Greene House Condos Netting $1,000 a Foot
This week Brooklyn Papers expresses surprise that the $1,000 per square foot barrier in Brooklyn was broken in, of all places, Fort Greene. Under the watchful eye of local dynamo Jerry Minsky, 22 out of 27 units at the Greene House condos have sold, with the three penthouses going for more than $1.2 million apiece….
This week Brooklyn Papers expresses surprise that the $1,000 per square foot barrier in Brooklyn was broken in, of all places, Fort Greene. Under the watchful eye of local dynamo Jerry Minsky, 22 out of 27 units at the Greene House condos have sold, with the three penthouses going for more than $1.2 million apiece. Located at Carlton and Greene, the 11-story building is just outside the Fort Greene Historic District, so residents don’t have to worry about other equally out-of-place constructions blocking their views of brownstone neighbors. We don’t have any particular beef with the project, not having been inside, but frankly we just don’t understand paying double the per square foot price of brownstone space for characterless apartments. Sure, we understand that the convenience of condo living is preferable to many, but for $1,000 a foot? Nah.
$1G a Square Foot in Fort Greene [Brooklyn Papers]
It is so interesting that you folks who have displaced so many, and have changed the character of Ft. Greene/Clinton Hill so much (in a bad way for those of us who grew up here), have this NIMBY attitude. And this line “And let’s face it. It is at the edge of the district.” Your obesession with boundaries and borders! Why you remind me of your Minutemen breathren. Exclusivity. Exclusion. You are NOTHING like the people who lived in the area in the 70s and 80s– those artists and teachers and even hip lawyers who were about fluidity and openings.
So I’m a snob because I DON’T think MY brownstone is automatically better than this condo although I haven’t even seen the inside? I’m not even going stoop to petty bickering with you. But let me leave you with something to think about.
You see all those bland generic new contructions popping up around brooklyn – yeah the ones you hate so much. How much are you willing to bet that a hundred years from now, some fool like you is going to post on a future message board saying how houses in 2105 lack ‘character’ like they did in 2005?
Gee Mr. Anonymous Architecture student, you’re a horrible snob. And you’re wrong. They look the same (“generic?”) because that was the style and a lot of people think it’s a very satisfying style for a block to have. Brooklyn brownstones are significant, even if they are a ‘blip’ in the thousands of years of architectural history. I could go on but what’s the point. You’re so certain of yourself I’m sure it wouldn’t change your arrogant mind. Congratulations for using the word “Fetish” in your post, though.
“Unless your house was custom designed by a well known architect don’t think that its anything special.” – BAAAAAARF !
It’s pretty when it stands alone in the photo, but in the context of the block it’s waaaaay out of frame.
It’s a pretty decent building- let’s not preserve Brooklyn in amber…
Let’s be clear, Abe Weiss took advantage of a loophole in the landmarks regulations that prevents the landmarking of a vacant lot. The original landmarks submissions did not specify that new construction maintain some architectural consistency with the rest of the district, as it does in other landmarked areas. As a resident of that block we were all taken by surprise when the project came to light, By the time we were able to muster any resistence, the deal was done. The developers came to a Community Board meeting and touted their rights over our concerns. It is important for the future to make sure the character of the neighborhood is protected the way it is in other historic districts. I think it is the height of arrogance to advertise the permanence of their views as protected by landmarks regs, after totally screwing up our views. Fortunately, I am far enough down the block that it only intrudes into a portion of the view from my backyard. I too think its a ugly building. Jerry Minsky is collaborating with the developers in pimping off our efforts to restore and maintain the neighborhood so they can make some easy money during the bubble. It’s legal but it still sucks.
All I know is that I love Fort Greene and while I’m open to change and to a neighborhood evolving, the Greene House makes me immensely sad.
I don’t have much of a beef with the people buying condos there, especially if they’re coming from elsewhere to experience Fort Greene. But, I think that before deciding to purchase there they should really step back and think about how they’re affecting the neighborhood and that one Greene House will lead to another and suddenly the character that brought them to the neighborhood has disappeared.
I rent. I don’t own. I live in a brownstone. The light sucks. But I love it and it’s my home. I encourage people to move to Fort Greene but I just don’t think that the Greene House respects the character of the neighborhood. A lot people feel very raw about it because the developers were/are incredibly unpleasant to deal with and have treated the neighboring buildings to the GH really poorly.
It’s bad karma, dude. I’m not as angry as the G. Cosloy guy but I gotta say that the sentiment is very real.
My point is NOT Architecture changes throughout time, which is obvious to everyone. My point is some brownstone owners have an uneducated perception about architecture. Yes all the ‘white boxes’ look generic. But all the brownstones were also generic during their time. The reason you think its special has nothing to do with your appreciation for architecture — it has to do with your fetish for old things.
My Architectural education has nothing to with appreciation – which is subjective anyways. But because I am familar with diferent architectural styles throughout Architectural history, I wouldn’t be as vain as to think my brownstone is superior in design to this condo building. To me they are both the same thing – housing designed NOT for aesthetics but for economy.
For example my brownstone was built in 1899 so was the house for Joseph Husser designed by Frank LLoyd Wright. If you transport yourself back to that time you will understand the insignificance of your brownstone.
The reason I bought in Bed Stuy because it was what I could afford. Speculations about the neighborhood. And other real estate concerns. NOT architectural concerns.
I think its ridiculous how people criticize architecture without any knowledge about it. Even to the extent of telling an architect he has no more insight than they do . But I guess everyone is an expert when it comes to their personal opinion.
Those are excellent points on my perhaps unfair comparison to European architecture – which was a little flippant partly because I do think many brownstone owners take themselves a little too seriously.
It also did remind me of the most important reason I own my brownstone in that it represents a “neighborhood.” I (and I’m sure a lot of us) moved to Brooklyn in the first place because of this feeling – not for price appreciation – as it has been ripped out of almost every other part of New York. Great architecture, price appreciation – worth something; Knowing your neighbors names, looking them in the eye and treating (being treated by) people respectfully – priceless