Monday, April 9, 2012

A 'Wheatly' Cottage for Sale

One of the original cottages that made up 'Wheatly', the E.D. Morgan III estate designed by McKim, Mead & White between 1890-1900 in Old Westbury. This particular cottage was attached to the swimming pool (which has since been demolished) and is located in the northeast corner of the courtyard opposite the main residence. The cottage is currently for sale for $2,495,000, click HERE to see the listing via Daniel Gale Sotheby's. Click HERE for more on 'Wheatly' (be sure to scroll past today's post).



MLS Listing photos from Daniel Gale Sotheby's.

16 comments:

HalfPuddingHalfSauce said...

Its a tear down in my eyes. $2,495Mil - noway.

The Down East Dilettante said...

So, if we all pooled our money, and waited patiently for each remaining corner of Wheatly to come on the market, we'd eventually be able to rebuild the place. We could call it the Old Long Island Spa and Retreat.

In my humble opinion, they tore down the wrong portions. Much better they kept the gate house and clock tower wings.

The Ancient said...

Everyone should have a pool house with five fireplaces.

Doug Floor Plan said...

Here is the house on Bing: http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=qt0qh98w134h&lvl=19.49&dir=182.86&sty=b&where1=Old%20Westbury%2C%20NY&form=LMLTCC

Luckily, this is a pretty good view of what's left -- not much tree foliage.

Visually, some owner didn't do this house any favor by modifying the roof so that third floor room would have vertical interior walls (or installing that balcony). It also appears the garage is WAY detached from the house, just seems odd. & odd (to me) in that out of the 18 Sotheby photos of this house not one clearly identifies the front door or entry.

Kellsboro Jack said...

One of the examples whereby if MM&W could rise from the dead they'd collectively ask to have their good name removed from any association from that structure as it exists today.

The cheap untreated add-on decking and stairs is what perhaps sends it over the top ;>

For $2.44M (if not a bit lower) you could instead live in Orange Co. and snatch up the Wilson Eyre designed 1903 residence of noted Tuxedo Park resident Alfred Lee Loomis:

http://www.visualtour.com/shownp.asp?sk=13&t=2162011

archibuff said...

In this case the bits and pieces don't make the whole. In areas where a choice acre can sell for upwards of a million at $2.4M this is the value of the land which has a decent elevation and that will be a certain tear down. In fact since the high wall seems to divide the acreage in two I bet the entire retaining wall goes along with the horribly mutilated house when a new home is built.

The Down East Dilettante said...

Kellsboro makes an excellent point. I guess I'll have to give up my dream of a reunited Wheatly---and Tuxedo Park is lovely.

Archibuff, a really good designer always works with the givens, and makes great features of pre-existing elements like the retaining wall. Others, unable to think out of the box, instead go to far more trouble to create something far more ordinary.

Zach said...

AB...

As a resident of OW I can tell you there is no way the Village would allow the removal of that retaining wall (unless I suppose it was replaced with another one...which wouldn't make much sense).

The Village does a lot of things extremely poorly as we are all well aware...but that is one thing I am almost certain they wouldn't permit.

The Down East Dilettante said...

you're probably right. They're way too busy mandating the destruction of defining historic features like entrance gates.

Zach said...

Indeed. There is no doubt they are more concerned with slope retention than they are with architectural heritage.

The Down East Dilettante said...

'slope retention'---phrase of the day

archibuff said...

DED and Zack are you really saying OW is going to demand retaining that wall? Really? OW? I think any good designer can build a multi-level home and incorporate the grade differences much easier, with a number of lower walls, than having to build above the existing wall which splits the property in two. It now acts as a hinderance to redevelopment of the entire parcel. Removing the top half, cutting into the upper level grade would bring the difference between the upper half and lower halves down to a much more sensible height. Right now any owner has to go down 30 steps to utilize their rear yard? Not going to happen IMO but you guys can dream it will remain as is. They just cut a huge embankment at Knole, cutting the axial view and removing the marble arcade at the northern end to fit in the new home built there last year so regrading is going to happen here as well if the house is torn down. Old Westbury worships the bulldozer.

archibuff said...

DED..........did you also mention a "really good designer"? We are discussing OW aren't we? Really good designers are not allowed to enter the town, therefore the hack that gets the commission here will opt for the ordinary. Slope retention with multiple lower walls made from railroad ties. I can see it already.

The Down East Dilettante said...

Hard to believe that some of the most influential houses of the 20th century were built in Old Westbury once upon a time, isn't it?

And you've touched on another thing about the majority of developers that is almost inexplicable---that they overlay their plans on historic landscapes, regardless of feature, rather than working around and retaining the work of landscape architects of the past---in spite of the fact that they'd actually wind up with a better looking development.

Zach said...

AB... Old Westbury would argue it is not a hinderance to development because there is already a fully functioning residence in place. Also..the minimum acreage in OW is 2 yet this is 1...which is highly unusual. This would mean the zoning envelope for the lot is smaller... I would take a good guess that you wouldn't even be permitted to build below the wall.

Wheatly was built on the highest point in Old Westbury and that wall has been in place for roughly 120 years... it just isn't as simple as wave your hand, make it go away and grade the whole thing down.

Anyway you should be thankful for this kind of thing...it is what has kept the wall at Spring Hill from being removed.

Kellsboro Jack said...

Ok, live with keeping the wall but maybe the future owner can incorporate that into the basis of making a modern reinterpreted Wyndham (c.1890) - OW would certainly welcome this throwback with the architecture.

(It was foreclosed and sold at auction the new buyers essentially have doubled the price they paid. If it worked this would be 2004 all over again.)

http://wyndhamestatenewport.com/