the-mynt-061508.jpg
The L.A. Times takes a lengthy look at gentrification in Bed-Stuy in a piece that focuses on how (or whether) the opening of the Mynt, the luxury rental on Nostrand and Myrtle, is changing the area.

One side of the story, via Mama Ruth, an 87-year-old grandmother and neighborhood fixture who pays $200 a month for her one-bedroom at the Marcy Projects, where she’s lived for 55 years:

Lately, though, a new crop of folks has been moving into the neighborhood, and they don’t talk to Mama Ruth the same. She might pass them at the corner store, or near the subway stop. They’ll nod and smile, and she’ll do the same. But for the most part, Mama Ruth gets out of their way, and they get out of hers.

Another side, focusing on one of the Mynt’s renters:

Everyone outside stared when Randolph Ambroise moved into the second-floor three-bedroom corner apartment at the Mynt. Ballplayers, cops, loiterers, corner store patrons. “Everybody was watching us, like we were celebrities,” he says. Ambroise, 29, a Manhattan real estate agent, and his two roommates were among the first tenants. They got a deal: $3,100 a month. One of the first nights, Ambrose watched five police cars with sirens blaring and lights flashing pull up to the corner. Officers jumped out and ran down the street alongside Marcy. Hoping to block the drama and gawkers outside, the roommates went to Home Depot and bought bundles of window shades…Ambroise had a car, but he didn’t want to pay to park it in the Mynt’s garage, and donated it to charity after it got broken into twice on the street. When he goes to work in a suit, people ask for change.

Manhattan Skyline Views, Brooklyn Projects Below [LA Times]


What's Your Take? Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

  1. “New York Magazine hailed Bed-Stuy as “the next hipster enclave.””

    Are you kidding me? There are so many things wrong in this article, including $3100 in rent, but I will start with this pipe dream. I don’t see it and I live in Bedford Stuyvesant – albeit on the other side.

    And, why is this “news” in the LA Times?

1 19 20 21