House of the Day: 12 Warren Place
We go from a 12.5-foot-wide house for $1,250,000 in the South Slope yesterday for to an 11.5-foot-wide house for $945,000 in Cobble Hill today. And while the South Slope house has about twice as much square footage, it can’t come close to comparing in terms of charm because the Cobble Hill house happens to be…
We go from a 12.5-foot-wide house for $1,250,000 in the South Slope yesterday for to an 11.5-foot-wide house for $945,000 in Cobble Hill today. And while the South Slope house has about twice as much square footage, it can’t come close to comparing in terms of charm because the Cobble Hill house happens to be located in one of the most charming spots in the entire city, Warren Place. Hopefully someone out there will be able to tell us what the highest price for one of these old Workingmen’s Cottages is. Given the great condition and quality of finish in this place, we won’t be surprised if the seller gets her price.
12 Warren Place [Brooklyn Bridge Realty] GMAP P*Shark
yeah, talk about claustrophobic.. only in nyc can we say how “cozy” an 11 ft wide house is. “charming”!
Help me out. Why bid 1.1mm when highest offer was 960? Why not bid 985ish and skip the mansion tax?
broker may have been nice but she gave me misleading comps.
you’ve left off one important fact, 3:49.
in 1900 people had around 6 children on average.
you sound like bush. distort the facts to your advantage.
and yes, since the 1960’s the american home has grown in terms of square feet, while the number of children per family has decreased.
i believe this trend is just at the very beginning of going down again. i hope so anyway. i had friends in high school that were only children living in 7 bedroom, 5 bath homes. it’s gross.
3:49, “single family” at the turn of the century included grandparents and other extended family, PLUS at least one servant.
PS 29 is what a family would move into this house for. However narrow it is, this still more space than you get buying a condo in any of the good school districts.
to anon 2:12
So let me get this straight, this “disgustingly wasteful trend” as you call it, of needing 3000 sq ft to raise a child is new? Werent the vast majority of townhouses in Brooklyn originally built as single family homes around or prior to the turn of the century. So this “trend” seems to be more than 100 years old.
Oh I love small houses. Cozy houses are so nice in Winter. We do live in a climate that’s chilly most of the year. And for Summer months a small house would force you to use your yard more often as part of your living space, and what an amazing little cobblestone backyard area. If we didn’t work from home, thus need more space, I’d totally go for one of the cute tiny houses in Brooklyn. There’s certainly upsides to spending less, on smaller spaces. I’d rather spend the extra money on gorgeous decor, than on merely buying the place, and having nothing left to do fun things with the house interiors. I’m babbling. Just my thoughts on tiny houses.
I saw one of these houses years ago and believe me, it’s not just folks who think you need 3,000 square feet to raise a child that would find these spaces small. THEY’RE REALLY SMALL. A house that is 11 feet wide is actually less than 11 feet wide in the interior. The houses also aren’t that deep, and the ceilings are low. They’re CHARMING, no doubt, and my husband and I seriously considered buying the house we toured, but even as a childless couple (at the time) we didn’t see how there would even be room for a normal amount of furniture. I do love the location and the ambience, however.