Why Does Cheap Have to Mean Ugly?
Blogger Transfer calls developer United Homes of New York on its unforgiveable constructions. It comes as no surprise that these homes are getting built by and large in poorer neighborhoods. As Transfer writes, “Substandard design, materials, and expectations… Just what the ghetto needs, right?” A commenter adds: “Piece of shit developers like United Homes are…
Blogger Transfer calls developer United Homes of New York on its unforgiveable constructions. It comes as no surprise that these homes are getting built by and large in poorer neighborhoods. As Transfer writes, “Substandard design, materials, and expectations… Just what the ghetto needs, right?” A commenter adds: “Piece of shit developers like United Homes are just consigning these neighborhoods to another 25 years of low-value stagnation.” All this begs the question: Does cheap have to mean ugly? We don’t think so, though it certainly requires more effort and creativity than most run-of-the-mill developers have. All the more reason for some kind of aesthetic oversight a la Landmarks in our opinion.
Substandard Architecture [Transfer]
In practice, we’re sure it would be a nightmare, Will. It’s just particularly frustrating to see this stuff go up, especially in neighborhoods where there exists beautiful archtecture like Bed Stuy.
For decades Brooklyn was actually LOSING housing due to abandonment and decay, this went on well into the 1990’s, I believe. United Homes are cheap and ugly, but they’re homes and fairly affordable. There’s a lot of ugly housing out there in the ‘hinterlands’ of Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx, etc. They’re starter homes and hopefully aren’t going to collapse, but don’t you think a housing “asthetics” board is a recipe for insanity, especially in new york ?
i’ve seen buildings like those in williamsburg east of bedford…and they still rent for over $1500+ for a two bedroom…
http://www.ardorny.com/propertysearch/sales_search_details.asp?id=178549#
Here is the listing for it.It is in flatbush
But at least is not a towar set off from the street.
Aren’t these the ones on Underhill? If so, then like the ones bet Fulton & Atlantic were part of the NYC housing Program, the name I’ve forgotten of course. NOt Housing works, but maybe the Partnership for Housing. The NYC Housing program takes applications for mixed income families. It’s a better program than United Homes, but there is the tendency to build unattractive homes like the ones on Underhill Ave in PH.
These hideous constructions are popping up all over Bed Stuy. It’s nice to see empty lots being put to use, but these monstrosities are sitting right next to regal brownstones. I don’t think any thought whatsoever was put into the design. The quality looks cheap too. I don’t mean to insult anyone who lives in one of these. What’s with the awful Fedders air conditioning boxes disgracing the facade???
united homes are the biggest pieces of shit out there. there under investagation for all kinds of stuff
is it me or is the development that runs between fulton and atlantic, i believe down cumberland or there abouts is actually quite attractive, gardens and grass in front, brick green window trim- not sure what this development is but i think it fits into the neighborhood on many levels-
quoting my mom (who loves to shop in thrift stores)… “money cannot buy taste”
cheap definitely does NOT have to mean ugly, and on the other end- – expensive does not necessarily mean well made and beautiful!