« Open Thread Brownstoner Directory Launches »

October 7, 2009

Prices Drop at the Oro Tower

The Oro, a condominium tower in Downtown that reached completion as the real estate boom went bust, is now cutting its prices by up to 25 percent to boost sales. Since the building's marketing campaign launched two years ago, only 90 out of the 374 units have closed, reports Crain's. The publication lists a studio's current price as $295,000, while another three-bedroom goes for over $1 million, and Street Easy has an active one-bedroom listed for $539,000; you can see all of the listings here. What's interesting is that in the Crain's article the developer says that he has no interest in converting the empty units to rentals, as other buildings have done to remain afloat. "Oro has always been a condo building and we intend to keep it that way," he said. Nevertheless, there are two active rental listings on Street Easy, a studio for $1,800 per month and a one-bedroom for $2,850, suggesting that a couple of the original buyers are feeling a little more open-minded on the rental question.
Condo Prices Slashed 25% at Big Brooklyn Tower [Crain's] GMAP
Work Resuming at Oro Part Deux? [Brownstoner]
Oro at 306 Gold Street [StreetEasy]

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/11773

Comments

Looking at the picture I'm thinking "Oro has always been an office building and we intend to keep it that way,"

Posted by: dittoburg at October 7, 2009 9:35 AM

why do people hate on that building so much? i dont think it's bad looking at all. it looks very solid and it's not that glassy. not a fan at all of the sand colored parts of it. wish it was black or grey or even green

*rob*

Posted by: Butterfly at October 7, 2009 9:39 AM

I think even if they slashed prices another 25%, these apartments ain't gonna sell. Prices seem very high.

Here's a link to units available.
http://rosenyc.com/For-Sale-Apartments/Oro.aspx

Posted by: brownjokester at October 7, 2009 9:40 AM

location, location, location

Posted by: DeLepp at October 7, 2009 9:41 AM

any condo building is going to have apts for rent. That is why some people buy condos rather than coops so they can rent them out.

Posted by: Petebklyn at October 7, 2009 9:44 AM

nice one, B. Keep 'em coming. I like how you got the top of the housing projects peeking up in the bottom of the picture.

Posted by: joe_the_bummer at October 7, 2009 9:45 AM

It'd make a nice hotel.

Posted by: dittoburg at October 7, 2009 9:46 AM

I'll hold out for the famous / infamous 50% off.

location is going to be pretty good (not great; but tons better than way it is now) soon - ie both developers and gov got in too deep to pull out now (ie has to improve streetscape as hyped).

Posted by: more4less at October 7, 2009 9:49 AM

all the Flatbush ave towers have become failures except Toren now? Is it really that bad living on Flatbush? I dont see what can be that bad

Posted by: bitter_bubble_buyer at October 7, 2009 9:55 AM

"developer says that he has no interest in converting the empty units to rentals"

Not while he's trying to sell a bank unhappy inventory of 75%. But some things in life are just inevitable.

11217/DIBS! Where are you? You said the vacancy rate went from 3% to 2.9%. But rental inventory is rising behind the damn. Remember Superman 1 with Christopher Reeve?

***Bill Thompson For Mayor***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at October 7, 2009 9:58 AM

It's not location. It's timing.

***Bill Thompson For Mayor***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at October 7, 2009 10:00 AM

hey, BHO, If you are really for Bill Thompson would be more helpful to his campaign if kept it to yourself. Otherwise you'll push people to vote for that other guy.

Posted by: Petebklyn at October 7, 2009 10:04 AM

"Thompson for Mayor" - that just triggers thoughts of pro baseball when experts were saying that "it just aint attracting the top self talents"

Posted by: more4less at October 7, 2009 10:08 AM

if Bill Thompson became mayor it would be brownstones 70 percent off. Thats for sure

Posted by: bitter_bubble_buyer at October 7, 2009 10:15 AM

I'm voting for Bill Thompson because I am so disgusted by the Bloomberg campaign, as detailed in a recent New Yorker article -- hiring all available professional campaign consultants, even though they're not needed, just so they can't work for anyone else; continuing to try to destroy Anthony Weiner, even though he's not running any more; etc., etc.

And then there's the incessant parade of Bloomberg campaign literature showing up in my mailbox, and endless campaign telephone calls.

For Christ's sake, Bloomberg has already spent $65 million on the campaign, to Thompson's 3.8.

It's a serious distortion of democracy.

Posted by: southbrooklyn at October 7, 2009 10:27 AM

cutting off your nose to spite your face?

Posted by: dittoburg at October 7, 2009 10:30 AM

if Bill Thompson became mayor it would be brownstones 70 percent off. Thats for sure

Posted by: bitter_bubble_buyer at October 7, 2009 10:15 AM

guess I need to get the man into office then

Posted by: more4less at October 7, 2009 10:33 AM

***Bill Thompson For Mayor***

Posted by: joe_the_bummer at October 7, 2009 10:36 AM

"I'm voting for Bill Thompson because I am so disgusted...."

You are not voting for Bill Thompson you are not VOTING AGAINST Bloomberg. How anyone think BT is better for NYC now or better qualified than MB is just beyond silly.

Posted by: crimsonson at October 7, 2009 10:40 AM

I just want to know why it is so hard to give the dang details on a condo's website. Price, square footage, maintenance. Why is one of those always buried?

Posted by: serpentor at October 7, 2009 10:45 AM

if someone can deliver "brownstones 70 percent off", I'm voting for that dude/gal

Posted by: more4less at October 7, 2009 10:45 AM

"It's a serious distortion of democracy"

How may I ask?

Bloomberg spent his whole life (up till 2000) working in business, he amassed his money legally, and now he is using the product of his life work ($) to advance his political aspirations?

Bill Thompson has spent his whole life working in politics, he has amassed political connections through his work. He is now using this product (political connections) to advance his political aspirations.

Whats the difference? why is it ok for Thompson to use the connections and relationships he has (while working for the people I might add), but it is not okay for Bloomberg to use his money?

Posted by: fsrg at October 7, 2009 10:50 AM

I see Bill Thompson as kind of an empty suit. He would be eaten for lunch by everyone from the teachers' union to the real estate board.

Posted by: Minard Lafever at October 7, 2009 11:00 AM

Oh, wow, fsrq, if you are unconcerned about how money distorts democracy, you really haven't been paying attention.

How campaigns are financed is the single biggest issue facing American democracy.

On the specific local situation, do you think it's healthy to have a mayor whom no one dares criticize because he is extremely rich and powerful, and because so rich, will continue to be very powerful after he is no longer mayor?

On the broader question of money and democracy, have you noticed that Congress is a bought and paid for subsidiary of corporate America? Ever taken a look at the Medicare Part D legislation? Big pharma bought themselves a real nice piece of real estate right there. Wait until health care "reform" passes -- you'll see some gigantic bennies for the insurance industry there.

Democrats, Republicans -- they won't be different enough until we truly reform campaign finance.

Posted by: southbrooklyn at October 7, 2009 11:05 AM

"have a mayor whom no one dares criticize"

Eh?

Posted by: dittoburg at October 7, 2009 11:06 AM

No no, you are mixing the issues (and your point)

You said BLOOMBERGS spending has distorted democracy, Bloomberg is running a self-financed campaign - this is practically the OPPOSITE of Congress being "bought and paid for" and the giveaways in legislation such as Medicare Part D.
The issues raised their is quid-pro-quo or "pay-to-play" (of which Bill Thompson has much to be ashamed of -if not indicted for), ie. the allegation is - we (big money interest) finance your campaign and then when you get into office, you give back to us.

Bloomberg's spending is NOTHING like that.

So I ask you again....How is Bloomberg spending his capital (in this case $) to further his political aspirations any different from Thompson spending his capital (in this case political connections and relationships) to further his?

Posted by: fsrg at October 7, 2009 11:15 AM

I think the logic goes the other way. the weathier a public servant is, the harder it is to bribe him. you think bloomberg cares about $10K in an unmarked envelope from a developer? nope. but you've got wise-guys in the DOB scamming as hard as they can to get their income up from 40K to 90K. You WANT the rich guy running the city.

anyway -- back to the point. streeteasy shows 750/ft for the listings in the Oro. 25% sold in 2 years? how can these experts not see the meier building selling for 600/foot? they must have patient bankers.

Posted by: joe_the_bummer at October 7, 2009 11:19 AM

To be a good mayor of NYC one needs to be a semi-tyrant.
This isn't a little town in the country where you can build concensus around lunch at the local diner.
The best thing about Bloomberg is that he is beholding to no one and the worst thing is that he is beholding to no one.

Posted by: Minard Lafever at October 7, 2009 11:24 AM

"How campaigns are financed is the single biggest issue facing American democracy."

Wha?

I can think of about 100 other things more important to our democracy than campaign finance reform.

Posted by: 11217 at October 7, 2009 11:27 AM

Look what I done started...

***Bill Thompson For Mayor***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at October 7, 2009 11:28 AM

I basically agree with Minard's post at 11:24.

GASP! :)

Posted by: 11217 at October 7, 2009 11:30 AM

"You are not voting for Bill Thompson you are not VOTING AGAINST Bloomberg."

Yeah, that's right. Bloomberg has done a good job in many areas. But he showed his true colors when he hijacked the democracy to make himself mayor again. That pissed me off. I vote, and I'm voting for Thompson. End of story.

Posted by: East New York at October 7, 2009 11:41 AM

Reasons for why we don't want the super rich to run the governemnt are glaringly obvious (although of course the way campaigns are financed means that many politicians, especially national politicians, are quite wealthy0. The idea that the only way to have a non-corrupt government is to have it run by the super-rich is really weird to me.

100 other things more important to democracy than campaign finance? Care to list them? Politicians spend most of their time raising money to run for re-election. If you think they are not beholden to their big contributors and that they don't base their voting decisions accordingly, you are either naive or stupid.

I agree completely with Minard, that both the best and worst thing about Bloomberg is that he is not beholden to anyone.

Politicians should be beholden to the common good, as represented by the majority of voters. But because of the way money distorts our democracy, they aren't.

Posted by: southbrooklyn at October 7, 2009 11:41 AM

"You are not voting for Bill Thompson you are not VOTING AGAINST Bloomberg."

Posted by: East New York at October 7, 2009 11:42 AM

And also -- it seems really obvious to me that the astronomical cost of political campaigns, driven by the bidding up of the cost of buying a politician, is a serious problem, and relates BOTH to how Congress is paid off AND to the huge sums of personal money Bloomberg is spending to crush every rival and even potential rival.

It's a sad thing that our broken system of campaign finance has people cheering when the uber-wealthy buy political offices! Sad that the national political parties specifically recruit really rich people who can finance their own campaigns.

Posted by: southbrooklyn at October 7, 2009 11:49 AM

Great East New York - another Dinkins - hallow and spineless mayor that will be pushed around by every union, protesters, developers, business groups, city council, etc during one of the worst economic times of the city history. Makes perfect sense.

Hijacked Democracy? If anything he is the product of democracy - self made. I rather vote for a ambitious arrogant prick than a spineless worthless weasel like Dinkins and Thompson. Thompson could not run the school let alone THE city.

Posted by: crimsonson at October 7, 2009 11:56 AM

"Hijacked Democracy?"

Yeah, that's right. You can give him a pass if you'd like. Not everyone will. See you on Election Day.

http://bit.ly/gt7vn

http://bit.ly/ODpUC

Posted by: East New York at October 7, 2009 12:02 PM

southbrooklyn -
AM I not asking a legitimate question??? I am trying to engage you in a reasonable discussion yet you just ignore the issue (why?), I know you want to discuss $ in politics "in general" and we might agree on its corrupting influences "in general" but I am trying to discuss a SPECIFIC issue which is...

How is Bloomberg spending his capital (in this case $) to further his political aspirations any different (or worse) from Thompson spending his capital (in this case political connections and relationships) to further his?

Posted by: fsrg at October 7, 2009 12:04 PM

fsrq, not sure why you are harping on this question that you think is so brilliant -- I don't understand the equivalency you are making. Do you monetize all your relationships? But okay, here goes.

Let's just say for the sake of argument that Bill Thompson has spent a career working hard in public service and in the course of that work has built up many relationships with many people who now know and trust him to do the right thing. Thus, they are eager to see him elected mayor and work hard for him.

Seems pretty different to me from buying an election.

If you are saying that Thompson uses political connections to make FINANCIAL promises then you are talking about corruption.

In arguing against a campaign system that encourages rich people to buy political office, I am in no way endorsing political corruption.

Posted by: southbrooklyn at October 7, 2009 12:14 PM

The equivlency is that - people gave/invested (ALOT) money with Bloomberg because they saw him as a good manager and someone whom they could trust....

you seem to be ignoring the fact that Bloomberg EARNED the money, just like Thompson earned union support or the backing of party officials.
Its not a question of "monetizing" relationships (these relationships are hardly "personal" in the conventional sense anyway), its a question of what measurement of success, credibility or power you use.

In politics you dont (or at least shouldnt) measure 'success' by dollars, you measure it by support/endorsements. In business you measure 'success' by dollars. Both are "capital" just one is money and the other is political and I dont see why spending one is ok and the other is not.

Or put another way, if Randi Weingarden was running for Mayor, would it be wrong for the teachers to campaign for her and man phone banks (or give $)

Posted by: fsrg at October 7, 2009 12:24 PM

southbrooklyn, what are those "obvious reasons" that we're not supposed to want a rich guy in power? I'm not suggesting a House of Lords here, come on. Even if you don't like some of the things Bloomberg does, why do you question his motives? Do you think he is in office to make his friends rich? That's one I hear a lot about Corzine, Paulson, etc. If he wanted to make them rich, he could literally write them a check. He owns the entire city budget deficit 6 times over.

So why did he want to become mayor? I mean, he doesn't scream "raw ambition" to me the way, say, Spitzer did. Does he to you? Is he such an ego maniac that he has to be in the public eye? No, of course not, he was actually a rather private businessman. If there is any ulterior motive, maybe he wants to run for president. otherwise why would he subject himself to NYC politics? Except one thing: maybe he actually wants to make a difference in the city and truly thinks he's the best man for the job. So he wants to win the race, big deal. Give him the benefit of the doubt.

Posted by: joe_the_bummer at October 7, 2009 12:31 PM

wow still 750 a foot. think they'll sell?

Posted by: joe_the_bummer at October 7, 2009 12:35 PM

I am really torn on the mayoral issue. There's a lot I like about Bloomberg and think he's done well, and a lot I don't. The term limits thing pissed me off, like ENY. For that reason I think he has been screaming raw ambition. People in power want to stay there. Thompson I really don't know that much about and I need to do more research. One ting I do know- whomever we put in office is going to have to be strong, not weak or wishy washy. If we could only meld the two candidates :-)

Posted by: bxgrl at October 7, 2009 12:47 PM

you have to take another 10% off of Oro prices for the stupid name. If the boom had lasted another year, we'd be watching "The Dinero" go up. Two years and we'd be evaluating floor plans in the "The Check it, Homey".

Posted by: joe_the_bummer at October 7, 2009 1:10 PM

In the interest of trying to complete construction projects before the r/e bust, I'm wondering how much attention was paid to structural safety and the overall quality of such construction. Some of these places went up pretty fast..hmmm.

Posted by: The Who at October 7, 2009 1:24 PM

I wonder too, but construction techniques today seem more streamlined. Although considering the Empire State Building went up in a little over a year, the old fashioned way, I have to wonder why with even the latest construction techniques and materials we take far longer and do it not as well.

Posted by: bxgrl at October 7, 2009 1:27 PM

If Guiliani hadn't forced his way into a third term after 9/11 NYC would have been obliterated by a nuke by now ...

Posted by: LilBitOfLuck at October 7, 2009 1:40 PM

"If Guiliani hadn't forced his way into a third term after 9/11 NYC would have been obliterated by a nuke by now ..."

That's what he'd want you to believe anyway. If I recall correctly, he certainly didn't do anything to prevent 9/11 from occurring.

Posted by: East New York at October 7, 2009 1:58 PM

lbol, nonsense. you can still pack a small plane full of explosives in teterboro and fly it down the hudson, free of air traffic control. you can also ship most of the population of afghanistan into new jersey's ports uninspected. But try to bring a diet coke on a 747. no mayor or anyone else has done anything meaningful to make us more secure.

Posted by: joe_the_bummer at October 7, 2009 1:58 PM

even after the corruption that was exposed in the DOB, I'm not really worried about safety in those buildings as much as repair cost. They're not falling over. You worry about them starting to lean a degree or two because of the pilings not going deep enough into the ground. then everyone has to pay to fix it

Posted by: joe_the_bummer at October 7, 2009 2:04 PM

bxgirl - I hear variations on that question all the time? The Empire State Building went up so fast - why does modern construction take so long? There are alot of very good reasons for that, but I'd like to focus on one - safety. Building a skyscraper today means you have to follow a ton of regulations to keep all the workers safe. One thing people don't like to talk about is that 6 people died during the construction of the empire state building - none died during the construction of oro. I'm sure you agree that you'd rather construction lasted a couple of months longer if it makes the work site safer for everyone.

Posted by: bkre at October 7, 2009 2:19 PM

"no mayor or anyone else has done anything meaningful to make us more secure." - [from terrorism]

Maybe not, but there is alot a mayor could have done to make us LESS secure, and considering Thompson has already said he would fire Ray Kelly, I think it is a pretty good bet that Thompson would fall into that category.

Posted by: fsrg at October 7, 2009 2:27 PM

bkre- Of course I agree re safety but you also have to be in awe of the fact that only 6 people died because they were working without the safety equipment used today. Or the safety regulations. And the Oro is a much smaller building. So yes, you're right about safety. But it also seems to me that all things considered, the safety record for the Empire State Building is still an amazing one.

Posted by: bxgrl at October 7, 2009 2:28 PM

fsrg- did he really? If anyone is qualified to keep NYC safe, it is Ray Kelly. Why would Thompson want to fire him?

Posted by: bxgrl at October 7, 2009 2:30 PM

Yes was asked directly during the primary debate and he said he would replace him.

"Why would Thompson want to fire him?"

near as I can tell - he's an idiot.

Posted by: fsrg at October 7, 2009 2:37 PM

Bxgrl - a citation:

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/brawlforthehall/nydn?tag=Ray+Kellx

Posted by: fsrg at October 7, 2009 2:42 PM

I can't even imagine who he thinks could possibly replace Kelly- honestly. Even in Washington, they listened to Kelly because he was the guy with real first hand experience with a major terrorist attack. Oklahoma City was terrible but 9-11 made it look like a cakewalk (no insult intended - just comparing scope). Kelly did an amazing job. The less said about Kerik, as far as I'm concerned, the better.

Posted by: bxgrl at October 7, 2009 2:46 PM

"I can't even imagine who he thinks could possibly replace Kelly"

Maybe he'll bring Ben Ward back from the dead

Posted by: fsrg at October 7, 2009 2:53 PM

Very interesting fsrg. Patterson better than Spitzer? I don't think we ever got the chance to find out but except for his unfortunate personal issues, I think Spitzer would have been far better. As it is Avella won't make a dent. Nor do I think Thompson has any great chance. The Kelly thing is a deal killer for me, because I saw first hand Kelly's abilities and this city needs them.

Posted by: bxgrl at October 7, 2009 2:53 PM

fsrg- LOL! That's about as appealing as putting Marty Markowitz in the position.... hmmm- maybe more appealing. :-)

Posted by: bxgrl at October 7, 2009 2:59 PM

"unfortunate personal issues"

Well yes, but lets not forget that he was headed in a very bad direction - the whole Trooper Gate thing was actually pretty disgusting and the coverup may have even been criminal.

Posted by: fsrg at October 7, 2009 3:00 PM

Yes- true. NYS is given the choice of a sleaze bag and an incompetent. Makes it hard to pick the lesser of 2 evils

Posted by: bxgrl at October 7, 2009 3:06 PM

FSRG;

Given the choice between Paterson and Spitzer,I would take the latter any day of the week, for two simple reasons:

a) like Bloomberg, he is indepedently wealthy. Hence, unlike the typical Albany pol, his first thought of the day was not "who can I shake down today?"

b) He was a pit bull, which is exactly what Albany needs.

We'll never know, but that is my sense.

Posted by: benson at October 7, 2009 3:12 PM

"Was David Dinkins a better mayor than Rudy Giuliani?" Both YES
"Should he run, will you endorse David Paterson for governor next year?" Avella (after much hemming and hawing) NO in primary, YES in general; Thompson YES in both

"Is David Paterson a better governor than Eliot Spitzer?" Both YES
"Have you ever voted for someone who was not a Democrat?" Avella YES, Thompson NO

Thompson is a Democratic drone. Get some freaking balls and spine Thompson.

And I HATE Giuliani.

Posted by: crimsonson at October 7, 2009 3:18 PM

I never hated Dinkins and I thought he never got a break. That said, Guiliani was more effective at getting what he wanted. That doesn't necessarily mean I think he was a good mayor- couldn't stand him. Bloomberg has been an effective mayor, and even I can admit, overall he has been a good one. I don't like everything he's done by a long shot. I think he's arrogant and doesn't even think about people who aren't in his income bracket but his businesslike approach to running the city was a breath of fresh air after the take no prisoners reign of Giuiliani.

Posted by: bxgrl at October 7, 2009 3:39 PM

"Bloomberg has been an effective mayor, and even I can admit, overall he has been a good one"

Considering how rare it is to have a good/effective public official - shouldnt that end the debate right there?

Posted by: fsrg at October 7, 2009 3:58 PM

fsrg- wouldn't that be too easy? I don't think my heart could stand the shock. :-)

Posted by: bxgrl at October 7, 2009 4:02 PM

I can't believe such a nice opportunity to pee all over the brooklyn condo market has been wasted. Mayor shmayor. mutant asset bubble. asshats. come on people...

Posted by: joe_the_bummer at October 7, 2009 4:05 PM

Southbrooklyn- right on! Bloomberg is an egomaniac with Robert Moses aspirations. He has improvidently spent billions of dollars on bad projects (new stadia, outrageous public leases, etc.) while nickeling and diming the working people of the city. He believes no one has the right to criticize him and, sadly, the media and the Democratic party have let him get away with it. Need I remind all of you lemmings that Bloomberg swept American citizens off the streets during the Republican convention without legal cause and detained them for days in unsafe conditions. How can anyone endorse that kind of behavior?

Posted by: orestes at October 7, 2009 4:09 PM

nobody is indispensible.

Posted by: Petebklyn at October 7, 2009 4:12 PM

"Bloomberg is an egomaniac with Robert Moses aspirations. "

Well, there's yet another reason to vote for him. This town sorely needs another RM. Great public works have come to a standstill in the past generation.

Posted by: benson at October 7, 2009 4:13 PM

Benson- I suggest you read the Moses biography, The Power Broker. Aside from educating you about Moses, it's also a great read. For my money, the last thing any city needs is another Robert Moses.

Posted by: orestes at October 7, 2009 4:26 PM

Orestes;

I have read "The Power Broker". In fact, I re-read it last year. In my mind, it's just a hatchet job on a great man.

The book is written in a complete vacuum. Never once does he put Moses in the context of his era. For instance, it never discusses the Interstate Highway Act and its effect on ALL cities of that era. Likewise, it treats the Title 1 program in a complete vacuum.

Caro never suggests what SHOULD have been done as an alternative. Finally, the tile is laughable. To suggest that Robert Moses was singularly responsible for the fall of NY is ridiculous, just on the face of it.

Posted by: benson at October 7, 2009 4:33 PM

Sorry Joe :(

Posted by: bxgrl at October 7, 2009 4:41 PM

OK, Benson. I don't have the complaints that you do about the book. I did not approach it with any preconception about Moses, but walked away with the view that he was a contemptible human being and a worse public servant. When I finished reading the book, I wanted to start a campaign to remove Moses' name from every public project it adorns. But then I figured in another twenty years no one will remember him and things will get renamed for a minor celebrity or something. I haven't heard any similar criticisms about the book. It is generally held in high regard. I will have to look for some negative reviews to see what was unfair in the book.

Posted by: orestes at October 7, 2009 4:44 PM

I thought John Lyndsay was responsible for the fall of NY?

Posted by: dittoburg at October 7, 2009 4:46 PM

Orestes;

I suggest that you do more research on the topic. Last year there was a whole retrospective done on RM, including a symposium and three exhibits. I went to one of the exhibits (at the Museum of the City of NY) and it was PACKED.

If you want to read about this re-appraisal, look for a book edited two years ago by Kenneth Jackson, who is a professor of NYC history at Columbia Univ.

Posted by: benson at October 7, 2009 4:47 PM

Ditto;

Now you're talking!

Posted by: benson at October 7, 2009 4:48 PM

"Bloomberg is an egomaniac...."

Of course he is - you know what kind of balls (and psychosis) it takes to run this city (or a multi-billion dollar company)???
Every politician (except maybe Lincoln) is/was an ego-maniac, its a pre-requisite.

As to RM - I seem to recall that even Caro has said that people view his book as being overly negative against RM and that his view is not so one-sided (or something like that)

Posted by: fsrg at October 7, 2009 4:54 PM

egomaniac is ok...great visionary is good (altho I don't think Bloomberg qualifies)....
but what is not forgiveable is big slap in face to democracy which the overturning of term limits was
(even tho I didn't vote for it to begin with).
I won't get past that.

Posted by: Petebklyn at October 7, 2009 5:04 PM

"But then I figured in another twenty years no one will remember him and things will get renamed for a minor celebrity or something. "

I for one can't wait till they rename it "Paris Hilton State Park" and wipe Robert Moses off the map.

Posted by: bkre at October 7, 2009 5:22 PM

Pete- that really bothers me too. I am just trying to weigh everyone's good and bad points and make a decision based on who I believe will do the best job for us. None of them thrill me. At all.

Posted by: bxgrl at October 7, 2009 5:40 PM

« Open Thread Brownstoner Directory Launches »

October 7, 2009

Prices Drop at the Oro Tower

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions