Flatbush: Bargain Hunters' Paradise?

I used to teach in Flatbush and it is HUGE and its housing diverse. It ranges from decrepit to gorgeous.

But, please tell me how an article can be written about the neighborhood with out acknowledging how Caribbean it is! If you walk into a shop in Flatbush without a West Indian accent you stand out. You are a Yankee, as the locals say.

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 9:13 AM

My wife and I snagged a beautiful two-bedroom near the Newkirk Plaza subway stop (B,Q) for about $275,000. The same space would have been over $600,000 in Park Slope or Cobble Hill. My office is right off of the Q train, so my commute will wind up being shorter than my current commute from 10th Street and 8th Avenue in Park Slope.

There definitely aren't as many amenities in the neighborhood just yet, but a new restaurant is opening in January and a few storefronts are being renovated. Articles like the one in the paper yesterday certainly don't hurt either.

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 9:29 AM

West Indian food is REALLY good! Really, really good because it is influenced by Africa, India, Europe and China. The restaurants and take out joints may not look great all of the time but boy is the food tasty. Go Flatbush! Go Roti. Go Veggie Patty!

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 9:39 AM

More crappy NY Times articles about the 'next big' neighborhood in New York City, obviously 'ghost written' by the real estate industry.

Now Flatbush is the next 'big thing'?

I thought it was:

Red Hook
Bushwick
Bed Stuy
Morningside/Washington Heights
Long Island City, Queens
Jackson Heights, Queens
Newark, NJ
Jersey City, NJ

What will the 'anointed' NY Times and their real estate industry ghost writers tell us is the next big thing?

Camden, NJ?
Philadelphia, PA? (Only a 3 hour commute to NYC!!!)
Baghdad, Iraq (Just a short 10 hour plane ride from a vibrant multicultural ancient city!)

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 9:43 AM

There's a big ethnic mix in the apartment buildings in the Victorian Flatbush area, which is sort of West Flatbush (as opposed to East Flatbush, or more central Flatbush Ave Flatbush).

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 9:55 AM

My husband and I have lived in the area defined as Flatbush in the nyt article (in my experience Flatbush is much larger) since 1999. After renting for two years we bought a three bedroom coop in 2001, for a price I will decline to reveal, but it was very, very low. We are very happy here. Our neighbors are friendly and warm. We are walking distance to Prospect Park, as well as Cortelyou Road with its increasingly upscale vibe. Our local public school is well-regarded. Being a bit of a foodie, our location is perfect for exploring the many different ethnic enclaves and their cuisines in Brooklyn. The single downside in our immediate area is the gang/drug activity. While it doesn't immediately effect us (the violence is mostly self-contained) I've learned to avoid certain blocks all the same. That said, there has been a noticeable downturn in crime in the area in the past 8 years. We used to hear gunshots on a regular basis in 1999. I haven't heard a single one in over a year. In terms of real estate prices, I think the article slightly exaggerates how inexpensive apartments are. Even the listings accompanying the article are higher than the ranges quoted by the re agents. In our case, during the time we have been here the value of our apartment has multiplied 5 times over. But it doesn't really matter to us, because we have no interest in leaving.

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 10:01 AM

I totally agree 9:13. The West Indian community gets only a passing mention in the article--which is ludicrous. The overwhelming West Indian character of Flatbush--in particular the narrow swath of it outlined in the article--is its defining feature. To ignore it is just plain bad journalism.

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 10:03 AM

"The West Indian community gets only a passing mention in the article--which is ludicrous. The overwhelming West Indian character of Flatbush--in particular the narrow swath of it outlined in the article--is its defining feature. To ignore it is just plain bad journalism."

Thus reinforcing my thesis that the article was 'ghost written' by the real estate industry. Do you really think that the target readers of the NY Times (affluent white liberals) would really have an interest in Flatbush if the article emphasized the "West Indian character of Flatbush"?

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 10:18 AM

I agree, 10:03 bad journalism. But why the omission? It's actually pretty weird.

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 10:21 AM

I have lived in Flatbush (barely to the east of the Ocean Avenue boundary the Times uses, but I think that erroneously leaves out "Victorian Flatbush," whould be in) since 1982. I concur with what 10:01 says.

In my immediate locale, however, I do not see evidence of "gang, drug activity," that was present 10-15 years ago. This varies with the specific area and has disappeared from my routes with the decrease in crime. A note about "gunshots." I remember that about 12 years ago one might hear them from time to time in the area. I inquired of the police about them, and they were puzzled, too. They were not associated with any murders, assaults, or muggings, which were not increasing. Just a fad at the time, I guess, and one that has disappeared for more than a decade as far as I know.

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 10:24 AM

Yes, guest at 10:18. I think lots of Times readers would be interested in Flatbush, even if it has a "West Indian character." Such readers are not, by and large, the kinds of reflexive racists that haunt this blog.

I know this by seeing the great increase in young white couples leaving the subway at Church Avenue and heading to their apartments, often carrying a copy of the Times.

Sheesh.

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 10:28 AM

Actually, 10:28, I was thinking of the Pakistani, Russian, Asian, Nepali, Latino and, yes, the odd white family. The Victorian Flatbush area is home to Cortelyou Road, which according to US News and World Report is the most ethnically diverse neighborhood in the entire United States. Failure to mention that distinction is as erroneous as to fail to mention the large West Indian population further East of Victorian Flatbush.

Who's the relexive racist? Hmmmmm...

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 10:44 AM

Hey 10:24, a story I got from one of my neighbors is that the frequent gunshots near us were the result of a gun salesman in the area. He would go up onto his rooftop across the street and shoot off guns as part of showing potential buyers his wares. For some unknown reason--the gun salesman left the area (busted? moved? who knows?) and poof! no more gunshots. --10:01

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 10:44 AM

Yes, I realize Russians are white. Mea Culpa. Buyt they are a distince ethnic group with their own language and culture. So don't quite shoot me yet.

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 10:47 AM

10:44--Your comment would be accurate except that the article explicitly excludes the Cortelyou Road area from its definition of Flatbush when it makes Ocean Avenue the borderline. The point here is that the article draws a line around what is arguably the most West Indian section of Flatbush and then barely mentions the fact that it is West Indian at all. I do think this article is essentially just a realtor's puff piece and that they are afraid, justifiably or not, that talking about the West Indian character (i.e. the blackness) of the area will scare potential buyers away.

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 11:06 AM

We snapped up a 1000+ sq ft two bedroom condominium in the Ditmas Park neighborhood for $300K. Felt like a good deal at the time. Feels like a fantastic deal to us now that we know the neighborhood a little better.

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 11:32 AM

Everybody who knows anything about Flatbush knows that it is primarily a West Indian neighborhood. Even the black people who live in white Flatbush are West Indian, or their parents are. The Jamaican economy would collapse without money being sent from this one neighborhood in Brooklyn. True knowledge mon.

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 12:17 PM

11:06 - I am humbled and take your point.

But let's talk Flatbush, beyond the article. When people ask me where I live, I generally will answer "Flatbush," although technically it's Ditmas Park or Victorian Flatbush or whatever.

Are we no long considered Flatbush because of our eclectic ethnic make-up? Is it solely a housing stock issue?

What exactly is Flatbush these days?

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 12:32 PM

Um, 10:01, you're an anonymous poster. Why would you "decline to reveal" the price you paid? Sheesh.

anyway, re Flatbush: yes, very much Caribbean but also great transportation and a short hop to the beach. I don't think the Times article posited it as the next big thing, either. I see it as sort of like jackson heights: a neighborhood that won't ever really gentrify but is an integral part of the fabric of the city, and good for that.

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 1:05 PM

12:32--I think of Flatbush as covering everything from Prospect Lefferts to Brooklyn College and Coney Island Avenue across to say, New York Avenue? I don't know for sure, and I am sure there are as many opinions on the question as there are ethnic groups in Central Brooklyn. Of course if you live in Flatbush, you should be considered part of Flatbush. When asked, I say I live in Flatbush too. If we are looking at the larger area called Flatbush, and not just the tiny rectangle in the article, it is precisely the patchwork of ethnic enclaves within it that is its defining quality.

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 1:57 PM

As for the nabe, we call our small area the Ocean Heights part of Flatbush. Ocean Heights is: Cortelyou to Foster, Ocean Avenue to Flatbush Avenue. Being a native New Yorker, this neighborhood feels right to me. An old New York feeling-lots of pre-war buildings smaller and larger, families and all ages and a good mixture of ethnicities.

As for prices, I closed on a two story limestone with and english basement for around 500,000. at the end of 2005. The same ( identical) house in PLG or PPS goes for 7-1.2. So yes, you can get so much, much more for your money.

There are fewer cafes and restaurants as I would like however, this is changing. The Farm on Adderley is opening a new bistro on Newkirk Avenue & the jerk chicken at Fisherman's Cove on Newkirk Plaza is excellent. I am very happy to be here!

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 2:29 PM

"Even the Black people who live in white Flatbush are West Indian, or their parents are"

1. There are still many Blacks all over Flatbush without parents from the West Indies.
2. What do you mean by "white Flatbush"?

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 2:48 PM

I think it's great that Brownstoner is talking about another neighborhood outside of Park Slope, Brooklyn Heights and Fort Greene. Keep up the good work1

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 5:03 PM

The blog is named Brownstoner, so of course the blog focuses on Brownstone neighborhoods in Brooklyn. The Brownstone neighborhoods are the neighborhoods you mentioned along with a couple of others like Bed-Stuy, Crown Heights, etc... Occassionally other neighborhoods with older housing stock that are not Brownstones, like Victorian Flatbush, are featured. Todays posts about East New York and Flatbush are a welcome surprise but according to the survey results the majority of the people viewing the blog are in the Brownstone neighborhoods. Just as the majority of the people viewing the Kensington blog or the Ditmas Park blog probably live in those areas. I predict that the Waxman split ranch homes in Seaview Village, Canarsie will someday be landmarked as an example of mid-century modern housing and will one day have their own blog where period detail will mean original aluminum sliding glass doors with orange shag carpets throughout.

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 8:08 PM

Since Ditmas Park and other Flatbush neighborhoods have developed their own distinct identities (and become more gentrified), the area described by the NYT article is the only one seen as "just" Flatbush and known by no other name. To people who haven't lived in Flatbush or aren't familiar with the history of the neighborhood, this area is likely the one they'd think of when the name Flatbush is mentioned. Probably the article should've clarified this, but I do see where they're coming from with their Flatbush definition.

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 8:54 PM

hey 9:43,

"Philadelphia, PA? (Only a 3 hour commute to NYC!!!)"

Philly is actually a 2 hour commute ( 1 1/2 if you beat traffic and drive fast ) and -plenty- of people do it.

Posted by: guest at December 4, 2007 6:52 AM

8:08--your argument might fly except for the unending posts about Williamsburg and links to some Bushwick blog. Two neighborhoods with decidedly uninteresting architecture.

Posted by: guest at December 4, 2007 7:23 AM

Thanks to Brenda from Flatbush for reliably laying down the Truth (the Whole Truth), as usual. "Biff and Muffy Take the Subway For A Big Surprise"!!! LOL!!!! They are starting to be an everyday sight here in "Ditmas Park".

As for why an anonymous poster wouldn't want to reveal how much they paid for their co-op... well, maybe they don't want to fan the flames these types of NY Times articles tend to ignite... some of us would prefer Biff and Muffy stay on the Upper West Side...

Posted by: guest at December 4, 2007 9:40 AM

I'm coming in late to the conversation but I read the article and it DOES mention the West Indian population in the third to last paragraph on the first page:

"It has an assortment of laundries, florists, shoe repair shops, hair salons and pharmacies, and because of the large West Indian population, it also has restaurants specializing in island specialties like curry goat."

Posted by: guest at December 6, 2007 5:15 PM