What's Up with 1860 Bedford Avenue

Back when we were house hunting in 2004, this place at 1860 Bedford Avenue was on the market for, we believe, about $550,000. It was a complete wreck but we were tempted. Given the limited number of this kind of house in the borough, though, we had always assumed that someone had snapped it up. Apparently not, judging from the condition it was in when we drove by last week (though Property Shark does show that the property changed hands for $185,000 in May of that year). So what’s the hold up? Family dispute? GMAP P*Shark

If you have anything relevant and substantive to add to this thread, send us an email and we will post below for you.

Comments
This is a sad tale of greed and incompetence. The house is owned by the Doctors who work out of the house next door on Maple Street which they also own. They wanted to move their offices into this building but Landmarks said no – residential uses only. So, instead of selling it and moving on they are letting it rot.

This poor house has a long history of owners with good intentions but no abilty to execute. There has been a total interior demolition to the point that this is a shell without stairs or walls. The basement has been dug significantly. It would make a beautiful home if someone could wrestle it from the current owners.

Is there a way for the City to push the owners to fix it up or sell it, especially given that this is in a Landmarked area??

Posted by: Gary at February 14, 2007 11:05 AM

This is such a great house. One only has to look to its twin on the next block for inspiration! I’d love to hear from others who have tried to get the doctors to sell.

Posted by: dt at February 14, 2007 11:27 AM

The NYC City Council passed a demolition by neglect bill in 2005 that allows Landmarks to protect properties like this from bad owners. I wonder what it takes to get Landmarks to act?

Posted by: Dennis at February 14, 2007 12:33 PM

This house has always been of interest to me, I would love for the owners to put this mini mansion on the market. If they (owners) get a glimpse of this comment I would love to list this property and sell it for them, they can do very well. If I could not sell it I would try to buy it this house is hot!

Posted by: parkslopesalesperson at February 14, 2007 1:19 PM

There was a very similar house on the Prospect Lefferts house tour 2-3 years ago. It was absolutely charming inside and beautifully restored/maintained. Lived in by 3 sisters (one of whom is an RE broker I believe) and featured in the NYT. One of my very favorite houses from the past 5 years. Reminded me of Washington DC’s Adams Morgan neighborhood. Anyway, what a shame that this place is so neglected.

Posted by: NeoGrec at February 14, 2007 1:42 PM

There’s a little enclave of these brick beauties in PLG, isn’t there? Where are you Bob Marvin.

They were the type that made me look in Lefferts. We saw one, but passed. I have second thoughts some days…

Posted by: Anonymous at February 14, 2007 2:10 PM

this is in PLG – lefferts manor.

Posted by: Anonymous at February 14, 2007 2:39 PM

” Where are you Bob Marvin”

It’s so nice to be missed, but sad to discuss this house. There’s not too much I can add to Gary’s 11:05 account, except that the doctor next door only rents the space where he has his practice. I’ve heard the same story that Gary mentions about his wanting to move his practice to 1860 Bedford, but my understanding is that he was thwarted not by landmarks, but by a change in rules for R2 zoned houses which forbids new medical offices.

Work on the house appears to have started and stopped a number of times in the last couple of years. From what I could see, the owner has removed a lot of debris, put in new joists and had a large amount of dirt dug out of the basement.

The Lefferts Manor Association IS well aware of the problem and has been in touch with the owner, but we’ve had (obviously) no solution to date.

FWIW LMA was able to solve a somewhat similar problem through legal action with a derelict house two blocks from this one in the early ’90s, but, although the house was in a similar sorry condition, the problems, involving the house being tied up in an estate, were rather different.

FWIW I fully agree with “dt” who wrote “This is such a great house. One only has to look to its twin on the next block for inspiration!”

Posted by: Bob Marvin at February 14, 2007 3:07 PM

Oh, one more thing.I sure wish YOU had given in to temptation in’04 and bought this house Mr.B. Not only would you have made a great neighbor, but the house would have long since have been restored.

Posted by: Bob Marvin at February 14, 2007 3:11 PM

Much like the house on 8th Ave and 3rd St in Park Slope, lets hope it gets in some caring hands…

Posted by: den at February 14, 2007 3:29 PM

Hmmm… we have quite a few doctors, therapists, and other professionals with their shingles hung in PPS, as in other Landmark nabes… is this individual building, exterior and interior, landmarked? What’s the story on professionals running businesses out of houses in Landmark residential areas in general?

Posted by: SeamusMacD at February 14, 2007 4:45 PM

I think maybe this is a special case because it’s in the single family deed covenant area?

Or, the other practices in landmarked areas have possibly been there since before the buildings were granted Landmark status?

Posted by: Anonymous at February 14, 2007 4:52 PM

I think the issue here is that the doctors wanted to use it exclusively as a medical office. That is a no no in a residential landmarked nabe. If they wanted to have a practice as well as a dwelling it would be ok.

Posted by: dt at February 14, 2007 4:58 PM

I just remembered another salient bit of info although it is hearsay. Apparently the doctors paid most of the purchase cost under the table so that the seller would save on taxes and they get a good price. They would need to sell it the same way if they wanted to avoid a big cap gains tax bill.

Posted by: Gary at February 14, 2007 5:08 PM

SeamusMacD and Anon. 4:52PM,

AFAIK the restictions on medical offices have nothing to do with the house being in an Historic District or with our LM restrictive covenant. Rather, there are fairly recent restrictions pertaining to establishing new professional offices in single family homes zoned R2. AFAIK existing offices are ‘”grandfathered in.”

Posted by: Bob Marvin at February 14, 2007 5:09 PM

So Bob, does this mean that peple who own brownstoners can no longer have their own professional offices in them?

Posted by: dt at February 14, 2007 5:17 PM

sorry, I meant people and brownstones.

Posted by: dt at February 14, 2007 5:22 PM

dt,

I guess that’s the case for NEW offices in brownstones zoned R2. However I think that R2 single family zoning might be rare in brownstones outside of Lefferts Manor. Houses in other parts of PLG aren’t zoned that way.

Posted by: Bob Marvin at February 14, 2007 5:30 PM

Do you know when this law was passed?

Posted by: dt at February 14, 2007 5:31 PM

Sorry, no dt, I THINK the changes wsere made a couple of years ago, but I’m no expert on zoning.

Posted by: Bob Marvin at February 14, 2007 5:36 PM

I wonder how the city would be able to regulate this sort of thing. Home offices are so common. I know several therapists with their private practices in their homes.

Posted by: dt at February 14, 2007 5:38 PM

dt,
I think a small “auxiliary” office might still be allowed, but the sg. ft.limits (the size of which I don’t remember) are too small to be practicable for a large scale, non-resdential, practice. Once again, I think R2 zoning is uncommon for brownstones, so this may only be a concern in LM, among brownstone areas.

Posted by: Bob Marvin at February 14, 2007 5:47 PM

BTW, does anyone know of any brownstone neighborhoods, outside of the eight Lefferts Manor blocks have R2 zoning?

AFAIK, this zoning was something the Lefferts Manor Association pushed for c. 1960 (even before MY time) as a way of reducing the number of law suites necessitated by our single-family deed covenant.

Posted by: Bob Marvin at February 14, 2007 6:02 PM

Sorry–my 6:02 comment should read “THAT have.”

Posted by: Bob Marvin at February 14, 2007 6:04 PM

It’s reassuring that there is a square footage restriction connected with the no new offices regulation. I think there are very few special nabes like this one, so my guess would be that you’re right, Bob. I guess this is the potential downside to the single family covenant. The upside is, of course that this nabe never fell to the sro wave that took over other brownstone neighborhoods.

FWIW, I think it is incredible that this nabe has had such a stable long term population. many of my neighbors have lived here for forty years. I love to sit outside with them and hear the stories of the olden days!

Now that so many of the residents are getting older and retiring, I wonder how that will effect the neighborhood. If they all sell, the only people who can afford to buy the houses are the young professionals.

Posted by: dt at February 14, 2007 6:22 PM