The architect who renovated this house was Henry Magaziner who died in 2011 at the age of 100 and he was noted as a preservationist in the headline of his obituary.

I don't think you would conclude this when you look at the pictures. However, I will give you a bit of back history.

In the 1960 movie From the Terrace, Paul Newman's character has to deal with his alcoholic and (suggested) promiscuous mother (Myrna Loy), and at one point a detective has tracked her to Philadelphia.

The detective reports that she is living in Philadelphia with a man on ___ and ____ Streets, and by their expressions and the dramatic music, you understand that his mother has really hit the skids.

This house stands on that intersection.

Pictures, as usual, from Prudential Fox Roach. I think the house is a steal, probably because it is a time capsule. The staircase is from 1966.

I was going to guess sometime in the 60's based on the tile shapes and the sinuous curves of the railings. LOVE it! A 60's time capsule would be very attractive to a lot of people I would think.

The house was built in the 1820s.

The drapery is probably from 1966

The fireplace acknowledges the Federal Period without copying it

Those draperies look like Jack Lenor Larsen fabric circa 1966

The effluorescing arabesque tile, the brown outlet with the brass plate and the size of the recessed cans--and I guess the oak treads age this the most, I think. Cleaning it up would help.

Basement

The master, complete with sound system

Put in real marble and walnut instead of laminates and it could still work, I think:

The heat marks on the wallcovering make me think this is all 1966, too

Were they thinking ahead for the Bicentennial?

This kitchen looks like it was used by help:
It's all high quality, but it is function oriented. But note that it is two tone, has tiered cabinets to the ceiling, has couter-height windows and a heat impervious inset next to the range.

This is the attic level. These floors are probably original because they saw so little use and abuse in the 19th and early 20 centuries:

There was probably little left to preserve, which is why a preservationist did a completely contemporary interior. This is obviously an estate and has been stripped but I think the basic bones hold up very well. It is priced very well because most people probably look at it and see a full-gut renovation.

Except for the tired red carpeting, I'd say it's just about move-in ready. It seems thoughtfully done and in good taste.

Plus the clock in the kitchen is cool.

Some fine bones in that house. I was guessing the 30's or the 60's.

Quote of the day.

Our bodies are apt to be our autobiographies.
~Frank Gillette Burgess

Same with houses, so it seems.

This post was edited by deedee99 on Tue, Mar 19, 13 at 23:15

I wouldn't mind living in that house at all. The stairway itself would give me happy shivers every time I used it. Love the serigraphs in the bedroom, too--they look like Elton Bennett or someone similar, completely period appropriate and oddly Pacific-Northwestish...

I was going to guess the sixties. My grandparents built a new house during that decade, and it had that same tile.

We are actually going to look at it, not because I can afford it, I can't --but because there is an open house. I did tender an offer on a much smaller house right around the corner, in 2010.

This house is cool. Really like the fireplace and the cabinetry.

if the movie was set in contemporary times, then the neighborhood was bad in 1960. How did this house come to get a full scale architectural treatment 6 years later? WAs the neighborhood reviving quickly?

The movie timeline started in 1946 and ran to the late 50s, but yes, in the 1960-1970 decade the changes were amazingly rapid. However, these people were pioneers, in 1966 many of the neighboring houses would have been boarded up.

I remember meeting a man who lived in that neighborhood in the 1970s (It was the 1970s and I was in grade school) and he was considered very adventurous for buying a house in this area and pouring a lot of money into restoring it when the neighborhood was still very unsafe at night. But Philadelphia is a strange place, I had a great Aunt who lived a block from where I do now until her death in 1966 (after gambling and drinking away a sizeable estate and ending in genteel poverty) and this was a Horrendous neighborhood, but it was still inhabited by Drs. and nurses who worked at the local hospitals and regular working people (and drug addicts, squatters and prostitutes) all mixed together. The nurses who lived in my complex were escorted the few blocks from the hospital by an armed security guard or the police.

This is the surrounding neighborhood of the posted house just about at that time

In the attic floor shot of the house, you can see the apartment building in this picture, (in the left hand window) and that's a 1962 Oldsmobile that looks several years old by wear in the last photo.

This post was edited by palimpsest on Tue, Mar 19, 13 at 22:36

How bout this? 1959

Today

I hope to get to Philadelphia this summer. And if I do, I'm going to find some guided walking tours. I used to want to be an urban pioneer. A friend has become wealthy late in life by buying apartment buildings in Buffalo and renting them out, just in the few years since the crash. The real estate cycle is interesting on multiple levels.

Seriously cool staircase!

Is that really a stall door in the Bicentennial bath???

Allison, are you thinking there shouldn't have been a stall shower door then? It is not dissimilar from one that was in my parents' home and installed in the late 40s and there were stall showers way before that. If that isn't what you were asking, then nevermind! :)

Actually Allison means that the toilet has a door on it that is a panel like a commercial restroom. It's next to the shower

Here is the house as work progressed and you can see evidence of another rehab next door. All of the really decrepit market and warehouse buildings across the street have been demolished.

In the long view, you can see some signs of restoration going on. The house in question is right under the water tower on the tall building. It has been "stripped" of the bar renovations on the exterior but no restoration yet.

Here is what stood across from the house in 1949. In this photo you can see the sign for Time Bar at the far right. Those buildings stood on the above empty lot and the area to it's left in the above photo.

Actually Allison means that the toilet has a door on it that is a panel like a commercial restroom. It's next to the shower

That is what I meant. While I've seen them in office buildings and shopping centers, I have never seen in a home.

Where is the house pal? It looks really familiar.
What are they asking?

It's right on the corner of Second and Spruce diagonal from Man Full of Troubles, and down the hill from Society Hill Towers. The asking price is $1.1M which I think reflects the nearly-50 year-old renovation, and the modernist interior which will not be embraced by everyone.

I could see this house being bought for location and heavily renovated all over again, although I hope someone appreciates it for what it is, rather than changes it completely.

Pal, I remember when Society Hill was a scary place. I would go to a fair put on by Jefferson Hospital and held at Head House Square, right near the house you have pictured. This was in the late '60's. I'd take my son for a ride on a horse carriage thru that area and feel somewhat uncomfortable about driving through a bad neighborhood. Now I can't even afford to live there!

Luckily there was a tendency for Philadelphians across the economic spectrum to live within close proximity to each other, so people were not afraid to move into Society Hill when it was still a slum (and subsequently into Washington Square West). There are pictures of 19th century slums with the top of the building I live in close i(a block) in the background.

In the 1950s and early 60s the nurses who lived in my building, which was then hospital-owned housing, were escorted home by police or an armed security guard if it was dark out. And my building backs up to a block that housed a famous architect, a prominent family, and several physicians. Although it's still diverse, I think it was more diverse 50 years ago than it is now.

Love these pictures, thank you for sharing. I spent a lot of time in Philadelphia years ago, it's one of my favorite cities.

It's so fascinating (and nostalgic) seeing this vintage style. I'm 43, so do remember that style of drapes, and some of the other decor and colors. I really do love the staircase.

I have spoken to my Realtor about this house, just to see her take on it, and on the price. She is a good Realtor, in the top 2% of the company's sales, and she has a good idea of what people look for in various price ranges.

She said that (unfortunately) most people will Not like the staircase, and think that the kitchen is too small, and that the bathrooms are dated, not interesting. Also, the parking space is a slot in the garage across the street, not attached.

Interesting. We made an offer on a house between Spruce & Pine and 3rd (I think) way back when. It was kind of opposite a church and I can't remember if it was 3rd or 4th. Didn't get it obviously.

How wide is that house? Sqft? I actually don't think it's such a steal. I have seen enormous fixer rowhomes in Rittenhouse for that and it would cost a ton to put right.

As a relative new comer to Philly I just can't imagine Society Hill as a slum - it's so beautiful down there.

Totally different neighborhood, totally different feel than Rittenhouse, and I think a quite different demographic of who wants to live there. I don't think you could pay most people who really live desire to live in one neighborhood to live in the other.

It's 4100+ square feet, 65 feet wide, and on a 90 foot lot.. Even if you spent $1M+ "re-Federalizing" it, it would put you at a reasonable price point for its size in the neighborhood.

I also think it is arguable that it needs to be "put right", anyway. The architect was a well-known preservationist and I am thinking that there was nothing original left to preserve. Unless you went full period recreation (which I think would be Revisionist, because it still wouldn't be original)...I think that something like this is preferable to the meh "traditional" that gets put in houses like this that still need to be renovated. So often it's indistinguishable on the inside from a new build--and the new builds here aren't all that impressive for the money. This is a well-done midcentury interior. Why change it dramatically? (Especially into the identity-less 21st century neo-eclectic traditional?) Blech.

I think you could spend a couple hundred thousand freshening it up, and updating the utilities (or a lot less if you consider the bathrooms "period" and not "dated") and be in a 4000 square foot house in Society Hill for under $2M. I still posit that it's a good deal.

Oh I know - Rittenhouse tends to be more expensive than Society Hill which is why I mentioned the fact that I have seen larger fixer upper row homes there for less.

We saw an absolutely magnificent Brownstone on Spruce St which had the most gorgeous original details, stained glass windows and wood work. Went in the $900s. Now THAT was a steal. I used to have dreams about that house.

Sorry, I meant how wide, not how deep? It looks like it's 2 windows wide so I'm guessing 16 - 17ft wide max, making the rooms long and narrow?
4100 sqft is a good size - fully updated I would estimate under 2 million unless it's much wider than it looks and has parking. And that's in absolutely mint condition.

I'll be interested to hear what you think at the open house. Tempted to swing by myself out of curiosity.
We'll soon see what it goes for. I think it's close to fair market value - perhap a bit high. But time will tell! I've been wrong before.

Oh I think the listing price is probably right on given the assumption that most people will look at it and think it's a fixer upper that needs $X00s in renovations.

But I think that the buyer who appreciates it for what it is could live in it for less. I think it's a bargain because I could live in it pretty much as is, assuming the systems need updating and I would have to spend money on esthetics.

Then that's definitely true for you and as long as you never had to sell it you would be doing ok!

Eh, I don't know about the "never had to sell part".

If you don't put $1M of renovations into it, you don't need to get it back out. It would be sold again at a price that reflects that. And if someone wanted to do a gut renovation the Next time, it would still be that much cheaper than one that was already renovated. The "period" houses of this size in the neighborhood are much closer to or over $2M.

Pal, that's just down Front Street from Penn's View, which is our favorite Philadelphia hotel, and also near Amada, which is one of our favorite Spanish restaurants.

There are few Society Hill row homes that cap 2 million. Especially ones which are 16 - 17ft wide with that kind of staircase which is probably running up the center of the house taking up an enormous amount of space and cutting up the rooms into an odd layout. Again tough to say for sure without seeing it, but I've seen so many houses like this that I would guess that's the case. Also for some reason houses on numbered side streets seem to generally go for less than ones on the named streets. Not really sure why that is.

We will have to agree to disagree on this one. You might squeak your money back out (just), but there's not a lot to be made on it IMO.

We've bought several city homes which we've renovated and then sold for one reason or another and I wouldn't take this one on for a cent over $950,000 and that's being generous. Again I could easily be wrong, this is just my instinct and experience of that kind of house and the buyers in that price bracket who want things a certain way.

The proof will be in the pudding. The real estate market has picked up in Philly. Our Rittenhouse row home just sold in 3 weeks and there was almost no competition in that price range. If it's a steal it will sell quickly close to asking as there are very few homes in SH in that price range either which should be an advantage for it. It will be interesting to keep an eye on this and see what happens!

This post was edited by hobokenkitchen on Fri, Mar 22, 13 at 11:44

I missed the post where you said what your realtor said about the house. I agree with her. What did she say about the price? Did she think it was reasonable?

The main room sizes are actually close to Euclid's golden rectangle--slightly less rectangular. Remember that the original parameters of the build were set in a classical period of architecture.

She thinks the price reflects the limited appeal and the age of the renovation, but is pretty much dead on given that nobody is offering full price.

Out of 29 non-condo properties listed, there are five about this size listed at $3.9M, $2.4M, $2.3, $2.29M, and $1.85M.

Four at $1.4M-1.25M.

This house ranks 12th in price. The next price grouping cluster at $800K-900K are significantly smaller, like down to 1700 square feet.

Right, that's a fairly typical price spread for Society Hill.

The brownstone we looked at in Rittenhouse was 1.1 and went in the mid 900s. It was also huge.

People are offering full price or close on well priced houses, especially 'steals'. Unless our definition of a 'steal' varies hugely.

What I mean is that you could spend a lot of money on it until you hit the $2M mark if you wanted it to compete as a period-style property like the other $2M properties. Or you could spend a couple hundred thousand keeping the Magaziner renovation fairly intact and end up with something better (in my view) than the houses that fall below $1.5M.

There is usually a couple fairly bland offerings in the $1.5 range, that might as well be a suburban McMansion if you don't know what the outside looks like.

If you really hate the inside, it's a moot point. You would buy something else if it was available.

Obviously the work was all done in an accepted manner preservation-wise that would still be respected today. The exterior was recreated/reinterpreted and is a very "good neighbor" to the streetscape. The interior was rehabbed with an eye toward upgrading to the owner's needs; it is open to debate whether anything good was scrapped in the process. I can imagine that every floor was previously trashed so they all had to go. The ground level almost certainly.
Remember in the 60's the Williamsburg style of historic re-creation was still the rule. If it is missing, put it back the way it should have been. So a lot of kitchy and now regrettable re-interpreting was done from the 30's through the 70's before we understood better. Everything in this house that was done in '66 bears that year's hallmark, and there can be no confusion. And it has held up well.
In my book he gets very high marks for restoring the exterior acceptably within the guidelines, and hopefully in a short time the interiors, which served the owner well for 45 years, can be more sensitively reinterpreted to a period look, or simply upgraded in the finishes to contemporary standards using materials of such quality that they can last another generation.
Casey