House of the Day: Degraw Street Townhouse
We don’t know where on Degraw this brick townhouse is (we’re sure one of you will tell us), but it has a very nice feel to it. The windowed stair landing and the four-over-four wood windows particularly do it for us. And we wouldn’t mind having a parking space either. The parking space (and resulting…

We don’t know where on Degraw this brick townhouse is (we’re sure one of you will tell us), but it has a very nice feel to it. The windowed stair landing and the four-over-four wood windows particularly do it for us. And we wouldn’t mind having a parking space either. The parking space (and resulting wide lot), however, along with the fact that this probably isn’t landmarked make us worry that this will become a target for a developer. Can anyone who knows this house comment on that possibility?
Degraw Street Townhouse [Brown Harris Stevens]
11.02 wrote that: “Why would you speculate about new development in this Townhouse dominated locale where any lot in the vicinity would not be suitable for development nor make financial sense for development. geez.”
I am sure that the brownstoner could speak for emself, but I will jump in .
First, anyone who has lived in the area knows that properties can be redone to max out FAR, and that developers sometimes care little for existing structures if a more profitable one can be put in place. In fact, it appears from the data in one comment that the property (296 DeGraw) is not landmarked (being on the south side of DeGraw) and therefore this property could well be torn down or redeveloped without any landmarking issues. Indeed, there are a number of non-traditional structures (aka plain faced brick postwar apartment buildings with no detail) sprinkled throughout the area south of the Cobble Hill historic district and east of the Carroll Gardens district.
Maybe a “greenest layman” would not think of developing the spot, but an economically rational person would certainly think that it could be financially profitable to replace a smallish house and side lot with a 31′ wide building that consisited of six-eight condos. Absent more information that could only be provided by other readers who could identify the property by sight alone, the concern about development is certainly an understandable one.
Second, you don’t acknowledege that there is nothing in the listing that indicates where the house is. Of course, one of the purposes of the post was to ask readers to help identify the location so that this type of question could be reviewed with more detail, specifically to help identify whether the house was or was not located in a landmarked district.
Therefore there is no reason to believe your bald assertion “any lot in the vicinity would not be suitable for development nor make financial sense for development.” When this post was written, the very question of vicinage was at issue.
This site seems to me pro-preservationist, and is fairly consistent about making that clear.
Now, it may well be that because of the lot’s unusual configuration, there is no additional FAR to exploit. Lacking that incentive, and given the photographic evidence that the existing structure is appealing and likely not in poor shape, it does seem highly unlikely that a developer seeking to destroy a perfectly charming little house will do so. Given that information provided by people familiar with the specific location, the fears expresed in the post of re-development are unlikely to come to pass.
But that doesn’t excuse your tone. If you can point to any other site on the web where the poster and its commenters provide more substantiated information about Brownstone Brooklyn real estate, you should identify it. I have lived mostly in the area for the last thirteen years, and I think this site is well regarded for a reason. At least a few times a week, it delivers an interesting peice of data about the neighborhoods where either I or my friends live, and does so in a quick and easy way.
Sounds like someone was tipping the bottle late at night to me.
them sounds like fighting words! Wooo Hooo!
You do your readership such a huge disservice with the shallowness of your posts, this being a prime example.
If you are to feature a property why not spend the 120 seconds it takes to research and post something remotely accurate and useful.
To say the fact it has a parking space next to it worries you and it “probably” not landmark(what the hell is probably?) is ridiculous. It’s a damn parking space! Why would you speculate about new development in this Townhouse dominated locale where any lot in the vicinity would not be suitable for development nor make financial sense for development. geez.
The greenist of layman can take a glance at this and see clearly this is not a sight for development nor investment for that matter.
Poor information. OK, at the very least, a poor lead in. Running’ way thin on content. Better go find a broker or developer to bash.
I tuned in, and then returned, because of the inference of quality information.
Sadly disappointed and tuning out because of your poor content and rant inducing ludacris speculation. Perhaps you ride Lock’s coattails a while longer but your idea of making a living at this is clearly in jeopardy. Something tells me you’ll have some legit Brooklyn real estate bloggers to contend with in ’06.
Where are you when we need you Preservation Man!
If 296 Degraw -already built to FAR – so not a lproperty developer would look for.
Grrr! I’m comin’-a getcha! I’m-a develop your ass! Look out!
Could be 296 Degraw. Lot dimension for that address
and also bldg dimension is 25′ deep. So no back yard- just the side yard-parking spot.
House 21′ wide- lot is 31’ft wide.
Charming but tiny. It appears from the floor plan to be only 22 ft deep — which is why the stair landing has a window.