WTF in Bed Stuy

I know people who would like that but they could never spend over 300 and would definitely need a subprime.

Posted by: guest at October 16, 2007 4:12 PM

house on sale...owner on crack

Posted by: guest at October 16, 2007 4:16 PM

Dreadful. They could have at least put a window in the stairwell, to achieve some kind of symmetry on the facade. A window costs that much?

I hate that parking for 3-5 cars is a selling point. Who needs that many cars in a 2 family house? That's also less parking for others on the block, who many not have the "advantage" of a fugly, no curb appeal front yard to park in.

Lovely pine stairs.

If this doesn't sell (snort), it will end up as rentals in under a year.

Posted by: guest at October 16, 2007 4:17 PM

I think this is absolutely ridiculous.
Having said that though some "luxurury condos" now on sale, the finishes aren't any better. Check out 475 sterling place and they are asking 599k for a 2 bdrm.

Posted by: guest at October 16, 2007 4:19 PM

I will say, at least they have side windows, and didn't put the meters smack on the front of the building. Aside from that.........

Posted by: guest at October 16, 2007 4:19 PM

he he. I love the headline for this post brownstoner. WTF indeed.

Posted by: guest at October 16, 2007 4:27 PM

So, I get that there is going to be housing that does not fit the taste of individuals with money and that such housing allows individuals who rent and have lower middle incomes to advance their lives by having the opportunity to buy. What I don't get is that this is not really affordable for those individuals. It's still a lot of money, isn't it?

Posted by: guest at October 16, 2007 4:28 PM

I don't know anyone who'd even rent such a place. If it were in Park Slope maybe, just because people are so desparate to live there -- there is similar crap (not quite as bad) near Fourth Avenue.

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

bmfesq, good luck with your home. I mean that sincerely. I hope you got one of the better built and finished ones. Old houses are not for everyone. But.......

I'm sorry, in terms of longevity, 100 years from now, most brownstones will be celebrating 200 plus years, most new homes will have been replaced with the next new homes.

Posted by: guest at October 16, 2007 4:33 PM

There is no reason why cheaper housing has to be so ugly. Contrary to popular belief, it costs the same to build ugly as it does to build decent looking houses.

Posted by: guest at October 16, 2007 4:38 PM

Seconding "guest", both in wishing bmfesq good luck, and in asserting the longterm structural integrity of prewar construction.

I'm gutting my house right now. And so yeah. Anything on the inside is rotten and papery, joists are popping out of their sockets and being replaced with new ones.

But the construction of the exterior walls is as sound as can be. I need facade work done.

My new-construction neighbors (and I do sincerly hope you do not share their luck) have serious problems with their foundation, and have found that their garage collects no less than three feet of water whenever it rains... less than 10 years in. They spend as much as I do, really.

(and their place is fugly)

Posted by: guest at October 16, 2007 4:42 PM

I'm mystified. Why is this house so bad?

Posted by: guest at October 16, 2007 4:46 PM

This wasn't built to compete with brownstones. If you look at listings in the archives of The Brooklyn Daily Eagle on the Brooklyn Public Library website you will see that at the turn of the century there were brownstones being sold for $30-50,000. There are homes like these shown in Queens by the airport and I know several people with very modest earnings who moved from crappy Crown Heights rentals (granted, the buildings are solid old construction) into "their own home". Honestly, it was better for their kids. Before they moved the kids couldn't really hang out on the street. One friend had a very overweight kid who was able to lose a great deal of weight because he could get out and play basketball with his friends and it changed his life. The long story short is that owning is empowering and while the building is ugly it may allow a person to become part of a community that can have a powerful impact on them and their family.

Posted by: guest at October 16, 2007 4:47 PM

Not referring to these houses specifically or any particular brownstone - this notion that new construction is so crappy and Brownstone (i.e. pre-war) construction is so wonderful is ridiculous.
Just b/c a Brownstone 'feels' solid doesnt mean that is so. The reality is that the cost of maintaining a Brownstone in top shape can be astronomical. Brownstones leak, have drafts, warped floors, sagging doors etc... at a rate = or greater then the average new construction (with much higher repair/replacement costs). Further, all that detailing we love so much adds tons of costs in terms of facade, window and parapet repairs.

Thats not to say that "brownstones" are bad but "quality" in this context is a subjective term and judging "quality" simply by how hard you can punch a wall, or the thickness of the exterior brick is really only one small component in determining the cost, hassle and time it takes to maintain any home as a dry, safe, warm/cold living environment.

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

These are 3 family homes and while far from architectural masterpieces they serve the function intended. Large windows, cornices and other 'touches' are expensive additions to a home designed to be as inexpensive as possible. These are "starter" homes and all of the commentary about "I would never live in that" etc... simply reveals your snobbery and ignores the economic reality of someone struggling to own their own home.

And 4:33 your 100 year prediction is just silly, you couldnt possibly get cheaper more mass produced housing then Levittown, yet despite that, those homes are now approaching 60 years old, are standing strong and cost well over 300K. Demographics, the economy and probably the enviroment will determine what will be here 100 years but taken care of properly, virtually anything built today will last 100's of years.

Posted by: guest at October 16, 2007 5:15 PM

to 5:03,

I disagree. Older construction was built to stand 100+ years whereas today's construction is DESIGNED to last only 30 or so.

And with the re-newed interest in green design, the thickness and material of exterior walls is fantastically important. Not only are these older materials "recyclable" and return to the earth eventuially,but the heat gain and loss cycles they are capable of allows inhabitants to reduce dependence on HVAC units.

Lastly, Modernism is dead. DEAD! D-E-A-D!! so why would you want to live in a "Modern" building where the contractor or developer will take that as license to remove all the details? Architecture is about creating space. NYC space as its being re-imagined now sucks big-time.

Posted by: guest at October 16, 2007 5:17 PM

My eyes must be failing me. Eat in kitchen? Where? Standing up? No eating in sitting down at a table from the looks of the photos.Very small looking kitchen area.

Posted by: guest at October 16, 2007 5:24 PM

5:17 modernism is dead - where? in fact please note that virtually every "green" building has a glass facade.

And if you think Pre-War construction is efficient in terms of HVAC then you have never lived in pre-war construction (the reason why your pre-war rental was 85 degrees with the window open is b/c the super left the boiler on 24/7 in order to keep the old ladies on the top floor from complaining)

Could you please put a cite in your next post backing up your ridiculous claim that todays construction is designed for 30 years, or that Brownstones were designed for 100 years. Again homes need maintenance - A Brownstone that hasnt been maintained (i.e. periodic roof & facade work) wouldn't last near 100 years and neither will new construction. However, with regular maintenance both will last essentially forever.

Posted by: guest at October 16, 2007 5:38 PM

5:38 - I am not the poster of the 5:17 comment, but I stand by my only initial remark, and second 5:17's opinion that most modern housing is designed to last only 30 years. I bet if you asked builders, most honest ones would agree.

Granted, if you don't care for a building, it will last less time, and will cost more to fix and maintain later, but I cannot see how anyone who can compare the building of homes like this - today's mid market row houses, to the quality of its 100 plus year old equivelent.

Solid brick and brick and steel construction vs cinderblock w/ thin brickface. Thick 2x4 framing w/ lathe and thick plaster walls vs aluminum framing and 1/2 to 5/8" sheetrock. Even if wooden 2x4's are used, they are no longer 2" x 4" pieces of wood, shave off at least a quarter inch.

Yeah, 100 plus years, you need to replace the electric, plumbing, roof, and things like windows that are exposed to the elements, but that is as much a facet of changing technology, and 100 years of wear more than bad building. The fact that 19th century neighborhoods are still standing is proof enough that this is for the most part, extremely good construction. No way is middle of the market construction as good. No way.

Posted by: guest at October 16, 2007 6:15 PM

I smell a market for post-production retrofitting of these brick boxes with inexpensive, easy to install architectural details like parapets, cornices, lintels and assorted other faux stone/masonry treatments. Sort of like adding ground effects and spoilers to an old honda civic. I know it would work.

Posted by: guest at October 16, 2007 7:14 PM

these are ugly. but to say that all new construction will somehow fall apart in 30 years is silly. i bought a new condo and the inspector gave it really high marks. i've owned old buildings in the past - one that was so bad that it was renovated completely. everything needs maintenance. just get your place inspected to find out the construction quality.

Posted by: guest at October 16, 2007 9:05 PM

who cares, in 30 years we'll all be living on the moon anyway.

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

"BURN THIS FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT TO THE GROUND AND PUT UP A GOSH DAMNED HOT DOG STAND INSTEAD!!!!!!!"

thank you for saying "GOSH DAMNED", there are kids here.

Posted by: guest at October 16, 2007 10:16 PM

It's ugly, but I for one don't need the "WTF" in the headline. Surely there is a more original way to make your point. IMHO.

Posted by: guest at October 16, 2007 10:34 PM

Is it even with in the fire code for new 3 family construction to have a wooden stair case in the public hall? Seems like it would have to be sprinklered at least. I love the picture with the overturned bucket and all the parts spread out on the floor. Great staging.

Posted by: guest at October 16, 2007 10:58 PM

Those buildings are hideous!!!!!!! Please don't tell me decent design is out of reach. Tear them down and start over please....

Posted by: guest at October 16, 2007 11:42 PM

WTF indeed... posters here make a lot of valid comments, there really is no cost difference to build aesthetically pleasing buildings that are within context of the neighborhood in which it is built. There are quite a few new townhouse construction projects that the city is building in bedstuy that are well BEAUTIFUL. These ugly, nasty, out of context buildings are simply from developers (I use the term loosely) who are clueless about the market. Every single time I pass one of these monstrosities I cry.

Posted by: guest at October 17, 2007 1:33 AM

The problem with these types of spec buildings is that they are deeply, deeply cynical. Their mission is profit--they add nothing else to the landscape.

They are ugly because their goal is merely to exist so that they can be sold. They are not thought of as anything other than The Potential To Make Money Quickly... they are never thought of as anything someone would live in.

And so they often screw the hardworking people who buy them, because they are poorly designed and fall apart quickly. They fall apart quickly because they are made with the cheapest possible materials and labor, cutting as many corners as possible.

The good news is that real estate in neighborhoods like Bed Stuy is not going to sustain such a wasteful, cynical practice (the ad says it all--any offer). People are going to start demanding an actual house for their money, and they should.

I own a house here, and while my checkbook wishes for total gentrification, I bought here because my soul says it will never happen. I deeply hope that this will always be a place where real people actually own homes, and don't fret about Marvin windows or landmarking. And affordable, good new housing is part of that.

The bad news is that in thirty years a lot of cinderblock and sheetrock is going to be dumpstered and trucked out of Bed Stuy, as these crackerboxes get razed and replaced with whatever truly affordable housing makes more sense.

It will probably be the Fankjrkrym modular house system from Ikea or something.

Posted by: guest at October 17, 2007 7:50 AM

how come you only bash and name the architect when its scarano?

Posted by: guest at October 17, 2007 9:06 AM

Rehab - so what! You dont need old growth oak Joists or beams and at the end of the day, if the roof or lintels leak it is irrelevant how thick the plaster walls are. Again the 'feel' of an old house is unmistakable (very nice) but that isnt the only definition of Quality.

An old British Rolls Royce has a solid quality feel - but is a piece of crap when it comes to everyday reliability.

The point is - old homes can be great but it doesnt mean everything new is crap - even it doesnt feel as "substantial" as your old house.

Posted by: guest at October 17, 2007 11:21 AM

Does anyone know if this is, in fact, a new construction? Only asking because the brickwork under the two top windows looks like fill-in for old bay windows. Unless that's because the developer figured out that bricks were cheaper than windows in the middle of the project and changed the original plan.

Posted by: guest at October 17, 2007 2:59 PM

this is the result of a developer spending 10k of architect fees. I am a builder in the area and watched this house go up. thought about taking picture and sending it in for you guys to have fun.

love how small the doors look in the middle picture.

Posted by: guest at October 17, 2007 5:45 PM

This is definitely new construction. Wouldn't be surprised to find out they changed design or materials midway through project. As 7:50 so eloquently stated, these are built solely for profit, not aesthetics.

These are not the helping hand for the first time homebuyer, or a boon to middleclass housing. There are exceptions, of course, but most of these houses are poorly built, will cost some poor cash strapped owner a fortune to keep fixing, and will be extremely hard to sell, as the word gets out that they may be new, but they are crap.

If buying one of these was my best or only option, I would beg, borrow or steal to get a quality home inspector and pay the $1000 to get a long, complete inspection of every inch. It will be worth every cent.

Posted by: guest at October 17, 2007 6:10 PM

Add a shiny chrome fence and I am all over this place.

Posted by: guest at October 17, 2007 8:29 PM

8:29 LOL! yes how ghastly are those chrome fences??? Mr. B, what in the hell can we do to stop that emerging practice??? yikes!

Posted by: guest at October 17, 2007 11:09 PM

Pass some legislation banning all things that you don't like?

Posted by: guest at October 19, 2007 10:46 AM