Horror Show Friday
From Bed Stuy (left) to PLG (middle) to Bushwick (right), the building boom’s bottom-of-the-barrel are looking like particularly tough sells now. Who’s going to buy one of these places now? Hard to imagine. $549000 2 fm, Short Sale [Craigslist] $729000 / 7br Parkside Ave [Craigslist] $729000 / 8br PRIME Bushwick [Craigslist]
From Bed Stuy (left) to PLG (middle) to Bushwick (right), the building boom’s bottom-of-the-barrel are looking like particularly tough sells now. Who’s going to buy one of these places now? Hard to imagine.
$549000 2 fm, Short Sale [Craigslist]
$729000 / 7br Parkside Ave [Craigslist]
$729000 / 8br PRIME Bushwick [Craigslist]
‘People will more then happily “settle” for this architecture’
And THAT is one of the major problems. We as a society need to hold ourselves responsible for what we ‘settle’ for.
Fsrq – I’ve been to almost every part of this city. I’ve seen the best architecture and the worst. If you haven’t noticed, I live in south Brooklyn and have seen these kinds of developments in my front yard. Should it be acceptable? Should we sit back and condone this? I think we can do better than this. I think we should do better than this. I think we owe it to ourselves as one of the greatest cities in the world to prove that we can build the best architecture in the world. We’ve taken a back seat to Europe, Asia and now the Middle East in building standards. Have you seen what was being built over there? NYC needs to get out of the ‘uglification’ of our landscape and start developing magnificent structures that people would be proud to call home…..and not just ‘settle’ for.
MM – you know little about construction if you think that these buildings can not easily stand for 100 years or more. While Brownstones have their charm, the idea that a non-rehabbed brownstone isnt generally a money pit of leaks, utility bills (due to poor insulation and lousy systems), lousy plumbing and insufficient electric is just naive.
Brownstones are still standing, not because of any great construction but because they have been rehabilitated and maintained – not because they are inherently well built.
And assuming these houses receive even a modicum of maintenance and improvements they can stand indefinitely – and there are thousands of similar housing units built all over the city and surrounding burbs in the 1960’s that are already almost 1/2 way there.
SnarkSlope..you never answered my question yesterday. Who did you meet and in what bar that they gave you that number???
All of them houses are heps of poop
“What continues to astound me is that it would not be difficult or expensive to make these houses attractive. I don’t have a problem with them being new, we need new housing, and true, not everyone likes, or can afford an old house. I have to keep coming back to my firmly held idea that there is a basic distain and disregard for the desired buyers of these homes. I would like to meet one developer who lives in one of these…….I don’t think so. They would not live in a building with tiny windows or utility meters at the front door. (All you have to do is box them in, for Pete’s sake. That’s scrap wood, takes an hour.) I have a feeling they would insist on better construction, thicker sheetrock, better plumbing and roofing, and certainly better aesthetics, in general.”
QOTD…from MM
BRG, you crack me up.
Fellow quote de jour.
Aw, Dave! I’m not that quotable, but thanks! I was out all day, chasing the elusive dollar. God, I’m tired, those dollars run really fast. BRG, I’ve been QOTD twice, so I understand your feelings.
fsrq, you have got to be kidding. None of these things, or any of their cousins, will be standing in 100 years. If they don’t fall down on their own, they will be the first things torn down for better and newer housing. A good brownstone will still be here, and will be even more desirable. If people are still living in, and renovating houses built in the 1500’s and older, in Europe, why can’t we keep our own classic buildings? Cookie cutter or not, they were built much better, with more care, and from better materials.
What continues to astound me is that it would not be difficult or expensive to make these houses attractive. I don’t have a problem with them being new, we need new housing, and true, not everyone likes, or can afford an old house. I have to keep coming back to my firmly held idea that there is a basic distain and disregard for the desired buyers of these homes. I would like to meet one developer who lives in one of these…….I don’t think so. They would not live in a building with tiny windows or utility meters at the front door. (All you have to do is box them in, for Pete’s sake. That’s scrap wood, takes an hour.) I have a feeling they would insist on better construction, thicker sheetrock, better plumbing and roofing, and certainly better aesthetics, in general.
I know most of them will eventually sell as investment rental properties, or the developers will become landlords. That will give people homes, a good thing, but that is doing nothing for improving the neighborhoods they are in, and remains a cynical end to the story – “these people†should be grateful for what they can get/ beggars can’t be aesthetic choosers.
Don’t rest on your laurels BRG.
Bitter non-QOTD poster here.
Hey BRG, call me! 212-479-7990.