House of the Day: 1216 Albemarle Road (Revisited)
When 1216 Albemarle Road came on the market with early last summer for $1,900,000, it didn’t take a genius to know that there was no chance in hell buyers would take the bait. After all, the botched project included a partially-finished structure and LPC-approved plans to return the house to its 1965 (rather than original)…
When 1216 Albemarle Road came on the market with early last summer for $1,900,000, it didn’t take a genius to know that there was no chance in hell buyers would take the bait. After all, the botched project included a partially-finished structure and LPC-approved plans to return the house to its 1965 (rather than original) design. Earlier this month, the listing moved from Mary Kay Gallagher to Corcoran, where it restarted its “time-on-market” clock with an asking price to $1,595,000. With the market still unimpressed, the price was axed another $395,000 last weekend to its current ask of $1,200,000. We gotta say we think the owners are still deluded. Do you agree?
1216 Albemarle Road [Corcoran] GMAP P*Shark
House of the Day: 1216 Albemarle Road [Brownstoner]
10/26 @ 9:51,
I hope you were kidding. Or were you being sarcastic in regard to the crack head remark of 12:29. If not, I have a question for you. Are you on crack?
Yes, recreate a Le Corbusier! Yum.
http://www.essential-architecture.com/PA/PA-022.htm
Look, the plans are right there.
Guest at 8:43 am, is me, and I didn’t mean they would get ask for the lot if they razed the house, my mistake. I meant sell at all. And I thinkg $500K is realistic for this lot, given the neighborhood.
You’re never going to get a “historicizing Victorian” past landmarks. But maybe a Corbusier knock off would fly. I don’t know, even if I was a Queen Anne neighbor, a really beautiful contemporary house is still a beautiful contemporary house. And certainly better than the current eyesore or the other little 60s shoeboxes.
I agree with several of the above posters re: $500k for this “trainwreck” (as someone very aptly called it).
And granted, I am only going on the pictures presented and overall knowledge of what is otherwise a wonderful, classic Victorian neighborhood, so bear with me.
But in all seriousness, who in their right mind would pay to inherit the current state of this specific property…
– the partially completed, conspicuously less attractive non-historic house in a historic neighborhood
– all the legal red tape
– the need to pile in massive additional amounts of money, and still not get a classic home in that historic neighborhood
– all the other related headaches in spades
…for any more than $500k.
At least if they had completed it they would appeal to at least some of the much larger majority of home shoppers seeking move-in-condition.
If it were completed and in move-in condition (with C of O), they could probably get as high as $1.2 for it, perhaps from some former condo types looking for more space and a nice block, if things were really in demand nearby at any given moment. Probably not the case at the present moment, but just saying.
With the less attractive, McMansion style of this house (paled in comparison by surrounding nicer, historic Victorians), they definitely won’t appeal to most of the smaller, gut-reno home buying minority crowd that has the tolerance for buying homes in need of major works, as much of the gut reno crowd in that area would probably be looking to by and reno a classic Victorian.
The neo-classic-burb, garage-as-centerpiece (eek) design of this home probably serves to alienate most who come to that neighborhood seeking a classic grand dame of a home to restore.
So, incomplete for the move-in condition types that might pay more for the convenience, and totally not the house for the gut reno restoration crowd.
Again, $500K. (to get the privilege to dump in another $500-800k on a conspicuously blah-looking, red-tape-and-hassle-bound house).
As for listing it at $1.9 (or anything above $1.0)?
If that was the seller insisting that price, I would think that brokers careful of preserving their reputation would simply walk away from such “opportunities,” as taking it on with their name representing it and attempting to sell it to others at that absurd price would (and does) clearly reflect poorly on their reputation as a trusted source for real estate properties and advice.
It just reeks of greed and opportunism, the kind that a broker should take great care to avoid.
If any sellers out there want to be outrageously greedy and attempt to push garbage for utterly unrealistic prices, fine, they should be allowed the chance to do so and risk learning the hard way.
It’s a free market, their option to hang themselves if they insist.
But, in a free market, no one has to take that business either.
I would think that any self-respecting broker or brokerage would want to have certain realistic standards (at the very least a gut check) that call for them to avoid those deals like the plague to maintain their own good name, lest they more permanently be associated with rip-offs and dead horses.
So, giving the benefit of the doubt to the above-mentioned brokers who have represented this property and hoping that it’s just the seller that is nuts here…
Why would these brokers take on this business?
Isn’t it better for their name to avoid the taint of shady transactions?
MKG was a clown for listing it at 1.9.
The only way this house will sell at ask is if the seller can convince landmarks to raze the current structure, which, by the way, does retain the original 60s brick and picture window, but otherwise is a new design. Look at the other two shoeboxes built next to it on the original corner lot that once was home to a particularly grand Victorian that did indeed burn.
Above poster is correct that Landmarks eschews “historicizing designs,” i.e. new houses that simple look old. The Modernist is in with a good chance on this one, especially if the house sells for a song. Landmarks is far more likely to approve a cutting edge contemporary design, despite the 100 year old neighbors. They did actually approve a house which is far larger and a completely different plan than the two neighboring 60s homes (identical), so long as the builder incorporated the brick and the window. Idiotic, I know, but I’m betting that someone could come in with a better architect and build a far better house.
1) This owner is still on crack… purchased for around $300K in foreclosure? Put maybe $100K in, if she paid the contractor?
2) The story is that the architect and owner worked the Landmarks approval process pretty well – PPS asked Landmarks to require something more historic – Landmarks, also on crack, said they don’t make out of character houses rebuild in character. Then insisted the owner replicate the 1960’s multicolor brick!
3) Would have been easy to design a small, in-character house that would’ve sold in a minute, similar to the small Tudors on Rugby, one of which is in contract for $1.1MM http://marykayg.com/html/0503.html
Someone building a modern ranch home in the 1960’s, prior to landmarking, is why this house is not selling. Clearly anyone buying in this area is buying into a certain aesthetic and this house is not it. Sure there are beautiful Victorian/Edwardian – referring only to a time period and not a house style- frame homes in upstate NY. There are also a lot in Queens. Not so many in Brooklyn, which is why we need to preserve the few that we have remaining.
and thats great- if you want to live upstate.
Besides that I would agree- the whole neighborhood would have been better off if this place could have been rebuilt with some sort of point of view- modern or otherwise.