« A Nip and a Tuck at 536 Henry Street Open House Picks 8/17/07: Six Months Later »
February 8, 2008
When The Music's Over, Turn Out the Lights
While existing homeowners have received most of the attention in the media's coverage of the sub-prime mortgage fallout, there's another effect that's going to haunt neighborhoods like Bed Stuy and Bushwick for years: The spectacularly ugly and cheaply built spec homes that short-sighted developers slapped up on in-fill lots. Take this pair of three-family homes, one for $739,000 and one for $629,000. Who's gonna buy this crap? No one. They'll just sit there and atrophy, gradually attracting trash, loiterers and probably worse. Huge bummer.
$739000 Gordeous 3 Family Bldg in Bushwick [Craigslist]
$629000 Great New Construction 3 Family in Bed Stuy [Craigslist]
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/3813
Comments
R E D
H E A D E D
S T E P C H I L D
Posted by: guest at February 8, 2008 11:05 AM
gordeous. 'nuff sed.
Posted by: guest at February 8, 2008 11:09 AM
What are you talking about, Mr. B?
They're GORDEOUS!
Besides, I could live there without having to be the butler.
Posted by: Hal at February 8, 2008 11:11 AM
I'd hang a very large "Hell, no!" sign from the one that says "buy me", which is the worst of the two.
What a waste of building materials. And they do no good for their neighborhoods, either.
Posted by: guest at February 8, 2008 11:16 AM
How quaint.
Posted by: guest at February 8, 2008 11:16 AM
"Buy Me" house has "COSTUME BATHS"!
The real baths are underneath the masks. Maybe the real house is underneath this horror movie facade.
Posted by: guest at February 8, 2008 11:18 AM
I live in Stuyvesant Heights and love it because of the beautiful architecture. When I go a few blocks over and pass this new construction I see RED. I rather have a trashy empty lot any day over this stuff. LANDMARKING is so important, places like prospect heights, and south-west bedford stuyvesant needs to landmarked.
Posted by: guest at February 8, 2008 11:21 AM
11:18 -- hilarious
Posted by: guest at February 8, 2008 11:21 AM
Most of these houses have sit on the market and no one buys them... Why do peoeple keep building this CRAP...
Posted by: guest at February 8, 2008 11:23 AM
SQUATERS!!1
Posted by: guest at February 8, 2008 11:27 AM
since brownstones are getting renovated they need to make new crack houses
Posted by: guest at February 8, 2008 11:31 AM
No argument about the aesthetics of these buildings, or the likely build quality inside and out. But the idea that no one will buy them, at any price, is silly. As soon as the purchase price to rent-roll ratio is favorable, they will be snapped up. Aesthetics is not the only consideration for real-estate investing.
Posted by: guest at February 8, 2008 11:34 AM
And what will also happen, like it did when i was younger in queens, is people will buy these houses, and then divide them up. And what is now a two family house will be a four family house with shared baths. there are always people who will need homes--and whatever cost.
Posted by: guest at February 8, 2008 11:38 AM
WHY??????
Posted by: guest at February 8, 2008 11:39 AM
"R E D
H E A D E D
S T E P C H I L D"
This is as bigoted a remark as nappy-headed ho.
Posted by: guest at February 8, 2008 11:39 AM
And now....a word to the contrary.
I certainly agree that the aesthetics of these homes leave something to be desired, according to my taste. Having said that, there is a market for these homes. That market is not well-represented on these posts, nor did the builder have the Brownstoner crowd in mind when he built them.
For many folks, there are other considerations besides aesthetics. Like it or not, there are folks who value the ability to pull up a car to their driveway. They also value a private entranceway to their home. These are the homes for those folks.
I caution those who would like to legislate taste. The landmark preservation laws were not passed for that purpose, but some of the posts one sees on Brownstoner or Forgotten New York skate awfully close to that thought. If this law is abused, there will eventually be a backlash. If one looks at the "Forgotten NY" website, one sees this attitude bubbling up. In one recent post, Mr. Walsh said that he "spits" on people who buy such homes.
There is much talk about "affordable" housing these days. How will affordable housing be built if all homes must meet a requirement for high taste?
Finally, if I look at the older homes next to these spec. homes, I am not sure sure that they are much better, aesthetically speaking.
Benson
Posted by: guest at February 8, 2008 11:43 AM
$739,000 is "affordable"?
Posted by: guest at February 8, 2008 11:47 AM
I HATE THESE HOUSES I WISH I COULD BURN THEM ALL DOWN!!!!
Posted by: guest at February 8, 2008 11:47 AM
Well, if the prices go down a bit more, places like this can be a godsend for a middle-class working family.
It will allow someone to own, stop wasting their money on rent.
And with a rental unit, helps with the monthly payments, etc.
The houses are pieces of s**t. But in the end, owning your home can give you a stake in the community. And get out of a situation in which you drop all your salary into a landlord's pocket.
Posted by: guest at February 8, 2008 11:48 AM
The important group that seems to love these buildings is the AIA. The AIA zoning proposal would make it much easier to build on small lots. This is only part of their proposal, but the gist of it is to cut down costs for their clients.
Posted by: guest at February 8, 2008 11:51 AM
High culture has only been imposed upon the masses by dictate of the state or other elites with the financial power to implement them.
The masses will accept whatever scraps are thrown their way as long as it provides shelter and they have access to sufficient bread and games.
Historical preservation laws are of course necessary, but you would be surprised how inexpensive high-quality facades would be if they were mass produced.
Mandating aesthetic standards is a reasonable course of action.
The legacy of communism and socialism is one of barracks style housing throughout the world. Civilization is more than providing the basics of life. We have a large surplus workforce and abundant raw materials for creating high quality homes. There is no shortage of men and rock on this earth.
I'd rather see the masses be used for something that creates a lasting legacy, rather than be mere pawns in buying votes.
Posted by: Polemicist at February 8, 2008 11:52 AM
Is ginger minger racist too?
Posted by: guest at February 8, 2008 11:55 AM
11.48 AM has hit the nail right on the head. And in answer to 11.47 AM's question: yes, these price ranges DO appeal to middle and working class NY'ers. If you want to see this, look at Fillmore's web-site. Fillmore focuses on this market. You will see that the typical price of a 3-family home in areas like Canarsie, Benshonhurst and East Flatbush is in the low 700's. Moreover, as 11.48 AM pointed out, this house gives someone the chance to build up their equity. I know well, because that is exactly how I started out: owning a 3-family home. The economics of these buildings can be quite attractive (at the right price), due to the tax laws.
Polemicist: I have no comment to make regarding your statement, except to say that I'm taken aback.
Benson
Posted by: guest at February 8, 2008 12:01 PM
Benson--
I hear what you're saying, but the problem with these homes is that they don't just look crappy, they're crappily built as well...anyone who's seen one of these babies go up can attest to that.
What really bugs me is that many of these houses will end up in the hands of unsuspecting first-time buyers who won't get them inspected and perform other due diligence (because, after all, they're BRAND NEW).
So not too far down the line a homeowner of limited means is stuck with a crappy house and likely will not have the money to fix all the things that turn out to be wrong with it. It creates a vicious and unfortunate cycle and is a blight on the neighborhood to boot.
Posted by: tinarina at February 8, 2008 12:01 PM
This facade reminds me of yesterday's HOTD in Brooklyn Heights....Crappy!
Posted by: guest at February 8, 2008 12:10 PM
tinarina - you mean as opposed to an old house that doesn't require extensive upkeep and maintenance?
Posted by: guest at February 8, 2008 12:11 PM
What tinarina said.
Also, because they are built so badly, their resale value is also crap, and anyone stuck with one will have a hard time selling it, especially now that the market is down.
The majority of these houses will end up as cheap rentals to transient populations like students, section 8 housing, and eventually flophouses. This is not helping the community one bit.
Lowering the bar, in terms of quality, to say nothing of aesthetics, is an insult to hard working people who are trying to get their piece of the rock. It is possible to build well built, modest homes. These people didn't even try.
Preservationista
Posted by: guest at February 8, 2008 12:11 PM
"these houses will end up in the hands of unsuspecting first-time buyers who won't get them inspected and perform other due diligence (because, after all, they're BRAND NEW)."
This can happen just as easily with an existing, late 19th/early 20th century brownstone.
Posted by: guest at February 8, 2008 12:17 PM
12:11--
Of course all houses need maintenance, particularly old ones. My house has been standing for 145 years and is worth maintaining. I don' think the same can be said of these gordeous homes--the homeowner who thought he was buying something new and low-maintenance will be stuck with a lemon.
Posted by: tinarina at February 8, 2008 12:21 PM
All new buildings suck. Landmark everything. I love vacant lots. Buck Fush. Free Mumia.
Posted by: guest at February 8, 2008 12:26 PM
I agree with Benson pretty much entirely. Do we have any reasonable evidence that these are badly built, other than the fact that they are admittedly quite ugly, and probably badly laid out, to boot? The maintenance cost for cheesy prefab cement-and-steel-frame stuff doesn't grow anywhere *nearly* as fast as old frame houses, no matter how well designed. While these still require upkeep, they're not "lemons" by any stretch of the word.
Also, standards review boards are a disaster for new construction. If you think you've seen NIMBYism in Brooklyn this year, you'd be in for a surprise. Any house can be renovated with an attractive facade twenty years down the line when the neighborhood is tonier. Banning ugly just pushes the whole city one step further into being an economic monoculture of the very rich.
Posted by: Zach at February 8, 2008 12:28 PM
knock these houses down!
Posted by: guest at February 8, 2008 12:29 PM
"The masses will accept whatever scraps are thrown their way as long as it provides shelter and they have access to sufficient bread and games."
What???!!! Polemicist please turn off your computer.
The is the high point of malinvestment. For years they gave money to any asshole with a plan (many bad ones at that). Now the chickens are coming home to roost. Now people will pay for their folly. That money could've been invested in affordable housing for the middle class but, it was given to asshole to spec to property. I remember lots was going for 60,00 then 120,00 then 300,000 then for 400,00. Remember folks these abandon and foreclosed homes will be havens for Drug Deals, Squatters, Hipsters (LOL) and any other dreck I forgot. This bring back Urban-Blight and bad neighborhoods. The consequence will be lower home values and redlining to marginal neighborhoods. Bring back the 70's.
The What
Someday this war is gonna end...
Posted by: guest at February 8, 2008 12:30 PM
ugly ugly ugly ugly ugly ugly ugly ugly ugly ............... ugly ugly ugly ugly .............................
Posted by: guest at February 8, 2008 12:30 PM
I have a friend who is a Bed Stuy area contractor. Most of their clients are people in these brand new homes, who have had them less than a year. They've fixed leaky roofs, badly installed windows, crumbling foundations and cement walks, badly installed flooring, both wood and tile, and inexpertly installed and/or incredibly cheap lighting fixtures, hardware and plumbing fixtures. Also misaligned hollow core doors, paper thin sheetrock, a couple of toilets that lost their seals, and numerous leaks around pipe joints.
What else is there to a home? Not all of this happened to one house, but please, this is absurd. If the developers were doctors, they would have been killing people with work this shoddy.
A great deal of the "affordable" in affordable housing, is not having to shell out thousands more to fix something that shouldn't need repair for years. Not that $799 is affordable to begin with.
Preservationista
Posted by: guest at February 8, 2008 12:36 PM
Zach you are on the money - People here just call anything ugly/new = "crap" construction. Meanwhile the houses here are basically just cinder-block construction with only 3 sides even exposed - compared to most older houses, the upkeep on these will be cheap. Sure the possibility exists that the roof sucks (but interestingly the roofs shown here are pitched - which means that even if it is the worst quality ever it will be easier and cheaper then your typical flat roof brownstone).
Are these particular homes overpriced - probably but the idea that if sold at a more affordable price they are a "rip-off" because they are going to fall apart is patently ridiculous. Further while they might never be as sought after as a classic Brownstone, there are plenty of houses of similar architecture and design in Cobble Hill and Carrol Gardens and you know what - they have been occupied and have resold for decades.
Posted by: guest at February 8, 2008 12:40 PM
"Red headed step child" is not a bigoted comment.
It refers to the child's biological father, as opposed to the father of record, who probably built these houses.
I bid $100 plus an unlimited ride 1 month metro catd for both.
Posted by: guest at February 8, 2008 12:46 PM
Tinarina and Preservationista;
I do not agree with you about this "quality" issue. All new construction has issues the first two years of a buildings' life, as it settles into its foundation. I live in a 3 year old high-end condo development in Park Slope, full of successful folks, and I can ensure you that we have had our share of issues with the building.
Moreover, NYC has one of the toughest building codes in the country, which is one of the reasons that housing is so expensive here. In fact, the building code was recently streamlined precisely to try to lower the cost of construction. What specifically are you advocating, therefore? Laws that specify the level of cabinet and counter-top finishes?
I also do not agree that these buildings will not hold up well over time, in terms of residents, resale value, etc. Thousands of these buildings have been built in areas like Canarsie, Bensonhurst and East Flatbush over the past 30 years. Reslae values in these areas have gone up quite nicely.
Benson
Posted by: guest at February 8, 2008 12:46 PM
Preservationista - everyone of the problems you describe happen in new homes constructed at every price point AND in resales as well.
One advantage that a new home buyer might have is that their is a common law warranty on new homes that (while it could be difficult to go after an unscrupulous builder) makes the builder liable for these repairs.
Posted by: guest at February 8, 2008 12:48 PM
With reasonable maintenance these homes will easily last 200+ years
Posted by: guest at February 8, 2008 12:49 PM
I'm in Bushwick and another one of these monstrocities is going up on my block.
No joke, they slapped the f'er up in about a month and they're almost done with it. It's huge, on an oversized or double size lot, fedders fedders everywhere. Setback uglyness at it's 'finest'.
There's another fedders shitbox that was built over the summer. Full of people but not sure if it's straightup rental or a buy and share amongst family.
Posted by: guest at February 8, 2008 12:49 PM
The Empire State Building was "slapped together" in 13mo.
Posted by: guest at February 8, 2008 12:57 PM
12:49, I'm sure that is irony at its finest.
Posted by: guest at February 8, 2008 1:03 PM
The Empire State building also had a crew of thousands, some of whom died.
It was also built with massive steel girders, and built to endure stress and wind. If it had "settled" like these houses, it would look like the leaning tower of Pisa, another old building better built than these POS.
Preservationista
Posted by: guest at February 8, 2008 1:08 PM
Creating a nice looking building does not require any more money. These buildings are ugly because the proportions are all wrong and they are aesthetically off balance. Simply lazy developers who are trying to get the most bang for their buck without giving a single thought to design and how the look of the building might have a long term consequences for the neighborhood.
Posted by: guest at February 8, 2008 1:24 PM
Buy 'em cheap at bottom. Tear'em down (nothing lost there). Rebuild with quality before next boom. Aren't there architects out there who have or can spec an exact 1890 Italianate brownstone replica facade with a reasonable price tag? It seems so doeable.
Posted by: guest at February 8, 2008 1:25 PM
If it wasn't so expensive to build new construction (thinking plans and plan approval, not just land costs), ultimate beasts of cheap like these houses might not be as popular with developers. There really isn't a proper excuse for the aesthetics of these houses, but Preservationistas on this board would make it even more expensive to build in the city with their dream regulatory setup.
Posted by: guest at February 8, 2008 1:27 PM
I was thinking the same thing 1:25.... The DOB has the old plans to all the old brownstones
Posted by: guest at February 8, 2008 1:28 PM
Benson, you lost me when you said "NYC has one of the toughest building codes in the country"
Ever been to San Francisco? What's your comparison?
Also, I love the people who say that they are defending the middle class by giving them ugly homes. I guess middle-income people don't know any better, huh?
Posted by: guest at February 8, 2008 1:41 PM
Benson--
NYC may have tough building codes, but we all know what a great job the DOB does of enforcement.
I worked in Bushwick regularly for the the last three years, and if you saw what I saw, I don't think you'd agree that these were quality homes.
Particularly scary were the houses faced with Dryvit, which can cause extremely serious mold problems if installed incorrectly. You think these cheap developers used licensed, well-trained contractors for this work? Of course not. So down the line the house gets mold and kids living there develop serious health problems like asthma--in a neighborhood with one of the highest asthma rates in the city already.
The problems with these places are much worse than the average new house punch list.
Posted by: tinarina at February 8, 2008 1:48 PM
1.41 PM;
You want specifics regarding the building code? Here goes. First of all, the building code is concerned with safety, not aesthetics, and in this regard NYC's is known to be the toughest. Examples: NYC is the only locality in the country that still insists on BX electrical cable, rather than Romex used by everyone else. NYC also, until recently, did not allow PVC piping in the sewer lines, also widely used elsewhere. NYC also required individual taps into the sewer main from each house, something that most localities allow in lower-income area. NYC also has the toughest fire code in the country, including requiring fire sprinklers in all new multi-family construction. If you buy any chemical, you will often see that they list compliance to NYC's fire code separately, as it is more stringent than other codes.
Is that good enough?
As for your accusation that I deemed myself the arbiter of middle-class tastes, I would like to know exactly where I did that. Don't just throw general accusations at me, cite a specific phrase. I speak for NO ONE except myself. My statement was that there IS a market for these homes, not found on the Browstoner posts, and the evidence is the fact that 1000's have been built, sold, and resold well over the past 30 years.
Do you want to engage in a debate, or a food fight?
Benson
Posted by: guest at February 8, 2008 1:55 PM
FYI - to build this crap....it costs about $100-$150 a square foot...by the looks of it, they cost less.
Posted by: guest at February 8, 2008 2:00 PM
"Creating a nice looking building does not require any more money."
If building one of these cost the same as building an attractive house, the market wouldn't provide for them. Making these ridiculous statements about "lazy builders" is just silly. These are *much* cheaper than comparable attractive buildings throughout the city.
I can agree that these are quite repulsive, but big whoop. Demanding that the city's enormous middle and lower class live in "replica 1890s brownstones" is a pipe dream. That Dryvit point is a more interestng one, but bad construction habits don't really have to do with psf costs. There's incompetent contractors in every price range.
Don't get me wrong... if you make a replica brownstone plan that you can build for $200 psf or something, you'll sell a billion of them and put these jerks out of business. I'll buy one. But you can't do it.
Posted by: Zach at February 8, 2008 2:19 PM
Food fight! I'm tossing the first cupcake!
Posted by: guest at February 8, 2008 2:25 PM
Benson~
Thanks for the answers. I'm glad to know more about the codes. But I still don't think New York can compare to Santa Barbara, and I know that in Berkeley, most designs go through four tough public hearings before an approval.
My "middle class" comment wasn't specifically directed at you. It is more geared towards comments like "All new buildings suck. Landmark everything. I love vacant lots. Buck Fush. Free Mumia."
But I still think these buildings look ugly, and that aesthetics are an element of good public planning. There may be a market for such homes, but that doesn't mean that even the buyers would have preferred a more aesthetically pleasing home.
Posted by: guest at February 8, 2008 2:30 PM
2.30 PM;
Thanks! I think we've reached a point of agreement. Don't get me wrong - I think these buildings look hideous too, and wish that some enlightened developer could make a breakthrough that would optimize design, cost and aesthestics for lower price point housing. However, as Zach pointed out, it is not as easy as folks are making it out to be. A case in point are those who just call for pulling out the old brownstone plans, and reconstructing them.
I have a question for those folks: what would you do about the A/C? I can assure you that the market today insists on A/C. Most folks would sooner live in a barrack than go through a NY summer without A/C. Given that fact, how would you handle the A/C in a classic brownstone design? The cost-effective solution is to slap on the hated wall-through duct - anathema to most of the folks in Brownstoner. The alternative is central A/C, which would drive up the cost. Even in the case of central A/C, I would like folks to tell me where they would locate the intake and out-take vents.
That's it for me today. Great debate!
Benson
Posted by: guest at February 8, 2008 2:40 PM
What is wrong with Dryvit?? And which Dryvit product??
Dryvit is one of the easiest facing products to install properly and really doesnt need skilled craftsman to do it correctly- what would you suggest be used instead???
Posted by: guest at February 8, 2008 2:54 PM
" What is wrong with Dryvit?? And which Dryvit product??
Dryvit is one of the easiest facing products to install properly and really doesnt need skilled craftsman to do it correctly- what would you suggest be used instead???"
My vote for fucking stupid comment so far this year. How about bricks and cement? Please kill yourself.
The What
Someday this war is gonna end...
Posted by: guest at February 8, 2008 3:23 PM
Aren't central A/C systems built into the ductwork and other HVAC systems already going into the home? If you are putting it in during construction, how much more expensive can it be? The expense of central A/C seems to be in retrofitting it to existing homes.
Most people having a serious conversation about truly affordable housing, specifically row houses, do not advocate recreating a 19th century brownstone. Those are for the 2 sentence bon mots tossed across the internet.
There are plenty of examples of aesthetically pleasing row houses that are being built here and elsewhere that are specifically marketed to lower and middle income people. They are still 3 families, adhere to code, and are contextural to the neighborhoods and block. I've seen them in Harlem, and on the East New York/Crown Hhts border, for example. It can be done.
These houses shown here, are especially awful, in part because they are plopped down on single lots in the middle of a block of 19th c. houses, and no effort whatsover is made to have them blend in, or at least not be spectacularly awful. Even the remuddled brownstones in the photo on the left have more contextural sense, in spite of siding and other changes. The one on the right is just a lost cause all together. Instead of picking House # 105 from their roster, a good developer could have better suited it to the site, but we all know that the people who build in these communities could care less about what the houses look like.
Taste is not an exclusive luxury reserved for the rich. Everyone wants to live in a neighborhood where they can point to their home with pride, and say this is mine. People might live in both of these, because they need a place to live, but that doesn't mean they approve of it, it just makes it necessary.
Preservationista
Posted by: guest at February 8, 2008 3:39 PM
"East New York/Crown Hhts border"
There is no border betwen Crown Heights an East New York. The border you're referring to is between Crown Heights and Ocean Hill/Brownsville.
Posted by: guest at February 8, 2008 3:48 PM
Ok, hardly the point of the post, but thanks for the correction.
Preservationista
Posted by: guest at February 8, 2008 3:56 PM
"My vote for fucking stupid comment so far this year. How about bricks and cement? Please kill yourself."
Yeah because Bricks and cement don't require skill in the install and you'll never get leaks or mold with bricks.
The original post stated "houses faced with Dryvit, which can cause extremely serious mold problems if installed incorrectly. You think these cheap developers used licensed, well-trained contractors for this work? Of course not."
Posted by: guest at February 8, 2008 4:17 PM
Being an affordable housing professional with experience in all national regions, I can say that these properties have nothing to do with this classification of housing. These are market rate properties.
Posters above, please don't confuse these homes with affordable housing. Our industry has come a long way in the past 20 years with most agencies and developers figuring out that intelligent design doesn't have to be expensive, and that good design is good business. The developers of the projects above clearly missed the mark, especially in light of the comparable housing stock in Brooklyn.
Posted by: lincolnlimestone at February 8, 2008 4:25 PM
"Ok, hardly the point of the post, but thanks for the correction."
Well, when you make mistakes regarding basic facts, it causes one to question the veracity of your entire post.
Posted by: guest at February 8, 2008 4:26 PM
Linclon Limestone;
Your post caused me to come back to this forum, as it is just amazing to me. The fact that you differentiate between "market rate" and "affordable" housing speaks volumes about the housing situation in NYC. Why should there be a differentiation between the two? If I go to poor neighborhoods, and look for shoes, I go to a discount store that sells market-rate merchandise that is affordable to the residents of that neighborhood. Why should housing be different?
I believe that one of the reason is the huge distortion of the marketplace that takes place in NYC, due to a variety of reasons: too much government interference, too much NIMBYism, too much mob influence in the construction industry, too many "affordable housing professionals" who are motivated preserve a distinction between "market rate" and "affordable housing".
One place we can see this is Preservationista's showcasing of the nice-looking row houses recently built in Harlem and East NY. I agree that these are nice-looking houses. It's the least we should expect, given that they were heavily subsidized by the City, in the form of free land, low-interest loans and free utility infrastructure. This is not "low cost" housing. It is actually high-cost housing that is subsidized to make it "affordable".
Why can't NYC have a private sector that is able to produce market-rate, affordable housing?
Benson
Posted by: guest at February 8, 2008 4:41 PM
""Red headed step child" is not a bigoted comment.
It refers to the child's biological father, as opposed to the father of record, who probably built these houses."
It is as bigoted a remark as referring to someone as being fathered by "the colored milk-man". The remark implies that someones coloring makes them less worthy. It is used in a derogatory fashion and is therefore racist. However, on this site only saying something negative about Bed-Sty and/or Crown Heights is racist.
Posted by: guest at February 8, 2008 4:52 PM
4:26, if a red ball rolls down a street and comes to rest on the site I was talking about, whether Crown Heights, East New York, or Ocean Hill/Brownsville, it's still a red ball. These are still attractive row houses, no matter where they are. The veracity of my post is not in question, but the intent of yours certainly is. The point of my post was not the borders of a neighborhood. Even Benson can get past that, and we never agree on anything.
Preservationista
Posted by: guest at February 8, 2008 5:40 PM
I didn't see a House of the Day....is this it???
If it is....I think it's priced right. I think there will be a bidding war. Corcoran priced this one right.
Posted by: guest at February 8, 2008 5:58 PM
I have naturally red hair, which I got from my maternal grandmother, and "red-headed stepchild" is *not* a racist comment, get real.
Posted by: guest at February 8, 2008 7:39 PM
Funny, I didn't think Brownstoner covered the Queens beat....
Posted by: guest at February 8, 2008 9:23 PM
"I have naturally red hair, which I got from my maternal grandmother, and "red-headed stepchild" is *not* a racist comment, get real."
a) you need a lesson in genetics. you cannot get red hair from only one side of your family.
b) you are equally ignorant in claiming the expression is not racist. It is derogatory and selecting one of a specific coloring as less valuable - that is bigotry.
Posted by: guest at February 8, 2008 9:38 PM
sigh. How is this phrase "racist"? Is it anti-irish? History please...
Posted by: Putnamdenizen at February 8, 2008 10:29 PM
Putnamdenizen, how is this confusing to you? Is it because someone wrote racist rather than bigot? The point is that the expression implies that the red haired child is to be treated worse than others. Would you not find it offensive if the expression was "beaten like a gay bastard"? It's an expression that should be dropped like indian giver, jewed down, and gyped.
Posted by: guest at February 8, 2008 11:06 PM
Benson,
You're all over the map and your questions ask more than this forum allows time and space for. What you're talking about is bending the laws of capitalism, which is not going to happen.
First of all, why should poor people only be able look in poor neighborhoods for homes? Also, there are numerous government programs that encourage building, some preserving affordable components and others that don't.
But the major component of high costs for building is the high cost for materials and labor (read global building boom and unions).
These are simply facts of life. If a house can be built in a neighborhoods where people are willing to pay higher rents/sale prices, the land will be priced higher (yes, now that's even Bed-Sty and Crown Heights), and the building will eventually cost more. So don't blame the city, state, or federal government for the high cost of homes in the city. Blame our resilient economy and those people who are able to work and put that money into their bank accounts by taking advantage of opportunities.
Unfortunately, there are those that don't have skills to do this. It has been a goal of many housing authorities (contrary to their goals in the 50's-70's) to integrate higher income areas with lower incomes housing, ie. mixed income. Without these programs, you simply would get income segregation by neighborhood.
In the case of the homes above, a family who wants to buy this $739,000 'affordable' house (by your definition) would have to come up with over $145,000 in cash, then manage the rentals and pay a mortgage of $3,800 a month (say minus $1,200 for each rental, plus $650 in taxes and utilities) or in actuality $2,100/month. How is this affordable for a family making less than $40,000/year?!!!!!
I was merely stating that by the standards I have just laid out, this is not affordable housing.
On a different note, there are plenty of similarly priced properties in this area that leave much more to be desired that will be chosen by the affluent people who could afford the above scenario.
For more information about why our private sector can't supply affordable housing for people making less than the area median income, I would suggest paying attention in an Economics 101 class, particularly the supply and demand section.
Posted by: lincolnlimestone at February 12, 2008 3:24 PM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.