« What Did We Miss? Monday Links »
January 6, 2006
Talk of the Town
We'll be back to business-as-usual on Monday but in the meantime we'll leave you with this week's New Yorker piece about our one-year anniversary party last fall.
One recent Saturday afternoon, some three hundred and sixty years after Dutch settler chartered the town of Breuckelen representatives of a more recent migration were milling around the back patio of one of the borough’s newer bars. They had come to toast the first birthday of Brownstoner, a blog professing “an unhealthy obsession wit historic Brooklyn brownstones and th neighborhoods and lifestyles they define.” The party was in Red Hook, Brooklyn’s defunct dock district, so there were no brownstones in sight, but the bar’s name (Pioneer Bar-B-Q and the up-and-coming character of th neighborhood (Ikea and Fairway due to arrive soon) fit the spirit of the occasion.
Brownstoner is a virtual back fence for Brooklyn real-estate watchers. In frequent postings, its users vet listings, trade tips on brokers and neighborhoods, and gossip about who saw what at which open house. “That place is a ‘five minute walk to Prospect Park’ only if you’re a giraffe,” Linusvanpelt wrote recently. “Why is the Chester Court listing so relatively affordable?” Clinton hillbilly said. “Was someone murdered there or something?”
Housing Department: Emigres [New Yorker]
The blog’s founder, who works on Wall Street and who last year bought a fixer-upper in Clinton Hill, is known to readers as Brownstoner; his wife is Mrs. Brownstoner, or Mrs. B. Like Mr. and Mrs. B., most of the guests at the party were in their thirties; many wore expensive jeans and sneakers, and a disproportionate number of them had on eyeglasses with square frames. They travelled in pairs, towing a stroller and a child or two, and lived in neighborhoods that they described in optimistic tones as “improving,” including not only Clinton Hill but also Windsor Terrace, Bedford-Stuyvesant, and Crown Heights.
The group had its own vernacular, sprinkled with terms like “pocket door,” “parquet,” “gut reno,” “Farrow & Ball” (a brand of English paint with extra pigment), and the verb “to rehab” (as in, “I bought a single-family house from a Louisiana minister. There were illegal tenants, one of whom died in contract. And then I rehabbed it”). Some expressed feelings of connection to a bygone era. One woman on her move to Clinton Hill: “I was reading a lot of Edith Wharton last summer, and it seemed so appropriate.”
As Beck played over the loudspeakers and children tossed horseshoes, adults drank bottles of Stella Artois, gnawed on ribs, and compared notes about their paths to the outer boroughs. “It was my dream, when I first found Brooklyn, to own a brownstone,” one transplant from Manhattan to Crown Heights by way of Park Slope said. “I didn’t think that Brooklyn was cool enough at first,” an industrial designer said. “But it’s, like, the cool borough right now.” “We really wanted to be in Clinton Hill,” said his wife, a writer, describing their house hunt. “Unfortunately, we were two years too late to really find a beater.”
There was much talk about the shoddy upkeep and, some said, bad taste that had been visited on the brownstones during the twentieth century. “That’s one nice thing about neighborhoods like Clinton Hill, where we live,” Brownstoner said. “No one ever had any money.” His wife jumped in. “It was, you know, basically a crack house, and it was covered in weird linoleum and industrial carpeting,” she said. “But when you peeled it back you got this incredible parquet. And then there were the mantels.”
An exchange between Brownstoner and the buyer of a house in Windsor Terrace went like this:
W.T.: It’s a three-story.
Mr. B.: With a rounded front?
W.T.: It’s like a pointed bay.
Mr. B.: Uh-huh.
W.T.: And it was totally seventies Italian, you know—plastic-wood panelling everywhere and orange carpet and dropped ceilings.
Mr. B.: Wow.
Bystander: I never understood the dropped ceiling.
Mrs. B.: I know! What is it?
W.T.: The modern look, I guess. Or maybe for saving on heating?
Discussion of money matters proved only slightly more circumspect in person than online. “Crown Heights and Bed-Stuy are seven, eight, and nine-hundred thousand dollars,” the Crown Heights buyer said. “Clinton Hill would be 1.5. And Park Slope would be 1.8.” There was also talk about how rising prices affected the neighborhoods’ demographics. “The diversity of the architecture and the people who live in Clinton Hill is peerless,” Nathaniel Frank, an academic, said. “I saw a study which said that, counter-intuitively, gentrification doesn’t necessarily lead to displacement. People make ends meet somehow; they double up, if they want to stay. They appreciate the neighborhood as different.”
Among the guests at the Pioneer, only Lee Coker-Holmes (Nativegal, on the blog) said that she was Brooklyn-born and bred. She expressed mild bemusement at some of the interlopers, and at the labels they had affixed to various neighborhoods. “I would say I grew up in Fort Greene,” she said. “But people on Brownstoner are, like, no, that’s Bed-Stuy. So I’m, like, O.K., fine. I can’t argue about that, because when I lived there they were both ghettos.”
— Kate Julian
Comments
I must say I don't care for the tone of this article. Are those who frequent Brownstoner really as tacky as Ms. Jullian's text suggests? Sure, there are people who view the nicer parts of Brooklyn as nothing more than an opportunity to own homes that others want but can't afford. I know that many of these people aren't too bright. I know that many of them have the square glasses frames that Ms. Jullian refers to. However, not everyone who frequents this site is cut from this cloth. Ugh.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 6, 2006 9:55 AM
Great piece Brownstoner. Congrats.
I'm sorry that I, and my square glasses, missed the party.
Posted by: Whitbo at January 6, 2006 10:05 AM
Great for you! But, ugh, what a sorry description of the Brownstoner audience. Say it ain't so.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 6, 2006 10:17 AM
LOL! Whitbo, you are too funny!
While I think the original poster may be too easily offended, I agree with him/her that the article is leveling some sort of negative judgment of...well, us. I'm not sure what it is, but I'm confident that I wouldn't like it.
Oh well...
Posted by: Jaywalker at January 6, 2006 10:20 AM
Needless to say, there was some poetic license taken as far as some of the stereotypes went. Unfortunate, but probably inevitable. We can't remember a single pair of square glasses.
Posted by: Brownstoner at January 6, 2006 10:20 AM
Square glasses rule!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Anonymous at January 6, 2006 10:27 AM
I suppose it's no skin off anyone's backs to generalize about brokers, agents, developers, etc. but some generalizations hit closer to home. He who lives by the sword dies by the sword.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 6, 2006 10:30 AM
But that's different! We hate brokers.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 6, 2006 11:00 AM
though I wasn't in attendance at this event (I'm no where close to owning a brownstone in this city), I know from reading new yorker and nytimes articles that "square glasses" is a tell tale sign of lazy journalism.
Posted by: anon at January 6, 2006 11:05 AM
I have to say that some quoets she uses where taken out of context, to achive certain tone.
well it is New Yorker after all
Posted by: malymis at January 6, 2006 11:18 AM
Thanks for posting the article, Brownstoner. I've been curious about it. Yeah, I picked up on the sly judgmentalism of the article that at times seemed complimentary, at times as if the writer was rolling her eyes. But I still found it amusing in that what-did-you-expect-from-the-*New-Yorker* kind of way.
But on to more important things! I was very disappointed that I missed the party (and also that it was in Red Hook). How about jumping off the popularity of the photo essays (a grand success) and organizing a more regular event (quarterly?) in different 'hoods??? And of course i'd volunteer to help out with the FG soiree!
Posted by: Lisa at January 6, 2006 11:19 AM
(1) anon 11:05 -- wha? When an article refers to "square glasses" it's a tipoff the reporter is lazy?
(2) I wasn't at the bstnr soiree either, but I gotta say, the description pretty much squares with the discussion in the threads here. There was pretty much nothing quoted as dialogue I'd have been surprised to have seen in a post here. Not even that smug Edith Wharton quote. People do talk about the prices of brownstones in different nabes -- a lot -- about tacky renovation jobs and about why they moved to Brooklyn.
Posted by: linusvanpelt at January 6, 2006 11:21 AM
the tone was a little snarky, but hey-- that's the talk of the town! If I were a fly on the wall at a NYer party, I'm sure I'd be snarky, too (and I bet there's no shortage of square glasses there)-
Posted by: Anonymous at January 6, 2006 11:28 AM
"square glasses" is a stereotype. when a reporter thinks about "brooklyn, white people, baby carriages, 30s" their brain jumps to "square glasses," referring to a certain aesthetic, (i.e., hip yuppies) whether the actual objects were present or not. it's just a theory I've developed, mostly by reading the gray lady.
Posted by: anon at January 6, 2006 11:28 AM
I was there and don't have glasses or expensisive clothes or strollers and still don't see anything negative about the article. It's a bunch of people sharing an interest in brownstones, it's great!
Posted by: ac at January 6, 2006 11:31 AM
OK. when I think square glasses, I think architects. Tho I know a lot of architects and the stereotype is not very far off.
Posted by: linusvanpelt at January 6, 2006 11:33 AM
When I think "Square Glasses," I think hipster. And given how much hipster hate gets thrown around these posts I thought painting the readership here as such was hysterical.
Posted by: combustiblegirl at January 6, 2006 11:38 AM
I wear square glasses, own a brownstone, have a wife and a new baby, work on wall street, push an expensive stroller. Oh god....I'm a cliché!!!! Please shoot me now.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 6, 2006 11:49 AM
I wasn't there, but I read and contribute regularly, and I must confess my glasses have no shortage or right angles. it's ok to be yuppy. not as good as being park avenue made of money, but better than being homeless. its sort of the best of a mediocare situation
Posted by: anon at January 6, 2006 11:54 AM
Did the reporter introduce herself or did she remain incognito?
Were any of you aware that this reporter was in your midst during the gathering?
Regardless of the tone, it's a huge boost for Brownstoner.
Now I need to get over to Red Hook and have a look around.
Posted by: Hal at January 6, 2006 12:06 PM
I own a brownstone. I'm rich. I have babies. I don't care for the poor. They're poor because they're either too dumb or too lazy to make a fortune the way I did. I strongly suspect that I have more money than anyone who frequents this group, and yes, I suppose this makes me not only the richest person here but also the best person here. I'll always live in a nicer home than the rest of you. Your children, when grown, will undoubtedly work for my children, and I hope they do at least an okay job so that my kids don't have to fire their asses.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 6, 2006 12:13 PM
The reporter was on the up-and-up. We had no idea she'd be there, but she was the first person to show up, pen in hand. It was a little strange having her there, but she was quite pleasant.
Posted by: Brownstoner at January 6, 2006 12:13 PM
as a journalist, I believe that when a description provokes as much conversation as the "square-glasses" reference did, it's a sign that someone has hit a nerve. that's not lazy reporting. it's good reporting. And it's pointless to complain about the snarky attitude. It just makes people look overly sensitive. If I were a PR guy, my advice would be simple: take the hit, laught at yourself a little, and move on.
P.S., for the record, I wear square-ish glasses.
Posted by: anon at January 6, 2006 12:21 PM
I wear contact lenses and they are squere too.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 6, 2006 12:23 PM
I fit the stereotype and I find it quite funny, and frankly, not offensive.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 6, 2006 12:24 PM
She definitely identified herself and took notes and asked for names, etc. As myself and my boyfriend do not wear glasses, rent rather than own, don't have kids or a stroller, don't work on Wall Street, are in our 40s, don't wear expensive jeans, and did not make any comments that can be made to sound ridiculous if quoted (I think), we did not make it into the article. I agree that she was trying to make people look rather silly, but so be it. I thought the crowd was friendly and intelligent and simply in love with old buildings. (Oh no, I realize that I did travel in a pair, probably wore sneakers, and was not born and bred in Brooklyn! But my mother was!)
Posted by: Caledonia at January 6, 2006 12:31 PM
When I hear "square glasses", I think German. German ad dude or industrial designer.
And I think 11:28 (b) is a little nuts. You've developed a theory about reporters use of "square glasses"? I'm tempted to search "square glasses" on the Times to call you on this, but I'm not quite that lame.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 6, 2006 12:40 PM
Do you think if group of yuppie people in Manhattan were discussing real estate (very common topic) - as in new construct vs. pre-war or uptown vs downtown - author would remark that only one person was Manhattan born-bred and call the rest interlopers?
Posted by: Anonymous at January 6, 2006 12:53 PM
The New Yorker has gotten quite smug and snotty in it's old age. I think the article poked gentle fun though. If wearing square glasses and being slightly boring and tacky is the worst insult she can hurtle than I think Brownstoner got off easy.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 6, 2006 1:03 PM
Maybe she rents an overpriced studio in the west village and is pissed.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 6, 2006 1:05 PM
is it safe to assume the reporter rents in manhattan??
Posted by: Anonymous at January 6, 2006 1:05 PM
safer to assume she was on to something (just a hunch)
Posted by: Anonymous at January 6, 2006 1:17 PM
hip yuppie = huppie?
Posted by: suzy at January 6, 2006 2:08 PM
A thing to point out, the author reads this blog otherwise she wouldn't have known about the party at Pioneer. Therefore, she's one of these people too!
Posted by: Anonymous at January 6, 2006 2:16 PM
With my perfect 20/20 vision, I'd agree with the insight that the tone of the article was more snarky - as is typical in the NYer T o' the T articles - than condescending. But what do you expect anytime any major or minor NY-based publication talks about any borough outside Manhattan? Typical, but no sweat off my eyeglasses-less brow. Regardless, pretty cool, Mr. 'Stoner. Congratulations. As a good friend says, "Any press is good press and the most press is the best press."
Posted by: Mr. Minerva at January 6, 2006 3:11 PM
I have square glasses, own a brownstone, have two kids and drive a volvo. I fit the profile except I'm black. Should I write a letter?
Posted by: Anonymous at January 6, 2006 3:31 PM
I agree wholeheartedly w Mr. Minerva, and I disagree w/ the contention that the New Yorker has gotten smug & snotty in its old age: The New Yorker has *always* been smug & snotty.
We're only noting it with shock here & now because its usual targets aren't us (and I say "us" as a person who has neither a spouse, a stroller, nor square-rimmed eyeglasses).
Posted by: Anonymous at January 6, 2006 3:34 PM
anyone who says, "When I first found Brooklyn...", deserves this shit.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 6, 2006 3:37 PM
Re: "anyone who says, 'When I first found Brooklyn...', deserves this shit."
Why? Are we all supposed to be born with a special innate knowledge of Brooklyn?
Posted by: Anonymous at January 6, 2006 5:04 PM
that it exists? yes. (NP)
Posted by: Anonymous at January 6, 2006 5:20 PM
the article definitely struck a chord, and here's my hypothesis why: we are snarky and hip ("we" being anyone who reads/ posts to bstoner) and someone called us on it. admit, people!
we secretly think we're cool because it was once unhip to live in brooklyn. we're cool because we think we're slumming in a neighborhood that used to have a bad crime rate and high poverty index, but we had the aesthetic judgment to recognize their beauty beneath it all. we're SO unlike Manhattanites who actually FLAUNT their hipness and are proud to live in overpriced zip codes. instead we espouse/cultivate a different kind of hipness that is equally exclusionary (for example, how many of you hang out with people who live in queens, and i'm not talking astoria, lic, or bushwick) and i would argue even more obnoxious (yes, there's some self-loathing going on here). i mean, come on, having the party at Pioneer bar really is a metaphor for the whole attitude: a) Red Hook (the most grimy and ostensibly unhip (yet very hip) of top tier brownstone brooklyn); b) it's called Pioneer, the symbol of the kind of person we think we are; c) Pioneer bar demonstrates this very essence of grimy/hip/lowkey that i am talking about that is so obviously code for VERY HIP, TRYING HARD BUT PRETENDING NOT TO.
in brief, the nyker writer seemed to be making fun of the posture that many bstoner types exude, "what me, hip, rich, and fashion conscious? the idea! but i live in brooklyn! but i go to dive bars!"
thanks for listening, and by the way, i wear round john lennon like glasses, and am the 3rd generation in my family to live in Brooklyn.
Posted by: diana at January 6, 2006 6:04 PM
Right on
Posted by: Anonymous at January 6, 2006 6:32 PM
I thought the article was fair.
But my glasses are cooler than square...
Posted by: LG at January 6, 2006 6:35 PM
The truth hurts
Posted by: Anonymous at January 6, 2006 6:39 PM
Of course, actual hip people would never have showed at that party. It's the Third Law of Quantum Hipness.
I mean, square glasses? Expensive jeans? Bwa ha ha...
Posted by: Anonymous at January 6, 2006 6:41 PM
Diana's post hits the nail on the head. Well articulated indeed. And humorous too.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 6, 2006 6:45 PM
I have to laugh at you people thinking you're all that and a bag of chips just 'cause you're sporting square eyeglasses. Authentic old school working class Brooklynites like myself wouldn't be caught dead in glasses with anything other than rhomboid or parallelogram-shaped lenses. Matter of fact, next time I come across one of you square spec yuppies I'm going to whale you one right across the chops, maybe two. It is my belief that this will teach you a lesson.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 6, 2006 7:05 PM
If I move to Maspeth will you stop making fun of me?
Posted by: Caledonia at January 6, 2006 7:51 PM
Interesting that I was the only one outed by my real name. I have my own theory as to why…
Also, I never referred to anyone as an interloper. That was the author's take on things.
Posted by: Nativegal at January 6, 2006 8:30 PM
I kind of wondered whether she meant RECTANGULAR frames, not square frames, but maybe they are the same thing. At any rate, just last month I got a new pair of -- oh, never mind.
Posted by: HuntGrunt at January 6, 2006 8:30 PM
A square is a parallelogram. And a rectangle is a square. Boy, people in Brooklyn are dummys.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 6, 2006 8:45 PM
Good publicity for Mr. B, so is he any closer to quiting his day job? :-)
Posted by: OE (A.K.A. "W.T.") at January 6, 2006 9:01 PM
if the glasses fit...
Can't believe I was quoted in the New Yorker (even as my alter ego). Sorry I missed the party.
Posted by: clinton hillbilly at January 6, 2006 9:43 PM
following on "huppie" ...
how about this one: Park Slope + interloper = intersloper
Posted by: myfirstpost at January 6, 2006 11:44 PM
I don't know how I ended up here. This is the first time I've visited this site, but after reading this line of commentary, I assure you it will be the last. You all sound like a bunch of spoiled brats. I could get worked up and spew lots of venom here because you people really are irritating as all get out. However, such a display is unwarranted, since spoiled brats such as yourselves are common pests. You should be unceremoniously squashed when encountered, but otherwise ignored. You're not worth the "bandwidth" that gets eaten up anytime someone thinks about you.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 7, 2006 5:54 AM
Two more square glasses, even though I didn't attend the party. How did she know?!!!!!!!!
Posted by: anonymous at January 7, 2006 9:02 AM
I have square glasses; I've lived in Brooklyn for 20 years (which makes me so hip it hurts); and, yes, I own a pair of expensive jeans. I'm a real estate agent, however, which, according to most of the people on this site, puts me in one category and one category only: asshole. Ahh, it's so simple for us...
Congratulations B'stoner. This site is a great achievement. You deserve whatever press you get -- snarky or no.
Posted by: anonymous at January 7, 2006 9:32 AM
I love the name "intersloper" Myfirstpost. I've regestered the domain name and may start a blog at that URL to bitch about people who live in Park Slope. LOL.
Posted by: Shahn Andersen at January 7, 2006 10:21 AM
Suck it up people! SUCK IT UP
If the glasses fit wear them...just get rid of the rose colored lenses.
Posted by: chris at January 7, 2006 11:28 AM
I gotta think Brownstoner is making a mistake here. All those people who have read about this blog will come here and read THIS? People are sounding like 100% morons. I think he should have posted something a bit more brownstonery.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 7, 2006 11:39 AM
You can get safety lens installed in your square glass frames so when you all are stripping paint or wire brushing exsposed brick walls.........
Posted by: 20/20 at January 7, 2006 1:13 PM
Keep it up folks, and the next time the Brownstoner crew might appear in the New Yorker as a cartoon!
Posted by: Anonymous at January 7, 2006 5:05 PM
I came here because of the article in the New Yorker, and I am so happy to finaly find a place where Brooklyn admirers can compare notes, etc.
Rock on!
Posted by: Dovid at January 7, 2006 6:41 PM
It's true-- Brownstoner *is* making a strategic mistake-- This could be his opportunity to get more readers (and advance his progress away from the day job), but anyone who comes here after reading the New Yorker will be turned off by our inane babbling, which really isn't what the site is usually about (not really)...
Posted by: Anonymous at January 7, 2006 6:54 PM
Hee hee. I like this thread. It's like a guilty pleasure! It's like admitting that I voted for Bush (of course!!) even though I told everyone I was voting for Kerry (for all the correct, liberal reasons). Yeah, I know, Kerry was right on the issues, but I have wealth to protect...we all do. Bush at least will take care of....well, you know...."us". However, so long as we have square glasses we have to pretend to dislike wealth and the institutions that made us wealthy!! Ain't life grand!!??
Posted by: Anonymous at January 7, 2006 7:40 PM
ISN'T BUSHWICK IN BROOKLYN? CAN I GET A JOB WITH MR.RICH? BUT THEN HE SOUNDS LIKE AN ASS SO HE PROBABLY DOESN'T PAY MUCH. CAN BROWNSTONER GET SPELLCHECK?
Posted by: ANON at January 7, 2006 10:52 PM
Wow. I just don't know what to say anymore.
Posted by: Laffalong at January 8, 2006 11:08 AM
Come on, Brownstoner created a forum for people to voice their opinions. It isn't his fault if some of the people who choose to post are vapid egocentric hipsters. The only requirement for posting here is that you want to say something and you can type. The idiots who are saying that they won't return after reading this thread are missing the point. They were able to post their opinion as well as read those of other people. If they have a problem with the egalitarian nature of the site then they should move somewhere where all of the people are of one opinion, and disenters are shot.
Posted by: Shahn Andersen at January 8, 2006 12:19 PM
If some people want to say they're leaving, that's their right. If you can't handle that, I suggest you revert to some more heavily censored site.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 8, 2006 1:05 PM
Brownstoner created a forum where people can kiss his sorry ass. Let's see by Monday how many posts he has deleted from this thread. Kate Julian, of The New Yorker hit the nail on the head. Me and the Mrs, were at Pioneer restaurant that day and what a disgrace. Mr Brownstoner and the rest of his Ilk there that day, have no clue what it is to be a brookynite.
The conversations made me sick to my stomach, and Kate Julian picked up on this, and kudos to her. Mrs. brownstoners' comments are key.. the way everyone bashed the neighborhoods’ pervious residents, were one step from being raciest. quotes like "No one ever had any money, the pervious owners must have been crack heads, my brownstone had to be used as a crack house" How dare you denigrate the hard working people of this neighborhood. Not everyone has the privilege of working on Wall Street. It wasn’t the racist slander nor the lack of true Brooklyn history, and values that made us leave. It was the abundance of exposed electrical wires, dog shit and cigarette butts in the sand box, and rusty nails on the red benches, that got my wife to blow here top, and deemed it unsafe for our children.
Posted by: HoodSnatched at January 8, 2006 1:29 PM
You seem to miss the point that a lot of these buildings were crack dens at one point. It isn't racist to point out the truth. It does happen to be racist to call white people gentrifiers simply because they are moving in and repairing old buildings. Besides, we aren't focusing on the people like you who moved to Jersey and Long Island when things got bad, we are focusing on the people who are moving back now and working in conjunction with the older residents to make these neighborhoods better. Do us all a favor and go mow your lawn in the suburbs and leave the blogging to people who either weren't so afraid they left or the people who are trying to make a life for themselves by coming here now.
Posted by: Anonymouse at January 8, 2006 2:43 PM
The earlier poster didn't say it was racist to point out that truth. However, it is racist to exaggerate tne number of Brooklyn buildings that were used as crack dens in order to justify Brooklyn's occupation by a bunch of square glass wearing richsters. It's especially bad when the existence of some crack dens is used to justify taking the neighborhood away from people who weren't crackheads, but who just happened to be poor and perhaps a little too brown for brownstone living. That sort of bullshit is racist, you self-satisfied little dandy. The (much earlier) post by someone who voted for Bush in spite of telling everyone s/he was voting for Kerry pretty much says it all. It takes more than two little square pieces of glass to hide a cracker.
Posted by: Hoodwinked at January 8, 2006 2:54 PM
Uh, if you're moving back to rehabilitate old buildings, doesn't that insinuate that you also, at one point, left?
Also, it's not racist to call "white people gentrifiers simply because they are moving in and repairing old buildings." Moving in and repairing old buildings is the definition of gentrification.
What, did you JUST move here?
Posted by: Anonymous at January 8, 2006 3:08 PM
The anti-gentrification backlash in New York is negligible compared with other cities that have undergone similar changes.
Chicago, San Francisco -- gentrification in these cities was accompanied by significant political movements opposed to the forces of gentrification.
Gentrification is by its very nature a politically charged scenario.
This web site appears to take a stance that gentrification is positive when it involves the renovation of brownstones by owners, but negative when done by flippers. Positive when a local gourmet food shop opens, negative when someone opens a dunkin donuts franchise. Positive when the neighborhood fills up with families, negative when it fills up with youngsters on trust funds. Brokers and developers are generally shown in a negative light, with a few exceptions. Of course, these actors are historically key to any real gentrification.
The political undertones of these choices are interesting, but seemingly go unquestioned on this web site. When someone does make a statement that goes against this conventional wisdom, the backlash is swift and unkind. Perhaps we should ask ourselves what gives us the moral authority to make such deliniations.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 8, 2006 3:30 PM
Actually, this site leave up lots of, well, angry and even venemous posts. And would all you anonymous people just make a up a pseudonym so we can keep track of who is venting what. It's not like you have to put down your email address if you don't want to!
Posted by: Caledonia at January 8, 2006 3:31 PM
Hoodwinked, I know for a fact that ten of the twenty buildings on my block were either burnt out and abandoned or turned into crack SRO's and remained that way until the early 90's. It's racists like you that insist that gentrification is a ploy by white people to rid Brooklyn of black folks. The people who stayed behind, both white and black, are the reason other people moved to my block and fixed up old buildings. Fort Greene and Clinton Hill are 70% black, and will remain that way unless hordes of black families sell their Brownstones and move out in throngs. No one is taking anything away from anyone that doesn't own or have stabilized rights to it. Your racism is the not-so-veiled retort of black Brooklynites that didn't buy when things were bad, gave up their rent stabilized apartments, and now use racism as their excuse to bitch about it now that the combination of old and new residents have increased the value of those buildings out of your price range.
Posted by: Meryckawick at January 8, 2006 4:09 PM
Ah - an excellent intellectual pro-gentrification argument.
This succeeds on so many grounds.
Well done.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 8, 2006 4:13 PM
P.S. Black Enterprise Magazine wrote last year that Fort Greene is the richest Black neighborhood in America. You have a lot of balls to say that these neighborhoods are being taken away by white people because a lot of people here are TOO brown for Brownstone living.
Posted by: Meryckawick at January 8, 2006 4:17 PM
Oh man, it sounds like Hoodwinked hit a nerve. He's right about one thing. Sure, there were crackdens in Brooklyn. There were some on my block. However, the crack heads weren't the only ones to be chased out of the neighborhood. Along with them went the poor and the (predominantly) non-white and, frankly, I don't see either group getting back into my neighborhood anytime soon unless they plan to buy studios. And gimme a break, just because there are well-to-do black people in Ft. Greene or wherever, this doesn't negate the general (and extremely well-established) statistical links between race, income and class in America. If you think we're doing the poor and the non-white favors by pouring our (yes, predominantly white) money into certain neighborhoods in Brooklyn, you're just refusing to face something because it doesn't sit well with your conscience. The weird backlash inspired by Hoodwinked's post suggests as much. He really *didnt't* say anything very provocative or controversial.....
Posted by: Son of Hoodwinked at January 8, 2006 4:35 PM
You're right, he didn't say anything provocative or controversial, he said something flat out wrong. Fort Greene is 70% black, and predominantly black and rich.
Posted by: Anonymouse at January 8, 2006 4:42 PM
For what it's worth, our house was an SRO with a number of drug dealers and addicts in it before we bought it. In fact, the guy who fixed up the house next door was held up at gun-point by the dealer who used to occupy the front room of our parlor floor. We're pretty sure that home owners of all colors on the block are glad he's been forced to find alternative lodging.
Posted by: Brownstoner at January 8, 2006 4:49 PM
Hoodwinked, Hoodsnatched and someone else, you guys are right on the money. I'm sick of the argument that goes because X location is X percent black, this somehow shows that there's no racism in America/New York/Brooklyn/Your own back yard. It's a flat out non sequitur and a pretty obvious one. Thanks for pointing it out, and thanks for keeping the rest of us honest.
Posted by: Petridish at January 8, 2006 5:19 PM
You guys sure are naive about race. Sure there are wealthy black folk in Brooklyn. No one is going to deny that, but what's the point in mentioning it? Does that somehow prove that that there no general inequities in the way goods are distributed in America? Does it somehow prove that anyone who works hard can make enough money to live in Park Slope? Does it prove that being black or hispanic is not a hindrance when people go about striving for a better life? I don't begrudge you guys the money you have and the nice homes you live in. I'm sure you're nice folks, work hard and deserve everything you have. This means you don't have anything to be defensive about and, in particular, it means you don't have to deny the many obvious ways in which blacks, hispanics, the poor and various other groups have the "deck" stacked against them. (Although, I must say, I'm appalled by one poster's "confession" about voting for Bush. If you like Bush, then vote for him; but don't vote for him when you're telling others that you support Kerry. That's just cowardly and deceitful.)
Posted by: Animal Krackers at January 8, 2006 7:27 PM
TO ALL "URBAN PIONEERS"
Put down your hammers and saws for a minute and give thanks to all those banks and financial institutions who REDLINED most of Red Hook, South Brooklyn, Bushwick, BedSty, almost all of Northern Brooklyn as BAD RISKS for demographic (read racial) reasons back in the early 70's. As the ethnic whites (read Irish and Italian) left as the "minority" populations encroached on their neighborhoods, banks, by making mortgage financing impossible to obtain, ensured that demand would decrease, property values decrease, building maintenance and repair decrease....Landlords basically ran their buildings into the ground to make a profit. Forget about paying taxes. Decay was assured. However not everyone could afford to flee to the suburbs. By 1975-76 federal and state laws began to address this redlining problem and the American urban housing crisis. One way was to give money to not-for-profit housing coalitions that then began to fight for the renewal of these abandoned people/ properties. This urban renewal made these previously unattractive ghettos suddenly prime targets for speculators, developers, and urban pioneers to rediscover. Does anyone remember when Chelsea was a Hispanic neighborhood? Or for that matter when the Alphabet City was almost entirely Jewish? By the late 70's-early eighties almost one third of L.E.S. buildings were in REM for failure to pay taxes. Everyone knows gentrification (unstoppable) eventually displaces the poor working class. We need to remember that most did not go willingly. Our sense of history is so short that we don't have any ideas as to what political and market forces were at work over time to place that crackhead on your front stoop and drive the prices down low enough for you to be able to buy it in the first place.. Ok pick up your hammers and saws and get back to work being thankful for the gift of a roof over your head..
Posted by: Pilgrim at January 9, 2006 1:17 AM
Pilgrim, thanks for reminding us of how much we've forgotten when it comes to the recent history of NYC real estate. Thanks even more for reminding us not to take our comfortable situations for granted. We've somehow acquired a mindset of 'entitlement' that makes it hard for us to appreciate just how lucky we are.
Posted by: Hoodwinked at January 9, 2006 6:59 AM
I was not surprised to read the description of the party, although I wasn't there. I do read this site fairly regularly, and there is a bit of a pretentious quality in the comments here (not in Brownstoner's writing, though, imo). Usually, I just find the competitiveness kind of amusing, and overlook it for the housing discussions that really are worthwhile. Sounds like the reporter may have felt the same way about the "live" crowd.
Seemed to me that she was just repeating stuff that was said and wasn't being snarky.
Posted by: Leana at January 9, 2006 10:57 AM
Actually, Fort Greene is definitely NOT rich. My husband used to work there for years, doing community development. The median income there is actually slightly below the median income for Brooklyn.
If you are interested, here's a link:
http://www.nylcv.org/ecofiles/brooklyn/html/ccd35.htm
Posted by: Leana at January 9, 2006 11:10 AM
District 35 is comprised of a few different neighborhoods. Black Enterprise wasn't talking about them in their article, just Fort Greene. And however you want to tally wealth, large numbers of people owning homes worth well over a million dollars with no mortgage means a lot of people have are rich. That is why Fort Greene is the richest black neighborhood in America, and why arguments about displacement in Fort Greene and Clinton Hill are the same old racist anti-white arguments we've heard for years.
Posted by: Meryckawick at January 9, 2006 2:59 PM
If you really think that there has been no displacement of black people in Fort Greene, you must either be blind or have some kind of stake in believing that. In the past six years—the time I've lived there—it's become so noticeably whiter. It's probably true that Ft. Greene is one of the richest black communities in America, but what that mainly means is that the black people who remain are the richest ones, who own their apartments and aren't subject to rent increases. But to argue that rising rents have not forced out black renters is risible. I don't have any stats, but my eyes saw my rental building go from 90% black to about 10%, and my eyes see the playground in Ft. Greene park almost exclusively used by white children. This is value neutral—I'm not trying (here) to argue that it's racist, or injust—only that it's incontrovertible.
Posted by: Willingd at January 9, 2006 3:32 PM
I'm with Meryckawick.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 9, 2006 4:10 PM
I'm just waiting now for someone to tell us all about how the black people forced out of Ft. Greene were all drug dealers and crack heads. Good grief....is this Broolyn or Mississippi?
Posted by: Anonymous at January 9, 2006 4:11 PM
just a final ( i hope) note - all this race stuff is being generated by you on this thread - brownstoner and the regulars(many of whom are black) (i am one) do not go around calling black people this or that. Of course given the nature of our discourse, we touch upon issues of class and by extension, race. But I have found that by and large it's a bunch of contendly nerdy real esate and fixer-upper buffs, who, yes, happen to have saved up to buy their homes in formerly blighted areas...take your hatin' elsewhere, my friends - attack the real enemy, not a bunch of middle class liberals. Ultimately that's what i think our friend at the New Yorker was poking gentle fun at...
Posted by: Anonymous at January 9, 2006 5:56 PM
I don't think we should discourage discussion of race here. There are obviously plenty of people who think it's relevant to the history and development of Brooklyn and, when you think about it, how could it NOT be relevant? And who, in your opinion, is the "real" enemy? The discussions of racism here are focusing on institutionalized racism, and it seems to me that one way to affect racist institutions is by discussing them in a wide variety of forums, including this one. I'd actually like to thank some of the people who posted in this thread. I learned a few things, not only from the "liberal" posts but also from the "reactions" they produced.
Posted by: Dipsy Doodle at January 9, 2006 8:39 PM
Absolutely renters get displaced when neighborhood are gentrified. Especially in brownstone neigborhoods where many of the buildings only have a few apartments, are often owner occupied, and may be on short leases and/or not subject to rent stabilization. Then you basically luck out if your landlord is a decent sort who isn't out to make the most money possible. I lived through the gentrification of Hoboken in the early 80s and boy was that ugly. They used to burn people out of buildings right and left.
Posted by: Caledonia at January 9, 2006 10:17 PM
I'd bet my brownstone that 99% of the white owners of apartments and brownstones in Ft. Greene and Clinton Hill are not overt racists. However, as evidenced from comments from both sides of this discussion, everyone has their own preconceived notions (i.e. prejudices) about the neighborhoods and their residents. That being said, as a newer owner myself, I like the diversity of the community. Anyone who cares for the community (i.e. takes care of it, picks up trash, looks after their house/apartment - whether owned or rented) is good in my book. For those who do not, who are rude, inconsiderate, overtly racist (in either "direction"), litter, deal drugs or vandalize - I have no problem with them being priced out or "displaced" by gentrification. I do not think that is controversial and would be something all would welcome. Unfortunately, the baby often goes out with the bathwater in these situations.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 10, 2006 1:01 PM
The only thing this tells me is that you live in neither Ft. Greene nor Clinton Hill.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 10, 2006 2:17 PM
No one is calling anyone racist. However, the fact that people get SO irate when gentrification is discussesd means that some buttons are being pushed.
No, middle-class white people moving in are not the enemy, but they should realize and admit that they are displacing people. The "real" enemy is actually many things, not least the fact that public education in poorer black neighborhoods basically sucks.
And yes, there is no question that Fort Greene has become significantly "whiter" in recent years. As I said, my husband (a white man) worked there and commented on the changes, and I'm absolutely sure there is statistical evidence.
Denying something doesn't change the truth of the matter. Maybe people should wonder why they get so defensive about this topic.
Posted by: Leana at January 10, 2006 4:45 PM
Here, here. I couldn't agree more. The white folks moving into (e.g.) Ft. Greene are not the enemy. They aren't the ones who perpetrated the social injustices that contributed to the decay of Brooklyn in the days of 'redlining'. However, these white folk (and I include myself in this group) are benefiting from those injustices and we should at least have the balls to be up front about this fact. I think we also assume some responsibility to create more affordable housing in our neighborhoods, even if we suffer some negative economic consequences in doing so. But that's another story.
Posted by: Hoodwinked at January 10, 2006 5:20 PM
to anon at 2.17, I am the anon from 1.01, I do live in clinton hill, and prior to that Fort Greene. Also, I do recognize that people are being forced to move do to rising property values and rents, and yes, Fort Greene has definitely become whiter, though it is still a racially mixed neighborhood - which is a good thing. What you are seeing is a rise in the average socioeconomic level of the residents, due to gentrification. It just happens that not all of the new, relatively wealthy, gentrifiers are white - which I think is good.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 10, 2006 6:40 PM
Haha - this is all really too much. The majority of you people sound like such asses, I mean the rationalizing is reaching truly absurd levels. Obviously the problem goes way beyond real estate, it's the endemic inequality of our society - just don't act like you're doing these neighborhoods a "favor."
And it makes me so happy that the square glasses thing has been uttered in a magazine with such a huge circulation. Prediction: square glasses go out of vogue post haste. No one's more susceptible to this kind of derision than hyper-self aware, desperately hip moneyed urban dwellers.
Posted by: Charlie at January 12, 2006 4:33 PM
To hell with all of you gentrifyin', square glass wearin', antique collectin', baby bearin', inside tradin', brie eatin', brownstone buyin', nanny hirin', stroller pushin', money hoardin' sons of bitches!!
Posted by: Uncle Buck at January 12, 2006 7:39 PM
Latest Restaurant Additions
-
Nana
added November 20, 2008 12:02 PM in Park Slope -
Pomme de Terre
added November 19, 2008 12:01 PM in Ditmas Park -
Scopello
added November 18, 2008 12:01 PM in Fort Greene -
DiFara
added November 17, 2008 11:59 AM in Midwood -
Chiles y Chocolate
added November 14, 2008 12:02 PM in Park Slope -
Downtown Bar and Grill
added November 13, 2008 11:58 AM in Cobble Hill -
Tempo
added November 12, 2008 11:57 AM in Park Slope -
The Chocolate Room
added November 11, 2008 12:01 PM in Cobble Hill, Park Slope -
Tanoreen
added November 10, 2008 12:02 PM in Bay Ridge -
Black Iris
added November 7, 2008 12:02 PM in Fort Greene
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.