« Mayor's Speech Highlights Yards, Waterfront New Condos For Lexington Avenue? »

January 27, 2006

Vacant Lots Today, Eyesores Tomorrow?

When we were tootling around Bed Stuy last weekend we were keeping an eye out for vacant lots that could be the future sites of architectural travesties. The sheer number of vacant lots are perhaps the neighborhood's greatest vulnerability going forward. We offer up a few of them here, in various points in the development lifecycle.

house
1089 Fulton GMAP

house
1185 Fulton GMAP

house
794 Lafayette GMAP

house
117 Lexington GMAP




Posted by Brownstoner at 9:33 AM | Comments (38)
Categories: Development

Comments

isn't a vacant lot an eyesore itself?

Posted by: Anonymous at January 27, 2006 10:55 AM

But at least it's an eyesore with potential.

Posted by: Preston at January 27, 2006 11:09 AM

get out your checkbooks...

Posted by: clinton hillbilly at January 27, 2006 11:27 AM

Preston,

You are exactly right. Once they put up those ugly buildings - all is lost.

Posted by: Bedstuyer at January 27, 2006 12:21 PM

Actually rampant and persistent poverty,and higher than acceptable crime rates are far bigger problems for Bed Stuy than potentially ugly developments.
I mean come on people - sure ugly buildings are upsetting but please dont let your good fortune and/or the partial gentrification blind you to the incredible human suffering that still takes place in Bed Stuy and other similar nabes (Crown Heights and Red Hook come immediatly to mind)

Posted by: David at January 27, 2006 12:31 PM

David,

You are right, but if you lived in Bed-Stuy, it would be an issue for you also. Believe me, I am not blind to poverty and crime. But just because those are major issues in Bed-Stuy, it does not mean its residents should ignore the disrespectful way in which these developers are treating the residents of the neighborhood. I acknowledge all the issues, but this is a real estate blog after all.

Posted by: bedstuyer at January 27, 2006 12:58 PM

sorry, bedstuer, but I agree with David. I found this post to be quite disturbing. Here you have an economically under-served and under-realized neighborhood with empty lots and boarded up buildings.... brownstoner's concern? The potential for unattractive new building! Although this is a real estate blog, it doesn't have to be so insensitive as to say that eyesores are the "greatest vulnerability" for the neighborhood! I grew up in a neighborhood that had lots of empty lots and boarded buildings and it was a sign of far greater problems... We were all psyched whenevr ANYTHING new happened economically...

Posted by: Anonymous at January 27, 2006 2:10 PM

David,
Building ugly, cheap buildings that age poorly is hardly in the best interests of the neighborhood. Obviously issues like poverty, education and the abyssmal child services program are more immediate and desperate needs. But putting up these kind of buildings only perpetuates the ghetto-ization and isolation of the neighborhood and its residents. It's hard to feel a lot of respect and pride about your neighborhood if this is the dominant aesthetic, especially when there are so many reminders of the area's true architectural heritage. And, remember, the people who are being suckered into scraping together their savings to buy this crap are the very people you are worried about helping and protecting. All this stuff is tied together. The concern of a great many people on this blog about the aesthetics is not as disconnected from reality as you seem to think.

Posted by: Brownstoner at January 27, 2006 2:30 PM

Well said Brownstoner. I agree.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 27, 2006 2:49 PM

Yes, brownstoner, well said indeed.

Posted by: CrownHeightsProud at January 27, 2006 3:01 PM

Thank you, Brownstoner. That was both eloquent and right on.

Posted by: GardensGal at January 27, 2006 3:31 PM

bedstuyer,

As somebody who lives in the neighborhood, what would you rather see done with these lots -- in real-world, not perfect-world terms? (I.e., let's assume a charitable developer is not going to swoop in, build beautiful, contextual homes and sell them to the needy at cost...) Honestly curious, I know there are no simple alternatives.

Posted by: linusvanpelt at January 27, 2006 4:03 PM

I have no problem with private developers building homes. I just want them to stop, look around and have something built that is in character with the other buildings. For instance, keep the lot lines consistent. Why do they always have to be set back so far. Why do the facades have to look like they belong in some part of Queens and not brownstone Brooklyn.

Someone on my block bought an empty lot and built a house. Yes, it is different from the other buildings on the block, he even has a driveway, however, he "brownstoned" his house. While his house is very different from the others on the block, it just does not stick out so much. I don't like his house, but I would not criticize it because it at least blends in and shows a respect for the history and architecture of the neighborhood. The difference, is that he and his family live there. They are renting their Brooklyn Heights house and are living in Bed Stuy paying very little (They have tenants).

Has anyone checked out the prices of these crappy houses being built, they are not cheap. They go for half a million and up and are poorly constructed. Half a million may not be much to many of you on this blog, but to the people you all seem to be so concerned about, it is a lot of money. These people deserve better and the neighborhood deserves better.

I am an attorney (black) who chose to move to Bed Stuy. One of the things that led me to buy in Bed Stuy is the beauty of the brownstones. If these beautiful brownstones become out numbered by the crappiness, what will Bed Stuy have? Do you think the "vulnerable" residents will be well served if the rest of us think that "anything" is better than a vacant lot? The residents of Bed Stuy and other neighborhoods deserve better.

Posted by: bedstuyer at January 27, 2006 4:34 PM

By the By -

Thanks Brownstoner - that is exactly the point.

Posted by: bedstuyer at January 27, 2006 4:41 PM

Brownstoner - I certainly would like to see attractive buildings rather than ugly, shoddy ones. My post was responding to yours and Bedstuyers comments which seemed to prioritize architechture/vacant land as the greatest problem facing Bed Stuy

But in reality any new buildings (ugly or not) in areas like Bed Stuy are truly better than none (Not that it is really that choice) Ugly buildings played no any factor in isolating or ghettoizing Bed Stuy, it was the flight away from these neighborhoods and lack of any investment that led to these areas becoming ghettos (not ugly houses - in fact by my observation, it was the old "attractive" nabes that were left to become ghettos while the newer bland/ugly nabes that maintained or expanded during the 50-80s period) and it is the social isolation (no education, no employment prospects etc...) that keeps many parts a ghetto. Again ugly houses have nothing to do with it.
As for whether the new construction is shoddy - I am sure some is, but unless gross negligence is used virtually all new construction is studier, safer and will last longer with less maintainance than anything built 50+ years ago. As people here should know - just because your late 19th Century home looks as solid, doesnt mean it isnt hiding some tremendously expensive structural problems.

Posted by: David at January 27, 2006 4:45 PM

If working class people have to scrimp and save to buy this "crap", how can they ever hope to buy a home that this blog's readership can endorse? In all likelihood these folks will never be able to afford a brownstone, but this shouldn't limit them to renting for the rest of their lives; nor should it require that they leave their neighborhood. Better they should own something modest and poorly built. Pride comes with ownership, even if the thing owned is modest.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 27, 2006 4:50 PM

Brownstoner, with all due respect, I do not think you understand the economics and parties involved in affordable housing projects.

A developer in an affordable housing project is not compensated like a developer in a market rate housing project. Neither is the lender. The whole system put in place to promote affordable housing construction provides incentives that end up with buildings that are not aesthetically pleasing.

You would have to change the entire system, it's not a matter of one developer's personal tastes.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 27, 2006 4:54 PM

Bedstuyer - you are correct 500K+ is far from cheap, and obviously this housing is not going to go to the majority (poor) Bed Stuy population. But new investment (ugly or not) brings people, money and interest to the area and can lead to expanded opportunity to this population that needs opportunity alot more than it needs "attractive" houses - again I repeat that I know that it isnt really the choice (ugly or nothing)developers face . BUT to try to portrey architecture as even being in the top 5 of problems facing Bed Stuys future is to seriously ignore the reality of the majority population

Posted by: David at January 27, 2006 4:57 PM

I certainly never said that ugly buildings caused the "ghettoizing" of Bed Stuy. However, as Bed Stuy struggles to move forward, these buildings are not helping. Unless you are saying that for a home to be affordable, it must be crappy, I don't see your point.

Posted by: Bedstuyer at January 27, 2006 5:03 PM

I was responding to B-stoners comments

My point is that while everyone prefers "attractive" buildings, "ugly" buildings are far from a major problem for the majority of Bed Stuy's residents despite your and B-stoners comments.

Posted by: David at January 27, 2006 5:13 PM

In the short term, the new construction aids gentrification a little bit, since many gentrifying renters are attracted to the cleanliness, space, ammenities, and price of the new construction. However, in the long term, these ugly buildings could seriously put a damper on the gentrification of Bed/Stuy, as they make an otherwise beautiful neighborhood ugly. One of the reasons Park Slope has become as wealthy as it has, is that there is so little ugly, new construction.

Posted by: veggieburger at January 27, 2006 5:17 PM

Its time for a reality check.

There are six billion people on this planet. The vast majority of them live in a manner more akin to animals than humans. Because some creature walks and talks doesn't mean a thing. If you like to be around semiautonomous creatures that spend their lives eating and reproducing, go to a zoo.

Beauty is the one thing separates humanity from the beats of this planet, it exemplifies everything of which we are capable. Nothing matters more.

The majority of Bed-Stuys residents have squandered this great neighobrhood for years. These people simply don't appreciate this shining pinnacle of human achievement that they defile on a daily basis.

Brownstoner should be commended for taking a stand against the continued destruction of our culture simply to fill this planet of ours with more subhumans.

Posted by: Eryximachus at January 27, 2006 5:22 PM

David,

No one is disagreeing with you. I encounter these residents daily - just like I used to when I lived in Fort Greene (pre-gentrification). I LIVE in Bed Stuy and not in Stuy Heights.

Many people in Bed Stuy live on the edge and don't care about ugly or attractive buildings. However, you know nothing about me and my other concerns for my neighbors. I chose not only to be concerned for the people, but for the buildings as well. (It is after all my choice).


Posted by: bedstuyer at January 27, 2006 5:27 PM

Eryximachus,

Thank you for that. Your comments sum up what I believe these developers think as they put these buildings in my neighborhood. That is why I find them, like you, to be so offensive.

Posted by: bedstuyer at January 27, 2006 5:33 PM

Bedstuyer - all your gentrifying has made you slightly defensive huh

I never said a word about knowing you or what/who you care about

try to relax its friday.

Posted by: David at January 27, 2006 5:59 PM

Great discussion here.

Another lot -- vacant for at least the 2 1/2 years I've lived in Bed Stuy -- on the southeast corner of Nostrand & Herkimer.

Posted by: John at January 27, 2006 6:37 PM

David,

Wow, I've never been called a gentrifier before. I'm not being defensive. You questioned my priorities and I responded that I happen to care about all of the issues.

Posted by: bedstuyer at January 27, 2006 7:58 PM

these comments are frightening and will push me off this blog... there is no real concern for the poor here... nor any understanding. Comparing people to animals in this way is not just offensive, but also quite dumb. I've been to some of the poorest countries in the world and I've done work that directly seeks to end that poverty... I have both personal and work experience in these matters. I also grew up in a poor neighborhood too. I HAVE NEVER SEEN POOR PEOPLE REMIND ME OF ANIMALS. Your concerns with architecture, veiled in concern for the integrity of the neighborhood, are chilling. Educate yourself about affordable housing in NYC before you start bemoaningthese things... I am very saddened by this. I love Brooklyn. But this architectural fetishism is abhorent.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 27, 2006 8:10 PM

I would like to ask Brownstoner exactly what kind of buildings he thinks should be built on these lots (assuming he doesn't expect them to be vacant forever), and how he expects these beautiful buildings to be financed?

Posted by: Banker at January 27, 2006 9:57 PM

It would take some kind of government incentives (i.e. either tax breaks or subsidies) and some kind of oversight board a la landmarks. We're not suggesting the bar be set anywhere near landmarks standards, but a handful of guidelines about (1) building materials and (2) contextual exterior alignment (i.e. facades and rooflines aligning with neighboring buildings) would go a long way. And while we're at, we'd push for concealing those nasty utility meters.

Posted by: Brownstoner at January 28, 2006 8:53 AM

Um, just a "outside the box" thought: Is anything built today, whether Manhattan, Brooklyn or otherwise honestly well thought-out to match the character of the neighborhood / buildings around it? Its today's modern construction to build cheap b/c the cost of construction is too overwhelming. Why do you think Manhattan has these new "glass towers"? B/c of China's development and the US surge in construction, there is a strain on resources such as steel, concrete and other building materials. Therefore, construction today only reflects the times that we are in. It doesnt mean that it is or isnt right but just the sheer economics of it. If materials/cost to build was cheaper, dont you think some develops would opt to build Gothic skyscrapers in midtown which would match their surroundings? No, they build economical glass towers b/c the materials are cheaper and the techonology of those materials allows for cheaper building operating costs.

Posted by: Buildings of today at January 28, 2006 9:28 AM

I agree that there is no quick fix here. 40 years of redlining,absentee landlords, racism, joblessness, poverty and drugs has ghettoized much of Bed Stuy well beyond the physical bounderies of the neighborhood. Of course, building pretty buildings is not going to fix everyhing, or anything. I lived there for 17 years, and for all intents and purposes still live there, as I am just over the border in Crown Heights, and am in BS every day, if only to get to the subway. I don't think any fix of the situation can be achieved without the participation - no, leadership of the community. WE have to want things changed, and then work with those who can affect those changes. Bedstuyer, I would work with you and anyone else who had a solution. Maybe we could figure out a way for developers to work with the community, not just make a profit from it. Hiring skilled local people would certainly be a start, as well.

Contrary to what some may think, there have always been people here who have worked for change, and have been here for decades holding BS together. Love of this community did not happen when new people fell in love with the buildings and started to move in 5 years ago. These are the people who have preserved and protected those buildings we drool over today. Let's not make the mistake of thinking everyone here is poor, ignorant, or stupid. (which I am not accusing anyone of - I just think that needs to be said.)

Posted by: Anonymous at January 28, 2006 11:36 AM

I forgot to sign in. I wrote anon. 11:36.

I am also quite serious about doing something here. I don't want Bed Stuy, or Crown Heights to be pockets of gentrification surrounded by ever increasing poverty. Nor do I like the idea that developers can swoop in from somewhere else, build crap using outside workers, materials, etc, make a nice profit, and leave. This helps no one but them, and brings no economic help to the community.

Posted by: CrownHeightsProud at January 28, 2006 11:45 AM

What about picketing some of these props under development? Get some media attention? We've all been wanting to get together somewhere, right? Granted, a bar has its appeal, but this could be quite a bonding opportunity!

Posted by: Brownstoner at January 28, 2006 3:00 PM

Check out who is doing the financing and if any state or federal money is involved with these projects. Why does most new development become so adversarial? It's because the developers never even take the time to knock on their neighbors door and introduce themselves. To come before the community and say, Hey I'm going to build new housing on your block, before I start is there anything this community is in need of?

Posted by: Anonymous at January 28, 2006 11:58 PM

Check out if federal money is involved in these projects? Are you kidding me?! These are AFFORDABLE HOUSING projects, people! Your tax dollars at work! Don't you understand anything?

Posted by: Anonymous at January 29, 2006 3:13 PM

i like brownstoner's idea... let's get together and picket affordable housng sites in Bed-Stuy.. this would really make it clear what 'we' stand for... this thread is so depressing...

Posted by: Anonymous at January 30, 2006 8:28 AM

I live in a ticky-tacky box house (row-house condo) in eastern Clinton Hill, built in 1989. One thing I have learned over the years is that anything that breaks can be fixed. Our roof leaked after 5 years, and we got the developer to replace it (by lobbying hard with the NY Housing Partnership).

Yes, I live in a Styrofoam house, but you know what? It was what I could afford. I will never afford a brownstone or even a brownstone condo. My condo is worth 4x what I paid for it. And it's a lot better for the neighborhood and the 48 families that live here than the ugly empty lot (former playground that sunk into the ground; before that, derelict brownstones that were demolished). It's affordable housing.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 31, 2006 8:13 AM

Post a comment

Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.

Latest Restaurant Additions