House of the Day: 43 Love Lane
Believe it or not, today’s House of the Day was built in 1999. Located on the same block as the soon-to-be-condo’d Love Lane garage, the building succeeds on the exterior as a credible carriage house recreation (though a straight roofline might have worked a little better). The interior — all 1,300 2,400 square feet of…
Believe it or not, today’s House of the Day was built in 1999. Located on the same block as the soon-to-be-condo’d Love Lane garage, the building succeeds on the exterior as a credible carriage house recreation (though a straight roofline might have worked a little better). The interior — all 1,300 2,400 square feet of it — is much less successful. For this location and this price we’d expect a hell of a lot more than recessed lighting and cheesy marble floors. If you’ve got money to burn and care more about having jacuzzi than nice moldings, this could be the place for you. Or, if you want to spend half as much for twice the space, you could always check this place out.
43 Love Lane [Douglas Elliman] GMAP P*Shark
Photo by Scott Bintner for Property Shark
I remember well when this was built, and the installation a little later of those concrete mushrooms on the curb, which blocked the D’Agostinos delivery trucks from backing into the carriage house’s living room. This one has to be a tough sell – way overpriced and right outside your front door will be a construction site for the couple of years it takes the condo development to replace the garage. Is anyone really going to pay over $3 mil for 3 bedrooms with no room to expand?
The new-ish construct carriage house you point out as an alternative on Corcoran for $1.7M was built in 2004 and sold for $1.25M. Not a bad turn around.
I agree the price is quite high, but also agree that your daily rant about your subjective opinion was quite high on the ranting scale, too. I get it already, so much so that I think I could supply your critical comments for you. And, I don’t know, maybe it’s just me, but I’m also kind of bothered that you’re expressing all these opinions based solely (as far as I can tell) by looking at photographs.
I love the way the house looks from the outside, but the inside is not very interesting and the celiings seem low throughout.
I know the hieghts gets premium pricing, but Love Lane is no great shakes and this property has no garden. There is a roof deck, but those apartment buildings tower over it. I think $3.5 is a real stretch.
1999? wow that’s great and look the bricks are red.
The developers that build without taking the neighborhood into consideration are just plain cheap. No one can argue that fact.
I seem to recall when this bldg was built they were required to recreate a bldg that had stood there before. I forget the details, maybe that it was in such poor repair they had permission to take it down but only if they rebuily using the same design.
There are side-by-side carriage houses just next to this place that recently had issues regarding their restoration. They were given permission to gut a large portion of the place as long as they recreated it with approved materials. They botched it up big time. This building is more successful.
Not worth 3.5mm though, that’s for sure
Anon 12:16, I agree with you that building authentic-looking old buildings like this is cool. And possible. But it’s reallllly expensive.
Dude,
Check our reno blog.
Interior isn’t that cool or interesting, but I don’t see it as so g*d-awful as brownstoner in his daily rant above views it. I double-dare him to show us all of his bathroom tile choices in his house to see if we feel it’s worthy of his architecture and moldings.