House of the Day: 392 Waverly Avenue
Flip-o-rama! This attractive three-story brick house on Waverly between Gates and Greene was picked up by the current owner last summer for $985,000. After, presumably, some cosmetic (and possibly more) improvements, it’s back on the market at $1,595,000. Hey, why not? The parlor floor of this two-family house is just a few steps up from…
Flip-o-rama! This attractive three-story brick house on Waverly between Gates and Greene was picked up by the current owner last summer for $985,000. After, presumably, some cosmetic (and possibly more) improvements, it’s back on the market at $1,595,000. Hey, why not? The parlor floor of this two-family house is just a few steps up from street-level, making the “English basement” a bit of a stretch. As for the interiors, there are some nice old details and floors intact; we also can’t get our heads around why a flipper would put in such weird sinks when a classic porcelain pedestal would have done the trick. And the asking price of $1,595,000? Possible, but we think probably overshooting by a hundred grand or so.
392 Waverly Avenue [Brooklyn Properties] GMAP P*Shark
Finally found the old order email – I got a shower like the one shown, with exposed pipes, for a very good price from Hudson Reed online. It came extremely quickly – considering it was sent form the North of England. And I know that’s gonna count for something on this board. I’ve seen you all… daleks, “piece of piss”, etc. BIG UP!
The bathrooms and kitchen in this house don’t look “cheap”. That’s not the debate 5:58. It’s about how well-conceived the renovations and materials, are. People are commenting on the fact there aren’t any cabinets on the walls, in the kitchen, questioning how practical that is. Form follows function, not the other way around. Especially for what are intended to be functional rooms like kitchens and baths. Lastly, traditional interiors aren’t inherently “cheap” in appearance, whatever one’s taste. Yet you state that it is, totally dismissing consideration of the materials (and taste!) used in a traditional interior. It seems like you haven’t seen a wide array of traditional interiors, frankly. FYI, there are many many ways to decorate with antiques. It isn’t always overdone.
Owner is the notiorious Gigolette. We can thank her however- those of us homeowners in the community. Keep pimping honey.:)
Same flipper as 351 Adelphi, same over-the-top bathrooms and otherwise slipshod work. Kitchen in fact has no windows and looks utterly out of place in every sense — doesn’t match the house, clashes with the style of the bathrooms (which are another issue), and is located awkwardly in the middle of the first floor. Yard is boxed in by a high wall. We saw this house when it was FSBO last fall and have been shaking our heads ever since at both the fixtures and the price.
I actually like these bathrooms. Waterworks is definitely high end and the reno looks very tasteful and sophisticated. Why all the negativity?
Here’s my theory. Most of us who own brownstone, even very nice brownstones with recent renovations, do not have high end Waterwork fixtures, European designs with sleek layouts. We basically have the same boring neutral stuff, e.g., white subway tiles, pedestal sinks, claw foot soaking tubs, etc. Granted it’s very safe and probably won’t turn away any potential buyers. With that being said, since most of us have our bathrooms in this form of fashion, we want to project the image that this is the gold standard; we call it the “classic look”.
Trust me when I say that most of the bloggers on this site have a vested interested in the non-adoption of the Waterworks/European style bathrooms for brownstones or we would be in store for some very expensive renos in the future. I really like this style which I find in most high end condos/co-op apts and lofts. But I guess it’s a matter of personal choice. I for one find the classic look old, boring and cheap. Something my grandmother would do because that’s all she could afford. But young people in my generation, who came of age during the sleek boutique hotel era, we think this look is awesome. I guess it boils down to do you prefer to stay at the Waldorf or the W Hotel (Hudson, 60 Thompson, etc.).
I was fortunate enough to purchase a brownstone in Fort Greene in my late 20s and the first thing I did was rip out all the old bathrooms. I have friends with multi-million dollar lofts with incredible bathrooms which became my standard for excellence. They have colored tiles (often from floor to ceiling), open showers, double showers, power sprays everywhere, fireplaces, sky lights, lounge seating, flat screens, built in sound system and funky lighting. To me, the bathroom, especially the master bathroom, should be like a spa; a place where you can relax and chill.
However, there must exist some continuity in a home. I have a complete modern reno so this looks fits in quite nicely with the overall scheme of my house. This house on Waverly is not dripping with old school detail so I think the bathrooms are actually appropriate here.
The sink is wood.
Just google “agape gabbiano.” Say what you want about looks, it’s not cheap.
–an architect in Brooklyn
Ok, NOW this gets interesting! The Waterworks Wannabe Flipper strikes again! We toured the Adelphi house, and concluded that it sucked, despite looking nice in photos (and getting an amazing jump-start being feautred on the Times real-estate photo page), and it still languishes on the market–with that hilarious price HIKE?! Same M.O., here–expensive if overdone Waterworks bathrooms do not a quality reno make. I think Mr. B should do a profile on this interesting character–and maybe give him/her a little advice.
Here’s another all-teak sink/vanity in one piece like the one in this house.
http://www.williamgarvey.co.uk/page/pdfusion.shtml
Here is the same sink referenced as a “marine quality wood sink” on a RE listing in San Fran, which I found by using Google Images:
http://www.sfproperties.com/properties/999green_2604/index.html