Time and time again in these new layouts, we see too much square footage eaten up by putting in two full baths instead of making the KLDA a livable space.

Posted by: TD at November 11, 2009 1:04 PM in response to Condo of the Day: 110 Livingston Street, #8O

RE: location. He means the location of the kitchen... i'm assuming in regard to its distance from the dining and living rooms.

Posted by: TD at November 3, 2009 1:39 PM in response to Co-op of the Day: 126 Greene Avenue, #2W

Although I would not have paid that much for this particular property, some of you should come to grips with the fact that this is what property costs in prime areas of Brooklyn. 375k is a lot of money, no doubt, but this apartment is certainly not in the realm of a monied individual callously tossing their cash around. This sale is not an outlier at all. You post the same exact comment on every sale that goes over widget price.

Posted by: TD at November 2, 2009 11:35 AM in response to Widget Falls Way Short on South Oxford

It's a pretty nice tree, but this is a fringe area of South Slope. I hope they don't expect to get 2006 tree prices for it.

Posted by: TD at October 28, 2009 3:49 PM in response to Development Watch: Fischer Out at 572 5th Avenue

Looks like someone was too busy making underhanded comments about recessed lighting and length of construction to make sure the actual content of the post made sense before publishing it.

Posted by: TD at October 19, 2009 12:23 PM in response to Getting Close on Grand?

I don't think that's true at all, dave. i have a great appreciation for historic brownstones.

Just because we can appreciate historic styles and structures doesn't mean we should copy them forever into the future. Should we build another Woolworth Building? no. It's a great building historically but not relevant in today's architecture.

Posted by: TD at October 14, 2009 11:17 AM in response to 2 Lefferts Comes Into Focus, Exceeds Expectations

I agree, MM, given the choice of fedders or this, I would take this hands down.

Posted by: TD at October 14, 2009 10:33 AM in response to 2 Lefferts Comes Into Focus, Exceeds Expectations

Sure that's one possibility. Something so minimal isn't exactly my taste, but at least it reflects a modern sensibility. One building that comes to mind is that building on the corner of S. Portland & Hanson Place with the yellow base and the wacky metal panel that comes out the side and forms a roof above. That's cool. it fits in and it's undeniably modern. Obviously a developer would never build something like that though...

Posted by: TD at October 14, 2009 10:28 AM in response to 2 Lefferts Comes Into Focus, Exceeds Expectations

I agree that it looks very nice and contextual but I wonder why we can't find some happy medium for new buildings between the garbage fedder specials and this kind of pure replication of the past. This offers no style or personality to reflect the time we are living in. It's a fake, what's the point?

Posted by: TD at October 14, 2009 10:12 AM in response to 2 Lefferts Comes Into Focus, Exceeds Expectations

are there lot of rich kids running around windsor terrace??
ha. ooooohhh pleeeeease daddy me and my two spoiled, artsy, super hip siblings desperately need an apartment, and it has to be in the awesomest neighborhood where i can be close to all my other rich trust fund friends! windsor terrace! buy me an apartment in windsor terrace! please please please!

Posted by: TD at October 1, 2009 1:47 PM in response to Co-op of the Day: 30 Ocean Parkway, #1F

InsertSnappyName is correct... this house is not overpriced because someone bought it. bxgirl... this IS a 10 milion dollar house. in fact, it's a 10.26 million dollar house.

and all this talk about it being an insular community makes no sense either. real estate is all about location. do you think those 500k one bedroom apartments in park slope or dumbo are the norm outside of NYC? it makes no sense to people who don't live here. this whole city is an insular community!

Posted by: TD at September 28, 2009 1:24 PM in response to Priciest Brooklyn Sale of '09 is in Gravesend!

I think it's an issue because there's no bathroom on the level where I would spend 90% of my awake hours. I don't think you could find too many 4 story houses without at least a toilet on the parlor level.

Posted by: TD at September 16, 2009 2:07 PM in response to House of the Day: 165 Fenimore Street

The bathroom situation seems to be lacking based on the floor plans. Not even a half bath on the main level? and is there really no full bath tub in the whole house?

Posted by: TD at September 16, 2009 1:36 PM in response to House of the Day: 165 Fenimore Street

Yes, bxgirl, anybody's brother-in-law CAN do the design work. You don't need a degree in anything to simply design a building. You only need a registered architect to sign and seal the drawings. As far as the law is concerned, the building has to be structurally sound and code-conforming. Other than in historic districts, aesthetics and urbanism don't matter.

Posted by: TD at August 20, 2009 12:26 PM in response to How the Argyle Greets 4th Avenue

I saw an earlier rendering which appears to be a combo of masonry and the metal panels. In fact, the image is still on the Costas Kondylis website, even though it's microscopic. It would still be a turd, but better than this thing. That firm is one of the biggest perpetrators of highly visible crap architecture in the city.

Posted by: TD at August 5, 2009 6:30 PM in response to Development Watch: 80 Dekalb Getting Close

I'm not saying this just to be contrary, but this is seriously one of the ugliest things I can imagine (aside from that castle on clifton yesterday, obviously). What's nice about it? It's exactly like all the garbage being built in Brooklyn except 10 times bigger. Ever walk down DeKalb on a sunny morning? You'll instantly go blind from the glare if you look directly at those god awful panels.

Posted by: TD at August 5, 2009 4:52 PM in response to Development Watch: 80 Dekalb Getting Close

Midwood isn't hip enough to be part of this website's reality, that's why the prices should be much much lower than Dumbo. Where would my dog get an organic shampoo in Midwood? nowhere. i wouldn't even be within walking distance of a West Elm if I lived in Midwood!

Posted by: TD at August 4, 2009 11:59 AM in response to Last Week's Biggest Sales

Why wait? call now and make an offer.

Posted by: TD at July 30, 2009 1:24 PM in response to House of the Day: 78 Adelphi Street Revisited

Interesting that after 22 appraisals, the widget guess is far closer to the asking price than any I have seen. Could voters be shifting their price point upward after several consecutive widget underappraisals?

Posted by: TD at July 29, 2009 1:33 PM in response to Co-op of the Day: 416 Ocean Avenue, #12

By reducing the maximum widget vote from 40% over ask to 20% over ask, it would appear that the widget has actually become less accurate. The opportunity for the unrealistically high votes to balance out all those unrealistically low votes has been eliminated. How ironic.

Posted by: TD at July 28, 2009 1:34 PM in response to Last Week's Biggest Sales

Is the furniture embedded in concrete and / or bolted to the floor? My guess is the current owner will take it with them on their way out.

Posted by: TD at July 28, 2009 1:00 PM in response to Condo of the Day: 1 Tiffany Place, #5C

Rob- I don't care who sleeps in which bedroom with whom and how distantly they may or may not be related to the Master-Minor-Grand Wizard of the house. I could give my kids the master bedroom and they might like me better, but then poor Uncle Ned would be stuck in a windowless cell would hate me forever. Lose-lose situation.

The bottom line is that 66.67% of the bedrooms have no windows.

Posted by: TD at July 22, 2009 2:29 PM in response to Condo of the Day: 30 Main Street, #4G

Come on... sweet pad? This layout is awful. Sure it's huge but there's tons of wasted space, no windows in two bedrooms, you've got a huge hallway right as you enter (oh sorry it's a "foyer"), and that's followed by a useless gallery that's bigger than each of the two interior bedrooms. You have to walk at least 30 feet before you arrive at the kitchen and there's not a coat closet in sight. There's gonna be an awesome pile up of shoes right at the front door. What are you gonna do with that giant nook in the living room? and who wants their master bedroom directly off the living room? Don't be so easily fooled by a few glossy photos and an upscale address.

Posted by: TD at July 22, 2009 1:36 PM in response to Condo of the Day: 30 Main Street, #4G

The choice of headline and photo for this thread made me laugh. "Big Turnout for Rally Against Homeless Intake Center" followed by a photo with exactly one person in it. I thought the headline was sarcastic until I read the text.

Posted by: TD at June 26, 2009 9:23 AM in response to Big Turnout for Rally Against Homeless Intake Center

Where did you get your information?

The condosinbrooklyn.com website shows this unit (4C) as being 1,800 square feet, 3BR 2BA, plus private roof deck.

You get the haters all riled up for nothing.

Posted by: TD at June 25, 2009 11:29 AM in response to Signs of Life at 105 Lexington Avenue

The ride's full.

Posted by: TD at June 15, 2009 4:50 PM in response to Closing Bell: Brooklyn Waterfront Epic Ride

I agree the article was interesting but the pretentious attitude displayed by author and artists is extremely maddening. First of all, the caption on the opening photo says this merry band of artists are "from the deepest Bushwick" and the article gives one the feeling that these "artists" are some self-righteous pioneers civilizing the hostile natives. And I don't care how poor you claim to be, but if you and your buddies are zipping off to Slovenia and Italy for two weeks, and you had the resources to "motorcycle across India" for a period of time, you ain't that poor.

But probably the part that aggravated me the most was when they were scavenging for "trash" in Slovenia. Turns out, first they tried to STEAL materials from an abandoned warehouse, barely eluding the police, and then they tried to STEAL materials from people who were using the materials as some sort of dog park. That's NOT trash! It's owned by other people and is not available for your stupid paddle boats.

Posted by: TD at June 10, 2009 11:27 AM in response to No Love for Manhattan from Bushwick Artists

One main difference between this place and your average 1970's 1400SF house is that the 1970's house very likely would have had 3 bedrooms and 1 bath. Today people insist on a bathroom for every bedroom. That cuts into your livable square footage. Take out the extra 1.5 bathrooms in here and you've got much more space for living and/or storage.

Posted by: TD at June 9, 2009 2:44 PM in response to Condo of the Day: 100 Jay Street, #16H

northsloperenter and daveinbedstuy-
I think everyone would agree with your asessment of that area as it is now, but I think your assessment is shortsighted. You seem to have the mindset that just because the area is a black hole currently, that's what it's destined to be forever. There is no reason why proper development couldn't foster a nice link between Fort Greene, Prospect Heights, and Park Slope.

I'm not sure what proper development means. I don't think it was the original Gehry plan and I certainly don't think it's this arena, but the belief that this area is destined to be a dirty empty place forever is the wrong attitude. Yes, it will always be a busy intersection which is a huge challenge, but not one that cannot be overcome with a good plan.

Posted by: TD at June 9, 2009 10:24 AM in response to Ouroussoff, Tell Us How You Really Feel

what leads you to believe the second bedroom was carved out of a large one bedroom? looks like a legitimate 2 bedroom to me.

Posted by: TD at June 3, 2009 1:08 PM in response to Co-op of the Day: 41 Eastern Parkway, #5C

The floor plan for that 46' long thing shows a dimension of 46'-4 1/2" in length. it doesn't provide a width. If you consider the door is maybe 2'-8" or 3' then it's probably 8 feet wide.

Posted by: TD at June 1, 2009 2:04 PM in response to House of the Day: 130 South Oxford Street

For the most part I do ignore it. I was just wondering what people are getting out of this appraisal that they have to whine about a couple high votes. Invariably there are 2 or 3 way high votes, a bunch that vote the minimum and a bunch of other votes under asking and the end result is an "appraisal" that is always 20% below asking.

And now we want to force everyone to vote at or under asking price. So basically we want to know everyone's own appraisal... as long as it's within 20% of what everyone else thinks.

I just voted the maximum and it changed the number by a whopping $30,000. So take away the 3 high votes today and the price goes down by 3%. What's the big deal?

Posted by: TD at May 12, 2009 3:10 PM in response to House of the Day: 178 8th Avenue

What exactly is the point of the price widget if everyone is forced to vote between the asking price to 40% below asking? I don't even know what the point of the widget is to begin with. It's rare that ANY property will sell for asking price these days, if they sell at all. Everyone knows that already. What is this thing adding to the discussion?

Posted by: TD at May 12, 2009 2:23 PM in response to House of the Day: 178 8th Avenue

I concur with the above statements. Severely overpriced and under-portioned. I am not a fan of the "small plates" phenomenon in general, and these were even smaller than most. And those infuriating jelly jars for beer glasses! what are they, maybe 8 ounces for 7 bucks!?! There are too many other good places in the neighborhood, I wouldn't go back.

Posted by: TD at April 23, 2009 10:50 AM in response to TONY Prize for General Greene

As one of the white newcomers to the area (3 years ago), I had the same reaction, where I felt that he intentionally failed to mention areas of the neighborhood where good creative enrgy and diversity are on full display - such as Madiba, all of the events at BAM, and Habana Outpost in the summer to name a few. Also, he bemoans the loss of an Ethiopian restaurant which he never visited, but fails to mention that a brand new Ethiopian restaurant just opened within spitting distance of the old one.

Posted by: TD at April 6, 2009 10:22 AM in response to Wrestling with Fort Greene's Transformation

I'm intrigued by this "teen on teen" action happening at the corner of Classon & Willoughby.

Posted by: TD at April 2, 2009 12:31 PM in response to The Month in Crime in Fort Greene and Clinton Hill

I voted above asking, I'll admit it.
The reason is that I'm an owner in a different building in the complex with the same floor plan on a high floor with views and I can tell you, in fact, that this unit will be appraised above asking. Mine was appraised recently for more than 319k. So...maybe i cheated but I did so based on my own experience.

And you definitely don't have to go downstairs at night to let someone in.

Posted by: TD at April 1, 2009 3:57 PM in response to Co-op of the Day: 325 Clinton Avenue, #11E

is that the best we can hope to achieve for our new buildings now? unoffensive?

Posted by: TD at March 13, 2009 2:53 PM in response to Development Watch: 120 South 8th Street

without knowing which direction your friend lives in, 6 or 7 blocks can make a huge difference in the availability of services. that goes for nearly any neighborhood in the city. 6 or 7 blocks could potentially put you as far away as Franklin Avenue (Bed Stuy) or the other side of Atlantic Ave (Prospect Heights).

Posted by: TD at March 11, 2009 1:19 PM in response to Condo of the Day: 430 Clinton Avenue, #4D

Anyone know what's up with that small tower going up in the background of the photo? Condos I assume, but the construction has been at a snails pace (but consistently making progress) for probably 18 months now.

Posted by: TD at February 27, 2009 2:45 PM in response to Streetlevel: Chase Revealed on Myrtle

Assuming the current owners did the top to bottom reno, if you cound 2.6 million plus renovation costs, even if they got full asking, they will likely not get out with their shirts on their backs.

Posted by: TD at February 19, 2009 1:23 PM in response to House of the Day: 897 Union Street

Who cares if it clashes with the steaming pile of poo next door? It should be torn down.

And "all the other masonry buildings in the vicinity" are projects. I believe you would be the first person on this board to say new buildings should be emulating the projects.

Posted by: TD at February 19, 2009 11:55 AM in response to Toren All Glassed Over

tscola-
In your opinion, what should the designers at SOM have been referencing in order to be contextual? The gas station on the corner? maybe Oro Gold? oh maybe they could have referenced the empty lots all around and designed a contextual empty lot?

I can't say that I'm crazy about the location, but in all of Brooklyn, this is one area that new buildings do not need to fit into their context. There's nothing around!

Posted by: TD at February 19, 2009 11:28 AM in response to Toren All Glassed Over

It would take a lot of work, but this could be turned into a 3BR. there is a lot of wasted square footage between the huge foyer, "gallery", and the unusable Maid's room. you'd sacrifice some closet space but you gotta rip out a bunch of those walls.

Posted by: TD at January 26, 2009 1:45 PM in response to Co-op of the Day: Turner Towers Whopper

I so see your point, Montrose, but codes are just so cut and dry.

I am not sure if you are familiar with this particular house but let me give another example--
There's a house on the corner of Hanson Pl & S. Portland in Fort Greene which is a heavily renovated brownstone with this funky metal addition protruding out one side of it. (it's on a corner lot). To me, this an innovative and perfectly contextural adaptation of a classic brownstone. however, my fear would be that a code would strictly prohibit this kind of protuberance and the use of metal on the exterior.

how do you create a code which would allow for creativity such as this while maintaining the high standard we strive for?

Posted by: TD at January 16, 2009 2:12 PM in response to Horror Show Friday

Ok, I'll take your word that regulation like that exists in other locations. who makes the rules? who enforces it? is there one design czar lording over everything? do the rules adapt or are all the buildings stuck in one style of a particular era?

let's just say... if there is one set of rules would two entirely contrasting styles, let's say - a Frank Gehry building and a Robert Stern building - be allowed to co-exist?

i'm all for maintaining a high standard for our built environment but i'm unsure, speaking purely about aesthetics, how a high standard can be maintained without limiting creativity and choice.

Posted by: TD at January 16, 2009 2:03 PM in response to Horror Show Friday

The problem with your proposal is that government cannot dictate what people can or cannot build. They do this to an extent through historic districts, but you cannot feasibly propose that EVERY building be put through the same kind of process.

Guess what, I don't like McMansions. should i lobby the government to have them outlawed?

If people didn't like these buildings, they wouldn't be purchased and then people wouldn't build them any more.
and let's face it... these builders are not tearing down majestic brownstones and building these. i'm sure most of these were empty lots previously. i don't subscribe to the theory that "anything is better than nothing" but the market has to dictate these things.

Posted by: TD at January 16, 2009 1:38 PM in response to Horror Show Friday

I'm not necessarily defending these two houses, but let's take the Bed-Stuy house on the left as an example.

This place is essentially just like the houses on either side of it, minus the fancy accoutrements around the windows and at the cornice. Depending on its location in Bed-Stuy, 439k is a good price. If you want, throw some woodwork around the windows and fat cornice at the top. paint it any shade of beige and you've got yourself a brownstone. and, unlike other "horror shows" this one is actually built in line with its adjacent buildings instead of pushed forward, so that's a plus.

There are rows of brownstones on some of the nicest Carroll Gardens blocks without the fancy exterior details and they easily look as bad as this place.

As far as the actual construction quality, there's no way to judge without seeing it. Maybe it's not so good, who knows.

So... in conclusion it's a shame that someone built this as it stands, but for that price and with a small amount of work, it could look great.

Posted by: TD at January 16, 2009 1:22 PM in response to Horror Show Friday

I agree with your sentiments. I hope it sells well. Unfortunately, the prices seem a bit high for this location, and especially in this market. The cheapest unit is 455k and listed (generously) at 710 sq ft, which clocks in at $640 per sq ft. I still don't see Clinton Hill fetching much more than $500 per sq ft.

Posted by: TD at January 15, 2009 11:22 AM in response to Checking In On the Isabella Condos