« As Predicted, 547 9th Street Sells Above Asking More Retail on Horizon for Jay Street »
September 22, 2008
A Brownstone [Still] Dies in Brooklyn
Back in April, the folks at Cititour noted that while brownstones were plenty protected in neighborhoods like Park Slope, non-landmarked neighborhoods like Sunset Park weren't so lucky. They documented the dismantling or dismembering of a brownstone on 54th and 6th. Five months later, they've got new documents: these photos of what replaced the turn-of-the-century building. Kind of resurrects the old progress-versus-preservation argument, don't it?
Follow-Up to A Brownstone Dies in Brooklyn [Cititour]
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/6354
Comments
Now that's where you're going to see price cuts of 20-40%!!! What a f&%&ng eyesore.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at September 22, 2008 10:07 AM
nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
Posted by: plgdude at September 22, 2008 10:08 AM
the "grand opening" next door sure is lasting a long time.
Posted by: z at September 22, 2008 10:13 AM
That literally makes me sick to my stomach.
How could something like this possibly get approved?
Incomprehensible.
This photo should be sent to every single person or entity legislative or private who has the power to make noise and prevent this sort of thing from ever happening again.
Anyone know who the developer was?
Posted by: TownhouseLady at September 22, 2008 10:15 AM
This city desperately needs some kind of board of standards to make this sort of atrocity impossible.
You want to build out your FAR? Fine, but it must be done in a way that's contextural to your neighbors. This looks like a 400 pound person squeezing into the middle seat in the subway. It's wrong in scale, height, materials, design, I could go on for a good while.
This is why landmarking is currently the only way to stop this kind of horror. There should be something in between landmarking and free for all. Please!
Posted by: Montrose Morris at September 22, 2008 10:17 AM
here's an earlier "before" shot. the original place seems to have been in decent shape. this is one of the worst teardown-and-replace jobs i have ever seen.
http://tinyurl.com/4bnwfs
Posted by: z at September 22, 2008 10:17 AM
One can only hope that in the downturn their original investment assumptions have not held up and they lose their shirt.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at September 22, 2008 10:18 AM
They just single-handedly destroyed the value of their neighbor's property. It is a real shame.
Posted by: Schultz at September 22, 2008 10:19 AM
Polemicist - I seem to remeber you arguing for this on its "high density" basis?
Posted by: dittoburg at September 22, 2008 10:23 AM
This is why I don't feel at all depressed or anxious about the bursting of the real estate bubble.
It will put an end to these atrocities, and meanwhile we will have some breathing room to revisit zoning regulations in places like Sunset Park and the fringes of non-landmarked Park Slope that are threatened by such toxic crap.
Posted by: WonTon at September 22, 2008 10:29 AM
WTF aren't these landmarked??? This needs to be tore down and replaced by a turn-of-the-century replica. THERE IS NO REASON WHY YOU CAN'T BUILD WHATEVER THE F*** YOU WANT INSIDE BUT MAINTAIN AT LEAST A HISTORICAL FACADE THAT BLENDS IN. VERY TACKY AND VERY LOW CLASS.
Posted by: DOW8000SP800 at September 22, 2008 10:33 AM
Dittoburg,
What I've really advocated is a mix of reasonable density restrictions AND aesthetic standards. This building is unattractive (and, with a 2.43 FAR - it's NOT "high density), yes, but such is life when you have a housing shortage that results in land value (the price per sq. ft. of FAR) rising to a disproportionate level of overall property value. Money that could be spent producing a high quality facade similar to what was common in the past instead goes into the pocket of the landowner.
A simple solution would be to mandate aesthetic standards. Buildings would cost more, but the end result is the price of land would drop.
All over Park Slope, especially closer to the park, townhouses were torn down and replaced with 4- and 8-family floor-through apartment buildings. I live in one myself. They can be made very attractive, and if standards were required - we might even have economies of scale again. Many of the nice features of these buildings were mass produced and cheap - the wrought iron, the precast lintels, even fine brick.
So, Montroe Morris is wrong - landmarking is NOT the only way to "stop the horror". Everything that was built in the past could be built again, we simply need proactive regulations rather than reactive preservation.
Posted by: Polemicist at September 22, 2008 10:49 AM
Best View in Brooklyn had a post a while back with some close ups:
http://bestviewinbrooklyn.blogspot.com/2008/08/update-on-some-6th-avenue-construction.html
Posted by: LilBitOfLuck at September 22, 2008 10:51 AM
I fail to see how this hellacious rebuild does anything for poley's hi-density needs argument. It looks to have 8 apts? FAR is a joke in brownstone neighborhoods. If you're going to tear down a lovely old building, there ought to be design regulations to limit what you can do. It looks like crap- it's built like crap.
We need more regulations on what goes up in place of these wonderful old townhouses. I hope the developer sits with this for a long time.
Posted by: bxgrl at September 22, 2008 10:54 AM
If Landmarks doesn't step in and designate parts of Sunset park, this is going to be the fate of the neighborhood. The influx of Asian and Arab immigrants are changing the landscape.
There are some great streets of brownstone, limestone and brick beauties.
Posted by: bayridgegirl at September 22, 2008 11:03 AM
Nice. Wow. The choice of doors is amazing. Another project brought to you be DUMBFUCK Contracting.
Posted by: billyboomer at September 22, 2008 11:03 AM
Polemicist, if you didn't just have a knee jerk negative reaction to everything I write, you'd see my first sentence was to ask for a board of standards.
Currently, as I understand it, there is no such board which would govern the aesthetics in building design. If you live in an attractive newer building, it's only because you had an enlightened developer along with a real architect with some vision. Too many projects have neither.
I don't believe everything should be landmarked. I might want it so, but that's a reflection of my tastes. I am not so unattached to reality that I can't understand why that will not work in a city that needs to grow. However, landmarking is currently the only protection against this kind of crap. We do need a board of standards. If you actually read my post, we are agreeing here.
Posted by: Montrose Morris at September 22, 2008 11:09 AM
"Everything that was built in the past could be built again" I beg to differ. the aesthetics, the building materials, the construction techniques, the skilled labor- all of that is changed. True there are wonderful artisans today who can do this kind of work- but at one time the construction techniques, materials and skills were standard for the day, not the work of preservationists and artisan specialists.
There's a world of loss with every old building that gets torn down, and in brownstone neighborhoods, this building is a perfect example of why they shouldn't be demolished, but instead reused and renovated. You aren't getting much more density out of the new buildings, it impacts the value of surrounding properties, the construction is often crap and it destroys the beauty and charm of these old neighborhoods, things which contribute to their desirability and value as real estate.
I'm all for building housing- there's plenty of places where it can be done without destroying valuable older housing stock and rendering abominations like this in brownstone neighborhoods. Or at least doing so without destroying a reclaimable old building that could have been re-used. A green option, by the way too.
You, polemicist, and MM are both right, but MM's assessment is a much surer way to go. regulations won't be ironclad, sadly, and will always be subject to change. there'll always be some buddy in the DOB to sign off on your plan, always another Scarano around to reinterpret the regs.
Posted by: bxgrl at September 22, 2008 11:10 AM
Montrose Morris- NYC does have a Board of Standards and Appeals, however, the operative word is appeals because developer's $ = you can get anything approved.
Posted by: ppw_girlz at September 22, 2008 11:32 AM
I congratulate the owner of this property. He put his own money into developing his property, and providing more moderate-income housing for a city that needs it.
Pay no attention to those on this post (as you have obviously done) who would set up an "aestheitcs patrol", which would bring development to a screeching halt.
If they don't like the product you have produced, then they can simply take their money elsewhere.
Posted by: benson at September 22, 2008 11:35 AM
BLECH....
And Benson, while I am not averse to moderate-income housing, this IS an abomination. It can be done with class and style and pizazz...think about the infill apartments on Eastern Parkway as it curves around when you're heading towards Crown Heights. Respectful! The developer here is testing the limits not at all respectful of his surroundings. You say that people who don't like the product can take their money elsewhere, well, this guy is TAKING the neighbor's money with him.
Posted by: Minmin at September 22, 2008 11:43 AM
Oh, and I'm SURE that's an illegal curb cut! (Call 311 to plant a tree.)
Posted by: Minmin at September 22, 2008 11:43 AM
Benson..i hope you get some piece of shit across the street from you and then we'll hear what you have to say!!!
If you think this developer was primarily interested in "providing more moderate-income housing" then you're on some powerful hallucinogen.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at September 22, 2008 11:45 AM
Bxgrl:
If there is demand, people will do it. Just ask all the hookers and drug dealers. Other amusing examples of the trend can be found in places like Kenya, where the number of tailors and clothing producers has declined by 80% over the past decade because we westerners give so much clothing away to them for free. When there is opportunity, people will rise to the challenge. If there isn't opportunity, such as is the case of the seamstresses in Kenya or the architectural craftsmen of generations past, they'll find some other way to make money.
I'm not saying the problem is easy to solve, but I do know that when given the opportunity, people will rise to the challenge.
With the collapse of the FIRE economy, and the almost certain future where money is injected into the economy via government capital improvement projects, we have the chance to continue the productive and aesthetic growth of our city that slowed after 1929 and stopped with the start of World War II.
Montrose: I'm sorry I misread your post. I do disagree with the "context" however - this building is undoubtedly of a lower density than your typical 5-story mansion in Park Slope for instance. The neighboring buildings are small, but if the developer constructed a replica of a Prometheus Place townhouse, I can't believe you'd be so opposed to it. Density restrictions have a place, but too often they are abused to limit new development and preserve the existing neighborhood. These houses are small, and building something of the exact same height and density should not be a consideration.
Posted by: Polemicist at September 22, 2008 11:45 AM
Minmin;
What in the world are you talking about, when you say that this guy is "TAKING the neighbor's money with him", and not being respectful? Yeah, I'm sure that the neighbor next store with the big "Grand Opening" sign on his cheap 99 cents store is really pissed that this guy is not being respectful of the prevailing aesthetics.
Posted by: benson at September 22, 2008 11:49 AM
oh puhleeze, benson. What a load of bs. He got maybe another 2-4 apartments - oh yes. That does sooooo much for housing in this city. He probably wasted more time and money by destroying the original property, then rebuilding. The apartments are sure to be cheesy, poorly designed and bound to need repairs within a year of occupation.
People like you are so short-sighted and unimaginative. In the long run the developer hasn't added anything really beneficial, even by way of moderate income housing, and in the process destroyed a building that was well constructed enough to last over 100 years (his building won't, guaranteed), and destroyed the integrity and beauty of an old brownstone block- which was a main selling point by the way. People look to buy in brownstone areas because they are desirable.
But why should he care? He probably has one of those sub-prime mortgage packages and his lender will be getting bailed out, no?
Posted by: bxgrl at September 22, 2008 11:53 AM
DIBS;
As a matter of fact, I used to live in an area where these types of buildings were going up everywhere. These new homes were quite popular with immigrants. You know what I did? I saved up my money, and moved to an area that was more in line with the environment I wanted. Imagine that!
Posted by: benson at September 22, 2008 11:54 AM
Riffing on what an earlier poster (Schultz) had written, which you had seemed to respond to. I maintain my position, though.
A 99-Cent Store can morph over time into a boutique, or a restaurant. It's highly unlikely that this building will ever improve AND it IS possible to make moderate housing that maintains some standards. (My example of the development on EP is just ONE example. There are others.)
Posted by: Minmin at September 22, 2008 11:56 AM
I'm sorry, Benson, but aesthetics have value, too. This POS has totally destroyed this row of houses. Granted, the slippery slope had been started by whoever changed the facade on the store, but that is a masterpiece compared to this thing. If we have no pity for the building on the right, what about on the left?
I'd love to argue this all day, but can't - got a meeting. I was not aware we had a standard board, have never seen any evidence of it. Thanks, ppw.
Posted by: Montrose Morris at September 22, 2008 12:03 PM
BxGrl;
I don't think you should be dismissive of the developer's contribution in provisioning moderate-income housing. Yes, it is only a few apartments, but the larger point is that guys like this should be encouraged. If there are 1000's of guys like this, moderate income housing will be provided, without subsideies from the city.
I think Minmin's comments about the 99 cents store eventually morphing into a boutique is telling. There is an undertone of class in this conversation. What he seems to be pissed about is that the owner of this property has not put this building "on hold" until the gentrifiers come around. Isn't that thoughtful? In other words, the owner, probably some immigrant who is trying to make his way up in the world, should hold off on developing his property in the hopes that eventually the gentrifiers will get around to his property. Memo to folks: if you want an "option" on this building, then put up some money!!!!!
Here's another thought to dwell on: like it or not, immigrants and moderate-income folks largely do not consider the outside aesthetics when choosing a place to live. Be careful of what you are advocating here - what choices do you leave people in a different place in life than those in Brownstoner country.
Posted by: benson at September 22, 2008 12:06 PM
benson...who says this guy IS providing moderate income housing. This building, like most Fedders buildings, will likely be listed to sell on the market and, hopefully, not sell and languish for months... like most of them do. No indication of moderate housing here except in the context that this neighborhood is cheaper than others.
Like I saud above, if you think this developer has built this for the good of the community you're out of your mind.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at September 22, 2008 12:10 PM
Again, I was responding to something in your message: the comment about the 99cent stores. After I posted it, I realized I could have said hardwares store or fruitstand, or at least added them in addition to my first two examples.
How do you know that about immigrants and moderately income folks largely not considering the outside aesthetics when choosing a place to live? That argument was made by housing advocates in the 1920s-1930s, to which Eleanor Roosevelt made a famous rebuttal. I WOULD argue (agree) that lower income people don't have as many choices they CAN make, but that does not mean they are not without capabilities of aesthetic discrimination. And DIBS is right...do we know anything about the developer's altruistic motivation? I think not.
Posted by: Minmin at September 22, 2008 12:19 PM
DIBS;
Your statements are self-contradictory. If, as you predict, these homes will not sell, then what is the problem? Developers are in it to make money, and if this product doesn't move, it will surely be noted, and that will be the end of it. What's the problem then? If what you are saying is true, then it will be well worth the price of one brownstone to see this type of development stop. Why is everyone so upset then?
The fact is, this building WILL do well in Sunset Park, and other areas like it.
You are putting words in my mouth. WHERE do I say that he has done this for the good of the community? Like every developer that has ever lived, he's built a product in the hopes of making money, and lots of it. Bully for him!!! My point is that, in doing so, he has provided a product that is much in need in this city, which is why he is making money.
Finally, I don't get the point of your statement that the only reason this might be cheaper is that the land/neighbor is "cheper". Somehow you dismiss this point, whereas I say: "Exactly"!!!!! This is exactly as it should be. The developer has built housing exactly in line with the neighborhood, and done so with his own money. I salute him, rather than absurd organizations like FAC that build "affordable" housing in expensive areas, at a heavy cost to the taxpayer.
Posted by: benson at September 22, 2008 12:26 PM
"With the collapse of the FIRE economy, and the almost certain future where money is injected into the economy via government capital improvement projects, we have the chance to continue the productive and aesthetic growth of our city that slowed after 1929 and stopped with the start of World War II."
polemicist- just what city are you living in? I mean, ok, "aesthetic" growth I'll agree- that's been warped. But you think we're in some kind of suspended animation since WW II? I don't think so. You'll have to explain that one.
"These new homes were quite popular with immigrants. You know what I did? I saved up my money, and moved to an area that was more in line with the environment I wanted. Imagine that!"
Hmmmm..... oh right. You moved. How smart of you, so everyone else, ie poor and moderate income people can live with POS's, that you advocate but you're just too good for that. Talk about NIMBYISM.
Your biggest assumption is that this is, as DIBS pointed out, moderate income housing. I could throw your argument back on you- since the FAR isn't really adding much, why can't those thousands of "little" developers keep the original buildings and renovate. That's still a lot of 1000's adding up. And what makes you so sure he is doing it without subsidies? Don't developers of moderate income housing get subsidies for building? I think so.
You also make some fairly class-based assumptions yourself- assuming the developer is an immigrant, assuming immigrants or moderate income people don't care about what their buildings look like. In other words, you really have no idea what immigrants and moderate income people think. After all, you moved. But as the saying goes, garbage in, garbage out. Give people garbage to live in, they'll treat it exactly like garbage. So where is the benefit of building ugly crap? Because you think immigrants and moderate income people are perfectly satisfied with little boxes made of ticky-tacky?
Posted by: bxgrl at September 22, 2008 12:36 PM
BxGrl;
Please,spare me the breathless outrage, and spend more time reading what I actually wrote.
I make no apologies for moving. Guess what - when people have more money, they buy better things for themselves, be it a car, a home and so forth. I did not engage in NIMBYism: I didn't try to stop the development of these homes, or impose my aesthetics on them. I used the liberty that is afforded me through saving the money I earned through my own labor. That is how this country owrks, and it is a grat thing.
I also did not say that immigrants don't have any aesthetic discernment. What I did say is that it is generally not of concern to them, as they have more pressing needs. I agree with what Minimin said on this topic. He made the point better than I did.
Posted by: benson at September 22, 2008 12:47 PM
My point was that benson said..." He put his own money into developing his property, and providing more moderate-income housing for a city that needs it." at 11:35...
There IS NO EVIDENCE that the developer was providing that and whatever implied altruistic argument that this POS was "providing " anything is false.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at September 22, 2008 12:48 PM
Some neighborhhods go through genetrification....this is:
Uglification of a neighborhood!
Posted by: bayridgegirl at September 22, 2008 1:05 PM
benson, i agree with some of your points, but it appears that the central premise of your argument is incorrect. according to the dob records for the property, the new building is intended to be a 2-family + retail. it's a big increase in square footage, but it's not a significant increase (if at all) in the number of housing units in the community. (the address is 5405 sixth avenue if anyone else wants to dig around.)
Posted by: z at September 22, 2008 1:06 PM
Looks more like a 6 family plus retail, if you count the doors. Someone in the hood should check out the meters.
Posted by: Minmin at September 22, 2008 1:15 PM
You all should pool your money toegther, buy land and/or run down houses, build/renovate aesthecticly appealing contextual buildings and sell them to lower/moderate income people.
Posted by: ou812 at September 22, 2008 1:19 PM
or better yet, sell them to middle to upper income people!!!
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at September 22, 2008 1:24 PM
This is so SAD it makes my heart weep. Who approved this monstrosity? It is an absolute POS and has not only destroyed the neighboring house but the entire block as well...trop dommage!
Now any architects out there that can suggest a cosmetic remedy? Can this crap be fixed? I am thinking maybe bring down the entire facade and do something contextual or maybe dark brown hardy plank siding? I don't know its just such an eyesore right now. Merde!
Posted by: pierre de taille at September 22, 2008 1:40 PM
This is hideous and despicable. Building a bigger building is one thing - building an eyesore that is completely out of context with the surrounding buildings is quite another. Unfortunately you can't legislate against bad taste.
Posted by: geekspice at September 22, 2008 1:55 PM
Seriously - while the jutting out in front of the neighbors is very strange indeed (and shouldn't have been allowed if there were any way to prevent that)... the COLOR is the crazy thing.
If the building had just been a darker color -- or really ANYTHING other than this light sandy crap -- it wouldn't have been quite as much of an atrocity.
Developers: If you don't want to do anything better than this pathetic excuse for architecture... could you AT LEAST get some feedback about the color? Is that too much to ask?
Posted by: tybur6 at September 22, 2008 2:09 PM
benson- unfortunately I spend too much time reading what you actually wrote. Would that you spent as much time thinking before you wrote.
I would have to say in re nimbyism, you voted with your feet. But the agreement here is the building is a travesty, you made several assumptions regarding the developer, and you seem to think the developer should be congratulated for putting up an ugly pos, with the implication that poor or moderate income people don't care. "like it or not, immigrants and moderate-income folks largely do not consider the outside aesthetics when choosing a place to live." Coupled with patting the developer on the back, that's a pretty elitist attitude.
And, as DIBS points out, you really know nothing about the developer, his finances or his intentions.
You know it's a pos, I know it's a pos. You wouldn't live there- I wouldn't live there. The difference is I think it's a slap in the face to the community and the potential tenants. You think the developer should be applauded for his "altruism."
So please spare me the wide-eyed innocent defensive, "oh, I never said that."
Posted by: bxgrl at September 22, 2008 2:12 PM
tybur6...there's as much chance that these developers are reading brownstoner as there is of the "marauding teens" ;)
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at September 22, 2008 2:13 PM
dave- I think this was built by marauding teens!
Posted by: bxgrl at September 22, 2008 2:22 PM
In about 100 years there'll be a website dedicated to the preservation and restoration of Fedders buildings, inside and out. I suspect we'll see something like this in the Forum Section:
Restoring my Fedders Facade and need to find some of that really ugly brick. Can anyone help?
Categories: Facade
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at September 22, 2008 2:53 PM
Just to revist, there needs to be something between landmarking and a free for all.
Posted by: slick at September 22, 2008 3:13 PM
benson - that's just gross. If everyone had your attitude the whole city would look like this. Sadly, many people in America do have your attitude, which is why the country is covered with exurban sprawl, shopping malls and abandoned or destroyed downtowns.
Posted by: gkw at September 22, 2008 3:33 PM
That's always been the problem- striking a balance. I wonder if there could be a compromise type of landmarking- so that houses must be salvaged and the facades kept, but perhaps making allowances for FAR so that they could be added to, so long as it kept within the boundaries of period architecture(s).So you could conceivably put up a building as the one here, but it would have to have a period referenced facade, not necessarily a reproduction. But in terms of materials, ornament, etc. So it wouldn't be landmarking per se, but a regulation of area design.
Posted by: east river at September 22, 2008 3:34 PM
east river, that's a pretty neat idea.
Posted by: z at September 22, 2008 3:46 PM
Bxgrl;
You are just not talking reality.
The fact that neither you nor I would live in this place is a moot point. The builder did not have us in mind when he put this up.
I am now well off enough so that I don't shop in Payless Shoes either. This fact does not mean that Payless Shoes does not provide value to those who shop there. If it didn't provide any value, people wouldn't shop there, and it would go out of business. Who am I or you to dictate to people what they should buy wrt shoes? Likewise, who are we to legislate to anyone regarding their taste in housing? It is a simple matter, really. This guy put up this building, and no one is forcing anyone to live in it. If you don't like it, that's your right. If enough people feel that way, I can assure you that developers will stop instantly to build them. The fact is, however, that these buildings sell very well in certain areas.
DIBS is being disingenuous when he states that there is no evidence that these buildings are intended for moderate income folks. Who are they intended for, then? The Vanderbilts? Please, let's be realistic. Sunset Park has a heavy, and growing, Asian immigrant population, and that is exactly who these buildings are intended for. Go take a drive to Flushing or other such areas with this demographic.
This is the "community" we are talking about here, and, they like these homes. If they did not, developers wouldn't build them.
Posted by: benson at September 22, 2008 3:51 PM
This is disgusting and anyone who thinks otherwise should be living in parts o Queens where this is the norm. I have seen high density needs satisfied in far more attractive ways. This builder, or someone with similar taste (or lack thereof) has a few similar atrocities in BedStuy and I think I saw one or two in red hook. They look like they should be on the outskirts of Dubai, not flanked by historic brownstones.
Posted by: offthegrid at September 22, 2008 3:52 PM
benson- I'm gonna go with bxgrl and dibs on this one. If anyone is being disingenuous it's you. The argument of not dictating taste is sketchy at best. And while you may not shop Payless, what they do offer, and this developer doesn't, is style. (disclaimer: there's godawful expensive style too). Payless sells the idea that style can be affordable and they do sell knockoffs of more expensive styles.
These places aren't being built because the developer wants to appeal to his "demographic" The only thing you can say when you look at this place is the guy is beyond cheap and doesn't care as long as it sells. Never make the mistake of thinking this "demographic" loves this stuff- They buy or rent them because they can afford them, not because they like them. It has nothing to do with market appeal and everything to do with squeezing out a buck.
One last point- considering how much the design aesthetic of the western world owes to Asia, I think its pretty ignorant to claim they like these buildings. That's your elitist arrogance.
Posted by: east river at September 22, 2008 4:42 PM
Absolutely dispicable.
Posted by: smitty at September 22, 2008 4:46 PM
Folks;
I just realized one other thing regarding this story. It seems that Brownstoner and/or Lisa have carefully cropped the photo so that they could spin this story to their liking. Please take a look at the original photo from Cititour. If you do so, you will see that there is another store next to the brownstone on the left in the photo. In other words, all of the buildings in the vicinity of this building, with the exception of the one on the immediate left, have a junky store on the ground floor.
Take a look at this photo, and judge for yourself if this is still an integral row of brownstones, even before this new building.
Posted by: benson at September 22, 2008 4:48 PM
East River;
I think folks are more interested in picking a fight with me than being realistic. In doing so, you are putting words in my mouth.
I am not stating that poor or moderate-income immigrants, Asian or otherwise, have poor taste, or don't care about taste. What I am saying is that most are at a station in life where they cannot afford to indulge their taste in a more refined building. They certainly do not love this building, and as soon as they can afford better, they'll be out of it. So what?? In the meantime, this building will have fulfilled their present and real need.
You call me elitist? Am I the one advocating that moderate income folks cannot buy a place of their own free will, simply because it does not pass the "taste" test of someone with more bucks? Think again on that.
Posted by: benson at September 22, 2008 4:57 PM
"They certainly do not love this building, and as soon as they can afford better, they'll be out of it. "
And I quote: "This is the "community" we are talking about here, and, they like these homes. If they did not, developers wouldn't build them." Please read what you wrote.
It's a strange argument you're trying to make, "Am I the one advocating that moderate income folks cannot buy a place of their own free will, simply because it does not pass the "taste" test of someone with more bucks?" That's like trying to make the lipstick on a pig comment all about Palin because you are desperate to make a point. What does free will of the buyer have to do with the crappy taste of the builder? If he were forced to put up a better building, they would buy into that - using the same free will- and get a better buy. Who's stopping them? You don't usually stretch so much to make an point. We've gone head to head many times and with all due respect, I'm used to much better talking points from you.
I don't think people are more interested in picking a fight with you than they are with anyone else- this is brownstoner after all. But you come on like gangbusters, make your pronouncements and then act shocked that anyone disagrees. You've attacked people plenty of times, with little or no provocation on other threads, so I'm a little amused that you seem a bit thin skinned here.
Posted by: east river at September 22, 2008 5:57 PM
Why is everybody ganging up on benson, he's right,
This place looks like a watering hole I used to frequent in Bangkok: Four Floors of Whores.
Boy I could tell you some stories. But hey, that's for a different thread.
Anyway, just put a pair of neon tassels over the roof line and a brass pole down the facade and you're in business.
Posted by: Legion at September 22, 2008 8:21 PM
East River;
When I said that "I think folks are more interested in picking a fight with me than being realistic", I did not mean to imply that folks were picking on me (though I can understand how it comes off that way). Rather, I was trying to say that folks seem more interested in making an argument, in a partisan type of way (if you want to use the polical analogy), rather than discuss realistic approaches.
I see no contradiction in the statements I put out. These buildings are liked by those who rent or buy the apartments, because it satisfies their current need (as I said). At the same time, they do not aspire to live in these buildings as their final home. In other words, they are simply a step up on the ladder for them.
I still stand by my statement that the approach you are advocating is elitist. You talk about mandating aesthetic standards, but completely ignore the impact such a move would have on the cost/price of these buidlings. How about the taxpayers? Who is going to pay for the "taste police"?
In all the discussion above about mandating aesthetic standards, I find it interesting that no one addressed this point.
Posted by: benson at September 23, 2008 9:17 AM
Taste police, mandating, advocating elitist views, the photo crop conspiracy by Jon and Lisa- oh come on. You're sounding more paranoid by the second.
You're trying to make this about the tenants, and you know perfectly well this is about sleazy developers who produce crap buildings that hurt the neighborhoods, and often the people in them who wind up have to deal with the problems of shoddy workmanship and fire hazards. As for who pays for the taste police (not that there will be any, but ok)-maybe we can get some volunteer work out of all the stock brokers and genius financiers who are holding their hands out to the taxpayers for a bailout? (Yeah- that's about as ridiculous as your arguments).
"I see no contradiction in the statements I put out. These buildings are liked by those who rent or buy the apartments, because it satisfies their current need (as I said)." Nice try at backpedaling but you said "This is the "community" we are talking about here, and, they like these homes. If they did not, developers wouldn't build them." That's a far cry from what you claim to be saying now.
Posted by: east river at September 23, 2008 9:34 AM
Sunset Park is not protected by landmark status. The Chinese are gutting and destroying the homes in this neighborhood. They actively offer way over the top cash deals to get the buildings and cut them up into 10 apartments for slum-like living. The facades of the brownstones are taken off and ugly yellow bricks are put in their place with no regard for their neighboring homes or the aesthetic of the block and neighborhood. The brownstone that was there was in perfect shape. Their is currently a gutting happening on my block just around the corner and there is no limit to waht they might do. A wonton retail shop in the middle of a residential street? Why the hell not?
THESE ARE NO DEVELOPERS! They are wealthy Chinese investors who will house three times the capacity of families in one room efficiencies for profit. It's gonna be a slum. If the house on my block suffers the same fate, I am outta here.
Posted by: Just around the Corner at September 27, 2008 12:26 AM
Latest Restaurant Additions
-
Chez Lola
added November 21, 2008 12:02 PM in Clinton Hill -
Nana
added November 20, 2008 12:02 PM in Park Slope -
Pomme de Terre
added November 19, 2008 12:01 PM in Ditmas Park -
Scopello
added November 18, 2008 12:01 PM in Fort Greene -
DiFara
added November 17, 2008 11:59 AM in Midwood -
Chiles y Chocolate
added November 14, 2008 12:02 PM in Park Slope -
Downtown Bar and Grill
added November 13, 2008 11:58 AM in Cobble Hill -
Tempo
added November 12, 2008 11:57 AM in Park Slope -
The Chocolate Room
added November 11, 2008 12:01 PM in Cobble Hill, Park Slope -
Tanoreen
added November 10, 2008 12:02 PM in Bay Ridge
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.