I think the original poster made clear that the availability of cute cafes wasn't high on her list. Your admonition that she "have a gun and be prepared to use it" suggests that your post isn't meant to be taken seriously, Maurice. [Unlicensed possession of a loaded firearm on the streets now carries a minimum 3.5 year sentence. Even though most DA's will plead it down to a year, I advise against carrying a gun.] For many readers of this site, being close to Manhattan and downtown Brooklyn is important. And many of are not rich, and so yes, are willing to "brave" new experiences in order to create the home and communitybut I am sure many would be interested in a serious discussion of alternatives. That said, I would add that you might want to ask people about the summer vibe, which can be markedly different than how a street is in the winter. Constant front yard barbeques may feel neighborly to some, while the attendent music and partying might not be to other's liking. Prostitutes, drug dealers appear more often in the summer, and may not be evident when it is ten degrees out.

Posted by: brooklyner at February 24, 2007 4:30 PM in response to bed stuy - is the area I'm moving to relatively safe?

Actionable?
Rude? Maybe.
But now I can tell my mother that Adrian, uh who is?, lives around the corner. I think Grand has some great buildings. (One block over from one of the open houses featured this week). Funny that the condo projects and house for sale on Irving just seem to be sitting there. And it seems like half the houses on Gates from Grand to Classon are for sale. Maybe all because of the excitement generated by the Gates reno!

Posted by: brooklyner at February 23, 2007 12:14 PM in response to Grand Avenue Wreck Getting a Makeover

Book is wrong. The British occupied New York City through much of the revolutionary war. over ten thousand people died on the prison ships. Or at least that is what the plaque on the monument says.

Posted by: brooklyner at February 23, 2007 11:56 AM in response to Fort Greene Park: The Plan and the Reality

But the reality is that you have the right to legal process. So if you don't move out, they can't just change the locks, they have to serve you with papers seeking to evict you as a holdover tenant. In the end, assuming you are not a rent stabilized tenant, you would lose and a judge would give the landlord the right to evict you through a marshall. Of course, being a party in a housing court matter is now used by some landlords as a reason not to rent to you, so you probably want to avoid that. A good lawyer would advise a landlord to begin the eviction process the day you overstayed last year's lease. So you have to weigh that out. Bummer.

Posted by: brooklyner at February 22, 2007 11:05 PM in response to Landlord won't renew lease

Er, yes, Everyone in Clinton Hill is selling their homes for 200k and moving to Bed Stuy. Puhlease. Can we say block busting? Calm down. Fight the project, getting reduced in size and enjoy the benefits. Clearly the covering up of the Atlantic yards gash will change the nature of the neighborhood, but does that mean we are all running for the hills. NOT.

Posted by: brooklyner at February 22, 2007 10:41 PM in response to with the atlantic

Er, yes, Everyone in Clinton Hill is selling their homes for 200k and moving to Bed Stuy. Puhlease. Can we say block busting? Calm down. Fight the project, getting reduced in size and enjoy the benefits. Clearly the covering up of the Atlantic yards gash will change the nature of the neighborhood, but does that mean we are all running for the hills. NOT.

Posted by: brooklyner at February 22, 2007 10:40 PM in response to with the atlantic

As a public defender in the Bronx I have seen more, not fewer, arrests for quality of life crimes such as jumping the turnstile, drinking in public, "trespassing" in one's grandmother's building, etc. Can't imagine Brooklyn is all that different. My strategy on my block is to sweep up everytime I go out, ask prostitutes to move on, just make it clear that we do notice, and make things uncomfortable for those committing petty crimes. But there actually is no crime in being homeless and hanging out on public property.

Posted by: brooklyner at February 21, 2007 1:52 PM in response to Baltic Street Needs a Miracle (Everyday)

Some friend of mine who live in Clinton Hill and are zoned for PS 20 having been sending heir daughter to pre-k at 282, and seem generally happy. This past year the principal did an open enrollment, as it has declined as of late. My understanding is that it was reconceived as a bilingual school a ways back and then the changing demographics in the neighborhood left it under-utilized. given its location it is hard to see it as anything but on the way up. As far as the pernicious effects of 321 sucking up motivated families, well, that seems less of an issue now, since 321 has closed its doors to out of zone families. And indeed when I took my son to be tested for gifted and talented porgrams I met some parents who have had their children in 321 who are trying to get out because it is so overcrowded. I supect like PS 20 and PS 11 in Fort Greene/CLinton Hill, PS 282 has a potentially great future in front of it. But in the end it is of course your call about how much effort and risk you are willing to take in educating your kid.

Posted by: brooklyner at February 20, 2007 11:36 PM in response to just outside ps 321

Huh? Was that you I accidently hit with my snowball last night, ThirtyThreeSixty? Sorry. I'll buy you a drink at Grand 275 to make up for it. Smile.

Posted by: brooklyner at February 20, 2007 4:47 PM in response to Sealed envelope real estate bidding process

While I know this is only going to stir the troll-like beast, may I suggest those who know me (and they are legion), know I would never suggest that being Catholic or Mexican would be a bar to the use of condoms! Can I ask that the above semi-bigoted statement about Mexicans be struck as unseemingly (especially as it has, sigh, been offered in my monicker)? I guess I have to sign in now...

Anyway at least it was only the wrapper.

Posted by: brooklyner at February 19, 2007 8:07 PM in response to Condom Found During Open House of NEW development.

I have to say that I agree with the naysayers on this one. The developers, much like the homeowners in my corner of Clinton Hill, seem to be asking the buyers for the gentrification added value before the gentrification has happened. I live in a drug-infested corner of Clinton Hill, but I think this location is much worse. at least I can walk to amenities and schools.

P.S. That said why is everyone cursing each other? makes for very unpleasant reading.

Posted by: brooklyner at January 17, 2007 5:43 PM in response to Condo Alert: The Lofts on Dekalb

Years back (okay 2001), Aguayo and Huebener sold my apartment for 4%

Posted by: brooklyner at July 27, 2006 8:19 AM in response to corcoran fee?

Don't be so quick to attribute this to a "pay-off", TomPLG. Who are you suggesting was paid off? Tish James? City lawyers negotiating the settlement? The judge? The reality is that most settlements are made to avoid the expense and uncertainty of a trial, in which the burden of proof would have been on the city. What a settlement like this does is change the rules of the game for the next match. If the owners fail to live up to the settlement (and I have no doubt that they will be watched like hawks), then further action can be taken. And in the meantimet the place is closed for the rest of the summer. Not bad, not bad at all.

I'd have to question whether or not the neighborhood needs a hotel or not. I suspect there is a lot of pent up demand for upscale hotel rooms (family, those who want a more authentic NY experience) on one hand, and quite frankly we will always need "flophouses" for the casually employed who don't have enough stability for permanent housing but don't want to enter the shelter system. NYC has lost a lot of the bottom rungs of the housing ladder. Poor does not equate drug user or prostitute.

Posted by: brooklyner at July 27, 2006 8:13 AM in response to Lefferts Hotel Cuts Deal with Tish James

Obviously if someone chooses a monicker which clearly apes and is meant to confuse the reader (i.e. CHPwd vs CHPud), there is no point in taking them seriously.

I guess I want to live in a society in which we take responsibility to create minimum standards for health and safety. Some of that we do through safety regulations and building codes. Thus the "New Tenement Law" in the 19th century which demanded that all bedrooms have natural light and air. I guess we could create massive new public housing to fill the demand from low-income people. Certainly when the projects opened during the last century the poor were quite happy to leave the privately owned buildings (often in awful conditions). The experience since then has shown that even well-run public housing (and if you compare NYCHA with Philadelphia, New Haven, Boston or Chicago you will realize it is relatively well run and in good condition) creates unintended social consequences by isolated the lowest earners and the non-working. So we try something new by creating incentives and requirements for private developers to build mix-use housing. Sure it is social engineering, but so is paving the roads, requiring children to be vaccinated, etc. It distorts the market, but so what? The failure to attribute real costs (environmental wear and tear, increased asthma rates, increased burdens on existing city systems) to new development unjustly enriches private actors at the cost of the rest of us. Every decision, and each of us is ultimately compromised.

Posted by: brooklyner at July 26, 2006 9:02 AM in response to Commentator Balks at Mayor's Housing Plan

These last three aren't nearly as bad as the first. The balconies are ugly, but my guess is that they serve a religious purpose.

Posted by: brooklyner at July 24, 2006 11:20 AM in response to Bedford Bums: Number 840

I assume you are talking about Bedford from Fulton to Williamsburg (Classon in parallel to Bedford, and has its own issues). I had heard that the developer of the pictured building is the same as that of the monstrosity at Fulton and Classon. Someone obviously thought about the design - choices have been made (stone, balconies, etc). But they are neither rooted is historicism, nor do they appear to express any coherent design sensibility. If the stone base had been continued up to the top of the second story it would have been so much better (or less worse?)

Posted by: brooklyner at July 24, 2006 11:18 AM in response to The New (And Not So Improved) Bedford Avenue

Has to be your residence for 2 of past 5 years

Posted by: brooklyner at July 21, 2006 9:20 AM in response to capital gains taxes on flip

Yeah but it is still not Grand Army Plaza, Brooklyn. It is grand army plaza, manhattan! (Like at 59th Street and 5th Avenue!) Ooops.

Posted by: brooklyner at July 20, 2006 4:41 PM in response to Blog Wrap Up

Hey Iceberg, long time no see! Back from your trip to Liberteria? Did your plane crash again like last time since Liberteria doesn't control when and where planes land, but just allows them to do whatever the market allows? And how about that food? I hear that even though they don't have an FDA there to keep out poisons from the food supply the market is working things out by killing off all the customers too stupid or poor to pay for healthy food. And hey that has to be better than actually setting minimum standards for health, construction, or even (gasp!) zoning. A strip mine next to a school - whatever, just let the market decide. Cause we are just too stupid to value anything but short-term personal profit. Setting community or regional goals after extensive research and investigation - no that's not for us. That is SOCIALISM.

Welcome back, babe, we've missed you.

Posted by: brooklyner at July 20, 2006 4:37 PM in response to Housing and Planning Groups Release new Study

Generally I think windows would not be allowed if they are right on the lot line. Are you sure the building itself is landmarked or is it just that it is in a landmark district? Given the experience of Shahn (Cambridge Place reno fame) LPC seems to take rear renovations as seriously as front ones. That said, welcome to NYC, where things change. I didn't really hear anything in your description of events which led me to conclude that anyone was being "sneaky." Also this wall is 20-30 yards (60-90 feet) from your building? Doesn't sound that intrusive. But of course I want the vacant lots and unoccupied buildings in my neighborhood to be developed...

Posted by: brooklyner at July 13, 2006 8:56 AM in response to Do I have any recourse?

Okey-dokey

Posted by: brooklyner at July 11, 2006 2:15 PM in response to Site Registration for Commenting

long time residents of bed stuy do not hate white people moving in-it is ignorant and racist to say so. all people want to feel safe and respected-and that is exactly what i feel living in bed stuy. why? because i am respectful and LIKE my neighbors. we are a white family and it feels no different living here than it did in fg. i take the time to say hello and find out how my neighbors are. those who "get it" are moving to bed stuy, and those who don't...well, stay where you are because you shouldn't need convincing to move to a place that many of us proudly call home. you'll see-those same people will move in in droves just like they did in fg/clinton hill in two more years and claimed that they "discovered" a great neighborhood.

Posted by: anon at February 26, 2007 10:13 AM in response to bed stuy - is the area I'm moving to relatively safe?

Aaron, not to split hairs, but Bed Stuy’s ORIGINAL inhabitants don’t give a shit about who moves into their neighborhood because they’re all dead now. And frankly, when these houses were built in the late 1800’s early 1900’s, the original inhabitants were mainly white. Black folks are the second wave to move to the neighborhood, starting in the 1930’s (like many others in the nabe, my next door neighbor was born in her house in 1936, and lives there to this day with her grands.) And no, not ALL old time residents are pissed off that whitey is moving back into the hood. Maybe it’s just you…and Maurice. Perhaps you’re the one who’s posting the “Bed Stuy initiative against gentrification” signs in my neighborhood? If so, along with omitting any contact information (pussy) you forgot to put the word “white” before the word “gentrification” …because we all know that’s what you mean.

Posted by: at February 26, 2007 11:09 AM in response to bed stuy - is the area I'm moving to relatively safe?

Bi-racial (black/white) female couple here, own in Bed-Stuy- we LOVE it, and have been delighted to call it home for 3 years now. Your neighbors care about you and are genuinely interested in you and your business, and have been more than welcoming overall. People ring my bell to let me know if I forgot to move my car, and I do the same for them, and really deal with block issues together as a group. I never even met the people who lived below me when I was in Park Slope. There are few knuckleheads here and there in BS, not concerned with them. I do take my car if I am coming home late from the subway. It is an amazing place to live, learned So much about community, I can't imagine living anywhere else now.

Posted by: at February 26, 2007 2:00 PM in response to bed stuy - is the area I'm moving to relatively safe?

People can talk about how groovy BedStuy is becoming and argue the same old gentrification pros and cons but one thing remains the same: the A train is a dark, nasty ride, day or night with 45 minute waits MID-DAY. I love how neighborhoods that were once considered out of the question and uninhabitable are now "up and coming" but increases in property taxes are the downside for owners. I'm also curious about how the new population will contend with the fact that the worst schools are in the area.

Posted by: sylvester at February 27, 2007 3:37 PM in response to bed stuy - is the area I'm moving to relatively safe?

Anyone living in Ft Greene or Clinton Hill who thinks they will not be profoundly impacted by the Yards in sadly mistaken (or on the Ratner payroll). My advice is SELL NOW before traffic begins to stand still and horns are blowing non-stop in front of your windows at all hours....NOT to mention how traffic will be congested and rerouted while construction takes place. Also, get your kids into a good boarding school now because over enrollment in all of the local schools is already out of control. How lucky for all the owners in BedStuy who never dreamed that their ghetto would now be worth millions (as was the case in Ft Greene where my neighbor owned a brownstone valued at 20k 20 years ago is now worth 2.5 mil)!

Posted by: tomas at February 27, 2007 3:52 PM in response to with the atlantic

Maybe increased parent involvement will lead to improved schools...

...or were the public schools in Park Slope just as awesome in the eighties?

Sylvester, man. Get with it. Money changes everything. I have only lived in Greenpoint for three years, and it's amazing how much more reliable the G Train has gotten, how much less like poop it smells, and how much easier it has gotten to eat after 8pm.

Even the Newtown Creek is supposed to get cleaned up now. I am a firm believer in the power of money.

Posted by: at February 27, 2007 9:09 PM in response to bed stuy - is the area I'm moving to relatively safe?

yeah, money changes everything......and not always for the better. Alot of changes that have taken place in the city over the past 20 years are not necessarily for the better. The city is no longer accommodating creative people who arent interested in living their parents suburban life and more accommodating people who now take over once affordable neighborhoods to play out their metro-fantasy. BTW, Greenpoint is a great example. Gag me.

Posted by: aj at February 28, 2007 3:18 PM in response to bed stuy - is the area I'm moving to relatively safe?

AJ, I posted the above.

And yeah, the knife cuts both ways--the shithead factor in greenpoint has gone up as prices have, but you know I cannot fault these people because they are making it easier for me to live here.

You make an assumption that I need to question. Creatives are not always poor, and it is not impossible to live here (even in greenpoint) if you're not rich. Your argument casts creatives as victims who will always be poor or who need to be poor, when in reality the fine arts market is booming, bands have more opportunities (via internet) to control their own destiny, etc.

Being a 'creative' is hard, but it should be. Most people's creative efforts are not very good, and it takes an overwhelming amount of confidence to be a good artist. Confidence comes from getting it together to live in this crazy city and still make art.

In my experience, I find that this city is so full of opportunities to make a lot of money fast when you need it, make good connections to people in your field, and otherwise really make it happen... that I don't mind having to figure out (creatively) how to live here. I am here for creative reasons, and I am fine.

Is this the creative experience in Soho in the 70's? No. But it is real and it's here. Money is not bad. It has no value at all. It is what you make it. Being romantic about it and bitching because Rauschenberg and Johns' New York has vanished accomplishes nothing.

Picking up this city as it is and using it is creative.

Posted by: at March 1, 2007 7:33 AM in response to bed stuy - is the area I'm moving to relatively safe?

I think you misunderstood my representation of creative "types" and artists who have a desire to live and make art in the city. I agree that is not true that artists need to be and will always be poor. I refer to a time when it was possible for artists to live in certain areas for less as a means of developing their skills and body of work and that is no longer the case. It is an integral part of the process and I believe that there has been a drastic shift in values in the city as the real estate market dominates the entire social fabric like never before. Money certainly DOES have value and without alot of it you don't have a chance oif making it in the city. But more important, my real comments are directed toward how you get less for more and sacrifice fundamental quality of life elements in order to live in the city. The market is driven by people who are willing to pay more for less and it's a VALUES issue. Places like Greenpoint were once unattractive to "shitheads" who move into neighborhoods and have no regard for what has been established and maintained long before they decided it was a "hip"place to be. Acknowledging that a place like NY has evolved into a place that is now accessible and attractive to materialistic boneheads is not a romantic or idealistic response. As a city native I'm just a little disappointed that NY is no longer relevant. It's Miami on the Hudson. You can have it....probably as long as your Mommy and Daddy are funding it.

Posted by: aj at March 1, 2007 1:07 PM in response to bed stuy - is the area I'm moving to relatively safe?

I am the person you describe. I am an artist living without a trust fund in this city. My parents didn't even fund my state school education or graduate school and they don't even buy my plane tickets home. And yet I am making it, without a ton of money, because I am really resourceful and obsessively frugal. Your comment about not having a chance without a ton of money simply isn't true. People do it all the time.

I knew it was going to be expensive as hell to do the art thing here. And so I developed myself and my work somewhere cheap and moved here when I was ready to be in New York.

This is not a place to develop skills or a body of work unless you have a trust fund. You are right. But it has a perfectly relevant *market*, and I am glad I am here now that what I need is a market.

You are complaining about the loss of something that is gone. I am agreeing with you that it is gone and saying that I am still here, doing what I do, making what is actually in front of me work.

You bring up Greenpoint. It's the ugliest, smelliest, most toxic neighborhood I have ever lived in, and I can't believe people are buying into it for more than a million, either. But you can't escape the fact that they *are*. And in the short time I have been here, Greenpoint has gotten significantly more civilized, and I have a long lease, so I guess it's not a terrible thing.

My point is that things change. The history of NYC is one of constant, radical change. It used to be Patti Smith's New York, or Paula Cooper's New York. And now it's Bjork and Matthew Barney's New York. That's just true, and I can't put a value judgement on it unless I want to sit on the sidelines.

What I *can* do is ask the city for what it can actually give me, and give everything I have to it. And not worry so much that the whole world (not just NYC) looks more and more like a giant mall, and instead work to fucking change it.

The point of my argument is that you are still victimizing the creative. You are asking NY to be the perfect place for nurturing the creative soul because it has been in the past. And I would say that maybe it is, but not in the way you expect.

Maybe figuring out how to make money with your art AND not become a shithead *is* the creative juice of this millenium.

Maybe figuring out how to deny the romance of poverty *and, at the same time* deny the commodity culture that surrounds us and saps us of our power (money. Money is power.) is going to be the basis of the new creative culture you yearn for.

But would you notice it if you found it? Or would you be looking for something that is already a freaking coffee-table book?

Posted by: at March 1, 2007 5:37 PM in response to bed stuy - is the area I'm moving to relatively safe?