« Open Thread Details Leaked on 111 Lawrence Rents »
July 13, 2009
The Epitaph of Epitaphs for Williamsburg's Boom
It's tough to know where to start with the New York mag story on the rise and dizzying fall of Williamsburg's condo boom, which casts the neighborhood as "New York’s version of the collapsing exurban 'boomburgs' in Florida and Arizona." Is it the detail that the developers of the Steelworks Lofts, who paid $26.5 million for their condo-to-be a couple years ago, are considering turning their building into a youth hostel? No, perhaps it's the news that potential buyers for the failed (and mostly constructed) Warehouse 11 project are coming up with offers "closer to $30 million than the $50 million owed" to the bank by its developers. There's too much in it to fully blurb, but here are some of the choicest bits:
- David Maundrell, president of Aptsandlofts.com, estimates that 2,818 new Burg apartments will have hit the market by the end of this year, with another 2,766 projected by the end of next year. Also, Maundrell tools around town in a $120K Maserati bought with condo-sales dough.
- Even though Williamsburg developers are having a lot of trouble selling the units they do have, they're still bemoaning the repeal of the 421-a tax abatement that would have allowed them to build even more units.
- Before she died, Jane Jacobs wrote a letter to the mayor saying the Williamsburg rezoning that put the wheels in motion for the condo explosion appeared to be a particularly risky move: “Even the presumed beneficiaries of this misuse of governmental powers, the developers and financiers of luxury towers, may not benefit,” she wrote. “Misused environments are not good long-term economic bets.”
There's a great deal more of note in the article, which is well worth a read.
The Billyburg Bust [New York]
Pic by krzysztof.poluchowicz.
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/10566
Comments
All I gotta say is that I play in a softball league in McCarren Park on Sundays and yesterday, bust or no bust, Williamsburgh was popping. Hard to reconcile these two images, except that I guess all the people I saw in the park are not the types to be buying luxury condos.
Posted by: wasder at July 13, 2009 9:34 AM
okay i was watching the news last night and they had a segment about the italian parade in williamsburg this weekend and i kept laughing seeing all the condos in progress in the background. it is one seriously fugly neighborhood.
*rob*
Posted by: PitbullNYC at July 13, 2009 9:39 AM
Wasder I agree, the neighborhood really does seem to be as popular as ever.
Posted by: dosteov at July 13, 2009 10:05 AM
Williamsburg is very lively - but thats not irreconcilable with overpriced condos sitting there without buyers. The condos are gebnerally 30-40% overpriced IMHO.
There's a simple solution, cut prices to something reasonable for the area.
Posted by: dittoburg at July 13, 2009 10:09 AM
I was waiting for this for some time now. As the article says bunch of developers actually went into foreclosure on their buildings. Next step would be banks selling these REO buildings to other developers for 50c on a dollar. New developers will have much lower basis cost and will be able to offer condos for much lower price driving all prices down. I think major price correction is just starting.
Posted by: loty at July 13, 2009 10:15 AM
For those of us who predicted this, only a couple of years ago on this very blog, it's not a surprise. When we heretically said there would be a condo glut, and that was when 4th Ave and Wmsburg were going full guns, and AY was seen as a done deal, certain density obsessed posters flat out said we were nuts.
Even a layman could see this coming, and I'm surprised fewer developers, especially those long in the biz, couldn't see there was just too much being built, and the entire housing industry was being propped up by dubious mortgage based air bubbles. Not to be a What-like, gleeful imp screaming, I was right, but then, no one even listened to Jane Jacobs, for crying out loud.
Posted by: Montrose Morris at July 13, 2009 10:22 AM
Montrose, it depends on when developers bought the land. Land in NYC is super expensive. Some developers build out just so they can attempt to free the cash they paid on the land (even if they sell the finished product at a loss - which some developers view as better than all the cash stuck in the purchased lot)
Posted by: more4less at July 13, 2009 10:28 AM
And remember, you don't know what structural issues will be a problem until 2-3 years or so down the road. Additionally, after the tax abatements are gone the taxes will be astronomical in these places compared to older existing buildings. Buyer beware at any price!!!!!
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at July 13, 2009 10:28 AM
DIBS,
assuming one buys from the big developers (like Toll Brothers), would $300/sq ft ease those fears?
Posted by: more4less at July 13, 2009 10:34 AM
m4l, I would be comfortable in the quality from Toll Brothers. It's the new ones that have sprung up and have no history that are the potential problems. Alas, many of them are probably bankrupt or close to it.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at July 13, 2009 10:38 AM
I doubt the bust will look anything like Miami. 5500 units is a lot for a neighborhood, but it's not enormous for a city of 8.3 million people. Manhattan is so easy to get to from Williamsburg, and at $650ft2, that is a substantial discount to what you can buy in Manhattan (these days, the price point that is needed to move units). I'm sure a lot of developers will lose their shirts (some, with better luck and timing, will break even or make some $$) but in the end the result will be an even more robust Williamsburg with more shops, more restaurants, more bars, and more apartments boasting spectacular views of Manhattan. I seriously looked into buying in that area and decided I much preferred the more established neighborhood of Park Slope - just greener and cleaner. But as the Bedford Avenue area comes of age, and after a year of riding the F train, I could almost see myself trading the slope in for this neighb. Also, I doubt you'll see much new product trading below $500ft2.
Posted by: Stuart at July 13, 2009 11:02 AM
Personally, FREE would be too high a price for an apt in a building thrown together when the developer was facing bankruptcy. All the granite countertops, Toto toilets and Wolf ranges in the world aren't going to mean diddly when the problems start. Those problems will be the apt owners' problems, because the developers will be long gone, out of business and protected from lawsuits by bankruptcy laws. I would rather live in my NY Magazine mentioned, ungentrified Crown Heights, rather than pick my way down half abandoned streets with muddy empty lots, aborted construction and broken promises, on my way to an overburdened subway stop. I think some aspects of Williamsburg are fun and cool, but I can always visit, and then go home.
Posted by: Montrose Morris at July 13, 2009 11:03 AM
It is amazing how easy it is to spin things - the article (media in general) and all the posts here make it sound so bad, like this turn of events is bad news -
And then I love how all the posters here love to make it like 'they predicted this...' when they didnt....in fact in may ways they (like the out of context Jane Jacobs quote) predicted the opposite.
Go back circa 2006 and read all the posts here regarding the Williamsburg (and 4th Ave and Ft Greene) condo booms and actually look at what the "general consensus was" it certainly wasnt = if this keeps up, prices are going to fall and rents are going to come down and RE in these areas will become more affordable - and include amazing amenities to boot.
It was more like - Bloomberg is giving the city over to greedy developers who are going to get rich by gentrifying everyone out and prices are ever increasing because of all these 'luxury buildings' and 421a is a disgusting give away to developers who are in can't lose RE- oh yeah and - all the new buildings are ugly, out-of-context and make like $hit.
So no - the Brownstoner-Brooklyian-etc. consensus did not predict the future - what predicted the future is economics - more supply=lower prices (or lower than otherwise would be). And so as all these developers get wiped out and stuff starts renting and selling at much lower prices, stop patting yourself on the back and start considering how we can utilize the natural laws of man like economics to improve out life (and lifestyles) here in NYC.
Posted by: fsrg at July 13, 2009 11:03 AM
Well, I can't wait for the density obsessed among us to come out with their laser blasters. For a very long time we watched every square inch bought up, beautiful old builidngs torn down and poorly designed and constructed buildings thrown up in the blink of an eye. AY was touted as the "answer" to our problems of not enough housing ( meaning in fact, not enough luxury housing at high [prices). So now, with thousands of empty apartments that were overpriced to begin with, its a little hard to mourn over developer difficulties. We were long overdue for price corrections and I don't doubt that most of these places will find occupants. But if they don't, it will make me wonder about how much they were actually needed in the first place.
Posted by: bxgrl at July 13, 2009 11:09 AM
fsrq, many posters, myself included, predicted Williamsburg (not Brooklyn) was an oversupply-of-condos disaster waiting to happen. It wasn't a prediction to the extent that word is associated with a crystal ball, it was a simple extrapolation. Far from patting ourselves on the back, many locals were pissed at the destruction of older low-rent properties for these shiny towers (not the ones pictured which were built on the derelict Eastern District terminal land). The finances weren't the whole story either, the L-train was overcrowded back in 2004 (when I lived there) and people were complaing it could never withsatnd all these new commuters, as well as the local schools not cutting it.
We're you one of the people using that now-disfavored term "bitter renters"?
Posted by: dittoburg at July 13, 2009 11:12 AM
DIBS - structural problems - you mean like the building is going to fall down???? You are kidding right?
MM- yeah maybe your scenario might happen to a few - but frankly buyers buying when the market is ice cold, process are falling and the developer (or subsequent developer) is forced to allow extensive inspections as well as fix the problems (that are more obvious after the building has been sitting for a bit) before closing - will probably put subsequent purchasers in a better position than those that rushed in earlier with little or no due diligence available or practically permitted.
Posted by: fsrg at July 13, 2009 11:15 AM
fsrq....structuarl problems like fpoundation issues, curtain wall ptoblems, leaking roofs, falty plumbing, etc, etc, etc.
You've never heard of these things occuring???
No, I'm not kidding. And, they tend to be very costly to remedy.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at July 13, 2009 11:19 AM
no ditto you got me backwards - I cheered the 'bitter renters' and have always said that buying back then (and today in most places) made little sense since renting was far cheaper. BUT I always said and continue to that this is not a "disaster" this is a blessing - better housing stick and lower costs - thats a win win in my book.
As for the destruction of the older housing - please...I am not saying it never happened but 95% of what was torn down (especially in Williamsburg and 4th ave) was pure crap - horrible tenement type housing that should have been destroyed years ago.
in 2006 everyone (almost) here was crying about affordability and rich developers getting richer, now we have rapidly plunging prices and poor developers and everyone (almost) is still crying - seems like people are never happy.
Posted by: fsrg at July 13, 2009 11:21 AM
fsrq, thanks for clarifying things. As you know, there is not one voice though, the people who weren't happy back then are generally a different group of souls from the people not happy now.
Posted by: dittoburg at July 13, 2009 11:25 AM
fsrq....structuarl problems like fpoundation issues, curtain wall ptoblems, leaking roofs, falty plumbing, etc, etc, etc.
Of course those things happen (and guess what - they happen in older buildings too) - in fact any building with a flat roof will have leaks - guaranteed!
And yes they are expensive to repair, just like it costs a fortune for older buildings to maintain their facade (especially under 11/98), roofs, and massive HVAC plants. Essentially all buildings cost a fortune to maintain and anyone who buys an apt (new or old) not recognizing that is a fool - BUT at least the people buying today will spend less on the Apartment itself.
Posted by: fsrg at July 13, 2009 11:25 AM
Unfortunately, frsg, most people don't get inspections on new construction. They only see new and shiny, and never before lived in, and their brains turn to mush. Most people assume problems with an older house, so inspections are expected, but I would bet that a majority of new condo owners, especially those who are first time buyers, never even consider getting an inspection.
Posted by: Montrose Morris at July 13, 2009 11:25 AM
Do I need to go through the math again as to why buying my 2 family brownstone makes it much cheaper than renting a 1,600 sf two-bedroom two bath apartment with a deck???????
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at July 13, 2009 11:28 AM
So how far are rents going to drop in the neighborhood?
I've been seeing good deals on rentals in the condo turned rental buildings, but there seems no shortage of people moving into the unrenovated walkups/old houses.
if a new condo in the neighborhood being FREE is too much money - what are the chances of my landlord paying me to live in my current apt?
Posted by: dirty_hipster at July 13, 2009 11:33 AM
MM- trust me if you went to virtually every single developer in Williamsburg today and made your offer at asking contingent on an clean inspection - they'd be happy to let you do a rectal exam on their building - the fact that buyers have unrealistic expectations and act dumb is not a valid argument against new buildings.
Posted by: fsrg at July 13, 2009 11:35 AM
No DIBS because your calculation does not include a calculation that includes the capital risk in your purchase, nor does your simple little anecdote deal with the simple truth that for most of this decade excluding appreciation (and now even that is turning into depreciation) renting was far cheaper.
Posted by: fsrg at July 13, 2009 11:38 AM
My point, frsg, is not that the owners won't let anyone inspect, it's that first time new condo owners don't know enough, or think that it is important enough, to get an inspection. That is an ignorance that is not beneficial to either party, in the long run. That is not an indictment of new buildings, or a reason to get out the industrial sized Preparation H. Sheesh.
Posted by: Montrose Morris at July 13, 2009 11:53 AM
fsrq, you sound very bitter!!!!
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at July 13, 2009 11:54 AM
DH, that would only happen if you took over the super's role as per the NYT article
Posted by: more4less at July 13, 2009 11:54 AM
fsrq, a well managed long-standing condo/co-op will have a reserve for many things. Also, they will have some schedule for the maintenance over a long term
A new development is more likely to have problems that are cropping up prematurely and unforeseen. I'm not saying they all will but a lot of these were done by relatively inexperienced developers cutting corners. Also, these buildings will not have a reserve.
Do you understand my point now???
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at July 13, 2009 12:02 PM
Am guessing these will all become rentals at some point. I agree, buyer beware of these newly created buidlings built by developers under financial distress.
Posted by: gemini10 at July 13, 2009 12:09 PM
DIBS - yes I understand your point - and my point is that a buyer should ALWAYS beware and that the developments described in these articles - while portrayed as bad news - is actually good news for residents over the long term.....understand my point
Posted by: fsrg at July 13, 2009 12:14 PM
I feel bad for anybody who purchased here the past 3 years. They may not see there money back for many many years.
Posted by: brickoven at July 13, 2009 12:17 PM
"Manhattan is so easy to get to from Williamsburg"
you have obviously not tried to get on the L train at Bedford durning weekday rush hour!!!
Posted by: Return of Randolph at July 13, 2009 12:38 PM
"you have obviously not tried to get on the L train at Bedford durning weekday rush hour!!!"
I have - not bad. Have you Randi?
Posted by: dirty_hipster at July 13, 2009 12:43 PM
randi lives in Ft greene. I doubt she's travelling on the L in the mornings.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at July 13, 2009 12:47 PM
I have not been on the L in years. Is it still one of the filthiest subways?
Posted by: brickoven at July 13, 2009 12:52 PM
not any dirtier than any other train. the A and E always seem to be filthy.
Posted by: dirty_hipster at July 13, 2009 1:01 PM
"rather than pick my way down half abandoned streets with muddy empty lots, aborted construction and broken promises, on my way to an overburdened subway stop."
I particularly like how you paint the streets as "half-abandoned" but yet the subway stop is "overburdened." Pick your angle and stick with it. Yes, some things (ok many things) could have been done better, but the net result will be a better neighborhood; I think most people agree things have improved in the last few years, despite all the complaints and construction. We'll live.
Posted by: bjw2103 at July 13, 2009 1:02 PM
Who cares where I live? It is well know that you have to wait for at least 3 trains to pass in order to get on one.
Posted by: Return of Randolph at July 13, 2009 1:05 PM
I take the A twice a day and don't think its dirty at all. They all certainly are a lot dirtier when school is in session.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at July 13, 2009 1:06 PM
Apparently someone that takes it every day has a differing opinion than your "well know (sic)" fact
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at July 13, 2009 1:08 PM
"It is well know that you have to wait for at least 3 trains to pass in order to get on one."
Nope. Wrong.
I've never had to wait for 3 trains to pass (that sounds more like the 6 train in manhattan)
I have to let maybe 1 train per week pass because it's too crowded - the next one is always empty.
however, it will be overburdened once all these buildings are filled with people.
Posted by: dirty_hipster at July 13, 2009 1:08 PM
Can we hit the reset button and turn Williamsburg back over to the Polish, Slavs and Latinos in $500 per month apartments?
What was so wrong with that, anyway?
www.forgotten-ny.com
Posted by: Kevin Walsh at July 13, 2009 1:08 PM
Also, the Bedford Ave station isn't that busy during the morning rush - Lorimer and Graham are much busier stations.
Posted by: dirty_hipster at July 13, 2009 1:10 PM
"What was so wrong with that, anyway?"
Inherently, nothing, but why prevent people who want to move there from doing so?
Posted by: bjw2103 at July 13, 2009 1:11 PM
"Apparently someone that takes it every day has a differing opinion than your "well know (sic)" fact"
f@#$ you dave.
Posted by: Return of Randolph at July 13, 2009 1:11 PM
"Can we hit the reset button and turn Williamsburg back over to the Polish, Slavs and Latinos in $500 per month apartments?"
can we make everything affordable in NYC so people won't be drawn to neighborhoods in Brooklyn close to Manhattan with affordable rents?
Posted by: dirty_hipster at July 13, 2009 1:12 PM
Sonmebody didn't get anything this weekend!!!!
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at July 13, 2009 1:13 PM
"Also, the Bedford Ave station isn't that busy during the morning rush - Lorimer and Graham are much busier stations."
Well, that does make the trains more packed by the time they get to Bedford, but I agree that the myths about the L are greatly exaggerated. Letting one train pass per week is about right (3 every time is indeed the 6). I really feel for people at 1st Ave though - there's never room for them!
Posted by: bjw2103 at July 13, 2009 1:13 PM
quote:
I have not been on the L in years. Is it still one of the filthiest subways?
the train itself no. the people a big YES!
but my train line the R, took the nod for the dirtiest line this. represent!
*rob*
Posted by: PitbullNYC at July 13, 2009 1:15 PM
"I really feel for people at 1st Ave though - there's never room for them!"
I sure don't - chances are they live in Stuyvesant Town and too lazy to walk to Union Square or haven't been in the city long enough to know the M14 bus exists.
Posted by: dirty_hipster at July 13, 2009 1:22 PM
I always puzzled at that and didn't feel sorry for them either. Its impossible to get on the morning L at 1st ave. So why not walk your lazy A over to Union Sq. where you can easily get on it.
Posted by: dittoburg at July 13, 2009 1:33 PM
They are "entitled" to better service if they live in Stuyvesant Town.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at July 13, 2009 1:35 PM
If you're going to move to an area of the east village only serviced by the L why not move to brooklyn?
Posted by: dirty_hipster at July 13, 2009 1:54 PM
cuz there's a giant river between the two? what kind of silly question is that.
*rob*
Posted by: PitbullNYC at July 13, 2009 1:56 PM
"cuz there's a giant river between the two? what kind of silly question is that."
i will think that to myself the next time the L goes express from Lorimer to Union Square while the L slinks past the people stuck on the 1st ave platform who pay 3x the rent I do, and will be late to work.
Posted by: dirty_hipster at July 13, 2009 2:08 PM
Recommend to all here as I do elsewhere, read "Contaigion" by John Talbott if you want a real picture of where this is all headed. A great read (if you dig economics I suppose) and an important reflection of where we've gone as a society.
Or reach the Detsche Bank Q2 2009 propert forecast highlighting the top 10 metropolitan areas in America. NY esta numero uno for pain to come, anticipating a 40% correction from current levels.
Posted by: MoneyForNothing at July 13, 2009 2:10 PM
Personal annecdote time:
My months long apartment search is finally over, and the winning neighborhood, surprising even myself, (and after looking pretty much everywhere including Manhattan) is Greenpoint. (Near McGorlick park)
The fam and I are now packing up for the move next week. We found a very nicely finished (the landlord used to live there) and good sized 2bed w/backyard on a non-butt ugly block with trees for $2k. Bonus: the zoned school is good!
My commute to work will now involve the B48 bus to the L train at Lorimer. I HopStoped it and did a test run- even with the transfer it's a shorter commute than sitting on the 2/3 for 45min as previous. Nice.
It will be weird leaving Prospect Heights after so many years, but cheaper apartment, good school, yard? Ok. I've avoided living on the Northside for years, but it's finally got me. So strange.
Posted by: ennuiater at July 13, 2009 2:11 PM
well i dont feel bad for them either. i dont think id ever EVER live next to certain subway lines knowing id have to commute during both hours. i DO NOT stand on a subway train. EVER.
*rob*
Posted by: PitbullNYC at July 13, 2009 2:12 PM
there so much nonsense here, hard to know where to start.
love that condo are owners are too stupid to get inspections. that's utter BS and complete speculation. would love to see the non-existent stats on that one. everyone gets inspections.
also think it's pretty funny that anyone would believe that 100 year only plus property has less upkeep maintenance dollars going out (not even counting renovations) than a brand new building where your common charges pay for someone else to deal with everything. i've owned 2 old buildings (both totally renovated even) and one brand new condo, and lemme tell you, the buildings had non-stop money spent on them for something or other. now, i don't do more than put a garbage bag in a bin whenever i need to. so, give me a break. new condos have new central A/C, washer dryers, new windows, new appliances and new kitchens and baths. they are surely much easier to deal with than an old building any day.
unrelated to WB or anywhere else, NYC has suffered over the years from not enough housing. hence, sky high prices in rentals and high purchase costs even prior to this latest boom. if this recession dries up building, we will see an even bigger housing craze down the road because of ongoing lack of supply. population ain't getting smaller, people are raising kids in the city instead of the burbs, and every hollywood actor and foreign rich guy wants an apartment in Manhattan. demand will again push prices up. don't know how soon but obviously coming.
there are NOT now 2000+ properties on the market in WB BTW. according to SE, there are 632. that's not a lot to get absorbed when the economy sorts itself out. even the NY mag article says 400 new apartments only really in WB. the rest is NY Mag re-stating the obvious a million years after Curbed covered the issue - of "what if everything gets built in WB including Domino", which is light years from beginning. If you don't include Domino, you don't get into the thousands as Domino itself is 2400 apartments. NY Mag is the worst -- always sensationalizing nonsense. WB has 3 big waterfront buildings - 1 is mostly sold and the other 2 aren't finished, but WB has a "Miami" problem. so stupid.
as an aside, i don't know how the developers messed up Warehouse 11. i checked it out and it's nice. good location, nice facility- gardens, playroom, doorman, nice units, great location (near park and subway) and parking! i hope that someone just buys it, finishes it and gets humans in there. it's almost done, so can't be too hard.
OH, yeah, the L rocks! i have never not gotten on, and the trains come constantly and they are automated and fast. Please stop pretending that the 10 minute'ish commute to manhattan on the L is worse than the forever and a day train ride from PS. Especially to midtown. it's an HOUR, and don't BS me - I lived there. it's the short commute that will continue to pull all sorts of people to WB. don't kid yourself, it's a huge selling factor.
Posted by: wine lover at July 13, 2009 2:13 PM
Welcome Ennulater - i ended up here in a very similar manner.
I love it up near McGolrick Park. I take the b48 frequently to get down to the J train, and it's typically on time.
Hope you enjoy the hood!
Posted by: dirty_hipster at July 13, 2009 2:16 PM
quote:
Please stop pretending that the 10 minute'ish commute to manhattan on the L is worse than the forever and a day train ride from PS
my train ride from 4th ave and union to prince and broadway in soho is 23 minutes! a nice relaxing commute because the R is never packed. the L is gross. it's clean, but gross.
*rob*
Posted by: PitbullNYC at July 13, 2009 2:24 PM
"as an aside, i don't know how the developers messed up Warehouse 11. i checked it out and it's nice. good location, nice facility- gardens, playroom, doorman, nice units, great location (near park and subway) and parking! i hope that someone just buys it, finishes it and gets humans in there. it's almost done, so can't be too hard."
Sorry Wine Lover - I disagree with you on Warehouse 11. I pass by this everyday. It got a lot of bad press initially for being on one of the most polluted areas in the boro (Roebling Oil Field) - on top of that, it's just not attractive, the apts are tiny and the location isn't that great either.
I peek in the model apt everyday walking home from Khim's and the finishes look better suited for rentals, not high end condos.
229 N8th and the Nfourth condos are better looking, cheaper and in better locations (oh and they are finished)
Posted by: dirty_hipster at July 13, 2009 2:26 PM
when was the last time you rode the L train Rob?
Actually - I think the demographic you are speaking of has shifted down to the J train in the morning - lots more dirty weirdos.
The L has a lot of business casual peeps in the morning rush. The freelance mafia doesn't start riding until 9:30am.
Posted by: dirty_hipster at July 13, 2009 2:32 PM
LOL @ the freelance mafia. so spot on.
definition of a "freelancer" in nyc. someone who is unemployed but doesnt dress like a bum.
*rob*
Posted by: PitbullNYC at July 13, 2009 2:35 PM
ennuiater, have you considered taking the Nassau Ave. G to cCourt sq, (7, E and V)?
Posted by: dittoburg at July 13, 2009 2:37 PM
I second the G to the E,V. When i worked in east midtown that was way faster then the L train.
Posted by: dirty_hipster at July 13, 2009 2:45 PM
"OH, yeah, the L rocks! i have never not gotten on, "
Your argument was going ok until you assasinated yourself as a reliable witness with this line.
Posted by: dittoburg at July 13, 2009 2:51 PM
I think the question is - when was the last time you were actually on the R train, Rob?
"my train ride from 4th ave and union to prince and broadway in soho is 23 minutes! a nice relaxing commute because the R is never packed."
I am the last person to claim subway overcrowding (cause except for the #6- it aint) BUT? the R is very often packed at rush hour.
Posted by: fsrg at July 13, 2009 2:51 PM
I believe Apts and Lofts and TDG is responsible for most of this mess. Those two firms guided unknowing developers down the roads of horrible design, layout and overall product. Thinking only of the potential commissions and not on the negative effect of the neighborhoods and communities that support them.
Posted by: bklynbricks at July 13, 2009 2:57 PM
quote:
the R is very often packed at rush hour.
well, i always do take the first car and ALWAYS get a seat, and sometimes coming back to brooklyn at 530 some cars are near empty. that has been my honest experience for the last year.
the best tho is when i can catch an M in the morning into manhattan, i just get out at canal and im always the ONLY one in a car by the time it gets there.
*rob*
Posted by: PitbullNYC at July 13, 2009 3:00 PM
"Your argument was going ok until you assasinated yourself as a reliable witness with this line."
Haha ditto - i've never heard anyone say ANY MTA train 'rocks'
Posted by: dirty_hipster at July 13, 2009 3:01 PM
The M as a great ride I'll give you but the R - sorry your traveling off peak or something - its fine (if often slow and bunched up) but certainly nothing to brag about.
Posted by: fsrg at July 13, 2009 3:03 PM
exactly!
Posted by: dittoburg at July 13, 2009 3:09 PM
how am i travelling off peak? in the winter i go on around 8 and in the summer 830 and on the way back from soho it's always 530. then again im not there are that many 9-5ish people in park slope.
*rob*
Posted by: PitbullNYC at July 13, 2009 3:35 PM
8 is offpeak sorta - it seems all subways are busiest btw 8:30 - 8:45
Posted by: dirty_hipster at July 13, 2009 3:38 PM
youre probably right dipster. i do tend to like to leave earlier in the winter when school is out to avoid the kinds of people who leave their house last minute to get to work. people who do that add a lot of unnecessary stress to their lives and take years off their lives. people should just leave 20 minutes ealier. tho i guess if everyone did it would mean id have to leave 40 minutes earlier. nevermind.
ugh i miss the old days of living like a 10 minute walk away from here where i could watch the first 20 minutes of jerry springer in the morning :(
*rob*
Posted by: PitbullNYC at July 13, 2009 3:56 PM
http://gothamist.com/2009/07/13/cardboard_tube_war_ravages_mccarren.php
I retract anything positive I've previously said about Williamsburg (lol)
Posted by: dirty_hipster at July 13, 2009 4:06 PM
I wonder whether wburg will be a 'better' neighborhood if and when the economy comes surging back. I was walking around SOHO the other day and thinking about the course of gentrification in various NYC neighborhoods. It occurred to me that no matter how gentrified/boring (to some)/homogenous SOHO, WVillage, Tribeca are they still are filled with historically significant, gorgeous (to most) architecture. A similar thing could be said about most, if not all of, brownstone Brooklyn. (And places like Chelsea and Madison Square Park are attracting some of the best new architecture in NYC even where they lacked much great prewar housing stock.)
By contrast, what's the best case for most of Wburg? That its unattractive blocks become increasingly occupied by new condos and the relatively few historic blocks retain their character? In this case, unlike neighborhoods whose buildings are re-used in the process of gentrification, Wburg will both be socially AND architecturally transformed for better or for worse. Moreover, Wburg, even at the height of the boom, attracted the Scaranos, Fischers and Kaufmans of the architecture world, not the Koolhaas' and the Tschumis. Maybe tastes will change and NV and Sevenberry will be seen as architectural masterpieces in years to come... But it seems likely that in this supposed best case, Wburg will settle into an awkward position where it doesn't have the cache or affordability to attract a young, artistic crowd and it doesn't have the singular architectural beauty to attract a wealthier crowd who can also afford DUMBO or BHeights, if not SOHO and the West Village. This makes me worry a little whether the best future of Wburg is an entire neighborhood that has the feel of SEA on a Friday or Saturday night - if you've been there you know what I mean - a sort of air of aspirational wealth that wants to be but isn't quite luxury but has lost all other cultural cache beyond this vague sense of striving to be like something wealthier, more exclusive in downtown NYC.
Posted by: perhaps at July 13, 2009 5:11 PM
First it was just CA, AZ, NV and FL. Now it's just Billyburg.
***Bid half off peak comps***
Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at July 13, 2009 5:21 PM
Perhaps - so the success of a neighborhood depends on the quality of it's architecture and ability to attract wealthy buyers?
I think alot of people would agree that's what has ruined all of the manhattan neighborhoods you mentioned (if not all of them)
Many other neighborhoods in Downtown Manhattan have drawn wealthy buyers without having great architecture (East Village, LES, Nolita)
And using SEA on a friday/saturday night as a barometer for the pretentiousness of a whole neighborhood is funny.
Posted by: dirty_hipster at July 13, 2009 5:42 PM
dirty hipster -
i think you slightly misunderstand me. yes, attracting wealthy buyers has absolutely impacted neighborhoods like SOHO, WVillage, Tribeca etc in ways that many (including me) would consider negative. (i mentioned some of those ways in my comment.) my point is that despite this - i still enjoy a stroll around these neighborhoods, i still enjoy dropping by them, they remain attractive despite their extreme homogenous wealth. Wburg has been, and in some small spots remains, an enjoyable neighborhood precisely because it was a place that allowed people to live and start businesses and form communities without being incredibly wealthy. however, during the economic boom I think developers extracted a lot of value from Wburg's community without laying the groundwork for a more sustainable, long term, thriving neighborhood.
if the economic tsunami passes and the development train rolls on, if wburg does not simply ungentrify - (which I don't think, long term, it will) what is really likely to happen? i fear/expect wburg will not return to an interesting, affordable, creative community and neither will it become some sought after and very exclusive community. because it will neither be affordable nor particularly unique (since it was the community that made it unique, rather than the architecture or geography) so, it might just become a kind of middlebrow neighborhood with a slight aura of past 'coolness','newness'. (and, i don't think EV, LES or Nolita are exactly filled with beautiful architecture - but they have two things that wburg does not have - 1. they are on manhattan 2. they have far less open tracts of formerly indsutrial land lying empty for new condos.)
(btw, I would love, love a kind of utopian, new, blossoming of a youthful, berlin-esque wburg filled with artists, musicians, etc able to live and work in NYC in an accessible community - i don't see how that's going to happen)
(also, look there are plenty of places i like in Wburg still. i don't think all (or even most) of Wburg is like SEA, but I can imagine a future in which much of it is. )
Posted by: perhaps at July 13, 2009 6:23 PM
Apart from for developers and buyers at the height of the market, what's currently happening in W'burg is not bad news. The pace of development was trying to force change too quickly. Williamsburg is a post-industrial, hipster-infused, butt-ugly neighbourhood. That's what I like about it.
Also the schadenfreude of Brownstown Brooklynites above is something to behold. If anyone thinks w'burg's falling prices won't affect other parts of BK, they're in for a nasty surprise.
Posted by: eastriverman at July 13, 2009 8:27 PM
Latest Restaurant Additions
-
Piattini Ristorante
added November 23, 2009 12:00 PM in Bay Ridge -
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
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.