« Craigs Picks, Brownstone Rental Edition Just Sold in Brooklyn »
May 17, 2007
Fantastic 4th? Eh, We'll See
We think the upzoning of Fourth Avenue made a lot of sense, especially in the context of preserving the brownstone blocks near it. But if the Novo at 343 4th Avenue is any indication of what's to come, this won't exactly be a boulevard of beauty (unless your idea of beauty is early-80's Holiday Inn chic). Luckily for developers, though, looks don't matter too much when it comes to selling condos in this part of town, if one is believe the account in today's NY Post about the demand for units in the Boymelgreen building:
"It was crazy," says Dave Bell, one of those who waited on line the first afternoon and made a bid. "I actually didn't get [an apartment] at first ... I called my broker that night and told her I wanted it and to make an offer, but someone had already gotten it. But I decided to put my name on the waiting list." Three weeks later - after the first offers had fallen through - Bell's offer was accepted.
Then again, with one bedrooms available in the low-$300's, buyers were perhaps willing to compromise on design.
According to the same article, The Crest at 302 Second Street (right, top), sold eight (of 68) units in the first day on the market last weekend. Prices here start at $354,000 for a one bedroom. The Post includes a list of some other projects in the pipeline: The 49-unit Park Slope Court at 110 Fourth Avenue; 255 Fourth Ave., a 41-unit boutique Scarano Architects and Developers Group project at Carroll Street; The Argyle, 410 Fourth Avenue, at Seventh Street, a 12-story, 54-unit condo; and 500 Fourth Avenue, at 12th Street, a 137-unit, 12-story luxury building. And don't forget the Andres Escobar-designed boutique hotel (right, bottom) on the west side of the street. Even the Fifth Avenue Committee is now located on Fourth Avenue! Columbia Prof and New York history expert Kenneth Jackson has a theory: "What you're seeing is a move towards the water," he told The Post." "It used to be that people were always afraid to get too far down the hill. Now, it's, 'How can I get to work?'"
Fantastic 4th [NY Post]
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/1187
Comments
Many awful demorenos on the side streets.
The developers are correct in thinking
Brooklyn buyers aren't as discerning as
Manhattanites. If you build, they will rent has been correct. Most of the new construction won't last five years. The
Butler Street houses by Fourth are a shame. I pity anyone who bought those houses of ticky-tacky.
Posted by: Anonymous at May 17, 2007 11:26 AM
I hope the new huddled masses down on 4th stay down there in the traffic, and stay away from 5th and 7th. If you're not in my half million studio, 1 million floor-thru, or three million brownstone club, then don't you dare darken the door of my fav places.
Posted by: Anonymous at May 17, 2007 11:26 AM
Nice design would be great, but it's a luxury most of us can't afford. With prices this sky high, what else can I compromise on? I'll be stretching my housing budget to the max already just to afford a small and basic place. I rent in the Slope and like the neighborhood a lot (no knock on other neighborhoods; I'm sure there are lots of great ones, and I'm happy residents love 'em. I just would prefer to stay in the hood I've lived in for years). If the only thing I can afford locally is an ugly place on 4th, then that's what I'll end up having to buy. I'd rather compromise on design and stay local than move further out and get a nicer-looking place. Others, of course, are free to make the opposite choice.
Posted by: stacy at May 17, 2007 12:03 PM
I just recently bought and renovated one of those ugly houses on Butler between 4th and 5th and I am very happy with my purchase. The open layout and square footage are generous and are conducive to modern style renovation. I agree, when they built these things in the 80-ies, they should have put more efforts in archectual design and style, but one good thing is at the time, the neighborhood sucked and those buildings were government subsidised and it allowed people who would not normally own house to buy them. The beauty is the houses are mostly owned by minorities and yuppies pay high rent prices for those apartment because unlike older townhouses, these apartments have generous layouts and square footage and modern amenities like washer/dsryers and central air...
Posted by: Anonymous at May 17, 2007 12:05 PM
Well, I don't know about that, anon 11:26. Our first co-op, on a prime block, probably cost us less than a studio would now at the Novo - those huddled masses can be hiding out where you least expect them.
What I find to be a bit more serious, at least for some of us, is how quickly these developments and others of similar gargantuan size will bump up the enrollment at 321. (And before the gratuitous 321-bashing starts, yes, it is already overcrowded as is).
I didn't realize they were so close to completion already, and am wondering how many units are big enough to attract families who already have young children. If they are mostly 1-2 brdms, then there are probably a few more years to go before the schools are swamped.
Posted by: petunia at May 17, 2007 12:14 PM
Although the building is truly ugly, it is refreshing if not everything along 4th is priced super luxe. For those who live in it, however, would it have killed the developers to provide bigger windows; the views must be stunning on the upper floors.
Posted by: Anonymous at May 17, 2007 12:16 PM
"The developers are correct in thinking
Brooklyn buyers aren't as discerning as
Manhattanites." -
Oh, sure - all those wonderful design new buildings in Manhattan. Maybe in the highest end price range - as in highest price range in this boro also are nicer. Otherwise just as bland.
" If you build, they will rent has been correct. Most of the new construction won't last five years. "
another stupid comment - construction today is superior to what was built 20 years ago. You're tossing out unfounded comments when you know nothing about construction.
"The
Butler Street houses by Fourth are a shame. I pity anyone who bought those houses of ticky-tacky. " I pity all their $ appreciation and parking in front of house. Those poor folks.
Posted by: Anonymous at May 17, 2007 12:24 PM
They are really gross looking though, parking or not.
Posted by: Anonymous at May 17, 2007 12:30 PM
What about cancer rates as you approach the canal? Seems like no one brings that up anymore.
Posted by: Anonymous at May 17, 2007 12:42 PM
Complain all you want about these buildings but don't be surprised if in 2060 if Novo isn't landmarked; just like they are now doing to the Manhattan House (which started the White Brick craze in Manhattan).
Personally, While I wish they were nicer I welcome the development and future foot traffic on 4th Ave. In reality the developers should be landscaping the street as some attractive trees and and bushes on the median and sidewalks will do more to improve the look of 4th Ave then any fancy architect could ever do.
Posted by: David at May 17, 2007 12:52 PM
The school issue is a serious, one. PS 321 IS overcrowded (my children are students there). There's no way it can support all the developements springing up on and near fourth avenue. Homeowner's jaws will drop when the city is forced to rezone the area in a few years, and people who bought to be in the 321 catchment area are now zoned from some other school (which could be a great school, but not what they bargained for...).
Posted by: Anonymous at May 17, 2007 12:59 PM
The Novo is singularly unattractive and reminiscent of the early 80's. They should call it the Oldo.
Posted by: anon at May 17, 2007 1:10 PM
who knew David liked granola crunchy things such as 'attractive trees and and bushes'.
Posted by: Anonymous at May 17, 2007 1:16 PM
petunia...I was told by an agent that my building which is located on 5th between 5th and 6th is not zoned for p.s. 321. If thats the case then the NOVO building should be outside that zone as well.
Posted by: pharmd at May 17, 2007 1:22 PM
petunia and Anonymous 12:59:
If the 321 school population surges as a result of the increasing Park Slope population, it becomes the job of your elected officials to obtain the funds for expanding 321 or building a new school.
P.S. 230 in Kensington is an example of a good school that added an annex to accomodate the rising student population. Excellent gifted program at PS 230, by the way.
Posted by: no_slappz at May 17, 2007 1:22 PM
Why aren't the dynamic duo of Bill de Blabla and Marty (the tightrope) Markowitz making demands (Parking, Affordable Housing, Moving entrances, Community input, Community approval of residence, etc, etc,) of these Millionaire Developers.
How does the song go - "Who's zooming who?"
We all know know who's paying who?
Posted by: My2Cents at May 17, 2007 1:22 PM
i'm in 100% agreement with you david.
i don't think we could hope for glorious architecture on 4th avenue...it's just not that kinda strip, but i do welcome the new development and think some streetscaping could really win me over.
will make for a much nicer walk from my place near 7th to 3rd in a few years when the whole foods opens.
or till i get a trader joes' up here to the key food on 7th. whichever comes first.
Posted by: anon at May 17, 2007 1:23 PM
On the issue of overcrowding at 321, I foresee battles between the new arrivals living legitimately in the 321 district going to war with the falsifiers who have created virtual residences in the 321 zone.
Could get ugly.
Posted by: no_slappz at May 17, 2007 1:27 PM
i'd say it's even money whether or not the novo is falling apart by 2060.
Posted by: anon at May 17, 2007 1:44 PM
pharmd: the boundary for 321 runs down the center of 5th Street. If your building is out of the zone, then you must be on the south side. Novo is on the north side of 5th St.
Re: Overcrowding in 321 (and elsewhere)--why not get rid of the rule that allows you to stay in a school you've enrolled in when you move out of the zone? Brooklyn is full of families that briefly did a toe-tag in 321, then moved somewhere cheaper. (I don't live in 321 zone, by the way.)
Posted by: Anonymous at May 17, 2007 1:45 PM
1:45 ....my building is closer to 5th st. im next door to the perch and only 2 buildings away from the 5th street corner. my tenents were not zoned for 321 when they were young. Did they change the zoning recently?
Posted by: pharmd at May 17, 2007 2:08 PM
Screw architecture, people just want a safe, decent, clean place to live at a cost that will not suck the blood out of their arteries. Architectural beauty -whatever that is- is a stupid waste of time. Give me central air, double glazed windows, elevators, modern bathrooms and a modern efficient kitchen. You can keep the effin' Pritzer award. Modern architectural design is getting as convoluted and irrational as the late Victorian stuff, who needs it?
Posted by: anonymous at May 17, 2007 2:17 PM
Guys, I think this is the only affordable project in Brooklyn today. Would you rather pay 500,000 in williamsburg for a 1 bedroom. I think that the devlopers priced this one right
Posted by: Anonymous at May 17, 2007 2:23 PM
pharmd: Because you are between 5th and 6th Street (if you are next door to Perch), you are not zoned for 321. You are south of 5th Street. Only the north side of 5th Street is zoned 321. Make sense? The boundary goes straight down the middle of 5th St.
I think your confusion comes from the Post article, which incorrectly states that the Novo is between 5th and 6th Streets. It is not; it is between 4th and 5th Streets.
Posted by: Anonymous at May 17, 2007 2:31 PM
2:31 ....thanks for the clarification. on a different note, I hope the development on 4th would increase foot traffic on 5th ave. As an owner of commercial space on 5th it would be great for all buisnesses on the avenue.
Posted by: pharmd at May 17, 2007 2:41 PM
Typical, as opposed to unique, buildings look good in context. If we end up with a row of Novo Park Slopes from Pacific down to 60th Street, in 50 years the architecture snobs will want to landmark it.
Brownstones were the tract houses of their day, and those bowfront brick Calder houses were the tract houses of THEIR day. Most NYC schools were built on variations to standard plans. The fact that "architecture" and consultants are not expected is one reason we can no longer afford new ones.
Posted by: WT Economist at May 17, 2007 3:34 PM
PS321 Zoning
http://insideschools.org/fs/school_profile.php?id=450#zone
Posted by: Anonymous at May 17, 2007 4:10 PM
you never cease to amaze me with your stupidity, WT economist.
brownstones were built for the wealthy. they were not tract homes.
do some research before you spew out the garbage that most of your comments typically include.
Posted by: anon at May 17, 2007 4:23 PM
These development, albeit somewhat unattractive - hold huge potential for upgrading 4th avenue from a arterial slum into an actual residential boulevard.
All those complaining about the density - most of these developments are and will be at price points middle income new yorkers can afford. This is a great example of an up-zoning having a positive effect on the entire borough. Additionally, there will be increased demand in the Gowanus Canal region as more development goes up along 4th. That means toxic abatement and environmental cleanup benefiting all New Yorkers.
Posted by: Fez at May 17, 2007 4:57 PM
To an earlier poster's point, I live on the SOUTH side of 5th Street between 5th Avenue and 4th Avenue (address 32[x] 5th Street) and I'm zoned for 321.
See this official NY Dept. of education link and enter a 32x, with x = 0 to 8 and you'll see that those houses on the south side of 5th street between 5th Avenue and 4th Avenue are zoned 321.
http://maps.nycboe.net/
Posted by: Anonymous at May 17, 2007 5:38 PM
Sorry, 4:23, but you are wrong. Brownstone/rowhouses were the tract houses of their day. Most of them were built by developers, and sold after or during construction. Granted, some were marketed for the wealthy, but most of the smaller, less ornate, both inside and out, were specifically marketed to the middle class. Features we find very upmarket today, such as wood mouldings and fireplaces were necessary and/or construction norms of their day. Compare the features in a grand home, like some in Bklyn Hts, to the more modest homes in a place like Sunset Park, and it's easy to see that they were aiming for very different markets, and very different price points.
Posted by: Sterling Silver at May 17, 2007 6:57 PM
brownstones were definitely the tract houses of their day. The "McMansions" which the elite disparaged as being all the same and lacking in the romantic pictureque quality of towns and cities in Europe.
The brownstone itself was the worst possible building material, cheap and soft and therefore easy to carve, it was put up as thin veneer over brick walls and started to spall and fail very soon afer the housesere finished. Most of the brownstone used in speculatice rowhouse tracts was meant for railroad embakments and such, it was not architectural quality. We are still paying for those mistakes today.
Posted by: observer at May 17, 2007 7:54 PM
I object to describing Mr. Calder's WT houses as the tract houses of their day. They were built affordably for working people, but they were not built cheap or cheesy. The carpenters were fine craftsmen with amazing skills. The plasterers were scientists. There was attention to detail and aesthetics. Mr. Calder built in stages, as he could afford to. He did not rush anything or throw anything up just to make a quick buck. Sure, he was a bit of a blowhard, but he built thoughtful, useful houses. I've lived in Calder houses in Marine Park as well as WT, and I can attest to their quality. He built affordable for working people because he sensed there was a market there, he was right, he made a very nice living and some of the mosts stable neighborhoods in Brooklyn. So there.
Posted by: Anonymous at May 17, 2007 8:02 PM
(I object to describing Mr. Calder's WT houses as the tract houses of their day. They were built affordably for working people, but they were not built cheap or cheesy.)
Who says tract houses are cheap or cheesy? What makes them tract houses is they are built to standard plans with some modifications, using mass produced materials (sometimes arranged on site).
I live a Calder house myself. Unfortunately, mine was built in a peak housing boom year like this one. So I found that in the rear extension there was no cement on the basement floor, just sleepers on dirt, and in its ceiling the joists were 1" X 2" (of course back then they really were 1" by 2"). Guess he had to cut a few nickels to keep the price affordable.
Calder's houses have aged well, despite not being built for the wealthy like the Brownstones -- and not being made of glass and designed by a starchitect.
Posted by: WT Economist at May 18, 2007 8:25 AM
Years ago, when the cranes started going up on Fourth Ave. I had great hopes for it becoming the park avenue of Brooklyn. I envisioned flowering plandts down the center of the avenue. Fourth gets great light, it could have been nice.
Now what. Every year they will increase the hieight restrictions. No one will have views. I know views in Manhattan are sacred, by the time Brooklyn catches on there won't be anything to protest.
You have to complain before it is built,
You have to have your guarantees from the builder before he puts in his plans,
It seems that Brooklyn is stuck with non
new yorkers steering its fate.
It seems you complain about things but don't do anything. I will say if you
are not part of the solution, you are
part of the problem. What do you do for
your nabe. Think hard now, making money
on paper in a dream valuation doesn't count. Working at the coop market doesn't count. Anything, maybe you put
a window box out, and painted your door,
doesn't count. Anything?
Posted by: Anonymous at May 19, 2007 7:19 AM
Stop calling these old brownstones
mansions. Most of the houses were catalog
houses, that's why they look so alike.
there was the five thusand dollar model and the ten thousand dollar model. Now
their were a few mansions in Brooklyn, most have been made inot two or three buildings. I know you hate the term blue collar,it shows.
Posted by: Anonymous at May 19, 2007 7:27 AM
fuck you. you are just jealous. LOSERS!!!
Posted by: Anonymous at June 5, 2007 7:18 PM
I wrote that above
Posted by: David Bell at June 5, 2007 7:20 PM
Hi,
I have set up a group for contract holders at Crest Park Slope, 302 Second St. Please join to share information on closing and the development.
Email me for an invite Yunghi@gmail.com
Thanks
Y
Posted by: guest at August 29, 2007 10:21 AM
Fourth Ave has gotten F-UGLY!
Brown boring boxes on a crowded four lane highway strip along a toxic canal with no amenities and no views? No thanks. I'll stay in my Williamsburg, thank you. Fourth Ave is going to look exactly like those lifeless enormous avenues in Queens! Yuck.
Posted by: guest at September 16, 2007 2:44 AM
We're tearing up our garden floor entry hallway (two owners ago laid thin-set concrete over tile). We're taking the tile up, too, to get to the original sub-floor boards. There was a 1927 newspaper between the boards and the tile. New "tract" houses around Flatbush were listed at $10,000 and $11,500.
Posted by: guest at October 10, 2007 5:54 PM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.