I guess the point is, it doesn't matter who builds them, the end result is the same. A really ugly building. And ugly buildings are going up all over the city- so singling out one ethnic group is ridiculous. We seen and complained about loads of garbage buildings on this forum- many of them not built by Hasidic or Jewish developers. Yes in certain areas you'll find one group or another predominating, but that's a question of demographics, not cultural characteristics.

Posted by: jennyanne at September 28, 2006 4:33 PM in response to No Takers For Red Hook Piece o' Crap

I don't have an obsession with race or ethnicity until a jerk brings it up. And actually no I don't think anyone would have made a big deal out of it if it were Irish, or Italians or gay developers. But Hasids are a particularly unified group, visually and culturally. People find it easy to pick them out and take potshots.

"why is it that Hasidic developers always put up shit design and housing, even for themselves? Is it always about saving a buck ?

Posted by: Anonymous at September 26, 2006 8:18 PM"

The word Hasid need never have entered into the discussion. In fact, if you note, the first 28 comments never mention the ethnicity of the developer.and the quote above was the first.

If you don't get it, you never will. But what could I expect from someone who gets upset over a reference to Italians but is ok with comments about Jews. Indeed- physician heal thyself.

Posted by: jennyanne at September 28, 2006 4:08 PM in response to No Takers For Red Hook Piece o' Crap

Wow- talk about hyper sensitive.

Have to disagree with you here, Rascal.

As a Jew I've heard that argument too often in a negative context (as in you Jews control everything, you're cheap, etc.) Moreover,CHP's comments were really aimed more at the idiotic posts of aster and jbjb, which are offensive. They are not talking about a cultural history of financial prudence, they made some pretty ugly assertions- "They have no interest in quality, architecture, or design beautification. It seems to be all about the money." and "THESE PEOPLE MUST BE STOPPED!" aster's rather hysterical contribution.

Am I wrong in assuming you're Italian? Because for comparative purposes we could delve into a history of anti-semitism vs. anti-Italian sentiment and see who has had the rougher time. But that would be a pointless exercise- everyone suffers from the effects of extremism, racism and prejudice, directly and indirectly.

I also note that you use Jews and Hasids interchangeably. Hasids are but one end of the spectrum and in no way define or characterize the entire religion or culture. I'm sure you would find it offensive if I equated all Christianity with the religious extremists like James Dobson, Jerry Falwell and Pat Roberts (or it is Robertson? What do I know- you see one extremist you've seen them all). And it seems to me the consequences of that group of religious extremists is far more destructive of the quality of life than an ugly building. Oh- one last thing. This is Banned Book Week. Guess who banned Harry Potter? (Hint: not us financially prudent folk).

Posted by: jennyanne at September 28, 2006 3:07 PM in response to No Takers For Red Hook Piece o' Crap

Of course, that said, some people just have horrible design instincts.

Posted by: jennyanne at September 28, 2006 11:35 AM in response to No Takers For Red Hook Piece o' Crap

Great posts, Carolyn, and your questions are right on the money. I wish there were answers. Part of it might lie in the fact that SI is an island, while Brooklyn has long been easily accessible from Manhattan and Queens (discounting traffic of course). If your dad was right, SI was considered to be open territory and not under close scrutiny. And a bit of contempt for blue collar workers- something we still see today.

Another factor is historical. When brownstones and tudors were being built, the technology and craftsmen were available and these homes were built based on methods going back thousands of years. But once the Industrial revolution really got underway, and mass production became a reality, people looked to how to produce faster and cheaper. But there is an underlying premise to mass production- start up costs are huge, so you need to produce a lot just to get started. So you cut corners, simplfy designs, eliminate fancy details, use cheaper materials. And certainly the baby boom after WW II played right into that.

Posted by: jennyanne at September 28, 2006 11:34 AM in response to No Takers For Red Hook Piece o' Crap

You're right samandjoeshow- and I'm not a big fan of that sort of thing, but it works they way the Bklyn Museum grand Staircase works.

I thought the CG building looks like a T. Rex mounting a woolley mammoth. Impossible then, impossible now.

Posted by: jennyanne at September 27, 2006 12:30 PM in response to Real Photos of Carroll Gardens Bastard

Same here, lost in brooklyn. And not to get into that mess again, but CHP and I really got the brunt of it , especially when the troll posted links to those awful photos. I always wondered why the troll kept coming back after Mr. B blocked the IP address. I know there are places you can look up the provider and they can trace the poster but it's a lot of work- I doubt brownstoner can afford to devote hours everyday to tracing malicious individuals.

Posted by: jennyanne at September 27, 2006 12:22 PM in response to A Note To Readers

kudos to CHP for having the courage to speak out and tell the truth about a rather ugly aspect of this site. Maybe being faceless and nameless on the web brings out the worst in some of us but it's nothing to be proud of.

Posted by: jennyanne at September 27, 2006 12:10 PM in response to No Takers For Red Hook Piece o' Crap

No- it's not bigotry, but why bother to make mention of Hasids and Hispanics as being opportunistic, and not, for instance, the artists? There's been much discussion of them as well. Surely they are just as self-interested. The whole thing just seems out of context because the result, saving the buildings, was the purpose of the report, and now the side issue is the discussion instead. The more important issue is the fact that a new hi-rise will, of course, be another expensive luxury tower. But the issue can bring these groups to work together, maybe some good will come out of it.

Posted by: jennyanne at September 22, 2006 12:52 PM in response to Strange Bedfellows In Southside Landmark Fight

"As for the other other two groups, from where we sit, their sudden interest in preservation reeks of opportunism and is particularly ironic given their complete lack of concern about the borough's architectural heritage (and future) up to this point."

And like no one else reeks of opportunism in Brooklyn? There are lots of strange bedfellows in NYC -show me a politician who isn't an opportunist. In fact, show me a homeowner or renter or artist or activist or air-breather who isn't on some level or another. It's kind of offensive to pick these particular 2 groups out of the protestors and question their integrity, interests or needs.It's one thing to talk about the situation in factual terms, but this type of commentary seems aimed more at roiling the waters to get a discussion going. Seems a little opportunistic to me.

Posted by: jennyanne at September 22, 2006 11:20 AM in response to Strange Bedfellows In Southside Landmark Fight

Landmarking is a plus for everyone except developers who don't care if they trash a beautiful structure and turn the neighborhood into a hi-rise people dump. In many cases, like Crown Heights North, landmarking will protect the housing stock, and help homeowners with incentives and financial access they would not have had before. For many of the homeonwers who live here, that's great news because they live in homes they've inherited or were able to buy at very low prices and today can barely afford the upkeep. And It's an official statement that the neighborhood is recognized as being a valuable and desirable one.

As far as worrying about whether landmarking will gentrify the neighborhood and squeeze out long time, poorer residents- look around. Gentrification is going on everywhere and has nothing to do with landmarking.

I think it's also imortant to note that in this case, the impetus to go for landmarked status came from a group of Black professionals and residents, many of whom grew up in Crown Heights. And not from newbie gentrifiers who go for landmark status after the fact. In this case, a great group of people, old timers and newbies alike, joined forces , but the real work had been underway for years, thanks to CHNA.

CHNA is to be commended- they see landmarking as protecting not just homeowners, but also CHN's more vulnerable residents. It's a hard choice to be offered huge sums for your property by a developer who'll tear it down for a fedders, and the house is the only thing you have. And when that happens, the secondary group, renters who have lived in their apartments for 20-30 years, are also at risk.

Lastly, it's a quality of life issue. People talk about how NYC is so great to live in, the amenities, the arts, blah,blah, blah, quality of life... I can't tell you how it makes me feel to look out my window and see this beautiful neighborhood. For those of us too poor to enjoy the "amenities" of Manhattan, living here makes up for it. I think I and my neighbors have every right to this version of life quality as those whose quality of life depends on 200$ seats to a Broadway show. After an expensive dinner. To each his own.

Posted by: jennyanne at September 21, 2006 7:25 PM in response to LPC: Back to Brooklyn "In a Major Way"

Ah- CHP is in the house! Welcome back!

Well, as a renter I don't see where landmark status will necessarily drive anyone out. First of all, anon at 9:57- the renters you so summarily dismiss are the ones who help many a homeowner able to afford that landmarked house. True, landlords want to get the best price for their rentals- certainly understandable. But I think very few of them are so interested in squeezing a renter dry as you seem to be.

Secondly, landmarking, as CHP points out, will open up financial assistance and opportunities to people who may not be able to maintain the house they've owned for years because they didn't have the money. CHNA's impetus is protecting the people of this neghborhood who most need it, as well as ensuring that it stays beautiful and desirable.

Thirdly- it protects the neighborhood. First from greedy developers. It also puts a damper on declaring eminent domain on a homeowner just because a developer wants to ratnerize.

So thanks for all your concern for us poor downtrodden renters, anons at 9:57 and 11:30 but I would say get a different soapbox. I hardly want the likes of you claiming to speak for me.

Posted by: jennyanne at September 19, 2006 1:02 PM in response to Crown Heights North on LPC Agenda Today

I've walked over there many times- it's a lovely neighborhood and mostly quiet. I live in walking distance of this part of EP and love it because it reminds me so much of the Bronx' Grand COncourse.

My guess is that the people who are crying bad neighborhood are those who love to get a rise out of people. I guess that it's Crown Hgts turn now, after PLG.

Posted by: jennyanne at September 7, 2006 1:21 AM in response to Co-op of the Day: 469 Eastern Parkway

I don't like modern for the most part, but (surprising myself here) I love this place. It just has a craftsman /artist (not arts & crafts style) feel to it for me. And I love the windows.

Posted by: jennyanne at September 6, 2006 12:27 PM in response to Brooklyn's First Energy Star Condos Debut

Anon 11:45- what makes you think he followed the code? Building regulations are there to make sure that they are built to a certain safety code- duh! Considering what's been going on in Brooklyn develoers ignore them anyway. So if the exterior gas lines are unprotected, don't you think the neighbors have something to worry about? I damn well do.

Kevin- stay in Manhattan. If you don't get that this blog is about fighting to keep what is best about Brooklyn (and there is a huge amount of it), then you're the one with the problem, not brownstoner.

Posted by: jennyanne at September 6, 2006 12:19 PM in response to Irresponsible Developers Try to Dump New-Build

The flooring looks like different shades"- funny.

Personally i hate the out in the open kitchen. The other kitchen certainly looks a bit better, but by and large they units don't look very interesting. Wish they had shown a bathroom. The pics may be the most expensive unit, but the second kitchen must be in the least. Why would anyone buy a unit for 469,000 with that poor excuse for a kitchen?

Posted by: jennyanne at August 31, 2006 3:26 PM in response to Condo of the Day: 88 Quincy Street

Did you mean "awesome" as opposed to "aweful?" One's good and the other is very bad. Still, if I can I'll definitely try it out. Hope more great places to eat open there. (And also head over to Crown Hgts North where we really need some great restaurants.

Posted by: jennyanne at August 31, 2006 3:18 PM in response to House of the Day: 242 Hancock Street

Ys- it should be quite interesting to watch the siding or facade slide down the front after the first big rain. Anyone know what's behind the sheetrock? there is something behind the sheetrock, right?

Can't imagine this is a professional because he certainly should know about sheetrock. Either he is doing it because he is way too cheap to care, or he thinks a little tyvek will fix everything.

Posted by: jennyanne at August 31, 2006 3:12 PM in response to Pioneering Use of Sheetrock as Exterior Material

Meryckawick- what kind of solution is that? The current system encourages cheating so just ignore everything and do what you want? Great- so when the building you advocated being built in defiance of the DOB, collapses or yet another construction worker dies, that's ok with you because some "brave" developer decided to forge ahead? The better solution is to fix the problem, not make it a thousand times worse.

Posted by: jennyanne at August 29, 2006 8:46 PM in response to Markowitz Calls Out DOB on Enforcement

He's kidding, right? What a hypocrite! With all of the cheerleading he's doing for Ratner, NOW he's concerned about overbuilding? Too little too late.

Posted by: jennyanne at August 29, 2006 11:56 AM in response to Markowitz Calls Out DOB on Enforcement

oh please! write something intelligent next time.

Posted by: jennyanne at August 29, 2006 12:50 AM in response to Monday Linkage

sorry- the above post is mine. for some reason it didn't register my name. Weird.

Posted by: jennyanne at August 29, 2006 12:39 AM in response to Partnership Great News for Affordable Housing

And you too, Anon 10:44. Of course, You're preaching to the converted here. And Thank you for a civil discourse on a very difficult subject.

Posted by: jennyanne at August 25, 2006 12:38 AM in response to Wednesday Links

Oooh thanks anon at 4:09 but not from you. :-)

Posted by: jennyanne at August 25, 2006 12:33 AM in response to More AY Mashups: Puttin' On The Perspective

Thanks Mel, but I think you are referring to Superanon. I don't think the project is a good deal as it stands now. Superanon trusts the eyes of Brooklyn to force Ratner to do a good job. I don't see it and by the time we know for certain, the damage will be done.

Posted by: jennyanne at August 24, 2006 1:21 PM in response to More AY Mashups: Puttin' On The Perspective

"Personally, I couldn’t care less for Ratner (I think the man is an idiot with no sensibility or taste) or DDDB (blind and fanatical). I simply think that this is a good deal for Brooklyn and with everyone watching, Ratner can't fuck this one up."

You're making no sense- you think Ratner gives a rat's ass for other opinions? You think he's an idiot, with no taste or sensibility, but you're willing to trust that he will do the right thing for Brooklyn because Brooklynites are watching? Where do you see any evidence in this whole process that shows he can be trusted?

Posted by: jennyanne at August 24, 2006 12:50 PM in response to More AY Mashups: Puttin' On The Perspective

You are absolutely right. This has never been about Brooklyn- it's always been about Manhattan. Acorn and DDDB would be quite a unique, if not politically powerful community voice but Bertha Lewis signed that all away when she signed onto ratner's plan. CHP is right about Ratner playing the race card. It just proves him to be cynical, manipulative and greedy. Moreover, it takes a certain amount of contempt to use the race card. Think Bertha Lewis or Rev Daugherty realize how they have been played?

Posted by: jennyanne at August 24, 2006 1:53 AM in response to More AY Mashups: Puttin' On The Perspective

Very true, 4:21. But it doesn't make it better. About 6 months ago the Post had a huge headline, "Jew refuses jury duty". Anti-semitism is on the rise and all those things play into it. As a Jew, I sometimes differ with the Hasidic community on the things they do, but, as with any religious group, it's a matter of cause and effect. Jews (Orthodox) cannot turn on electric lights until Sat. sundown- because of the Sabbath, not because they were born Jews. Muslims pray 5 times a day, facing Mecca because Islam requires this- not because they were born Muslims. Prejudice presupposes that a trait is somehow biologically connected to a particular group (for good or bad) and therefore is used as justification for bias.

The more its used in trivial ways, the more people get used to thinking that way, and the easier it is to accept prejudice and discrimination. And that is never good.

Posted by: jennyanne at August 23, 2006 7:12 PM in response to Wednesday Links

Crouchback is right. But I do fault NY Magazine for the headline. religious Jews have specific requirements- the headline makes it sound negative,like they're tough because they are religious Jews, rather than just trying to get what they need. You know, like all the rest of us. I'm sure between the demands of yuppies, divas, established older couples and investors, real estate agents have it tough all over.

Posted by: jennyanne at August 23, 2006 11:51 AM in response to Wednesday Links

I actually like the building (surprised the heck out of myself!)- I like that it is a modern take on the flatiron building in Manhattan. DOn't know if that was intentional or if all flatiron type buildings tend to do that. The flat planes glass reflect the surrounding neighborhood- it almost makes the walls disappear and blend into the surroundings. Metaphorically neat. Not like Ms. Brooklyn. That'll reflect a fractured neighborhood and make everyone look like a bad Picasso.

Posted by: jennyanne at August 23, 2006 8:52 AM in response to Don't Like the Flatbush Flatiron? No Worries

My favorite street in all of NYC. Like going back in time. The buildings are not elevated but below the BGE. But I would move there in a hot minute given the chance.

Posted by: jennyanne at August 22, 2006 1:17 PM in response to Architecture 101: The Riverside Apartments

I don't get it. People are touting AY as a generator of desperately needed jobs, but the BB park, and AY will evict businesses that employ people. It makes no sense. ANd how stupid are we to force out any business in this City?

Posted by: jennyanne at August 21, 2006 8:41 PM in response to Monday Linkage

Too true, Anon2. I think those who oppose AY are not so unrealistic as to expect no new development, or even no high rise development. But the opposition is to outscaled projects that will strain, rather than benefit the area. Sure it's great construction workers will have jobs, sure it's wonderful that some lower income people will be able to get apartments there (if Ratner keeps his word). But when all is said and done, what happens after all the builders, developers and ribbon-cutters go home? It isn't NIMBYism to want to know how and why a development will affect an area. And shouting NIMBYism everytime someone objects to the Ratner development as it stands now, or constantly harping on their methods, only serves to highlight the validity of their objections. If AY supporters can't counter with a better reply that "its NIMBYism" or "DG has alienated everyone with his protests", one has to wonder why they are avoiding a reply with substance.

Posted by: jennyanne at August 21, 2006 8:19 PM in response to Don't Like the Flatbush Flatiron? No Worries

You can see the same sort of odd shaped layouts in Amalgamated, in the Bronx. Odd curves and slanted walls. Doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason, but I think its part of their charm.

Posted by: jennyanne at August 21, 2006 8:03 PM in response to Co-op of the Day: Westminster Road 2 BR

Finally something superanon and I can agree on- CHN :-). I do quite a bit with CHNA also,and they do a fantastic job, but there is so much more to be done. I'm close to the subway on Fulton St. I love the area and although the shops and stores are not Starbucks, and Bergdorf, there are a lot of places to get stuff very inexpensively. The people are friendly and there are many families who have lived in and owned their homes for decades.

Posted by: jennyanne at August 17, 2006 3:48 PM in response to Brownstone Breakfast: Price Cut on Hancock

You can't destroy anything because rants and self-satisfied, egomaniacal crowing do not constitute a valid contribution to a debate, despite what you may believe. Frankly it's not worth my time to even discuss it with you because you are incapable of being mature, respectful or even intelligent about it. This thread's done for me. Rant away s.anon- make all the noise you're capable of. And that's all it is- noise.

Posted by: jennyanne at August 17, 2006 2:45 PM in response to That Was Quick: 236 Dean Snapped Up

So much for being allowed to have your own opinion in this country. When did you become such an opinion-nazi, superanon? And how is it you're incapable of responding except by insults and sarcasm? Have a different opinion than I do? Fine- how about responding like a grown-up instead of a 5 year old?

Posted by: jennyanne at August 17, 2006 1:04 PM in response to That Was Quick: 236 Dean Snapped Up

The argument, anon at 10:27, is that they are claiming it's much more convenient to take public transportation to the arena. You, however have just pointed out how convenient it is for cars. We all know there are options- the idea was which options were "better."

Franz- that's really interesting. So what happens to his rationale for the arena then? And Will Bklyn Knicks fans change their loyalty? FOr a Jersey team? I don't think so- they're still pissed at the Dodgers for deserting, and no one forgives Jersey for stealing the Jets and the Giants. Long long memories in NYC fans. IMHO :-)

Posted by: jennyanne at August 17, 2006 12:33 AM in response to That Was Quick: 236 Dean Snapped Up

I think he meant "baiting" but I didn't think you were doing that either.

Posted by: jennyanne at August 16, 2006 5:20 PM in response to That Was Quick: 236 Dean Snapped Up

There is no real definition of blight in the law. So why, just because it isn't pretty, would an economically active business area and gentrifying neighborhood constitute blight? Because it's an affront to your rarified aesthetics? If you wanted to see blight you should see what blight really looks like- blocks of burned out buildings, groups of empty lots used as garbage dumps, hookers and dealers everywhere. You have no idea. You think it's bad today? There were neighborhoods that were wastelands- the AY is an industrial area and as such still has a good number of viable business that will be lost, homeowners and tenants that will be pushed out, public streets that will be closed off. So don't use "blight" as the excuse to give Ratner a free pass. And don't substitute being visually offended for legitmate reasons to build. ANd there are many good reasons-but none need to be that large or disruptive or destructive of the surrounding neighborhoods.

Posted by: jennyanne at August 16, 2006 5:01 PM in response to That Was Quick: 236 Dean Snapped Up

Between 3rd and down to the BQE, Atlantic Ave. has really changed, and yes, it is charming.

Posted by: jennyanne at August 16, 2006 12:24 PM in response to That Was Quick: 236 Dean Snapped Up

I think a lot of people get intimidated by lawyers (which, after all is part of their mo). Maybe that's why the poster is nervous and worried that his lawyer will retaliate. If your lawyer worries you this much, get your documents, fire him and send him a long, detailed letter as to why. He probably won't even notice since he is so busy. As to paying any bills- get detailed invoices and explanations. And proof he actually did the work. I know someone who got billed for work and filings that were nevre even done.

Posted by: jennyanne at August 16, 2006 12:20 PM in response to RE attorney - I am a client or what!?

10:33- It's not quite the done deal you think. Yente is right. The sky isn't falling- there are no wmds. But being prepared for any eventuality is the smartest thing to do, not throw up your hands and say, nothing can be done. A negative impact will be disastrous- because it will spread out from there.

Posted by: jennyanne at August 16, 2006 10:39 AM in response to That Was Quick: 236 Dean Snapped Up

I guess we won't know until we get there but I can't see anyone wanting to live close to an arena- especially on game night. It's one thing to be able to go nearby- like MSG- another to deal with pre and post game fans.

FYI- early on someone did yet another financial analysis of revenues need to make the arena profitable and found that the arena would have to be in use over 300+ nights a year. DOn't know how accurate that was, but if I was a homeowner in that area I would be really unhappy.

Posted by: jennyanne at August 16, 2006 10:34 AM in response to That Was Quick: 236 Dean Snapped Up

As a tenant who sometimes is late with the rent, and having been lucky enough to have landlords who have been most understanding, I still have to say you sound like a good landlord who just needs to put his (or her?) foot down. It took me a long time to learn that when you lay out the boundaries from the very beginning, people accept it for what it is.

So far as the boyfriend, they should have asked, but I don't know as there is much else you can do. But he's nice, so you're lucky.

Posted by: jennyanne at August 15, 2006 1:46 PM in response to Tenant Problem / Novice Landlord