Open House Picks

The 13st house looks nice but quite pricey 1.7K for less than 2000 SF and not even 2 baths! I guess the market is not slowing down . . .

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 1:45 PM

The one bathroom the 13th St place has is, well, just kind of bizarrely ugly. I'm not so sure this one's gonna fly off the shelf at that price.

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 1:54 PM

So who's Brownstone got shot up in Fort Green?

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 1:56 PM

Who's brownstone got shot up in Ft. Greene?

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 1:59 PM

Could the 13th St. address be any uglier?

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 2:04 PM

re: 13th Street, between 4/5th no less. and no thank you. 1.7 is ridiculous for this size and location.

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 2:07 PM

i think the clinton hill homes are all overpriced.

you can get stuff for those prices in prime north slope.

a far better area with better services, better access to transportation as well as to prospect park.

i know some people hate ps, but still...it makes no sense to spend 2.7 million on an up and coming neighborhood when you can get the same thing in a blue chip neighborhood.

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 2:20 PM

You underestimate how popular the South Slope has become.

They are opening a Union Market on 13 Street and 7th Avenue this fall.

That area has come to pass in terms of the opening of many restaurants, shops, now grocery, etc in a big way. Much moreso than many other areas.

Clinton Hill and Ft. Greene have yet to have any sortof quality grocer open, much less a Union Market...

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 2:22 PM

South Slope is definitely beginning to pop, but most of the housing stock is hideous crap. This townhouse looks pretty nice but it is still massively overpriced.

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 2:30 PM

Opinions: Will the Lafayette 3-family sell for 2.35?

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 2:33 PM

Once/if they begin running the F express, you will see the South Slope become much more like the North Slope in terms if pricing.

Good time to get in now before that happens, I'd think.

The access to the 2/3 and Q in the North Slope has a lot to do with the large premium in pricing over the South. The F change will help a great deal, I'd imagine.

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 2:35 PM

Finding decent brick townhouses in the South Slope is on a block to block basis. You don't want to be within a block of the Prospect Expressway or the Gowanus Expreesway (that annoying, constant hum). Also, the housing stock pretty much deteriorates south of 15th Street (lots of aluminum siding).

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 2:39 PM

The South isn't exactly up and coming, though it has yet to reach the North Slope prices. A house on 11th Street between 7th and 8th recently closd at over 3MM, so I wouldn't really call this an area that you want to "try to get into now." It has some room to grow, but it's more or less arrived people.

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 2:40 PM

No, one of the major selling points of the North Slope is the quality of the housing stock. Further away from the park, the stock degrades rapidly once you cross 9th Street. By the time you hit 15th street or so, it is a vast ocean of ugliness. The old townhouses are ugly and the new condos are just as bad.

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 2:41 PM

Here's the thing. Some people who live in Brooklyn and have for many years don't seem to keep up with Manhattan prices very much.

1.7 million for a 2000 square foot HOUSE with what looks like a really nice yard in Park Slope is becoming more and more desireble given that this is becoming more the norm of a nice 2 bedroom place in Manhattan.

I know it seems absurd, but it's true.

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 2:41 PM

Lots of these "ugly" houses you mention south of 9th are not ugly on the inside.

They might have siding or whatnot, but that's easily fixed. They are smaller, more modest, but in my opinion far from ugly.

They may not be as special as a brownstone, but for a city house and comparing it to other cities...are nice, sturdy, smaller homes that just need a little outside modification to bring them back to what they once looked like. I happen to love the look of the smaller wood frame or federal style homes.

They just need a little more tlc.

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 2:46 PM

I've lived a few blocks from the 13th St house for the past 4 years, and I can tell you that this is very overpriced.

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 2:48 PM

What is so ugly about the 13th Street house. Looks ok to me. Price is high but then everything on this site is.

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 2:50 PM

The South Slope listing looks like a pretty cute townhouse on a decent block (by area standards), but I think the price is a MAJOR stretch.

Could the broker shilling on this thread possibly be any more transparent? Sheesh.

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 2:50 PM

yeah, i'm curious why 1.7 million is SO high for this place, but 2.7 million for clinton hill place isn't?

i know it's a lot bigger but still...

almost 3 million dollars?

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 2:53 PM

The Clinton Hill price is also bugshit crazy.

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 2:55 PM

let me get this straight. everybody seems to think the houses past 15th street are awful, yet somehow they got downzoned to preserve them. i own one and it is ugly!! luckily this horrible exterior or mine and others will be preserved for years to come! and before the comments come how i should fix it, why should i? its a rental, with good rent and redoing the exterior would add little extra value. of course knocking it over and putting up something nicer would be a better idea, but south slope nimbys preserved uglyness.

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 2:56 PM

The Clinton Ave house looks like a beaut, but craazy price. No pics of other floors, so they must be a mess. I agree with 2:20--there are a few houses in prime PS currently on the market for that price or less, actually. And this CH house looks and sounds like it needs plenty of work.

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 2:58 PM

If you're gonna spend 2.7 million in clinton hill, why not spend a few hundred thousand more for this place with a vew of Grand Army Plaza...

http://www.corcoran.com/property/listing.aspx?Region=NYC&ListingID=1070981

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 2:59 PM

No one wants to talk about the shoot up hmmm, I thought those things only happened in Section 8 communities...

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 3:16 PM

3:16,
When was the shoot out?
Anyone gunna fork over 2.35 for a brick rowhouse on Lafayette?

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 3:21 PM

Go away 3:16. Nobody want to play with you.

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 3:24 PM

That house on Corcoran looks really nice, but it's listed at $3.35m so when you say "a few hundred thousand more, you mean $650k.

I haven't heard anything about that... does anyone know anything about it?

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 3:28 PM

3:16--when was this? Can you provide info/news links please?

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 3:30 PM

yeah, i guess i figure if someone is spending 2.7 million on a home that needs some fixing, i perhaps incorrectly assume that 650K for a perfectly restored looking house probably wouldn't be a stretch.

seems to me, once you are spending upwards of 2.5 million on a house, you're probably not gonna argue over another 650K. especially when it looks like you could move right in.

not to mention the location doesn't get much better on the 3.4 one, in my opinion.

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 3:33 PM

I agree with 3:33. It'll cost you that to fix it. And you're in "prime" PS vs. Clinton Hill. It's a no brainer, unless you absolutely love Clinton Hill and must be there.

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 3:37 PM

Assuming you can move right in, of course. The pics look terrific, but limited to sections of the house. Corcoran is notorious for showing the "nice" areas of a home and conveniently leaving out the sections that need work. I don't see the bedrooms here, except the master, no backyard, etc.

I do appreciate your premise though. For that kind of dough, one would hope it doesn't need much done.

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 3:44 PM

The facade of the brick house on Lafayette is not that pretty, in my opinion. Inside looks ok. That block is nice, I think.

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 3:46 PM

For that kind of dough, one would hope the PS house comes with a herd of wild unicorns in the backyard.

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 3:48 PM

3:48...this is the going rate for homes in this area. and they sell fast. this is a gorgeous home. you'd pay 8-10 million for something like this 20 minutes away in manhattan.

and to give some perspective, there was a house highlighted here a couple weeks ago...also on berkeley place...it was the for sale by owner that needed basically a total gutjob. it was on the market for 2.7 million and the sign has vanished.

people like this area and are willing to pay a premium for it.

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 3:56 PM

Re: Park Slope comparison--pishtosh! Clinton Hill is by now the equal, or the superior, of Park Slope. A grand house like this in Clinton Hill is more desirable than one in Park Slope at this point. You need only read the comments at this site to see that there has been a serious backlash against Park Slope, its homogeneity and its sense of entitlement.

Buying a home in Clinton Hill means that you don't need to live among smug, ethnocentric, entitled white yuppies, but rather down to earth, tolerant, regular, diversity-loving people, who have $3 million to spend on a house and send their children to private school.

Clinton Hill--our rich people are better! Because they live here!

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 3:58 PM

clinton hill is certainly great, but the lack of transportation and services alone make it not up to par with park slope.

paying nearly 3 million to live there over park slope makes no sense unless you base all of your real estate advice on anonymous comments about strollers on a blog.

if that's the case, by all means, spend away...

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 4:02 PM

Someone asked what happened...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/14/nyregion/14shooting.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 4:05 PM

already been discussed 4.05. See earlier posts.

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 4:07 PM

3:58
Thanks for a chuckle late on a Friday. I remember when that CH house was for sale years ago. I don't want to tell anyone what it went for. Hhhh...the good ol' days...AND, the house was for sale WITH the carriage houses at that time.

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 4:07 PM

3:56 -- you can't compare the house on Berkeley Place to the 11th Street listing. 1.7 is not the going rate for a under 2,000 SF house with a not so great interior (bathroom is hideous).

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 4:18 PM

3:56, are you Leslie Marshall or James Cornell?

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 4:19 PM

Oops, meant the house on 13th street...

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 4:23 PM

no, but i live in the area and toured the for sale by owner place.

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 4:24 PM

The house on Berkeley Place is almost twice as large as the 13th Street and has beautiful woodwork and interior details. Notwithstanding the disparity in locations, there's no comparison.

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 4:25 PM

Wow! There are some serious buyers scoping out all the info on them ol' PS houses! Is it all about the school district?

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 4:28 PM

Thanks 4:05. It had not been discussed in earlier posts, only mentioned, but no facts.

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 4:30 PM

NO comparison between Berkeley Place and any of these locations. Somebody needs to refill their reality pills.

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 4:33 PM

I think PS is particularly interesting for a lot of people because if things really do take a tumble in the national economy, it's a neighborhood that will hold it's own.

If you are out there now looking for a place to buy, I'd be much less worried plunking down 3.4 million on Berkeley than I would 2.7 million on Clinton.

Clinton is terrific, but it's just not quite as safe, financially speaking.

I'm slightly biased, though.

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 4:37 PM

I think the PS house is in a poor district, but I could be mistaken. Personally, I think Park Slope is on the way down and Clinton Hill is headed in the opposite direction.

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 4:39 PM

Do you, 4:37, think 2.35 is too much to ask for an 1856 3-family brick rowhouse on Lafayette? I'm trying to get a fix on this asking. Any guidance from anyone would be appreciated.

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 4:40 PM

Yup, Park Slope is WAY down. Must be because of all the flying pigs.

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 4:47 PM

I understand your analysis 4.37, but Clinton Ave. between DeKalb and Lafayette is a prime location and not a financial risk, hence the hefty asking price. You have all the restaurants within walking distance, the A/C (and the G if that's useful to you). One downside is it's a busier street that some of the side streets, though there are no buses... It's actually one of those places where you can get a copy of the original newspaper advertisement for its sale from the 19th century.

PS is great too. FG is firmly established now. Some edges of Clinton Hill represent value versus what you'd be able to buy in PS, Brooklyn Height, BoCoCa etc.

But then again, according to some, all of brownstone brooklyn will be worthless after AY... (sarcasm intended) ;-)

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 4:48 PM

4:48, you seem to know what's what. Do you think 2.35 is too much for the Lafayette house?

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 4:50 PM

I'm not familiar enough to comment on the Lafayette place, but I'm sure others here are. I think Ft. Greene is great, so if you love it enough, perhaps you might be able to swing a little off the asking. 2 million-ish sounds about right for a nice place in Ft. Greene to me...

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 4:50 PM

I am doing a survey on NY Metro neighborhoods/trends and would greatly appreciate if you would fill out my brief survey. All completed surveys will be entered to win a 20GB IPOD.

Fill out survey here:

Click Here to take survey

Thank you!!!

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 4:56 PM

"Clinton Ave. between DeKalb and Lafayette is a prime location and not a financial risk, hence the hefty asking price."

The price was recently lowered from 3.2 million, so it's not quite the sure thing you make it seem.

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 5:08 PM

Seeking opinions: how much of a risk is AY to the surrounding areas POST-completion?(i.e., aside from the immediately surrounding blocks - not those affected by construction)
What are thoughts on effect on values in North Slope, FG, CH, PH?

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 5:13 PM

I think each of the homes mentioned here will be impacted.

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 5:18 PM

13th Street in South Slope will be impacted by AY?

You just lost us.

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 5:27 PM

Missed that one: was talking about Berkely and Clinton Hill house.

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 5:31 PM

The Berkeley house is by 8th Avenue...not anywhere near AY.

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 5:34 PM

I live in FG. We will be impacted when and if. 13th Street downwind and on the south side of the AYBS will not really be impacted, let's face it. In fact, PS might have a lousy view of tall buildings, but in terms of downwind and shading, it may not be substantially impacted. Of course, when the wind comes from the north or northeast, there may be wind issues in the Slope. If this were Germany, there would be a wind study for one building 20 times more serious than the shoddy work done for this whole massive AY project. But hey, the prices for townhouses may still remain high despite the blemish unless the complex leads to urban decay. I certainly won't appreciate a effing arena right in the nabe. Aside from the traffic/parking/exhaust issues, I'm most concerned right now about them closing the Carlton Ave. bridge for an extended period. That is my main way to get from FG to PS. Plus, seeing as many drivers use Carlton as a shortcut from Flatbush to the BQE, there will be more intense traffic on Flatbush and possibly other roundabout routes once the Carlton bridge is closed off. Frankly, they really could keep it open. It's not as if the LIRR has to stop running and it's right there in the footprint of this mess.

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 5:38 PM

Sorry, I meant to write that 13th street is UPWIND from the proposed AY towers, not downwind. In FG we're downwind! Already on Hanson Place the wind sometimes will blow you over. But then, up the hill into Greene Avenue the wind almost is non-existent. Any AY towers are going to cause terrible wind turbulence in their wake!

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 5:46 PM

the wind is not an issue for most of us.

if that's your biggest concern, i think we'll be just fine.

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 5:50 PM

ooh, let me guess, 4:39pm lives in Clinton Hill. His was the most hilarious thing I've ever read on Brownstoner. People are so silly here.

I do not live in Park Slope. But I'm capable of being objective, therefore I'll say Park Slope is the best neighborhood in Brooklyn. It just is. We like where we are, and there's no way we can afford a whole house in Park Slope like we have in our own neighborhood. But if we did have $3 million, of course we'd be in Park Slope. I'm able to admit that, and still like my house and my neighborhood. Too bad 4:39pm can't do that.

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 6:02 PM

Wind can be one huge issue. Sure, there are other huge issues as well...
Just because wind is a one of my concerns (never said it was my "biggest concern), doesn't mean that "we'll be just fine." I've worked in urban planning and environmental impact. Trust me. The wind issue will be a big problem. AND there will be other huge problems as well. All added up, we won't be "just fine."

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 6:04 PM

ooh, let me guess, 6:02pm is a PS broker.

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 6:07 PM

Wrong, 6:07! I'm a writer.

Me being a PS broker kind of defeats the whole point I was trying to make, right? You are literally the most cynical person on the planet. Congrats.

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 6:10 PM

I beg to differ, 6:04.

While you may not LIKE AY, we will INDEED be JUST FINE.

People in Manhattan seem to be ok with the skyscrapers and issues like wind that go along with it.

If you mean you won't be fine emotionally, that's one thing. But to suggest the end of life as we know it is completeley absurd.

And useless to this rather nice conversation thus far.

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 6:12 PM

All neighborhoods in Brooklyn are great. They are unique and all have something to offer. That's what makes the borough such a great place to live.

It would be helpful, however if more people were able to be a little more rational and objective like 6:02. It IS possible to love where you live AND love other neighborhoods as well. It is also possible to realize that you live in an area that has more crime than other places, but still enjoy it nonetheless. It's when people come on and pretend Bed Stuy is some idyllic paradise that we're all missing out on, or that Park Slope has no other residents other than neurotic mothers, where things start to get hairy.

BTW, Did everyone hear that Apple is opening a store in Brooklyn? Not sure where yet, but it seems to be a sure thing...

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 6:21 PM

The primary post-construction negatives re: AY as I see them are:
- increased foot, vehicular and subway traffic, parking issues (which are already brutal)
- effect on the cityscape (views, shadows, etc.)
- crowding of schools

I would think that AY may add some appeal to the neighborhood by supporting:
- new retail/services/restaurants
- development of previously uninspiring sections of Flatbush/Atlantic
- pressure to improve/expand schools

Agree?/Disagree?

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 6:26 PM

Totally Agree,

All those folks moving into high price AY condos will need to educate their kids. Public schools in the area may see a surge and requisite demand for more capacity and standards. Of course many will go to private schools, but even that will put pressure on Public schools to compete.

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 6:31 PM

"that will put pressure on Public schools to compete"

What does that even mean?

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 6:37 PM

Here's another house on 13th street that is MUCH nicer and perhaps worth the $1.7 mil:

http://tinyurl.com/36nyxd

Better location than the one Mr. Brownstoner picked too.

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 6:54 PM

Unfortunately...the idea that schools compete and thus improve does not happen in the real world of the NYCPSS. And...for all these new kids, where are the schools being built? How are we going to bring in all the needed water? Are the mains being enlarged all the way up to the source? What about sewage and storm runoff? Right now, most of the water shed during storms runs right into the ground.
To 6:12. No, we will not all be just fine. The shadows from the proposed buildings will cut off our sunlight all winter long when the sun is low.
Sure, people live among skyscrapers in NYC but the mix is sometimes different. With AY, we'll have a WALL of bldgs. with basically a 'shag carpet' of buildings upwind and down wind. There are places in Manhattan that already have unreal wind conditions. Sorry if you haven't been around enough. I had a friend who went horizontal holding onto the fence of St. Paul's Chapel. Friends living in the cluster of nightmare south of Lincoln Center by the TW ex-Coliseum Towers among the other high rises...I won't tell you. I was there once in the winter and the wind chill was beyond belief. As I mentioned above, walking up Hanson Place with the WSB, the Ratner-Nothing and a couple of other bldgs which form the first big barrier to wind coming up from the south, the wind will blow you over sometimes even though you'll get up the hill further into FG and feel almost nothing!
There may be some pos. impacts if the mess is pushed through but there will be many negative ones as well. As I mentioned above, the environmental impact study is a joke...it's like having a child's menu at a 4-star restaurant.

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 7:19 PM

Speaking of schools... the Berkeley Pl brownstone mentioned above isn't in the PS 321 district but the PS 282 district, from what I can tell.

How does PS 282 compare to 321? What are other options?

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 7:23 PM

I can't WAIT for AY!!!

bring on the wall of buildings!!!

oh and ps. 282 is considered quite good, i do believe.

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 7:39 PM

interesting...

http://www.newyorkbusiness.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070914/FREE/70914006/1059

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 7:40 PM

actually, entirely predictable.

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 7:57 PM

new york is windy!

my god.

i've heard it all now.

people in the largest city in the country complaining about tall buildings causing too much wind!

next, it's gonna be...my garden dried up because AY interfered with cloud formation and we have no more rain!!!

btw, less sunlight because of AY will be great for lowered skin cancer rates in ft. greene. huge plus for the above house!

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 8:18 PM

Irving place is a total bargain compared to that south slope listing. I'd think the Atlantic Yards would help its school situation, and it looks charming and larger. The south slope brick townhouses I've seen are laughably small, they're like Philadelphia trinities. There's no reason they should be over a million, let alone well over a million.

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 8:19 PM

Even in Center City Philly some of those said trinities (which btw are more like 1000sf tops) cost 500-700K and near Rittenhouse, even more. I know, I went to look at a few a couple years ago when I thought about relocating.

But in the end Philly is....well Philly.

I don't know what this S. Slope place is like inside but 2000sf is still a pretty decent size, even for a family of 4.

For a couple, it's ginormous.

And people on a certain island a few train stops away would find this house in Park Slope a bargain compared to what they're paying now. It's all relative.

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 8:26 PM

The bottom line is that there are very few houses in PS under 2m, this house will sell close to asking. It is also in a far better school district than the berkeley place house which is accross the street from ps282, the center slope school that nobody in PS will send their kids too.

Posted by: guest at September 15, 2007 8:44 AM

Congratulations- an entire thread with differing opinions and no name calling! Progress!

Posted by: guest at September 15, 2007 10:37 AM

Shut up jerk.

Posted by: guest at September 15, 2007 10:48 AM

Sigh.

Posted by: guest at September 15, 2007 11:39 AM

I look at that Clinton Avenue house, and even with the lack of photos, it doesn't seem overpriced to me. Of course, you have to love historic details, but that walnut trim is fabulous. It's set up as an owners' triplex, a big 1 br and a small 2 br. Sounds like you could bring in 3.5k a month in rents, or go nuts and have a huge place for a big family. One poster mentioned Manhattan prices, and yes, this would be 8-10 mil. there.

Posted by: guest at September 15, 2007 1:39 PM

How much do these brokers advertise on the web to sell this crap?

Posted by: guest at September 15, 2007 1:51 PM

In other words, why would the 13th St. house be a "pick"? I don't get it.

Posted by: guest at September 15, 2007 2:07 PM

Someone said:

"It is also in a far better school district than the berkeley place house which is accross the street from ps282, the center slope school that nobody in PS will send their kids too."

Yes it's sad that people are so reluctant to send their kids to PS 282, when it really is a good school and we ourselves would give anything to have it in OUR neighborhood! The only reason they turn their noses up at it, is simply because PS 321 exists so nearby.

Everything will change with the schools in Park Slope. PS 321 lines are going to get redrawn, once 4th Avenue condos currently inside PS 321 district glut the school with so many children. Then PS 282 will become the next PS 321 because AY residents and other big luxury condos in North Slope like The Vermeil will have to send their children there. Having spent all their money on real estate, with nothing left to pay for private schools. In the end, anybody who is buying real estate based on where the school districts are now, when their child (many times yet to be born) won't start school until years from now, is not being smart.

Posted by: guest at September 15, 2007 2:16 PM

Another smarmy broker. Thanks

Posted by: guest at September 15, 2007 2:22 PM

Another cynical one, at 2:22pm!

I am NOT a broker.

You really think a broker would tell people NOT to pay more money for certain school districts? Your assumption makes no sense at all. Doesn't add up. Brokers LOVE the hysteria over PS 321. They totally milk it.

It comes down to this. Everytime anybody says anything positive about Park Slope, the bitter types have a deep need to believe it's a broker. If you can't afford Park Slope, buy somewhere else! We did. Get over it.

Posted by: guest at September 15, 2007 2:40 PM

Jesus 1:39, don't you have any open houses to host?

2:16 - I have to agree. There's absolutely no capacity at 321 from what I understand, and that's before all the 4th avenue condobreeders start spawning. The mystery to me is what forces are necessary to improve schools in the city and in specific neighborhoods? In other words, will schools naturally evolve with the neighborhood, or will endless political/civic/other interference, griping and lobbying be required (in which case, it could take a while).

Posted by: guest at September 15, 2007 2:41 PM

One that that makes schools improve is parents taking the chance and putting their kids in the schools, and then being very active in the school.

Somebody posted a great story of a school, was it in Carroll Gardens? Where something like a dozen parents decided together to put their children in the school, and get active, and it worked. It became a good school. Apparently, school administrators say it does take a good amount of parents. Like a dozen or more. But if your neighborhood has an active assocation, it's something you could try. I'm sure it's all about perfect timing too, coinciding with the school getting a great new principal, and a surge of new residents in the area, stuff like that. Such a thing might not work at any given time. Also there's usually too much panic about schools, for parents to take chances like that. I don't blame them, it would be tough.

Posted by: guest at September 15, 2007 2:52 PM

most people moving into the new condos on 4th avenue are single.

sorry to be the lone voice of reason here, but very few families have bought at the crest, novo, etc.

your "pressure" on ps 321 is non-existent.

it is crowded as it is, but most in the neighborhood know that ps 282 is reaching a level in quality nearly equal to that of 321.

park slope has two very good schools. some of the best in the city. it's another reason why people like to hate it so much. lots of new yorkers are cynical and like to hate things they can or do not have.

it's the nature of human beings here, i suppose.

Posted by: guest at September 15, 2007 3:34 PM

3:34 - I'm not taking sides. Neither a park slope cheerleader nor hater here.

Now that that's out of the way. My understanding from people who live in Park Slope is that 321 is overcrowded (teaching in trailers, for instance?). That's not a judgment on the neighborhood, which is great. It's merely a reality based on its popularity and a trend that I would expect to increase rather than abate, particularly with folks moving into the 4th avenue condos. I'm not sure how you come up with the comment that most of the people moving into the condos are single. That doesn't sound like a very credible or supportable comment (how would you know?), but I think it may be wishful thinking on your part or some effort to rationalize that 321 won't suffer.

In any event, I'd be curious to hear what parents' experiences have been at both 321 and 282 recently.

Posted by: guest at September 15, 2007 3:43 PM

i'm fully aware 321 is crowded. i already said so.

but i do know from 2 broker friends that nearly all of the contracts put in on the two bigger 4th avenue condo projects, that there are very few families.

i went to what was considered one of the best public high schools in the country.

we had class in trailers, and i thought i had a good education and it continues to be a blue ribbon school years later.

if the crowding gets unbearable, they will do something.

but for now, having classes taught in trailers is just that.

a school is as good as it's teachers, principal, students and their parents. the physical structure really is not what matters most.

having the opportunity to send your kids to a quality school like 321 or 282 matters a lot in housing prices...especially when most of the rest of the city is pretty mediocre (at best) in terms of schools.

it's no different in the burbs.

i happen to really love park slope and realize that a lot of people don't care for it at all either.

i just wish people could be a little more objective about it all.

some of the people here are nuts, no doubt...but the physical beauty of the architecture, the park, the eco-friendly attitude, all of the great shops and restaurants while being 20 minutes from manhattan really makes up for a stroller here or there or a mom showing her rack at two boots. i couldn't love it any more....faults and all.

Posted by: guest at September 15, 2007 3:54 PM

Laughable. "My broker friend says only single people are moving in." Don't you mean my co-worker, not friend?

Posted by: guest at September 15, 2007 4:06 PM

nope, meant friend.

again. anyone who likes park slope is not necessarily a broker.

do you not think those of us who LIVE here wouldn't love it?

i don't assume anyone who loves ft. greene or carrol gardens or clinton hill are brokers. i think they are homeowners who love their new neighborhoods.

your comment suggests you HOPE the schools will suffer from increased kids in the neighborhood, in which case you are the most cynical poster of the thread.

Posted by: guest at September 15, 2007 4:12 PM

4:12 - 3:43 here. I am not 4:06, nor do I hope the schools suffer. I'm actually looking to buy, potentially in Park Slope, which is why I ask.

Sounds like you're a little emotional and beaten down by the anti-slope rants. What I am looking for is some objective feedback on the schools, not a plug from the PS chamber of commerce.

Posted by: guest at September 15, 2007 5:37 PM

RE: 321 overcrowding.

Rumors have circulated that 321 will be re-drawing their boundary lines in the near future; with 4th ave being exculded.

If anything the 4th ave condos will put pressure on 282 which is already becoming more and more crowded.

Posted by: guest at September 15, 2007 6:52 PM

i believe the park slope message boards have a ton of info on schools in the neighborhood...

www.dailyslope.com

Posted by: guest at September 15, 2007 7:36 PM

That house on 13th will be worth jack shit once AY gets built. I't almost right next door!

Posted by: guest at September 15, 2007 8:12 PM

Thats obviously a joke 8:12, right?

Posted by: guest at September 15, 2007 8:19 PM

I am currently a Manhattanite (East Village, to be specific) and looking for my first home in Brooklyn. Not surprisingly, the motivation is more space for my wife, daughter and I. I love the passion from all the folks on this blog and this thread was particularly interesting, including the rants, since we've been looking primarily in Park Slope.

Any additional perspective (schools, safety, stuff to do) would greatly be appreciated.

Thanks for showing us the ropes.

Posted by: guest at September 15, 2007 9:28 PM

9:28 Park Slope is great for a family, but is is getting really expensive (for just that reason). People may tell you different, but a lot of the reason PS gets dumped on is jealousy. It's safe, close to the park and subways, has amenities out the wazoo and goood schools. And yes, a lot of gosh damned bugaboos. But if you're moving from Manhattan, it will seem like a middle class commune...in a good way.

Posted by: guest at September 15, 2007 9:57 PM

agree that manhattanites feel most welcome in park slope than probably most other brooklyn nabes.

it's such a nice place to live, sometimes you wonder what the heck you were ever doing in manhattan.

that's how i feel anyway.

you couldn't pay me to go back.

Posted by: guest at September 15, 2007 11:51 PM

You guys should really avoid commenting on the schools if you don't have first hand information. 321 is overcrowded but it is an excellent school, they will deal with it.
282 is not almost as good as 321, far from it. it is one of the best schools in it's district (sadly enough) but it is far away from being as good as 321. I moved here 5 years ago hoping things at the school would change, but they have not. The principal does not want to reach out to the neighborhood and does not want to work with parents. she did not even inform parents that the new artabic schoool was to open on the premises. There is a group of parents getting together (they formed a blog) but I don't see things changing until the principal is removed. Another fact is that the school is NOT overcrowded as one poster stated above, they have tons of extra room. If you are looking at schools in PS, look elsewhere if you want guarantees, and there are other good schools (like 39)
hope this helps
(signed, a parent of 2 that has researched and been involved in the schools)

Posted by: guest at September 16, 2007 9:01 AM

PS 282 is located in District 13 which pretty much rules out the more "coveted" D15 middle schools such as MS 51, Upper Carroll (or whatever it is called now), etc. The private schools do have a finite amount of space and acceptance is not automatic. Just because you can afford the tuition does not mean your kid will make the cut.
Our local politicians need to focus not only on elementary schools but also new middle schools - and not "niche" middle schools.

Posted by: guest at September 16, 2007 9:02 AM

9:01 - Thanks for the feedback. That's very helpful. I'd heard some similar comments.

Do you have the web address for the parents' blog?

Posted by: guest at September 16, 2007 9:04 AM

Why is anyone concerned about schools?

From reading these posts, it appears that most of these people didn't go to school or skipped English class.

Posted by: guest at September 16, 2007 9:33 AM

This is outstanding feedback, thanks everybody. I'd love to see the parents blog as well.

Some additional questions: What are the nicest areas in the slope to live? How about the most affordable? We are considering splitting a two-family brownstone with another family. Do you think these homes selling for $2-3 million will continue to appreciate in value or are we at the peek of the market?

Posted by: guest at September 16, 2007 9:35 AM

What real estate does is a crapshoot price wise and also depends how long you plan to live there barring unforseen disasters. Buy something you can comfortably afford and maintain because if you end up underwater on a mortgage and endlessly paying for repairs/maintenance you will be miserable. If you are considering going in with another family then make sure you get a very good lawyer.

Posted by: guest at September 16, 2007 10:21 AM

Good advice!

Posted by: guest at September 16, 2007 11:21 AM

$1.7ml for 13th St. 4/5th is a joke. Again, how is this a "pick"?

Posted by: guest at September 16, 2007 1:08 PM

everyone said the same thing about s. elliot for 3.7 million last week and that looks sold...

people like park slope a lot. maybe they'll take 1.5 and call it a day.

Posted by: guest at September 16, 2007 1:50 PM

13th street will be worth about $200k once AY gets built.

Posted by: guest at September 16, 2007 3:32 PM

What is funny when it comes to talking about schools is people scrambling to get into the 3 of 4 "good" public schools in the slope or vicinity, but the fact is on a 1st world nation basis the schools are crap.

They are overcrowded, have to make do with aging facilities and tiny harsh playgrounds and hit-and-miss teaching staff, where are the swimming pools and playing fields? where are the advanced computer labs and science buildings and amazing school excursions?

Even new jersey, which is nothing much compared to schools in many parts of europe or australia, has FAR better schools.

So convince yourselves that $2.5m brownstone is worth the extra $1m for the "good school" if you like... The real reason you're sticking with the slope or boerum hill is for your own entertainment, not for your kids education ...

Posted by: guest at September 16, 2007 4:11 PM

I'll take a "bad" public school in Brooklyn over a good one in suburbia any day. Those schools in the burbs may have nice facilities, but they produce drones. Growing up in NYC is an education all its own.

Posted by: guest at September 16, 2007 4:29 PM

It would be nice if these threads would stick to the houses being discussed.

Regarding 338 Clinton Avenue: I just returned from the open house. It is a complete and total mess inside. Except for the nice wood detailing on the parlor level and some on the 2nd floor, including a beautiful mantle, it is a total wreck. Very dark inside, and it's been chopped up into many apartments. There was no electricity on the garden level, so it has to be viewed in the dark. It needs a TOTAL and absolute gut renovation, and then some. Small and dark yard. I'd say 1 million minimum to get it in livable shape, not even high end. I can't believe this house is being sold as is for 2.7. Total insanity.

Posted by: guest at September 16, 2007 4:54 PM

I visited 15 Irving Place today during the open house. I think the asking price is WAY HIGH in light of the SERIOUS PROBLEM the structure poses, especially the north wall abutting the new condo building, which, by appearance, trespasses the property line. Neither the broker nor the owner pointed out the basin that has resulted, but then it's not easy to see on a first passthrough: You can see it if you look through the side window by the kitchen on the first floor. The overbuilding by the condo developer has created a three-story well; water (such as the flood we had last month that knocked out the subways) has nowhere to go but into the basement wall at 15 Irving Place. Remedy here is not simple: it will involve suing the developer, who is known to be a real bastard. Time, money, emotion and lots of each, most likely. I had to ask to go into the basement. There is black mold on the north wall and mold on the floor; the boiler is busted, as well. The broker was unable to say what the C of O is for 15 Irving. I would say that's another big deal...and the sanitation hazard next door is of years' standing, so what control would a new owner have, if the owner at 15 Irving, who's lived on the block for 20 years, has been unable to bring the City to shut it down and/or force a sale? The house has plenty of potential, but it will take probably $300-400,000 to bring it out--and who knows how many months'or years' fighting the nasty developer on the one side, and the City on the other (and within 15 Irving). You do the math: Clearly neither the owner nor his broker have.

Posted by: guest at September 16, 2007 5:01 PM

the threads have been on topic, in fact.

your post further enhances the reason why it would make more sense to me to spend 2.7 million on a place in park slope...with better schools, better transportation and better services, you'd be rather nuts to spend that kindof money in clinton hill....no matter how nice the woodwork.

all of these discussions are pertinent to the houses at hand.

btw, i believe brownstones are worth what they get based on the sheer beauty of the architecture and relative scarcity. saying you're paying a million more for a good school is your opinion. you could pay 5 million more, live in a similar house in manhattan and have an even crappier school....

Posted by: guest at September 16, 2007 5:02 PM

I absolutely agree with 4:29. They are getting important life lessons and will be able (hopefully) to get along with people from all walks of life.

Posted by: guest at September 16, 2007 5:03 PM

It's taking a lot of people some time to get adjusted to the fact that the world is moving towards urbanism. Say what you want about being "green" but this is how we are going to...and how we are going to HAVE to live in the coming decades.

We can't continue building in the burbs for eternity.

The cities are the wave of the future. We are just now on the cusp of their rebirth. More and more people around the world are gravitating back to the urban areas, even those in suburbia are wanting more "main street" feelings.

The suburbs are a dying breed. A lot of people would indeed choose to raise their children in such a society. Here in Brooklyn, we are seeing this take shape quite fervently.

I think it's quite exciting, and after being raised in suburbia, I look forward to raising my children in a city so that they are exposed to all life has to offer...not a simple-minded theory that some grass and a pool are what are going to produce youth that will be able to take charge of this ever diversifying and complicated world we now live in.

Posted by: guest at September 16, 2007 5:11 PM

Today is the kinda day that makes Brooklyn such an incredible place to live.

Especially today. The trees, the leaves, the way the sun reflects off the buildings. We've got a lot to be proud of.

Posted by: guest at September 16, 2007 5:42 PM

4:29pm said:

"Those schools in the burbs may have nice facilities, but they produce drones. Growing up in NYC is an education all its own."

Oh please! Like any of the kids in Park Slope are out hanging in the 'hood getting a worldly, urban "education". They are completely totally coddled and protected. They ARE in the suburbs. "Suburban" is an attitude, not a place. There are just as many suburban families in Brooklyn as there are anywhere else. As for someone's point that none of the public schools in NYC are truly good on a 1st world level, that's exactly right. I hope to send my child abroad for high school.

Posted by: guest at September 16, 2007 6:35 PM

Someone said:

"most people moving into the new condos on 4th avenue are single."

Really? When half the units in the Novo development are 2BR and 3BR? They might be single NOW, but not for long. Nobody buys a 3BR if they're not planning on having a child soon. When they could buy a 1BR co-op located on leafy North Slope brownstone blocks closer to cool restaurants and shops that young singles like to go to. These are all people who are planning on families that are buying into Novo.

Posted by: guest at September 16, 2007 6:46 PM

doesn't matter.

4th avenue will eventually be zoned out of the 321 district.

Posted by: guest at September 16, 2007 7:19 PM

Some people don't LIKE Park Slope. I don't. There's a huge hill and a bunch of rather bland stores on 7th and 5th avenues. It's overcrowded. There are far more interesting parts of Brooklyn that have the same amenities. What Park Slope does have is a lot of brownstone/Victorian architecture. And a park. That's about it.

Actually, PLG on the other side of the park is preferable, from a train/geography perspective. Amenities and safety are another story.

Shame about the Clinton Hill house. I still think it's the best pick though.

Posted by: guest at September 16, 2007 8:18 PM

People can debate forever about public elementary K-5 schools in Brooklyn, but I always always end up at this question:

Why pay $1 million more for a house in PS 321 or PS-younameit when you can send your child to the best private school in NYC for 5 years for $100,000?

Private schools are always better than even the best public school. And now that PS 321 is so full of rich kids, you might actually find more economic diversity at certain private schools who make an effort to offer scholarships to top performing low income kids. Put that extra million dollars towards college tuition instead. It'll cost $500,000 per kid for 4 years' ivy league tuition by the time this generation enters college.

Posted by: guest at September 16, 2007 8:58 PM

You're right, 8:58.

The price premium paid to live in Park Slope probably doesn't make for a financial bargain when it comes to schools.

This just proves exactly how much people like Park Slope and want to live there.

Most people moving here come from Manhattan anyway. They don't think of it as paying a million more dollars to live in Park Slope. They look at it as paying a whole lot LESS to live in a much bigger space in many instances. Most moving to Park Slope are not from cheaper areas in Brooklyn, so your logic doesn't really play much into reality.

Despite the hatred by some of Park Slope, a ton of it has jealousy written all over it. Someone just denounced the neighborhood for having crappy stores.

Well they may not be all up to your standards, but at least we HAVE stores. Some of these other, nearly equally expensive neighborhoods have little to no services...stores, restaurants, banks and grocery stores. Part of the great thing about city life is being able to live a couple blocks away from Union Market, any bank, post office, library, park, many fine restaurants, shops if I need some shoes, etc.

Otherwise, I'd buy a car and move to the burbs.

Posted by: guest at September 16, 2007 9:10 PM

I also went to the 60 St. Mark's Avenue house listed by BP (http://brooklynproperties.com/house160.htm).

The positives: nicely configured as a 1-family, bright, some original moldings and details remain, nice garden-level floor, very well maintained. Felt warm and cozy. Location pretty good although close to busy Flatbush.

Negatives: the front door kind of sticks out as not exactly fitting in (obviously not original); they built a sunroom that eats up a good chunk of the yard; new treads on the staircases which means they don't creak (good) but are not original and look kind of cheap (bad).

In my opinion the biggest negative for this house was the fact that the owners instructed the brokers to have PEOPLE TAKE THEIR SHOES OFF for the OPEN HOUSE! I find this completely ridiculous, arrogant, and entitled. How anyone thinks they can get away with holding an OPEN HOUSE and making prospective buyers leave their shoes at the door is beyond me. What a sense of entitlement. There was no carpeting in the house (which still wouldn't excuse it), so I find it hard to fathom that they had the gall to ask that of potential buyers. Suck it up and deal with some "dirt" if you actually want to sell your house. Even if I loved the house and wanted it, out of principle I wouldn't make an offer because of this.

Posted by: guest at September 16, 2007 10:15 PM

We have all that in Williamsburg/Greenpoint, admittedly without the nice park. On the other hand, it's much nicer than living on 4th avenue and thinking you're in Park Slope.

I think the biggest thing PS has going for it at this point is it's a brand name for familystyle brownstone Brooklyn. I'm not saying other parts of Brooklyn aren't marketed to a different crowd, (cough, Williamsburg), but Park Slope has a been hyped beyond all belief and reason as "the" place to have your little low-impact urban lifestyle. Except, again, it's not that nice. There's this really big hill. Parking is terrible. Schools are crowded. I honestly think Williamsburg and Greenpoint have better options.

Posted by: guest at September 16, 2007 10:18 PM

Williamsburg and Greenpoint are for a totally different crowd than Park Slope. It's like apples and oranges, really.

Not too many traditional brownstones in those areas either, so not completely relevant, either.

There's no difference to living off the lorimer or graham stop as there is living near 4th.

Posted by: guest at September 16, 2007 10:32 PM

There are really nice stores off both the Lorimer and Graham Ave stops, as well as a highly-rated and not crowded elementary school. 4th Ave has none of that. And, there's not an enormous hill. And I don't think people buying frame houses on the South Slope can snipe about the housing stock in Williamsburg.

Posted by: guest at September 16, 2007 10:37 PM

Did anyone go to open house for the abomination that is 467 14th Street, listed by Corcoran for the whopping price of $3.195 million? From the pictures, it looks like a McMansion on the inside--really tacky.
http://corcoran.com/property/listing.aspx?Region=NYC&ListingID=1070675&ohDat=9/16/2007%2012:00:00%20AM;

Posted by: guest at September 16, 2007 10:41 PM

what is all this crap about a hill in Park Slope. Yes, there is a hill. It's not a savage mountain or something that you can get trapped on in a whiteout and have to eat your buddy to survive. There are also pigeons. And air.

Another thing that's better about PS than Greenpoint is that living there won't give you cancer.

Posted by: guest at September 16, 2007 11:44 PM

What enormous hill in Park Slope are you talking about? Of course there is a slope, hence the name of the neighborhood. But it's a rather gradual incline, not Mount Everest.

Posted by: guest at September 16, 2007 11:53 PM

UP THE ASS!

Posted by: guest at September 16, 2007 11:57 PM

Not sure what is going on when people are trying to compare Williamsburg or Greenpoint to Park Slope.

I don't live in PS, but in terms of quality housing stock, shopping, schools, access to parks, transportation etc there is no comparison. Only Brooklyn Heights, Cobble Hill and perhaps Fort Greene are in a similar league. I don't live in any of these areas, but let's be realistic.

Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 12:17 AM

i can see some people being attracted to williamsburg. it's for those that wish they could afford manhattan.

park slope and these other areas in brownstone brooklyn are primarily for those that really love brooklyn. i find most in these neighborhoods prefer brooklyn over manhattan. i do not find the same about those that live in williamsburg. they wish they lived on the lower east side, but moved there because they had to.

to me, there is absolutely nothing appealing about williamsburg.

greenpoint is about 20th on my list of neighborhoods i'd like to live in the new york city area. right below astoria.

and i love astoria.

doesn't matter since none of the listings above were in connection to williamsburg, so i'm not quite sure what the motives behind the bburg booster are.

just walked up the "hill" from 5th avenue to 8th. i need a nap.

Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 12:29 AM

Cobble Hill is truly beautiful and would be amazing if it were near the park.

Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 12:30 AM

billyburg is for poseurs and jackoffs

Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 12:36 AM

blah, blah, blah, uhm, blah, blah,blah

Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 7:07 AM

Park Slope where people get raped in its park. The blue chip neighborhood that had repeated black panther riots throughout the sixties and seventies. Oh yes, what a fair and humble pastoral neighborhood it is. WHere one needs to travel twenty minutes minimum to the lowest part of Manhattan. Where condos are built atop of funeral pyres. It is a lovely place and I certainly feel my money is so safe there!

Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 7:47 AM

^ seriously who wants to go anywhere in upper Manhattan?

LIVE BELOW 14th ST!!!!!!!!!!!

punx fr life!

Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 8:08 AM

7:47--

the victim came from Park Slope. The rapist came from a neighborhood where I'd guess property values are not exactly through the roof (i.e. where you live). We call that an area "in transition"...

Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 8:13 AM

"the abomination that is 467 14th Street"

Yikes, it's Frankenhouse! It is indeed "TRULY LIKE YOU'VE NEVER SEEN BEFORE!" but not in a good way. Tear it down and try again.

Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 9:30 AM

7:47,

wow. jealous, much?

don't think i've read a more disturbing or bitter post on here lately.

Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 10:53 AM

9/16 at 9:10pm - I don't hate Park Slope. Where did you get that?

You didn't counter my argument very well at all.

Park Slope is a great place to live. But for those shopping for a house or anything with 3,000+ square feet of living space, most people don't have a whole $1-2 million MORE to spend on it, just to be inside a certain school district. That's all I was saying. I think they can certainly justify spending $100,000-200,000 more for a great school district. Absolutely. But $1-2 million? When for K-5 you can spend *only* $100,000 and send your child to the best private school in all of NYC for those 5 years?

This has nothing to do with a debate over Park Slope as a great place to live. Of course it is. Those who say it isn't are bitter weirdos. BUT, for those in Park Slope who blithely throw out statements like "oh it's totally worth spending the extra million dollars" that shows a disturbing disconnect with reality. If someone has budgeted a million dollars to buy a house, they aren't going to easily just run out and buy a 2 million dollar house. Even worse, that attitude basically exhibits the belief those who are not wealthy shouldn't be allowed to be a parent. THAT's truly disturbing.

Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 11:43 AM

blah, blah, uhm, blah, blah, blah blah???

Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 11:53 AM

Re Laffayette House -- Check out Sunday Times. Another house on Lafayette, same block or very close sold over asking at 2.025 in one week on market.

Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 12:40 PM

The Lafayette house is high at 2.35. Maybe some couples will get into a competition offering less and finally push the final to about 2.2, no? I wonder. Ultimately, for the right single or couple, it is turn key which is a help...but it has some issues and needs freshing up at least and for a family of three, the owner duplex would need some real reconfiguring. Rehab, your comments are good.

Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 7:27 PM

"Park Slope where people get raped in its park."

Dude, you have serious issues. You could have just said you don't care for the neighborhood.

Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 9:59 PM

"Park Slope where people get raped in its park."

It's not the Park Slope side where the rapists come from.

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 1:13 PM