This being the deadest week of the year save the one between Christmas and New Year’s, we’re going to take the opportunity to start unpacking after our move last week. As a result, all we’re going to serve up this week are the morning links to give you something to chew on. That, and one discussion question.

As we start to approach our one-year anniversary in October, we think it would be a good time to solicit feedback about the site. We’re happy to hear any criticism as long as it’s given in a respectful tone, so please let us know what you like about Brownstoner and what you don’t as well as ideas for new features or services you’d like to see in the months ahead.

Thanks,

Brownstoner


What's Your Take? Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

  1. Maybe weekely reports on the neighborhoods where there’s a lot of action in terms of renovation, “gentrification” etc… Clinton Hill, Bed Stuy, Crown Heights, Ditmas Park. A regular weekly feature on either a property, a neighborhood development in each of these (and other “hot”) areas.

  2. Maybe weekely reports on the neighborhoods where there’s a lot of action in terms of renovation, “gentrification” etc… Clinton Hill, Bed Stuy, Crown Heights, Ditmas Park. A regular weekly feature on either a property, a neighborhood development in each of these (and other “hot”) areas.

  3. I think the occassional restaurant review is fine, since so much of the chat on Brownstoner is concerned with neighborhood amenitites, quality of life, etc… Brownstoner has become a site about “living well” in Brooklyn.

  4. The first poster is right; the only flaw with the site is the Forum’s archiving feature. On a personal note, I’d like to see more pics of your place, B’stoner; the details are nice but I’d like more of an overview. Also, as we hardly cook ( especially with BBQ season drawing to a close ) we appreciated the restaurant report several days ago – I realize it’s only peripherally relevant, but maybe a ‘local amenities’ forum?
    PS: I feel the need clarify:’we’ is my wife and me. not the ‘royal we’. So don’t start.

1 3 4 5