Size Matters. So Do Money and Ego.
What an embarassment. This article made us so glad that we no longer live in Manhattan and that our children will not have to grow up around the kind of shallow, materialistic people epitomized by Gary Rabin. Hey, we’ve got nothing against double-wide townhouses, believe us, we just wish you didn’t have to be a…
What an embarassment. This article made us so glad that we no longer live in Manhattan and that our children will not have to grow up around the kind of shallow, materialistic people epitomized by Gary Rabin. Hey, we’ve got nothing against double-wide townhouses, believe us, we just wish you didn’t have to be a one-dimensional, status-hungry jerk to own one:
WHEN Gary Rabin closed on a 38-foot-wide New York City town house this month, he happily acknowledged that his new home’s girth would make him the envy of the tony town-house set. He had started off in 2003 with a 19.6-foot-wide brownstone on a quiet Greenwich Village block – wide enough by any conventional brownstone standards. There was no need to hang his head in shame the way he might have had he bought, say, a 13-foot-wide property. But being slightly below the coveted 20-foot mark, it wasn’t the sort of statistic he was likely to brag about among his real estate-savvy friends at dinner parties. In the fall of 2004, he found what he was looking for: a 38-foot-wide town house a few blocks away, a massive piece of real estate for New York. Sure, it was a lot more expensive, but he’s a lot happier, too…”There’s an element of pride when you walk out the door in the morning,” Mr. Rabin says.
Gag.
Quest for a Wide Town House [NY Times]
Poor wall stret folks all world is against them. We should start Commite to Defend Wall Street Mainority Against Prejudice. or smthing like that.
Lets be real and talk about architecture.
“we think that this one holds true far more often that not”
That’s the whole point about prejudice, which the quote indicates.
To make it explicit, stereotypes and prejudice are always wrong because they do not recognize individuals, but just groups. If you’re a member of that group, then you’re branded.
Even if you personally know a lot of people who work on Wall Street that fit your stated stereotype, the point I’m making is that it is wrong to say things like “we unfortunately have to work all too closely with the kind of Wall Street people who truly measure their success in life by how many zeros are in their net worth.”
By making such a comment, you’re depending upon the prejudice of many of your readers to jump to a conclusion without thinking seriously about the subject. It’s fine to condemn the guy for width envy, or whatever it’s called. But to simply group him as part of “Wall Street” or a “hedge fund manager” (as the NYT did) is appeallng to the basest form of human behavior, which is prejudice (i.e., pre-judgement based on a non-essential factor).
This anti-Wall Street attitude is certainly popular these days, but that doesn’t make it right. The number of adherents of an idea do not make an idea correct.
Reluctantly, by day (and too often night), yes. So we know what of we speak.
Wait a minute, so you’re the Wall Street types of which you speak?
You are absolutely right about the dangers of generalizations, but having worked in that world on and off for some time ourselves, we think that this one holds true far more often that not. We are always refreshed when we meet the exception to the rule and try our best not to prejudge individuals based on their profession (we’ve been written off by others for the same reason plenty of times and also recognize the realities of putting bread on the table), but when combined with the kind of attitude shown in the NYT article, it’s tough to cut the guy much slack.
I also think that it’s shallow to say that “Wall Street types” are one-dimensional and shallow! Like all prejudices, this one is SHALLOW!
With the risk of sounding a little “holier than thou,” I think the best policy is to judge an individual by his or her character. And I think it’s inappropriate to brand a person for either their place of work (e.g., Wall Street)or other non-essential factors such as race, gender, etc etc.
Let’s stop all this ugly prejudice against people because they work on “Wall Street.” How about putting your dogmas and bigotry away.
Look, we know we’re throwing around some pretty broad generalizations to which there are no doubt plenty of exceptions (a lot of our close friends who we don’t think fit this profile are raising families in Manhattan, for example), but the trend is undeniable.
Hmm 12.5 it is interesting architectural/interior design chalenge to design nice flow. I love skiny ones and I like slim women as well. Is it posible that this are related?
Isn’t it a little one dimensional and shallow to assume that Manhattan is only populated by rich, shallow people? There are many people in Manhattan as well as Brooklyn who bought homes in what used to be fringe neighborhoods but are now booming. How can you generalize that they’re all Wall Street types? Doesn’t that make you just as bad as you assume they are? Manhattan and Brooklyn are both filled with all types and that’s what makes New York City so amazing. I think the author of this article simplified what the subject was saying for effect. Nobody’s that shallow. But face it, it IS more comfortable to live in a wider house. All the Brooklyn brokers advertise width when a house is 20′ or wider but try to hide the width if it’s less. But I think many people would find 5 stories a downside because it’s less likely one would be able to take over the whole building at any point because it’s so expensive, so I never thought Brownstoner was bragging about this, or anything actually, just factually recording everything for all our benefits. I love Brownstoner.