When The Music's Over, Turn Out the Lights
While existing homeowners have received most of the attention in the media’s coverage of the sub-prime mortgage fallout, there’s another effect that’s going to haunt neighborhoods like Bed Stuy and Bushwick for years: The spectacularly ugly and cheaply built spec homes that short-sighted developers slapped up on in-fill lots. Take this pair of three-family homes,…
While existing homeowners have received most of the attention in the media’s coverage of the sub-prime mortgage fallout, there’s another effect that’s going to haunt neighborhoods like Bed Stuy and Bushwick for years: The spectacularly ugly and cheaply built spec homes that short-sighted developers slapped up on in-fill lots. Take this pair of three-family homes, one for $739,000 and one for $629,000. Who’s gonna buy this crap? No one. They’ll just sit there and atrophy, gradually attracting trash, loiterers and probably worse. Huge bummer.
$739000 Gordeous 3 Family Bldg in Bushwick [Craigslist]
$629000 Great New Construction 3 Family in Bed Stuy [Craigslist]
I agree with Benson pretty much entirely. Do we have any reasonable evidence that these are badly built, other than the fact that they are admittedly quite ugly, and probably badly laid out, to boot? The maintenance cost for cheesy prefab cement-and-steel-frame stuff doesn’t grow anywhere *nearly* as fast as old frame houses, no matter how well designed. While these still require upkeep, they’re not “lemons” by any stretch of the word.
Also, standards review boards are a disaster for new construction. If you think you’ve seen NIMBYism in Brooklyn this year, you’d be in for a surprise. Any house can be renovated with an attractive facade twenty years down the line when the neighborhood is tonier. Banning ugly just pushes the whole city one step further into being an economic monoculture of the very rich.
All new buildings suck. Landmark everything. I love vacant lots. Buck Fush. Free Mumia.
12:11–
Of course all houses need maintenance, particularly old ones. My house has been standing for 145 years and is worth maintaining. I don’ think the same can be said of these gordeous homes–the homeowner who thought he was buying something new and low-maintenance will be stuck with a lemon.
“these houses will end up in the hands of unsuspecting first-time buyers who won’t get them inspected and perform other due diligence (because, after all, they’re BRAND NEW).”
This can happen just as easily with an existing, late 19th/early 20th century brownstone.
What tinarina said.
Also, because they are built so badly, their resale value is also crap, and anyone stuck with one will have a hard time selling it, especially now that the market is down.
The majority of these houses will end up as cheap rentals to transient populations like students, section 8 housing, and eventually flophouses. This is not helping the community one bit.
Lowering the bar, in terms of quality, to say nothing of aesthetics, is an insult to hard working people who are trying to get their piece of the rock. It is possible to build well built, modest homes. These people didn’t even try.
Preservationista
tinarina – you mean as opposed to an old house that doesn’t require extensive upkeep and maintenance?
This facade reminds me of yesterday’s HOTD in Brooklyn Heights….Crappy!
Benson–
I hear what you’re saying, but the problem with these homes is that they don’t just look crappy, they’re crappily built as well…anyone who’s seen one of these babies go up can attest to that.
What really bugs me is that many of these houses will end up in the hands of unsuspecting first-time buyers who won’t get them inspected and perform other due diligence (because, after all, they’re BRAND NEW).
So not too far down the line a homeowner of limited means is stuck with a crappy house and likely will not have the money to fix all the things that turn out to be wrong with it. It creates a vicious and unfortunate cycle and is a blight on the neighborhood to boot.
11.48 AM has hit the nail right on the head. And in answer to 11.47 AM’s question: yes, these price ranges DO appeal to middle and working class NY’ers. If you want to see this, look at Fillmore’s web-site. Fillmore focuses on this market. You will see that the typical price of a 3-family home in areas like Canarsie, Benshonhurst and East Flatbush is in the low 700’s. Moreover, as 11.48 AM pointed out, this house gives someone the chance to build up their equity. I know well, because that is exactly how I started out: owning a 3-family home. The economics of these buildings can be quite attractive (at the right price), due to the tax laws.
Polemicist: I have no comment to make regarding your statement, except to say that I’m taken aback.
Benson