« Comparing the Past and the Present New Chase on Myrtle Now Official »

November 7, 2008

Horror Show Friday

From Bed Stuy (left) to PLG (middle) to Bushwick (right), the building boom's bottom-of-the-barrel are looking like particularly tough sells now. Who's going to buy one of these places now? Hard to imagine.
$549000 2 fm, Short Sale [Craigslist]
$729000 / 7br Parkside Ave [Craigslist]
$729000 / 8br PRIME Bushwick [Craigslist]

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/7060

Comments

AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!

I thought Halloween was last week!

Posted by: Biff Champion at November 7, 2008 10:54 AM

I hope its the developers who are losing on these projects.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 7, 2008 10:55 AM

Our eyes are losing on these projects.

Posted by: Biff Champion at November 7, 2008 10:58 AM

I like this feature, will it be re-occuring? - like HoTD, only FHoTD (fugly)

Posted by: bowl of dicks at November 7, 2008 11:00 AM

While these are not ideal brownstoner homes I am sure they make a nice home for someone. These type homes are all over the poorer areas of Jersey CIty and they too are now going thru short sales...

Posted by: HOBOKENROCKS at November 7, 2008 11:01 AM

Craptacular! If you're looking for a place to live, they're fine for most. If you're looking for a home, how dispiriting. The middle one is the least offensive.

Posted by: DeLepp at November 7, 2008 11:02 AM

Landmarked areas continue to look better and better...

Posted by: Aussie at November 7, 2008 11:02 AM

If I wanted to view skanky pics on craigslist I'd go to the recently outlawed erotic services sections. I did hear that NY was one of the few states that didn't ban them. How nice.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 7, 2008 11:05 AM

The reason they will or wont sell has little to do with their aesthetics and much more to do with their price and location. That being said - except for the one in Bushwick - I fail to see whats so horrible about the other two. The one in PLG is actually attractive, but for the utility meters - which can easily be hidden. And while the one in Bed Stuy has ridiculously small windows, it is otherwise fine.

Trust me in 100 years (assuming civilization survives) both the PLG and Bed Stuy house will be admired for their turn-of-the 21st century character. And before someone says it - yes they will all be standing in 100 years.
Just remember 100 years ago people mocked Brownstones as cookie-cutter mcmansions, lacking 'real' design and only for those with 'new money'

Posted by: fsrg at November 7, 2008 11:06 AM

It looks to me as if NONE of these PLG atrocities have sold. They're on the south side of Parkside Avenue and around the corner, on Bedford Avenue. There is about 6' of space between the rear of the Parkside buildings and the side of the Bedford ones--no back yards at all. Ironically, the builder seems to have spent some money on decorative elements, but they're so badly done that IMO they don't help a bit. Perhaps the buildings are a bit better looking than the gas station that was on their site when I first moved to PLG, but that isn't saying much. It's also ironic that these gems of Feddersdom are across the street from of the most beautiful buildings in the neighborhood.

Posted by: Bob Marvin at November 7, 2008 11:06 AM

"Our eyes are losing on these projects."

16:06:50 THE CHICKEN rang the bell

Posted by: the chicken at November 7, 2008 11:06 AM

I don't understand why, when making the initial plans, the developers were like "hey, let's put a huge bank of utility meters right next to the front door!"

Without the utility meters, the PLG buildings aren't horrible. But with them, it seriously looks like you're looking at the building's rear entrance or something.

Posted by: cwbuecheler at November 7, 2008 11:18 AM

Simple problem, simple solution. First, get off that crack that makes you think "three-quarters of a million dollars" is a reasonable price range for these properties. Let the drug wash out of your system completely. Then price them all fairly for ugly, badly built houses in marginal areas--say, $250,000, which is still pretty high, frankly, and beyond the reach of many families without overextending themselves--and they will sell to some nice deserving hard-working people who want to own their own homes but aren't particularly concerned about esthetics. That's how it worked when we bought our house in 1986: Priced out of Park Slope, we bought something crappy (old-crappy in our case, not new-crappy) in a then-dangerous neighborhood for a pittance. It wasn't a pittance to us, but it was a (leaking) roof over our heads and a foot in the door. Sounds like the bleedin' Waltons now, don't it, mate?

Posted by: Brenda from Flatbush at November 7, 2008 11:18 AM

There's plenty not to like about the design of these buildings but it's funny how it's always the ground floor that really kills these cheap new construction buildings dead. What happens with the ground floor, does the architect's small shred of talent completely drain away by the time he gets to planning that level? There's never a bit of green, the electric meter is the main focal point. On the PLG place at least the windows are large, and there was some attempt to do something varying the brick. It baffles me completely when somebody goes through builds a new building and actually chooses to install windows that are tiny. Like on the Bed Stuy and Bushwick buildings.

As for the all-new-things-are-bad rant that typically comes up, some of us can hate all new buildings of any kind, but face it, owning a 100 year old house with the huge amount of maintenance it comes with is really not for everybody. Also there's simply not enough old houses for every single person who wants to live in NYC. It's impossible to avoid ever building anything new. Developers are just doing a terrible job in Brooklyn, that's all. You can go to so many other cities in the U.S. and see way way way better, more interesting and cool architecture in new construction condos in their urban areas. There are some real tacky no-taste people building condos here.

Posted by: traditionalmod at November 7, 2008 11:19 AM

agreeing with fsrq:
"The reason they will or wont sell has little to do with their aesthetics and much more to do with their price and location."

If these were in Clinton Hill, Red Hook or Gowanus at that price you'd all be coming in your pants.

Posted by: Prodigal_Son at November 7, 2008 11:20 AM

PS...But they aren't and they wouldn't be in those areas. And if they were the prices would be higher. Doesn't mean they'd get higher prices elsewhere or these prices in these neighborhoods.

I'd love to see what a thorough inspection of any of this shit would unearth as far as building quality.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 7, 2008 11:23 AM

Unfortunately, this is what happened across all of Brooklyn during the building boom we recently had. No neighborhood was safe from this kind of unsightly architecture. It is low cost assembly using inexpensive materials and in most cases shoddy workmanship. Developers went through a ‘Build it cheap, Build it fast’ phase and the outcome are these buildings / homes that are unsightly blemishes.

I hope what comes out of all this is for developers / architects / planners / designers / builders / contractors to realize that people aren’t going to settle for this kind of architecture; and that there is a more concentrated effort in pre-planning aesthetically viable structures that create a positive visual impact on a neighborhood.

Posted by: bayridgegirl at November 7, 2008 11:25 AM

The add for the Parkside house says that it's near the park [true--Prospect Park] and a golf course {huh??].

It then says that the house is near "DELAWARE Park and Golf Course". A Google search shows that to be in Buffalo, NY. Well, Buffalo and Brooklyn do both start with "B". The salesman's knowledge of Brooklyn is truly awe-inspiring :-)

Posted by: Bob Marvin at November 7, 2008 11:26 AM

"The middle one is the least offensive."

Yeah, perhaps they should have put large trees (thick evergreens, preferably) in front of the other two to improve (i.e., hide) them.

Posted by: Biff Champion at November 7, 2008 11:27 AM

"I hope what comes out of all this is for developers / architects / planners / designers / builders / contractors to realize that people aren’t going to settle for this kind of architecture; and that there is a more concentrated effort in pre-planning aesthetically viable structures that create a positive visual impact on a neighborhood.

Posted by: bayridgegirl at November 7, 2008 11:25 AM
"

Now that is a quote worthy of QOTD.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 7, 2008 11:28 AM

"Unfortunately, this is what happened across all of Brooklyn during the building boom we recently had. No neighborhood was safe from this kind of unsightly architecture."

BRG, I don't think that's entirely true. There are some landmarked areas that managed to avoid having anything like this built within them.

Posted by: Biff Champion at November 7, 2008 11:29 AM

Yes Biff but any neighborhood or street that was NOT landmarked was susceptible to this blight and many were actually subjected to it.

Bob...I think the pic of the bus stop enclosure, the 646 area code phone numbers and the adjacent "Chinese Food" sign eliminates Buffalo.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 7, 2008 11:32 AM

Yep, DIBS...that's what I'm aiming for now. QOTD, everyday. Now that, I've tasting sweet success, I'll no longer be posting half-backed, mundane or tasteless comments.

You're right Biff, I should have said that. Landmarked areas are protected against such injustice. My bad. That's going to ruin my chances now for QOTD, that and if Montrose shows up.

Posted by: bayridgegirl at November 7, 2008 11:35 AM

BRG...I did notice that MM was absent all day yesterday. No doubt the reason for the lower standards in selection of the QOTD ;)

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 7, 2008 11:37 AM

daveinbedstuy,

No question (unfortunately) that the Parkside house is in Brooklyn--it's a blight on my neighborhood. It's the "nearby" golf course, cited in the Craigslist ad, that appears to be in Buffalo.

Posted by: Bob Marvin at November 7, 2008 11:44 AM

Yeah, I know I was nitpicking and figured that BRG was implicitly excluding landmarked areas, but these QOTD honorees must be held to a higher standard!

"I did notice that MM was absent all day yesterday. No doubt the reason for the lower standards in selection of the QOTD ;)"
Priceless! I also didn't see Nostalgic on Park or Bob Marvin around too much either. Do you think BRG hacked into and froze their computers to increase her odds?

Posted by: Biff Champion at November 7, 2008 11:52 AM

I’d also like to add that inexpensive construction doesn’t need to be ugly. With a skillful architect / designer that has some creativity, there are inventive ways to achieve a balance between budget and appealing design.

Posted by: bayridgegirl at November 7, 2008 11:53 AM

Are you joking??? People will more then happily "settle" for this architecture - our city is filled with such utilitarian designs dating back to the 60's (have you been to Quees, So Brooklyn, and NE Bronx???) and even some older housing sock has been refurbished in a similar manner (Vinyl siding Williamsburg).

Besides sell me the two on the left for 300K (about 5x the potential RR) I'll put in another 50K (bigger windows on the one and some creative landscaping and woodwork on the other) and in 10 years they'll blend in so much no one will even have an opinion.

These properties arent selling (like all RE) because they are priced above the market (a market which puts little premium on aesthetics on a sq ft basis).

Posted by: fsrg at November 7, 2008 11:53 AM

'BRG...I did notice that MM was absent all day yesterday. No doubt the reason for the lower standards in selection of the QOTD ;)'

Thanks, DIBS...for the love.

But, I WAS QUOTE OF THE DAY!!!!

Unlike, some of the regular long time, most posts, posters..cough, cough, BIFF and YOU!!!

Posted by: bayridgegirl at November 7, 2008 11:56 AM

Yeah, I didn't even get the 'Stoner Party Organizer of The Day Award on October 16. I'm the Susan Lucci of this blog! By the way, can everyone please check out BRG's quote of the day from yesterday? She just needs 150 or so more hits until she equals my last Forum post comments number.

Posted by: Biff Champion at November 7, 2008 11:59 AM

Hey BRG, call me! 212-479-7990.

Posted by: SnarkSlope at November 7, 2008 12:00 PM

Don't rest on your laurels BRG.

Bitter non-QOTD poster here.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 7, 2008 12:01 PM

Aw, Dave! I'm not that quotable, but thanks! I was out all day, chasing the elusive dollar. God, I’m tired, those dollars run really fast. BRG, I've been QOTD twice, so I understand your feelings.

fsrq, you have got to be kidding. None of these things, or any of their cousins, will be standing in 100 years. If they don't fall down on their own, they will be the first things torn down for better and newer housing. A good brownstone will still be here, and will be even more desirable. If people are still living in, and renovating houses built in the 1500's and older, in Europe, why can't we keep our own classic buildings? Cookie cutter or not, they were built much better, with more care, and from better materials.

What continues to astound me is that it would not be difficult or expensive to make these houses attractive. I don't have a problem with them being new, we need new housing, and true, not everyone likes, or can afford an old house. I have to keep coming back to my firmly held idea that there is a basic distain and disregard for the desired buyers of these homes. I would like to meet one developer who lives in one of these…….I don’t think so. They would not live in a building with tiny windows or utility meters at the front door. (All you have to do is box them in, for Pete’s sake. That’s scrap wood, takes an hour.) I have a feeling they would insist on better construction, thicker sheetrock, better plumbing and roofing, and certainly better aesthetics, in general.

I know most of them will eventually sell as investment rental properties, or the developers will become landlords. That will give people homes, a good thing, but that is doing nothing for improving the neighborhoods they are in, and remains a cynical end to the story – “these people” should be grateful for what they can get/ beggars can’t be aesthetic choosers.

Posted by: Montrose Morris at November 7, 2008 12:02 PM

BRG, you crack me up.

Fellow quote de jour.

Posted by: Montrose Morris at November 7, 2008 12:05 PM

"What continues to astound me is that it would not be difficult or expensive to make these houses attractive. I don't have a problem with them being new, we need new housing, and true, not everyone likes, or can afford an old house. I have to keep coming back to my firmly held idea that there is a basic distain and disregard for the desired buyers of these homes. I would like to meet one developer who lives in one of these…….I don’t think so. They would not live in a building with tiny windows or utility meters at the front door. (All you have to do is box them in, for Pete’s sake. That’s scrap wood, takes an hour.) I have a feeling they would insist on better construction, thicker sheetrock, better plumbing and roofing, and certainly better aesthetics, in general."

QOTD...from MM

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 7, 2008 12:07 PM

All of them houses are heps of poop

Posted by: Xander Crews at November 7, 2008 12:08 PM

SnarkSlope..you never answered my question yesterday. Who did you meet and in what bar that they gave you that number???

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 7, 2008 12:09 PM

MM - you know little about construction if you think that these buildings can not easily stand for 100 years or more. While Brownstones have their charm, the idea that a non-rehabbed brownstone isnt generally a money pit of leaks, utility bills (due to poor insulation and lousy systems), lousy plumbing and insufficient electric is just naive.

Brownstones are still standing, not because of any great construction but because they have been rehabilitated and maintained - not because they are inherently well built.

And assuming these houses receive even a modicum of maintenance and improvements they can stand indefinitely - and there are thousands of similar housing units built all over the city and surrounding burbs in the 1960's that are already almost 1/2 way there.

Posted by: fsrg at November 7, 2008 12:17 PM

'People will more then happily "settle" for this architecture'

And THAT is one of the major problems. We as a society need to hold ourselves responsible for what we ‘settle’ for.

Fsrq – I’ve been to almost every part of this city. I’ve seen the best architecture and the worst. If you haven’t noticed, I live in south Brooklyn and have seen these kinds of developments in my front yard. Should it be acceptable? Should we sit back and condone this? I think we can do better than this. I think we should do better than this. I think we owe it to ourselves as one of the greatest cities in the world to prove that we can build the best architecture in the world. We’ve taken a back seat to Europe, Asia and now the Middle East in building standards. Have you seen what was being built over there? NYC needs to get out of the ‘uglification’ of our landscape and start developing magnificent structures that people would be proud to call home…..and not just ‘settle’ for.

Posted by: bayridgegirl at November 7, 2008 12:21 PM

"Who did you meet and in what bar that they gave you that number???"

Well, if you must know, it wasn't a boy in a bar, it was my mother. Thanks for ripping old wounds. Gotta run and call my therapist now...

Posted by: SnarkSlope at November 7, 2008 12:23 PM

That bay window concoction in the first pic is probably made out of painted particle board or plywood and will be falling apart in 6-7 years. I can only imagine the interiors....laminate flooring, 3/8" drywall, etc, etc, etc.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 7, 2008 12:24 PM

Montrose is here....sh*t.
Lost my QOTD. I bow to you.
I go back to listening to Shaggy.

Posted by: bayridgegirl at November 7, 2008 12:26 PM

"Should it be acceptable? Should we sit back and condone this?"

This is still (barely) a free country - I truly do not think it is the Government's role to legislate architectural designs. Zoning, setbacks, etc....fine but beyond preservation I do not think Gov't has a role here.

"We’ve taken a back seat to Europe, Asia and now the Middle East in building standards. Have you seen what was being built over there?"

Have you been to the places of which you speak (and I mean beyond the tourist areas)???

Western Europe's equivalent neighborhoods have an architecture only a Stalinist could love - (Brooklyn's Supreme Ct. building would be a masterpiece) - try seeing the outer areas of Paris, Rome, Florence, London, etc.....

and Asia and the ME generally do not even have equivalent neighborhoods - its either luxury or slum.

Again for 50K two of these buildings can be made pleasant- please get outraged over something important like war, poverty or strollers - mid-level housing with plain architecture is hardly an outrage.

Posted by: fsrg at November 7, 2008 12:37 PM

fsrq, I happen to know a great deal about construction, thank you very much. But anyone with eyes can recognise crap when they see it, you don't need to be a builder. Dave is absolutely right. Brownstones may need some upkeep 100 plus years later, but that's to be expected. Most of these pos buildings need the same major upkeep 10 years after they are built. BIIGGGG difference.

"We as a society need to hold ourselves responsible for what we ‘settle’ for." - bayridgegirl

No, I bow to you, BRG! : )

Posted by: Montrose Morris at November 7, 2008 12:38 PM

fsrq...I have to disagree with you. Outrage is the correct reponse on a blog that purports to deal primarily with architecture and brownstone architecture in particular.

And stroller issues are a more appropriate basis of discussion here than are either poverty or war. Will there ever be a war in Brooklyn? The North vs. the South with Atlantic Ave as the "Mason-Dixon" line?? Owners vs. Renters?

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 7, 2008 12:42 PM

MM - Since the past can sometimes predict the future.....please cite a SINGLE completed residential structure that "failed" within the last 50 years due to anything other than disaster (natural or otherwise), or horrific maintenance neglect......

Posted by: fsrg at November 7, 2008 12:44 PM

It doesn't have to "fail" fsrq...it will nickel and dime the owner to death with cracks here and there, this falling off of that, etc, etc, etc. You can't be serious if you think these POSs are built to the same standards as brownstones were with party walls that are about 24" thick made of multiple layes of brick. And do you really think these things were well insulated?? I'm sure the exterior walls are only 2 X 4 and not 2 x 6.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 7, 2008 12:48 PM

BTW I think the electric utility meters are required to be on the front of the property on new construction. When the hell this City is going to move into remote meter reading like they now have throughout most of China is a good question.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 7, 2008 12:56 PM

it will nickel and dime the owner to death with cracks here and there, this falling off of that, etc, etc, etc.

Sounds like a Brownstone!

again, show me a development of similar housing stock where "crappy modern construction" expenses caused the unit prices to move proportionally lower (or rise significantly less) then the 'non-crappy' housing in its immediate vicinity.

Posted by: fsrg at November 7, 2008 12:57 PM

Fsrq
Who said anything about government having a role in architecture????

Yes, I have traveled. I love architecture and design. I go out of my way to explore cities and leave nothing unearthed. My eyes see things from a trained designer’s point of view. I have been exposed to architecture in more ways than I want to get into here.

You can not equate a 700K brick box in Brooklyn to the slums of Europe.

‘For 50k two of these buildings can be made pleasant’
Gee, wouldn’t it be nice for new development not have to be modified to ‘make pleasant’
BTW – if you haven’t noticed, they’re available; you can snap one of those beauties up and ‘settle’ down.

I’m truly bored with you over this topic. This is too much serious posting for me for one day. Where’s Biff??

Posted by: bayridgegirl at November 7, 2008 12:58 PM

I bet South Slope will be a good case study in the coming years.

Posted by: SnarkSlope at November 7, 2008 1:00 PM

What I'd prefer is a brownstone facade with a more modern interior (but not a big, open, ugly, boring, condo-esque interior ... just something not so old). I can't even install a friggin' deadbolt without cutting and bruising myself. I can't imagine trying to tackle the various projects that a brownstone requires, which means I'd have to call in contractors on a constant basis to fix up all the little stuff that goes wrong in a 100 year old house.

It just seems to me like there's no reason you can't build aesthetically pleasing, modern homes at a reasonable price. These buildings look like what they are: cheap.

Posted by: cwbuecheler at November 7, 2008 1:01 PM

I work with one particular contractor whose entire business is now fixing up the mistakes/crap construction/and retrofit of these 3 family new construction wonders in neighborhoods like Bed Stuy, Flatbush and Bushwick. Most of her clients are middle income, minority first time homeowners, all of whom live in these houses, and rent out the other floors. None of these houses are more than 7 years old. The repairs/replacements are usually the following: roof leakage, poor window installation of cheap windows, leaks in cellar, plumbing problems, electrical problems mostly due to carelessness, poor tile installation in bathrooms and kitchens, sloppy wood floor installation, especially in corners and wherever cuts and careful attention was needed, cheap lighting fixtures and plumbing fixtures, crappy hollow core doors, thin walls and poor insulation. That doesn't leave much.

My brownstone has a lot of age related issues, but it is 108 years old. If it had been as badly built as above, it would have been replaced by one of these beauties. Since it, and the entire neighborhood, has not, lends credence to the idea that they were better built, in all ways possible, in the first place.

Posted by: Montrose Morris at November 7, 2008 1:07 PM

"I’m truly bored with you over this topic. This is too much serious posting for me for one day. Where’s Biff??"

Sorry, just got a little bit busy here at the Death Star. I'm back now.

"I have been exposed to architecture in more ways than I want to get into here."

BRG, speaking of being exposed, you looked great yesterday strolling along the Promenade last night. I like your hair curly. Did you notice any odd characters on the benches? How was the Chocolate Room?

Posted by: Biff Champion at November 7, 2008 1:08 PM

Late to the party here, but not too late to jump in.

FSRQ is dead on, in so many ways:

-I am originally from southern Brooklyn, where this style of building has been a staple for so many years. I lived in such a house that was built in 1928, and it was doing just fine. There IS a building code in NY, and these homes are built to it. They will easily last 100 years, given the same level of maintenance that one would give to a brownstone. I'm an engineer, and know something of what I speak.

-FSRQ is also dead on re: the equivalent housing in Europe. I am truly amazed at the level of navel-gazing that goes on here. Given that I am an engineer who specializes in industrial products, my business travel has taken me to the "outer boroughs" in places like Milan, Italy; Penang, Malaysia and various cities in Japan. The homes shown in this post are PALACES compared to what is being built in these locales. Has anyone who condemns these homes ever had a chance to see what passes for modest-income homes in Milan, Italy, which is one of the wealthiest cities in Europe? The land of Michelangelo and DaVinci does NOT produce housing that will last the ages, as MM states. It builds the largest collection of schlock you've ever see. As FSRQ states, go away from the tourist areas and visit sections like Santo Sebastiano Sesto, on the north side of Milan, or go visit the suburbs of Tokyo like Chiba.

We'd all like to live in homes of the highest taste, but there is an economic reality. Homes in NY are expensive to build, thanks to our building code and land costs, and developers must cut corners to deliver a product that people can actually afford.

Posted by: benson at November 7, 2008 1:10 PM

I'm going to have to believe Montrose Morris on this one. That was my gut instinct anyway and now she's cited specifics.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 7, 2008 1:18 PM

If anyone's still reading this thread -- can someone link some new developments in Brooklyn that they think are nice-looking and/or well-constructed? I definitely don't like these ones, but I'm curious what people find attractive.

Posted by: cwbuecheler at November 7, 2008 1:19 PM

We never made it to the promenade. We had dinner for 2 hours and then went to Chocolate Room and sat there for another 2 hours. Great atmosphere, bigger space than PS, and they're going to have an outdoor garden. No wait, it was us and another table of 4.

BTW - the chocolate cake and the cupecakes are the same. I would get the cupcake if I were you. It's more concentrated. I had the spicy Hot choc. which I didn't like at all, actually hated it. Torres' still kicks it.

Also, When I met Hubby, I was walking toward him with the biggest goofiest smile on my face, cause he was wearing his trench coat.

Also, in conversation last night, I brought up (to list a few things)
-Gone with the Wind, Duct Tape, Hoop Skirt, linguist and buff, that's the closest I can get to working you in there. I'll try again, would Biff, be an adjective or an adverb?

Posted by: bayridgegirl at November 7, 2008 1:22 PM

cw....actually the Habitats For Humanity townhouses on the corner of Halsy and Throop(?) are much nicer. I'll try and get a pic. I also once stated in a similar discussion that the low income townhouses that they are building in Philly are really quite nice architecturally.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 7, 2008 1:24 PM

oh, dear god...I just read bensen's post.
Tell me, Mr. engineer. How much does it cost to build this shit depicted here???
$125 sq. ft. if that much..and how much are they asking???...It Sure is expensive to live in a slummy house in brooklyn.

You're better off living in the slums of Italy at least you have masterpeices by DaVinci close by

Deep breath, BRG. Just remind yourself, that you were awarded Quote of the Day, yesterday. (And today, by DIBS, until Montrose showed up)

Posted by: bayridgegirl at November 7, 2008 1:33 PM

Benson, I've been around, myself, and yes, crap is built everywhere, especially in working class suburbs, and I will be the first to say that public housing in Europe is for the most part, no better, and in some cases, much worse than here in the US. But Europe still has tons of active housing stock that is positively ancient, but still in use, in cities, towns and villages.

I still say that there is no reason for these aesthetic mistakes, here in NYC, in the good old USA. There are 2 arguments here - one is that new has to be unattractive to be affordable, and the other is that new (in these particular houses)means not well built. The cause of the first is lack of concern on the part of the municipality, lack of responsibility on the part of the builder, towards the communities they build in, or for the customers they build for, and basic laziness/cheapness.

These buildings may pass code, but that doesn't mean they are well built, it just means they meet a minimum standard. This is an old argument here on Brownstoner. I will continue to insist that it is possible, I've seen it, to build new homes that are contextural, attractive, and affordable. Those criteria shouldn't have to be mutually exclusive.

Posted by: Montrose Morris at November 7, 2008 1:36 PM

BRG;

Very well-reasoned post! You can aim for the QOTD - I'll aim for a reasoned debate.

If you can build this for only $125/square foot, then you should go into the contracting business.

Posted by: benson at November 7, 2008 1:38 PM

Thanks for the recap BRG, but things are getting heated in here, and I don't mean in a necessarily good way. I'll take this to your QOTD thread.

Posted by: Biff Champion at November 7, 2008 1:39 PM

Biff, in an attempt to lighten the mood, do you have to wear those white helmets in the Death Star, or are you allowed the more comfortable Soviet bloc style cloth caps? Darth Vader or Peter Cushing? Aesthetics are important, as we have been discussing.

Posted by: Montrose Morris at November 7, 2008 1:46 PM

These will make good flips at bottom market prices. They're worth something and comps will, no doubt, undershoot below that worth.

Posted by: DOW8000SP800 at November 7, 2008 1:46 PM

Montrose, you're still sounding reasonable and I'm getting so wound up right now over this.

Tell me Benson, how much??
I'll keep asking till you tell me (Ode to cobblehiller)

$150 sq ft.??
There's no way it's more than that, and if that's the case, these developers need to GET OUT of the constuction business.

Posted by: bayridgegirl at November 7, 2008 1:50 PM

MM, it's always considered good practice to wear a helmet when at the Death Star (not to mention when cycling, when playing hockey, when getting intimate with one's Real Doll, etc.)

Ok, everyone please get back to discussing the lifespan of poorly constructed buildings...I'll be over here. >

Posted by: Biff Champion at November 7, 2008 1:55 PM

BRG;

Wow!! Lighten up!!!

If you want the answer, I suggest you read chapet 4 of this report:

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/rdr_04.htm

Note that this whole article deals with the challenges of producing housing that is affordable.

Please go out this weekend and get some fresh air.

Posted by: benson at November 7, 2008 2:03 PM

I met a realtor the other day who used to work for a big developer (United?) that is now out of business in chapter 11, and they are short-selling all of these unsalable properties. He said that the city was buying them up and turning them into low-income or section 8 housing. Don't know how true it is.

Posted by: Susan Elkins at November 7, 2008 2:16 PM

This one is for you Cobblehiller

I'm asking again.
Tell me Benson, how much?? to build this shit???????
How Much?? Back up some numbers.

I didn't read the article, but I will. What's it going to tell me construction costs have gone up in NYC? Material costs have gone up? I know they have, I deal with it every day.

How big is one of these houses...say 3000sq. ft. (I'm too lazy to look at the numbers) 3 floors at 1000 sq. ft a floor.
I still say $125 sq. ft. (if that)
At $150 sq. ft = 450K to build!!!!! No way!! No Way!!

Posted by: bayridgegirl at November 7, 2008 2:16 PM

MM-."I will continue to insist that it is possible, I've seen it, to build new homes that are contextural, attractive, and affordable. Those criteria shouldn't have to be mutually exclusive."

Please cite where - I'm curious what you consider attractive and how you determined it to be well built.

Posted by: fsrg at November 7, 2008 2:46 PM

fsrg,

Here ya go

http://www.brownstoner.com/brownstoner/archives/2005/04/decent_townhous_1.php

Posted by: johnife at November 7, 2008 3:23 PM

Ooh, you are relentless today BRG! ; )

Posted by: cobblehiller at November 7, 2008 3:53 PM

There are some gorgeous low-income houses in San Francisco. They are simple with bay windows, fit into the landscape, have pretty details. Never been inside.

A new place needs two things to be nice: High ceilings in the living/dining/kitchen area and decent size windows.

There are some early '90s, inexpensive market-rate condos in the Raleigh Triangle area that offer this. It's really not that hard.

Posted by: mopar at November 7, 2008 10:42 PM

can we just demo all these ugly places.. They just sit empty making the value of my home come down. I rather have the empty lot with a burned out car in it.

Posted by: Amzi Hill at November 8, 2008 2:02 PM

« Comparing the Past and the Present New Chase on Myrtle Now Official »

November 7, 2008

Horror Show Friday

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions