House of the Day: 491 East 17th Street
This 3,500-square-foot one-family house at 491 East 17th is advertised as being on “the best block in Landmark Ditmas Park.” If that’s true, we suspect that this is one of the less good-looking places on the street due, in large part, to the brick addition on the front of the house. The interior, however, is…
This 3,500-square-foot one-family house at 491 East 17th is advertised as being on “the best block in Landmark Ditmas Park.” If that’s true, we suspect that this is one of the less good-looking places on the street due, in large part, to the brick addition on the front of the house. The interior, however, is very charming. And, considering that the house across the street sold for $1,900,000 last year, the asking price of $1,300,000 for this place may look interesting for those with a hankering for the Victorian nabe.
491 East 17th Street [Mary Kay Gallagher] GMAP P*Shark
So those reproduction houses in the suburbs, we can call those “Victorian” too, 12:50, per your definition.
12:11, “Casually” is not the approach one should take on a realty listing, or on a site promoting historic preservation. This site should be using the proper terms. Not loosy goosey uninformed casual terms.
12:31 no my friend, 12:11 is enitirely correct. The houses were built as part of developments between 1895-1915 in the Victorian style of which there are many (queen anne, colonial revival, tudor, etc). Whether Queen Victoria reigned or died in 1903 does not factor in whether these houses were built in the Victorian style or not. It is description of the style of the house.
I agree with 11.49. I also hate “tudor” when people mean mock-tudor. 12.11 – learn from those more erudite than you.
The house was built about 1903. This is a fact. It is a Louis Pounds house. It was NOT built in 1920, or 1910, for that matter.
Think how dumb the above post sounds, in light of the fact that several posters have noted that their is an error in terms of the construction date on both the DOB website and Property Shark.
And I will say it again. When used casually, the term Victorian frequently is used as a catch all when describing stick style homes and their decendents through the turn of the twentieth century.
It’s pretty misleading to tell a buyer a 1920 house is Victorian, suggesting it’s just as historical as one of the huge multitude of truly Victorian structures built before 1900. But go ahead and be misleading if that’s what you have to do to sell your house.
No city I’ve ever visited or lived in would call a house built between 1910 and 1920, Victorian. People elsewhere always name the very specific architectural style. They do NOT use “Victorian” as a term that covers all those styles. That is a complete lie. Therefore it proves what I’m saying, that by calling a non-Victorian house “Victorian” in certain markets in Brooklyn you’re trying to make the house something it’s not because “Victorian” is so valued here.
I love the styles and eras of the 20th century. I love houses built in the 1920’s, their layouts are better a lot of times. So can’t the historic house community in Brooklyn get educated and use the proper terms, and not lump absolutely any and every house that’s older than the newly built condos, into the “Victorian” category? Think how dumb that looks.
Actually, if you walk down any of these streets (Rugby, Argyle, E. 16th, E. 17th) you’ll see plenty of Orthodox families. The houses are attractive to them because many of them have large families. Yes, Avenue J and Midwood have huge concentration of Orthodox Jews, but many of them find nice houses around here. Some of my neighbors are doctors and lawyers whose practices serve the Orthodox community.
I find this discussion to be very Manhattan and Park Slope centric, as if those are the only two places from which people come looking for houses. I have lived in this neighborhood for a few years and never in my life lived in Manhattan or Park Slope (or Cobble Hill, Brooklyn Heights, etc.). As nice as some of those neighborhoods are, most of them are too far away from where I work to make living there make much sense. (I’d imagine my Orthodox neighbors have little reason to go into the city every day since the husband works as a lawyer in Brooklyn.)
I’m a doctor with a practice near Brooklyn College and my house on Argyle suits me, my wife, and my son just fine. We’re glad that the neighborhood is changing and that new restaurants are opening. Just realize that people buy houses for lots of reasons, and not only because they can’t afford to live in Park Slope.
Victorian does not “encompass” Edwardian. Thats a misunderstanding of the term.
And yes, I realize it’s Avenue H that’s the cut off. The point is, the Orthodox spill over from the Avenue J and CIA neighborhoods. Why do you have to be such a pill?