« Atlantic Yards Environs Booming in Anticipation Breaking: Moonstruck House Hitting Market »

January 30, 2006

Cheap New Construction a Deal? Not a Chance

hancock hancock
Not to beat a dead horse, but there were several commenters in Friday's discussion that seemed to feel that the new construction eyesores being slapped up around the borough serve the purpose of providing lower-income people with the benefit of the american dream. Our rebuttal was that these structures actually do the opposite. They are almost without exception poorly constructed and almost without exception extremely ugly. We don't see how these things have a chance of holding their value over time against the traditional housing stock. Take these two comparably priced houses within a few blocks of each other in Bed Stuy, both of which were posted in the last couple of days on Craigslist. Which owner do you think is more likely to have preserved or built equity 20 years from now? Which owner is more likely to get completely wiped out in a downturn? So much for serving the needs of the needy. These developers are taking the money and running from those least able to afford it.
3 Family New Construction [Craigslist] GMAP
4 Family Brownstone [Craigslist] GMAP

Comments

The idea that either of these properties is within reach for low- or even middle- income families is ridiculous.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 30, 2006 10:18 AM

The price is the same, but you probably have to spend more money to fix up the Brownstone than a new construction, as ugly as it is. With land prices being so high, it is hard to blame the developers for cheap construction, as the final price is determined by the Bed-Sty market. The developers can spend as much money as he can and build a "Brownstone" level building, but nobody will buy them because it will be too expensive for the Bed-Sty market.
Would an empty lot be better than the ugly building ? That is determined by the market. Perhaps when Bed-Sty can justify a higher price and higher aesthetic in the future, somebody will raze these ugly buildings and build something nicer in their places.

Posted by: djr at January 30, 2006 10:33 AM

i am ridiculous

Posted by: Anonymous at January 30, 2006 10:33 AM

The problem is, no one's going to make a 100-year-old brownstone appear on a vacant lot. So of the options for what you can build and sell, today, on a vacant lot in Bed Stuy, what's preferable and what is it going to cost?

Posted by: linusvanpelt at January 30, 2006 10:34 AM

help me with this comment, "These developers are taking the money and running from those least able to afford it."

why do you assume only the poor are buying these eyesores? if you're forking over $870K, i'd hardly say you the least likely to afford anything.

Posted by: 9000 at January 30, 2006 10:53 AM

It's not just cheap materials that brings about fugly building. Infill housing must meet all kinds of crazy zoning requirements such as offstreet parking and access/egress issues. I say, let developer build higher provide there's better design and better materials. The new condo on 2nd Place in Carroll Gardens is much nicer than this crap.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 30, 2006 10:59 AM

I heard that zoning thing too. A neighbor that owns a lot of lots in Bed Stuy was complaining about the problems he is having getting permission to build along the site line of the others buildings (brownstones). He has tried to show that a nearby parking lot he owns can provide off-street parking.
Requiring off street parking on new construction in brownstone neighborhoods.....yuk.

Posted by: Dave at January 30, 2006 11:06 AM

hey does anybody know what's up with the cranes on Myrtle? There's a lot of action there-- on the block just above Castro's, by the new porn shop, across the street from the Pratt Bookstore. I am hoping for something not too crappy, but I'm fearful...

Posted by: Anonymous at January 30, 2006 11:08 AM

Anon 10:59, can you steer to a list of these restrictions?

Posted by: Brownstoner at January 30, 2006 11:09 AM

First, it is just not realistic to think that either one of these properties are within the reach of lower income people. I mean really!

Second, no one denies that a homeowner will build more equity in a fabulously well-built brownstone than in a shoddier structure. The point is that a homeowner will build more equity by owning a shoddy structure than s/he will by RENTING. Of course, there may be even greater equity in other types of investment, but that is beside the point. Lower income people deserve a shot at owning their own home. We should not deprive them of this so that our own delicate aesthetic sensibilities are not \'offended\' by the buildings we see. To hear some of the people on this board talk, you would think we should make the poor walk around naked simply because they cannot afford to wear designer clothes.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 30, 2006 11:17 AM

Brownstoner - you are not beating a dead horse. This is a very important issue and I assure you that the majority of those who think it is a non issue do not live in BedStuy or even Clinton Hill.

Once again, new construction does not have to try to be a brownstone, but it should at the very least keep the lines and of the existing buildings. It seems to happen in other neighborhoods. No one is asking a developer to build a house that is too expensive for the current neighborhood value. But come on. I can't see where making the house the same height and of similar shape to the existing buildings is going to add exponentially to the cost. After all - look how much they are charging

Posted by: Bedstuyer at January 30, 2006 11:26 AM

To everyone who's saying development doesn't have to be like this, please see my post in "Forum" and respond...

I'm trying to get some people together to do something about this by trying to do development right...

Nothing's going to change by people just sitting on the web complaining...

Posted by: Anonymous at January 30, 2006 11:38 AM

I don't know if it applies to many of the new developments we've been discussing, but there are programs associated with some of them which provide low interest loans for both the down payment, and in some cases, the mortgage. This enables many low and middle income people who haven't been able to save up for the down payment, but could afford a mortgage, if they could only get in the door, so to speak. Unfortunately, most of these programs are now associated with new construction. There used to be more programs that renovated decrepit brownstones, with an owner's unit/duplex, and one or two rentals. The buyers in the programs then and now have to live in the house at least 6 years before they can sell. Parts of Bed Stuy, Brownsville, Bushwick, and
Crown Heights are rife with abandoned housing, and it would be more advantageous, I would think, for these buildings to be rehabbed, rather than torn down, and these new "townhouses" be put up. This doesn't solve the empty lot problem, but would go a long way to keeping brownstone neighborhoods intact. I don't know the comparative costs - gut rehab vs new construction, but if anyone has an idea, I'd be interested in knowing.

Posted by: CrownHeightsProud at January 30, 2006 11:44 AM

Brownstoner I have no idea why you continue to perpetuate the absolutly false notion that a 100 year old brownstone is "studier" construction than anything built today (except for something built with gross negligence).
Yes the materials used in a brownstone are heavier but other than sound qualities a house built w/ modern materials, and construction techniques is studier, more weather resistant, "greener" and MUCH cheaper to keep then any 100 year old brownstone could ever dream of being.

I certainly would appreciate new buildings that have some architechtural merit but you are truly undercutting your credibility to attack these new homes as shoddy compared to the money pit of a 100 yr old construction.

Posted by: David at January 30, 2006 11:51 AM

We'll see how they stack up in 20 years. In the meantime, the residents can enjoy the uncensored carryings-on of their neighbors through the flimsy sheet rock walls. Have you seen the size of our joists? You can't buy pieces of wood like that anymore. Sure, we'll part with a pretty penny on the more cosmetic stuff over the years, but that's our choice.

Posted by: Brownstoner at January 30, 2006 12:04 PM

As a old timer home owner, having to come up with $6000 to fix my stoop, another $2000 to fix my waste line, another $4000 for my 20 year old aluminum windows that are fogged over, I can see why someone might not have the means or the energy to own an old house. The thing is that I know that the house is aging and that the repairs were due. I would be heartbroken if I bought a new house that two years later needed a new roof, or that the foundation was cracking due to shoddy craftsmanship. I think these American Dreams may turn into nightmares for the new buyers, especially for someone who can't afford to raise a family and pay an absurd mortgage.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 30, 2006 12:12 PM

The reason why we have and will continue to have cheap new construction is because we have a severe shortage of skilled laborers.

When these brownstones were build over 100 years ago, NYC was flooded with highly skilled european immigrant laborers. Builders had a seemily endless supply of skilled artisans to exploit. Thats not the case today.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 30, 2006 12:15 PM

Bstoner,

You're right. You can't buy stuff like that anymore. So the question is, again, what is there -- that you can buy today -- that would

1. mesh aestheticially with the adjoining buildings, as bedstuyer wants

2. give the buyers value going into the future, as you want

3. be of better quality than the shoddiness you impute to this new building and

4. be as affordable as the new buildings you don't like, or the existing housing stock -- or at least that falls within what someone is likely to be willing to pay for a bed stuy house in 2006?

Posted by: linusvanpelt at January 30, 2006 12:15 PM

paper mache houses vs. brownstones i think it's obvious

Posted by: luxeterna70 at January 30, 2006 12:18 PM

Those joists that you are so proud of also cost an absolute fortune to replace when they warp or crack (which they do).

If you are going to be against "sheetrock" walls then I suggest you give up on finding new construction that you will find suitable - cause you aint going to find it. This is the year 2006 people arent building with plaster walls anymore (thank god)

And while I am sure that some new home buyers are going to be disappointed to find faulty construction (just as the new home buyers 100+ years ago found) - they should be seriously relieved not to have to deal with hidden asbestos and lead paint which is an issue in virtually every single brownstone not gut rennovated in the last 20 years.

I get that this blog is call Brownstoner and we all appreciate the beauty and detailing of these type of homes, but you are delusional if you see a 100+ yr old home as being superior in all areas to modern construction.

Posted by: David at January 30, 2006 12:38 PM

David, thanks for those comments. You raise some excellent points. At times I think white folks like me just want to keep these nabes as expensive as possible so that all the \'undesirables\' will have to leave. If so, that is a shame and it will ultimately come back to bite us, big time. I am as fond as the next guy of large floor joists, but there are people out there who simply want to own a home. I for one want them to have it.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 30, 2006 12:48 PM

the horrible house on the left (which is up the street from me) was built it seems in 2 weekends. gross doesn't begin to describe it. as a native bedstuy-er it seems my neighborhood is being raped, and then sold to the highest bidder.

Posted by: christopher at January 30, 2006 12:56 PM

Anon 12:48,

I would argue that you and many others in this forum are having very unproductive liberal guilt.

It has to be possible to encourage affordable housing and support neighborhood diversity without accepting shoddy development and sacrificing the fundamental urban design qualities that make our neighborhoods great in the first place.

Posted by: adn at January 30, 2006 12:57 PM

David, I'm sorry, but you are just wrong regarding old vs new construction. You are comparing apples and oranges. OK, you have to put a lot of repair into your 100 year old house, but it is just that - 100 years old. Have you ever watched the construction of these new POS? Flimsy framing, just within code, thin sheetrock with a coat of paint on it. Cheap flooring, with laminate flooring or wall to wall carpet. Cheap lighting, vinyl windows. Bottom end appliances and fixtures. How many horror stories have you heard about windows popping out in 5 years, roofs leaking,etc. You could be vacuuming your house, and acidentally punch a hole in the wall. Electrical defects, outlets coming out of the wall, the list goes on and on. Do the people, poor, middle income or otherwise, know this when they go into it, hell no. Unless you are into the whole home thing, most people don't know squat about construction. If it looks good in the show house, they think it's great. Shiny and new equals quality. That's the American way.

Old houses take a lot of care, of course. But how can you compare thick plaster walls, parquet or plank floors, woodwork, fireplaces and built ins, if you are lucky to have them, and other original features, along with the size and scale of an old home, to what is being built today? Why did you buy your home, if you didn't want to put up with the upkeep of a 100 year old piece of history? You cannot convince me that all the problems of an old house: plumbing, electrical, lead paint, plaster problems, drafty windows, etc, etc, etc, are not worth the end result, which are the houses that we drool over in listings and open houses. No one is going to drool over one of these new POS homes, especially after the wear and tear of a few years.

Posted by: CrownHeightsProud at January 30, 2006 1:01 PM

ADN, I think the point is that architecture is not the only thing that makes our neighborhoods great. If we can build affordable homes that look good, fine. We should do that. However, if we cannot build affordable homes that look good \'enough\' to the posters on this board, then tough. Working people need homes, and this need trumps our delicate aesthetic sensitibilities.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 30, 2006 1:16 PM

Starting with the exterior, we'd hide the utility meters, find some salvaged old front doors, and install ironwork that fits in with older neighboring buildings. Personally, we'd also try to find salvaged bricks for the facade, though that would add some expense. And at least spring for aluminum windows. Vinyl looks horrendous, performs worse and won't last as long. And let's eliminate all these stairs and porches on the facade while we're at it (why the fascination with multiple exterior entrances?). As for the interior, some simple oak strip flooring, ceilings at least 9-feet high, solid wood doors (again, preferably salvaged). Pretty basic stuff. We doubt these changes would add more than 10% or so to the cost of the project and you'll certainly get that back on the sales price.

Posted by: Brownstoner at January 30, 2006 1:30 PM

Actually you are comparing apples and oranges.

Ill ignore all your conclusiory statements (i.e. flimsy framing, etc...) and look at your issues.

1st of all Plaster walls will not coming back for the poor, for the middle class or the rich so any complaints that new construction doesnt have it is silly.

Yet while for soundproofing plaster is great, it sucks (i.e expensive) to repair or paint (ever try to smooth a really cracked plaster wall? - most contractors will recommend sheetrock to replace) - and thats ignoring the lead paint problem in most brownstones. Plaster also sucks in moist envoroments like a bathroom (cement board just crushes plaster in terms of logevity and reapirability for these uses).

I have heard of tons of leaks with modern construction - and tons of leaks in Brownstones - FACT -flat roofs leak ; but once patched a modern designed roof (w/ proper drainage and engineering) is better than an old one.

As for electrical defects - I really havent heard of too many of the horror stories you cite but unless it has been replaced in the last 30 years, Ill take new electric service over 30+ year old fuses etc retrofitted to 100+ year old house any day of the week, even with a couple of outlets popping.

As for the comments regarding cheap appliances, and lighting - both of those are on a per house basis (Brownstones do not inherently come with good appliaces or lighting; it is often the contrary)

And I would never argue that you can get flooring in modern construction that compares with a brownstone - you cant Brownstone wins everytime, but then again even the absoult cheapest modern window is better (in terms of insulation, and clarity) to any non-replaced brownstone window.

As for your last paragraph - would I rather have a restored Brownstone or modern constructed townhouse - I'd rather have a Brownstone, but many people dont have the time or $ necessary to buy or restore a brownstone and if I heard that an earthquake or hurricane were comming I'd intelligently change my answer. Finally and most importantly they arent ever going to build Brownstones ANYMORE - the point I am trying to make is that just b/c it isnt a brownstones doesnt mean it is shoddy or flimsy.

Posted by: David at January 30, 2006 1:36 PM

Brownstoner,

All your points about the building are valid. The developer could have put more thoughts into the design. The reason he put the stair case on the outside is to minimize loss of usable floor area. Everything about the building is done to minimize costs to the builder. He probably got it done for 100 psf.

Posted by: djr at January 30, 2006 1:42 PM

Brownstoner - the reason for the exterior entrances is that internal stairwells/entrances can take upwards of 20% of sq footage - eliminating it would cost developer way more than 10% in terms of lost saleable sq ft.

I'm with you on the meters and iron work but no builder is going to use salvaged anything on new construction - the "shopping time" is just too costly.

Posted by: David at January 30, 2006 1:43 PM

My first home was a "new" construction. Notice I said "was." I didn't know squat about homes at the time in 2002 and I thought new, shiny, first owner was good. Five months after buying the house the roof was leaking, the windows were drafty and I could've done a better job of putting up sheetrook. As I started really looking at the craftmanship of my "new" home I grew more disappointed. When I looked at it, it looked just like a square box, no character and no details.

I always loved brownstones, but unfortunately at that time the market was really competitive and I was getting out bidded.

As I mentioned before, I'm due to close on a brownstone soon, which will need a lot of work, but I think it will be well worth it.

I understand that it is virtually impossible to build a house that is equal to these brownstone, but these developers use the cheapest materials they can find. I think the developer that built my former home purchased irregular materials because after living there a few months, we noticed that the doors were all uneven and the cheap moldings were pieced together.

David, after you've purchased a new construction and have had a good experience, you will not be able to determine how much better these houses are to 100 year old brownstones. At least with brownstones you know that you must do repairs due to their age.
A brand new house's roof should not leak within a year of being built.

Another thing, these particular developers built a couple of houses under a corporation and once they sold these monstrosities, they would dismantle the corporation and continue to build other houses under another name. Does that sound ethical?

I know that when I owned the "new" construction, I didn't feel proud to be a homeowner, as many have mentioned that at least you're owning a house instead of "renting." Instead, I felt used, robbed and disappointed. If that's the feeling homeownership brings; I rather rent.

Posted by: faithful at January 30, 2006 1:51 PM

You guys are not very realistic. They will never, ever build brownstones again. Not even if you hold your breath until you turn blue. It simply is not going to happen. Time to move on....

Posted by: Anonymous at January 30, 2006 1:53 PM

Faithful,
It is quite common for new roofs to leak (nothing like field testing)
If you want to ensure no leaks dont ever buy a flat roof.

But past the teething problems a newly constructed roof is better than an old roof any day of the week.

Posted by: David at January 30, 2006 2:02 PM

No, Brownstoner, you're not beating a dead horse, but you might be riding side-saddle. I would argue that Affordable Housing for Lower Income People is a separate issue from building butt ugly, offensive buildings as part of one's business model. Now many here, myself included, believe that that business model is flawed and indeed more profit could be gained by developing more aesthetically pleasing buildings. However, it might not be as QUICK AND EASY, given the city's complete lack of design and aesthetic oversight. Evidently, designing and executing on a well thought-out, eye pleasing, "quality materialed", beautiful building is beyond the realm of possibility for the caliber of "developer" and "architect" that gained access to these lots.

To their credit they had the guts to actually buy the lots and develop them. Any one of us could’ve purchased these lots and put up well designed buildings and sold them. But we didn’t. Why having the cojones to buy and build seems to be mutually exclusive to having any sort of design conscience, I can't explain.

Posted by: Seamus at January 30, 2006 3:35 PM

I don't think anyone is saying 'they should build new brownstones' or 'they should only offer housing that working class people can't afford.

The point seems to be, these buildings are ugly, shoddily built and not only that, are NOT being sold at a 'low cost' to provide low income housing.

On my block in Bed Stuy, we have an empty lot with a new construction threw something up and its sat there empty for over 6 months now, no-one is falling over themselves to buy such a poor quality building.

My 2 cents is that buildings on terraced blocks should follow the site line of the block (not be set back), built with a red brick NOT yellow, to better match the browns and reds of the neighborhoods.

Just those 2 things alone would imeasurably help new construction blend in with the neighborhood.
Most of those buildings look like they are built with plans and materials ordered from the internet by people that have never visited the site to see the surrounding environment.

I would very much love to see a movement to set restrictions on these types of buildings to better preserve the character of the neighborhoods.

Posted by: Dave at January 30, 2006 3:45 PM

Dave,

You have summed up what I have been saying since Friday. I guess it all depends on whether or not you live in the neighborhood. ONCE AND FOR ALL THESE ARE NOT LOW COST HOUSES!!!- just shoddy ones.

Posted by: bedstuyer at January 30, 2006 3:57 PM

Most new condos build in Brooklyn (especially those built on Ocean Avenue, Midwood and Sheepshead Bay) are so poorly built. Some of them look like they will fall once the wind gets stronger. They look like they are made of thick paper and then covered by thin bricks so that they look as if they were made of brick.

Posted by: Leo at January 30, 2006 4:04 PM

hey, this was posted in the forum http://dontbuildschlock.blogspot.com/

Posted by: luxeterna70 at January 30, 2006 4:15 PM

Well all the poor guys have to do is stick
it up the developer's ass and here we improve Brooklyn. If we educate there people than there wouldn't be such ugly buildings. The problem is that the Brounstone will go for over 1 million and the ugly one will go for 400K like a cheap stock that the poor can afford.
I think that over a period of 20 years your'e buying land and not a house.
I hate these cheap bastards developers.

Posted by: developerxx at January 30, 2006 4:22 PM

Can anyone offer any objective evidence (other than idioic statments like "it looks flimsy")that these developments (pick one) are "shoddy"

Ugly I'll agree, sheetrock walls naturally, minimal or cheap detailing -probably -
but is there any evidence that they are actually poorly constructed as in defective or structurly unsound.

Posted by: David at January 30, 2006 4:25 PM

These things do not go for $400k

Posted by: bedstuyer at January 30, 2006 4:31 PM

does anyone have actual quantitative evidence that these developers would generate a higher ROI by constructing more aesthetically pleasing buildings? as much as i'd like too see better looking structures go up around bklyn and elsewhere, i'm not sold on these back of the envelope calculations being tossed around. i've got to imagine that developers are rational profit maximizers, who have done slightly more analysis on how to tweak profits than most, if not all, of us here.

Posted by: 9000 at January 30, 2006 4:38 PM

It depends on your definition of "shoddy", but Faithful @ 1:51's description of his/her former house sounds pretty shoddy to me.

Posted by: bedstuyer at January 30, 2006 4:41 PM

No one is advocating that we build new 19th century brownstones. That would be impossible to all but the extremely rich. But to those who keep writing for the rest of us to grow up and accept that, you are missing the point. Quality construction should not be only for the priveleged few. A look at what happens in the South during hurricane season should clearly tell us that shoddy homes built to house lower income folks are by in large built badly. I don't want to hijack the thread into a hurricane rant, I'm just pointing out that like your $29 toaster, these things are not meant to last. There is a better way. It's been done in this city, and in other cities with old housing stock. The point I think that we are trying to make is that most developers, especially now, today in Bed Stuy and other like neighborhoods, are not looking to do better. No one is forcing them to. As long as they are just inside code, or can get around it, they have no incentive to change. Like another poster said, they will build and move on, changing their names, and ducking liability. This does not help the poor, the neighborhood, or anyone else, except them.

David, you seem to hate plaster walls so much, but a 5/8" thick piece of sheetrock is not the only alternative available to a renovator or builder. There are thicker widths available, which would be must sturdier, and more soundproof, but that would add to the cost, so they don't do it. In terms of renovating a brownstone, many people use a thicker piece of rock, or they double the thin stuff, or they use a special kind of rock that allows you to put a thicker skim coat of plaster or mud on that is a closer match to a plaster finish, and looks better in an older home. I can't think of the name of it now, but I'm sure someone else knows. Or they replaster. I've done it and it's time consuming, but it's not that hard with a little practice.

Lead paint is a concern, but can be handled with good renovating habits, and good sense. If you strip or scrape paint, use the right safety equipment, and clean up very carefully. If you paint over it, it won't harm you. It has to be ingested or inhaled to affect you. Every home built before 1970 has lead paint. Brownstones are not the only buildings. All of your other issues, such as roofs, electricity, etc - what do you want, it's a 100 year old house. Of course it needs work and updating. At least it's worth it both to you now and if you sell it. That cannot and will not be said of the building on the left in the above pictures.

Posted by: CrownHeightsProud at January 30, 2006 4:47 PM

A leaky [presumably flat] roof is your definition of shoddy??? If it is then virtually everything ever built is "shoddy".

Posted by: David at January 30, 2006 4:50 PM

CrownHeightsProud -What EVIDENCE do you have that the above pictured house (or any other) are not sound???? Just b/c you say it over and over doesnt make it so.
I do not "hate" plaster walls, I just recongnize that they and the brownstones they are attached to have serious drawbacks just like new construction has its own drawbacks - doesnt mean either is "SHODDY".

BTW: Brownstone itself is considered a really crappy building material (soft, porus sandstone)

Posted by: David at January 30, 2006 4:59 PM

Good grief. This thread winds on and on and I am not sure what the point is.

Do brownstones look nice? Yes.

Should new contruction look nice? Yes.

Should new construction be affordable (really affordable) to working people? Yes.

Would it be nice to have housing that is both beautiful, affordable and profitable to developers? Yes.

And everyone seems to agree that new construction can be both beautiful, genuinely affordable and profitable for developers. In that case, we all seem to agree that we should move forward with the beautiful, affordable, profitable housing. Hardly a shocking plan to build a consensus around, but okay. Is there anything else?

Posted by: Anonymous at January 30, 2006 5:01 PM

And even if they did go for $40,000, we who earn less, would never be able to afford them. When the downpayment is more than you make in a year, you will never own anything.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 30, 2006 5:01 PM

And another thing no one else has mentioned thus far: if, as someone said, this crap is just torn down and replaced in the next 20 years, what harm? The harm is to the earth, to our shrinking resources.

All else, socioeconomic issues/race/aesthetics aside, building materials do not just come out of a replicator like on Star Trek. We pollute the earth making all of them, we strip the forests for wood, we use a ton of petrol products for plastics, the manufacture of everthing from sheetrock to the veneer on the kitchen cabinets spews toxins into the atmosphere. Check out any building site, good or bad, we waste like there's no tomorrow.

I'm not generally a raving tree hugger, but I can see no good coming of this. This will cost us in the price of future materials, of course, but also in the quality of our air and water. To treat new shoddy construction, because that will go first, as being as disposable as a Bic pen, does them no service, and speaks very badly of us. It behooves us to make sure it is done right the first time, to the extent that we can, so it doesn't have to be done over.

Posted by: CrownHeightsProud at January 30, 2006 5:08 PM

That is it. I have had it with this board. Good bye and good luck.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 30, 2006 5:25 PM

David, I'm not going to argue with you anymore. I have my opinions, you have yours. Since I only used the word shoddy once in the last couple of threads, I think you are over reacting to me a bit. I'm still trying to understand why you bought a brownstone, since everything about them, (flat roofs, plaster walls, old wiring, plumbing, on and on) are a given in a 100 year old house, and some of them must have been obvious when you bought it. But hey, whatever. I stand my my opinion that the house on the left is not of quality construction or design. It seems I am not alone in that opinion, and that's good enough for me.

Peace, brother.

Posted by: CrownHeightsProud at January 30, 2006 5:37 PM

On my street in Astoria one of those Fedders buildings was built about a year ago and 2 more are under construction - same ugly tan brick. I don't know about the two being built but according to Property Shark the owner of the finished one doesn't live there, it appears to be purely for investment. How many of those buildings are actually bought to live in? If the owner lives in a nicer part of town, why should he/she care how aesthetically pleasing they are?

Posted by: D at January 30, 2006 6:27 PM

Wow. I never thought I would say this, but can we go back to talking about whether Prospect Lefferts is / is not dangerous?

Posted by: Anonymous at January 30, 2006 6:41 PM

of course cheap can have good design! Ikea for example. I think Ikea actually makes Prefab houses. Yes, I just googled it:

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/02/ikea_boklok_fla_1.php

someone needs to design a prefab brownstone design that looks decent- that cheap developers can use. not that they would...

Posted by: Anonymous at January 30, 2006 7:28 PM

Brownstoner, the $870,000 new construction is not a subsidized affordable housing project.

The project you posted last week was a tax syndicated affordable housing subsidized building built by an affordable housing developer.

Don't you understand the difference between the economics of these two types of projects?

An $870,000 building is not affordable housing.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 30, 2006 7:39 PM

How does a porch roof which seems to shed water onto the nieghboring house's stoop comply with codes? As someone who lives around the corner from this new house (and the other really ugly building at Fulton and Classon), I think they would have been better off with well-proportioned brick boxes with no detail at all.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 30, 2006 7:40 PM

correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the brownstone used in a "brownstone" just the facade? Everything else is just brick.

Posted by: ando at January 30, 2006 10:12 PM

FYI: my husband and i went to see the brownstone in the pic yesturday. it will recieve a gut reno and no original details will remain.
i must say that i agree with "Anonymous at January 30, 2006 05:01" also my 2 cents is this, the developers don't give a hoot they are just out to make $$$. they make it very difficult for a buyer who wants a nice home for their family to live in. the cost vs the workmanship does not equal. i am so sick of seeing those cheap "wood" cabinets. i don't expect granite countertops but they can be much nicer. as for brownstones, i love them but most are too small for a large family unless you plan to restore to a one family. so what options are out there? my experience so far is to keep searching until you find something that you can live with.

Posted by: arli*girl at January 30, 2006 10:24 PM

welcome to the blog david. well done. very intelligent, fair and thoughtful comments.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 30, 2006 11:19 PM

I cannot imagine dreaming up a worse looking home in that location. It took somebody's hard sweat and tears to come up with that gem. I am seriously impressed.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 31, 2006 12:49 AM

Wow. I am so sorry that this home, which many working families would do anything to own, is so \'offensive\' to you. Goddamn those poor people. Will someone just sterilize all of them so that we no longer have to worry about protecting our view?

Posted by: Anonymous at January 31, 2006 9:04 AM

There seem to be some developers that are making a small effort to design infill properties to match the neighborhood. I'll have to walk around to find the exact address, but there are some relatively nice red brick, 2-family, townhouses in Bed-Stuy. They look less than 5 years old, and they even have brick detailing at the roofline and on the facade.

Posted by: HC at January 31, 2006 10:21 AM

People,

It seems to me that a lot of you believe that these homes are being built to cater to the low income families that cannot afford anything else, but the fact is that these houses are not cheap. They're priced at market value. I think that the people who buy them are first time home buyers and just want to own. I know because it happened to me.

Yes, Bedstuyer, my house was shoddy. I forgot to mention that in my master bedroom, if you walked by the television set, it would shake. The floors would bounce. I know what you're thinking; yes, we're all average sized people. LOL

Posted by: faithful at January 31, 2006 11:10 AM

"The new condo on 2nd Place in Carroll Gardens is much nicer than this crap."

That building is an eyesore that is totally incogruent with the surrouding homes. Also, its pretty poorly constructed.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 31, 2006 11:24 AM

They do not believe that these homes are within the reach of poor people. They do not care about poor people. What they care about is their view, properties values, etc.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 31, 2006 11:26 AM

I guess the definition of "poor" has changed. According to the old definition of "poor", a poor person could not afford to buy a house selling for $870K.

Posted by: bedstuyer at January 31, 2006 12:17 PM

Brownstone is not a bad building material in itself. When it is quarried correctly the end grain, like a butcher block, is exposed to the elements and is quite stable. The spalling that some owners experience is from blocks that have the grain/ layers exposed allowing sheets to separate. During building booms like the turn of the last century, you got inexperienced builders doing things to buildings that only after time, prove to be errors. As a contractor who gets many calls to repair other peoples work, I say buyers beware. Developers have always preyed on new immigrants selling them sub standard housing. In ye old Chicago it was an epidemic.

Posted by: Anonymous at February 1, 2006 9:27 PM

While I agree the new stuff is often ugly, I've had trouble with allergies in my old, tiny condo in a Brooklyn walkup so I can understand why people go for it-- new construction can eliminate numerous health hazards which is a very fair concern. And on the appearance, it'd be nice if we could all afford to build/buy something gorgeous but I could only hope to afford something like that years from now, and it would have to be somewhere like Idaho not here. NY prices unfortunately affect the fabric of the city.

Posted by: Amy at February 2, 2006 2:33 PM

Posted by: Amy at February 2, 2006 2:34 PM

As a former owner and rehabber of a Brownstone in Brooklyn Heights, I'm definitely a proponent of original vs new POS. There is just no comparison.

I've since returned to the midwest, and am thrilled that my current neighborhood (historical) has resident led zoning committees. You can't drill a hole for a painting without obtaining prior approval from the committee. Don't even think about razing a house and putting in substandard low income housing on it's grave.

In addition to the obvious results, we ensure that low income housing (and the ensuing problems that it brings) will never get within 2 miles of my house.

Loved the brownstone, glad I'm 800 miles from NYC

Posted by: Sleestack90 at February 19, 2006 8:48 PM

« Atlantic Yards Environs Booming in Anticipation Breaking: Moonstruck House Hitting Market »

January 30, 2006

Cheap New Construction a Deal? Not a Chance

Comments

Post a comment

Get Brownstoner on your Mobile Phone

Latest Restaurant Additions