« Development Watch: Clarett's 111 Lawrence Street House of the Day: 166 Prospect Place »

February 13, 2008

Condos of the Day: 639 6th Avenue

After starting out on the wrong foot, the six-unit condo at 639 6th Avenue turned out to be a little more interesting, in our opinion, than the standard fare going up in the South Slope and Greenwood Heights these days. While the ceilings could be higher, the layout feels pretty lofty for a 976-square-foot apartment and the kitchens are the nicest we've seen in a new development in a while. So far, though, buyers appear to be less enthusiastic. Although the lower duplex is in contract according to A&H, none of the five floor-throughs, priced from $569,000 to $675,000, has a taker yet. Theories?
639 6th Avenue: The Vanguard [Aguayo & Huebener] GMAP
Where Does a Tree Stand in Development Hierarchy? [Brownstoner]

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/3819

Comments

Overlooks the Prospect Expressway for one. That is one LOUD corner.

Posted by: guest at February 13, 2008 12:47 PM

Why do they keep changing the name of this development -- and brokers too?

The inside of the units look nice from the photos. They are small though.

The outside of the building is a disaster though. Looks exceptionally cheap and not much like the original renderings.

Posted by: guest at February 13, 2008 12:55 PM

The corner is actually really nice. There's a good vest pocket park. The houses nearby are charming. You're down the street from Kitchen Bar, BBQ, etc...

The views on the top floors are great. The building attractive for the area. We went to see one and were enthusiastic about the location, and the finishes.

976 square feet is small though- especially for people willing to cross over the expressway. You can start to buy a house in that neighborhood in the high 7s, and you can typically find bigger condos in the neighborhood at a similar pricepoint to this place- though sadly, they are usually ugly with bad finishes. I hope these do sell- it's one of the few new construction buildings in our new neighborhood that look nice up close and from far away. If they don't sell, there's no reason for developers to not build cheaper, uglier stuff...

Posted by: Park Place at February 13, 2008 12:58 PM

I agree with you, Park Place. I think they look nice, but they are not very big and pretty expensive. I'd be interested in checking them out if they were priced in the 400s, but as is I may as well spring for a small house.

Posted by: guest at February 13, 2008 1:08 PM

It's actually not loud inside. At least not when I was there.

Posted by: guest at February 13, 2008 1:14 PM

Whether noisy or not, glorious views of the Prospect Expressway aren't exactly a strong selling point.

Posted by: guest at February 13, 2008 1:16 PM

A small house for these prices or even in the 700s? Not even in south slope. You people are crazy.

Posted by: guest at February 13, 2008 1:16 PM

"It's actually not loud inside. At least not when I was there."

Did you open the windows?

Posted by: guest at February 13, 2008 1:17 PM

I don't like the little windows. It looks like building built in the 60's or 70's

Posted by: guest at February 13, 2008 1:28 PM

Agree that price is on the high side,location not great, and that size is too small for a 2 BR/2 Bath. Over 1K sq. ft. would have done the trick though. Nice fixtures.

Posted by: guest at February 13, 2008 1:36 PM

hey 1:16pm:

http://realestate.nytimes.com/sales/detail/3209-H1913

Posted by: guest at February 13, 2008 1:38 PM

I hear they call it the "cruise ship" in the neighborhood. After seeing it up close, it's a total POS, and I am very surprised at brownstoner's pseudo-endorsement considering what a plague this property has been to the community. From what i have read, this POS has been bad from day one. And the amount of critical posts Mr. B has made on his own blog in reg's to 6th on 6th or Vanguard 6 or whatever they will call it in a few months when the units don't sell.

Multiple shut downs, no vesting after the zoning, a win at the BSA to only change their plans, remove the balconies from the original renderings and use the Seattle Sea Hawks color palette for the crappy stucco.

Who would want to live there? I have to agree with 1:16pm's comment on the price. For a few more bucks, there are frame homes in the area, that with some TLC, would beat this POS hands down...and not overlook the Expressway.

And to Park Place, go back and read the archives of brownstoner. The nice "vest pocket park" was totally eff'ed up by the developer when they chose to start cutting branches off the trees during construction. Way to improve the park, right?

Posted by: Action Jackson at February 13, 2008 1:40 PM

There are so many new units coming on line in the general area. I think for these prices people expect more.. for example doorman, concierge services, like what they are offering along Fourth Avenue. Anyone been through the Vue or the Dimora Condos on 16th Street?

Posted by: guest at February 13, 2008 1:43 PM

the immediate area is peppered with POS new residential buildings. the lack of architectural cohesion is striking when compared to what's just on the other side of the prospect expressway. there are definitely some pre-war gems, but their charm is obscured by the helter skelter quality of all the new stuff. It should be noted, though, that many of the older/better buildings are wrapped in hideous aluminum siding or have been subject to unfortunate "improvements" -- for the most part, that all can be corrected...

Posted by: guest at February 13, 2008 1:50 PM

No one wants to live in an eyesore unless the units are very large and underpriced. The fixtures are nice, sure, but the views are terrible and the building is ugly. Imagine having to walk into that thing every day. Ugh.

Posted by: guest at February 13, 2008 1:54 PM

I've been to see these apartments and while I think they did a great job with some high end details, the layout of the main living space just doen't make sense - there's nowhere to put a regular-sized sofa, let alone any chairs or a little office setup, due to the fact that the elevator, doorway to the stairwell and a closet (which all need to remain accessible) take up the living room wall.

What's the point of having an elevator open into your apartment if there's nowhere to sit once you get there?

The view from the top floor IS spectacular (almost makes you forget that you're right on the highway), but not worth the additional $100k they're asking over price for an identical unit on the 2nd floor.

Posted by: guest at February 13, 2008 1:55 PM

I agree with brownstoner that they have a great layout for the size - so much better to have smaller bedrooms and a bigger living space. I don't know the area at all. I would imagine developers are freaking out right now though and would be open to seriously low ball offers. There's no harm in offering 450k for a place asking 569,000 - all they can do is say no.

Posted by: guest at February 13, 2008 1:58 PM

Here is another perspective.

http://imby.blogspot.com/2008_01_04_archive.html

Posted by: guest at February 13, 2008 2:00 PM

I was going to go to their open house but when we walked by, it looked like someone had thrown a rock through the window on the first floor so we kept on walking.

Posted by: guest at February 13, 2008 2:01 PM

Rocks and graffiti. Always a moniker of high class luxury living.

Posted by: Action Jackson at February 13, 2008 2:18 PM

fugly and overpriced. yum

Posted by: guest at February 13, 2008 2:24 PM

I just bought a coupla blocks from here so... I have to say that I've walked by here numerous times and it's not bad, the exterior. Not great, but given what else is going up, not bad.

As far as being by the Prospect, that seems to bother a lot of people, but not everyone. It's sunken, so you don't really hear much more than white noise. What you do get along the Prospect is loads of great light. Check out a couple of the gorgeous modernist houses built on the Slope side around 7t & 8th Ave.

In another sign of broker honesty, if you'll look at the photo of Manhattan from this development, and look at the listing from the Vue on the same website, they are the same photo. Nice...

Posted by: denton at February 13, 2008 2:29 PM

Ive Been to the Vue recently. Slightly more expensive for comparable units, but much better building, amenitites, and higher end finishes. Not to mention easier access to the subway.

Posted by: guest at February 13, 2008 2:30 PM

Personally, I find Greenwood Heights disgusting. I will never understand how they got that area rezoned; it really should all be bulldozed. Most of the existing housing stock looks like it belongs in a third world country. What few nice buildings exist are early 20th century apartment buildings that exceeded the maximum density allowed under the older zoning laws, and now will continue to be woefully out of context with the crap that currently exists. A few of the modern condo buildings are acceptable, but the zoning laws have virtually ensured they will always look out of place. I agree this particular building is ugly, but not as bad as the rest of the hovels in the area.

I would never buy a condo in that neighborhood, because you know it will remain as it is today for many, many years to come. Yeah, it's nice they have a few cute bars and restaurants on 6th Ave by this property, but that doesn't ameliorate the sheer ugliness of most of the homes, the enormous ConEd switching facility, the proximity of the Prospect Expressway, or being relegated to a local stop on the R train.

I went to a party at a friends place on 26th Street on Saturday night. Twas nice weather, so I decided to walk it all the way down Sixth Avenue. My aesthetic sensibilities were assaulted, and the desolation of the area at 8:00 on a Saturday night was unnerving. The cluster of hip establishments like the Kitchen Bar literally looked like outposts in a city ravaged by war.

A few thousand more investment bank employees were fired this week already. Anyone who buys these condos is exceptionally optimistic, and willing to assume a lot of risk.

Posted by: Polemicist at February 13, 2008 2:33 PM

What would Johnny Damon do?

Posted by: guest at February 13, 2008 2:42 PM

"I find Greenwood Heights disgusting"

I was waiting for a troll to appear, albeit a frequent poster. Polemicist, if you don't like the area, don't live here...or walk here...or eat here. In fact, ask your friend to move off of 26th St, if it's so bad in the neighborhood.

Many of us have worked hard to slowly rehab the current housing stock, which YES is mixed, YES has seen the wrath of the vinyl/aluminum salesmen of the 1960s-70s and YES the area has NOW been ravaged by the over-development, mostly started BEFORE the rezoning.

If you took a longer look or walk, you'd see the diversity in the area, the fact there's still a neighborhood and for those of us not looking for new condos (to each their own), may hard working middle class folks are purchasing homes, renovating them (our's in stages, so sorry, you'll have to look at my siding for a while, unless you want to cut me check) and revitalizing what used to be a vibrant community of Irish, Italian and Polish Americans. With the later moving on (out of the neighborhood, or more likely permanently into Green-Wood), there has been a good influx of South American and Mexican families along with us newer home owners.

Safe, affordable and A NEIGHBORHOOD.

So, you want to be elitist, no prob. Just stay the hell out. We don't need you or your kind.

Kisses,

-ccgh

Posted by: guest at February 13, 2008 2:52 PM

Oh crap. I actually agree with Polemicist on something.

Posted by: guest at February 13, 2008 3:13 PM

Who the f@ck would invite Polemicist to a party? I call BS!

Posted by: guest at February 13, 2008 3:13 PM

2:52 PM

I'm sorry, the neighborhood is not diverse in any way we know of the term. Certainly, the vast majority of new residents are wealthy and white. It is incredibly insular, and their lobbying for the change in the zoning is evidence of that.

Nothing has sold in the neighborhood at prices for "middle class folks" for several years. Latin folks are not moving into the neighborhood, unless they already know a landlord. They can't afford it. I'm actually very amused you would think this area incredibly undeveloped neighborhood is some kind of immigrant destination.

If you truly were interested in accommodating these huddled masses yearning to be free, you'd praise the developers want to build lots of new housing for them. So please, let's not try to pretend that you are looking out for the little guy. You're looking out for the upper middle class fools who think it's a great idea to pay a million bucks for a shack.

Anyway, the friend in question is moving out of the neighborhood. She was paying an appalling rent of $1400 a month for a very small 1-bedroom apartment in a pre-war rent stabilized building. That is hardly a rent that will make the lives of your "diverse" friends more livable.

It just baffles me that someone can think there should be no aesthetic standards regarding home maintenance and that living next to a slum is fine and dandy, but that their neighbor can't choose to building a moderately sized multi-family apartment building.

What is worse, living next to a brand new apartment building or a house that hasn't been maintained since the Eisenhower administration?

Anyway, you've failed to instill any kind of shame in me. My loyalty is to all people of New York City, not an insular community that wishes to forever exclude outsiders and the poor in addition to maintaining the shantytown aesthetic.

Posted by: Polemicist at February 13, 2008 3:22 PM

Hey action jackson- I wasn't really commenting on developer's methods- just the location next to the park. However bad the construction was, the park seems to have survived. That park, by the way, is an informal dog run- as in people let their dogs poop there. I don't think the building effed up the park so badly as I still see people walking by and through all the time. It's a notoriously undermaintained stretch of park.

Anyway, I still stand by the location. The views of the expressway from that block are mitigated by the skyline views of lower manhattan, statue of liberty, and the jersey city. Is this a secret or something? People complain about that expressway, but it provides this amazing view corridor all the way out to monmouth county on a nice day.

Again- too expensive by just a little, or too small by a few square feet. I bought a frame instead. I look forward to restoring it and someday getting rid of the aluminum siding.

Posted by: Park Place at February 13, 2008 3:28 PM

As an East Williamsburg resident, I love Greenwood Heights--it's the only neighborhood I've seen in Brooklyn that makes me feel good about the aesthetics of mine.

Posted by: guest at February 13, 2008 3:29 PM

"Anyway, you've failed to instill any kind of shame in me. My loyalty is to all people of New York City, not an insular community that wishes to forever exclude outsiders and the poor in addition to maintaining the shantytown aesthetic."

Polemicist,

No need to shame you, you are doing a good job doing that yourself.

As far as elitism, I stand by that observation considering you said "...you'd praise the developers want to build lots of new housing for them."

Where, in Brooklyn, are developers building units for "huddled masses."

Anything built in this area for the past 5 years has been for one demographic (to use a broad white brush). However, there is a large contingency of folks who bought into the "shanty town" before the new condos drove property values off the charts. Those of us who moved here, when it was "less desirable" pre-Developers Group forecasting, intend to work on our homes, restore them (back to their original pre-1900 look, modern redo or just new siding...who cares) and live in a neighborhood where I can walk down the street, at any time of day or night, say hello to a fellow GWH resident (owner or renter) and feel I am a part of a community...old timers, immigrants, home DIYers or new condo buyers alike.

Nothing wrong with new housing stock either, just when it's done in a contextual and responsible manner. However I'd bet you'd lobby for high density on a low density block (check out the 9-story POS on 22nd St.) to benefit "all people of NYC." Please, spare me.

The POS highlighted in the post is the very thing that has ruined the sense of scale and mixed character (yes, we can agree this is not brownstone Brooklyn) of this low rise area of south Brooklyn. I'll take an old frame needing a redo, clad in vinyl, any day over this stucco monster's units.

Again, please stay where you are...from whatever elitist neighborhood's rooftop you are preaching from.

-ccgh

Posted by: guest at February 13, 2008 3:41 PM

Polemicist - Why do you assume "Diverse" means "Poor"?

"That is hardly a rent that will make the lives of your "diverse" friends more livable."

Are you at least ashamed of that?

Posted by: guest at February 13, 2008 3:41 PM

"Again- too expensive by just a little, or too small by a few square feet. I bought a frame instead. I look forward to restoring it and someday getting rid of the aluminum siding."

Park Place, thank you. And if the frame was in GWH, welcome.

-ccgh

Posted by: guest at February 13, 2008 3:43 PM

SYNTHETIC STUCCO IS THE NEW ALUMINUM SIDING. My God would someone please stop this madness. Everywhere you look, it's there. This fake surface, this plastic Disney veneer of styrofoam and pigment. It's an abomination. Every half assed architect and their ham handed minions who abuse this crap should have their bodily fluids drained and replaced with this stuff. They should be plastinated and have their preserved corpses positioned on all fours like those mechanical animals outside toy stores for everyone to ride like small children. We can collect all those quarters and put them into a fund that would pay for the cost of building paper bags big enough to cover most of the new buildings in Brooklyn, 639 is on the short list.

Posted by: guest at February 13, 2008 3:48 PM

Hey Polemicist- Can you articulate your aesthetic sensibility? Can you articulate in a few sentences? Can you only define it by pointing at things you don't like? From what you've written, it seems so delicate that it must be hard to live at all in New York City. Or maybe your raw and jumpy neurons are placated simply by the color brown?

Did you look closely at the state of maintenance and upkeep of all the 6th ave north slope and center slope brownstones? Most are in horrible shape, many have been hopelessly muddled, many need roofs, new sidewalks, decent windows, stoops, etc... but yup, they're all decked in shades of brown.

Yup- the greenwood houses are dilapidated and haphazard and mostly wood, and they're all different colors, and they haven't been restored, but underneath, they're all nice italianate row houses that would look great with cornices restored and fresh paint. People haven't put a lot into the homes, but it's not a slum either, and by and large there is less litter, and street crime than the North Slope neighborhood where I'm coming from.

Guess what- if you had walked through Park Slope in the 60s and 70s when it was redlined by the mortgage companies, it was a real slum, with lots of burned buildings, vacant lots, totally falling apart buildings, and also brownstones covered in weird things like fake bring, fake stone, shingles, siding, etc... The brownstoners saw through that, and slowly brought the place to the overbearignly brown neo-victorian state that now delights your aesthitic sensibilities.

The folks who are moving to Greenwood now and are looking to restore their houses are carrying some of that same spirit forward by moving to a place where they see potential and others do not-- by restoring what is old and not mowing it down-- by not blindly buying the most expensive housing stock on the market because it's alrady nice-- and yes--by being priced out of other areas.

P.S. Your other comments are all class-baiting claptrap.

Posted by: Park Place at February 13, 2008 3:55 PM

I'd have to agree with Park Place here on Park Slope (especially the South Slope) in the 1960s-1980s.

Polemicist needs a bit of history, hindsight and moreover, foresight.

PS. Park Place, you are correct about the park and an interesting observation about the view corridor. A bit too Robert Moses of a view for me. But to each their own.

Posted by: Action Jackson at February 13, 2008 4:06 PM

Alas, even when these Greenwood houses were in decent shape they had many a hater--

When my grandfather married my grandmother in the 20s, she insisted that they not live anywher near the 'shantytown' that he grew up in. She always like to say that it looked like 'Dodge City' I think they call it 'South Brooklyn by the Cemetary' Park Slope was just 'South Brooklyn near Downtown' So they moved to a respectable brick house in a new development - Midwood.

Goodnight everyone- have a happy valentine's day

Posted by: guest at February 13, 2008 4:21 PM

So out of place. Destroying the character of a neighborhood.

Posted by: guest at February 13, 2008 4:39 PM

3:41

Obviously I don't think diverse means poor, but amongst rich liberal types in Brooklyn, it is catch word for poor. Hell, there are people who still think Park Slope is "diverse".

Demographic diversity, in terms of real estate economics, refers to a neighborhood that can accommodate people from a variety of income strata. While Greenwood Heights certainly has more than a few people of lower- and middle-income means, they only live there because they purchased homes in the past that were inexpensive, or they live in housing that is made affordable via government decree or cash subsidy.

The low 2.0 FAR pretty much means no affordable housing programs will be possible in GH in the future. What that means is that in the current climate of anti-developer madness, the poor have no chance of competing with higher income people for any new housing brought online in the neighborhood.

When I say the neighborhood is not diverse, it means lower income people cannot hope to live in the neighborhood, at least without some kind of charity (and rent stabilization IS charity). That isn't promoting diversity. It does the exact opposite.

Posted by: Polemicist at February 13, 2008 4:49 PM

So, rent stabilization is charity but "affordable housing programs" are not?

Posted by: guest at February 13, 2008 4:52 PM

"When I say the neighborhood is not diverse, it means lower income people cannot hope to live in the neighborhood, at least without some kind of charity (and rent stabilization IS charity)."

Um, so you could have just said yes I think diverse means poor - That would have been alot easier.

Posted by: guest at February 13, 2008 4:53 PM

Polemicist, as Park Place said above, I'll say again to your latest post:

Your comments are all class-baiting claptrap.

And any comment about affordable housing due to a FAR of 2.0 is hilarious. There were so many neighborhoods (up until the past few years or rezoning) that had FAR well over the newer R6B...in fact total abuse of R6 and R6A. So pray tell show us one example where a lower or higher FAR encouraged (or discouraged) affordable housing? Even with 421a tax abatements the development community has done nothing (or perhaps 99.9%) but high-end development.

All I have seen is way above median income (world's above) development for the upper middle and upper class willing to sink $500 and up into "luxury" not "affordable" developments.

Once you have shown us examples, please send me the name of your dealer. I need a good fix to be able to trip the way you are thinking (or smoking, but that's so lower-class).

Posted by: Action Jackson at February 13, 2008 5:01 PM

Sorry, meant "$500K" not "$500."

That would be charity in some folks' eyes.

Posted by: Action Jackson at February 13, 2008 5:02 PM

3:55

Thank you for recounting the development history of the area, although I'm perplexed as to why you would think I'm unfamiliar with it.

In terms of my aesthetic tendencies, I believe that ultimately art should elevate humanity and represent the highest ideals of the human existence. While I admire the beautiful homes built generations ago, I realize they were possible *only because there was not a shortage of housing at the time*. In a city where so many are desperate for housing, basic human need will always take priority over art.

I believe beauty and architectural significance need not be relegated to the past, and to the few upper income folks who can buy the crumbs from a bygone era.

I imagine a city that can preserve the finest examples of its history, but create something new for future generations. Brooklyn is stuck in time - the dominant ideal today defines itself by the past, and has no vision for the future. We all seem to agree that architecture from the past speaks to the heart more than anything built today. But why, in this age of abundance, can we not have housing that both serves the needs of the people and is beautiful?

I have relentlessly put forth my argument that it is primarily restrictive zoning that allows developers to produce only the most basic housing to meet insatiable demand. The secondary reason is a bit more complicated - money lending itself is a major cause, as bankers cannot quantify the value of beauty. I'd refer you to the writings of Ezra Pound on that matter.

A thorough discussion is far outside this brief post, but suffice it to say promoting restoration to the exclusion of new housing ignores the simple fact there are a million more people in this city today than there were in 1970s. Restoration is a great thing in a city filled with abandoned buildings, but that is hardly the case today. As well, those "brownstoners" as you call them were not wealthy, and moved to Park Slope out of economic necessity as much as for aesthetic taste.

If you wish to restore one of the modest homes of Greenwood Heights, I'm all for it. But I also believe that your neighbor should be allowed to build a multi-family building.

To you Action Jackson, I would love to hear why you think I lack foresight.

Posted by: Polemicist at February 13, 2008 5:13 PM

Polemicist

You are wrong about the diversity of the neighborhood. Our 2 kids go to the zoned school for this area (ps 10) and it is quite diverse, about 66% latino, 18% white, 11% black and 4% asian. Students have to live in the zone to go to this school, so it's a pretty good representation of who lives here. I got those actual #'s from greatschools.net, who got them from the DOE

http://www.greatschools.net/modperl/browse_school/ny/2054

Posted by: guest at February 13, 2008 5:19 PM

4:52

Affordable housing programs like those administered by the NYCHDC, rent ceilings, Section 8 vouchers, housing owned by charitable organizations - it's all charity.

4:53

No, poor means poor. Diverse means rich and poor alike can afford different product type in the same neighborhood. If a neighborhood was entirely filled with income restricted housing, it would not be diverse because only poor people could live. A public housing ghetto is not diverse for the same reason (see some suburbs of Paris)

Action Jackson

I mean no offense, but you really don't know what you are talking about in this regard. The NYCHDC affordable housing programs require at minimum 40 apartments, and preference is given to developments where at least 50% of the units are 2-bedrooms, which must be at least 775 square feet.

How are you going to build anything like that on a site with a 2.0 FAR? You'd have to bulldoze half the block. A low FAR makes the vast majority of development sites INELIGIBLE For subsidized financing. The reduced development area further reduces supply resulting in higher prices. I'll assume you are already familiar with basic supply and demand economics, and your trite insult was merely due to your ignorance of how the various affordable housing programs work in this city.

Posted by: Polemicist at February 13, 2008 5:27 PM

"If you wish to restore one of the modest homes of Greenwood Heights, I'm all for it. But I also believe that your neighbor should be allowed to build a multi-family building."

Agreed, why did that take you so long to say...perhaps we all had our wading to do through some of the voluminous posts (though I should talk).

Polemicist, I think the lacking foresight comment may have come from the fact I think folks here read you changing your tune within this thread. Flip-flop on what class-ism is. Back and forth on charity vs. affordable housing. And now restoration vs. new construction.

Even I'm confused. I am glad that we can agree on one thing: renovation of existing housing stock can coexist with new development, with the caveat from me it be responsible, contextual and legal.

But, that's my rhetoric.

-ccgh

Posted by: guest at February 13, 2008 5:27 PM

5:19

I'm not referring to racial diversity, so I'm not quite sure how your post is relevant, unless you are insinuating that some racial groups are inherently poor. I'm not going to respond to that charge.

Posted by: Polemicist at February 13, 2008 5:30 PM

ccgh

The truth lies between the extremes. The ideal is unattainable, but that does not mean we should not strive for it.

We must always temper our dreams with sober reality; this is the only way to guide humanity on a steady course between nihilistic spiritual exhaustion and decadent dilettantism.

Posted by: Polemicist at February 13, 2008 5:40 PM

Polemicist, first you wrote: "the neighborhood is not diverse in any way we know of the term... the vast majority of new residents are wealthy and white."

then at 5:19 you write: "I'm not referring to racial diversity"

You don't know anything about who really lives in this neighborhood. 71% of kids in ps10 qualify for free lunch. But apparently the people who live here still are too white and too wealthy for you.

Posted by: guest at February 13, 2008 5:40 PM

Decadent dilettantism?

For god's sake, step away from the Cliff Notes.

Posted by: guest at February 13, 2008 5:47 PM

I love this neighborhood. There are tradeoffs to every situation. I bought a house no one even dare stay through the open house, 3 years ago. Warped floors, plaster walls, newspaper for insulation…blah blah….I turn it around. Now all my friends, are mumblings “I should of”. Most are headed for suburbia / nowhere near downtown.
The housing stock is a mixed bag. But many neighborhoods are not totally pristine it is all block to block. I have lived in bunch of neighborhoods cobble hill, boreum hill…. more amenities, smaller living space, and more costly.

Pros
More space for your money. (House and lot)
PARKING
Coffee under a dollar
Mixed economic/ethnic/social class neighbors
Near neighborhoods with more amenities

Cons
A few blocks to subway R (downhill) or F (uphill)
Housing stock mixed
Need more amenities.

Posted by: guest at February 13, 2008 5:57 PM

Polemicist has a friend. Well, that's encouraging.

Posted by: guest at February 13, 2008 6:24 PM

I think the friend is The What. Polemicist spends countless evenings trying to teach The What spelling and grammar.

Posted by: guest at February 13, 2008 6:36 PM

Please don't bait Polemicist. Feel free to bait The tWhat.

Posted by: guest at February 13, 2008 7:34 PM

hmm let's see, where do I start? As someone who lives in one of the houses you can see in the photo of the "Cruise Ship Condo", I just don't get the attraction of these places.

Don't get me wrong, I love my house in my neighborhood, but I am one of the poor, working class that makes up most of the neighborhood and am not looking for classy and expensive amenities to make me happy.

But for those who can afford the price - why? Small, lousy location overlooking dog poop park (not to mention the copious amounts of human poop to be found in those lovely "pocket parks"). Graffiti and broken windows, cars torched and/or broken into, drug deals gone wrong, these can't be the things that someone with that kind of money is looking for.

I will paste a photo of the statue of liberty on my living room window (I'll pass on the photos of the cranes of Bayonne and the skyscrapers of Jersey City) and be happy with a much less expensive view in my cozy much less expensive house in the neighborhood I call home (and will most likely call home until the day I die).

Posted by: wagongrrl at February 13, 2008 8:07 PM

hmm let's see, where do I start? As someone who lives in one of the houses you can see in the photo of the "Cruise Ship Condo", I just don't get the attraction of these places.

Posted by: wagongrrl at February 13, 2008 8:10 PM

Just want to point out that Polemicyst is always asking people to go read Ezra Pound theories of Usury. This is the series of writing that literary and cultural critics are often citing as examples of Ezra's own support for Facism and hardcore anti-semitism. This is also a series of works closely associated with poor Ezra's mental illness.

Polemmyshist is a real estate consultant according to his profile. This would explain some of his anti zoning restriction views. Doesn't go very far in explaining his motivation to send you all down the nutso anti-semite path, or why his primary source of economic inspiration was a half-wit proto-modernist poet.

Posted by: guest at February 13, 2008 8:35 PM

wagongrrl- people who live on the promenade have the same complaints as you. Poor working class wagongrrl.

Posted by: guest at February 13, 2008 8:41 PM

Jack Kerouac, a Jew, happily accepted Pound's apologies for expressing antisemitic ideas. As a Jew myself, if it is ok for him, it's ok for me. That said, his most lucid aesthetic criticisms of usury, particularly Canto XLV, don't really contain many references to Jews. Are we to dismiss Shakespeare because of his depiction of Shylock, an image that much more easily resonates with the common man?

The politics of the 20th century are indeed complex, and I have no allegiance to any particular party. What I do know is Pound, and a few other aesthetic supporters of fascism, were greatly concerned with the wholly materialistic theory of value intrinsic to both capitalism and communism. In the end - they were right, regarding the decline of art in the coming years in those countries dominated by those political systems.

The Cantos is one of the greatest works ever written. It requires years of study, particularly regarding its use of so many languages. It is a venture I think is well worth the time of any learned person.

Posted by: Polemicist at February 14, 2008 11:30 AM

http://tinyurl.com/2yrxaj

No TCO, boo-hoo.

Posted by: guest at February 14, 2008 8:49 PM

i just went to an open house tour of all of the recently built buildings in this neighborhood. While i was expecting the worse given the vitriolic comments about every new housing unit that's gone up in this neighborhood, i was somewhat surprised that most were decent. I guess what is most disturbing is that every single building has some major fatal flaw that would make me think twice about dumping my entire (and future) life savings into it. It's sadly dissapointing. I actually liked the Vanguard and 317 16th street the best. The Vanguard had the nicest details of all the places i saw but zero storage space and no bike room.

i don't have kids yet but my 3 bikes need their space and these manhattan developers don't get that biking is a big part of the BK lifestyle (apparently the craptastic Forte got so many inquiries that they're now looking into adding one) and a bike room is not an ammenity but a necessity (nevermind the $40K asking price for parking spaces).

anyway - i will say that some of the posts here are over the top -- though the viewpoints on all sides is much appreciated. but at the end of the day, the dissapointment rides with the developers who cheaped out in so many places. Leaving people like me with so many options of places to buy and yet ZERO sense of excitement -- just a knowledge that i'll have to give up something big when i finally decide on where to go.

Posted by: guest at March 2, 2008 10:22 PM

+1 to 10:22's bike comments, although I blame no one but myself for trying to fit 4 road bikes in a 600 sq ft railroad.

Action Jackson is the only one who's come close in my opinion. I don't care how nice the kitchen fixtures are, this looks like an illegally-built homage to Eastern European socialist housing blocks, except without the charm of pastel coloring. I don't see how this building got through zoning and if you haven't seen how horrible the street-level interface is, you owe it to yourself to see how badly architectless building can miss the mark.

A curse on this developer. Pffft Pffft Pffft!

Posted by: guest at March 9, 2008 11:43 AM

« Development Watch: Clarett's 111 Lawrence Street House of the Day: 166 Prospect Place »

February 13, 2008

Condos of the Day: 639 6th Avenue

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment