14 Townhouses
When Jim Cornell and Leslie Marshall decided to hike prices at the 14 Townhouses at the beginning of February in the face of reports of slow sales, it looked a little crazy to an outsider observer. After all, as far as anyone knew, there hadn’t been a sale in months. The hikes, in retrospect, were brilliantly timed. According to yesterday’s Brooklyn Eagle, February turned out to be a “record month” for the project, with the result that only one of the townhouses (the model house) remains unsold. Number 269, for example, one of the houses whose price was jacked from $2.75 to $2.9 million is now in contract.

The back-story is pretty interesting. When the houses hit the market early last year, there were three quick sales. Then, for eight months, nothing. Cornell and Marshall pulled the listings towards the end of 2006, rephotographed them, and then threw a big relaunch party in mid-January. They then proceeded to sell ten of them over the next couple months, three to Brooklynites, five to Manhattanites, one to a Greenwich family and one to Chicago family. Frankly, we’re glad to see that the market ultimately rewarded a developer for having some vision and cojones. It also shows that brokers are not a commodity product and that a good one can be worth the price.
269 State Street IN CONTRACT [Corcoran] GMAP
Price Hike At The 14 Townhouses [Brownstoner]
14 Townhouses Update: Slow Going, At Best [Brownstoner]


What's Your Take? Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

  1. Today’s buyer in brooklyn is not the same buyer from 10 yrs ago…they will take function over form, they aren’t overly concerned about landmark status and they are very concerned about adequate space and location…how “overpriced” does the $4M crib on PPW look now? People need vision…the Manhattanization of Brooklyn includes the price of real estate – PPW will close the gap to CPW in price and stature, IMO, in 10-15 yrs…and NEVER underestimate the value of an architect – one I am not BTW…these sales VERY bullish for Brooklyn.

  2. I’ve seen a similar effect in a friend’s house in the West Village that was done without taking out the parlor floor plate in the back, just making the back wall of the house all glass. It doesn’t have the drama of this, but it’s really nice.

    Also, “details” don’t always need to be preserved. If the old moldings and baseboards aren’t all that special and/or they’re covered in layers of paint, take ’em off. Keep it clean. Between that and bigger windows in back, you get something closer to this.

  3. I like the idea of updated townhouses with rentals. At a “price point” for mere mortals with jobs, careers, even professions? Whew. The fear’s in the air again, it seems, for the 2 or 3 dozen people left who haven’t been priced out.

  4. What amazes me about the price point for these is that they are going to have a massive development at the bottom of their gardens. I can’t imagine having somthing looming over your backyard with windows where people can look down into your yard. I understand that this is NY and inevitable for some properties but I’m surprised people went for it at these prices.

  5. Thanks, ArchInBklyn, for the rapid and illuminating response. I really enjoy your commentary. I haven’t been able to see the interiors, so your explanation of what was sacrificed–FAR to gain double-height living room, and the option of a rental downstairs–sheds light on why this exact design would be tricky at a lower price point. (And anon 10:37, I would argue that it’s the clean, simple poetry of the space that makes it something more than just a white box in Topeka). But what of the facade? Particularly if you had a 20-foot lot to deal with–couldn’t an affordable contemporary exterior along these lines be accomplished, with a rental, perhaps without the double-height LR but maybe with other amenities? I just so want to see good, contemporary design for lower price points as well. I firmly believe that these Fedders crap piles are unnecessary.

  6. i have to say that i was a little underimpressed when i saw them – for 3M, that is. while i understand the modern clean lines (and that period details aren’t for everyone), there are quite a few rooms (extra bedrooms, etc.) in those townhouses that look like white boxes. the same white boxes you get when you buy a mcmansion in the suburbs. nothing special about ’em.

    same for the bathrooms. maybe the master bath is extra-specially nice, but the others? ho-hum. same thing you’d get in any new construction… even in topeka.

    i don’t know… for $3M in boerum hill, i kind of expect fireworks all throughout the house – not just in the admittedly terrific looking main living room.

    in my view, the interior designers managed to make some very blah spaces look very cool.

  7. well, any other townhouse in this area would be $1.5mm minimum and most in the 1.8-2.1 area. factor in the completely move-in condition for all but the snobbiest minimalist designer who needs it all their way, $2.5-2.6 was quite fair in my uneducated opinion.

    color me green. i wish i had one of these.

  8. bob999

    A long time ago I worked for the firm that designed these townhouses, and to my knowledge they have remained a talented bunch, so for me much of the appeal of these units is not so much their finishes or dishwashers but their good design.

    Good design isn’t necessarily expensive, but being open to fresh ideas can (and now I speak from experience) be a taxing proposition for the extremely budget conscious. I don’t know if you’ve seen the plans for these townhouses, but an important element in them is the subtraction of the “parlor” floor plate in the back, such that the public space is two-stories. Good double height windows and a graceful stair complete the feeling of expansiveness and openess.

    Now, this move a) subtracts floor space and b) prevents the ground floor from being rentable without a renovation. In short these are radical moves that an inexperienced client is unlikely to approve (with that little voice in the back of his or her head saying “resale value…resale value…”) But here, cutting the floorplate is the make or break decision. IIRC these townhouses are little over 16′ wide, so when you don’t have width, you go for drama in other ways. Here, the sequence of a nice open kitchen that in turn opens up to a dramatic two-story space is a great progression of scale, and impressive, as the new homeowners undoubtably know and paid extra for.

    The marketing makes no apologies for these moves that in essense “remove” FAR and “reduce” flexibility. And rightly so: the pay-off is a great public space, coupled with what I would call a correct public to private sequence, with the private roofdeck a nice touch to finish. (Note that this great division also works well on the ground floor, with the guest room or office nicely tucked away in the front).

    Are they worth close to $3m to my mind? Not hardly, but what matters more than my opinion is that folks have voted with their feet and pocketbooks (time and again I have to remember the lure for most people of move-in-ready). To get back to your question, yes, this could be done for a lot less money, but not in this way, and not with this design, but certainly with this spirit.

    –an architect in Brooklyn

1 2 3