House of the Day: 49 Rutland Road
This place sure is purdy.
This place sure is purdy. According to the listing, the four-story brick and limestone house at 49 Rutland Road in Prospect Lefferts Gardens is one of five houses in a row designed by the architect John J. Petit in 1897. The interior of the 3,500-square-foot house is full of original details—pier mirrors, wood mantels, and ribbon pattern parquet floors—but has obviously had some modern updating in the right places. All good. And what about the asking price of $1,450,000? Think it’ll fly? There’s a pair of open houses this weekend for the curious.
49 Rutland Road [Brown Harris Stevens] GMAP P*Shark
I saw this house, 52 Midwood (1.6M), and the completely renovated 3 story on the next block of Rutland, which sold for aprox 1.3M. This one is indeed beautiful. It needs new mechanicals, new bathroom, floors redone, and some other stuff. I’d agree that the block is the least appealing of the three. Comparing the three houses, I’d say this one should sell for 1.35M. It’ll be interesting to see what it goes for. 72 Rutland is a true wreck, and I can’t see it’s selling for more 1.1M.
I also went to this open house out of curiosity–first RE open house I’ve been to in years, but since there was another open house (#72) on the same block, plus an artist’s open studio on Fenimore I (one block south) AND an art opening at a gallery on Rogers and Fenimore (one more block east), we decided to spend a day within a few blocks of home.
# 49 is a gorgeous house in move-in condition [although I’d think most buyers might want to add a bathroom to the 4th floor] still, I think it’ll go for asking price.
The asking price for # 72, last week’s PLG HOTD, has been reduced to aprox. the same as #49–a step in the right direction, but IMO nowhere near enough of a reduction for this house which is an estate sale and, more or less, a mess–rather worse that the pictures shown last week indicated–there’s lots more to worry about than plastic slipcovers. My own house was in far WORSE shape when I bought it in 1974, BUT it was priced at 1/2 the amount of comparable LM houses we had looked at, which made it a bargain (LOOOONG story, which I might tell someday).
I went to the open house as well, just out of curiosity as I recently bought a few blocks away. It was a very homey looking place, the center stair made the front rooms really grand in scale, and the second-floor library room was fantastic. A ton of details were still there (I especially liked the pass-throughs with sinks and the butler pantry with a copper sink off the kitchen. The floors looked the worse for wear, definitely would need to be refinished. THe front door was really messed up. But they had made the basement a pretty usable rec room by putting a transparent bulkhead on the front hatch. ANd the block is gorgeous, great trees and plantings. You can’t hear Flatbush from there at all. I’d say it’s worth it, as a comporable house in PS or even Prospect Heights would be well over 2M.
Just got back from the open house. Very nice! I agree with 1:40 about the photos. But definitely still needs work. Only the kitchen is renovated and the rest of the house has old electrical. Needs new boiler too. And definitely needs a bathroom upstairs.
I also saw 52 Midwood and that house was in a completely different league. It was renovated from top to bottom and with really high-end finishes. That was a stunner! Also, that block of Midwood is gorgeous and much, much nicer than this block of Rutland. I’ve heard about the loitering problem at the Rutland/Flatbush corner from lots of people, and while this house is far down enough to not hear the noise, that certainly detracts from the appeal of the street. So, if 52 Midwood sold for 1.6M, I’d say this really shouldn’t go for more than 1.3M, 1.4M at the most. What do others who saw it think?
This was a case where the really insanely wide angle lens on the camera did not do the interiors justice. It’s distorting the scale, and distorting the details. In reality the house is much more grand and elegant than the pictures show. With wide angle, you get more detail on the sides, but it squishes the image down. Also the strobe flash makes a really flat image. Real estate photographers should try a few different lenses, not just super-wide. And use either natural light or studio lights but not a strobe attached to the camera.
It’s a divorce this time, 11:25. We heard from neighbors.
I really liked it. Great vibe or feel to the place. Richly historically detailed, everything is still there, nothing altered or removed. But still very appropriate for modern furniture. The parlor floor has the feel and look of a loft with its open layout from front to back. Basement didn’t smell, always a good sign. It’s move-in condition certainly, even if there’s still work to be done. I saw new plumbing in the basement, but didn’t notice anything else but I wasn’t looking at mechanicals.
I bid on this house in 2001. It needed massive amounts of work–electrical, plumbing, new heating system, new roof, major plaster repair, new kitchen, new bathrooms. It looks like the owners did the kitchen and plaster repair, but I’d check to be sure that they replaced the roof and all of electrical and heating, since it doesn’t say so in the description. The owners did do some “extra” things, like create doors to the garden, a door from the rear parlor to a deck and stairs to the garden. But they didn’t put in in an upstairs bathroom, which we felt was needed.
As I remember, the house was asking 550K and we bid 575K. I think it sold for close to 600K. Then the owners must have spent at least 100K–more if they did all that was needed.
It is strange to me that someone bought the house in 2001 and then sold it in 2005. And the people who bought it in 2005 are selling it in 2007. What is that about?
It was a lovely house.
52 midwood sold for 1,665,000.
49 rutland is a great house in move-in condition and well worth the price. it probably will sell above asking.
strange this sometimes vicious bickering about this or that neighborhood. why the competition?
not many people were seeking out to live in park slope 25 years ago – it was crime ridden and did not have all the amenities it has today. house were affordable and park slope was discovered. it took a while before park slope became one of the “in†places to live (too much “in†for my taste now). buying a house – or anything for that matter – in the end is all a question of affordability. if you like a townhouse and have 3.5 million go and buy it in park slope if you like. if you have 1.5 million only and like a great townhouse the options are limited. landmarked lefferts manor then becomes very attractive since it has a great housing stock, is close to the park, has the fast q-train into manhattan and for sure will be as desirable as any place around prospect park in time.
for some people it might be a problem not to have starbucks, the gap or the fancy cheese shop around the corner … for some it might be a problem that starbucks etc will be coming …
7:09 presents a pretty accurate picture. But different people do react entirely differently to the same situation. Also, this really illustrates the dilemma everyone faces if they want to stay inside NYC. If you need the space a house provides, and you buy a house in a neighborhood that already has all the awesome amenities you are certainly going to be paying for it. Big bucks. So everyone has to base the decision on short-term vs. long-term goals and needs.
Like when the kids are pre-teens and teenagers and want space to have their friends over. It’s not impossible, lots of families do it, but let’s face it, it’s really tough on teens to live in a little coop or condo where they can’t escape their parents. And then who wants to try and buy a house in any historic neighborhood 12-14 years from now when your children are starting high school and nearly all of Brooklyn will have a Starbucks and better amenities thus higher house prices. To each his own, but we decided to go for an affordable house now and we’re happy with the choice. Regarding schools, we both hated our public schools as kids (they were good ones too) and much preferred our private schools, so we were always going to go all-private anyway. So schools weren’t a factor for us.