Specially selected historic real estate for old house enthusiasts.

« Easton, MD 1864 in Lincoln, ME »

Fort Covington, NY

~~$50,000~~

Sold / Archive From 2023

Added to OHD on 5/30/23 - Last OHD Update: 5/30/23

24 Comments

2432 Chateaugay St, Fort Covington, NY 12937

Maps: Street | Aerial

1.94 Ac.

PRICED TO SELL! +/-1.94 Acres in the Village of Fort Covington. The house was burned and will need to be demolished. Please do not enter the home since it is unsafe. The property borders the railroad tracks.

Listed With

Rowena General, General Real Estate :: (518) 358-6080

Additional Links

This is an archived listing.

OR by region

Min Price

Max Price

Min Acres

Max Acres

Min SqFt

Max SqFt

Min Build Date

Max Build Date

24 Comments

Oldest

Newest Most Voted

Inline Feedbacks

View all comments

Powers | 222 comments

3 months ago

Yikes the hole in the roof that size could spell a death sentence. This needs an owner asap. could be an amazing little Victorian Cottage with a beautiful garden all about

Kirsten | 911 comments

Supporter

3 months ago

Oh, I ache to think of this one being destroyed. Wish there were some floor plans or even a few interior shots to see what’s left inside, if anything. What a blessing that the brick stood firm. It has to be salvageable…right? Powers is right, though. It needs a roof fast.

Don Carleton | 473 comments

Supporter

Reply to Kirsten | 911 comments

3 months ago

Big bad wolf couldn’t blow this cute brick house down.

Let’s hope big bad developers are equally stymied!

Boobtube | 519 comments

Supporter

Reply to Kirsten | 911 comments

3 months ago

And some upper story windows. Almost as bad as the hole in the roof for allowing bad weather and all kinds of animals in.

Ross | 2549 comments

Supporter

3 months ago

My 1894 house has burned three times.

Thank goodness the owners REPAIRED rather than DEMOLISHED.

J.Scott | 1261 comments

Supporter

3 months ago

I can see this one when she was 1st built! Very sweet! I hope the right buyers find her!

JDmiddleson | 5202 comments

3 months ago

Beautiful; exterior, isn’t it? I love those amazing carved barge rafters.

J.Bell | 47 comments

3 months ago

I mean for the price … a complete gut and rebuild from the inside might not be a horrible decision. I would have to get it assessed for any structural issues with the facade. If she will stand on her own it wouldn’t take long to reframe the interior. Good as new !!!

MJG | 7072 comments

Supporter

Reply to J.Bell | 47 comments

3 months ago

…and hopefully, there is enough inside that can be salvaged like stairs, balustrade, woodwork trim or doors to be reapplied should a gut job be required due to the holes in the roof and open windows. As a kid I remember my friend and I walking into the first floor kitchen of a house that was like this and there was grass and plants growing on the floor and carpet and a giant hole in the roof. Reminds me of this house visually. Poor house. I hope it can be saved. Sadly that home was reduced to rubble and replaced with condominiums.

JimH | 8411 comments

Moderator

3 months ago

Fort Covington was a frontier fort near the Canadian border during the War of 1812. Mills along the Salmon River attracted settlers and the area peaked in population prior to the Civil War. From local maps and sources, the house is associated with farmer Thomas J. Webb (1801-1882) and was probably constructed in the 1850’s by local builder Benjamin Hammond.

Besides all the normal inspections, a buyer should communicate with the local code official to assess the level of cooperation one could expect. A project like this is difficult enough without fighting with the local authorities. Securing the structure from the elements and vandalism is the top priority.

Grant | 2002 comments

Supporter

Reply to JimH | 8411 comments

3 months ago

Jim I can’t tell by comparing photos, but does it appear that in the vintage image some sort of cladding or render exists that’s been removed? I see decorative details around the windows that are no longer there? Also the door surround is gone or now recessed. Is it possible the house was brick veneered after that picture was taken? I just can’t reconcile the two in mind.

JimH | 8411 comments

Moderator

Reply to Grant | 2002 comments

3 months ago

I’m seeing clapboard or other siding in the old image, from the 70’s I think. The brick does appear to be more recent with new lintels, the entry recessed and the window hoods removed. New porch and different bargeboards also! The photo was part of a preservation form for this property (attachment), so I’ll assume it’s the same house. It’s curious to say the least.

PRHP00000014 IF 0000314 03346 000001.pdf

Grant | 2002 comments

Supporter

Reply to JimH | 8411 comments

3 months ago

It’s the same house from all indications. Most definitely curious!

David | 692 comments

Supporter

3 months ago

Hi folks! I don’t think this is the same house (Listed house and Jim H picture) This style of house is very common in New England. Plus I don’t think someone would go through the expense of putting a brick veneer over the clapboard. Vinyl, asphalt shingles, or asbestos yes. Hope some kind soul comes to the rescue!

Kirsten | 911 comments

Supporter

Reply to David | 692 comments

3 months ago

Like you, David, I’m wondering if these aren’t two different houses. The thing that raises my eyebrow the most is that the listing photo shows a porch on the left, which looks original. The photo from the preservation form is missing that porch. It is spookily similar, though. Do you suppose there was a pattern? Or a builder who was doing a lot of this same design regionally?

JDmiddleson | 5202 comments

Reply to David | 692 comments

3 months ago

Yea, I’m having a hard time believing it’s the same house. There are so many different things on the house. They removed all the existing windows and replaced them? Note the grids in the windows. The put brick on the exterior but failed to keep the chimneys that were there? They removed all the barge boards and replaced them with something equally complex? Then there is the difference in the grade from the street to the house. In the house as it is now, it looks fairly flat while this black and white photo looks to have a clear slope down to the street. I’m thinking along the lines Kirsten is, that it is the same plan, different house!

MJG | 7072 comments

Supporter

Reply to JDmiddleson | 5202 comments

3 months ago

Right. That little hill bugs me. Looks like that house is closer to the road in the black and white pic and up on a raised hill. Someone attached the wrong pic to the paper is a possibility. Not everyone has a keen eye for detail. I’ve had to debate differences in photos with historical societies before that a picture may not be what they think it is.

MJG | 7072 comments

Supporter

Reply to David | 692 comments

3 months ago

And don’t forget, with all those changes you also change the bargeboards in the eves. They’re not even the same design. It is a lot of effort to change a house to make it look almost the same bricked over. Kelly linked one below that has the SAME bargeboard as the pic of the white wood house. I’m wondering if the wrong house photo was attached back in the day? Since apparently there are very similar style homes around the same area. I mean, it really is quite an enigma.

Barbara V | 2336 comments

Supporter

Reply to David | 692 comments

3 months ago

I agree, David. I think they are different houses. Besides the brick (which doesn’t look like veneer), rarely do we see the gingerbread replaced with a more elaborate version…

Kelly, OHD | 15308 comments

Admin

3 months ago

Another home posted a few years ago has the same decorative bargeboard:
https://www.oldhousedreams.com/2016/05/11/c-1870-covington-ny/

Maybe the writer of the report made a mistake about which house was what. Similar homes in the area as the one across the street and at least another I saw have the same design:
https://goo.gl/maps/uQF3VB5ZM745x3Hk6

I almost thought the old image in the report was the street view home I just linked, the image being flipped during photo processing.

JimH | 8411 comments

Moderator

Reply to Kelly, OHD | 15308 comments

3 months ago

It’s a common form and one could find similar elements all over. The posted house and photograph have 10 doors and windows plus a detailed entry that are fairly identical, in size and placement at least if not every detail. That would be quite a coincidence even if it was random, but the photo was placed in the file with this exact house. We’ve seen near identical homes before, so I don’t dismiss the coincidence completely.
The brick bugs me and doesn’t look original to me, especially the inset entry. I think it’s quite possible the house was “modernized” with a brick veneer, new windows and a porch 40+ years ago, with many of the historic details removed. Years later, a new owner tried to bring back a bit of the historic look with some simply made bargeboards of a typical design.
People do stuff to their homes, and house histories are often much more complex than they appear. Frankly, since the home will likely be torn down, I’d feel a touch better knowing that it actually had lost most of its exterior authenticity years ago, not to mention fire gutting the interior – it’s a sad story regardless.

Streetside from 2019 (not very clear):
https://www.bing.com/maps?osid=32bb0289-dad5-4598-9e7d-990ac58490a2&cp=44.987387~-74.500033&lvl=19.4&dir=184.84007&pi=-1.8399054&style=x&v=2&sV=2&form=S00027

Kelly, OHD | 15308 comments

Admin

Reply to JimH | 8411 comments

3 months ago

That was my point about the similar features and homes in the area. It would have been easy for someone to have confused the photo in the report with the details about the posted home.

Barbara V | 2336 comments

Supporter

Reply to Kelly, OHD | 15308 comments

3 months ago

Wow, imagine if this house has/had a similar interior as the 2016 house:

AmyBee | 1339 comments

Supporter

3 months ago

Why so close to the railroad tracks?
(My heart sinks.)

Comments are reader and auto-moderated. If you feel a comment is inappropriate, click the red flag at the top right of the offending comment.
No politics.

Commenting means you've read and will abide by the comment rules. Click here to read the comment rules, updated 4/20/22.

OHD does not represent this home. You must independently verify listing details.

OR by region

Min Price

Max Price

Min Acres

Max Acres

Min SqFt

Max SqFt

Min Build Date

Max Build Date