House of the Day: Pushing $9 Mil on Willow Street
Although we doubt there’s a single person reading this out there who can afford the $8.995 million price tag, it’s always fun to see how the other 1% is living. As we’ve discussed before, we think pricing in this range is a lot more random, given the less efficient market and the arguably different decision…
Although we doubt there’s a single person reading this out there who can afford the $8.995 million price tag, it’s always fun to see how the other 1% is living. As we’ve discussed before, we think pricing in this range is a lot more random, given the less efficient market and the arguably different decision criteria of extremely wealthy buyers. So while it’s entirely possible someone might drop this kind of dough on this place, we wouldn’t bet on it. A year ago, maybe. But maybe not. Despite the 7,200 square feet, the 25-foot width, the unbeatable location, something doesn’t feel quite right to us about this place. We suspect it’s the recent renovation that, in our opinion, did not honor the house’s history enough. What are we referring to? The tile in the entry way and bathrooms, the doors leading out the terrace, the built-ins in the upstairs bedroom. (To be fair, the kitchen looks very nice, though, and the parlor floor looks to be largely intact.) Perhaps we’re nit-picking, but at that price, we’d want things to be perfect. Then again, if you can afford that number, you can probably also afford to renovate it to your own taste. Are we just being a grump here or do others share our take? Is this price achievable in the current market environment?
71 Willow Street [Corcoran] GMAP P*Shark
71 Willow Street closed for $8.0M in April 2007
All of Corcoran’s townhouse listings are overpriced case in point:
872 Carroll Street at $3.195 (should be $2.6 or $2.7 mil.)
587 6th Street at $2.8mil. should be $2.4 or $2.5 mil.
450 8th Street (dog) at $ 2.2 mil should be $1.8 mil.
New Sackett house priced at $1.6 mil. should be $1.3 or $1.4 mil..
Corcoran’s mgmt. has no clue…
I’d say the truth is somewhere in-between these two comments. Yes, the North Heights in particular got pretty funky, but it there were always moneyed people there—like Edward Safra. In addition to Wall St types, lots of lawyers—the joke was that the associates live on the UES, but when they make partner they move to BH. I agree that it’s rather staid, but the flip side is that residents are protective of the neighborhood and organized. BH was the first landmarked area in the entire city—back in the late 60s, I think—and almost the entire area is protected, which means you don’t have to worry aboput some monstrosity being built next to you. And you can’t beat the combination of beautiful architecture with extremely convenient transportation, especially in the South Heights, where you’re within a few blocks of the 2,3,4,5,N,R,A,C,and F trains!
I don’t know 12:33 anon. I know Patty Duke used to live there…. You are right about the old money but it was spooky there in the ’70s –plenty of SROs, plenty of drugs, plenty of crime. I have a couple of friends in the North Heights who bought their house – Adams family condition — in the ’70s and there was open drug use and junkies hanging out on their stoop. When I moved there in ’84, I wasn’t old money or new money, I was broke. The St. George was a disaster – a welfare hotel with lots of AIDS patients who hung out in wheel chairs meeting their drug dealers. I was hanging out with a friend on the Promenade early evening in Sep 1985 and we got held up at gunpoint. And it was CHANGING then. Well, maybe it’s the story of NYC as the crime rate which was outrageous in the 70s went down. Maybe that’s the story of Brooklyn as the crime rate changed and demographics shifted with more movement back to the city. Well, you get the picture….
bit of stretch to ever call ‘pioneers’ someone who moved to Bklyn Hts. Always
had rep as more moneyed area…even though some decay years ago similar to UWS. St. George was problem and some apt bldgs not kept up etc. But never considered not nice neighborhood. Always plenty of old-money people.
why did they do that to a brownstone??
it looks like one of those soul-less generic “luxury condominium” home depot-type interiors.
people choose a brownstone to have an old fashioned look and feel.
a travesty to have done that.
oops, my bad. i don’t think it’s the one with the awnings but next door. in any case it still ain’t worth 9M
if you drive by willow and pineapple (it will be on your left hand side) you’ll see the house. it is the ugly one with stripped blue and white awnings on every window and doorway…never quite understood this design, but never-the-less, to market it for 9M you must be on drugs
Ha! This house will never sell north of $5M, if even that much. More like
$4.5M if they get lucky. There are far better homes on the market at this price point. The flipper and the broker are both on that extra special kool-aid. Jim Jones where are you?!?