« Co-op of the Day: 30 Ocean Parkway 2 BR Streetlevel: New Retail Space for 395 Classon Avenue »
January 29, 2009
House of the Day: 370 Clinton Street
A victim of the downturn? Given the timing and circumstances of this new listing at 370 Clinton Street in Cobble Hill, it sounds like the seller is in trouble. She closed on the 6,000-square-foot house last September for $2,650,000 and in the last four months has gutted the interior and commissioned complete architectural drawings for a planned make-over. The plans are part of the package for anyone willing to come up with the asking price of $2,995,000. It is a pretty exciting opportunity for someone who wants to create a living space from scratch: great location, beautiful shell. The only question: Price.
370 Clinton Street [Corcoran] GMAP P*Shark
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/8139
Comments
Hate to beat a dead horse but this also puts the Warren Street HOTD in a tough light pricewise.
Posted by: wasder at January 29, 2009 1:26 PM
There seem to be some mighty powerful hallucinogens going around Cobble Hill these days.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at January 29, 2009 1:36 PM
$3M for a shell!!
Pass the doobie please, that sh*t must be goooood.
Posted by: bayridgegirl at January 29, 2009 1:37 PM
They gobble pills in Cobble Hill.
Posted by: SnarkSlope at January 29, 2009 1:37 PM
We looked at this house last year. I was excited by the possibilities, my husband terrified by them. We had considered many options, but ultimately walked.
The plans they have had drawn up are actually similar to some of my architectural sketches, though, I put the kitchen on the parlor floor, with the garden floor as a rental. I digress.
I find it difficult to imagine they'll be able to get nearly 3 million in this market for a shell. Even with the plans having been approved (pain in the ass). No way this will be renovated for less than a million. 6,000 sq. feet, while fabulous, is a HUGE renovation.
Then again, it could happen.
Posted by: Nokilissa at January 29, 2009 1:37 PM
Wow, I'm sorry for the seller. I saw this house when it was listed with Vita Realty last year at $3.2 million. It's huge. There were many apartments in the building, and they were all occupied at the time. A few grannies lived on the ground floor and the other apartments were rented by a mix family members and other tenants. It was definitely a gut job.
Posted by: bk14 at January 29, 2009 1:37 PM
The floor plans are aweful. I would never ever to that.
Approved plans mean squat unless you love the layout, otherwise be ready for another headache.
Posted by: bayridgegirl at January 29, 2009 1:42 PM
I do love corner brownstones. But I hate baseball caps.
Posted by: dittoburg at January 29, 2009 1:44 PM
At the very least, shouldn't the third and fourth floor be reversed??? I think the DR, EIK and Media Room is a good layout. The more formal parlour floor needs some reworking.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at January 29, 2009 1:47 PM
it makes the shell at 150 Bond St. a bargain at $1,795,000, right?
Posted by: Maly at January 29, 2009 1:48 PM
Ah, Revenge of the Grannies!
Posted by: Brenda from Flatbush at January 29, 2009 1:49 PM
Ditto gets to wear the coveted baseball cap today.
This corner beauty appears to be a brick!
Posted by: bayridgegirl at January 29, 2009 1:49 PM
A garage in Brooklyn with a double wide curb cut has got to be worth a ton of money just to irk the neighbors!!!!!!!
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at January 29, 2009 1:49 PM
DIBS, all the floors need reworking. Terrible layout overall. I can't look at it, it irked me!
Posted by: bayridgegirl at January 29, 2009 1:51 PM
I'd like to strike my comment from the record, don't make me wear it
Posted by: dittoburg at January 29, 2009 1:51 PM
If we get to snarky & critical will Mr. B remove the post??????
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at January 29, 2009 1:52 PM
"Wow, I'm sorry for the seller. I saw this house when it was listed with Vita Realty last year at $3.2 million. It's huge. There were many apartments in the building, and they were all occupied at the time. A few grannies lived on the ground floor and the other apartments were rented by a mix family members and other tenants. It was definitely a gut job."
Gee, that makes me feel sorry for the grannies who got evicted, not the seller. They lost their homes and now the place is a shell. What a waste.
Posted by: shillstoner at January 29, 2009 1:52 PM
Hello, brg, can you expand on what you would change. We seem to admire the same things (like that wonderlicious disappearing kitchen yesterday.)
Posted by: Maly at January 29, 2009 1:53 PM
ditto....confusing brick with brownstone is akin to a mortal sin. You're wearing that cap backwards today my friend.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at January 29, 2009 1:54 PM
grannies = architectural period details
Wonder how much original detail was torn out?
Posted by: bayridgegirl at January 29, 2009 1:55 PM
GILFs???
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at January 29, 2009 1:57 PM
OK Fine! I've awarded the dimwit baseball cap.
As long as I get to award it tomorrow.
Posted by: dittoburg at January 29, 2009 1:58 PM
If the owner bought this place in September and has already vacated the apartments then dear old granny got a nice buyout. There's no other way to clear a building that quickly.
Posted by: Boerum Hill at January 29, 2009 2:00 PM
"If the owner bought this place in September and has already vacated the apartments then dear old granny got a nice buyout."
That is the upside of capitalism. I just hope the grannies didn't buy in Florida or Vegas.
Posted by: shillstoner at January 29, 2009 2:03 PM
Propertyshark has this building at 25' X 60' for a total of 4,500. At 6,000 sq ft these numbers are not wildly ridiculous but at 4,500 they certainly are.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at January 29, 2009 2:05 PM
I should have specified that the grannies WERE THE OWNERS, if I recall correctly. They made out just fine. The grannies were renting out the units to their extended family and a few other tenants.
Posted by: bk14 at January 29, 2009 2:08 PM
BRG, there was very little detail, if any at all. Maybe some moulding in the parlor floor, but not much. The rest of the building followed the lead of the front door you see in the listing photo. It was really more of an apartment building, not a house at all.
Posted by: bk14 at January 29, 2009 2:11 PM
In that case, the grannies made out like bandits. It was a good time to buy in Florida or Vegas. They're timing the market like pros.
Posted by: Maly at January 29, 2009 2:12 PM
Then the grannies laughed all the way to the bank. Good for them.
Two old ladies living together in a house might not have actually been grandmothers if you know what I'm saying.
Remember that line in On Golden Pond about the bear eating someone???
Snappy, you there???
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at January 29, 2009 2:13 PM
If you buy this house for 2.8, put a million into it for soup-to-nuts renovation, you will have paid 3.9 million for a corner house, with a two-car garage in Cobble Hill. Is that bad? The HOTD on Congress would probably sell for 4.1 million, without a garage but ready to move-in.
I know it's hip to trash Cobble Hill but this is really a great opportunity for someone who still has money. And there are still lots of people with money.
Posted by: sam at January 29, 2009 2:14 PM
Why is the Asshat owner any different from the retards who post on Brownstoner?????
Same foundation of Greed and Delusion and I hope the Economic crash cleanse the retards from the face of the financial world...
The What (Obama will save us...)
Someday this war is gonna end...
Posted by: Return of The What at January 29, 2009 2:17 PM
Maly, this one is a mess. I don't know where to begin.
If you're really interested in buying this house, I'll do it for you, but not today (believe it or not I have alot to do today)
Maybe tomorrow after 12:00, I can revisit it.
I'll give you a teaser, just the parlor floor.
- I don't understand why you need a second stair that goes up the the 2nd floor off the side entrance. So the kiddies can sneak out at night?
- Why is there a closet practically in the middle of the 'drawing room' (AND DON"T CALL IT A DRAWING ROOM!!!!)
- I would put the half bath, bar, closets along the 'left' side of the house in the back
- How cool would it have been to have one open space and if you do want a division and a seperate media/library room. Let's create something with sliding walls. One minute your floor is wide open for entertaining 10 dozen people, or next minute your pull your walls from the very nicely designed hidden pockets and viola you're sitting watching 'A Tree Grows in Brooklyn'
Now if you want a kitchen on this floor not the garden level (which some prefer), that's a differnt story.
Second floor needs to be master bedroom floor, third floor is kiddie floor. You're not getting younger, why climb an extra set of stairs, make the kiddies do it, they're young and robust, and probably need to burn off the fat from sitting in front of the TV all day in that meida room.
Bedroom and garden floors to be dissected upon request.
Posted by: bayridgegirl at January 29, 2009 2:18 PM
'OK Fine! I've awarded the dimwit baseball cap.'
And I was the one to make the call on it.
Aaaaaah, my day is made, my work is done!
I am good.
Posted by: bayridgegirl at January 29, 2009 2:23 PM
I feel much better about the grannies now.
Posted by: shillstoner at January 29, 2009 2:23 PM
I second the horrible lay out, and unless you have a huge family I really can't see why you'd need this much space, and if you did why you'd want it spread over 5 levels. Who'd want to walk down 3 flights of stairs to the garden level kitchen?????
We own a house, that although it's only 22" feet wide and 50 deep, the four of us manage to live perfectly well on three floors (including the finished cellar) (approx 3,000 sq ft) and rent out the other two levels.
In our three floors:
Parlor Level: Living. Dining and Kitchen with hug walk in pantry and a 1/2 bath.
Garden Level: 3 bedrooms; dressing room and two bathrooms
Cellar level: Gym/office, media/play room, laundry, 1/2 bath and huge storage
Our top two floors are both 1 bedroom + den floor through apartments and for the life of me I can never work out why 1 family would need to utilize so much carbon footprint to live in such a huge house as this.
Another thing with this floor plan is that the plumbing isn't in line on any floors so you are going to have risers all over the house.
That being said I'd say empty and if it's been gutted then mid to high 2's might sell it - just not to me.
Posted by: 99luftballons at January 29, 2009 2:24 PM
Sorry, propertyshark is wrong. It is 6,000 sq. ft.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at January 29, 2009 2:28 PM
99luftballons:
Just like you are wondering why anyone would would need to utilize 6,000 sf, I don't see why 4 people need 3000 sf.
It's all a matter of perspective.
I live in 300sf and couldn't be happier.
Granted it's just me, but 300 times 4 people = 1200sf.
Still half the size of your "carbon footprint"
Not arguing, just sayin'.
Posted by: 11217 at January 29, 2009 2:36 PM
I always think that a truly premium house should have a garden. What do you look out at from those back windows? If its directly into another house, that doesn't seem too appealing.
Posted by: homey at January 29, 2009 2:39 PM
Thanks BRG! I wouldn't buy this house, but hopefully one day I will buy "a" house. I'm educating myself on what works and what doesn't work in a brownstone (or a brick house, I'm not racist.)
I think the current layout would work for detached parents with 3 kids and a live-in nanny. It is ideal for the parents to hide on the third floor while the nanny wrangles the young calves out to school. The second stair creates a service entrance. Alternatively, maybe the parents are on the third floor to lord over their family, since they don't have tenants?
Just kidding! I love your critique. It is always interesting to see layouts, it gives a window into the occupants' lifestyle choices (if the layout is well thought out, of course.)
Posted by: Maly at January 29, 2009 2:39 PM
The 2 car garage is genius.
I looked at this last year when it was well over $3 mil. The mini, concrete backyard was a bit of a turn off, but those garages....
It just wasn't worth $3.2 (obviously since it sold for less).
Gutted? I'd say $2 is reasonable. $1 mil reno and you've got a $3mil home with a patio and garages? Not so bad (for those of us with $2 mil in cash...)
Posted by: christopher at January 29, 2009 2:50 PM
chris...$3MM puts it at $500 psf all in, pretty much a steal for such a trophy property.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at January 29, 2009 3:02 PM
This could be a brilliant home with a two-car garage and a beautiful terrace above the garage and corner light and air.
Of course you would hire your own architect to draw up your own plans, using someone else's plans is stupid.
Posted by: sam at January 29, 2009 3:13 PM
'using someone else's plans is stupid.'
Agreed.
I hate when brokers say there's approved plans. There's no incentive there, unless you love love the layout.
The only plus to approved plans is you can start construction almost immediately and if you do change things, you can file an amendment. It'll still cost you some $ to do that.
Posted by: bayridgegirl at January 29, 2009 3:21 PM
11217 - you don't have kids, right? 300 sq ft per person for a family is insane. or, i would be insane for sure. first of all, kids have kid stuff and lots of it.
second, when you cook for a family, you need more food, more dishes, and more counter space. oh yes, and more paper towels and kleenex! all of us have been sick, and we just plowed through 4 boxes.
then next or third - visiting family members! yes, i need a guest room.
fourth - families create family sized paperwork and family sized lives to manage - so, you need some sort of office/work space.
fifth - cleaning supplies! you need more and bigger. we have a carpet cleaner too (damn necessary with kids).
sixth - storage. ski's, bikes, suitcases, vaporizers, dehumidifiers, humidifiers, air purifiers, household maintenance items like paint supplies and paint and tools and on and on.
and, hell i have a couple hundred feet just for my laundry area. i cannot believe the amount of laundry done each week.
11217 - pls go try to last a week with a couple with a small kid in 1200 square feet. try 24 hours even. you can live alone anywhere. but, small spaces with other people is horrible.
BTW - i think that this place is amazing. it's amazing. it's a red brick town house first of all, it's on a corner, has parking, and is in a landmarked hood with a good school. you can get a cab to cobble hill in a reasonable amount of time too.
Posted by: wine lover at January 29, 2009 3:22 PM
BOTD - Bailout of the day. Keep 'em coming. I can no longer keep track of the inventory.
***Bid half off peak comps***
Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at January 29, 2009 3:28 PM
"pls go try to last a week with a couple with a small kid in 1200 square feet." I lived for two years in 800 square feet with my wife and daughter, and we often had guests come from Australia to stay.
That being said I am much happier now in 1600 square feet with two kids.
Posted by: wasder at January 29, 2009 3:34 PM
No arguments that you need more space with kids, but 3000sf is excessive.
The average U.S. home size is decreasing, and I believe just decreased to around 2400 sf. And that's for the U.S. as a whole.
For NYC, 3000 sf is quite a large carbon footprint, if we're speaking about it in those terms.
I think 1200-1500 sf for a family of 4 is more than enough space. If I had a a husband and 2 kids, anyway....
My dad was one of 8 children, and was raised in a rowhouse of no more than 1500 sf. They all seemed to turn out ok.
Posted by: 11217 at January 29, 2009 3:49 PM
11217, the average US home size is decreasing because the size of an average family has decreased and the population is aging.
Please at least grant me the fact that one can have as much space as one can afford, within architectural and geographical limits.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at January 29, 2009 3:58 PM
3,000 sq ft used to be considered a lot of space in the old days but not any more. We New Yorkers have the smallest carbon footprint of anybody in the US. Give us a break.
Posted by: sam at January 29, 2009 4:05 PM
i don't have a problem with the purposed layout, for a one family. however, like brg said, i would switch the master to the 3rd floor & have kids above. personally i would make the garden a rental or 'in-law suite'. the house is large enough to have all of the bedrooms on one floor and have at least 2 bathrooms - one for the master and one for kids/guests. i love one families and a 2 car gargage is great but i would miss having a garden.
that being said - way out of my price range anyway - good luck to the seller!
Posted by: bkny at January 29, 2009 4:08 PM
Wrong Sam.
New York is #4 behind Honolulu, Los Angeles and Portland, Oregon.
http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0530-footprint.html
Posted by: 11217 at January 29, 2009 4:09 PM
Dave,
You can do whatever you want, but it's my impression that homes are getting smaller because of the economy and because people are wanting to be more environmentally conscious. I guess smaller families might play a part too.
I don't know what planet Sam lives on, but 3000 sf was and IS a huge amount of space for 4 people. Maybe not for the brownstoner crowd, but in the REAL world, 3000 is considered huge, by most accounts.
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Say-goodbye-McMansions-homes-getting/story.aspx?guid={AADD01FF-CCEC-4B22-9328-042B81EB6F23}
Posted by: 11217 at January 29, 2009 4:13 PM
Homes are getting smaller?
That's a new fact I had not heard.
New Yorkers have always lived cramped, but outside New York City, it's big big big.
Also I doubt very much that people in Honolulu have a smaller carbon footprint on average than New Yorkers, for one thing, they live in the middle of the Pacific Ocean and most of the things they use, eat, and wear has to be flown or shipped thousands and thousands of miles.
Posted by: sam at January 29, 2009 4:19 PM
Home sizes have gotten out of control, but that will all reverse with a return to urbanization. See End of Suburbia. People will not be able to afford/sustain suburbanization in the future and I believe home sizes will finally start decreasing.
According to Wikipedia:
Average home size in the US in 1950 and today:
in 1950: 983 ; in 2004: 2,349
NPR - National Association of Home Builders citation [1]
Posted by: Biff Champion at January 29, 2009 4:20 PM
11217, I don't think there is any reliable data that's so current to include the current recession or the effect of oil having shot up to $140 per barrel and people all of a sudden becoming more "green."
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at January 29, 2009 4:28 PM
Read the articles, Sam.
You can "think" all you want, but I'm providing you with facts.
There are many factors that go into the carbon footprint ratings, if you read the article. It's not just about shipping food.
Manhattan is an island. Everything is shipped here through small bridges and tunnels.
Again, read the articles. Homes sizes are absolutely decreasing.
Posted by: 11217 at January 29, 2009 4:29 PM
"The average size of homes started in the third quarter of 2008 was 2,438 square feet, down from 2,629 square feet in the second quarter, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Similarly, the median size of homes started in the third quarter was 2,090, down from 2,291. The statistics confirm what the housing industry has suspected for a while.
Builders are responding to those consumer desires. According to the National Association of Home Builders, 88% of builders surveyed in January said that they are building or planning to build a larger share of smaller homes. Eighty-nine percent said they're planning on building more lower-priced models."
Posted by: 11217 at January 29, 2009 4:31 PM
Dave,
That sounds like a defense of waste. The green movement is real and in its infancy.
You can choose not to take part or to ignore that it's happening, but I'm hopeful that our new administration will lead us in the direction that MUST be taken.
There will be stragglers like you and Sam who seem to think that you can't survive with less than 3000 sf, but hopefully people like you guys will become the minority in the future.
Posted by: 11217 at January 29, 2009 4:33 PM
I have not seen or read about a decrease in the average size of new homes being built in the US.
3,000 s.f. is more or less average, certainly not huge.
If you live in a tight NYC apartment, it's huge by comparison, (especially if you have always lived in NYC and think it is the normal measure) but comparing typical middle-class American homes and typical middle-class NYC homes is like comparing two different worlds.
Posted by: sam at January 29, 2009 4:34 PM
DIBS,
I think 11217 is hoping we drop dead and leave the planet to the truly evolved, like himself.
Posted by: sam at January 29, 2009 4:37 PM
Sam, please see my post at 4:31. These numbers are for the U.S. not NYC.
The average size is 2438, down from 2629 and the median is 2,090, down from 2,291
Posted by: 11217 at January 29, 2009 4:37 PM
Why is always about size??
It should be about location in the nation.
Posted by: bayridgegirl at January 29, 2009 4:38 PM
11217...If one is willing to pay for the costs of a bigger carbon footprint they should be able to do so. This is still a democracy and a capitalistic one at that. I'm not denigrating anyone for being more environmentally aware. I've got 1,600 sq ft for myself in Brooklyn because I can afford it. I hardly believe that it is too much or that it is wasteful. I shudder to think how many sq ft I have when I take into account other residences.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at January 29, 2009 4:39 PM
Nope, Sam.
Just wish you'd listen to something than your own hot air once in a while.
Posted by: 11217 at January 29, 2009 4:40 PM
I agree Dave. You can do whatever you please.
The entire world isn't going to "go green" but the more people who do, the better for the planet. That's all.
I believe you have the right to do what you want, I'm just baffled by Sam's comments which seem to state that living in anything less than 3000 sf is substandard living.
Posted by: 11217 at January 29, 2009 4:41 PM
Believe me, the average size new home for middle-class families is not shrinking. Even in NYC (home of the 150 square foot studio) the trend is to combine units and to return sub-divided rowhouses into one and two family residences. I know you want us, as a society, to march backwards 11217, but I don't think it is something most Americans are willing to do if they can possibly help it.
Posted by: sam at January 29, 2009 4:44 PM
I'm also confused how I put an article up here stating that New York's carbon footprint is in fact not first in the nation as he says, but 4th, yet he thinks he knows better than the scientists who actually do the rankings.
I'm not saying everything one reads is the gospel, but he really doesn't even listen, much less read the articles apparently.
It's like talking to a brick wall.
Posted by: 11217 at January 29, 2009 4:44 PM
Smaller housing is not marching backwards, Sam. Life is about quality, not quantity.
I'm very glad the future of this planet doesn't lie in your hands. Your viewpoints on this subject are downright scary.
Posted by: 11217 at January 29, 2009 4:47 PM
I think you're the brick wall 11217. as indoctrinated in your dogma as the Mao youth of my youth.
Instead of waving a little red book you're waving a little green one and hoping that those who disagree with you die. nice.
Posted by: sam at January 29, 2009 4:50 PM
Personally, I'm happy that the world is becoming more eco-friendly. I see no reason why that would be considered a negative goal.
Care to comment at all on your assertion that NYC has the lowest carbon footprint in the country, when I clearly showed that you were wrong? Or do you want to continue throwing insults to show just how unaware and uninformed you really are?
I say it again, your anecdotes show your age and I'm sincerely glad that that the younger generation of this country care more about the planet than you do.
Posted by: 11217 at January 29, 2009 4:55 PM
Such a drama queen too, Sam.
Where exactly did I say I hope you "die"
Martyr much?
Posted by: 11217 at January 29, 2009 4:57 PM
"The American dream is shrinking as economic and social shifts prompt interest in smaller houses.
"We're trending toward smaller homes," says Gopal Ahluwalia, director of research for the National Association of Home Builders. He says growth in the average size of new single-family homes, which went from 1,750 square feet in 1978 to 2,479 in 2007, is starting to reverse."
http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/
article/20090108/NEWS01/901080387/1002/NEWS01
Posted by: 11217 at January 29, 2009 5:11 PM
So you're 0 for 3, Sam.
1. Average size of home in U.S. is not 3000 sf, it's closer to 2500. (2479 in 2007)
2. New York City does not have the lowest carbon footprint of any U.S. city. It's #4.
3. It would appear that the trend towards larger homes is being reversed, in direct opposition to your claim.
But I'm the brick wall.
Posted by: 11217 at January 29, 2009 5:15 PM
By the way, this building is not gutted yet. It is being gutted this very moment. There's a dumpster outside and guys have been filling it all this week.
Posted by: Carol Gardens at January 29, 2009 5:35 PM
That mongobay thing is highly misleading. Pls see this comment at the end:
"Per capita carbon emissions from transportation and residential energy use, 2005"
There's another article in the NYT about the same study.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/us/29pollute.html?ref=us
Much of this study assigns carbon for things that people have no control over, like whether they live near hydropower, or near a port.
To say that a Manhattanite (or Brooklynite) living in a 300sft studio who walks to work and doesn't own a car and has no room to buy stuff is less green than an Angeleno with a 3000sft house and three cars and a pool is ridiculous.
Posted by: denton at January 29, 2009 6:05 PM
Denton,
I'm sure you're right, but we're finding out from this website, that there are plenty of New Yorkers who live in 3000 sf - 6,000 sf homes and think that's "normal" also.
Driving around Park Slope and looking for a parking space for 40 minutes might pollute more than an hour commute from Costa Mesa to downtown LA on the freeway.
It also sounds as though by the way he talks that Sam's carbon footprint is much larger than the average New Yorker and thank goodness there are those that live 3 to a room to offset his luxurious lifestyle. I forgot though...as he's already told me before...I'm just jealous.
Posted by: 11217 at January 29, 2009 6:17 PM
DIBS, $500 a sq is genius.
Like I said, buy it for 2, renovate for 1, final cost is 3. 500sq. Brilliant for a brownstone with parking .
Posted by: christopher at January 29, 2009 7:13 PM
I know lots of people with cars who do not commute to the suburbs. (Not me, but friends, and tons of people in my neighborhood, esp those with kids.)
That said, this is by far the easiest city in the US for non-drivers to travel 24/7 without a car.
Posted by: Carol Gardens at January 29, 2009 7:18 PM
"I think you're the brick wall 11217. as indoctrinated in your dogma as the Mao youth of my youth.
Instead of waving a little red book you're waving a little green one and hoping that those who disagree with you die. nice"
Beautifully put. Thank you.
Posted by: nyc87 at January 29, 2009 7:28 PM
Thank you, nyc87!
Posted by: sam at January 29, 2009 8:48 PM
wine lover -
I think you've somehow justified in your head how much space you need and seem to be defensive about it. If you can afford a lot of space and apparently more room for your dryer than I had for my first bedroom, then congrats, but I wholeheartedly disagree that a family "needs" that much space. I grew up in Manhattan in an 750 sf 1 bedroom with a built-in wall for my ~200-250 sf bedroom. Fortunately, we had laundry in the basement, and it was cramped at times in the winter, but I spent most of my time playing outside or did homework at local diners. Things were tight, but we figured it out. Again, it doesn't mean I'm a better person or had a terrible childhood (quite the opposite), but we all make choices about what is a necessity, and it's great you can afford yours. I really think "need" is a relative term.
Posted by: Manitoba at January 29, 2009 11:32 PM
I don't think the residents of Portland are rushing to chop down rainforest so they can have ipe decking in a yard they never use. Talk about carbon footprint.
Posted by: dittoburg at January 30, 2009 8:23 AM
Latest Restaurant Additions
-
Le Barricou
added November 20, 2009 12:00 PM in Williamsburg -
Der Schwarze Kölner
added November 19, 2009 12:00 PM in Fort Greene -
Oak Wine Bar & Café
added November 18, 2009 12:00 PM in Williamsburg -
Mr. Wonton
added November 17, 2009 12:00 PM in Park Slope -
Casa Rosa
added November 16, 2009 12:00 PM in Carroll Gardens -
Cousin John's Café & Bakery
added November 13, 2009 12:00 PM in Park Slope -
Elote
added November 12, 2009 12:00 PM in Williamsburg -
Miracle Grill
added November 11, 2009 12:00 PM in Park Slope -
Phoebe's Cafe
added November 10, 2009 12:00 PM in Williamsburg -
Ruthie's
added November 9, 2009 12:00 PM in Clinton Hill, Downtown Brooklyn
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.