House of the Day: 259 Henry Street
This listing at 259 Henry Street in Brooklyn Heights just hit the market with an eye-popping asking price of $5,250,000. It’s clearly a sweet pad (great location, nice architecture), but that’s a lot of dough for a place that isn’t knocking our socks off. Maybe it’s some of the renovation or decoration choices or maybe…
This listing at 259 Henry Street in Brooklyn Heights just hit the market with an eye-popping asking price of $5,250,000. It’s clearly a sweet pad (great location, nice architecture), but that’s a lot of dough for a place that isn’t knocking our socks off. Maybe it’s some of the renovation or decoration choices or maybe it’s the way it’s photographed, but it’s not the kind of classic show-stopper we’d expect for this amount of money in this market. Do you agree?
259 Henry Street [Corcoran] GMAP P*Shark
I can’t think of any streets in Brooklyn where the stoops were removed wholesale from entire blocks by eminent domain to widen the streets. Usually it’s because some 20th century owner wanted to convert a townhouse to apartments, or stick a store on the ground level, or otherwise obliterate ^H^H^H modernize these quaint dutch-influenced features.
“Technically the city can take [the property in front of a house] at any time. That’s why you see many blocks in Manhattan – especially commercial blocks – where the stoops have been removed and sidewalks widened. You might not even recognize them as having originally had stoops.”
Posted by: snowman2 at March 3, 2010 8:44 PM
I’ve noticed numerous blocks in Manhattan where all the brownstones have been de-stooped. The reasone for the de-stoopings has obviously been that the streets were widened. (Much of Lexington Ave in Manhattan, for instance).
I always assumed that when the city took the stoop area, they compensated the homeowener (eminent domain).
Northheights says: “Some [stoops] lie on (or partially on) the public right of way, others are wholly on private property” (at 9:11 pm).
Its an interesting issue.
I have been in this house. It is spectacular. Every detail is beautifully done. These photos do not do it justice. Anyone who enters could not help but love it. The kitchens and baths are fantastic, no reason why they should not be included.
“i left out staten island on purpose. i bet no one can figure out why tho.”
I know! I know! You hate ‘ferries’! 😉
this thread makes the bronx, queens, and jersey, seem SOOOOOO much more attractive by the minute.
i left out staten island on purpose. i bet no one can figure out why tho.
*rob*
I don’t think you can make any generalizations about stoops. Some lie on (or partially on) the public right of way, others are wholly on private property. Just depends on how and when the house was built. What is true is that even if your stoop is on public property, you still have to maintain it. Also, you have to go through bureaucratic purgatory to make (legal) alterations to a stoop that’s on public property, let alone (heaven forbid) put a stoop back onto a house that once had one if it will encroach on the sidewalk.
Yes, that’s true for the deep front gardens in Carroll Gardens as well. The property line starts at the house line.
Technically the city can take that property at any time. That’s why you see many blocks in Manhattan – especially commercial blocks – where the stoops have been removed and sidewalks widened. You might not even recognize them as having originally had stoops.
Brought to you by Fresh Direct????????
Good use of the phrase “country mile,” BoerumHill.