« Domino's Hits Myrtle Avenue Bonuses Back to 2002 Levels »
December 12, 2008
Horror Show Friday
We were going to pull together three different places to feature in this edition of Horror Show Friday but this place seemed to be able to stand on its own. Fittingly, the broker manages to reach new depths of illiteracy as well.
$529000 Amazing luxury 2 family [Craigslist]
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/7580
Comments
For some reason, I envision the Unknown Comic (or a Detroit Lions fan) living here.
Posted by: Biff Champion at December 12, 2008 10:17 AM
You know you're in trouble when it looks abandoned before it's ever been lived in.
The word "luxury" has lost all meaning.
That said, it would make a fine doctor's or dentist's office. That's the nicest thing I can say about it. We need doctors and dentists in our communities.
Montrose Morris, PBA
Posted by: Montrose Morris at December 12, 2008 10:22 AM
Schlock!!
Posted by: bayridgegirl at December 12, 2008 10:24 AM
They've been trying to sell this thing for a while. Although the inside looks nice and new, projects like this do not fit and mess of the brownstone blocks "Which house does not fit" Not a fan of new construction.
Posted by: BrookLynn816 at December 12, 2008 10:24 AM
I was wrong. I just found the actual proud owners.
http://www.mywedding.com/blogs/mywed/images/133/box%20head%20couple%202.jpg
I clicked on the listing and it's comical. The bathroom pic at the bottom takes the cake...
Posted by: Biff Champion at December 12, 2008 10:28 AM
Detroit residential architecture is nice. This should have never been built... This should have been the house that went up in flames instead of Green Ave house.
Posted by: Amzi Hill at December 12, 2008 10:30 AM
BrookLynn816...you're right. The inside isn't that bad at all. Not my idea of luxury. But what do I know? I'm a homeowner who'e got a sad, joyless life. ANd the Whuh thinks I need a bailout.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at December 12, 2008 10:32 AM
BrookLynn, you are preaching to the choir. I'm awaiting the inevitable cries of "elitism" and "you don't support affordable housing", which always come with these threads. It is not elitest to insist that necessary new construction in our communities meet some kind of requirement of taste and quality. We deserve better.
I will state again for the record - affordable housing does not have to be non-contextural or fugly. This is both.
Montrose Morris, PBA
Posted by: Montrose Morris at December 12, 2008 10:32 AM
LMAO on Couple, good pick. I can only image the remarks that will come with buying this THING, just glad I won't be the buyer.
Posted by: BrookLynn816 at December 12, 2008 10:33 AM
It honestly looks okay to me. Could be a lot worse. Although it might be better if they finished stuccoing the front...
However, this house is plain enough that you could pretty much finish it however you wanted.
Posted by: Heather at December 12, 2008 10:34 AM
for the love of all things holy, please PLEASE do not call that affordable. it is without a doubt no WAY an "affordable" home. that being said i see nothing aesthetically or architectually wrong with it really. but i can understand how people would, especially on a site like this that i guess for the most part appreciates a different kind of aesthetic. werent brownstoners in the middle of the last century considered to look like big old steaming piles of poop too? tastes change, people change, culture changes, building materials change, color changes. at the end of the day once the poo mist has settled in, these will look just fine and contextual to their surroundings.
*rob*
Posted by: PitbullNYC at December 12, 2008 10:37 AM
Affordable housing means being able to afford!!! If I have to pay that much, I do care about the exterior as well as interior. Aside from it looking like a large garage, Asking $500K for this is ridiculous.
Posted by: BrookLynn816 at December 12, 2008 10:38 AM
"You know you're in trouble when it looks abandoned before it's ever been lived in."
!!
Posted by: dittoburg at December 12, 2008 10:39 AM
Nice touch the plywood shutters on 1st floor.
Posted by: Petebklyn at December 12, 2008 10:42 AM
rob..."at the end of the day once the poo mist has settled in, these will look just fine and contextual to their surroundings."
God help us all when that day comes!!!!
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at December 12, 2008 10:42 AM
For some reason, the pictures remind me of Poltergeist.
All the eerie light coming out of the closet. I seem to remember a special effects show where they explained they achieved that affect by shining lights through aquariums full of water.
Look how far we've come! Now you don't need a special effects department to make a home look like the gateway to hell. All you need is a broker and cheap digital camera!
Posted by: northsloperenter at December 12, 2008 10:43 AM
Queens comes to brooklyn
Posted by: Amzi Hill at December 12, 2008 10:46 AM
"Detroit residential architecture is nice."
amzi, just to clarify, my Detroit reference wasn't a comment on the homes there. I meant the home reminded me of the bags Lions fans wear out of shame for their team's awful year...like this guy.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/11/25/sports/lions_fan.jpg
Posted by: Biff Champion at December 12, 2008 10:48 AM
Yes Amzi...all it needs is a Fiberama awning.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at December 12, 2008 10:49 AM
rob..."at the end of the day once the poo mist has settled in, these will look just fine and contextual to their surroundings."
Only if at the end of the day, the world of Terminator: Judgement Day, comes true.
Montrose Morris, PBA
Posted by: Montrose Morris at December 12, 2008 10:52 AM
Oh, yes, and if you are going to be a broker in Bed-Stuy, you may want to learn how to spell Stuy correctly (scroll to bottom of ad). Helps your credibility to know the little details about your neighborhood.
Posted by: slopefarm at December 12, 2008 11:01 AM
Poor Bed-Stuy. It seems like it gets a disproportionate number of these ill-conceived, new-construction nightmares. I assume it's because the vast majority of it isn't landmarked?
Posted by: cwbuecheler at December 12, 2008 11:03 AM
"It is not elitest to insist that necessary new construction in our communities meet some kind of requirement of taste and quality. We deserve better."
Pardon me for questioning Montrose, the saint of the Brownstoner community, but....
-exactly what do you call a proposal to somehow legislate taste in "our communities"?????? Seems to me that it is precisely elitist. What would you propose - turning "your community" into a gated community, or a suburban homeowner association, complete with an architectural committee?
-who exactly appointed you to speak for your community when it comes to taste? Would you propose that someone who finds this house pleasant enough to purchase be over-ruled by some "taste committee"? Are you proposing that a would-be owner not be allowed to exercise their freedom?
If you don't like these homes - fine, then don't buy them. If you think that there is a way to produce moderate-income housing with a higher level of taste -let's see your plan. If you would like to raise folks' level of taste with architectural criticsm - by all means, preach the good news. No issue there.
To continually mock these homes,however, and offer as a solution some kind of "taste legislation" IS elitist, and will never fly in NYC.
Finally, Montrose: as long as we're on the subject of the law and calling folks on the carpet- I am still wondering why you didn't speak up last week when someone tried to maliciously smear a specific, identified person in this public forum. Is architectural taste such a noble cause that this is allowable, never mind "taste legislation"?
Posted by: benson at December 12, 2008 11:13 AM
Schlocky, indeed!!
Posted by: bayridgegirl at December 12, 2008 11:17 AM
"To continually mock these homes,however, and offer as a solution some kind of "taste legislation" IS elitist, and will never fly in NYC."
Maybe it won't fly. And for that we are all losers.
This kind of construction is unacceptable and SHOULD be legislated against. Go look at th Habitat For Humanity homes on the corner of Halsey an Throop (?). There's no reason that any new construction can't be this good and fit contextually in the neighborhood.
Our only hope is that the developers of this shit go bankrupt.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at December 12, 2008 11:21 AM
Yes Bed Stuy does get a lot of these. Sad thing is Monroe has a lot of these in all different sizes. IMO, wouldn't be so bad if they were in scale with the rest of the neighborhood. We once saw a house that wasn't new construction but the owner had bought the lot next door and was building. This builder built so much house that it spilled over onto the property, so there was no real backyard space. Don't think that was legal, but it was definitely a deal breaker for us and we really liked the house.
But again, it’s like MM said (not exact words) no one regulating or watching how these projects get built.
Posted by: BrookLynn816 at December 12, 2008 11:23 AM
"Our only hope is that the developers of this shit go bankrupt."
By the sounds of that, Benson will go bankrupt.
Posted by: bayridgegirl at December 12, 2008 11:24 AM
Glad they opened the toilet when they took that bathroom picture sideways.
This house is in Bushwick, not BS.
I await BRG's and THL's decision on the kitchen. BRG/THL, please opine.
Dave: That building on Halsey and Marcus Garvey is nice and should be a model for other developments.
Posted by: 11233 at December 12, 2008 11:25 AM
Well, I can see that folks are going to resort to cheap shots to respond, so let's dispose of a few of them rather quickly:
-regarding the Habitat for Humanity housing: hey, if I received free volunteer labor, I'd build someone a palace too. Private developers don't have that luxury.
-Likewise, folks will point to nicely-designed "affordable housing" projects sponsored by the City. These homes are heavily-subsidized by the city: free land, low-interest loans, etc. Once again: private developers don't have that luxury.
-it is a fiction that these homes are being built primarily in Bed-Stuy or other African-American areas. These type of homes are going up all over the place in Sunset Park, Bensonhurst and Gravesend, for instance. Has anybody been through Flushing, Queens lately?
Posted by: benson at December 12, 2008 11:33 AM
Benson...the design of the building does not depend on free labor.
Additionally, Philly is building low income townhouses that are beautiful.
The way you arrange the bricks does not cost any more or less!!!!
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at December 12, 2008 11:38 AM
This was a cheaply built house and design not thought about at all. It is a same that these homes are build in our communities.
Posted by: Amzi Hill at December 12, 2008 11:41 AM
Baltimore also did low income in the prime downtown area that looks great. The redbrick townhouses match the neighborhood well.
Posted by: Amzi Hill at December 12, 2008 11:45 AM
in spirit i'm with montrose, but as a practical matter benson is right. developing property in nyc is already expensive and time-consuming enough without an additional layer of aesthetic review being imposed. it's one thing to dictate the look of public housing or other projects that are funded with public money. but broadly regulating the aesthetics of all private development sounds like a nightmare for everyone involved.
Posted by: z at December 12, 2008 11:46 AM
Aw, Benson, lighten up. You and I are never going to agree on this one.
You know what? I'm going to take the plunge here and say "yes". I am proposing a taste czar, and a committee to oversee what gets built. It has nothing to do with gated communities, but has everything to do with the long term future of that community. Why shouldn't someone, or a group of someones, set up guidelines that insure that poorly designed, poorly built crap calling itself "affordable", built by people whose only interest in the community is financial (for them, anyway), is curtailed? Just as there are codes on the books for safety and habitability, there should be code for contextural facades and materials. Just because the community is not rich, or well connected, just because the higher end tastemakers do not come here to build gazillion dollar townhouses does not mean that we are so desperate that we have to swallow lot after lot of pure crap.
I want people to want to move here. I want them to want to stay in their homes and pass them on to the next generation. I am well aware that not everyone wants a traditional brownstone, but the 20' footprint is what we have here, and within that perameter is a wealth of decent design, little of which shows up, especially as in-fill. You can't tell me these houses, usually with large pipes and utility meters plastered next to the front doors, and a large parking lot out front, do anything for the streetscape, for the look of an historic brownstone community at large.
Yeah, someone may eventually buy these, not the point. I bet more attractive homes, more contextural homes would sell faster, and could be built for the same money, and could be homes that advance the community. If it takes a Commissioner of Taste and Standards to get that done, I'll send in my resume, because I really think it's necessary for the short and long term health of Bed Stuy and other communities like it. If that makes me an elitist, then let me just add that to my title. I'm quite fine with that.
As to your other attack, I don't know what you are talking about. There are actually days I don't post here, because I do try to earn a living, and sometimes, even I get tired of rehashing the same thing, to no avail. If you point me to the topic, I'll be glad to pontificate. It's what we saints occasionally do.
Montrose Morris, EPBA
Posted by: Montrose Morris at December 12, 2008 11:53 AM
Perhaps it belongs on this blog:
http://lovelylisting.blogspot.com/
Posted by: megunski at December 12, 2008 11:56 AM
I think there is a good question lurking in the benson/DIBS/montrose "debate". Are there a few simple rules that could be adopted that would not significantly raise the cost of construction (so as to maintain affordability) that would help avoid monstrosities that would reflect a fairly common view of not too ugly and sufficiently contextual?
For example, I often find that some of the the worst offenders disrupt the facade line of the block. An ugly facade nestled into a smooth line doesn't rankle so much. Perhaps that's just personal taste. Any thoughts?
Posted by: slopefarm at December 12, 2008 11:58 AM
megunski, that's a great site, thanks!
Posted by: z at December 12, 2008 12:00 PM
megunsky...your photos are beautiful but that site is priceless.
THL check it out.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at December 12, 2008 12:00 PM
Montrose, you my dear, are truly always on point!!
My vote is for you for CoTaS!
Posted by: bayridgegirl at December 12, 2008 12:00 PM
I would think that not taking aesthetics into account is why so many of these properties are still sitting on the market but that is just my opinion. We have been looking for a house for a while and I can tell you, that if it was just about the space the developer was providing inside (which I find great, except the kitchen sitting in the middle of the room) we would have purchased a while back. But the look outside, and not the brick or stucco turn me away. It is the fact that the house stands out too much. They are either built too far back or protrude out or the scale is just off. It doesn't have to be a brownstone, I like brick, but at least scale it to the size of the house you are building next to. How a block looks matters, aside from cost and space provided. Just because I live in a house that was built cheaper doesn't mean it has to look cheap.
Posted by: BrookLynn816 at December 12, 2008 12:04 PM
BL816, you said what I was trying to say, only better.
Posted by: slopefarm at December 12, 2008 12:09 PM
Neighborhoods are communities, not just amalgamations of buildings. When developers throw up cheaply made and badly designed structures it takes away from everyone, most especially so in poor or working class neighborhoods that are trying to come back.
I tend to seriously doubt that any builder throwing up something so obviously done for maximum profit with very minimal effort, is putting up a good quality building. We've seen too much of that in Crown Heights and Bed-Stuy.
Brownstone stock is expensive to maintain (d-uh, I know.)But the overall quality and beauty of them make them worth the effort, and makes such neighborhoods desirable. "Brownstone Brooklyn" is been a term of pride. When developers tear them down or build this kind of cheap, ugly building in empty lots, it impacts the neighborhood and drives down property values. These brownstone neighborhoods are an asset.
I read a lot about the psychology of investors and how it impacts the finance markets, consumer confidence, blah,blah, blah. Isn't that why marketing is a billion dollar business? I don't think we consider that enough in regards to the architectural stability of borwnstone neighborhoods. Organizations like CHNA do recognize this factor, which is why there is good financial reason for landmarking them. It isn't just about "pretty." (I can't wait to be taken over the rails on that statement:-).
Posted by: bxgrl at December 12, 2008 12:10 PM
Montrose;
Here is the issue I was talking about:
http://www.brownstoner.com/brownstoner/archives/2008/12/green_church_ca.php
Please read the entire thread. This is your "supporter" in action, and your statement to her was "I'm with you".
Returning to the issue of these homes:
-good luck on convincing the people of NYC that they need a taste czar;
-slopefarm: the reason that most of these homes are set back is that the City zoning requires that all PRIVATE new homes provide space for one car for every two units. In upper-scale housing this is accomplished by underground garages. In new homes it is accomplished by setting the house back and putting a car pod in front.
If you want to pull the home back to the existing building line, you would have to get rid of this requirement. However, I doubt that most moderate-income folks would accept a new home that didn't have a parking space.
Posted by: benson at December 12, 2008 12:11 PM
Montrose for COTaS- you'll have to sogn off now as
Montrose Morris, PBA, CoTaS
Your Saint in the Hood. Yo!
Posted by: bxgrl at December 12, 2008 12:14 PM
More responses:
Bxgrl: the issue here is taste, not quality. The quality of the building is covered by the building code. NYC has the toughest building code in the nation.
Brooklyn816: These fedder homes have been built for about 30 years. While there may be some unsold inventory right now due to the economy, they have been widely bought, and accepted, in moderate-income areas during this time. Again, I urge all to go to the neighborhoods I listed above.
Posted by: benson at December 12, 2008 12:17 PM
benson...even you wouldn't say that the addition of one of these buildings to a block does not result in some loss of property value to all the others.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at December 12, 2008 12:19 PM
benson- you're going after MM over that thread? What for? what malicious smear- the pastor? You must be kidding.
It just goes back to the whole how much community responsibility people want to take. the pastor seems to have no respect for the community he was in, and now he has no church either. Any institution or business that depends on the community needs to respect it. I'm not saying a church should have to abide by what others want, but in this case is seems karma kicked in. Had BRG been lying about anything that happened, it would be malicious. But she wasn't- and calling St. Montrose on it is a real stretch.
Posted by: bxgrl at December 12, 2008 12:25 PM
Benson, point taken and I'm sure you are right about inventory. But my thought and mine alone is, those fedder home developers that have been building for the last 30 years, probably cared more about the project they construction because it reflected on them. These days, you have every "Joe" developing who is just trying to make a profit. Granting they should not care how I feel about what they put up, but I thought the purpose of building was to sell.
Posted by: BrookLynn816 at December 12, 2008 12:28 PM
Benson,
I am not trying to pick a fight but to explore the point, but if you are right, I have a hard time understanding why so many break the facade line going forward rather than back. So often, new infill construction puts existing facades into the shadows. The house shown above breaks forward rather than back. I see lots of 3-4 story infill in the South Slope with no driveways and no discernible relation to the block. Just take a casual stroll down 12th between 6th and 7th and you will see what I mean (not that that is a particularly harmoniuos block arhcitecturally to begin with, but the infill made it worse, when it could have made it better).
Posted by: slopefarm at December 12, 2008 12:28 PM
OFF-TOPIC BELOW
Benson...we're going to rehash that?????
You are truly a piece of work.
Why don't you give her the rest of it.
Montrose, Benson and I continued this conversation in this thread.
http://www.brownstoner.com/brownstoner/archives/2008/12/friday_links_153.php#comments
Benson, you never got back to me in the above post. I was truly disappointed.
Take it up with the right people, you schlock! Don't bring Montrose into your petty bullshit.
Posted by: bayridgegirl at December 12, 2008 12:31 PM
benson- be that as it may, I think we've seen enough evasions of the code to know that many developers have circumvented it, bribed inspectors or simply ignored it. The past 2 years have been more than filled with stories about the DOB and the construction industry. I'm sitting in a restaurant watching them put up a building on Fulton St. I'm not an architect, I'm not a developer but even an ignorant citizen such as myself could clearly see that the construction was not being done based on any construction I've ever seen. (I did study civil engineering post grad)
And the guys they had doing the work didn't even have hardhats or masks. So tough building code or not, there's a lot that gets built that is not up to code.
Posted by: bxgrl at December 12, 2008 12:34 PM
Unfortunately, as I love a good discussion, I have to meet with clients for the better part of the afternoon. Benson, I'll be back, and will look at the link, although I don't see its relevance to this thread. This is all good stuff, however. Later.
Montrose Morris, etc, etc
Posted by: Montrose Morris at December 12, 2008 12:36 PM
I have seen these photos many times before. I thought it was for a rental in Bushwick. Hm.
Unfortunately, the architecture is about on par with the grammar. But it could be a lot worse, actually. Sadly.
Posted by: mopar at December 12, 2008 12:51 PM
Wow - I'm under fire!
Some quick responses, as I've got alot of work to do too:
Bxgrl: perhaps this is a matter of values, but in my book what BRG did was reprehensible. Certainly good people can disagree about the course the pastor took, in terms of "dialogue" with the community. To accuse the pastor in a public forum of lining his private pockets is the equivalent of a witchhunt. I have no use for anybody who plays such dirty pool. The reason I called Montrose on this is that I expect more from her.
Montrose: I bring this topic up on this thread because you never responded to it.
BRG: I am not responding to you, for the reasons discussed.
Slopefarm: point taken. I can't explain these types of homes,either. I'm very familiar with the block you mention,as I live not too far away. I'm more familiar with the set-back type of fedder home, with a driveway in front.
Brooklyn 816: these homes ARE built to sell. Until the economy tanked, they were selling.
DIBS: I've said it before: I find these homes to be ugly, and I agree that they do nothing for an area. Having said that, I find it more fearful to impose some type of taste regulation on private development. It will bring development in this city to a screeching halt.
Folks treat these homes as some type of permanent scourge on their area. Not so. They simply reflect the market for a particular area at the current time. I am hopeful that Brooklyn's prospects will continue to imporve. If this happens, these cheap homes will be bought by developers and either upgraded or torn down. In such a case, everyone wins: the owner, the developer and the neighborhood.
Gotta go!
Posted by: benson at December 12, 2008 12:55 PM
benson, let the pastor thing go. i know it bugs you, but raising it in unrelated contexts is exactly the sort of personal tangent that you (and i and many others) find distasteful on this site.
Posted by: z at December 12, 2008 12:58 PM
Montrose you are right... Alexandria VA and Georgetown in DC have these committees that protect the historic areas. Trash like this would never be built there. I am all for a committee that approves new buildings going up
Posted by: Amzi Hill at December 12, 2008 1:02 PM
Sorry, I meant Probably cared about the project they constructed. Sorry, but this topic hits a spot for me because I was a house hunter (on hold). And knowing that what we can comfortable afford (affordable housing) without having to fix it up, in an area I would like to live in, really peeves me so see this type of construction. Benson, this is not an attack on you from me, but an attack on this particular construcion.
Posted by: BrookLynn816 at December 12, 2008 1:05 PM
WARNING: OFF-TOPIC AND VULGAR LANGUAGE USED
“Wow - I'm under fire!”
How does it feel? Does shit burn quickly?
“Bxgrl: perhaps this is a matter of values, but in my book what BRG did was reprehensible.”
Then take it up with ME. Oh, wait, you did. I responded and you never re-addressed me. You bowed out?
“To accuse the pastor in a public forum of lining his private pockets is the equivalent of a witchhunt. “
Benson, sounds like you’re on a witchhunt yourself and I’m your target!
“I have no use for anybody who plays such dirty pool.”
THEN LEAVE ME ALONE!!! Get out of the water. Get off the topic already. Move on!
“The reason I called Montrose on this is that I expect more from her.”
Oh, please, you want validation for your stupidity?
“Montrose: I bring this topic up on this thread because you never responded to it.”
Ironic, you never responded to me in that last thread. Should I bring it up in every thread?
“BRG: I am not responding to you, for the reasons discussed.”
Respond! You just might get hammered again by me, just like on 15.05.08 Friday Links, this time worse.
“Gotta go!”
Are you heading to the toy store??
Get a set of Balls, will you!
Posted by: bayridgegirl at December 12, 2008 1:10 PM
Z,
You're right. I'll let the issue go.
Montrose: please don't respond on that issue.
Posted by: benson at December 12, 2008 1:14 PM
benson- Tell me what you think about how developers do circumvent the building code. Isn't there a huge problem with inspectors taking bribes, as well as there simply not being nearly enough inspectors?
And, although I know it has been mentioned over and over but the brain cells die daily- would all of these private developers have to have an architect on record? Of course I know the big buildings do. But little guys like this- would the plans on this house have had an architect sign off on them?
Posted by: bxgrl at December 12, 2008 1:38 PM
Bxgrl;
You are correct: there has been an ongoing problem of developers giving bribes to DOB inspectors. I have a friend who is an inspector for the DOB, and he tells me all the time about developers who try to bribe him to look the other way. I may be wrong on this, but I think this problem is mainly with developers of bigger buildings.
Yes, they must have an achitect or PE sign off on them, but it is almost perfunctory in the case of these small buildings. They generally work off a template design and make minor alterations to suit the site. The architect then signs off.
Posted by: benson at December 12, 2008 1:58 PM
So we have a Tuscan, Dyker Heights and hurricane Katrina look going on. Nice use of styles, nice finishes.
Very impressed. Should sell fast.
Posted by: Action Jackson at December 12, 2008 2:06 PM
This is a renovation? Would love to see what it looked like before.
I think you all are missing the old world craftsmanship that has gone into this project. The unaligned butt joints on the "crown moldings" for one (I assume the broker means the window casings, as there's no sign of actual crown moldings in any of the pictures). But my favorite is the tile work in the bathroom and the border with the misaligned tiles - that's the kind of detail you don't see anymore. Oh yes, and the landscaping.
Where exactly is this masterpiece?
Posted by: WBer at December 12, 2008 2:49 PM
WBer: LOL, you know as much as I have seen this house listed especially on Craigslist, I never notice the bored. That is just bad!!!
Posted by: BrookLynn816 at December 12, 2008 2:57 PM
WBer: LOL, you know as much as I have seen this house listed especially on Craigslist, I never notice the border. That is just bad!!!
Posted by: BrookLynn816 at December 12, 2008 2:58 PM
Latest Restaurant Additions
-
Carroll Gardens Classic Diner
added July 2, 2009 12:00 PM in Boerum Hill -
Tripoli
added July 1, 2009 12:00 PM in Cobble Hill -
Williamsburger
added June 30, 2009 12:00 PM in Williamsburg -
Brooklyn Bread Cafe
added June 29, 2009 12:00 PM in Carroll Gardens, Park Slope -
Naidre's
added June 26, 2009 12:00 PM in Carroll Gardens, Park Slope -
Amorina
added June 25, 2009 12:00 PM in Prospect Heights -
Caracas Arepa Bar: Brooklyn
added June 24, 2009 12:00 PM in Williamsburg -
Dawg Shack
added June 23, 2009 12:00 PM in Gowanus -
Mitchell's
added June 22, 2009 12:00 PM in Prospect Heights -
City Sub
added June 19, 2009 12:00 PM in Park Slope
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.