A Brownstone [Still] Dies in Brooklyn
Back in April, the folks at Cititour noted that while brownstones were plenty protected in neighborhoods like Park Slope, non-landmarked neighborhoods like Sunset Park weren’t so lucky. They documented the dismantling or dismembering of a brownstone on 54th and 6th. Five months later, they’ve got new documents: these photos of what replaced the turn-of-the-century building….
Back in April, the folks at Cititour noted that while brownstones were plenty protected in neighborhoods like Park Slope, non-landmarked neighborhoods like Sunset Park weren’t so lucky. They documented the dismantling or dismembering of a brownstone on 54th and 6th. Five months later, they’ve got new documents: these photos of what replaced the turn-of-the-century building. Kind of resurrects the old progress-versus-preservation argument, don’t it?
Follow-Up to A Brownstone Dies in Brooklyn [Cititour]
My point was that benson said…” He put his own money into developing his property, and providing more moderate-income housing for a city that needs it.” at 11:35…
There IS NO EVIDENCE that the developer was providing that and whatever implied altruistic argument that this POS was “providing ” anything is false.
BxGrl;
Please,spare me the breathless outrage, and spend more time reading what I actually wrote.
I make no apologies for moving. Guess what – when people have more money, they buy better things for themselves, be it a car, a home and so forth. I did not engage in NIMBYism: I didn’t try to stop the development of these homes, or impose my aesthetics on them. I used the liberty that is afforded me through saving the money I earned through my own labor. That is how this country owrks, and it is a grat thing.
I also did not say that immigrants don’t have any aesthetic discernment. What I did say is that it is generally not of concern to them, as they have more pressing needs. I agree with what Minimin said on this topic. He made the point better than I did.
“With the collapse of the FIRE economy, and the almost certain future where money is injected into the economy via government capital improvement projects, we have the chance to continue the productive and aesthetic growth of our city that slowed after 1929 and stopped with the start of World War II.”
polemicist- just what city are you living in? I mean, ok, “aesthetic” growth I’ll agree- that’s been warped. But you think we’re in some kind of suspended animation since WW II? I don’t think so. You’ll have to explain that one.
“These new homes were quite popular with immigrants. You know what I did? I saved up my money, and moved to an area that was more in line with the environment I wanted. Imagine that!”
Hmmmm….. oh right. You moved. How smart of you, so everyone else, ie poor and moderate income people can live with POS’s, that you advocate but you’re just too good for that. Talk about NIMBYISM.
Your biggest assumption is that this is, as DIBS pointed out, moderate income housing. I could throw your argument back on you- since the FAR isn’t really adding much, why can’t those thousands of “little” developers keep the original buildings and renovate. That’s still a lot of 1000’s adding up. And what makes you so sure he is doing it without subsidies? Don’t developers of moderate income housing get subsidies for building? I think so.
You also make some fairly class-based assumptions yourself- assuming the developer is an immigrant, assuming immigrants or moderate income people don’t care about what their buildings look like. In other words, you really have no idea what immigrants and moderate income people think. After all, you moved. But as the saying goes, garbage in, garbage out. Give people garbage to live in, they’ll treat it exactly like garbage. So where is the benefit of building ugly crap? Because you think immigrants and moderate income people are perfectly satisfied with little boxes made of ticky-tacky?
DIBS;
Your statements are self-contradictory. If, as you predict, these homes will not sell, then what is the problem? Developers are in it to make money, and if this product doesn’t move, it will surely be noted, and that will be the end of it. What’s the problem then? If what you are saying is true, then it will be well worth the price of one brownstone to see this type of development stop. Why is everyone so upset then?
The fact is, this building WILL do well in Sunset Park, and other areas like it.
You are putting words in my mouth. WHERE do I say that he has done this for the good of the community? Like every developer that has ever lived, he’s built a product in the hopes of making money, and lots of it. Bully for him!!! My point is that, in doing so, he has provided a product that is much in need in this city, which is why he is making money.
Finally, I don’t get the point of your statement that the only reason this might be cheaper is that the land/neighbor is “cheper”. Somehow you dismiss this point, whereas I say: “Exactly”!!!!! This is exactly as it should be. The developer has built housing exactly in line with the neighborhood, and done so with his own money. I salute him, rather than absurd organizations like FAC that build “affordable” housing in expensive areas, at a heavy cost to the taxpayer.
Again, I was responding to something in your message: the comment about the 99cent stores. After I posted it, I realized I could have said hardwares store or fruitstand, or at least added them in addition to my first two examples.
How do you know that about immigrants and moderately income folks largely not considering the outside aesthetics when choosing a place to live? That argument was made by housing advocates in the 1920s-1930s, to which Eleanor Roosevelt made a famous rebuttal. I WOULD argue (agree) that lower income people don’t have as many choices they CAN make, but that does not mean they are not without capabilities of aesthetic discrimination. And DIBS is right…do we know anything about the developer’s altruistic motivation? I think not.
benson…who says this guy IS providing moderate income housing. This building, like most Fedders buildings, will likely be listed to sell on the market and, hopefully, not sell and languish for months… like most of them do. No indication of moderate housing here except in the context that this neighborhood is cheaper than others.
Like I saud above, if you think this developer has built this for the good of the community you’re out of your mind.
BxGrl;
I don’t think you should be dismissive of the developer’s contribution in provisioning moderate-income housing. Yes, it is only a few apartments, but the larger point is that guys like this should be encouraged. If there are 1000’s of guys like this, moderate income housing will be provided, without subsideies from the city.
I think Minmin’s comments about the 99 cents store eventually morphing into a boutique is telling. There is an undertone of class in this conversation. What he seems to be pissed about is that the owner of this property has not put this building “on hold” until the gentrifiers come around. Isn’t that thoughtful? In other words, the owner, probably some immigrant who is trying to make his way up in the world, should hold off on developing his property in the hopes that eventually the gentrifiers will get around to his property. Memo to folks: if you want an “option” on this building, then put up some money!!!!!
Here’s another thought to dwell on: like it or not, immigrants and moderate-income folks largely do not consider the outside aesthetics when choosing a place to live. Be careful of what you are advocating here – what choices do you leave people in a different place in life than those in Brownstoner country.
I’m sorry, Benson, but aesthetics have value, too. This POS has totally destroyed this row of houses. Granted, the slippery slope had been started by whoever changed the facade on the store, but that is a masterpiece compared to this thing. If we have no pity for the building on the right, what about on the left?
I’d love to argue this all day, but can’t – got a meeting. I was not aware we had a standard board, have never seen any evidence of it. Thanks, ppw.
Riffing on what an earlier poster (Schultz) had written, which you had seemed to respond to. I maintain my position, though.
A 99-Cent Store can morph over time into a boutique, or a restaurant. It’s highly unlikely that this building will ever improve AND it IS possible to make moderate housing that maintains some standards. (My example of the development on EP is just ONE example. There are others.)