« Open House Picks: Six Months Later 7/27/07 Today on the Renovation Blogs and Forum »
January 18, 2008
Open House Picks
Carroll Gardens
391 Union Street
Halstead
Sunday 1-3
$2,200,000
GMAP P*Shark
Prospect Lefferts Gardens
66 Midwood Street
Corcoran
Sunday 12-1:30
$1,400,000
GMAP P*Shark
Windsor Terrace
619 Greenwood Avenue
Warren Lewis
Sunday 12-2
$985,000
GMAP P*Shark
Bedford Stuyvesant
305 Stuyvesant Avenue
Corcoran
Sunday 2-3
$695,000
GMAP P*Shark
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/3565
Comments
Good price on the Bed Stuy house.
That's how much a home should cost in an up and coming area of New York City.
Once again the Carrol Gardens Place seems grossly overpriced.
Not sure about the other 2 although 1.4 for Midwood seems super high to me.
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 1:38 PM
The Bedford Stuyvesant house is priced right on the money... I think I am going to take a look this weekend...
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 1:42 PM
I think I could get the owner down to 650K on the BS house.
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 1:43 PM
Is this BS house near the historic district?
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 1:44 PM
Midwood house is beautiful. I don't know anything about prices in that area, so can't comment.
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 1:46 PM
CG and PLG what happend in these hoods to make the homes over there so high in price?
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 1:46 PM
"CG and PLG what happend in these hoods to make the homes over there so high in price?"
They thought they were in Park Slope.
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 1:50 PM
Why does Midwood house bother mentioning it's "20 feet wide" as if this is a badge of honor. Dude, if it's not a full 25 feet or more, don't bring it up. Sure, it's better than those 14 footers in Carroll Gardens that go for 3 million these days, but 20 feet is nothing to write home about.
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 1:58 PM
can anyone comment on midwood area...
the house looks interesting _ does it have a garden??
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 1:59 PM
Havent seen the what for a while - Think he finally got evicted, or foreclosed on? Or maybe he is just on vacation in Bellevue..
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 2:00 PM
The What has done his duty.
He warned you all about the events of this week in the economy for the last few months.
You ignored him.
His work is done.
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 2:03 PM
yea the bedstuy house is a few blocks from stuyvesant heights proper. its right next door to solomon's porch you can see the green awning in the pic. the house looks nice, it definitely looks like it needs work though.
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 2:04 PM
re: PLG/Midwood house - obviously this house is on a pretty prime block, and has some detail in it (although the photos don't show as much as I'd like to see, like kitchens and baths). I'm taking the lack of photos and any other information on the kitchens, baths, mechanicals, etc as a sign that they may all need some work. I just moved to PLG (renting) and have only recently started watching prices here so I have no idea if this price tag makes sense, but it does seem like being in the Manor alone is a huge plus.
Does anyone have any thoughts on the wallpaper? I know its probably proper in terms of historical value, but my first thoughts when I saw it were WOW! Haha, maybe that kind of thing is just not my taste. To me it screams funeral home, haha. The woodwork and the fireplace look awesome though.
I'm finding the type on Corcoran's listings more and more annoying... this one is particularly wordy! "...created by artisans and crafts persons to bring to life, the dream of well living." What does that mean?!? ick!
Posted by: rjlovie at January 18, 2008 2:12 PM
omg the interior in that PLG house are awfully hideous... there should be a discount for that.
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 2:14 PM
The What was silenced by the RE Mafia.
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 2:15 PM
Yeah 2:03, Im not going to say the What is one to gloat, But.....The What is Definately One to gloat.
BTW - Its going to rain.
Check back later for when my prediction comes true.
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 2:17 PM
I saw the bed stuy house. It needs a lot of work. Might be able to get away with the plumbing as is buy needs an electric upgrade. Not much salvageable in terms of architectural detail and the floors are not good anywhere...no nice hardwood to refinish as far as i could tell. Radiator heat.
Yes, its nextto Solomon's Porch on Halsey...three blocks up from what is currently historic district...i live just down the block
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at January 18, 2008 2:18 PM
"CG and PLG what happend in these hoods to make the homes over there so high in price?"
"They thought they were in Park Slope."
Wow, show me a house near the park in Park Slope that looks anything like that for $1.4MM (not $3.0MM) and I'm all over that.
Heh, people are commenting here as if Park Slope isn't over twice the price. Typical.
Posted by: jeffrey at January 18, 2008 2:20 PM
People kill me, anyplace you'd have put your money over the last year cept' for a few commodities (provided you're still long) would have you underwater by now....
Dow - down
Nasdaq - down
Yankees - down
Knicks - ....
There's a natural ebb and flow to everything, why not real estate?
Posted by: moreteasir at January 18, 2008 2:20 PM
Not an interior photo of the Carroll Garden's house. I can only guess they are trying to sell it on the additional FAR.
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 2:21 PM
Organizing Search Party for the What
OK boys & girls, I'm starting to get real worried about the What. He hasn't posted in days and the market is tanking. Some say maybe he's busy at work, but he has no job. Others have said, maybe a family vacation, but he has no family. Let's face it, the only thing this loser has going for him are his hillarious malapropisms his and mixed-up profanity.
So this is the plan. We are going to rendezvous at Mr. B's house in Clinton Hill. After the appropriate refreshments and arguments about Park Slope v. Cobble Hill, we're going to split up into three search parties. The first will be composed of strong men who can lift the big rocks he might be living under in Prospect Park. The second party will explore the caves. Finally, we'll need a aquatic party to look in the Gowanus.
We gotta find him. The conversation has been entirely too civilized and on point of late. Totally boring.
Hey Mr. B., you gotta unblock his screenname, there have been too many imposters of late. I think people have come to appreciate him.
Posted by: Brooklynnative at January 18, 2008 2:24 PM
Mr B. is The What.
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 2:29 PM
"Dow - down
Nasdaq - down
Yankees - down
Knicks - ...."
NEW YORK GIANTS FOOTBALL UP
NEW YORK GIANTS FOOTBALL UP
NEW YORK GIANTS FOOTBALL UP
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 2:33 PM
Back to the PLG/Midwood house, when I compare that house to the 11/8 HOTD a block away on Rutland:
http://www.brownstoner.com/brownstoner/archives/2007/11/house_of_the_da_404.php
I'd much rather pay $1.45m for the house on Rutland. It makes the Midwood house seem way overpriced.
Posted by: rjlovie at January 18, 2008 2:33 PM
I saw the Whats post at the bottom of the Bloomberg Budget gap article earlier today.
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 2:40 PM
66 Midwood is part of one of the nicest rows in Lefferts Manor. It's also quite large (at least for a single family house. That being said, I agree with 'rjlovie' about the wall paper (which is sort of, but not quite, Victorian, but I can't see getting hung up on something most any buyer would be likely to change.
I have a framed c. 1900 ad for this row of houses, as well as my own more modest row on the next block of Midwood Street. My 1899 three story is nice enough and I love it, but I've always had a thing for the bigger and fancier 1898 four stories on Midwood I. After all, they cost $11,000n when new,as opposed to my 'budget' $7,500 house.
Is the $1.4 million price justified? Hard for me to say, but it is IMO one of the finest LM houses.
Posted by: Bob Marvin at January 18, 2008 2:41 PM
Where is The What? We want The What!!
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 2:44 PM
305 Stuyvesant Avenue is goimg to sell for over the asking price.
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 2:48 PM
The Midwood street house is prime Lefferts Manor, in the nicest row of houses on the nicest block. It's the same row that includes the house that broke the area record for selling at 1.6M in the summer. Based on the floorplan and description it seems clear that this house has been at least mildly messed up and needs a good renovation.
Comparing it to the 1.6M house on Midwood, which I saw and which was stunningly renovated top-to-bottom, I would say this needs at least 300K-400K to get into the same shape as that house. So the price should be 1.2 max to account for the pain and cost of renovation--and that's if you think the market is as strong as it was in the summer.
Comparing it to the Rutland house, which I saw and is still on the market, I'd agree that that is a better deal. Though that needs some work too and I think is also overpriced quite a bit for the current market. Also the Rutland block is nowhere as pleasant as Midwood.
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 2:55 PM
BS house looks like it could be a very nice home. Don't make 500k a year so I can't even talk about the others..
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 2:55 PM
Anyone notice that when the Open House Picks don't have a Park Slope listing, there are about 2/3 fewer comments?
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 3:06 PM
Midwood and Rutland houses are both overpriced - way overpriced. Rutland house is stunning and still sitting there (showing again this weekend) because you cannot ask for this much in this area. I also think the whole "in the manor" thing is actually a negative for many. I'm looking for a 4 story, but we're only a couple right now and I don't want the neighborhood telling me I can't rent out the garden floor. The rules for keeping everything single family may have preserved some details over the years, but they also reduce the value of the homes.
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 3:11 PM
Is the subway which goes by the Midwood house elevated or sunken. Can you access prospect park directly or are there only certain access points?
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 3:12 PM
The Bed-Stuy house seems underpriced.
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 3:14 PM
I would think it would be wise to underprice properties in this market.
For those who think that prices are still sky-high, I'd think there would be a greater chance of inciting a bidding war.
Perhaps that is the goal with the Bed Stuy place.
I can see it going for in the low 700's.
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 3:18 PM
Lefferts Manor question - I know these houses have to be kept single family... but does that bar you from putting in a second kitchen altogether? I'm asking from the perspective of someone who might want to have an in-law's suite in her house somewhere down the road, but not necessarily a rental... Thanks!
Posted by: rjlovie at January 18, 2008 3:23 PM
You people kill me. You were all putting The What down, telling him to go away. Well, he did. And now you want him back.
I agree that they are looking for a bidding war on the Bed Stuy house. Will they get it? I dunno.
Posted by: rh at January 18, 2008 3:30 PM
LM/PLG--you can only access the park at Lincoln and Parkside.
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 3:36 PM
WHAT THE HELL IS WITH THE PICTURE OF A STAINED GLASS WINDOW **BEHIND** A FREAKING CURTAIN in the Bed-Stuy house???? Are you kidding me? Is it supposed to be an artistic photo?
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 3:36 PM
rjlovie,
AFAIK extended family use is not considered a violation of the LM single family covenant. However, Lefferts Manor is also zoned R2 which might impact on how separate an in-law's suite could be. I'm no zoning expert, so I really don't know.
3:11,
I could see how the single family status of LM houses might, in theory, reduce the value [although LM houses, so far, have usually commanded a premium over most of the rest of PLG]. Even if the single family LM houses' values WERE reduced I'd hardly call that a negative. There's a lot to be said for the positive effect on our quality of life brought about by lower density--and I write that even at the risk of Polemicist once again calling me selfish:-)
Posted by: Bob Marvin at January 18, 2008 3:48 PM
So instead of correcting the post on the Park Slope Tibetan Store, you delete it off the website?
Too good to admit you made a mistake???
I'm so over this website.
It has gone to complete shit.
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 3:50 PM
3:36,
Quite true, unless you live on Ocean Ave.
Unlike Park Slope, most "prime" PLG blocks are not "park blocks." They're still pretty close to the park.
Posted by: Bob Marvin at January 18, 2008 3:52 PM
The Midwood house is on a great block. There are many dinner parties happening on that block. BTW, 52 Midwood sold for 1.665, not 1.6.
The Lincoln Road entrance to the park is very convenient for this location. Two blocks up, one and a half over.
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 3:54 PM
What was the mistake with the Tibetan store?
Posted by: Brooklynnative at January 18, 2008 3:57 PM
Sorry--I didn't see that 3:36's post was an answer to 3:12 question about the subway.
To expand a bit on his/her answer, the subway is sunken. Only Lincoln Road and Parkside Ave go through, on bridges over the subway cut.
Posted by: Bob Marvin at January 18, 2008 3:59 PM
"So instead of correcting the post on the Park Slope Tibetan Store, you delete it off the website? Too good to admit you made a mistake???"
You guys got Gabby FIRED!
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 4:01 PM
3:57:
Gabby posted an article today about a new Tibetan Store opening in the old Shoe Store on 7th and Lincoln in Park Slope.
The problem was...that Shoe Store closed early in the fall, and the Tibetan store opened as a holiday only store (in November or early December) and just CLOSED this past Monday. It was open for about 2 months, and had a for rent sign in the window during the entire time it was open because it was just a temporary store. Anyone who knows anything about Park Slope store goings on or cared to ask someone would have known that.
Not very good reporting, if you ask me. Especially for someone who gets paid to cover Park Slope.
So now the entire article and thread has been removed.
Just deleted 10 minutes ago. As if it never existed.
Clearly this girl doesn't walk up and down 7th and 5th Avenues very much.
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 4:04 PM
Gentrification in these areas is definately coming to a pause. Sorry folks but the Bed-Stuy house will not start a bidding war because people are not jumping all over properties anymore.
All of these neighborhoods are undergoing gentrification, and unfortunately this trend will contract for a while as rents continue to fall and buyers are no longer willing to move into marginal areas in the hopes of turning a profit.
The well established neighborhoods will also contract, but no one is leaving in droves.
We are in for a bit of a rough patch for the next 2-5 years.
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 4:05 PM
4:05,
If, as you write, "buyers are no longer willing to move into marginal areas in the hopes of turning a profit," that might not be such a bad thing. OTOH, moving into such areas to actually LIVE is another matter entirely.
Posted by: Bob Marvin at January 18, 2008 4:15 PM
Former HOTD on Degraw btw Smith and Hoyt (2 blocks away from Union) sold for $2.86M back in August.
http://brownstoner.com/brownstoner/archives/2007/04/house_of_the_da_297.php
http://propertyshark.com/mason/nyc/Reports2/showsection.html?propkey=127235
All the CG haters really don't know what they are talking about.
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 4:16 PM
"while as rents continue to fall"
Rents in New York City were up 12.8% in 2007, which was the highest increase in the country. Other urban area rents were down as much as 12%. The reason New York is bucking the trend is because it is in a global market and New York Rents are still pretty cheap compared to the rest of the world.
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 4:17 PM
People who don't live in Carroll Gardens have no clue what type of people have been buying in the neighborhood. I know of several fairly wealthy individuals that have moved to the area. This is not a working class Italian neighborhood anymore.
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 4:18 PM
"rents continue to fall and buyers are no longer willing to move into marginal areas in the hopes of turning a profit."
I haven't seen or heard that rents are falling anywhere. There is still a very low vacancy rate, and if your apt and neighborhood are decent, someone will rent from you. A floor through 1 1/2 bedroom, with some detail and nice appliances in this neighborhood can go for $1200, maybe a bit more.$2,400-2,600 a month in this house will pay almost half your mortgage, making this affordable to the real middle class, assuming they have the down payment and some reno money.
If you are looking to buy a home, not just an investment, then this is a great buy. I do not see this as a marginal area, and it will only grow in value. If they extend the HD, this will be landmarked, and this area is seeing more and more amenities arriving every week. Someone looking for a home to grow in, not a quick flip, can ride out any small recession or downturn in the economy.
I also think $650K would be a fair price for what needs to be done. It's also rather amazing that they kept the dressing rooms, probably as the only closets. Those are usually the first things to go in any conversion.
Posted by: Montrose Morris at January 18, 2008 4:32 PM
eBay Bidding Hits $400,000 for Sweatpants Signed by Gary Coleman
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,323743,00.html
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 4:32 PM
3:54--OK, the super-renovated, triple-mint house on Midwood sold for 1.665, not 1.6 as I said. So the most this house could be worth is 1.265--if the market is as strong as it was in the summer.
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 4:33 PM
"Former HOTD on Degraw btw Smith and Hoyt (2 blocks away from Union) sold for $2.86M back in August."
Wow, that was over $200,000 over the ask!
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 4:35 PM
4:18 yes - but the ambiance lingers on
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 4:37 PM
4:17 - 2007 was a long, long, long time ago. Rents are being pushed down, especially in Brooklyn, due to the huge build-up of condos and no one to buy.
Check Here:
http://finance.yahoo.com/real-estate/article/104224/Home-Sellers-Pain-Is-Renters-Gain;_ylt=Ang_AaGbCFh4BNCQ3dZ4qs27YWsA
Rents being up 12% last year just means further to fall this year.
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 4:40 PM
yeah, i get all my news from yahoo too.
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 4:46 PM
whatever DB - Its a Wall Street Journal syndicated article. all fiancial news on Yahoo is sydicated articles from WSJ Rueters, Bloomberg, etc. Idiot.
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 4:51 PM
Great Value in the Carroll Gardens house i feel like for the grat nabe and great school in PS58 it's a stal. Also i am not a broker.
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 5:06 PM
The What is a Penis. Does not matter if we go into a recession, Carroll Gardens will always be a top notch area for Family's to live in.
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 5:07 PM
Yes, and the "ambiance that lingers on" is one of the many charming aspects of Carroll Gardens. I love the fact that the guy who fixes my shoes has been around for 30 years and the bakery and butcher down the street have been around for ever as well. I love the old Italians who still sit on their stoops in the summer. Is this the ambiance you are talking about 4:37? Is it a "Moon Struck" ambiance you are talking about? Or something else. An old Italian working class neighborhood has a lot of charm.
Granted, I could do with out some other stubborn characteristics that live on here, but you take the good with the bad. And the good far outweighs the bad.
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 5:07 PM
not a broker, and not graduated yet from middle school yet either, with spelling like that apparently.
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 5:08 PM
I don't see how the Rutland house is more renovated than this Midwood house, as a couple people claimed above, when this Midwood house does have a bathroom on every floor. One big drawback many people mentioned about the Rutland house was they had NOT added bathrooms to each of the upper floors yet. It's tough to have to go to another floor in the middle of the night to use the bathroom.
In smaller houses, parlor floor bathrooms are impossible without ending up with a dinky kitchen. But in the big houses people do expect bathrooms on the parlor floor and certainly on floors where there are bedrooms. Even if the bathrooms need renovating, the fact this house did already integrate bathrooms into the layout helps save money. You're not going to be adding plumbing where there was none before.
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 5:10 PM
hey 5:07...
Moonstruck was set in Brooklyn Heights.
NOT Carroll Gardens.
Sorry to burst your bubble.
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 5:10 PM
"If, as you write, "buyers are no longer willing to move into marginal areas in the hopes of turning a profit," that might not be such a bad thing. OTOH, moving into such areas to actually LIVE is another matter entirely."
I'm looking to buy a home to live in, but any house these days is an investment. I am pluncking down a huge portion of my savings and then a hunk of my annual salary. That makes it an investment. So the primary goal is to buy a good home for the family, but it also needs to be a sound investment. And these days "fringe" areas are not a sound investment.
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 5:10 PM
The Bed Stuy house is underpriced by about 55k.
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 5:15 PM
4:40 the last sentence of that Yahoo article says...
"A study by one former and two current Federal Reserve economists suggests that home prices will have to fall by 15% over the next five years while rents increase by 4% a year to return that rent/price ratio to normal."
If this is true, then rents will be up by 20% in five years.
Not too bad short or long term prospects for the rental market.
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 5:15 PM
I love wallpaper when it's used just on one wall, which is something that's trendy and fun now, or in a powder room or small bedroom. Wallpaper everywhere in a large room is too overwhelming.
We live in the Manor, and about the one-family-only thing, we definitely believe it contributes to the tightknit community. We like it.
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 5:16 PM
5:10, Moon Struck was set in both Carroll Gardens and Brooklyn Heights you twit. The Nicholas Cage character lives in Carroll Gardens and the bakery where he works is also located in Carroll Gardens.
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 5:17 PM
If someone disdains to buy in a "fringe" area, if that's the price range they are looking at, then they'll end up in the suburbs. There's really no other place to go, for under a million.
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 5:18 PM
And since my home value has gone up 200% in the last few years, I really won't mind a 15% drop.
If it gets too bad, I'll just RENT IT OUT!!!
Bad news OVER!
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 5:18 PM
The house, where the majority of Moonstruck was filmed was in Brooklyn Heights.
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 5:19 PM
Yea Moonstruck was in brooklyn Heights but the Bakery is now in Carroll Gardens you fool. The name is Monetlione on court street. So many pople threatened on this site by Carroll Gardens why? Park Slopers seem to worry at night about why carroll Gardens has taken over the spotlight. Maybe it's because the area is Safer and closer to Manhattan and has more of a European feel.
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 5:19 PM
I wouldn't live in Carroll Gardens if you paid me.
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 5:21 PM
The Bed Stuy house is overpriced by about 100k
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 5:22 PM
Ain't not much European about guidos and mobsters, 5:21.
Oh well...I guess the mobsters yeah...
Loves me some Naples circa 1950.
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 5:23 PM
The bakery in Moon Struck was Cammareri's and it was always in Carroll Gardens. Half the movie takes place in and around the area of Sackett and Henry.
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 5:25 PM
Why? You don't think they have mobsters in Italy?
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 5:26 PM
Last I checked, Naples was in Italy, 5:26.
If your definition of "feels European" is mobsters, you need to get out more.
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 5:27 PM
When ever Cher visits Nicholas Cage in the movie it is in Carroll Gardens. You clearly know nothing about the movie so stop pretending you do.
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 5:28 PM
Ok, we've got it.
EVERYONE should move to Carroll Gardens. It has old ladies on stoops, mobsters, guidos and ALL OF MOONSTRUCK WAS FILMED THERE!!!
Sign me up for two 4 million dollar BROWNSTONES!!!!!
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 5:29 PM
If you're definition of Carroll Gardens is "mobsters" you need to get out more.
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 5:30 PM
Why don't you just say, "I'm sorry, you were right and I was wrong."
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 5:32 PM
Isn't it ironic that everyones says that every thread gets hijacked by Park Slopers when it looks to me all the threads for the past 2 weeks are overtaken by needy Carroll Gardens residents.
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 5:33 PM
True, 5:33. It really seems a couple old-timer CG residents have recently discovered Brownstoner and are hijacking threads. Because all the pop references are so dated. Moonstruck, come on. Their rationals for why CG is the best are really dated too, like saying only white Italians live there so that means it's "safe". It's just really square.
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 5:37 PM
The bakery from Moonstruck is now Naidre's a coffee shop. The Monetlione bakery on court was not in the movie.
http://nymag.com/listings/restaurant/naidres02/coffee
There are a ton of Carroll Gardens haters on this board but the neighborhood is one of the best.
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 5:37 PM
Actually, one of the open house picks is in CARROLL GARDENS so there is actually no high jacking going on.
Just because Park Slope isn't included in the open house picks it doesn't mean you have to stamp your feet.
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 5:39 PM
Can you show me the post that says "only white Italians live there so that means it's safe," because I don't see that.
Do you really have to lie to put down Carroll Gardens?
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 5:41 PM
I was referencing the recent 10 threads that became all about Caroll Gardens, 5:41. In which many many times it was bragged about how white CG is.
Per my comment how many recent threads have been hijacked. I did not say only this thread.
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 5:44 PM
Nope.
Carroll Gardens puts down itself just by exisiting.
Notice that no one gave two ratfarts about the CG listing this week?
Cause they are ALL OVERPRICED!
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 5:45 PM
Yes, knowing the movie "Moon Struck" makes you square...
Twit.
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 5:47 PM
If knowing the movie Moonstruck doesn't make you a square, calling someone a twit sure does.
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 5:50 PM
No recent threads have been high jacked, it just feels that way to you because two of the HOTDs this week were in Carroll Gardens. I think it is just that Park Slope jealousy coming out again.
BTW, I would stop while you are behind because you look like more and more of a twit as this dialog continues.
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 5:51 PM
Moonstruck is an old-lady movie. Sweet and well performed, but totally old-lady and very square.
Park Slope has "Smoke", "Blue in the Face" and "Squid & the Whale" as its locally shot movies which is way more cool. I don't live in PS but if I had to choose a neighborhood based on movies that filmed there, it would have to be PS. Or of course Bay Ridge for Saturday Night Fever. (I don't live in Bay Ridge either - since we always have to point that out here).
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 5:52 PM
5:51, please see 5:50.
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 5:52 PM
Duplex was filmed in Park Slope too.
Love me some Drew Barrymore and Ben Stiller.
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 5:53 PM
Alright, I gotta run, but it was nice talking to you guys. BTW did you guys just get out of class?
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 5:55 PM
Nope, 5:55, but apparently we are all twits!
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 5:56 PM
I'm proud to be a twit!
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 5:57 PM
No food at this party? Wha? Surely someone must have a cannoli??
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 6:01 PM
didn't you hear?
ted told us yesterday it's wine we are supposed to serve...
white wine.
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 6:02 PM
But with all this talk of Carroll Gardens, I'm craving a cannoli. Chocolate dipped cannoli. And maybe some of those red and green leaf cookies.
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 6:07 PM
Montrose: Thank you, again, for a sane post.
Anyone who wants to buy and live in the BS house will have to deal with the noise of the club next door, as there is no soundproofing at Solomon's Porch.
That said, if you like jazz, you will get free music piped in through the common wall.
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 6:23 PM
omg, sounds like a nightmare, 6:23.
guess it's not underpriced afterall.
i wouldn't pay a dime for a house next to a unsoundproofed club.
yikes.
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 7:46 PM
As long as we're going in this direction, PLG has P.S. I love you as its movie!
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 8:11 PM
The movie wasn't "Moonstruck" it was actually "Strega Luna".
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 9:04 PM
No, the inside shots were a set in the studio.
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 9:36 PM
Carroll gardens rules. Park Slope only wishes
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 10:06 PM
i thought it was the outside that was a dump.
the inside i loved.
very shabby chic modern vintage.
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 10:16 PM
slopers feeling threatened wow maybe
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 10:22 PM
Park Slope can eat it. It's getting soft, soft, soft. Over it. Carroll Gardens has zero class or personality and will always be blander than steamed cauliflower. Nice try with those absurd prices CG! Ft. Greene can lick it too. Too many weirdo white hipsters pushing strollers and young "creatives" who think they've got some edge. Truly annoying. All three of you can suck my big toe. Forever.
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 11:13 PM
Funny thing, amongst all this talk of "recession" and "economic doom", I still don't see the mass exodus of people from their homes, or starving hordes of homeless or even the massive slashing of prices in New York City home prices. Before anyone here gives too much credit to chicken little types like "whatchamacallit", bear in mind that a recession is defined by 3 or more straight quarters of negative GDP. We still have yet to post one in 6 years. Also bear in mind that financials go up and they go down, most smart investors know that the time to get in is when the market is down, and you can be sure that the Warren Buffets of the world are quietly buying as we speak. Stop thinking small folks. We are still in the midst of a worldwide economic boom.
Posted by: guest at January 19, 2008 10:03 AM
"and you can be sure that the Warren Buffets of the world are quietly buying as we speak."
Not at high prices though.
Nice try.
Posted by: guest at January 19, 2008 10:44 AM
NYC is not in the same position that the rest of the country is in.
There is historically low inventory here.
As long as it stays this way prices will not go down by much.
Supply and demand will trump an economic downturn in this city, if these inventory levels stay this low.
There is NADA on the market in Park Slope for instance.
Posted by: guest at January 19, 2008 11:24 AM
PUMP, PUMP, PUMP!! KEEP PUMPING! PUMP, PUMP, PUMP!! KEEP PUMPING! PUMP, PUMP, PUMP!! KEEP PUMPING!
Posted by: guest at January 19, 2008 11:38 AM
To the doom & gloomers: there are those who hoped to sell at a profit within the next couple years, and there are those (like us) who bought a long term home when they bought a house. Why do you think the concerns and the outcome are the same for BOTH groups? Because they're not. Sorry. The only people you are managing to get in a panic are the flippers. Even the whole "prime" neighborhood vs. "fringe" neighborhood obsession, that only concerns the flippers too. The only thing that would slow the gentrification of "fringe" areas is if there is a huge wave of people fleeing to the suburbs instead of committing to staying in NYC. How many of you are moving to New Jersey? Right. Didn't think so.
Posted by: guest at January 19, 2008 11:59 AM
That's what I've been saying for a couple years now, 11:24, back when people started to hold off buying thinking there will be great deals - the more the market slows the FEWER people will be selling. It seemed completely logical. And it's proven to be true. Sometimes I look at what's on the market, wondering if we'd bought now if we'd find a better deal or better house than we got 2 years ago on a house. And I never find anything I'd rather have than our own house. Not a better house, nor a better price. It must be really really hard for people. I'd hate to be house hunting right now.
Posted by: guest at January 19, 2008 12:06 PM
agreed, 11:59.
and lowering home prices are only going to entice MORE people to stay in the city who would have gone to the burbs (where taxes are SKYROCKETING IN NJ) so as long as we see the city continue to stay safe, it will be an attractive place to live.
i can only HOPE to stay in my comfy little apt. i bought last year. my mortgage is doable...i've got a years worth of mortgage payments in savings (thank you co-op rules...forced me to SAVE!) and if i'm here 5 or 10 years, i couldn't be more happy.
no more increasing rent for me!
and in 29 more years, when everyone in nyc is paying 8000 a month for a studio, i'll be paying a few hundred bucks in maintence cost, should i choose to stay here forever!!!
Posted by: guest at January 19, 2008 12:10 PM
EVERYONE NEEDS TO SAVE MONEY!
NOTHING WILL BE BETTER FOR THE ECONOMY.
GO ONLINE...OPEN AN ING DIRECT SAVINGS ACCOUNT AND PUT A FEW HUNDRED BUCKS AWAY EVERY MONTH.
YOU WON'T BELIEVE WHAT THAT WILL DO FOR OUR ECONOMY!!!!!
OH, AND PAY MORE THAN THE MINIMUM ON YOUR CREDIT CARD EACH MONTH!
Posted by: guest at January 19, 2008 12:14 PM
I think that if the new crop of young singles that then remain in the city as young famililies cannot afford the city (either to buy or rent) because of sustained high prices or decrease in higher paying jobs because of mess in the financial sector spilling over to other industries too, then you'll see less gentrication in the fringe areas as the children of the "pioneers" during the good times would have moved on. If there is less of an influx, then less demand for services, amenities stalling the gentrification of "fringe" areas.
Prime areas: Cobble Hill, Park Slope, and yes Carroll Gardens have matured to a point where I personally don't see drastic reversal possibly unless severe recession/depression but then this would affect suburban areas too. Brooklyn Heights limited housing stock is so prime that it remains above all others in most market conditions. It has old money, new money - sort of like Greenwich pocket. There are long time locals in rent stablized but it always has been this way - while balance shifts a bit due to development, it is still the situation.
Posted by: guest at January 19, 2008 12:22 PM
Your entire theory about less gentrification happening in the fringe areas is completely dependent on young families leaving NYC for the suburbs, 12:22. Which is fiction; it's just not happening. The stats show more and more African Americans are going to the suburbs or South, and young white families and couples are staying in NYC. It's not a recent trend - I started reading and hearing about this migration in the early 90's. I saw it myself in Atlanta and L.A. It's what revived urban areas all over the entire country over the last 15 years.
Posted by: guest at January 19, 2008 12:28 PM
the one primary difference between this possible recession and the last one is that people are disgusted with the suburbs at this point.
not the physical burbs themselves, but everything they stand for.
in the circle of people i am friendly with, moving to the suburbs is settling. settling for an existence that is not challenging, that does not support the environment and does not support the personal growth as a human being.
in the last 10 years, the city has made a huge comeback.
all across the world, people are craving more urban environments and want to connect with people easier. you can even see it in the burbs...how many "urban style" shopping malls have popped up in the last 5 years. they are yearning for more connection to people.
it has to do with the age of the internet.
as we become more computer oriented, living in close urban environments gives us the sense of community that has been lost by our new way of life with computers.
i don't believe this is a fad. i believe to some extent, the suburb is dying.
close-in suburbs...the more urban ones will see a revivial in the next 20 years as people no longer want to drive long distances, spend half their pay on gas just to get a 4000 sf mcmansion out in the middle of nowheresville.
Posted by: guest at January 19, 2008 12:30 PM
this recession is the perfect opportunity to make this country free from its dependence on oil.
we had a dot.com boom and bust a decade ago.
now have had a housing boom and bust.
i say next should be a "green" boom.
let's try to do it right this time to alleviate the bust....
Posted by: guest at January 19, 2008 12:34 PM
I didn't say that this is happening or would. I said that if prices don't come down LESS young families stay in the city, and that this would stall gentrification of fringe areas. If job opportunities and incomes aren't there and are coupled with prices that are still too high, the fringe areas get hit first. Sort of like a lower quality loan in a Collateralized Debt Obligation. Current buyers should be careful - especially if they are committing their long hard earned dollars or inheritance.
Posted by: guest at January 19, 2008 12:35 PM
BTW, just to point it out, even when we read these stats which state this new migration is about race, I disagree, I think it's about differences happening in perception of good quality of life. For a greater number of the black families leaving NYC, they can have a larger house and yard and be near family. Which are things they value more than the white families who want to live in the urban city, who now prioritize other things. There's a suburbs type person and a city type person, and more and more black families are finding they value the suburban life. It's inaccurate that some who write about this migration are making it about race or economics, IMO.
Posted by: guest at January 19, 2008 12:37 PM
12:35...
what you aren't taking into account is that things are much WORSE outside of NYC.
who wants to go live in phoenix now, or la, or atlanta, or san diego or florida or even boston???
prices there have dropped so dramatically, the local economies are reeling and no one knows when things will get better.
i feel a lot better about being in the country's one true world capital than anywhere else right now, that's for darn sure.
Posted by: guest at January 19, 2008 12:40 PM
But the prices are not too high in the fringe areas for educated white professionals, 12:35. The prices are 1/3 the cost to buy a house in blue chip neighborhoods. So it's really about whether those young white professionals would rather buy in a fringe area, or buy in New Jersey. And they are NOT choosing New Jersey.
Posted by: guest at January 19, 2008 12:41 PM
12:37....you might be correct about that, but we all know blacks in general are not up to the same level in terms of wealth building and income or education levels as their white counterparts.
so they are searching for the same "better life" that many whites went to look for in the suburbs 20 and 30 years ago. they are a little behind and always have been. i'm not saying that in a racist way because i think it's white people who have "helped" keep them behind.
i do believe there will come a time that things will reverse almost completely....
it used to be cities in the u.s. were predominently black and the burbs were white. i'm talking 60's-90's.
i think in another 20 years, it will be the opposite.
Posted by: guest at January 19, 2008 12:44 PM
NEW JERSEY IS BANKRUPT. THAT'S WHY!
Posted by: guest at January 19, 2008 12:45 PM
Regarding the city vs. suburbs discussion, if I were forced to choose anywhere else but NYC to live, I would move to downtown Chicago, downtown Seattle, downtown San Francisco way way way before I'd ever move to the suburbs in NJ, LI CT or upstate. Every single person I know says the same thing. Everything I witness and read and know supports the fact people will move to another URBAN area entirely before they move to the suburbs of New York.
Translation = the great majority are sticking it out in the good ole Big Apple. As for the threat of fewer jobs in NYC, if there are fewer jobs here there will be NO jobs elsewhere so there won't be many people leaving NYC for jobs.
Posted by: guest at January 19, 2008 12:45 PM
The ONLY other place I'd move in the U.S. if I left NYC would be Portland, Oregon.
Do you have any idea how difficult it is to find a job in Portland, though???
12:45 is correct.
The suburbs are becoming a place for those that can't afford cities. Not as destinations in and of themselves. So basically they are the decaying cities of the 1960's.
You only moved to Baltimore City in 1960 if you couldn't afford the newly affluent suburbs.
Now the opposite is happening in most cities. Even Baltimore...a city with its share of problems, has seen more home price appreciation than ANY of its neighboring suburbs have.
Posted by: guest at January 19, 2008 12:50 PM
I LOVE the city but I don't see a complete reversal unfortunately. I think that there will also be a trend towards rural communities that mimic certain city qualities without the large bureaucratic tendencies and social problems. I think that as technology continues to progress, more people will work from home therefore commuting is not as a big a deal. There a big tax advantage to doing so and savings on expenses. On the sturdiest people can weather an inner city "fringe" neighborhood during economic downtimes. Lost tax revenues do not translate well to social services and city education. As companies need to cost cut and as technology allows, working from home will also be a trend in my view. The city will live but not 100% reversal - this is too extreme in my view.
Posted by: guest at January 19, 2008 1:23 PM
An economic downturn in a fringe area doesn't mean utter chaos erupts, people running in the streets throwing bombs. Hilarious. If that happens, everybody has something to worry about, not just those who own homes in "the fringe".
By the way, the ability to telecommute was the same 5 years ago as it is now or 5 years from now and people STILL chose wholeheartedly to remain inside NYC. There's no indication it's a growing trend to leave the city and telecommute. Your theory is based in nothing.
Plus we get the same tax advantages with our home office in NYC than we'd get in the suburbs. So don't know what you are talking about. But I guess you mean for people who work in an office here but would work from home if they moved outside of the city? That was a whole concept everyone thought would happen several years ago, but never did on any large scale. People in corporate offices are raelly expected to go to the office. Even if they are *allowed* to work from home some days, it's frowned upon and they end up not fitting into the company culture as well. They're odd men out a lot of times. I have never seen that work out well for people in their careers. Slower promotions or none at all. I know people who have no reason to have to go into the office for the work they do, and their company insists they do. It's so 90's to anticipate a big telecommuter workforce like that.
Posted by: guest at January 19, 2008 1:34 PM
I disagree with you 1:34 but I have to go shopping now. I have a historical perspective that I think you do not and know many examples of the trends cited based not only on personal observation but through conversations with people that are very high level at consulting firms.
Your defensiveness leads me to believe that you are young.
Posted by: guest at January 19, 2008 1:39 PM
The bottom line is that New York City is a world capital and we are in the midst of a worldwide boom. Here in the US we are in the midst of a credit crunch which is rapidly being addressed by lowering the prime lending rate and economic stimulus packages, while unemployment and inflation remain relatively low. The end result is that foreigners continue to flock to Manhattan, because it is after all; Manhattan, while New Yorkers who are not in any mood to be displaced are sitting put in Brooklyn or Queens.Just as Americans have been buying pied a terres in Paris since the Jazz age, newly minted Russian and Mid-East millionaires are doing the NYC thing. House hunters in Brooklyn's brownstone neighborhoods are competing with Manhattanites over low inventory; thus the owners are digging in and stable housing prices are the result. Silly folks posting here about some "meltdown" just don't get the larger picture involved. Sure some of the panic may apply to suburbs of Houston or DesMoines, but it's simply a different animal here in NYC.
Posted by: guest at January 19, 2008 1:40 PM
I'm 40, 1:39 and consultants often lean their recommendations towards situations that ensure increased hiring of consultants. Consultants are overused and overrated.
Posted by: guest at January 19, 2008 1:46 PM
"More and more Black families value the suburban life." Did it ever occur to you that Blacks leave for the suburbs for the same reasons as Whites? THEY CAN'T AFFORD THE CITY!!! I have many friends who would have loved to stay in the city and who would have no problem purchasing homes in Bed-Stuy, Ft. Greene, Harlem, Ditmas Park, etc.. if it were affordable and there were better educational opportunities for their children. Many of my friends ended up in the burbs because their children have access to college prep courses, music, art and sports programs through school and the home prices were affordable. Many come back to the city every week to visit family and worship in the urban churches and mosques that have long histories in urban communities and are still anchors in those now gentrifying communities. I was fortunate enough to be able to afford to stay in the city where my kids go to private school and I pay for music lessons. Friends with similar incomes have stayed in the city as well. As far as the trend started in the 1980's in the migration back South, again affordability. They needed affordable housing, near family and good schools but did not necessarily want their children to grow up in an all white Northern suburb. Their are middle class and upper middle class suburbs starting in Maryland where the majority of the residents are Black. Atlanta is a prime example of this. This choice doesn't have to do with racism but the need to provide positive Black role models for children. Of course many of our parents who were born in the South in the 30's & 40's moved back South after retirement and many adult children followed them.
Posted by: guest at January 19, 2008 1:48 PM
"we all know blacks in general are not up to the same level in terms of wealth building and income or education levels as their white counterparts". Guest at 12:44
Now you know I have a problem with a broad generalization like that.
WE ARE NOT A MONOLITHIC COMMUNITY, FOR GOD'S SAKE. Just taking it from the way you stated it, it is not true that the COUNTERPARTS of white achievers lack or fall behind in any way. Black ivy league educated strivers do as well as white ivy league educated strivers. Sure, if you compare a white Harvard grad to a black high school grad in terms of earning power, there is a discrepancy. But the same can be said for a Black Harvard grad and a white high school grad.
If you want to go by numbers alone, of course more white people are doing better than black people, they don't call us minorities for nothing, there are less of us. Try going to Hinterland USA, and you will see huge amounts of white people underachieving right and left. But back to your comment-
I am well aware of the vast number of black people who are not even on the economic ladder of success, and much needs to be done to raise up hope and opportunities. But when we play on an equal playing field, and that is not the rarity it once was, we do just as well as anyone. We're not "behind" anyone.
Please do not condescend, even in the name of understanding the historical context of our struggle and rise in this country. I'm not saying you are completely wrong about the movement of black people to the suburbs, even affluent burbs. 1:48 gives some excellent reasons for that, too. Given equal opportunity to become better educated, have lucrative careers, and succeed along with white and other Americans, we certainly don't follow anyone.
Posted by: Montrose Morris at January 19, 2008 4:54 PM
Twinkie?
Posted by: guest at January 19, 2008 4:55 PM
Montrose, I realized that I hadn't addressed the issue of Blacks lagging behind their white counterparts and was going to write another post but you eloquently stated what I was thinking in your post. Thanks. Just an additional point, I have found that among most civil servants Blacks are generally better educated than their white counterparts. My father worked as a Police Officer in the 60's and 70's and put his Law degree into practice when he retired. I know people that I went to college with who took civil service jobs with the police, corrections, transit, etc... instead of going into private industry. Historically many college educated Blacks have taken civil service jobs because there was no discrimination in hiring. We all know that the opportunities for Blacks have gotten better in the private sector but there is always room for improvement.
Posted by: guest at January 19, 2008 5:15 PM
You people live in such a tiny little bubble, and yet you seem to think you know what everyone is doing and why!! I'm a graphic designer and my husband is a film editor. All of our friends are in creative fields. Half of them have moved to the suburbs in the last few years and love it. Many of the others are considering it. We are looking in Brooklyn and the northern burbs and are very much on the fence. Money is part of the issue, but not at all the whole story. For us, and many of our friends, the pull of the far burbs is a quieter more normal pace, a less pressured life for our kids, and being close to real nature (which is critical for kids!). There's also the usual reasons of more space and better public schools. You can all poo-poo that and rant about how the burbs are dying, but the fact is that many creative city people are leaving--partially for money and partially for a saner life. That's why there is practically no middle class left in the city! You can hate that and you can deride it, but it is still the truth.
Posted by: guest at January 19, 2008 5:23 PM
gays and asians are minorities too. the former don't even have the right to marry, yet they as groups tend to do better than their other, non-minority counterparts, if you want to speak about education and earning power.
so how can you use minority as an excuse, montrose?
Posted by: guest at January 19, 2008 5:29 PM
don't agree, 5:23. there is a very small portion like you who move to the burbs.
you are a graphic designer. that makes it easier. but there are LOTS more people who don't have jobs like that, and can't just pick up and move to the suburbs. especially not now when the burbs are LOSING more jobs than they are creating.
Why do you think all the young creative people across the country move to NYC each year? To find jobs! If they liked the suburbs so much and they had the jobs they wanted, they would have stayed in the first place. A job you like in the creative field is not something you give up easily to just move out to the rural suburbs and "consult" while staring out at the trees.
Some of us who continue to have the passion that we had when we first came here will have a very difficult time leaving.
Posted by: guest at January 19, 2008 5:33 PM
Montrose Morris:
You've got that right.
And the reason so many African Americans are behind the wealth curve is that they were denied access to low-cost, government-insured mortgages for the post-war suburbs that were exclusively -- and at the time, legally -- whites only.
To this day, most Americans' wealth is in their real estate, and most of their wealth can be traced to federal policy that turned the country from 35% home ownership to 65% home ownership in a single generation. But due to discriminatory policies during the suburban boom, that same generation of African Americans was denied wealth-building opportunities open to others, for no reason other than race. (And wealth, more than income, powers educational achievement, career development, and the accumulation of more wealth, as research shows.)
There was an economic imperative to "white flight" in the 1950s, when I was growing up in Crown Heights. The suburbs were where whites could get mortgages with little or no money down. If they'd been offered the same chance in the city, close to their families, houses of worship, and friends, at least some would have decided to stay. And if blacks were given the same mortgate opportunities in the suburbs as whites, at least some would have left, creating a very different New York and region than we have today.
I remember the impacts of official policy on Brooklyn back in the day. At the time, of course, I knew nothing about the FHA, red-lining, exclusionary zoning, racial covenants, etc. But within a decade, my old neighborhood went from "white" to "black," and as I'd learn years later, only partially because of social preferences.
As always, follow the money.
Nostalgic on Park Avenue
BCHM/Back to Crown Heights Movement
Posted by: guest at January 19, 2008 5:40 PM
5:33--I, my husband, and all of our friends who have already moved to the burbs work in the city. Our friends have decided that the longer commute is worth the benefits of living in the farther burbs. Yes, I know die-hard urbanites who have no interest in a quieter saner life. But I know lots of creative professionals who work in the city 5 days a week and are happily living in the burbs. That was my point. The population of creative types in some burbs is quite high and is growing.
Posted by: guest at January 19, 2008 5:54 PM
if we have any hope to save the planet from global warming, it will be to live in high density environments.
we will not be able to sustain life on this planet if people continually gobble up the land and exploit it for their own greed.
when the world runs out of oil, you will see every person on this planet gravitate towards the nearest big city.
we already see it more and more in places like europe, which has been around much longer and lives with less resources. their societies have become much more evolved than ours, partly because of maturity and also partly because they have already reached a turning point in how to treat the world, that we have only seen glimpses of here in the u.s. up until now, we have been FAR too selfish!
Posted by: guest at January 19, 2008 6:00 PM
Nostalgic on Park Avenue/guest 5:40 PM writes "There was an economic imperative to "white flight" in the 1950s, when I was growing up in Crown Heights. The suburbs were where whites could get mortgages with little or no money down. If they'd been offered the same chance in the city, close to their families, houses of worship, and friends, at least some would have decided to stay."
This was still the case in 1974 when I bought my house. I could only find ONE bank that would even give me [or ANYONE] a mortgage application for an old house in Brooklyn [and that was Chase, at a time when it was VERY unusual to get a mortage from a commercial bank, rather than a savings bank or S & L] AND I had to make a 40% down payment, rather than the much lower percentages required for the 'burbs.
Posted by: Bob Marvin at January 19, 2008 6:23 PM
Bob Marvin:
People need to understand the full implications of your story. It describes why so much of the city and metropolitan area are what they are today, from the social make-up communities and the "wealth gap" between races to the uneven distribution of services and failure of so many of our public schools.
NOP
Posted by: guest at January 19, 2008 7:09 PM
5:29, are you having trouble with reading comprehension? I never used being a minority as an excuse for anything.
The discrimination against gays in our society is heinous, stupid and wrong, and we as a nation are idiots in our policies towards gays. However, lumping gays in with racial minorities in terms of success in upward mobility is apples and oranges. I also never said that Asian Americans are not successful people, the previous poster was specifically talking about African Americans.
The point is that we are not in a contest to determine who is the "best" minority. The point is that when all things are equal, race should not be a factor in success. We still have a long way to go there.
NOP - extremely important points, usually forgotten - and well said.
Posted by: Montrose Morris at January 19, 2008 7:14 PM
MM:
And it gets worse.
As Richard Plunz writes in "History of Housing in New York," suburban development was tied to national defense during the Cold War. The idea was to combine highways and new development to move people from cities, likely targets of atomic attack.
If African Americans were excluded from the suburbs, what does that say about about U.S. racial attitudes at the time?
I have a friend who taught for a year at a mostly "minority" community college in New Jersey, where she found her students flagellating themselves about their communities' "failures." The depth of their self-loathing was astonishing to her. Not until she began to cite research unearthing the reasons behind their communities' conditions -- location, racial make-up, property values, poverty, etc. -- and their relationship to official policy, did they begin to see what they might do about it, with positive impact on their self-regard.
I wish she could lead a course for some of Brownstoner's posters. They might be less likely to "flame" certain Brooklyn neighborhoods and mischaracterize the people who live in them.
NOP
Posted by: guest at January 19, 2008 7:39 PM
what's that saying -- that the sign of an intelligent mind is someone who can hold onto two opposing truths at the same time?
the truth: demographic trends show that the ex-urbs are growing the fastest. That new york city would lose population if it weren't for the immigrant population. that manhattan and certain parts of brooklyn are getting richer, whiter and more educated.
these things can all be true at the same time. That's why you can all tell anecdotal stories illustrating different trends, and still find some sort of truth in them.
Posted by: guest at January 19, 2008 8:26 PM
That is a perfect summary statement to the topics discussed here. In fact, one probably couldn't be universally true because if all people shifted in one direction there wouldn't be enough resources. It's also highly unlikely that all people want the same things.
Posted by: guest at January 19, 2008 8:41 PM
8:41-- so true. There are lots of trends, many the polar of opposite of each other, all happening at the same time.
Posted by: guest at January 19, 2008 9:06 PM
No more, no more. Pass the cheetos.
Posted by: guest at January 20, 2008 12:01 AM
To the guest commenting about creative types moving to the burbs and commuting to the city: think very hard before you buy. In fact, rent first.
We made a similar move a few years ago (we are both in creative fields) and we ended up feeling quite isolated. However, that wasn't the primary reason we moved back to Brooklyn 2 years later. It was the commute. Ours was roughly an hour, but the timed trains, the delays, the difficulty in getting to/from the city on weekends (with car or without) made for a lifestyle we just didn't enjoy. It got worse when we had our daughter and needed to coordinate daycare into that mix. We sold our big house and live in a small co-op now. But, we're much, much happier.
Of course, not everyone has this experience. Many people are happy in the burbs and doing the commute thing. But those people tend to have the flexibility of living off of one income when the kids come, which makes a huge difference. So, just think about trying it out before committing to buy.
Posted by: guest at January 20, 2008 9:14 AM
thanks 9:14....
the commute, mixed with the isolation, mixed with the rapidly falling house prices in the burbs would make me VERY nervous to consider a move there. and let's not forget the OUTRAGEOUS taxes.
people were much more willing to sacrifice on the commute and isolation when they were making bank on their homes, but now that this is no longer the case, i really don't see too much benefit to the suburbs over city life.
i see it simply as a place where people go who can't afford the city.
and that isn't going to make for a fun community in the long run. a community made up of people who settled for second best.
not saying some people don't love the burbs, but i think the numbers are falling as opposed to a few decades ago.
Posted by: guest at January 20, 2008 9:38 AM
btw....walked by that mandala tibetan store on 7th and lincoln that people were talking about on friday and heard the sound of workmen and a powersaw inside.
so sounds like something new is on the way....
no more for rent sign up.
Posted by: guest at January 20, 2008 9:52 AM
I think that it depends largely on the quality of life in the suburb/exurb. Since we are talking anecdotes here, I have several friends and former colleagues that live in a decent sized space outside of the city (2000 to 3000 sf) and hire and au pair to make the dual working person situation manageable. Also, more working from home and industriousness in that regard. Reporters, system administrators... jobs that can be done easily from home with visits to home or client office periodically.
Not saying the city is doomed - that would be a sad state of affairs but the burbs will not be vast wastelands - depends on the quality of the town
Posted by: guest at January 20, 2008 9:53 AM
i think it's safe to say that the quality of life in new york city has far outpaced the majority of its suburbs over the last 10 years.
suburbs exist to service the city, whereas the actual cities strive to be better.
the suburbs would not exist without the city, but the city would exist no matter what.
that says something to me.
Posted by: guest at January 20, 2008 10:22 AM
I don't recall seeing any livestock or reservoirs in the city recently. They both support each other in a myraid of ways.
Posted by: guest at January 20, 2008 10:33 AM
"we are in the midst of a credit crunch which is rapidly being addressed by lowering the prime lending rate and economic stimulus packages"
These actions are the equivalent of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Posted by: guest at January 20, 2008 12:40 PM
I absolutely agree 12:40.
Posted by: guest at January 20, 2008 12:44 PM
Back to the houses, did anyone go to the Midwood open house today. . .
Posted by: guest at January 20, 2008 3:25 PM
Obviously NYC is great if you value walking to a CHASE ATM or a Duane Reade, but otherwise the suburbs are the way to go. Suburbs have become affordable and offer better schools. I see little value in the City other than prestige. Park Slope is the new Greenwich. Diversity is now in Westchester, not Brownstone Brooklyn.
And of course if you want Urban Livng, better off in Chicago, Seattle or Atlanta. NYC urban living is an oxymoron, unless you think Whole Foods and the Apple Store constitutes urban.
Posted by: guest at January 20, 2008 7:22 PM
5:23, where do you and your friends plan on looking?
Posted by: guest at January 20, 2008 7:57 PM
"Park Slope is the new Greenwich"
That's absurd!!!
Park Slope is the new Paris, goddamit! or maybe the new Mayfair. Don't insult it by calling it the new Greenwich.
Posted by: guest at January 20, 2008 7:58 PM
I have to say: Brooklyn Heights is the new Greenwich.
Posted by: slick at January 21, 2008 3:35 AM
Wrong, all of you. Dyker Heights is the new "Old Greenwich."
Posted by: guest at January 21, 2008 11:09 AM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.