« Co-op of the Day: 59 Pineapple Street, #2L Streetlevel: Rebecca's Latin Cuisine Opens on Hoyt »

July 14, 2009

House of the Day: 14 Seventh Avenue

This single-family brick townhouse at 14 Seventh Avenue in Park Slope was an Open House Pick back in February when it was initially listed for $2,475,000. The listing has undergone two price cuts since then, bringing the current asking price down to $2,250,000. The interior is very impressive, so we're a little surprised no one's fallen in love yet, but maybe the price is just a little too high.
14 Seventh Avenue [Brooklyn Bridge] GMAP P*Shark

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/10567

Comments

It's the location--it's horrible. On a very busy and dirty stretch of 7th Avenue.

Posted by: frances at July 14, 2009 1:22 PM

"The interior is very impressive." I find the interior revolting, definitely not in love with the guady Cirque du Soleil decor.

Posted by: Zarathustra at July 14, 2009 1:24 PM

Pretty House
I feel it's a bit too ornate though - like the moldings and colors are over the top - so perhaps that scares away potential buyers - who knows? it's not my style really.

What I do know is - living ON 7th avenue up there close to Flatbush is noisy and a bit dirty b/c of all the traffic and people, so that's a big negative, plus now am suspect of the kitchen b/c there are no pics of it in the listing
so perhaps nothing has been done to the kitchen.
The bathroom looks untouched and is staged to look better than it probably is - so am guessing the house probably needs work despite the silly price of 2.25mil
I'd say 1.9 moves it

Posted by: gemini10 at July 14, 2009 1:26 PM

I have to agree. It is the location - much like the beautiful house on Union, which actually looks quite similar to this one.

Great house, seemingly great price, not so great block (though it IS steps from the 7th Ave. Q train, which rocks).

Posted by: Nokilissa at July 14, 2009 1:26 PM

Agreed on location. Also, I think a lot of buyers in the market for a $2 million+ house would feel the need to fix the bathrooms. The listing says there are 4 full baths, but that includes the one in the rental unit as well as the bathtub inexplicably located off the parlor/dining room. So there are really only 2 full baths on the 2 upper living floors and neither is set up as a master bath. I don't know which bath is pictured, but the tub with the hand shower will appeal to the Euro crowd but not us pampered yankees.

Posted by: NorthHeights at July 14, 2009 1:31 PM

i can't see how it will trade at a higher price than the 5th Street "biggest sale" from earlier today...

Posted by: 7182713 at July 14, 2009 1:32 PM

I like it. I think I will copy the light-med-light banded color scheme in my new mansion.

Posted by: mopar at July 14, 2009 1:43 PM

The 5th Street price makes sense. It is a flawless limestone house on the Park block. I know that contrarians say that the difference between one block or two blocks or three blocks from the Park doesn't make a big difference but they are incorrect. The Park block is the park block. Always has been, always will be. That's the location of choice where the houses command astronomical prices. This house is on the Flatbush block, which is not so great. I say it sells for 1.8. The interior is very nice, but as we all know, you can change the decor but you can't change the location.

Posted by: sam at July 14, 2009 1:43 PM

"Revolting" seems a bit strong. I don't see anything that couldn't be easily changed / updated to suit different tastes.

Posted by: Biff Champion at July 14, 2009 1:48 PM

Biff, I agree, the interior of the house is actually very well done. Beautiful. Only an architect or interior designer who makes a living by gutting historic houses and turning them into white lofts would consider this interior "revolting".

Posted by: sam at July 14, 2009 1:56 PM

"Revolting" surprised me too. The interior looks really nice to me. Somewhat similar to the interior of the Clifton Place house, which I also found very appealing and tranquil.

Though over the long term I guess you could say I'm a bull, it's always with the qualification that mistakes in real estate investments--as with most any other--can be costly. If the always suspect prose in the broker's ad for Clifton Place is to be believed, the owners of that place paid too much and spent far too much renovating a house in an area that attracts first-time house buyers and the middle class, both of whom need rental income to make the deal work. Now they need an astronomical amount to recoup their outlay and make a little for their time and energy (and I think that's fair) and it's just not going to happen, imho. So for the first time yesterday, I voted way below what the widget would allow--750K.

This house probably also has too much invested in a house right off Flatbush on the main drag, 7th Avenue. Outside 321 too. I would not pay more than 1.8 in that location, even for a house in great condition, as this one appears to be.

In a way it does boil down to location, location, location.

Posted by: dylanfan at July 14, 2009 2:14 PM

From Mr. B: "....maybe the price is just a little too high"

Cut.
Copy.
Paste.

The whole market is just a little too high. If by that you mean 30-40%.

Posted by: MoneyForNothing at July 14, 2009 2:16 PM

Biggest indicator of Market Direction?

HOTD Comments posted since Sept 2008 typically average the 25-40 range, rarely exceeding.

From Jan 2008 to September, very common to see them in the 70 to 100+ range.

Do I sense buyers' fatique here, or are people just not getting as turned on by real-estate porn as they used to be?

This marriage is getting old...

Posted by: MoneyForNothing at July 14, 2009 2:24 PM

The market is too high. It's broken or perhaps deeply psychotic. In any case it is not responding rationally to the current reality of the country's and the region's moribund economy. But I am begining to realize that the economy has little to do with it. Every realtor and every seller is hoping to snag that 30-something who has just inherited thirty million dollars from grandma and has always wanted to relocate to NYC. And, the funny thing is, that they're out there. And they may not mind buying a house near Flatbush because they have no idea what they're doing.

Posted by: sam at July 14, 2009 2:32 PM

Hot air from fringes
Setting sail for distant shores
The center retracts

Posted by: BrooklynGreene at July 14, 2009 2:37 PM

@sam: And, the funny thing is, that they're out there. And they may not mind buying a house near Flatbush because they have no idea what they're doing.

Maybe that's what happened last time around....

Posted by: dylanfan at July 14, 2009 2:37 PM

For such a large house why are 4 of 7 of the photos of the parlor? No kitchen... patio, other baths or bedrooms???? Poor listing.

Posted by: BH76 at July 14, 2009 2:45 PM

Beautiful house.
Not sure of the location.
Crappy listing

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at July 14, 2009 2:57 PM

Yeah, the house is so pretty it's scary. It's so pretty that you would actually feel bad painting over what's there. so you're stuck with it. At least that's my take.

Posted by: denton at July 14, 2009 3:03 PM

Who cares about the listing. Why don't you get your ass away from the computer and go to the open house instead of blabbing on about something that you can't afford anyway. Lazy ass.

Posted by: billyboomer at July 14, 2009 3:07 PM

pretty? nice property, but those moldings are tacky.

hard to tell though with so few photos of the other rooms.

Posted by: MoneyForNothing at July 14, 2009 3:12 PM

The moldings are exquisite. The crown moldings and the swag cove moldings and the fireplace mantle all look like original nineteenth century work to me. Perhaps what the puritanical do not like are the gilded pier mirror and the curtain crowns or valences. These golden tops were meant to hold draperies. The house has no draperies in the front room but they kept their valences. Very nice. If you think this is tacky you should read up on historic residential architecture and period details.

Posted by: Minard Lafever at July 14, 2009 4:01 PM

I too think the naysayers live white boxes with glass facades.

The details are timeless.

Posted by: jack slade at July 14, 2009 4:49 PM

What's revolting is gutting a historic house and turning it into a FAKE white loft. Stupid.

Posted by: mopar at July 14, 2009 5:08 PM

Most of these posters wouldn't know period detail from a luan door.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at July 14, 2009 5:13 PM

Great looking house. Love the light and the feel. 20x90 lot. It would appear from the first parlor photo that the main set of pocket doors is gone, unfortunately.

The price must be adjusted downward to reflect that very noisy, dirty, and well-traveled block of 7th Avenue.

It's also available for rent at $7500:
http://www.brooklynbridgerealty.com/display.cgi?mode=display_property&id=7080

Posted by: bk14 at July 14, 2009 5:25 PM

"It's also available for rent at $7500"

10 x 7500 x 12 = $0.9M = Worse than half off.

***Bid half off peak comps***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at July 14, 2009 5:50 PM

Snobs. I know period detail, it's jsut too over the top for my personal tastes. But that's besides the point here.

What all this banter proves is that when your period details are so finely (and colorfully) burnished, expecting a commensurate premium price in return, what you've really done is severely limit your pool of buyers.

I too personally hate new construction/gut reno blah. But this is just so far in the other direction.

SO who cares who likes this particular style. The evidence is in: they better hope they can find someone who wants to live in this "timeless" property with means to do so.

Otherwise all I'm thinkin is "great property. If only it came back to reality in price, and then how much am I paying to tone down the liberace-esque period detailing.

Posted by: MoneyForNothing at July 14, 2009 5:56 PM

Brownstoner:

Who knew your posters were so delicate?

Seventh Avenue too busy and gritty?

A four-story house on Park Avenue -- essentially a six-lane urban highway -- recently sold for more than $30 million. (That was before the bust, of course.) In comparison, Seventh's a bucolic lane.

Still, spend millions for this place these days? On strictly economic terms, that's foolish, even though the house is a beauty. (Another thing I don't get: Posters on a site called "Brownstoner" complaining about polychromatic interiors. What do you think the Victorian era was all about?)

Nostalgic on Park Avenue

Posted by: NOP at July 14, 2009 8:09 PM

Not a single detail in that house is original. The gorgeous dentil moulding that you are salvating over is injection molded. The mantles and "gilded" pier mirror all sourced from salvage. All of that window dressing could be recreated for well under 25k. Open your blinders, you self-proclaimed preservationists.

Posted by: Zarathustra at July 14, 2009 8:46 PM

Polychromatic
Victorian'teriors
Two million too much

Posted by: BrooklynGreene at July 14, 2009 8:46 PM

> The details are timeless.

Actually, they are pretty much the opposite of timeless. Hence the term "period details."

Posted by: DitmasSnark at July 14, 2009 10:06 PM

Well since I wont be going to the open house with my little giant ladder, I'll take your word for it. Still hats off to an outstanding restoration job!

Posted by: jack slade at July 14, 2009 10:21 PM

true true Ditmas

Posted by: jack slade at July 14, 2009 10:22 PM

pretty but the same price in brooklyn can put you on the water overlooking the Manhattan skyline at www.onebrooklyn.com ... so why pay for a loud busy street when you can have a park, waterfront and views?

Posted by: yenn at July 20, 2009 12:16 PM

« Co-op of the Day: 59 Pineapple Street, #2L Streetlevel: Rebecca's Latin Cuisine Opens on Hoyt »

July 14, 2009

House of the Day: 14 Seventh Avenue

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions