at March 26, 2009 8:53 PM

I've been through two "3-story" limestones in PLG in the past few months and in both that bottom semi-underground floor had about a 6.5' ceiling. They were calling it living space and including it in the sq footage, but with the already low ceiling to begin with and then having to duck the hanging pipes and beams I found it mostly good for storage and thats about it, and I'm only 6' tall. Both were "finished" however with tile floors and moldy carpet as typical in a damp basement environment. Can anyone report the ceiling height in this house?

Posted by: williamsburgguy at March 26, 2009 10:21 PM

That was a joke about the less loved child.

Posted by: Nomi at March 27, 2009 12:59 AM

I don't mind the pass through in the kitchen here. Normally I do, but here it looks like it works without being corny or too busy. At least in the photos. I'd like to see this house.

6.5 foot ceilings in the bottom floor would be a problem. Could that really be called suitable for living?

Oh, I don't know why I'm asking questions on this thread at 2:45 in the morning when no one's ever going to answer . . .

No night owls here. I guess you guys have to get up and work, or something.

Posted by: Nomi at March 27, 2009 2:46 AM

one here Nomi.

Architerrorist, is the third floor not the same size as the second floor? From the picture outside, it doesn't look like the roof takes away any space from the third?

Space-wise, this works for me - big enough for one child and the occasional houseguest but small enough not to feel like you're rattling around. Price, not so much.

Posted by: the chicken at March 27, 2009 4:33 AM

You're right, chicken. It is perfect for someone like you. It's a beautiful house. In a beautiful area. Move in ready and very tastefully renovated.

I agree you can do it with two children, but that's when the bathrooms start to be an issue. People paying 1 million for a house usually dont' want to share a bathroom with 4 people - two of them kids.

No, the other bedrooms are not too small (although not huge by DP standards either, and face it, that is the best comp neighborhood for PLG). However, as I've stated, that third bedroom is tiny and best used as an office or a second bathroom (I've seen both of these approaches used by childless couples in PLG).

I've lived in a house in Brooklyn (not in PLG) with smiliarly small bedrooms, one bathroom for four people, etc, playroom in the basement. The house was beautiful and we loved it, but my husband and I frequently remarked that the layout/size just wasn't ideal for a family with more than two kids. We ended up moving.

I don't know why that third bedroom is small... I guess it's similar to the kitchen footprint, second bedroom similar to the dining room, master bedroom, over the living room is admittedly spacious.

Just a question - does this house have one of those amazing fireplaces that usually dominate the living rooms in these PLG limestones? Don't see pix of one.

Posted by: Architerrorist at March 27, 2009 9:31 AM

FYI on the price, the really 3 story house on Rutland that someone mentioned above which was a HOTD at 1.3M is now asking 1.2M and still on the market....

Posted by: shillstoner at March 27, 2009 10:20 AM

Per the floorplan, this appears to be a 2-story with english basement. I think the mechanicals are on that lowest floor (where the W/D, etc is). Although for an english basement, the garden-facing windows look pretty sizable.

Posted by: Frederick Law Homestead at March 27, 2009 11:10 AM

williamsburgguy,

You're writing about two story houses with an "English basement", although I've never seen ones with a ceiling as low as 6.5' here. FWIW my LM three story {aka two story plus basement) limestone (with a cellar underneath)has 8.5' ceilings on the ground floor (garden floor, first floor, basement, whatever) which is pretty much the norm. Even the cellar has about a 9' ceiling (into which pipes and heating ducts intrude).

Posted by: Bob Marvin at March 27, 2009 11:28 AM

Tangentially related to why that 3rd bedroom is so small... the original top floors of these PLG houses were actually 4 bedrooms. The front bedroom in this one is actually two combined. You can see from the pattern on the floor where the wall used to be between the two rooms. Occasionally you do see one that hasn't done that room combination. That 4th bedroom was REALLY small - but I wish my house still had it. I don't use the giant front room as a master bedroom (I prefer the peace and quiet of the back of the house for sleeping), and I'd rather have two rooms up front - esp since those small rooms are fine for little kids (less room to make a mess, for one).

Posted by: geekspice at March 27, 2009 11:58 AM

Bob - Actually when I moved into my LM 2-story house it had about a 6' ceiling in the english basement. We had it excavated to 7.5' when we renovated it. Since this basement has a full bathroom, if it's legal, then I think they would have had to raise the ceiling height as well (for it to be legal living space).

Posted by: geekspice at March 27, 2009 12:04 PM

That's interesting about the forth bedroom.

Posted by: Nomi at March 27, 2009 1:09 PM

"wall street (or law or retail or real estate)"

Or media.

My feeling is all people buying property in Brooklyn should be in health care.

Posted by: mopar at March 28, 2009 10:35 AM

What I meant about the forth bedroom is that the idea of what was acceptable in size for a bedroom, at least for a child, even in a more luxurious home, must have been quite different 100 plus years ago. Those two (original) small bedrooms would not be acceptable in new construction as bedrooms. Tho, what one commenter said, about it actually being adequate at least for a younger child is certainly arguable. Anyway, just commenting on the way norms change.

Posted by: Nomi at March 29, 2009 12:16 PM

« Co-op of the Day: 160 Henry Street BREAKING: Fire at 335 Adams Street »

March 26, 2009

House of the Day: 182 Rutland Road

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions