Brownstone Brooklyn v. Harlem

You should visit them both.

I think you will find the differences pretty apparent.

The only reason I could imagine going to Harlem over Browstone Brooklyn would be if you have a thing about staying in Manhattan.

Otherwise, I would say the quality of life in most Brownstone Brooklyn neighborhoods is light years ahead of that in Harlem.

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 12:02 PM

I think townhouses in Harlem are more expensive. You are closer to Central Park (major bonus in my view). Another big bonus is that if you have a 2nd home in the country, it's MUCH easier to get out of town! I would also imagine that Harlem is more diverse - obviously racially, but also in terms of ages, life circumstances etc. Brownstone Brooklyn (where I live) seems dominated by people in their 30s with young children, which can get pretty dull...

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 1:10 PM

Harlem goes block by block. One block is nice, and you turn the corner and it looks like you're in Iraq.

Park Slope, Ft. Greene, Cobble Hill, Brooklyn Heights are quite lovely neighborhoods as a whole.

And they feel much more neighborhood-y than Harlem in my opinion.

I don't find Harlem all that diverse either. I would say less so than Brownstone Brooklyn.

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 1:19 PM

True about block-by-block comment. It even happens on the same block. There are boarded-up buildings next to seemingly well-maintained homes. Houses are also more expensive in general; I guess you're paying for the "Harlem" cache and also Manhattan location. And while brokers and a handful of hi-end transactions might signal speedy gentrification, it doesn't appear as widespread as you might think.

See link to this (silly) blog where I think the comments section in the following post says a lot:
http://bagelinharlem.blogspot.com/2006/03/harlem-divide_24.html

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 1:30 PM

I sold my brownstone in Park Slope but wnated to still have space and money in the bank. The only area I found that is both reasonably priced and still safe is Washington Heighs (I am on 157th St.) I passed on Harlem because the areas that I felt comfortable in already seemed overpriced. Many of the beautiful properties have already been pillaged by developers and much of the detail and beauty has been destroyed. There is no question Harlem (particularly in the low 100's) has more services but I still think Washington Heights will prove to be have more significant appreciation and be a better store of value because you can buy a run down townhouse or apartment at a reasonable cost and restore it to your taste. The labour pool is excellent and cheap. And, I will just come out and say it even though I am likely to be flamed: though Domincans are accused of playing loud music (which I have not found to be true outside of a few feast days in the summer)...they are, in believe, much more accepting of gentrification and the professional White/Asian/Black newcomers than the hard core Harlem residents are.

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 1:36 PM

Seems like there's more than a little resentment against white people in harlem if the link above is anything to go by:

"Just wait until the summer when all of these "brand new" condo developments that the current residents cant afford at 800K a pop, start taking occupancy and you lilly white folks stroll down lenox in your prada shoes and baby carriages, I can guarantee there will be blood in the streets, from people who have been here for years, with NO job opportunities, sub-par stores and eateries, left neglected, but have learned to develop a tight night community that is Harlem. And No, you aren't welcome, and thats just my opinion."

It's a shame that the color of someone's skin still manages to be divisive -- whether it be white, black, pink or green. I've lived in brownstone brooklyn for 7 years (Carrol Gardens -- I'm white and my wife is black) and I'm glad to say that neither of us has had the displesure of experiencing racism. Hopefully the person who posted the note above is in a small minority, otherwise I would purchase in Brooklyn.

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 1:45 PM

I agree with 1:36.

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 1:45 PM

problem is 1:36...you don't find many of the really beautiful architectural brownstone gems in washington heights as in harlem or brownstone brooklyn.

that seems to be what the OP is after.

harlem is way overpriced for what it is as this point in time.

if you've got 2 million to spend on a home, you can get about the same in harlem in the 120's as you can in prime park slope.

park slope is, by almost all accounts a "better" neighborhood, but you are paying for a manhattan location in that harlem pricetag.

that's about it.

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 1:46 PM

1:46: that is not untrue. Come look. Along Riverside Dr. and west of Broadway there are beautiful Limestone townhouses. I am sitting in one right now. There is a row down the block of them.

On 161st St, off Broadway I own a rental property. Fireplaces in one line of units, 9.5 foot ceilings, original detail. In terms of apartments, many tend to be the classic 6 or 8 in orientation. Go to Corcoran and you can see the wood detail, ceiling heights and whatever else you find to be a meaningful definition of a Brownstone. I loved Park Slope but there was no way I could continue to do the subways once I had children to ferry around. So, I agree..all things being equal I would love to live there. But who can pass up making a lot of money off a Brownstone you've owned for over ten years and buying an equally large place, on the island, and still having much of your profit left over?

1:45 - that is a lovely sentiment and I agree race should not be divisive. I have not found it to be so in Washington Heights. That's just my experience. And I am not a stranger to ethnic areas: I lived in Park Slope WELL before it took the turn upward.

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 2:00 PM

Think 1:46 nailed it pretty good. Harlem does have great houses, but there aren't many left that haven't been snatched up or are in some sort of SRO limbo. But if you like/want to be in Manhattan, it's a plus. it is changing quickly, maybe too quickly for my taste, and in 10 years it'll be closer in character to Murray Hill than "Iraq," as one poster said. IMO, I much prefer Brooklyn at this point in time.

Another area you might consider that still has brownstones is Hamilton Heights. The blocks along Riverside between 140th and 160th have some gems.

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 2:00 PM

Not sure why you would be less subway dependent in Washington Heights than Park Slope... not that I am a PS fan mind you, just curious about that as your reasoning.

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 2:14 PM

I guess because I have the 1/A/C right outside my door and they run so regularly. When I lived in PS, I spent far too much time on platforms waiting for trains. When they ran well, it was fine. But, often, it was an eternity.

I am not saying Washington Heights is the absolute best place. As I said..all things being equal...

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 2:19 PM

Harlem is block by block, but a few generalizations apply.

Harlem gentrification is traveling from West to East Harlem and South to North Harlem.

There is more upside in Harlem for two main reasons

1) Harlem gentrification is still underway, Brooklyn gentrification is more established.

2) Harlem is in Manhattan, Brooklyn is not

The blog talk of Harlem ‘blood on the streets’ has not happened, just the usual inflammatory blog posts, not representative of the general population.

Harlem brownstones are block by block, the best I have seen being Hamilton Heights.

Harlem Brownstoner

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 2:19 PM

I just moved up to Harlem, bought a brownstone in the west 120s. This after looking quite rigorously in Brooklyn - especially in the Fort Greene neighborhood.

Architecturally the difference, in my experience, is that more of the Harlem homes have original interior layouts (plus original details) - they haven't been adapted/chopped up to be more than one family residences, so have more of a flow to the layout.

From a lifestyle standpoint, Harlem is not as advanced as Brooklyn. Transport to midtown/downtown is easier, but the everyday quality of life amenities don't match. You can find good restaurants, grocery stores (eg. Fairway) and wine stores - but they're often 8 blocks away vs. around the corner.

The crime concern is always a hot topic on blogs. From our personal experience, most of Harlem is utterly fine. There are some blocks there feel wrong and you avoid those! No different to how it was when I lived in Alphabet City in the 90s.

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 3:34 PM

Harlem is still pretty rough. The area of the teens and 20s on the west side feel pretty comfortable, but lots of the neighborhood still has severe proverty/crime issues.

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 3:49 PM

I am a Harlem brownstone owner, who (obviously) still resorts to the Brownstoner forum for answering my many "how to?" questions. I rarely post, but feel compelled to in this case because the subject hits close to home.

My husband and I love Brooklyn and scoured the borough for a brownstone. Our budget was generous, but even so we found that what fell into our range was not pristine (wanted completely renovated but with original detail lovingly restored -- pie in the sky, I know). We found the inventory slim and often disappointing. The few things that fit the bill were in Prospect Lefferts or a bidding war.

When, courtesy of Warren Lewis' extra special bidding process, I spent a week jacking up my bid on a lovely property by 20k and 30k increments only to have it finally dawn on me I was only getting encouraging calls from the broker to aid in the sellers' effort to extract ever higher sums from the cash buyer they had already selected, I turned to Harlem.

What I noticed right away is this -- the brownstones are far more in tact. They haven't been cut up in unfortunate ways to accommodate three or four renters, and there is tons of glorious detail to behold. Moreover, we were comforted by the more traditional (by NYC standards) means by which negotiations for property were conducted. I found dealing with "exclusive" brokers like Warren Lewis and Brooklyn Properties was enough to send an otherwise well-balanced person into deep analysis (note to site management: as clear hyperbole, this comment is a non-actionable opinion, so if Warren Lewis or Brooklyn Properties give you a hard time and/or threaten defamation suits, let them know they have no case).

If you are worried about the bottom line, I also agree with the poster that said there is a bigger upside in Harlem. Even the more expensive part is not as well developed and offers fewer services than almost everywhere we looked seriously in Brooklyn, but forces including the Columbia expansion and the multitude of premium condo construction projects (like them or not) will force a certain amount of change. Not that I think the gentrification process will be easy, posts above refer to the very real tension between different socio-economic (and racial) groups, but I think it will happen and pay off for folks who own.

The only question really is what do you want? It turns out I really wanted a super beautiful house that was also a reasonably comfortable bet from an investment standpoint and close to work didn't hurt. While I paid more than I had ever intended to spend, I monitor the turn over of brownstones in Brooklyn pretty carefully and do not believe I could have purchased anything in the realm of my Harlem brownstone in the places I was focused in Brooklyn -- Boerum Hill, Forte Green, Clinton Hill -- at the same price point. If my husband were to do it again, I think he would have made a sacrifice on the quality of the house and financial investment to have been able to have the experience of living in brownstone Brooklyn. C'est la vie.

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 3:49 PM

Harlem has no good restaurants nor will they ever with that stupid rule about having a liquor liscense within a certain distance to a church, or whatever the hell it is.

This is like discussing apples and oranges.

Brownstone Brooklyn is bucolic, urban, friendly, all-inclusive and neighborhoody.

Harlem has nice Brownstones (albeit more expensive ones) and is in Manhattan. Little services, high crime and farther to downtown than most of Brownstone Brooklyn.

Go walk around each neighborhood.

Taking the Manhattan vs. Brooklyn thing aside, I think 8 out of 10 people would prefer Ft. Greene or Park Slope.

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 4:06 PM

Many of the Harlem Brownstones have been preserved due to being SRO’s. These SRO landlords where too cheap to move walls and remove detail, preferring to paint over everything and preserving the original layout. These SRO landlords unknowingly served as historical preservationists. Many of these old Harlem SRO’s can be relatively easily returned to their original single family home format.

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 4:12 PM

The liquor license law restricts liquor within a certain distance from a church, unless the house of worship provides written approval. There are many examples of bars close to Harlem Churches.

Services are glacially slow to arrive in Harlem, but they are coming, with the occupation of the new condos there is growing pent up demand for more restaurants.

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 4:24 PM

I see lots of stuff closing in Harlem as well.

As fast as it opens.

The liquor license law really affects a church-y neighborhood like Harlem a lot.

There are so few good places to eat/drink.

Considering you're paying 2 million plus for these brownstones, it would be nice to have something other than the fast food joints around.

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 4:28 PM

There is also the kid and school issue.

Harlem schools might as well be non-existent. Horrible.

A lot of the people I see moving into Harlem Brownstones are older empty nesters. Not a ton of young couples with kids.

Brownstone Brooklyn is very, very kid friendly (some would say too much so) but I think this adds a lot to the vibrance of a community.

There is something really nice about living in the largest city in the country and seeing so many young children being raised here. I think they will be a more open-minded next generation for having been raised in such a place.

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 4:44 PM

Jesu - you'd think Central Park, Columbia University, Riverside park and Church, relatively close to the Metropolitan Museum and Nat Hist Mus, easy exodus from NYC, etc counts for nothing! Not to mention Manhattan energy.
OP - I would like to warn you that people on this blog (esp those from Park Slope) are very protective (dare I say... defensive?) about Brooklyn and often will not acknowledge that Manhattan has things to offer that Brooklyn does not. But I agree that you really need to walk around the different neighborhoods to figure out what you like best.

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 4:48 PM

To play devil's advocate, 4:48....

1. The designers of Central and Prospect Parks, considered the latter to be their masterpiece.

2. I would not include a land-hungry University necessarily a pro of Harlem.

3. Riverside Park is nice.

4. Brooklyn Museum is nice as well. So is the Natural History Museum, but I probably go to it once every two or three years so living "near" it does not really factor into my spending 2 million dollars on a home. And 79th Street is really not even remotely in Harlem, so I'm not quite sure why you use that as an example. Might as well use MOMA...it's in Manhattan, so that's pretty close to Harlem too.

5. Easy exodus to Manhattan. Sure that's great if you're going to Jersey or upstate. If you're going to Hamptons, it's not easier.

I don't see how you are any less defensive about Harlem as some are of Park Slope.

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 5:00 PM

At least people are using things actually IN Brownstone Brooklyn to describe it, 4:48.

Neither the Museum of Natural History nor the Met Museum are in Harlem. And most of Riverside Park is not as well.

And if we're being technical, Harlem begins at 110th street, if I'm not mistaken and that is where Central Park ends.

Care to give any examples of why Harlem is great that are actually IN Harlem.

;-)

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 5:25 PM

Agreed, Brownstone Brooklyn is more gentrified than Brownstone Harlem.

This also translates into Brownstone Harlem has more upside then Brownstone Brooklyn.

Some people prefer a rapidly gentrifying neighborhood, others prefer a neighborhood that is already done.

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 5:29 PM

I think it's not only that some people prefer a gentrifying neighborhood and some people prefer a gentrified one, but some people...if they are going to spend 2-3 million dollars for a home would like to live in a place that actually warrants said 2-3 million dollars.

That's my opinion, anyway. Harlem is overpriced for what it is. I have no doubt about it's potential in terms of gentrification, but the prices reflect an already gentrified neighborhood.

That's the problem, and it's happened with neighborhoods like Bed Stuy and Crown Heights in Brooklyn as well.

Homes selling for much more than the neighborhood reflects.

You used to be able to get a brownstone in Park Slope when it was GENTRIFYING for 100K.

Now you pay 2 million for the same thing in Harlem.

Doesn't really add up.

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 5:38 PM

I'm talking about things that are easily accessible from Harlem - not necessarily in it. And the reason why I am less defensive than you is because I live in Brooklyn, not Harlem, and yet am able to acknowledge that Harlem can offer things that brooklyn can't. For example. If I lived on 120 st in harlem, I could walk 10 blocks to Central Park (and spare me the Prospect Park being the masterpiece yada yada - Central Park is a gazillion times more fun) and then mosy my way down through to the Met or NHM. And frankly, as someone who used to work in the Brooklyn Museum, it really doesn't compare to the big Manhattan museums. AND, I don't even know what to say about your comment about Columbia. I am talking about libraries, lectures, classes, etc. All things that a top level, vibrant university can offer. To see it only as a land grabber is absurdly reductionist.

In any case I don't live in Harlem - I have children and need to be near decent schools. But I can see how the above things could be a big draw for people.

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 5:47 PM

I also picked Washington Heights over Brooklyn/Harlem.
Services are now coming in but I can live with the slow pace since my mortgage is so low and the place is so big. Rarely in life can you get more for less money. Liked some properties in Harlem and parts of Brooklyn but could not justify the cost (in terms of Harlem) or moving off the island (in terms of Brooklyn)...but the poster who said to go and walk around is 100% correct. There is just no other way to decide.

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 6:22 PM

Forget Harlem and Park Slope etc., check out Bed Stuy near the transportation lines (streets like Hancock [betw. Bedford and Tompkins], Jefferson etc). You would be amazed at what you will find!

I must say the transportation in Harlem is pretty good - you can get to midtown much faster.

BTW, I've lived in Harlem, Park Slope, Prospect Heights, Clinton Hill and Bed Stuy. I loved each of the experiences for different reasons. It really depends on what you're after. [Truth be told, I pushed Bed Stuy above because I currently live here and love the vibe!].

All the best!

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 9:49 PM

I appreciate the woman at 3:49 who shared her experience buying in Harlem. Thanks! It was interesting to hear.

We chose Brooklyn, but I think Harlem and its rich history is very exciting, I enjoy visiting. I've walked around Harlem in the early evening by myself as a young white woman and nobody made me feel uncomfortable. Perhaps some parts and smaller streets are different, but you also see a lot of hysterics on this site for whom to venture anyplace in NYC but Park Slope's Connecticut Muffin is dangerous. Even the wealthy white society ladies in the 1920's ventured into Harlem to see music and go to speakeasies. You'd think there'd be more a sense of adventure now, not less.

I know a young couple who got a gorgeous, huge, fully gut renovated 1BR condo with roof access in an historic building in Harlem a few years ago for something like $250K. The prices jumped a lot since then. Risk reaps reward.

Posted by: guest at October 22, 2007 9:53 PM

Thanks 3:49 for the incredibly detailed experience, and thanks to all the other replies as well. This thread has been very helpful.

Posted by: guest at October 23, 2007 12:04 AM

As many commenters have already said, Harlem brownstones are incredibly expensive compared to many Brooklyn brownstone neighborhoods. Also, after searching for a house in Hamilton Heights, Ft. Greene and Park Slope, I have to say that the real estate professionals in Harlem have been at times very amateurish, and borderline obnoxious. It's like it's a different real estate reality all together, and it's not worth it. I'll take any nice brownstone nabe in Brooklyn over Harlem anyday.

Posted by: guest at October 24, 2007 5:46 PM

Those Sarah Lawrence moms in the Park Slope Connecticut Muffin will CUT you.

Watch your back.

Posted by: guest at October 25, 2007 12:12 PM

What's a Connecticut muffin?

Posted by: guest at October 26, 2007 12:11 AM