I noticed the other day that on the Fulton St. facing side of the building some of the lintels over the windows are actually piece of steel "I" beam bolted and cemented over the window then painted white. In keeping the the patchwork of materials, there is no rhyme or reason as to which windows have this scrappy, left over materials, treatment.

Posted by: 1847 at August 11, 2006 1:28 PM in response to The Shame of Fulton Hitting Market

not ethical, and illegal. If the city finds out, they'll try to collect and you would be subject to fines, if not worse, since this would amount to tax evasion. I think the mansion tax threshold is too low (don't like the idea in any event - think it is unfair really - but would not feel comfortable doing what you are proposing.

I've heard of people paying for the house and separately buying furniture and non-fixtures in the house for the balance above the $1million threshhold. Again, dodgy, and could get you into hot water.

Posted by: 1847 at August 9, 2006 4:35 PM in response to Skirting Mansion tax?

On the second point, avoid the conflict, be there for the appointment, and if you run into the same sort of issue repeatedly, or the tenants otherwise piss you off on a regular basis, don't renew their lease at the end of the term. Save yourself some stress...

Posted by: 1847 at August 9, 2006 4:31 PM in response to Legal responsibities of Landlord

There's no point in trying to convince NorthSloper that landmarked Clinton Hill, in 2003 or 2006, is not an "iffy" neighborhood if she/he considers the Northslope iffy.

As for barbed wire, you do see it around in lots of neighborhoods, even seen it in the Brooklyn Heights. Usually where there is potential for public access to a yard over a fence.

I think this price is actually very out of whack, even for the size. It should come down a fair bit I'd say. Nice mid to late 19th century 4 story townhouses with details not requiring major overhalls but needing some work go for this price.

Posted by: 1847 at August 9, 2006 4:13 PM in response to House of the Day: Crazily Overpriced on Greene

I love the phrase in the "Crime Spikes in Clinton Hill" article that says an open are drug market "cropped up", as if it wasn't there for the past 25 years. The difference is that the police are doing something about it finally, thankfully.

Posted by: 1847 at August 8, 2006 10:32 AM in response to Tuesday Links

Saw it on the B. Hill house tour. Garden and Parlor floor were gutted (i.e. no plaster/sheetrock on the walls or ceiling). Would be a lot of work - not sure how much of the infrastructure has been upgraded The bath/kitchen extension is the width of a one window room, though I do recall a fireplace in the extension which would be charming...

Posted by: 1847 at August 7, 2006 12:52 PM in response to House of the Day: Mid-Stream in Boerum Hill

The only possible current limitation (beyond normal zoning issues) that could be placed on the current demolition plans for these buidlings would hinge on whether any federal monies have secured with respect to these properties. If so, then since they are both contributin buildings in the Clinton Hill South Historic District (on the National register of Historic Places), any changes to the house would require review and comment by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (www.achp.gov) (though I'm not sure what limitations that would impose on the owner, if any).

#96 is actually the oldest building ont he block, 1851 I think. I personally like #96 better and think it could be restored to a really elegant house.

I'm very sad to see either of them demolished (though I must say that I think #70 had a pretty cheap looking exterior renovation done, closing in the original porch etc.) #70 could be a real gem if someone actually fixed it up to what it used to look like, right now, it's interesting but a bit tacky looking.

Posted by: 1847 at August 4, 2006 12:50 PM in response to Deets on 70 Lefferts, Wrecking Ball for #96

Marcy, Clinton Hill was never part of Bed Stuy, unless you're talking about people who used the name Bed Stuy loosely from the 1960s onwards to cover most of the area. Clinton Hill used to be called "The Hill" in the mid 1800s as the area was developed, Clinton Hill later....

Posted by: 1847 at August 3, 2006 10:02 AM in response to Meltzer/Mandl Release Deets on 174 Vanderbilt

Since we're in agreement re the unfortunate demolition plans in this instance, let's not get into an argument. I think everyone can appreciate fine architecture from different eras, and understand the desire to preserve fine architecture where it does exist, whenever it was built.

Since we all seem to agree that the demolition of this building represents the destruction of something significant, let's not give each other a hard time.

Posted by: 1847 at July 27, 2006 1:31 PM in response to Civil War Era Gem Facing Wrecking Ball

Well said Marcy. I think you just got peoples' hackles up because this is a preserved, for the most part, 19th century streetscape.

DC, if you go to www.nyc.gov, then to the Buildings Department, then to the Buildings Information System (BIS) you can look up properties, see what permits are pending or issued etc.

It will not give you details of construction plans, but will tell you, to the extent it is up to date, whether permits have been issued etc.

Posted by: 1847 at July 27, 2006 12:47 PM in response to Civil War Era Gem Facing Wrecking Ball

I think I misread some of the original poster's descriptions, sorry, but I still think the above proposal would work. I think the proposed options #1 and #2 both sound pretty unattractive, though #1 sounds better than #2 IMO if you had to do one of those.

Posted by: 1847 at July 27, 2006 12:31 PM in response to HELP - entrance way!

I've got to say, I hope your place is already gutted of all detail if you plan on removing the double parlor doors to make your parlor floor a few feet wider.

The wall dividing the hall from the front parlor would likely be load bearing wall, and I think would be a shame to get rid of those coveted double parlor doors. Why not use the double parlor doors as the entrance to your duplex and wall off the small hallway next to the stairs, but place that wall just past the parlor floor double doors so that you can access the flight of stairs down to the garden level from your parlor floor. I've seen that done many times and it works well. It could also provide you with the extra space you are looking for if you knock down just the portion of the wall dividing the parlor floor and the hall behind the new wall.

So, without drawing it, it would look like this as you walk in:

Walk up stoop through front door(s), then through interior vestibule doors. Stairs to upper two apartments to your right in front of you (if the stoop is on the right side of your house). Double parlor doors to the left of you, left of the stairs. New wall facing you beginning just past the parlor doors all the way up to the ceiling. You could put a door in that new wall too if you like, though I don't think it would be necessary or too useful. If you enter the parlor floor of your duplex and stood behind the new wall, you could knock down the old parlor/hallway dividing wall could if structurally viable, making more space on your parlor floor.

If, upon entering the building, you walked up the stairway from the vestibule entry way, you'd have the exposed bannister for a few feet until you met the new wall running up to the ceiling. There would also be a wall from floor to celing just to the left of the bannister, closing off your parlor floor from the view of the stairs.

Plus, with such a design, if you ever sell, it is easier for someone to restore the old configuration, which might be a value added selling point...

Posted by: 1847 at July 27, 2006 12:25 PM in response to HELP - entrance way!

sorry for the typos...

It may be too late for this building, but I think a push to extend the landmarked district of Clinton Hill the the Clinton Hill South Historic District, along with the pending downzoning to RB6, would be a good idea and something that should be discussed at the next Lefferts Place Civic Association and/or Clinton Hill Society meeting.

Posted by: 1847 at July 27, 2006 12:03 PM in response to Civil War Era Gem Facing Wrecking Ball

Fair enough Marcy, but this house it not an anomoly on an otherwise unattractive block. This building and all of the others on the blocks of Lefferts Place, Brevoort Place, Classon, Grand Avenue, Saint James and Washington between Fulton and Atlantic were listed in the National Register of Historic Places because of the historical and architectural significance. There is a large empty lot adjacent to this yellow house that would be great for developement. It is too back the developer could not, or did not, get his hands on that as opposed to this building.

Lefferts Place in particular has some of the largest freestanding houses and brownstones/rowhouses in the area. It is a real shame it was not included in the Landmarked District as it is, for the most part, a continuous stretch of 1850s to 1890s rowhouses and freestanding houses, some of which were designed by known developers who also built buildings current NYC landmarked districts.

Posted by: 1847 at July 27, 2006 12:01 PM in response to Civil War Era Gem Facing Wrecking Ball

Also, while I think this is a nice house with historical value, I don't know if I'd call it the "Crown Jewel" in its current state. The renovation or "restoration" looks a bit tacky. The original porch was enclosed, it has cheap looking upside down lights on the front etc.

However, I am very upset with these plans and wish there was a way to preserve this building. There is no demo permit in place. We should consider getting Landmarks to do an expedited review to landmark it maybe...

As for the blue wood frame house, number 96, mentioned above. That is the one of oldest house in the district(right around 1850-51 I think), a few years earlier than this place. An architect lived in 96 who designed the five story row houses adjacent to 96 (#s 98 adn 100 I think).

Posted by: 1847 at July 27, 2006 11:48 AM in response to Civil War Era Gem Facing Wrecking Ball

The upzoning of Fulton and Atlantic is actually quite moderate, and is in tandem with the downzoning of blocks like Lefferts Place (height restrictions - making it R6B) which is a good thing.

Posted by: 1847 at July 27, 2006 11:43 AM in response to Civil War Era Gem Facing Wrecking Ball

If you do this, think also about the resale value of your home. A buyer might be turned off by the potential health issues, and aesthetics, of having cellular towers on the roof.

Posted by: 1847 at July 27, 2006 10:19 AM in response to Renting roof space to cellular towers

This house is listed, along with the other houses in the area, in the National Register of Historic places as a contributing building to the Clinton Hill South Historic District. Unfortunately, this street is not part of the NYC Landmark district in Clinton Hill.

This particular house is listed as being build circa 1854 as an Italian Style Villa and is described (in the 1980s filing) as being resided and having its front porch enclosed.

If it is going to happen, I pray the new structure is high end and tastefully, and contextually, built. I think trying to incorporate the design of the 1854 house could potentially be very odd looking, though I'd have to see the plans. I hope the developer/architect comes to the Lefferts Place Civic Association meeting and has a real discussion with the residents of the block.

It is really too bad that the developer did not buy the huge empty lot adjacent to this property, thereby avoiding the need for the demolition of this pre-Civil War house.

Unfortunately, I do not think that being a contributing building in a district listed in the National Register of Historic Places presents any legal impediment on demolition or alteration.

Posted by: 1847 at July 27, 2006 10:16 AM in response to Civil War Era Gem Facing Wrecking Ball

I think the point is that working class, or Hasidic developed, doesn't have to be ugly. Plain and inexpensive would be better than ugly and inexpensive in my book.

Posted by: 1847 at July 26, 2006 4:21 PM in response to Bedford Bummers: Number 337

Anonymous is right. Pretty much all brownstones have the "hearth" your talking about in the back room of the garden level. Some have been covered up. Occaisonally you still find the old cast iron stoves that sat in the recessed space.

Posted by: 1847 at July 26, 2006 3:50 PM in response to Uncovering Old Hearth?

I'm not advocating violating the easement, rather find out if there is one first. If not, make it impossible for Verizon to enter. If there is an unrecorded easement that did not turn up in the title report, you may have grounds to contest any purported rights that Verizon may be claiming.

Posted by: 1847 at July 20, 2006 2:37 PM in response to Verizon phone box

Miguel,

As far as who the buyers will likely be, many of the buyers in the area in the last 5 - 10 years are bankers and lawyers, as well as people in other more creative industries, like entertainment. That's my experience and impression anyway - so I agree that there will be plenty of interst from many buyers, it's just an issue of whether the price is right. This place looks fantastic.

Posted by: 1847 at July 18, 2006 10:47 AM in response to Stepping Out On FG Park (For Almost $4 Mil!)

I think it was automated. I got one too, have a current DOB permit for some work I'm doing. The letter I got relates to a resolved complaint from two owners ago. The DOB person told me not to worry about it. I'm going to have my expediter make sure it is cleared up.

Posted by: 1847 at July 17, 2006 5:51 PM in response to Letter from DOB

the NYC Dept of Parks and Rec will only assist if it is a city owned tree (i.e. on city property such a the tree pits in the sidewalk. If it is within your property line, they will not assist you with pruning or removal, to the extent required.

Posted by: 1847 at July 17, 2006 3:40 PM in response to tree problem

Also, don't call 311, call the police. It is potentially trespassing (subject to my previous post regarding any existing easements in favor of Verizon), not a quality of life concern.

Posted by: 1847 at July 17, 2006 10:51 AM in response to Verizon phone box

Is this you're back yard? If so, put up a fence and lock it. They will have to get your permission to enter. Unless you bought your house with an easment in place (i.e. a right of way for Verizon) they do not have right to enter your property without permission. When you bought the place, I'm sure they would have done a title search to see if there were any easements/rights of way granted to anyone such as Verizon. I not, then the agreement was with the previous owner. If it was not assigned to you, then Verizon can get stuffed. The key will be to make it impossible for them to enter without contacting you.

Posted by: 1847 at July 17, 2006 10:50 AM in response to Verizon phone box

I agree re the noise, though to characterize the block as having many grimy buildings in disrepair seems to be going a bit overboard imo. Maybe then end near Myrtle, but overall it is a nice block...though I would prefer a quieter one...

Posted by: 1847 at July 14, 2006 3:38 PM in response to Stepping Out On FG Park (For Almost $4 Mil!)

As for the central AC, knock 100K off the price for the cost and headache of installing a top of the line, zoned, hvac system, the kind without the wall units...

Posted by: 1847 at July 14, 2006 3:25 PM in response to Stepping Out On FG Park (For Almost $4 Mil!)

I think it is really just a question of whether or not the claim is true. Some houses on my block in Clinton hill have what some neighbors have called "vaults" in front of the normal front hatch in their front gardens. Most have been sealed up so that all you have is a regular hatch with a ladder (a roughly 4 by 4 foot square opening at the front of the house to the basement). I haven't heard anyone claiming the larger openings that have been closed up were hiding places for escaped slaves, rather they thought they were old storage areas for coal.

Posted by: 1847 at July 14, 2006 3:08 PM in response to Fighting to Save Remains of Underground Railroad

Arena parking won't be an issue here, it is too far. The arena is at Atlantic and Flatbush, not at Vanderbilt. Vanderbilt is the beginning of the future condos/office towers and is four blocks away. Another half mile or so down Atlantic is where the arena will be.

I do think this is a high price though because of the narrow width of the house. Wide well maintained houses on the much nicer Lefferts place blocks (between St. James and Grand, and between Grand and Classon) fetch in the 1.5m area. So to ask this much for a narrow place (albeit 5 stories) is probably pushing it.

Posted by: 1847 at July 12, 2006 11:53 AM in response to House of the Day: Overpriced on St.James?

I wouldn't let the random recent incident scare you Blabber. Cl. Hill is much better than years ago from a crime perspective. I do think this is on the high side for a narrow place, especially with the large condo construction about to begin behind it on Washington Ave.

Posted by: 1847 at July 11, 2006 4:10 PM in response to House of the Day: Overpriced on St.James?

I agree. It is a funny selling point considering the distance from the proposed arena. If you were for the arena plans, it's not like it is that close. A very long walk or a subway ride...

Posted by: 1847 at July 11, 2006 2:22 PM in response to House of the Day: Overpriced on St.James?

The property shark dates are estimate and often incorrect. My place is listed as 1899 but actually was built in 1862.

Posted by: 1847 at July 11, 2006 1:05 PM in response to Architecture 101: Inniss Franciscan House

Whatever price they get, they need a new broker. That house dates from the 1880s I believe and the "METS" vs "NETS" typo, if that's what it is, is pretty bad.

Also, I agree that we need interior shots.

As far as being "in the vicinity" of the proposed NETS arena, I guess that is somewhat correct, though if you walked there from this St. James location it would take you the better part of 30 minutes to get to the intersection of Flatbush and Atlantic. You could take the subway or a bus I guess which would be much faster (C train one stop or a bus down atlantic ave).

Posted by: 1847 at July 11, 2006 12:59 PM in response to House of the Day: Overpriced on St.James?

Good site. Thank you!!!
http://usenext-123.eastdoor.info/ usenext

Posted by: usenext at October 20, 2006 5:12 PM in response to Uncovering Old Hearth?

Good site. Thank you!!!
http://usenext-123.eastdoor.info/ usenext

Posted by: usenext at October 20, 2006 5:13 PM in response to Uncovering Old Hearth?

Nice site. Thanks!
http://acne-cyst-123.megastop.info/ acne cyst

Posted by: acne cyst at October 27, 2006 11:29 AM in response to Uncovering Old Hearth?

eurqfh rmyhujvpw wjvrxnagp ojnwdhxqc bkyjflqwr franywkv nauycjme

Posted by: jbeh ibczajl at October 27, 2006 3:31 PM in response to Uncovering Old Hearth?

eurqfh rmyhujvpw wjvrxnagp ojnwdhxqc bkyjflqwr franywkv nauycjme

Posted by: jbeh ibczajl at October 27, 2006 3:32 PM in response to Uncovering Old Hearth?

eurqfh rmyhujvpw wjvrxnagp ojnwdhxqc bkyjflqwr franywkv nauycjme

Posted by: jbeh ibczajl at October 27, 2006 3:33 PM in response to Uncovering Old Hearth?

Very good site. Thanks!!!
http://acne-cleanser-123.gigadir.info/ acne cleanser

Posted by: acne cleanser at October 27, 2006 7:34 PM in response to Uncovering Old Hearth?

Very good site. Thanks.
http://acne-cyst-123.gigadir.info/ acne cyst

Posted by: acne cyst at October 27, 2006 9:10 PM in response to Uncovering Old Hearth?

Nice site. Thank you!!!
http://acne-vulgaris-123.gigadir.info/ acne vulgaris

Posted by: acne vulgaris at October 27, 2006 10:18 PM in response to Uncovering Old Hearth?

Nice site. Thank you!!!
http://acne-vulgaris-123.gigadir.info/ acne vulgaris

Posted by: acne vulgaris at October 27, 2006 10:18 PM in response to Uncovering Old Hearth?