« Co-op of the Day: 225 Park Place, #2G-H StreetLevel: A Supper Club for 3rd Avenue »

May 5, 2009

House of the Day: 481 4th Street

481-4th-Street-Brooklyn-0509.jpg
Flip-o-rama! The seller of 481 4th Street in Park Slope paid $1,865,000 for the four-story house back in September. He wasted no time doing a top-to-bottom renovation and now would like to get paid a million bucks for his troubles. (Asking price is $2,950,000.) While a lot of care was clearly put into preserving the wonderful woodwork, we wish that the walls had retained some signs of their age. For some reason, perfectly straight sheetrock is bit too charmless for us; we prefer to see some imperfections and archaeological record of the house's history: some imperfect plaster, a molding with a few coats of paint on it, that kind of thing. Then again, there are plenty of people who don't want to deal with that and want everything to be as good as new. Maybe they will be willing to pay $2,950,000 for this place. What do you think?
481 4th Street [Betancourt] GMAP P*Shark





Posted by Brownstoner at 1:15 PM | Comments (40)
Categories: HOTD, Park Slope

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/9595

Comments

For the price, I want to see kitchen pics on the listing site!

Posted by: pop at May 5, 2009 1:21 PM

If I'm shelling out three million clams, the last things I want to see are "some imperfect plaster, a molding with a few coats of paint on it."

What a truly weird complaint!

Posted by: SnarkSlope at May 5, 2009 1:23 PM

Floorplan too.

Posted by: pop at May 5, 2009 1:23 PM

My beef:
I can't stand when two rooms get opened up onto each other (removing walls) and the floor borders are kept intact creating a border in the middle of the room. Unless furniture is placed properly it always looks funny.

Posted by: bayridgegirl at May 5, 2009 1:29 PM

Talk about bad timing - this is NOT the time to attempt a flip - they will lose money.

Posted by: Miss Muffett at May 5, 2009 1:29 PM

bayridgegirl, you should see the doctor about that.

Posted by: randolph at May 5, 2009 1:31 PM

I'm with BRG on that one. A pet peeve. And really, I don't know why, but this one feels wrong to me. A million dollar flip in this market? Sort of offends that frugal and home loving part of me. And please, a floor plan too much trouble?

Posted by: Nokilissa at May 5, 2009 1:31 PM

bay ridge girl, you seem to have a lot of beefs

Posted by: ontheparkway at May 5, 2009 1:31 PM

ontheparkway...I like to see renovations done right!
Is that so wrong?

Posted by: bayridgegirl at May 5, 2009 1:34 PM

For that premium why wouldn't you buy your own wreck, apply your own TLC, instead of inheriting this ticky-tack job. Days of flipping are way over, agreed Miss Muffett; I wouldn't pay his original buy price to own this.

Posted by: Whuh at May 5, 2009 1:35 PM

Hard to imagine any house in any neighborhood being worth this much right now, save for some spectacular property on the BH promenade or something.

Posted by: wasder at May 5, 2009 1:39 PM

nope

Posted by: TownhouseLady at May 5, 2009 1:42 PM

it's not that it's wrong, it's just really niggly.
if someone think this is a great deal (which it ain't), it's a deal because of the space or location or one's view of the market.
whether the parquet lines up isn't really the biggest deal. neither is the door in the bathroom in the co-op, your other beef du jour.

Posted by: ontheparkway at May 5, 2009 1:43 PM

Apparently a million+ bucks buys you restored woodwork and a rectangular bathtub. And its not the straight sheetrock that makes the interior so ugly. What a joke.

Posted by: betterside at May 5, 2009 1:45 PM

This is a $2M house. Throw in 100K for the central AC and it gets $2100000 on the appraisal widget.

Posted by: Bklnite at May 5, 2009 1:49 PM

I agree with brt; to see the ghosts of walls past make me feel as if I were peeking under the house's Victorian apron dress.
Apart from that, it's perfectly serviceable. PS321, check. Deck, check. Triplex over garden rental, check. It's a time capsule of what is most desirable to that elusive creature, the bobo upper park sloper of 2008.

Posted by: Maly at May 5, 2009 1:49 PM

I saw this house a-way back when it first was listed. I must say that they did an excellent reno job considering the condition it was in then.

It's a phenomenal space. Huge, with a central stair.

However, it's right across from John Jay--and that's a lot of cabbage to be living across from a pretty noisy school.

Posted by: manofelt at May 5, 2009 1:52 PM

"If I'm shelling out three million clams, the last things I want to see are "some imperfect plaster, a molding with a few coats of paint on it.""

If I'm shelling out 3 million clams, I want to see plaster, not sheetrock. And some original or authentic period molding around that plaster.

The woodwork is nice,though.

Posted by: rh at May 5, 2009 1:54 PM

"it's not that it's wrong, it's just really niggly."
Niggly!
Honey, the design is in the details.

You're dropping that kind of dough on anything, you better nitpick over the place.

Posted by: bayridgegirl at May 5, 2009 1:57 PM

I actually like the oddity of the floor but even with the restored and very beautiful woodwork, the reno seems cold and lifeless.

Posted by: bxgrl at May 5, 2009 1:59 PM

I don't know why this bugs me so much. At the top of the market, a year and 1/2 ago to 2 years ago, we saw a gorgeous brownstone on 3rd street asking about this. It was absolutely gorgeous with an enormous cherry tree blooming in the garden.

This is an okay block, but no 3rd street, and right across from a school. The reno feels sort of thrown together in that contractor-y way, (i.e. weird choices on finishes, no wood burning fireplaces, the floor borders) and they provide no floor plan. I'm bugged.

This feels close to 7 hundey over-priced to me. I could be wrong, of course.

Posted by: Nokilissa at May 5, 2009 2:01 PM

I don't know if it's the sheetrock, but this house has no character. I agree with those calling for a floorplan and pictures of the "custom kitchen"; while we're at it, how about the garden and more of the renovated 3.5 bathrooms than 1 tub, 1 toilet and 1/2 of a sink. Finally, how does a 4-story house manage an upper duplex and a garden triplex rental?

Posted by: CarrollGardner at May 5, 2009 2:03 PM

Sorry, I meant to say upper triplex and garden rental duplex.

Posted by: CarrollGardner at May 5, 2009 2:04 PM

Besides, none of you can tell whether ther's a plaster coat over the sheetrock anyway. All the woodwork is beautiful and the crown moldings look nice. Not saying anything about the price though.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at May 5, 2009 2:08 PM

This is a $2 million house. If it was in such bad shape before, then the buyer way overpaid.

Posted by: lechacal at May 5, 2009 2:22 PM

I'm left cold on this one, too. It's wearing the costume of a Victorian home, but it's only a costume. I understand tearing down a wall to open a space up, but all of them? They took a lot of the character out, as well as the hallways. I'm really not liking this, more and more.

I would like to see the kitchen and deck/garden, as well as a floorplan, just for the heck of it. The amount of clams demand it.

Posted by: Montrose Morris at May 5, 2009 2:28 PM

"a million bucks for his troubles"

He doesn't read the papers?

Choice location, choice condition though. Still, there's nowhere to hide from the collapse.

***Bid half off peak comps***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at May 5, 2009 3:38 PM

It really just doesn't seem like there's enough info in the listing to decide whether it's worth looking at this price. Everyone who has asked for more photos and the floorplan is right. I also think the absence of furniture in the photos contributes to the cold lifeless look. For $3MM, I think the owner and broker should shell out a little bit to stage the place prperly - make it look like a home.

Posted by: geekspice at May 5, 2009 3:38 PM

many of you are too easily influenced by a home's staging. it's the lack of furniture and decoration in these photos that is prompting comments like "boring" and "no character." i'd wager that if this place were staged well with nice furnishings and a little color, you wouldn't be having the same reaction.

that said, i agree the listing desperately needs a floorplan and some kitchen pics.

Posted by: z at May 5, 2009 3:41 PM

geekspice beat me to it!

Posted by: z at May 5, 2009 3:42 PM

BHO: It's choice only because it is smack dab in the middle of center slope. But I am very familiar with this block (used to live on 4th st bw 6th and 7th) and nfw would I live on that block. When John Jay gets out in the afternoon it is pandemonium for a while (which is fine if you're not being asked to pay this kind of money to live in the middle of it). Also parking is extra difficult because of proximity to both John Jay at Methodist hospital. It's a non-choice block in a choice area.

Posted by: lechacal at May 5, 2009 3:56 PM

By removing the wall and making the parlor (as the ad says) 20 feet wide it looks like you now enter the house directly into the living room with presumably only the space between the double entry door for raincoats, boots, hats, umbrella's etc.

Also if they need some drapes on those windows I have some highly slandered red ones I can sell them :~

But honestly for the life of me why the haste to put up a listing without complete photos and floor plans. As for the floor plans they must have filed them with the DOB so it isn't as if they don't exist.

Posted by: 99luftballons at May 5, 2009 3:56 PM

We'll see how motivated they are. If they get $700 psf, that comes to $2.35 Mill. I think it should come close to that.

Posted by: FatLenny at May 5, 2009 3:58 PM

Offer $1,864,999.95.

Posted by: SnarkSlope at May 5, 2009 4:01 PM

Regarding John Jay students: Fifth St. and/or 7th Ave. between 4th & 5th Sts. are far worse than 4th St. Just FYI: there's a house on 4th a few doors down, on the market for a while, with beautiful original woodwork and details. Between the two, I'd definitely prefer this one (which has floor plans, maybe same as 481's original plans): http://realestate.nytimes.com/sales/detail/392-1881/475-4th-Street-Brooklyn-NY-11215

Posted by: vinca at May 5, 2009 4:35 PM

Yeah, where's the rest of the house? About the floors, I am with Bay Ridge Girl. Why go to the expense of redoing the floor with a pattern that belongs to the pre-knocked down rooms? I like the fact that they reproduced the walnut and/or mahoghany decorative pattern with the new floor - but why not have the pattern conform either to the new space, or to an aesthetically pleasing coherent pattern? That seems obvious to me. Also, while I like a clean look -- imperfect plaster and molding with too much paint doesn't do anything for me -- smooth clean plaster does. The original woodwork looks out of place with that huge loft like space and sheetrocked walls. I'd rather buy the pre-done place. Why buy an expensive goofy renovation?

Posted by: donatella at May 5, 2009 4:46 PM

Hard to evaluate with the tight photos and no floor plans. I agree with brg and others I do not care for removing walls in old houses and "opening up" spaces. The Victorians had very clever floor plans designed to maximize coziness and spaciousness at the same time, while also providing for privacy and control of heat and air circulation. Usually the original way is the best way. The finishes look beautiful, but aren't they better suited to a modern condo than a Victorian townhouse?

Posted by: mopar at May 5, 2009 4:48 PM

"non-choice block in a choice area"

Oh. And then the sirens. Still, I'd take it over 4th/5th. Parking is practically prohibited in the slope. I hate treking over there solo. How the hell do you manage alternate side?

***Bid half off peak comps***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at May 5, 2009 5:07 PM

what an idiot. Now I understand the kind of people it took to create this bubble and why we are so far from over.

Posted by: MaplewoodGuy at May 5, 2009 5:08 PM

I mostly agree with mopar about the Victorian floorplan, though sometimes it can be a little oppressive and I might be tempted to take down a wall or two.

But what I really keep thinking about this place is that I wonder if the "lack of character" that people are talking about is not about the quality of the renovation or the finishes, but simply that they are new. Perhaps 100 years ago it "lacked character" as well. Some elements of character are simply age.

Also have the feeling that this house would feel warmer in person.

Posted by: Nomi at May 5, 2009 8:40 PM

Post a comment

Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.

Latest Restaurant Additions