House of the Day: 135 Joralemon Street (Revisited)
Our coverage of the charming, and charmingly restored, house at 135 Joralemon Street is bordering on the obsessive, but there’s something that keeps bringing us back. First it was the tragic fire that gutted it almost three years ago; then the fact that it just sat there for a good year and a half, and…
Our coverage of the charming, and charmingly restored, house at 135 Joralemon Street is bordering on the obsessive, but there’s something that keeps bringing us back. First it was the tragic fire that gutted it almost three years ago; then the fact that it just sat there for a good year and a half, and then that someone undertook a painstaking renovation. And then they kept our attention by putting it on the market with Brown Harris Stevens early this past summer and slapping a $5,950,000 price tag on it. In September, the asking price was trimmed to $5,750,000 and it still didn’t sell. Now Corcoran’s been given the listing and reintroduced the property with a shiny new price of $5,250,000. Think this latest reduction will be enough?
135 Joralemon Street [Corcoran] GMAP P*Shark
House of the Day: 135 Joralemon Street [Brownstoner]
Recovery Underway for Joralemon Burn Victim [Brownstoner]
Ode to 135 Joraleman [Brownstoner]
It is overpriced, plain and simple. Brooklyn Heights has lost its cache, sadly. I think the Heights Association has hastened the decline – bunch of old farts who spend their time trying to keep people out. Like their support of condos inside Brooklyn Bridge Park and no access to the park from the Promenade. People have moved on to other great neighborhoods in Brooklyn.
Dear 3:09, hows about we cite some primary sources from the time: http://www.brooklyneagle.com/archive/category.php?category_id=27&id=3507
“Pearsall added that the basement has had severe damage, but the parlor floor and above are intact.”
The reason that the house looks such a wreck in the pictures from just after the fire is that it was a wreck BEFORE the fire. The elderly owner had neglected the house for many years.
Interesting that the true story has been lost in subsequent postings and articles.
“Rebuttal” to 2:59? What makes you think this supposed “rebuttal” is any more accurate than the posts that talk about the fire? Are you kidding me? All you have to do is look at the previous Brownstoner post pictures, of the BURNT house before it was bought, and read comments and articles related to the house, and you’ll see it was NOT a small fire, but rather a larger one. One post has a contractor talking about a total interior gut. And just look at the pics! Give me a break.
3:52’s rebuttal to 2:59 shows exactly what is so useless about Brownstoner – most here like 2:59 have no problem with posting total crap misinformation. Except for Forum, this site is for pure entertainment, nothing else. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but some of you really should stop pretending to be experts.
Yes this house is still priced too high. That’s the only fact that’s come out of this discussion. All the rest consists of blathering brain farts and renters ranting, as usual.
@9:30 and 2:59 – the place wasn’t gutted. It was a small electrical fire in the basement which caused smoke damage elsewhere. I doubt that there was any impact on the interior detailing.
Exactly, 2:11. Thank you. It merits a discount because the majority is not original and was burned away.
Shouldn’t there be a difference between a nicely reconstructed house and a truly authentic “historic” house? If 75% (or whatever) of the building has been replaced with new material, albeit material that evokes what the original might have been, its no longer a circa 1835 (or whatever) house. Its a 2007 reconstruction.
Is there a special authority to monitor these sites?
Meh.