« Friday Blogwrap Monday Events »
October 1, 2007
Monday Links
Bye-Bye, Burg. Photo by gogo et chunk.
Celebs and Brooklyn's Fragile Celeb Eco-System [NY Times]
Foreclosure Pickings Are Plentiful, but Not Easy [NY Times]
Six Fingers of Blame in the Mortgage Mess [NY Times]
Stocks Soar Back Near Summer Highs [NY Times]
Getting Barred From Public Housing [NY Times]
Want a Bargain? Head to Flatbush. [NY Times]
Trouble Keeps Building for Scarano [NY Post]
Ray Kelly Decries Anti-Semitic Attacks [NY Sun]
Colleges Look to Text Systems [NY Daily News]
Pols Blast Con Ed 'Chutzpah' [AM New York]
Video: Dondi Does Dumbo [Gowanus Lounge]
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/2426
Comments
that times piece about celebs is possibly the stupidest piece if journalism i have ever read. it's like a complete fishing expedition - WHO CARES???? the style section has officially crossed over and become US magazine.
Posted by: guest at October 1, 2007 8:12 AM
agreed, that times piece was ridiculous.
Posted by: guest at October 1, 2007 8:35 AM
I literally have never heard anyone say that Brooklyn is great because celebrities are moving here. Not to mention the fact that at least a few of the celebrities they mentioned, like Jennifer Connelly, are actually from Brooklyn in the first place, so it's not like they're moving here because it's hip.
Posted by: guest at October 1, 2007 9:33 AM
I hope the celebrities stay out of Brooklyn. We've done fine without them for this long, so why do we need them now?
Posted by: guest at October 1, 2007 9:44 AM
it really is a joke - don't the time reporters have anything better to write about? I've lived here only a few years and it certainly had NOTHING to do with celebrities - if in ANY way related to that phenomenon, it was to get away from the ridiculous culture that has taken over lower manhattan. this reporter should be moved, and fast, to the post. that was just embarrassing. And I thought bob morris was bad...
Posted by: guest at October 1, 2007 10:25 AM
anon 9:44 - why does it matter either way. most of the people listed just seem to be trying to do a job like the rest of us - some are better compensated to be sure - but really, who cares either way? now if paris hilton suddenly decided to be here, then I can see your point, but c'mon, this group?
Posted by: guest at October 1, 2007 10:27 AM
Someone on another board said that the Times has gone downhill in the last 10 years. I'm apt to agree.
Posted by: guest at October 1, 2007 10:36 AM
From the NYT:
“The dark secret of Brooklyn is that many of the people who are going there are going there because they can’t afford Manhattan... There is a tension between people who are in Brooklyn for Brooklyn’s sake, for the diversity and the quality of life, and people who are pushed to Brooklyn unwillingly.”
--dark secret... as of what year, 1907?
Posted by: guest at October 1, 2007 10:40 AM
is this a new writer? it's okay for a young up and coming go getter to sometimes pitch a dumb story where there's no story, but what were the editors thinking? that's some serious fluff, people...
Posted by: miss priss at October 1, 2007 10:53 AM
douglas rushkoff continues to be a moron...even after he's left park slope.
Posted by: guest at October 1, 2007 10:56 AM
hear, hear...
Posted by: miss priss at October 1, 2007 11:08 AM
The Style section has been sucking hard for a while, now, and this turd of a story is a great example. "Brooklyn's fragile celeb ecosystem," my ass. Brooklyn's chic-ness ain't going anywhere just because of Heath; people continue streaming into the borough by the thousands. Meanwhile, for many of us, Brooklyn is *preferable* to Manhattan. I chose to move here after 5 years in Chelsea and West Vill so I could have a garden, a fireplace, and a barbecue. Oh, and a little (relative) peace and quiet. I have no interest in living on the island again.
Posted by: Rehab at October 1, 2007 11:14 AM
And actually, I get more of a kick spotting smart/cool "celebs" like Rob Cordry from the Daily Show on Smith Street with his baby than I do spotting anybody of US Magazine wattage.
Posted by: Rehab at October 1, 2007 11:17 AM
i saw michelle williams on 5th ave in the slope about 2 weeks ago.
maybe she's stickin around?
like her more than heath anyway.
i also sawy ryan reynolds at atlantic antic yesterday.
good crowd there, btw.
Posted by: guest at October 1, 2007 11:28 AM
The NY Times "ego-system" is the perfect example of what happens when you have a deadline and space to fill in a rapidly declining news outfit. I'm not even a Brooklynite, but I found that to be one of the most amateurish pieces of writing I've ever seen. The writer also seems to have taken seriously those Gawker interviews in Boerum Hill, and used those as the launching point for the whole piece. Lame, lame, lame.
Posted by: guest at October 1, 2007 11:53 AM
oh but when they write about the celebs in manhattan, it isn't so lame, 11:53...?
i'm not arguing that the piece was useless, because it was, but they take many news items from gawker referencing stupid shit on the island, and no one seems to complain.
Posted by: guest at October 1, 2007 11:57 AM
Not a lot of A list celebrities live in Brooklyn, but they sure do like to film here. I live in Victorian Flatbush and it seems like once a week I trip over movie/TV/commercial crews as I am leaving my house for work in the morning. What is going on? It has gotten out of control over the last year. I used to love it when it happened less frequently, but now it is just kind of annoying to have your entire residential block taken over. My driveway has been blocked a number of times and equipment left on my lawn. Sorry - just had to vent after I was woken up at 5 AM last week by 25 trailors decending on my street with generators that sounded like helicopter engines. I would be perfectly content if celebrities stayed out of Brooklyn entirely.
Posted by: guest at October 1, 2007 12:13 PM
that's what we get for living in such a beautiful place, 12:13.
if only everyone was so lucky.
Posted by: guest at October 1, 2007 12:24 PM
"Egosystem" article further proof that the New York Times is on its way out.
Posted by: guest at October 1, 2007 12:33 PM
11:57--it's not the celebrity mention that is lame; it's the premise/thesis of the whole article that is extremely weak. The writer was trying way too hard and it reads like a tabloid piece.
Posted by: guest at October 1, 2007 12:35 PM
NYT is beginning to suck and WSJ has been taken over by Murdock. What else am I supposed to read? Any suggestions?
-sg
Posted by: guest at October 1, 2007 12:38 PM
metro
Posted by: guest at October 1, 2007 12:42 PM
uh. . . BoCoCa and NoGo?????
and further proof that Rosalind Huebner will say anything, regardless of how stupid, to be quoted
Posted by: guest at October 1, 2007 1:16 PM
that article will only make more people want to live in brooklyn. that's the funny thing.
it will make the celeb haters think brooklyn is cool.
it will make the celebs think it's cool (some of them, anyway)
and it will make those of us who live here and like it better than manhattan think it's cool (even if we never admit it outloud)
brooklyn is the new portland.
Posted by: guest at October 1, 2007 1:21 PM
What's up with all the indignation? It's the freaking STYLE section of the NY Times. I don't think it that section is meant to be approached with a critical eye to the journalistic prowess of its contributors or the topics they cover. In fact, I sometimes think that section is like an on-giong joke; it seems to intentionally piss people off with its vapidness.
Can anyone identify any other articles from that section this weekend that are marked by journalistic integrity or seriousness and import of content?
Sheesh. Take it easy.
Posted by: Jen Trifire at October 1, 2007 3:00 PM
The article in the Post about Scarano is a little misleading. Don't get me wrong -as an architect, guys like Scarano give us all a bad name and I think his work sucks. But the architect is not responsible for what goes on at a construction site -the contractor is. The Post article was incorrect to say that Scarano was issued a fine or a stop-work order, in fact it was the contractor that was fined. In addition, the architect is not always responsible for which contractor the owner hires. We can make a recommendation and determine a bidders list, but ultimately the owner hires the contractor and has a contract with them directly. The architect does not have a contract with the contractor and only functions as a representative of the owner in dealing with the contractor.
However, since so many of Scarano's projects have problems he may be knowingly recommending slip-shod contractors to the owners, which is professional negligence.
Posted by: guest at October 1, 2007 4:38 PM
Alas, the voice of reason. Thanks Jen.
Posted by: guest at October 1, 2007 5:56 PM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.