Creatives Flock to Bklyn, But Are They Endangered?

Note to Mr. Atkins. Brooklyn is bigger than Park Slope. There are still plenty of other affordable places.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 10:18 AM

Wow $2700 a month - oh my god - and you can only write off 1/2 of that. So you need to earn a whole $2000 a month to pay for your apartment and workplace to live in one of the most desirable spots in one of the most desirable neighborhood, in one of the most desirable city - wow!!

News - if you dont earn any money creating art - then your not EMPLOYED as an artist.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 10:22 AM

of course it will dry up - look at the prices! the current generation bought their houses or apartments 5-10 years ago (or more) when it was still affordable. but it is a rare self-employed professional today who could afford to come in and buy an apartment or house in brooklyn, as well as support a family, even in the less-gentrified neighborhoods. unless they are trust-funders or married to money, but that is a pretty limited population. either the prices will ultimately come back down (except in Park Slope, BH, Cobble Hill and Carroll Gardens, which are already banker/lawyer territory and will be forever more now), or the "creatives" are going to go elsewhere. Luckily Brooklyn is not the only place one can be creative...

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 10:23 AM

Not everyone can live in the Slope & vicinity. Like, duh. All of Community Board 6 -- including not only Park Slope but Carroll Gardens and other fave nabes of the creative professional class -- has barely more than 100k population. Throw in CBs 1 and 2 (Greenpoint/Williamsburg, Fort Greene and downtown) and you've got maybe another 250k.

When forums like the one at the library suggest that the creative class can't afford Brooklyn, what they actually mean is that the creative class can't afford the 10 percent of Brooklyn's housing stock that's in the most desirable neighborhoods. (The number's actually lower if you factor in public housing etc that's not open to professionals.) Neighborhoods made desirable, of course, through the labors of creative professionals.

What exactly is the public policy response to that supposed to be??? Any suggestions?

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 10:25 AM

The so called "creative crescent" is already shifting, to bushwick, bed-stuy, crown heights, PLG, Ditmas, Kensington, Sunset Park (also sunnyside, astoria, jackson heights) This is the story of gentrification anywhere. the question is at what point will that outward expansion cause the creative class to break free of New York's gravitational pull?

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 10:34 AM

i'm surprised no one has commented on the picture used to represent the "creative sector."

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 10:35 AM

I generally agree; the so-called "creative types" insist on living in the most desirable neighborhoods in Brooklyn, and then complain that they are being priced out.

I also object to the use of the word "creative." A lot of these people are journalists who do internet research (real tough) and recycle old information that they did very little to uncover. Hardly creative.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 10:36 AM

OK, first, I'm a writer, and even though I make a really goood living at it now I didn't always--so I'm not just saying "let them eat cake" here.

But.

A 1BR + study is $2700 in the Center Slope? Hmmm, what could one possibly do to avoid this expense? Oh, I know: don't live in Center Slope!

I'll admit that I was lucky, in that when I was struggling, Brooklyn was cheaper. But even back then, when I needed a 1BR with a study in the mid 90s, I found one by renting in the fringes of the Slope down by 5th Avenue. Yeah, it was a lot cheaper then, but 5th Avenue was a lot sleazier then and you got what you paid for.

I have every respect for artists trying to make it work. But with that commitment comes the acknowledgment that you're going to give up some comforts of bourgeois life--especially in NYC. It's in the contract. If you're an artist or novelist or freelancer who feels it Center Slope or bust for you, then you're an artist or novelist or freelancer who never should have been living in NYC in the first place.

This is another side effect of the general increase in liveability and safety of NYC--a lot of people are sticking around who are not really cut out for city living.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 10:42 AM

"This is another side effect of the general increase in liveability and safety of NYC--a lot of people are sticking around who are not really cut out for city living."

That statement makes no sense. If the city is more livable, and people choose to live here, why are they somehow "not really cut out for city living?"

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 11:00 AM

i'm an artist who just moved to park slope.

my whole buildings is artists, graphic designers and the like.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 11:04 AM

The guy in the picture is an Asshat!

The What (keep'n it real)

Someday this war is gonna end.....

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 11:05 AM

So to all those people who says that Park Slope is only bankers and lawyers, here we have an article stating that the majority of artists not only in Brooklyn, but in the entire city, have moved to Park Slope.

How interesting.

You mean all these anonymous losers (or one who writes out of his mom's basement) who hate Park Slope were lying????

Couldn't be!

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 11:09 AM

im currently looking for a place and have seen nothing even close to as expensive as $2700 for a 1+ bed in center slope. Im trying to rent a 2bed with a den for 2295 on Prospect pl just past Carlton in prospect heights right now. Its huge and could fit 3 people without a problem. So 2700 will get you a large 2 bedroom in park slope with room for a workspace. You just have to look.

im going to see a 2 bed in brooklyn heights thats $2100 on saturday. Its kinda narrow but wtf its big enought for 2 people easy.

I dont know where people pull these retarded inflated prices from. maybe their asses.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 11:11 AM

it all depends 11:11.

i know people who pay 1600 a month for a studio in the north slope, 2000 for a 1 bedroom, so it's possible to find a 2700 a month 1 bed plus den.

but i don't think it's the norm. you are correct.

i think the average 1 bedroom with den could be found for about 2200 in central slope.

the slope's prices vary greatly depending on where. the northern area near the better trains (2/3/Q) demand far more than those even 10 blocks south, even though it's just as nice.

i actually like parts of central slope better, but i prefer being in the north making for a super easy commute to manhattan.

on the Q, i'm at union square in 20 minutes, door to door.

did it in 15 one day in fact.

that's worth the extra money to some people.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 11:17 AM

"This is another side effect of the general increase in liveability and safety of NYC--a lot of people are sticking around who are not really cut out for city living."

That statement makes no sense. If the city is more livable, and people choose to live here, why are they somehow "not really cut out for city living?"

I'm the poster you're responding to. The people who are not cut out for city living are (in this case) those who want to be artists in NYC but believe they should be able to do that while living in the expensive bourgeois comforts of Park Slope.

In the '70s and '80s, and part of the '90s, when NYC was rougher and less desirable, there was more of a recognition that living in NYC as an artist would mean you lived in the middle of great cultural ferment and activity, but you'd be a relatively poor urban person and so you'd live somewhere dirty and maybe a little unsafe and your quality of life would kind of suck. But that was the trade-off.

Now you have creative workers (and also upper-class people, but we're talking about the creatives here) who have unreasonable expectations of the quality of life people like them should be able to have in NYC. And if you think that something is wrong with the world if an artist can't afford to live in the heart of an expensive neighborhood, then, yeah, you don't really belong in a big city.

Which is fine--that's why there are college towns and upstate river towns and little places in Maine where you can rent a house with lots of room for your cats.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 11:20 AM

Creatives will follow the subways lines. As long as they can live in neighborhoods that have good subway access, they'll live there. That way, they can work from home but still be able to make the occasional run into the city for a meeting or interview. We're seeing this happen already as neighborhoods along the F train beyond the 7th Ave and Prospect Park Stops are gentrifying. Cortelyou Road is becoming the new 7th Avenue as stops around the Q and B trains gentrify. Who knows...maybe the creative exodus that started from Manhattan will end where the subway lines end.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 11:23 AM

Also, the definition of "creative type" has expanded. Stereotypically, at least in pre-gentrified Manhattan, it was artists working in physical mediums (painting, sculpture) in SoHo or writers crafting plays or novels on the East Village. Today, the definition could include web programmers and designers, graphic designers, bloggers, TV producers, yoga instructors, and a whole lot more.

Additionally, freelancing has increased not only because more people are choosing to become freelancers but because in many cases companies are forcing people into the freelance life. Try getting a salaried job at a TV network or production company. It's near impossible since many companies non longer want to be responsible for providing benefits or health care. So I'd imagine part of this increase is not due to a choice among creative types but merely the reality of a changing economy.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 11:30 AM

I think that the photo above says it all. The "art" in tow looks like something any six year old child could produce. If this is what is paying most "artist's" rent, then it's no wonder that so many of them are struggling.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 11:38 AM

11:20 - Your irritating condescension negates any possible point you might be trying to make.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 11:43 AM

11:43-- Your whining without arguing any point at all makes you completely persuasive.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 11:46 AM

See 11:43.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 11:52 AM

i'm surprised no one has commented on the picture used to represent the "creative sector."

If this represents creativity, that guy should just keep on walking.....away from Broklyn.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 11:59 AM

he kinda has a cute butt though.

that's worth somethin, no?

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 12:00 PM

only a rich brat. that's not art that's heroin at work.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 12:05 PM

That guy is probably "The What," so don't ask him about the markets.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 12:11 PM

this city is alot cheaper than people think it is. There are apartments in prime areas of brooklyn than cost around the 2000-2300 that can fit 3 people with ease. Thats about 700 dollars a month which is pretty average. you just need to be creative.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 12:13 PM

11:42:

Thanks! You made me burst out laughing for the first time with Brownstoner. For months I've wondered what an "asshat" is! You nailed it!

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 12:16 PM

New York is about half the price of London, Tokyo and Hong Kong. And it's still cheaper than Sydney or Zurich.

In the last 10 years, New York has entered the fray as one of the greatest cities in the world.

You pay for that.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 12:24 PM

12:13 - what is the obsession with Brooklyn anyway....

There are gorgeous pre-war apartments in elevator and stabilized buildings in the Bronx; in nice neighborhoods (less crime statistically the Bed Stuy, Crown Heights and most of Brooklyn North), that are right near the subway and rent for a MAXIMUM of $1100 for 1br, $1400 for a 2br and $1600 for a 3br.
Granted they arent getting a Trader Joes or a Whole Foods anytime soon but doesnt everyone here hate those "chains" anyway?

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 12:28 PM

I love the chains that are more upscale.

Not the ones for the masses.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 12:42 PM

It's the artist/gay/bohemian factor (a proven factor in real estate as we all know) that is exactly what always makes me believe the better investment (when you can't afford Park Slope or you need a big space) are the edgier neighborhoods located close to Park Slope. Not way further out in the white neighborhoods that aren't so bohemian. The edgier neighborhoods are full of new residents in creative fields and more are coming all the time. All the people we now know in our new neighborhood is in a creative field. Artists/bohemians are risk takers by nature. Nobody goes into a field in which there is no guarantee whatsoever of ever making money, without being that way. They venture in first then others follow. Everyone in real estate development knows that.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 12:53 PM

Why should artists be different from anyone else? Live where you can afford to live. Case closed.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 12:55 PM

12:53, where is your new neighborhood?

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 1:08 PM

We're in PLG's LM, 1:08.

RH at 1:10, did you go to Williamsburg from PS? I really like Williamsburg. But it was already out of our price range at the time.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 1:21 PM

Park Slope still has the highest concentration of gays/lesbians in Brooklyn.

I have three gay friends who have just this past year moved there from Manhattan.

Some people don't need edgy. They want nice places to live with like-minded individuals around them.

Park Slope is a haven for the gay population who have money to burn.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 1:39 PM

Dont all gays have money to burn?

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 2:02 PM

PLG's LM has a lot of gay couples who want to buy a house together. 1:39, where are gay singles going who don't have money to burn, as you say? Is there a clear migration somewhere for the younger and less wealthy?

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 2:02 PM

"It's been my experience, at least with my gay friends, that the era of the gay neighborhood is over.

Gay people live all over the city, in whatever neighborhood works for them."

OH Polemicist! You a pole smoker huh??!! That explains everything.

The What

Someday this war is gonna end....

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 2:12 PM

Good point, polemicist. Nowadays, gays are more "mainstreamed" than in the past. In the future, I believe that gay enclaves like Chelsea will no longer exist as such.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 2:13 PM

2:02...yeah...i've heard that plg has a lot of gay couples also.

most of my ps neighbors are single gays...the men anyway. lots of lesbian couples in the slope, it seems.

take a look at excelsior any weekend night. it's so packed, you can hardly breathe.

my single gay friends without a lot of money mostly live in park slope, a couple in ft. greene and a couple in clinton hill. it's becoming a big area for those looking to move from chelsea, hells kitchen and the upper west side.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 2:15 PM

Gays like a feeling of community. That is what they are known for seeking out and creating. I can't think of a place with as much sense of community as Park Slope. It's a super friendly place to be gay, that's for sure.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 2:19 PM

So many of the comments above are off-base, but I guess that's what happens when a presentation and four panelists with varied perspectives are summed up in 283 words and one quote. Was Gabby even there? Or is this just a re-write from The Real Estate? No matter, since it provoked responses and that drives revenue. What am I thinking? ...that this is journalism?

Oh well, at least I (like others) finally found out what a asshat is. Now, what's a fucktard? That's a crotchless leotard, right?

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 2:24 PM

Hilarious, 2:24.

Re: the quotes in the article that say lots of artists are moving to L.A., I question the accuracy of that analysis. That city is hard hit with the foreclosures but the property values in the more centrally located, in-town, cool neighborhoods are still priced very high. Rents aren't all that cheap either. Once they pay for a car that's the same rent they'd be paying in Park Slope. I think it has much more to do with the professional art scene in L.A. vs. NYC than it has to do with real estate. L.A. is easier to break into for young artists. And to keep artists in NYC it's as much about professional opportunities for artists, and funding for the arts, as it is affordable housing. NYC needs to recognize this. There are regions of the country that have many times more public money for the arts per capita than NYC and that's just weird considering the role of NYC in art.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 2:44 PM

"What am I thinking? ...that this is journalism?"

Nope. This is a blog.

Do you know the difference?

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 2:44 PM

Most people I know hate Los Angeles.

I wouldn't live there if you paid me.

Anyone seen Millionaire Matchmaker on Bravo??

If that doesn't make you cringe at the thought of LA, nothing will.

Who's moving to LA????

Ridiculous.

And Philadelphia?? Come on. Philly is ok, and rode the coattails of the NYC real estate boom over the last 7 years, but now?
Philly is in the midst of a huge economic crisis and it's murder rate is SURGING.

My friend has lived there for the last 5 years and she said she has noticed a HUGE downtown over the past 2 years. Once thriving South Street is now a ghostland with abandoned storefronts on every block.

They can't GIVE houses away in Philly right now.

This article is kinda lame for anyone who travels and knows anything about these places.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 2:50 PM

sorry, meant downturn. not downtown.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 2:59 PM

Yep, 2:44, I do. "Who's moving to LA????" I believe Mr. Adkins was referring to writers who write for television. Interesting that The Real Estate didn't quote the panelist who moved to Kensington as his response to the higher cost of housing. Guess that wasn't as sensational as Mr. Adkins' quote. In fact, the whole event was pretty interesting -- guess you had to be there, as they say -- although long on issue-identification and short on proposed solutions. But CUF and BEDC do solid work, so it will be interesting to see what they come up with in the next 9-15 months. -- 2:24

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 3:13 PM

Boo hoo. News flash: creative types are not in danger of being pushed out of these posh neighborhoods; in fact, "creatives" tend to be well-off individuals who can afford to pursue careers in writing, the arts, etc., and not have to worry about the size of the paycheck to pay rent. So it really shouldn't come as a surprise that these creative types all congregate in the most expensive neighborhoods in Brooklyn. Oh, and I work at a magazine (not as a writer), so I'm not pulling this theory out of thin air.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 3:19 PM

Writers who write for tv HAVE to move to L.A., they have no choice. It has nothing whatsoever to do with real estate. It's also nothing new, it's always been this way. Even if a show is shot elsewhere the writers are often in L.A., also it's where all the hiring is done. Feature writers can live elsewhere but tv writers have to relocate West.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 3:51 PM

"So many of the comments above are off-base"

How so?

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 3:56 PM

The person who said this jackass' butt is "cute" is completely off base.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 3:57 PM

LA is a cesspool.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 4:02 PM

LA will be worthless once AY is built.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 4:34 PM

Thanks for above post defining "asshat" with this photo.

I'm new to blogging.

What's a "troll"?

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 6:48 PM

LA is a fucking shithole. NObody with a brain moves there.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 7:20 PM

4:02 is a cesspool.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 7:21 PM

will there ever be artists in east new york or brownsville because of massive gentrification of brooklyn?

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 7:22 PM

7:21 is the rat that lives in the cesspool.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 7:22 PM

very true about Philly. They can't give properties away there. I went there recently and it is worse than the worst nabe in Nyc any day. Crime is up big time . What idiot is moving there? tell me.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 7:41 PM

LA may be a cesspool but life can sure be sweet there and you do not have to be in Forbes' richest list to buy a really cute house. or rent one. A whole house, not just the basement and part of the first floor. Imagine.
It is NYC that is the shithole acually and I think this is why the worker bees here are constantly telling themselves how wonderful NY is. How special, how unique, how fantastic. Actually, there is nothing special about living badly and working yourself to death. That is how most of the world lives. Ask any Bangladeshi.

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 7:46 PM

"LA may be a cesspool but life can sure be sweet there and you do not have to be in Forbes' richest list to buy a really cute house."

You're joking right? Have you actually priced LA real estate? Any place worth living in is very expensive.

And besides the weather, if you aren't in the business, what reason is there to be in LA?

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 8:43 PM

7:22 is feces in the cesspool

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 8:52 PM

if you are into fashion = new york
if you are into classical music = new york
if you are into finance = new york
if you are into advertising = new york
if you are into publishing = new york
if you are into journalism = new york
if you are into dance = new york
if you are into indie rock = new york
if you are into architecture = new york

if you are into acting = los angeles

Posted by: guest at March 6, 2008 9:31 PM

i went to art school, but "sold out" and now work at a hedge fund. i rent in prime park slope and am helping price out the "creatives". if you can`t afford the rent where you want to live, you have to do something... either move to the ghetto or do what i did. either way kind of sucks. btw, i still make art when i can, so i guess i am a hobbyist but my work is at least more badass than the asshat`s in the pic.

Posted by: guest at March 7, 2008 12:10 AM

if you are into being an asshat = brownstoner

Posted by: guest at March 7, 2008 12:14 AM

Baltimore??? you joking right, you are comparing BALTIMORE to NYC circa any time in history??? (the Bronx is more than 2x the size of Baltimore)

Look we get it - you don't like NYC anymore, too clean, to rich, too little crime, too few homeless, etc, etc - I got news for you - your in the MINORITY, more people are staying in NYC and coming to NYC (and being born in NYC) then anytime in recent history. Not only that but demographics and enviromental factors favor urban environments like NY - if it means that we end up losing some of the younger less successful 'creative' types - so be it (although I doubt that will happen anyway)

But you just make yourself sound like a total moron when you compare NYC to Baltimore or even Philadelphia - NYC has 8+M people (Baltimore has maybe 650k, and Philadelphia has 1.5M) in a metro area of 20+M people - Philadelphia is virtually a boro of the NYC metro area and Baltimore is a wreck and likely will never recover. Either way - neither is an International city of the scale and reach of NYC and they NEVER will be.

I wish people could allow a little reality and perspective enter their thoughts.

Posted by: guest at March 7, 2008 10:10 AM

someone asked who was moving to phili and santa just answered the question.

jesus christ people are high strung

Posted by: guest at March 7, 2008 11:05 AM

"LA may be a cesspool but life can sure be sweet there and you do not have to be in Forbes' richest list to buy a really cute house."

Response: "You're joking right? Have you actually priced LA real estate? Any place worth living in is very expensive."

EXACTLY. If we spent the million we did to buy a smaller house in an up and coming neighborhood in Brooklyn, in Los Angeles, we'd either get half the space in a crap house that needed a lot of work, or we'd be buying way out in a subdivision in Orange County. It is NOT affordable to buy in Los Angeles even with all the foreclosures. The bubble was huge out there. All the whiners complaining about how fast and high prices rose here over the last few years, just look at prime neighborhoods in L.A. where home values quadrupled. I am not exaggerating. The house I sold in 2002 sold last year for 4 times what I sold it for and in that particular neighborhood the values have held up even now because it had become so hot.

Relative to the rest of the world, Brooklyn is actually still very affordable for being a huge international city with a good job market.

Posted by: guest at March 7, 2008 2:39 PM

Philly is not so bad.

it's definitely not NYC, no one in their right mind would say so but if you are somewhat established as a writer or artist it's a reasonably cultured place which is much cheaper than NYC.

The problem with Brooklyn, and NY in general, is that while housing costs have soared, incomes have not. I doubt your average designer/architect/whatever is making with comparable experience is making more than in 2001, but housing costs, not to mention other necessities like food and health care have soared, in some cases are several times greater.

If you are an artist/writer/musician who is doing well critically, and is getting income from your art but still needs to work a day job to fill in the gaps, New York is becoming an increasingly sucky place to be. You might be able to find a job but it won't be enough to pay your bills...and if you have kids, forget about it.

Posted by: guest at March 28, 2008 11:30 AM

Philly is not so bad.

it's definitely not NYC, no one in their right mind would say so but it has its charms and it is much cheaper than here.

The problem with Brooklyn, and NY in general, is that while housing costs have soared, incomes have not. I doubt your average designer/architect/whatever is making with comparable experience is making that much more more than in 2001, but housing costs, not to mention other necessities like food and health care have soared, in some cases are several times greater.

If you are an artist/writer/musician who is doing well critically, and is getting income from your art but still needs to work a day job to fill in the gaps, New York is becoming an increasingly sucky place to be. You might be able to find a job but it won't be enough to pay your bills...and if you have kids, forget about it.

Posted by: guest at March 28, 2008 11:35 AM