70 Lefferts Place Now a Hostel
It’s been a rough few years for 70 Lefferts Place, or, more precisely, the developer who’s owned it for the last four and a half years. To refresh, the house traded for $2,400,000 in May 2006 and soon thereafter plans were announced to tear down the Civil War-era gem. A last-minute effort to landmark the…
It’s been a rough few years for 70 Lefferts Place, or, more precisely, the developer who’s owned it for the last four and a half years. To refresh, the house traded for $2,400,000 in May 2006 and soon thereafter plans were announced to tear down the Civil War-era gem. A last-minute effort to landmark the house ended up being successful, with the designation being finalized in December 2006. Within a month, the property was back on the market. It never sold, though, and in April 2009 a Lis Pendens (the first step in the foreclosure process) was filed, revealing that the owner was on the hook for a $2,010,000 loan. We hadn’t heard much about the property since then until a few days ago when a neighbor brought this online listing for a hostel to our attention. According to the website, for $25 a night, you can have a spot in one of the many bunkbeds. The only problem is that this place doesn’t have a C of O for a hotel or even a rooming house, as far as we can tell. We also bet that the lenders would be curious to know how much the owner is renting out the place to the hostel operators for.
Ugh…
I am a bit testy today.
Sorry…
The issue is not so much whether a hostel is an appropriate use in this location than whether there could be safety issues (fire, egress, etc.) involved with an illegal conversion. And no one needs to worry about this being torn down–it’s landmarked. Plus, if it does get foreclosed on, it’ll get bought at a price consistent with its use as a one- or two-family house…
that big house to the left of it is vacant and is on sale too.
Thats the deal DIBS…
“apparently”. No research. Just, effectively, a proclamation because of web-status.
Take a look at the block.
Two or three large apartment complexes. a hotel. Huge vacant lot adjacent.
Entire block ass ends up on the back of a white castle, storage places and auto yards . If you are 40 feet from atlantic avenue you don’t get to call the quiet card.
And just as the city gave up trying to enforce the home office rules… this will fall also. Half the audience of brownstoner is in violation of some trivial law.
The 1961 rezoning was an abomination and we ought not give it reverence.
Get married w/ 100 of your best friend in the backyard of some house? Illegal! Jail! Close the house down!
OK, bf, I agree that the fire/egress issue is VERY important, and we really don’t know how or if they have that covered. For everyone’s sake, I hope they do.
I guess when I was of the age to do the hostel thing, we just wanted to sleep, not puke in the bushes. I feel very old.
And then there’s the issue of bedbugs.
And not to keep hating on hostels (honestly), but a bunch of drunk eurotrash teenagers pissing in your bushes at 2am isn’t great either.
(I’ve stayed in my share of hostels, most folks are nice, but it all depends)
The larger more legitimate concern is really a building fire code/egress one.
those beds look nice. i’d stay there. and i welcome travellers to this nabe.
MM- A hostel *may* mean they keep it up, but it may not- Hostels range from the institutional and clean to the grungy/filthy/rat-trap.
As any of the nasty ‘loft’ spaces in williamsburg could attest to, 20something transients will live in all sort of crappy conditions. A hostel building is ideally something with linoleum floors and wipe-down-able walls and a staff to keep it up.
Would I rather the place was torn down? Certainly not, it’s beautiful. I’m not even sure i’m opposed to it being a hostel.
However, given the sketchiness of the owner to begin with, my hope for this being a nice hostel instead of a gross hostel is, uh, limited.