Cheap New Construction a Deal? Not a Chance
Not to beat a dead horse, but there were several commenters in Friday’s discussion that seemed to feel that the new construction eyesores being slapped up around the borough serve the purpose of providing lower-income people with the benefit of the american dream. Our rebuttal was that these structures actually do the opposite. They are…
Not to beat a dead horse, but there were several commenters in Friday’s discussion that seemed to feel that the new construction eyesores being slapped up around the borough serve the purpose of providing lower-income people with the benefit of the american dream. Our rebuttal was that these structures actually do the opposite. They are almost without exception poorly constructed and almost without exception extremely ugly. We don’t see how these things have a chance of holding their value over time against the traditional housing stock. Take these two comparably priced houses within a few blocks of each other in Bed Stuy, both of which were posted in the last couple of days on Craigslist. Which owner do you think is more likely to have preserved or built equity 20 years from now? Which owner is more likely to get completely wiped out in a downturn? So much for serving the needs of the needy. These developers are taking the money and running from those least able to afford it.
3 Family New Construction [Craigslist] GMAP
4 Family Brownstone [Craigslist] GMAP
Wow. I never thought I would say this, but can we go back to talking about whether Prospect Lefferts is / is not dangerous?
On my street in Astoria one of those Fedders buildings was built about a year ago and 2 more are under construction – same ugly tan brick. I don’t know about the two being built but according to Property Shark the owner of the finished one doesn’t live there, it appears to be purely for investment. How many of those buildings are actually bought to live in? If the owner lives in a nicer part of town, why should he/she care how aesthetically pleasing they are?
David, I’m not going to argue with you anymore. I have my opinions, you have yours. Since I only used the word shoddy once in the last couple of threads, I think you are over reacting to me a bit. I’m still trying to understand why you bought a brownstone, since everything about them, (flat roofs, plaster walls, old wiring, plumbing, on and on) are a given in a 100 year old house, and some of them must have been obvious when you bought it. But hey, whatever. I stand my my opinion that the house on the left is not of quality construction or design. It seems I am not alone in that opinion, and that’s good enough for me.
Peace, brother.
That is it. I have had it with this board. Good bye and good luck.
And another thing no one else has mentioned thus far: if, as someone said, this crap is just torn down and replaced in the next 20 years, what harm? The harm is to the earth, to our shrinking resources.
All else, socioeconomic issues/race/aesthetics aside, building materials do not just come out of a replicator like on Star Trek. We pollute the earth making all of them, we strip the forests for wood, we use a ton of petrol products for plastics, the manufacture of everthing from sheetrock to the veneer on the kitchen cabinets spews toxins into the atmosphere. Check out any building site, good or bad, we waste like there’s no tomorrow.
I’m not generally a raving tree hugger, but I can see no good coming of this. This will cost us in the price of future materials, of course, but also in the quality of our air and water. To treat new shoddy construction, because that will go first, as being as disposable as a Bic pen, does them no service, and speaks very badly of us. It behooves us to make sure it is done right the first time, to the extent that we can, so it doesn’t have to be done over.
And even if they did go for $40,000, we who earn less, would never be able to afford them. When the downpayment is more than you make in a year, you will never own anything.
Good grief. This thread winds on and on and I am not sure what the point is.
Do brownstones look nice? Yes.
Should new contruction look nice? Yes.
Should new construction be affordable (really affordable) to working people? Yes.
Would it be nice to have housing that is both beautiful, affordable and profitable to developers? Yes.
And everyone seems to agree that new construction can be both beautiful, genuinely affordable and profitable for developers. In that case, we all seem to agree that we should move forward with the beautiful, affordable, profitable housing. Hardly a shocking plan to build a consensus around, but okay. Is there anything else?
CrownHeightsProud -What EVIDENCE do you have that the above pictured house (or any other) are not sound???? Just b/c you say it over and over doesnt make it so.
I do not “hate” plaster walls, I just recongnize that they and the brownstones they are attached to have serious drawbacks just like new construction has its own drawbacks – doesnt mean either is “SHODDY”.
BTW: Brownstone itself is considered a really crappy building material (soft, porus sandstone)
A leaky [presumably flat] roof is your definition of shoddy??? If it is then virtually everything ever built is “shoddy”.