« Local Pols Push for Condo-Capping BB Park Digesting the Scope of Newtown Creek Oil Spill »

February 2, 2006

Pyrrhic Victory for Green-wood's Minerva

view
condos
The New York Times is reporting (a few days after a local publication picked up the story) that Green-wood Cemetary has agreed to stand aside and not try to block the construction of a new condo building at 614 7th Avenue by developer Chaim Nussencweig and architect Robert Scarano after the two sides agreed on a compromise to the design that will preserve the line of site, if not much else, between Minerva and the Statue of Liberty. Neighborhood activists are upset by the news, arguing that the revised plan still largely destroys what has been one of the greated views in Brooklyn and that there are no guarantees that developer won't fink out on his agreement later on. We have to agree. Being able to see a glimpse of Lady Liberty through a small set-back is a pyrrhic victory. Hopefully, the Bureau of Standards and Appeals will reject the plan outright after the developer failed to get his foundation poured before the down-zoning deadline despite racking up several DOB violations in the process. Why the Bureau would cut this crew any slack is beyond us, but you never know what's at play behind the scenes when politics and money intersect.
No Condos Between Goddesses [NY Times]
614 7th Avenue [Courier Life] GMAP




Posted by Brownstoner at 9:25 AM | Comments (48)
Categories: Development

Comments

What victory? It's a defeat of liberty and property rights, but in truth those battles were lost long ago.

Give me a break, a view of the statue of liberty is more important than property rights? I think not. Get your priorities straight.

And not to question motives, but why are people suddenly caring that an inanimate stone sculpture will not be able to "see" nor "wave" to an inanimate statue of copper cladding. And even if they were truly concerned of the statues welfare and harbor views, why does that override the needs of real people for housing?

Posted by: iceberg at February 2, 2006 9:48 AM

Iceberg, you're an idiot. There are no rights without responsibilities, and the developers ruining Brooklyn are not responsible to their neighbors of the present or the future, and usually not even responsible to their buyers. What about the property rights of the people who actually live and work and pay taxes in communities that are harmed by the crap developers throw up--often, as in this case, not quite legally (as to the foundation)--and then walk away from? The developers make a mint and the blocks are ruined, a view that has been enjoyed by literally generations of Brooklynites is destroyed forever, and the housing crisis isn't addressed at all--these buildings aren't being built for the community but to attract speculators, investors and upper middle class people from elsewhere.

Posted by: Anonymous at February 2, 2006 10:16 AM

Anonymous,

Oh no, you called me an idiot. I'm gonna languish in shame the whole day!

Anyway, nice of you to bring up the incivility.

And if you have balls, you can take two seconds to attach a name to your posts so that I can properly respond to your baseless assertions.

Posted by: iceberg at February 2, 2006 10:33 AM

What a hysterical response, anon 10:16. Just because you dislike the appearance and size of these buildings, does not mean that they are "destroying" neighborhoods. Iceberg's point is well-taken with me, and calling him an idiot adds little to the debate. But, I'm not surprised. At this point, I expect that type of behavior from "activists" hell bent on stopping any and every project from being built, all while insisting they are not anti-development. Whether it's high-rise or low-rise, they hate everything.

Posted by: Anonymous at February 2, 2006 10:34 AM

Yup, let's please avoid the name calling. All it does is distract from debate and undermine the points of the person doing the name-calling...

Posted by: Brownstoner at February 2, 2006 10:37 AM

It\'s a tricky web of issues. Iceberg is right that property rights have to be taken seriously. At the same time, I sympathize with those opposing the development because that is one butt ugly building.

Posted by: Anonymous at February 2, 2006 10:45 AM

It is truly ridiculous to me that EVERY SINGLE new building built is decried as crap and "neighborhood destroying". And every "developer" is esentially a blood sucking interloper motivated by the worst kind of greed.

I really think that a huge % of these anti everything folks ought to really think about how ridiculous their positions are and put them in some historical context.

These neighborhoods that are all being destroyed were all BUILT by "developers" - It is no coincidence that all these buildings were built around the same time, using similar styles and similar materials. - The reason is that 75-125 years ago these were the "modern" techniques and the most cost effective to make a profit. And the developers of that time sought to maximize sales and profits just as todays developers do.

I am sure that if there were internet boards at that time a bunch of similar luddites would be screaming about the repetitive, boring architecture, the cheap construction techniques and unimagined density brought on by these greedy developers.

Just take a step back and hear how silly you all sound dreaming of the "good old days" and recongnize that arguments are much more effective when people dont use them ALL THE TIME;

Posted by: David at February 2, 2006 11:04 AM

If it isn't a brownstone, the "community" activists will fight it. In case any smug brownstoners care, NYC has a tremendous shortage of housing.

Posted by: Crawford at February 2, 2006 11:05 AM

This is slightly off-topic, but does anyone know what that huge building going up on 4th Ave. & 4th St. is? It looks fairly massive, is it just condos or is it a hotel maybe?

Posted by: Anonymous at February 2, 2006 11:20 AM

Condos - Bolymegreen

Posted by: David at February 2, 2006 11:31 AM

Crawford
I hear this all the time, but given the new construction and the number of properties that are for sale, not just in brownstone Brooklyn, but in the city generally, I have a hard time believing this.

I do think that there is a definite shortage of housing for folks looking to pay less than $1,200 per month in rent, or for those looking to purchase for less than $500,000. But actual units?

I keep looking at the property that is on this site and wondering how many people are out there looking to buy condos that are $800 to $1000 per sq ft? If you are making $60-$70k per year can you afford that? Who are all of these people? All of the Wall Street bankers are living in Westchester, LI, CT or NJ, and those that do live in NYC are pretty firmly entrenched on the Upper East Side, with only a few exceptions. Are these folks selling their homes in Greenwich, Oradell, and Irvington to move into a condo in Sunset Park? So who exactly will be buying these places?

People who already own don't want their neighborhoods to be overrun with high-priced construction that is out of context with the rest of the housing stock, created to appeal to people who will never buy in that location anyway. Taste is subbjective and what is unattractive to me may be something someone else views as being fabulous, but is there any indication that there is a market for high-end condos and co-ops in Sunset Park, or is this just developers hopping on the "build while you can" bandwagon?

Posted by: Oh Lord! at February 2, 2006 12:18 PM

What is msot amusing is the entire area around the Greenwood Cemetary is mostly filled with total crap. There are no brownstones. Most townhouses have aluminum siding facades.

I would say 50% of the properties in "Greenwood Heights" should be demolished, and replaced with high density housing. There is nothing worth saving there.

Posted by: Anonymous at February 2, 2006 12:26 PM

i said it before and i will say it again, the downzoning of the south slope was a sham. every view of the city will be blocked when the 12 story building of 4th avenue get built. instead they should be enforcing zoning laws. no more self certification by architects in the hip pocket of boymelgreen etc. like scarano and folk. so instead what you have is upzoning of fourt avenue (more money for big developers), downzoning of row houses (less money for small home owners). what you see on fourth ave and fourth street is the tip of the iceberg , congestion ,no parking and overcrowding for everyone. theres your pyrrhic victory for the stop all new developement (as long it is on my block) crowd.

Posted by: muletrain at February 2, 2006 12:28 PM

i'd make the guess that if you don't care if the line of sight between minerva and liberty is blocked, then you really don't care about quality architecture, good design or livable cities, either. life is in the details.

Posted by: chuck at February 2, 2006 12:46 PM

Oh Lord!,

Either there is a shortage or there isn't. If the apts are selling, then there is more money in more pockets than you suspect. And if there is a huge glut of $800-1000/sf apts, then they will cease to be $800-1000/sf apts, which will in turn put downward pressure on apts in the brackets below them.

Not saying this will trickle down to poor New Yorkers, but--the aesthetics of this building aside--you're more likely to reduce prices by building apts than you are by not building them.

Posted by: linusvanpelt at February 2, 2006 12:48 PM

Lord,
What other evidence besides tons of construction, high rents, and high sale prices would you expect to see demonstrating a housing shortage?

As to your point about who is buying these properties, I believe it was recently announced that the average Manhattan worker makes 100K a year; considering that many/most families are 2 wage earners - seems like there are tons of people who can afford these properties - (a $800,000 apt w/ 80% mortgage at 6% equals about $48,000 a year - if you assume 30% of income to housing (low in NYC) a family needs 150k a year)

Posted by: David at February 2, 2006 12:55 PM

chuck,

That is an unfair depiction of character, besides for being overly broad and ill-defined.

I personally care about architecture and design from my experience working among the austere relics in the financial district, and now on the Upper East Side. I've also facilitated several facade easements for property owners around the city, and so I definitely have an interest in neighborhood character and aesthetic.

But just because I love architecture doesn't mean I'm willing to use a gun to preserve it. That is essentially what occurs when government is used to further one's goals. Ironically, since governments were instituted primarily to secure property rights, it is a great abuse to then turn around and use government to invade the same rights.

I love architecture and all that, but these are my priorities.

Posted by: iceberg at February 2, 2006 1:06 PM

Come on! The reduction of a specific issue (the ruining of the historic link between Minerva and the statue of liberty) to broad platitudes about property rights and housing shortages is sheer obfuscation. I think if you were to take half an hour sometime, go up to the cemetery, and look at the statue, and read the inscription, you might feel slightly differently. Every time I read the inscription and look over to the statue of liberty, it brings tears to my eyes. It's just goddamn unpatriotic to ignore this.

Posted by: william at February 2, 2006 1:57 PM

As one of the supposed "anti-everything folks," let's get a couple of things straight. We are not, nor never will be "anti development."

New development of the housing stock throughout the city is needed. What is at stake at this SPECIFIC SITE is the potential loss of one of the most significant and historic views in all of New York. In August of 1776, our Nation fought (and lost) its first battle as a Nation on the hallowed grounds that now make up Battle Hill in Green-Wood Cemetery. The statue of Minerva on Battle Hill was erected specifically to honor the soldiers who fought and died on this spot.

No developer, architect or average citizen should ever be able to marginalize such a significant vista--one that does not only include an eye-to-eye view of the statue of Minerva to the Statue of Liberty, but sweeping views from the hill to the harbor, Red Hook and New Jersey. The proposed architectural design, while it may attempt to "save the view," will ultimately obliterate this historic vista for future generations.

Next topic and one that will finally end all of this. The foundation at 614 7th Ave is not complete. Period, end of story. The developer will not get past the community board public hearing (Feb. 8th @ Grand Prospect Hall, 6:30 p.m.) and most definitely will not win their case at the BSA. End of argument.

What's most worrisome is the developer and architect have already been less than stellar on this project to date. Written agreement or not, we are very wary of the final product, which at best, marginalizes the vista. Not to mention adding 38 more "luxury condos" to a primarily working class neighborhood.

Posted by: lostinbrooklyn at February 2, 2006 2:25 PM

Lost, I don't really have an opinion on the view or Battle Hill, but your last argument baffles me. Frame houses go for $800K-plus in this "working-class" neighborhood. Are the people buying them -- or the longtimers selling to them -- doing injury to the area? If not, then I don't see how luxury condos are a bad thing per se.

Posted by: linusvanpelt at February 2, 2006 2:50 PM

David,
Where did the quote that the average Manhattan worker makes at $100K come from? Even if every worker was part of a 2 family income, which many (most) are not, that still hardly seems possible in a city where all workers are not white collar employees of large companies.

To all, I echo Oh Lord's comments on who is supposed to buy all of this new lux housing? There are new developments being built all over Manhattan, including Harlem, downtown Bklyn has new construction going up practically on every corner, not to mention all of the developments being spoken of on this board in Wmsburg, FG, and elsewhere. Plus God knows what in Queens, the Bronx and Staten Island. Ratner expects an equally huge amount of monied people to flock into his development if/when it is built. Where are they now? Still in college? Out of town? Crowded into studios on the UES? Where is affordable housing in this equation? I'm not talking about the poor, or homeless, I'm talking about the working people who used to live in the area around Greenwood C, and in the South Slope, whose adult children can't find housing for themselves and their families. I don't think we as a society can just dismiss them and their concerns because of what some developer and real estate agency decides the market can bear.

One of the greatest parts of living in Brooklyn has always been coming up out of the subway, or out of your car, and being in a place where buildings are by and large no higher than 6 stories, trees shade your block, and life is not as hectic or as crowded. It would be a shame to have Bklyn turn into another Coop City. Development is not in of itself bad, why can't it be thoughtful, affordable and aim for the greater good of the city, and the immediate neighborhood?

Posted by: CrownHeightsProud at February 2, 2006 3:12 PM

This is not about Aesthetics. What is the difference between Greenwood Heights homes being covered in aluminum siding and the new Scarano building covered with plastic stucco? As for BIG GOVERNMENT... What government forces are you talking about? The Dept. of Buildings? The local police precinct? That's what is truly ridiculous. Let's rely on the Police or the DOB to enforce the past and now the new present zoning rules.....that's been proven pretty god damn ineffective. The down-zoning zeitgeist in the south slope, now spreading through out the boroughs, is in reaction to the violence inflicted upon it by slippery developers, hired gun architects, and ham-handed contractors. All your minimal statism theories are wonderful until you have to get your hands dirty. Who is going to protect my property from the developer who digs his foundation incorrectly causing my home to crack and shift? The courts? Where should I live for the next five to ten years as the case works it's way through the system? Who is going to pay for the repairs until then? Not the developer. Want to know the filthy fucked up truth about these developers? Go talk to the 20 or so home owners on Windsor Place or on 15th Street or on 16th St who have damaged property and have not seen one penny in restitution as their homes slide into big holes. Don't get our right to protect our property confused with the city's need for more housing. Come to our neighborhood some Saturday morning or after 6pm and see the construction for yourself. You can't practice non violence against someone who doesn't recognize your right to exist. Downzoning or a shotgun blast to the balls? Choose your weapons.

Posted by: Anonymous at February 2, 2006 3:25 PM

Unfortunately the inflated prices in the housing stock (comps on single family frames used to go for around $275K, 2 years ago) are due to developers inducing buyers with large sums of cash. First it was $400K, then $600K, then $700K and up. And that was in a matter of a few months. The market here, in my opinion, will not sustain such inflation.

Back to the sales...Some folks sold to cash in, some to get out of the city, but we saw quite a few sell because they were scared. Hearing that a large scale development project may go in next door to your 2 story frame (not to mention all the destruction to neighboring properties and quality of life issues that had already happened) sent a lot of folks running.

Many of us banded together in an attempt to promote contextual development, not stop it. We worked with developers when they were willing, against them when they were abusing the neighborhood and doing illegal work. The "luxury" market in the recently rezoned area did not exist 3-4 years ago.

Times will change, but not at 70 units in one year...and that is just on my block alone. There are over 50 development sites in our 50 block area. And this is not "affordable housing," nor being built as such...unfortunately. Mixed income would have been the best solution, but I and my neighbors are not the ones holding the purse strings.

Posted by: lostinbrooklyn at February 2, 2006 3:25 PM

Lost,
I (and many others) wouldnt accuse you (or anyone else) for being 'anti-everything' if your position was simply to meaningfully preserve the vista between Minerva and Lady Liberty but your true agenda SEEMS to appear when you decry even the notion of condos being built and when you seem to stretch a reasonable position (honoring our history) of preserving the 2 statues links to one that appears to call for a prohibition on all development above 5 stories from Bay Ridge to the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel.

Posted by: David at February 2, 2006 3:27 PM

CrownHeightsProud,

Oy, I can see this becoming the Bed-Stuy vacant lots vs. eyesores argument all over again, but I'll wade in anyway.

I think you have the best intentions, but some of your priorities are contradictory and you'd have to decide which is more important. It's a lot to wish for to want housing that

- is affordable to working class people
- not hideous
- no higher than 6 stories
- doesn't spoil any beautiful views
- and, presumably, doesn't add to population density, so it's still possible to park that car that your hypothetical person stepped out of.

How do we achieve this? The only answers I can think of involve

- some combination of massive government subsidy, combined with mass relocation of excess population to keep density down
- a time machine

In any case, I don't see any answer to housing the adult children of the old residents that doesn't involve building more and denser housing, in a city whose population is growing, and in neighborhoods that are becoming ever more popular. (And no, I am not saying luxury condos are going to help them.)

I own my house already. If we just pulled the ladder up and stifled any development higher or denser than what our neighborhoods have always had, I would be sitting pretty, cozy in my house, able to find a parking space and watching the value of my ever-rarer living space shoot through the roof. But I'm not sure that's for the greater good either.

Posted by: linusvanpelt at February 2, 2006 3:27 PM

A recent tear down in the sslope went for $900,000. 25'x100' lot to a developer.

Posted by: Anonymous at February 2, 2006 3:33 PM

Battle Hill was a rallying cry for many folks in the community, not a crutch. When Green-Wood joined forces with the folks in South Slope and Greenwood Hts. it was to help the community...and of course, protect their view. They have been extremely supportive, but have always made it clear to us that Battle Hill was the priority. Many of us shared that opinion (and still do).

We will still advocate for Green-Wood (since now legally they cannot) while also exercising our LEGAL RIGHT to protest the out of scale developments attempting to "vest" under the old zoning.

So to answer all of you, it was both. Protect the neighborhood from out of scale development (not stop development) and help preserve a national treasure. Call me both civic minded and patriotic...and I guess very passionate about what "I" think is the right thing to do.

So well keep on fighting the bad-boys and working with the good ones (there are a few out there)...I just hope we don't loose our history in the meantime.

Posted by: lostinbrooklyn at February 2, 2006 3:36 PM

Crown the state came from the Dept of Labor in larger context:

"Of the five counties comprising New York City, the average
weekly wage of workers in New York County, more commonly known as
the borough of Manhattan, experienced robust growth over the
year, rising 5.8 percent in the first quarter of 2005 to $2,025,
according to the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor
Statistics."

Linus very well put - also I dont think it is necessarily so true that there is some permenant demarcation between "luxury" housing and "affordable" housing - it seems to me that a temendous amounts of non-subsidized housing (especially in outer boros) was originally built as luxury housing.

Posted by: Anonymous at February 2, 2006 3:38 PM

Sorry that last post is mine

Posted by: David at February 2, 2006 3:39 PM

God help Brooklyn.

Posted by: Anonymous at February 2, 2006 3:43 PM

David, good point. If, as some people suggest, more "luxury" apts are being built than there is a market for, then they'll become non-luxury in a hurry.

And Lost, etc. -- btw I'm not advocating letting people build as high as they want wherever they want. I think the compromise we have here in Park Slope is good -- even tho I live near 4th Avenue, where building up to 12 stories is now allowed. (Which I believe was the model for the SS/GH downzoning.) Downzoning's fine if you can allow for the right upzoning too.

Posted by: linusvanpelt at February 2, 2006 3:45 PM

linus, agreed. It was our "trade off" as well. I hope the new inclusionary housing plan actually works. We had hoped it would be mandatory, but unfortunately it's voluntary. Just depends on how deep the pockets are of said developer. BTW, last time I checked the "average household income" was calculated between the 4 boros and WESCHESTER (WTF?), so the figures are skewed. Average income for a Brooklynite is around $24K, according to the stats the 5th Ave Comm. was using during our hearings in support of the inclusionary housing plan for "affordable housing."

Posted by: lostinbrooklyn at February 2, 2006 3:54 PM

oops, bad spelling, WESTCHESTER

Posted by: lostinbrooklyn at February 2, 2006 3:58 PM

The statiscs I cited on income were weekly wages - I dont have the underlying studies but I would take that to mean people who earn wages in Manhattan - not necessarily who live in Manhattan.
Again there is a million different data points and I only offer it to those that think that there is imminent shortage of people who can afford these new developments.
BTW an interesting subset is the average weekly wage of someone in the financial industry (Manhattan) is $5,680.

Posted by: David at February 2, 2006 4:12 PM

Oh and average Kings county wage was $665 weekly

Posted by: David at February 2, 2006 4:14 PM

Someone posted about how can Sunset Park be a working class neighborhood if houses are selling for $800K plus. Well, too often, these houses are not selling to local people, and developers and real estate brokers who keep pushing the limits are making their profits now and will not be as crushed as their customers if the housing market contracts. Think of all the msiery in the early 90s--oh, you guys for the most part aren't from New York and don't remember people losing their houses and neighborhoods of average folk, not well-educated New Englanders and midwesterners, really suffered. Our government has lots of rules and regs to protect us, but developers thumb their noses at them with impunity and laugh at the the poor.

Posted by: Anonymous at February 2, 2006 4:58 PM

so the developers are not selling to local people... and when the contraction comes, their customers, who are not local people, will be crushed... and the average local people will lose their homes... that they didn't buy.

wha?

Posted by: Anonymous at February 2, 2006 5:17 PM

Linus, I will be the first to admit I have conflicting views on these issues. I think that is because development is a complicated issue. On the one hand: a need for housing (more affordable and low income than lux) vs the desire for some quality of life in a neighborhood that keeps what we all love about Bklyn in the first place. Above all of that looms money: developers with too much money and influence, greed, and us average incomed shlubs who just want a nice place to live. I'm not going to rehash Bed Stuy arguments here, because there is a difference between a 3 or 4 family building on an open lot in the middle of a block, and a large multi unit behemoth condo. Both presume that the buyer will take anything they can get, all other considerations aside, and that no one will object or say anything to the contrary. Some builders don't think aesthetics matter to a customer and a neighborhood, and some don't care if they did or not. Moscow suburbs on the Hudson, indeed, architecturally speaking.

Is the prevailing sentiment among developers "build it and they will come" as opposed to "build it because there is a need for it"? More than likely it's a third: "build it, cuz we're going to make another big pile 'o money". I'm open to any good ideas in this mess, and am old enough and realistic enough to know that aesthetics and preservation of neighborhood "soul" will lose to money everyday of the week. I just don't think we have to just go quietly into the night and not fight is whatever way we can to at least have a say in our own futures.

David, I believe that Mark Twain said that "There are three types of untruths; lies, damn lies and statistics." With the upper end of salaries so amazingly high in finance and big business, any average of all worker's salaries is going to come out higher than is actually realized by a majority of real people. If most people in this city were actually doing that well, we wouldn't be having a lot of the problems vis a vis haves/have nots that we do, and our local small businesses would certainly be doing better. Statistics can be manipulated to say anything about everything.

I seem to be at odds with you both, I hope we can find something to agree on soon.

Posted by: CrownHeightsProud at February 2, 2006 5:21 PM

David and linus, I just read your posts written while I was writing. Thanks for the clarifications. Hope we're cool.

Posted by: CrownHeightsProud at February 2, 2006 5:23 PM

Crown
Something to consider, you seem to decry the building of yet another condo building w/ prices in the 400k-1m range (where most in Brooklyn are built these days), consider what would happen if these units werent built.
The people in the 100k-300k range of income would either:
1 - remain in or move to the already expensive nabes - thereby driving up the cost there even higher until at some point that option no longer exists @ those income levels
2 - Move to less expensive(i.e. middle class/poor) nabes and rapidly drive up the cost for middle class/poor (obviously this has happened but would be worse w/o new units to buffer demand)
3-Move out of NYC thereby seriously hurt the tax base of city, diminsh the amount of funds that can be used to provide services and help to poor and increase the tax burden on middle class.

The short summary is no matter the sales price of the unit, having more housing helps the affordabilty for everyone.

Posted by: David at February 2, 2006 6:38 PM

I'll refrain from adding my two cents to this one. I have my own problems - I'm on jury duty.

Posted by: bedstuyer at February 2, 2006 6:55 PM

I don't think they shouldn't be built, and if I implied that, that's not what I meant. Those prices aren't bad, as long as you getting something worthy of what you are paying for. When most of us buy old houses, we get them inspected before investing what is probably the largest purchase any of us will ever make. The inspector or engineer gives us a report, and we either proceed or keep looking. I may be wrong, but most people buying new construction don't do that. New and shiny equals good, where do I sign? More people need to be educated, and maybe the power of the consumer will help change things.

I object to any building of questionable quality, no matter where it is, and how much it costs. Again, I'm sure you'll all correct me if I'm wrong, but the concensus is that many, if not most, of these developers, both the big guys and the anonymous little ones, cut corners, skirt laws and zoning requirements, build cookie cutter buildings with little or no consideration of anything but dollars per sq.footage, feign ignorance when caught breaking laws, and operate like the Borg assimilating entire areas in their quest for money. Please note I didn't say ALL of them, but the ones that have been mentioned on this blog seem to fit that bill.

I will never live in a new house, so I voice my concerns because not everyone will be a fortunate as I am to own a brownstone. I do care about the housing situations of my fellow Bklynites, because one way or another, it will ultimately affect me and mine and the quality of life in this city. New housing IS needed, lots of it, but I refuse to see why that can't be accomplished in a manner that combines profit and still maintains neighborhood quality, aesthetic standards and a pride of place.

Posted by: CrownHeightsProud at February 2, 2006 7:13 PM

Being a fellow "old house owner" (and feeling damn lucky, but not smug), I have to agree with CHP.

Especially since good friends of our bought into a Isaac Katan (if you hear that name, run!) building on Bergen. At face value, looks kinda nice. 1800 sq. ft. Duplex (first floor & "rec room" basement area. Sunken patio with stairs to a SMALL patch of grass. Stainless steel appliances & the like. $750K. Now...tiles missing, weird ass kitchen cabinets, closets to nowhere, high levels of mercury in the in-fill in their back "grass" area (they have a 2 yr. old), questionable finishing touches (and I have an old house with a down & dirty gut reno), damage to adjacent properties and a large majority of the other owners suing the developer on a myriad of issues. Our friends are the luckiest of the bunch, which is a shame.

Sound familiar? If so, don't buy ANYTHING that goes up on 15th/16th St. by Katan and the other fine folks who have raided our 'hoods. "Quality housing" takes on a new term. I'd buy old if you can.

And, buyer beware...old or new, these days travel with an inspector.

Posted by: lostinbrooklyn at February 2, 2006 7:33 PM

iceberg -

we're talking about the only view of its kind between two historic monuments, one that became a beacon of freedom to the world, and the other that memorializes the very first spark that eventually became that beacon.

if the top of your list is completely unfettered property rights, then what difference does it make where below that "aesthetics" falls on your list? you are advocating complete chaos and a completely unlivable city.

the minerva/liberty view is public property. an individual is infringing on my enjoyment of that property. what is the point of government if something so basic can't be protected?

to paraphrase -- "those who would sacrifice a view of liberty for property deserve neither."

Posted by: chuck at February 2, 2006 7:43 PM

(sorry - couldn't resist the melodrama.)

Posted by: chuck at February 2, 2006 7:45 PM

From the Census Dept, numbers are from 2004:

New York County (Manhattan):
Median household income (dollars)
50,731
Mean household income (dollars)
96,837

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=05000US36061&-qr_name=ACS_2004_EST_G00_DP3&-ds_name=ACS_2004_EST_G00_&-_lang=en&-_sse=on


Kings County (Brooklyn):
Median household income (dollars)
36,030
Mean household income (dollars)
49,706

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-context=adp&-qr_name=ACS_2004_EST_G00_DP3&-ds_name=ACS_2004_EST_G00_&-tree_id=304&-redoLog=true&-all_geo_types=N&-_caller=geoselect&-geo_id=05000US36047&-format=&-_lang=en

It would seem that the zillionaires influence the mean and the median is more useful.

Posted by: Anonymous at February 2, 2006 8:04 PM

Developers do not care about Brooklyn or the people who reside there. The only thing they care about is how much money they can make from a project. You can see evidence of it from the shoddy construction on the low and midrange and the prices on the high end. They also try to get around building codes and neighborhood height restrictions. I sell real estate (for one of the big ones) and have sold into several new developments. In all of them the roof leaked after the first big rain storm. In one of them the windows leaked. All of them sold for top dollar.
Developers are destroying the Brooklyn neighborhoody feeling and turning it into a mini Manhattan.

Posted by: anon at February 3, 2006 10:04 AM

Screw Ratner!
No arena!
No to eminent domain!
Free Mumia!
Buck Fush!
Hey, hey, ho, ho, greed and graft have got to go!

Posted by: Anonymous at February 3, 2006 4:30 PM

Post a comment

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

Latest Restaurant Additions