« Co-op of the Day: 101 Lafayette Avenue, #1K Revisited StreetLevel: Bergen's Loss is Vanderbilt's Gain »

May 26, 2009

House of the Day: 243 Kane Street

While we're on vacation this week, we're spotlighting some properties that have been on the market for a long time...After being purchased for $1,802,000 in June 2007, 243 Kane Street hit the market asking $2,950,000 in July; the price was increased in September to $3,400,000 and again in May 2008 to $4,075,000 before being reduced slightly to $3,995,000 in June. The price stayed there until the end of December when it was trimmed to its current asking price of $3,850,000. It's an extra-wide house in a great Cobble Hill location but the renovation, while not corner-cutting by any means, strikes us as being as much of the problem as the price. It's one of those neither-fish-nor-fowl jobs: The house has lost its historic charm but the look that replaced it is not successful enough in its modernism to make up for it. Do you agree?
243 Kane Street [Brown Harris Stevens] GMAP P*Shark

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/9798

Comments

WHAT????? It's a nice enough looking place but geesh. I'm trying to understand the thought process of the realtors and seller. "Hmmm....it didn't sell at 2.95. I know! Let's jack up the price.....Hmmmm....it didn't sell for 3.4. I know! Let's jack up the price again since that worked so well for us the first time around!" Even with the most recent price cut, this amount seems flat out nuts. If there is something I'm missing, please point it out to me.

Posted by: InsertSnappyNameHere at May 26, 2009 1:21 PM

Oh totally agrees with you Insert
what is the rationale behind all those price increases
and can someone tell me why the past like 10 HOD's have all been from Brown Harris?

Posted by: gemini10 at May 26, 2009 1:25 PM

Don't agree with Brownstoner--I like this renovation (at least from the pics). Love the kitchen. After touring historic Park Slope homes this month, I realize I don't like houses that keep all the historic details (mainly all the dark/heavy wood and closed rooms/too many walls). This house has enough details with a light contemporary feel that I like. If I had the money I would offer around 3M.

Posted by: LP at May 26, 2009 1:27 PM

This is one time the range of the price widget isn't broad enough. I would have guessed just over $2 million, and not to be an arse either. $3 million plus for a blah renovation in an historic district in this climate? I find it hard to believe.

Although I suppose there is a home for everyone and a person for every home and all that, I just don't see $3 mil for that...

Posted by: christopher at May 26, 2009 1:32 PM

I just can't comment on this type of ridiculousness.

Posted by: sam at May 26, 2009 1:34 PM

Sam, you crack me up! I agree with LP wrt the renovations - they suit me just fine. But 3.85? Really?

Posted by: InsertSnappyNameHere at May 26, 2009 1:36 PM

yeah, i think the problem here is obviously price, and the weird pricing history that suggests the sellers are gaming way too much for this market. as for the renovation, the reference to the look that "replaced" the historic detail seems to assume that the renovators were the ones who removed the detail, and did so purposefully. That's probably not the case, though just a guess on my part. Beyond that, it doesn't look like they tried to do anything particularly "modernist" - it's just a clean contemporary renovation that seems successful to me. Not necessarily my taste, and obviously overpriced, but I don't think this is a good example of a failed approach at modernism. Or that said failure explains the failure to sell at this price.

Posted by: i disagree at May 26, 2009 1:38 PM

Agree with Brownstoner about neither fish nor fowl. The kitchen is particularly uninspiring. What I really don't understand is how it could sell for $1,802,000 in June 2007, and then be on the market one month later asking $2,950,000. They couldn't possibly have renovated it in that time. Also as others point out, the subsequent price increases are puzzling.

Posted by: mopar at May 26, 2009 1:40 PM

This place is great, but are you kidding me with the price. Maybe they had a bidding war back in the day and then rejected the offers and overshot on the new price. I am trying to explain it myself. It seems like a great home, but please give me a freaking break with the price.

Posted by: LincolnSlope at May 26, 2009 1:41 PM

i love the house & the renovation. i just can't wrap my mind around the price - crazy.

Posted by: bkny at May 26, 2009 1:43 PM

I saw it and thought the renovation made the house feel more like a hotel than a house. The white marble floors in the front hall are just awful.

Posted by: Dean Street at May 26, 2009 1:45 PM

Sellers are fishing for a bigger fool who equate higher prices with value. Good luck.

Posted by: qis4quincy at May 26, 2009 1:46 PM

the price increases are probably an unintelligent attempt to convey to buyers that this is so so hot that prices are going up each day. Cant blame a seller for being greedy asking for the stars. It's the dumb buyers who would pay these prices that I want to slap some senses into them.

Posted by: more4less at May 26, 2009 1:47 PM

The reason for the pricing changes is that the renovation was done in stages. First they tried to flip it with mostly cosmetic improvements. As they did more extensive renovations they raised the price. That said, they missed the boat. 13 Tompkins pl, a bit nicer reno and location, was on the market at the same time and closed at $3.95m just before the crash. This interior not great but good. The Mitsubishi A/C really bothers me at this price.

Posted by: edifice rex at May 26, 2009 1:55 PM

Greedy fools. Hoping they lose it in foreclosure.

Posted by: williamsburgguy at May 26, 2009 1:56 PM

I really everything except for the price. That said, if I had 2.5M, that's where I'd spend it. At this stage, the listing price is aspirational at best.

Posted by: Maly at May 26, 2009 2:02 PM

Maly, if you had 2.5M, you would spend it all on a house? if so, you deem that to be best use of your $$$ at this time?

Posted by: more4less at May 26, 2009 2:04 PM

Dean Street: Disappointing to hear about the white marble floors!

Posted by: LP at May 26, 2009 2:18 PM

No habla en stupido.

Posted by: TownhouseLady at May 26, 2009 2:19 PM

yo no tengo much dinero tambien

Posted by: more4less at May 26, 2009 2:22 PM

Well, at least I would get a house to live in. That's more than I can say about my 401k. I have yet to understand what happened there. What would you do with 2.5M?

Posted by: Maly at May 26, 2009 2:24 PM

Maly, I would rent a big place in a hood I love (ie enjoy the perks of that hood NOW), collect peanut interest on the $$$ in bank CD's, wait out the mkt for better clarity (up or down). if you have 2.5M in bank, no need to be a hero right now so focus on protecting that $$$ vs taking on too much risk. now if you have 50k with big taste, yeah then you'll have to take big risk with the $$$

Posted by: more4less at May 26, 2009 2:33 PM

Thanks more4less for the breath of sanity.
This is why the market is so soft. no one in their right mind with that kind of money would plunk it down on a potentially depreciating asset like a 3M house.
Better to live large now, bank your cash and see what happens in the next couple of years.
Why would you want to pay more every month to take a chance on a shaky market?

Posted by: ontheparkway at May 26, 2009 2:37 PM

Edifice Rex -- What's the problem with the HVAC?

Mopar -- Agreed that this is not a "modernist" renovation, but more a renovation with contemporary fixtures: e.g., the clean yet slightly country style kitchen, and floating cabinet and (IMO) unappealing trough sink in the bathroom are but some of the examples of the contemporary touches.

The real problem with this house is of course while it's move-in, I would not want to move in -- at least not without significant cosmetic work on the bathrooms and probably the kitchen too. (Even assuming I could afford $3M or whatever the final price will be.)

Also, what's with the illegible floor plan? Is there a deck off that kitchen (it looks like there might be from the kitchen photo), or do you have to shuffle downstairs for spring and summer breakfasts? Also, shouldn't the master bathroom (which I am guessing is the one on the second floor) have a double vanity somehow given that this is a 25' wide house?

OTOH, the fireplaces on the main floor look real nice in the photos.

Posted by: Boerumresident at May 26, 2009 2:43 PM

mopar - i agree with maly. i wouldn't mind spending the dough if i had it like that on this pad.

Posted by: bkny at May 26, 2009 2:47 PM

M4L, you are obviously right on the money. It's pure fantasy anyway. I am waiting for that special value charming wreck so I can destroy my marriage while renovating the house.

Posted by: Maly at May 26, 2009 2:50 PM

boreum - it looks to me like the master is on the top floor with the double vanity.

Posted by: bkny at May 26, 2009 3:02 PM

edifice rex - awesome login name!

Posted by: SnarkSlope at May 26, 2009 3:14 PM

For that asking price, they could at least cover the ugly exposed range hood vent.

Posted by: ilikeslices at May 26, 2009 3:34 PM

M4L, you are obviously right on the money. It's pure fantasy anyway. I am waiting for that special value charming wreck so I can destroy my marriage while renovating the house.

Posted by: Maly at May 26, 2009 2:50 PM

Ha ha ha! Hope this doesn't happen to us. :)

Ediface, thanks for solving the price mystery.

Posted by: mopar at May 26, 2009 3:41 PM

Mopar, you'll be fine as long as you let your MAN decide everything. hehe

Posted by: more4less at May 26, 2009 3:43 PM

Boerumresident-These are Mitsubishi units hung on the wall. I don't care for the look, don't get me wrong they have their place, but at this price I would expect traditional ducted or high velocity A/C

Posted by: edifice rex at May 26, 2009 4:17 PM

Edifice -- I get it (as you can tell I don't have central a/c).

bkny -- I thought that at first (about the top floor having the double vanity), but that floor seems configrued more for a jack and jill arrangement between the front and back bedrooms. I guess you could have a master bedroom and then some sort fo study, but it seems like a waste. Again, the whole layout doesn't make sense, but maybe someone else can explain the benefits of the set-up.

Posted by: Boerumresident at May 26, 2009 5:07 PM

Why would brownstoners even bother to post this? Not even funny!
The house is obviously worth less than the buyer paid for. Each time i'll see some non sense like that, i'll vote with the highest amount brownstoner is asking me what i think it's worth.
This site is getting worth and worth, and so are the Jackass's comments i waste my time reading daily. Now, i'm back to Streeteasy!

Posted by: stringer at May 26, 2009 6:11 PM

These flips never work. The design just comes off feeling cold and dead. Only when the reno is being done by or for people who've actually lived there, or at least plan to live there, does a house really take on a personality of its own.

Posted by: grand army at May 26, 2009 7:43 PM

This house went on the market at the same time as a similar house a few feet away on Tompkins Place. The Tompkins house sold for $4.1M almost immediately, even though it had no central a/c and a smaller yard.

The Kane St. house has been under renovation for nearly a year. Part of the problem, i think, is that this house has been unoccupied since it was bought. No one lives in it now, and the furniture you see is staging. It also sits a house away from an abandoned house (#247).

The price shouldn't be a problem, when you consider that a house about 5 doors away was bought (and ten extensively renovated) for $2.4M. that house is only 15 feet wide.

I don't think the price is unreasonable - it is big, a "best block", and zoned for ps29. It is, however, boring beyond belief, and cursed at it's previous price. Everyone knows this house, and no one wants to see it anymore.

Posted by: misslo at May 26, 2009 8:08 PM

Sorry - I misread the price. I was thinking that the ORIGINAL price of 2.9 wasn't unreasonable for this house, in this market.

Posted by: misslo at May 26, 2009 8:13 PM

I would like to meet the person that bid 4.33 million and sell him or her things I find on the sidewalk.

Posted by: actually works in finance at May 26, 2009 10:31 PM

« Co-op of the Day: 101 Lafayette Avenue, #1K Revisited StreetLevel: Bergen's Loss is Vanderbilt's Gain »

May 26, 2009

House of the Day: 243 Kane Street

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions