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
No one is advocating that we build new 19th century brownstones. That would be impossible to all but the extremely rich. But to those who keep writing for the rest of us to grow up and accept that, you are missing the point. Quality construction should not be only for the priveleged few. A look at what happens in the South during hurricane season should clearly tell us that shoddy homes built to house lower income folks are by in large built badly. I don’t want to hijack the thread into a hurricane rant, I’m just pointing out that like your $29 toaster, these things are not meant to last. There is a better way. It’s been done in this city, and in other cities with old housing stock. The point I think that we are trying to make is that most developers, especially now, today in Bed Stuy and other like neighborhoods, are not looking to do better. No one is forcing them to. As long as they are just inside code, or can get around it, they have no incentive to change. Like another poster said, they will build and move on, changing their names, and ducking liability. This does not help the poor, the neighborhood, or anyone else, except them.
David, you seem to hate plaster walls so much, but a 5/8″ thick piece of sheetrock is not the only alternative available to a renovator or builder. There are thicker widths available, which would be must sturdier, and more soundproof, but that would add to the cost, so they don’t do it. In terms of renovating a brownstone, many people use a thicker piece of rock, or they double the thin stuff, or they use a special kind of rock that allows you to put a thicker skim coat of plaster or mud on that is a closer match to a plaster finish, and looks better in an older home. I can’t think of the name of it now, but I’m sure someone else knows. Or they replaster. I’ve done it and it’s time consuming, but it’s not that hard with a little practice.
Lead paint is a concern, but can be handled with good renovating habits, and good sense. If you strip or scrape paint, use the right safety equipment, and clean up very carefully. If you paint over it, it won’t harm you. It has to be ingested or inhaled to affect you. Every home built before 1970 has lead paint. Brownstones are not the only buildings. All of your other issues, such as roofs, electricity, etc – what do you want, it’s a 100 year old house. Of course it needs work and updating. At least it’s worth it both to you now and if you sell it. That cannot and will not be said of the building on the left in the above pictures.
It depends on your definition of “shoddy”, but Faithful @ 1:51’s description of his/her former house sounds pretty shoddy to me.
does anyone have actual quantitative evidence that these developers would generate a higher ROI by constructing more aesthetically pleasing buildings? as much as i’d like too see better looking structures go up around bklyn and elsewhere, i’m not sold on these back of the envelope calculations being tossed around. i’ve got to imagine that developers are rational profit maximizers, who have done slightly more analysis on how to tweak profits than most, if not all, of us here.
These things do not go for $400k
Can anyone offer any objective evidence (other than idioic statments like “it looks flimsy”)that these developments (pick one) are “shoddy”
Ugly I’ll agree, sheetrock walls naturally, minimal or cheap detailing -probably –
but is there any evidence that they are actually poorly constructed as in defective or structurly unsound.
Well all the poor guys have to do is stick
it up the developer’s ass and here we improve Brooklyn. If we educate there people than there wouldn’t be such ugly buildings. The problem is that the Brounstone will go for over 1 million and the ugly one will go for 400K like a cheap stock that the poor can afford.
I think that over a period of 20 years your’e buying land and not a house.
I hate these cheap bastards developers.
hey, this was posted in the forum http://dontbuildschlock.blogspot.com/
Most new condos build in Brooklyn (especially those built on Ocean Avenue, Midwood and Sheepshead Bay) are so poorly built. Some of them look like they will fall once the wind gets stronger. They look like they are made of thick paper and then covered by thin bricks so that they look as if they were made of brick.
Dave,
You have summed up what I have been saying since Friday. I guess it all depends on whether or not you live in the neighborhood. ONCE AND FOR ALL THESE ARE NOT LOW COST HOUSES!!!- just shoddy ones.