Bait-and-Switch in Bay Ridge by Basile Builders
In a move that won’t exactly improve public opinion of developers, the Basile Builders Group last week demolished three Victorian homes in Bay Ridge which, according to the Brooklyn Eagle, it had originally promised to restore. As the blog Cititours documented in the photos above, the purveyors of all things Fedders pulled the old bait-and-switch…
In a move that won’t exactly improve public opinion of developers, the Basile Builders Group last week demolished three Victorian homes in Bay Ridge which, according to the Brooklyn Eagle, it had originally promised to restore. As the blog Cititours documented in the photos above, the purveyors of all things Fedders pulled the old bait-and-switch on the community. We’re restoring the Victorian homes, Rocco Basile originally told the Eagle at the end of August. The Bay Ridge Conservancy’s Victoria Hofmo wasn’t buying it at the time, calling the three contiguous houses “fine, structurally and not in need of any tampering. Turns out her suspicions about the developers’ intentions were right. Vile. Update: There is a meeting with local officials tonight at 7 pm at PS 170 at 6th Avenue and 72nd Street to discuss this situation and how to protect the neighborhood in general from similar threats.
Death Row Update: Bay Ridge Victorians Destroyed [Citiblog] GMAP
In Bay Ridge, Another Historic Site Is on the Road to Demolition [Brooklyn Eagle]
Three Historic Bay Ridge Homes Bought by Condo Developer [Brooklyn Eagle]
Bay Ridge Victorians ‘On Death Row’ [Curbed]
Photos courtesy of Cititour.com
I’m with Carol Gardens. Polemicist, when you’re ready to read a second book, try “Bricks and Brownstones.”
Polemicist-
When you graduate from college you will see the world is more complicated than your cherished copy of the Fountainhead.
Eurximachus on steroids?
Dude, have a cup of chai and chill.
Carol Gardens: You’re viewpoints clearly indicate you are indeed selfish and uncaring. It is not for you to judge what is aesthetically pleasing in this city. We have a representative system of government and we live in a nation that maintains at least the facade of property rights. The people decide what is aesthetically appropriate via voting and with their wallet.
Your desires for an authoritarian regime to implement your personal desires belies the fact no such regime has ever succeeded. You want to live someplace where the state dictates how and when housing is constructed? Move to Cuba.
The beautiful architecture of this city was created by the very forces you decry. You are the worst kind of hypocrite. Not only do you have no solid argument to support your views, your emotional feelings cloud the reality people are really suffering because of people like you. You have no right to condemn those less fortunate than yourself to a life of poverty.
In the end, you will die having contributed nothing to the aesthetic beauty of this city – you are a parasite of the past and a consumer of fashion, not an aesthete or an artist. Would you ever be able to create anything of beauty such as has come before us? No. You have no vision, and no understanding how civilized society works.
12:43, I only used Park Slope as an example because its physical beauty is a great part of its draw. All things being equal, money-wise, I’d much rather live in Park Slope over living on the Upper East side east of Third Ave, a place with lots of great stores and restaurants, but no charm whatsoever.
I understand that much of Bay Ridge’s suburban qualities disappeared long ago, but that shouldn’t mean that the remaining sections should follow, and I am glad that we agree on that.
Most outlying Bklyn neighborhoods have had necessary higher density buildings replace single family homes. That is the changing nature of cities, and I do not advocate making any neighborhood a static time bubble, solely for aesthetic purposes. There must be a sensible way to progress and preservation to co-exist. Lying ain’t it.
Preservationista
Yeah but Preservationista, the reason there are such great restaurants and stores in Park Slope (which is a huge reason for that neighborhood’s appeal, don’t deny it) is because of the higher density buildings on the park. If those were instead all houses, Park Slope would SO not have the amenities it has. I agree it stinks to take blocks that are all one-family homes and build condos there. It’s inappropriate. But in the photo it does look like there’s a big coop building on the corner. That would have once been an old house sitting on that corner. Bay Ridge allowed tons of historic houses to be torn down in the 20’s when they built all the pre-war coop and apartment buildings. The destruction of Bay Ridge as a mostly suburban community happened a long time ago. The remaining blocks comprised mostly or entirely of houses should be landmarked and pronto.
The reason people want to live in Park Slope is not because of the restaurants – it’s the historical streetscapes, and the homes therein, whether an apartment or a whole house. The same goes for any historic neighborhood. There’s something about looking down a block and seeing good architecture doing what it should – making the urban landscape inviting and creating neighborhoods. That applies in Ditmas Park or Bed Stuy.
Tearing down for the sake of “creating housing” is crap. These people are not interested in doing something about the lack of middle class housing in Bay Ridge, they care about making the most money possible from their investment. As someone said, there is plenty of available and already fallow land around to do the same thing. Why lie to a community and to a homeowner unless you are doing something not on the up and up? There is no way anything contextual can be built here, the only thing contextural would be 3 late Victorian houses.
Preservationists do not want to save every old building. We want to see perfectly good housing preserved, and neighborhoods remaining intact and retaining their personalities. The creation of more housing is not the antithesis of this philosophy, it just needs to be done in a different way than this was.
“Who cares?” We all should.
Preservationista
Should be “…environmental, aesthetic, etc.”.
Obviously, you DON’T care. Who cares? Lots of people. By the way, there is no such thing as SIMPLE economics. Which is what probably pisses you off. The term “highest and best use” is not impartial or scientific. It is a value judgment and that judgment is that it is alway better to wring as much density and money out of a piece of property as possible. It is propaganda. But someone was brilliant to include the word “best” as if no one can argue with this obviously skewed point of view. It brutally ignores any other considerations for the overall health of the urban environment–environmentally, aesthetically, etc. It’s weird how as a free market capitalist I would think you would encourage people to be selfish in some Ayn Rand purist way, but then you call people who DO work in their own interest selfish and hypocritical. Unlike you who I’m sure is opening up your home to additional roommates. Your constant harping on how people are so much more selfish than you for organizing to keep some neighborhoods lower density or to protect unique or historic structures is not going to guilt people into accepting free reign for developers.