We haven't seen the inside, but the exterior transformation of 4 Duryea Road, the Huestis House, is certainly dramatic. The fact that it went from almost being demolished to becoming a historic landmark estate that should stand another 100 years is pretty exciting. Kudos to Jim Van Note and Oasis Architecture for giving the beautiful Queen Anne Victorian back her crown. More photos after the jump...
February 28, 2007
Looks terrific outside! That is a very large house..the inside is probably terrific as well. Nice neighborhood - should to well on the market. Kudos also the folks who rallied to save the house!
Posted by: Backsore | Jan 17, 2007 2:41:44 PM
The system will work IF that property is desireable to the market. There will be very few people looking to purchase a 10 bedroom house for over $2,000,000 in an area where its by far the biggest home. It won't help when the town rewards Van Note for his efforts with a $40k annual tax bill that will make it even harder to sell. If it sells, that is great. If it doesn't, its just another Crisco situation, where we have a home that is not marketable. Only difference is the town and the Baristafreaks like yourselves forced this upon the developer.
Posted by: Hiding in Baristaville | Jan 17, 2007 2:44:23 PM
No, Hiding, you are mistaken. The Van Note's undertook financial risk when they bought an historic house with the intent on getting a variance to destroy it. Whether the house sells or not is immaterial and, any financial wound suffered by the Van Note's is self-inflicted. Another Crisco? That's absurd. The house is beautiful and well proportioned for the size of the lot on which it sits. It adds beauty and value to the neighborhood.
Posted by: jimbo | Jan 17, 2007 2:58:21 PM
Jimbo,
Your lack of knowledge in regards to this subject is typical of the average blogger on this website. They needed no variances. They could have bought this house and knocked it down without anyone's permission. They, unlike most developers, listened to what was being said and agreed to keep the home. This was not a historic site when it was purchased, it happened after the fact. The financial risk that they took was not required, it was done in order to keep the peace and maintain their good reputation in the community. They should be commended for it and let's hope that we have a property that is not desireable from a resale perspective.
Posted by: Hiding in Baristaville | Jan 17, 2007 3:15:47 PM
If you had done your homework and checked with the town Van Note did not need a variance to tear down the house. The historical designation was impossed on him.
Posted by: smooth | Jan 17, 2007 3:16:31 PM
Variance, permits, whatever, they still needed the town's approval to rip the property down. The Van Notes bought the house fully aware that they might not be able to develop it as they wished. If they can't sell the house for the price they want, then they could either keep it, or sell it for a loss. Oh, and it was a historic site at the time of the purchase, just not on the town's register. that mistake was corrected.
Posted by: Jimbo | Jan 17, 2007 3:59:23 PM
When this was all going on I talked to the town. The Van Notes could have torn down the house before the designation was imposed. It still can be torn down-with a little more effort by the Van Notes. They tried to do the right thing.
Posted by: smooth | Jan 17, 2007 5:01:57 PM
Hiding in Barristaville....
Until the law changed, I could smoke all I wanted to around kids in a school. That doesn't make it right.
Our community has started to decide that its neighborhoods have value and therefore, the open frontier, individual rights philosophy you advocate (in force when we all lived miles apart) is no longer the full force of law.
We all have neighbors and we live in neighborhoods. What you do directly effects my property and property value. Therefore as a community, we are about to decide that tear-downs of historic quality homes should not be allowed, the same way communities (states)decided that smoking around kids was not beneficial to their quality of life (please don't now split hairs by arguing health v. living space. The underlying legal motiviation is the same).
If you don't want to live in a community that is beginning to recognize the value of preserving its housing assets to improve the quality of life and maintain its neighborhoods. If you feel that this is too much "community" control and a taking of right, then you are of course, welcome to move to vinyl sided Clifton where they have not determined in any way that killing older, architectually worthwhile homes is important.
Posted by: MARTIN SCHWARTZ | Jan 17, 2007 6:34:02 PM
Martin,
Please, I believe you are a developer! People in glass "CAPE CODS" should not throw stones.
Posted by: smooth | Jan 17, 2007 7:27:50 PM
Mr. Smooth....ignorance is not bliss.
If you don't know, you really shouldn't say. FYI..I was one of the leaders in the fight to save the Marlboro Inn and ended up suing the Township and Steve Plofker in the process. So I do and will throw stones when needed.
I'm also a restoration contractor and builder/developer of period appropriate homes who trys to lead by example -- not just talk (see www.Texturedhome.com).
If really want to be "smooth"...best to do your homework first and work out those rough edges.
Posted by: Martin Schwartz | Jan 17, 2007 9:15:03 PM
This is an estate-sized property with an "in-town" location--that makes this house special in my opinion. You can walk everywhere in that location, unlike the south end estates or upper mountain, etc. which have a more isolated feel. I hope it does well!
Posted by: toddler mom | Jan 17, 2007 9:46:19 PM
It looks beautiful. All of the different sized windows are great (and must have cost a small fortune!). Good luck with it!
Posted by: Kim Cicala | Jan 17, 2007 10:37:00 PM
Schwartz,
You have every right to fight for this or that, and lord knows people in this town do. Its rare that I drive by Church Street and not find 20 liberal freaks who have nothing better to do than picket for something as rediculous as raising the parking meters 25 cents.
My point is that as much as you bashed the Van Notes months ago, you should now applaud them because they could have knocked that house down day 1 and chose not to. And yes the house looks beautiful, just like every other house they have built in Montclair. However, there is a big question of whether someone wants the upkeep of a 10 bedroom house in an odd location for such a large structure. If its not marketable, then the best use was in fact to knock it down and build two smaller tastefully done homes.
May the Scwartz be with you and your shameless plug of your business.
Posted by: Hiding in Baristaville | Jan 18, 2007 9:42:52 AM
"May the Scwartz be with you and your shameless plug of your business."
Oh, Brother! Re-read the posts, someone else outed him as a developer, not Martin Schwartz. Why be so mean-spirited?
Posted by: bt | Jan 18, 2007 10:35:41 AM
A key point is that VanNote was smart and flexible enough to respond to community pressure and save/renovate the property. He keeps goodwill in the community and everyone wants to see this beautiful house sell successfully.
In contrast, Plofker did everything the opposite way at Crisco and the results speak for themselves.
Posted by: Backsore | Jan 18, 2007 10:35:59 AM
Martin,
"A restoration contractor of period appropriate homes"-lets ask your neighbors on Stonebridge(which your new construction towers over)how they feel about that!!!
Posted by: smooth | Jan 18, 2007 2:49:26 PM
Smooth...you are one angry dude...chill.
I live near Stonebridge - we are delighted with what Mr. Schwartz is doing there. It is a huge improvement, and much more appropriate for the neighborhood.
Posted by: Backsore | Jan 18, 2007 3:29:52 PM
SMOOTH:
You really should be embarassed to write anything here because you do no background investigation into anything you say to become knowledgable first, nor do you bother to go back to follow any older trails on issues previously discussed -- before commenting.
You know nothing about about my political background, actions and motivations in the land use area, and yet, freely comment as if you do.
So here's another "shameless plug.: Go to:
http://baristanet.typepad.com/home/2006/09/building_the_an.html
...if you want the real scoop on what we are doing on Stonebridge.
The fact is, it was the small ranches that were tracked in and imposed into this area in the 50's that were the aberations to the surrounding estates --on both eastern Stonebridge and connecting S. Mountain from turn-of-the-century to the 20's. They knocked the values down for the surrounding homes. I'm bringing them back up.
Why not try to get the facts first...think and then make comments. That philosophy will serve you well in life overall. (Yes, I am being condensending to your ignorance and childish arrogance displayed)
HIDING IN BARISTAVILLE...
The Van Notes did not knock the house down due to alturism. They feared a town wide boycott of their agency business which was starting to perculate at the time if they contemplated proceeding -- and were directly told as such.
Nonetheless, they and Johnathan Pearlstein at Oasis did a very nice job and are to be congratulated and supported for ultimately doing the right thing.
FYI... I am not a "liberal" weiner as you try to infer by linkage. I'm a progressive realist. On the international terrorism front -- likely to the right of even you.
Posted by: Martin Schwartz | Jan 19, 2007 10:49:42 AM
The renovation certainly looks stunning! Thanks to Mr. Van Note for giving it a go, even if it was in response to community pressure, it was a town-friendly thing to do.
I remain unconvinced that putting two houses on that lot was to be done without any variances, and we'll never know, will we? I have no doubt that tear down could have occurred, a la 21 North Mountain -- but the "no variances" claim might not have held up to intense scrutiny (again, a la 21 North Mountain, where the arrogant and manipulative parties behind that scheme DID need variances for their "no variance" plan).
Posted by: appletony | Jan 22, 2007 2:46:00 PM
Speaking of 21 North Mountain, whom would you nominate for Montclair's 2006 "Biggest Self-Inflicted Wound Award"? Desmond Niel for pre-emptively tearing down the house on 21 North Mountain, "to preserve his rights", or Steve Plofker for jamming 10 McMansions into Crisco?
I guess there is no limit in Montclair on how many years a property can remain an un-occupied, under-construction mess. Hahnes was a vacant eyesore for years, the spec house property on Lloyd Rd (a few houses south of Strahan's) has been vacant and under construction for 5+ years it seems, and there's no sign of activity at 21 N. Mountain (though that little eyesore was created only a few months ago).
Seems like the neighbors should have some recourse to protect their property values. I wonder if other towns have rules on this?
Posted by: Backsore | Jan 23, 2007 9:53:53 AM
Beautiful, beautiful, beautiful! The Van Notes do amazing work and as people who grew up in this town and these school systems they are improving Montclair. It is a big house on a street with much smaller homes but it does have a good amount of property. If I was in the 1.5 to 2 million market range and was looking in Montclair I would definitely consider this house. If you compare this house to the 2 twin houses they built on Valley Road and the monstrosity they are building next to it as well as the Crisco homes on Watchung, there is no comparison. For one, I am not paying upwards of 2 million to be face to face to a twin house with a shared driveway and over looking 2 family houses and a apartment complex. And the Crisco homes wouldn't even be an option because they are so hideously on top of each other. You could also look across town where the Montclair estates are huge and have plenty or property but always felt isolated to me. And then you could always buy on Upper Mountain but that is not a neighborhood and a very busy street. So really, if your in the 2 million range this house has it all. Close to schools, town, transportation, a great neighborhood and a nice piece of property. No I'm not a realtor, just admiring nice work.
Posted by: 29year resident | Jan 23, 2007 3:38:04 PM
Beautiful, beautiful, beautiful! The Van Notes do amazing work and as people who grew up in this town and these school systems they are improving Montclair. It is a big house on a street with much smaller homes but it does have a good amount of property. If I was in the 1.5 to 2 million market range and was looking in Montclair I would definitely consider this house. If you compare this house to the 2 twin houses they built on Valley Road and the monstrosity they are building next to it as well as the Crisco homes on Watchung, there is no comparison. For one, I am not paying upwards of 2 million to be face to face to a twin house with a shared driveway and over looking 2 family houses and a apartment complex. And the Crisco homes wouldn't even be an option because they are so hideously on top of each other. You could also look across town where the Montclair estates are huge and have plenty or property but always felt isolated to me. And then you could always buy on Upper Mountain but that is not a neighborhood and a very busy street. So really, if your in the 2 million range this house has it all. Close to schools, town, transportation, a great neighborhood and a nice piece of property. No I'm not a realtor, just admiring nice work.
Posted by: 29year resident | Jan 23, 2007 3:38:05 PM
"The Van Notes did not knock the house down due to alturism. They feared a town wide boycott of their agency business which was starting to perculate at the time if they contemplated proceeding -- and were directly told as such."
Fear of a boycott is not altruism, it's self preservation. And if they are so altruistic then how come they did the pre-emptive knock down of another "historic" house the next chance they had?
I commend the Van Notes for doing a fantastic job on this house. It's beautiful! I hope they make a lot of money on it.
Posted by: settin em up knockin em down | Mar 19, 2007 1:32:10 PM
