The Times of London Singing Bed Stuy's Praises
It sounds like London Times writer James Doran got quite a deal on his Bedford Stuyvesant brownstone. Given how well-preserved all the details were, $600,000 sounds undermarket to us. And what a great provenance! The story he tells of the former owner, a brewery heiress, is great stuff. The Heath Ledger angle might be a…
It sounds like London Times writer James Doran got quite a deal on his Bedford Stuyvesant brownstone. Given how well-preserved all the details were, $600,000 sounds undermarket to us. And what a great provenance! The story he tells of the former owner, a brewery heiress, is great stuff. The Heath Ledger angle might be a bit of a stretch but, hey, Doran’s at least setting the newspaper-reading public straight about the neighborhood which has caught more than its share of bad press over the years:
Bed-Stuy is more than just an incredible investment opportunity for an adventurous property speculator: it is one of the most fascinating neighbourhoods of New York, steeped in history and close to Manhattan’s sleepless streets, yet no tourist ever sets foot here.
Local blog Bed Stuy Gateway had this to say about the article: Is The Times doing a Lenten penance for the smackdown of an article it published on June 25, 2005 in which reporter Dominic Rushe called Bed-Stuy “a horrible and inconvenient area of Brooklyn with some lovely buildings and a nasty crack habit”?
Big Apple’s Core Appeal [London Times]
The Brits Are Coming [Bed Stuy Gateway]
Holy smokes. We hadn’t looked at this thread since we went to sleep last night.
Bomber, I don’t think anyone wakes up one day and says “I want to be a nodding off, filthy, desperate junkie”, nor does anyone grow up thinking “I want to offer my sexual services to anything with a couple of dollars, no experience is too degrading.” Junkies and prostitutes are not in the same catagory as rapists, muggers, dealers and killers, although I know they do overlap. Call me a bleeding heart liberal, but one group needs a helping hand back into society, not a further slapdown into the gutter. There but for the grace of God…..
Thank you David and BrownBomber – good posts.
Bx2Bklyn at March 8, 2006 02:28 PM
“So why do white people get so offended if now a Black person expresses a preference for Black neighborhood”,
There is nothing wrong with wanting to move to a black area if you are black, or a moving to a white area is you are white.
There is something wrong with wanting an area to remain a purely “chocalate” or purely “vanilla” That is equivilant to saying Black Only, Whitey not Welcome.
“She isn’t wrong about those who move into, and gentrify.”
So all the White people in predominantely Black areas are just waiting for the neighborhood to become all white. Bullshit. They move there because it is affordable to them and they like the homes and their neighbors.
But she didn’t demonize anyone or insist that no whites should move into Black neighborhoods. Again Bullshit. When someone says BS needs to remain a chocalate city it is eqivalent to someone in in UES saying this needs to remain vanilla, we can’t have any chocalate.
I’m African-American and I agree with David 100%. I want this for my family as do most black people. Good discussion.
BxBklyn – why does waiting for the neighborhood “to get better” have to mean “whiter”?? While I am sure some people do make this correllation – I believe most (myself included) don’t!
I dont care what color, religion my neighbors are, but I want my neighbors to be law abiding, friendly and to take care of their homes and the community at large – additionally I would like my neighbors to value education (so as to create an enviroment where my children are more likely to have a good influence), and to be working (also to help set a good example for my children).
Every single one of the values expressed above are entirely ‘race neutral’ and I would guess that a huge % of ‘gentrifiers’ are hoping for the same types of neighbors.
IMHO anyone who thinks that these are ‘white values’ is truly the racist.
BrooklynProud,
First I dont agree with you.
Getrification is not segregation.
Segregation is the desire to keep people who aren’t like you out.
BrooklynProud at March 8, 2006 10:30 AM
the email adres associated with that post is alyndea@msn.com.
You cannot have community responsibility without individual responsibility. Why is it acceptable for people to have no personal responsibility yet society should be responsible for their actions?
No. Not me. I’m not a buyer. There are far too many innocent people on this good earth who are “truly” deserving of our compassion (too long to list). But criminals, drug abusers and prostitutes? Oh hell no! They are certainly not deserving.