Lots of Love for the Schermerhorn House
The Schermerhorn is not your average affordable housing project, as The Times makes abundantly clear in its profile this weekend. (As we put it a couple of weeks ago, “This place is about as sexy as supportive housing gets.”) Stand-out amenities include a gym with floor-to-ceiling windows and a ground-floor performance space. (The Brooklyn Ballet…
The Schermerhorn is not your average affordable housing project, as The Times makes abundantly clear in its profile this weekend. (As we put it a couple of weeks ago, “This place is about as sexy as supportive housing gets.”) Stand-out amenities include a gym with floor-to-ceiling windows and a ground-floor performance space. (The Brooklyn Ballet will be the anchor tenant.) Designed by Polshek Partnership Architects, the 217-unit building will end up being split fairly evenly between arts-related professionals who don’t make a lot of dough and those who qualify for supportive housing, typically the formerly homeless and others in need of help. The interior photo in The Times story is pretty darn slick for this type of thing, seeming to confirm our suspicions that lack of creativity and resourcefulness is usually more to blame than small budgets when ugly new buildings are put up.
New Homes for a Varied Cast [NY Times]
Schermerhorn House 1/3-Rented [Brownstoner]
Development Watch: Schermerhorn House Nears Completion [Brownstoner]
Development Watch: Schermerhorn House Gets Its Skin [Brownstoner] GMAP
Development Watch: 160 Schermerhorn Tops Out [Brownstoner] P*Shark
Development Watch: Schermerhorn House Rising [Brownstoner] DOB
Some More 411 on the “Schermerhorn House” [Brownstoner]
That thing looks like the Brooklyn House of Detention, a block away.
http://www.forgotten-ny.com
I appreciate all of that, i diagree…and I see your points fully.
I probably ended up taking much more of an opposite reaction to the whole nanny issue more to make a point, but your argument is a good one, and you brought up many valid concerns. I concede that what might be good for me might not be good for you.
Thanks for such a rational and well thought out response to a very heated “debate.”
Sorry if I offended you…I didn’t mean any disrespect to you (or anyone else) for your decisions to lead the life that’s best for you.
gah, it’s like the 1950’s up in here. i’m chiming in way late but i have to put my useless 2 cents in on the nanny issue. of course most parents would be with their kids all the time and not work if they didn’t have to. but, and i say this respectfully, some of you sound like you have not spent much longer than an idle hour or two thinking about what “have to” really means before judging other people whose positions you’re not in, and never will be in.
so “have to”: studies have shown that women who leave the work force for any extended period of time have an incredibly difficult time re-entering. most can’t, not at their former salaries or positions, even taking into account the gap, and most can’t return to their line of business at all. over half of marriages end in divorce, and divorced women with children trying to re-enter the work force are faced with some of the worst economic situations of anyone, particularly later in life. health insurance? 401Ks? flexible schedules? only if you’re lucky.
kids don’t need you 24-hours a day once they enter kindergarten, and when they’re teenagers…certainly don’t want you around that much. grandparents are working later and later into life, and many simply aren’t young enough to be appropriate caregivers now that people are having kids later in life.
my point is that with these economic realities, most women who drop out of the work force for any meaningful period of time to take care of their kids are taking a HUGE risk. they might still be doing it, but you need a spouse with a great job who will never leave you, and a whole lot of luck to have it work out. it just doesn’t make sense to give up all of the benefits for a few years, as precious as those few years might be. and that’s the reality. not only can a lot of these women/families simply not provide a lot of things to their children that working parents might be able to provide (not just help with college, but, yes, good health insurance, etc.), they probably are setting themselves up for a pretty uncomfortable life in the long run.
this has nothing to do with selfishness (or purses, good grief) – yeah, i’d love to stay home with my baby all day long, but even more than that i want her to be able to stay healthy, have some stability, and even, maybe, choose the job SHE wants when she grows up without worrying about providing for me in my old age.
this doesn’t even get to the subject of women who work because they truly love the jobs they have, who feel like being a good example to their kids might involve having other interests and occupations than just their kids, and those who have unique skills that want to give back to the community in general (and not just their own families).
rant over.
I’m surprised no one mentioned Manhattan Plaza.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Plaza
You had me at fashion.
And back.
“Oh dh, given that 80% of my friends are single, hot straight females, I’m sure I could hook ya up. The value of the gay wingman for straight guys is so vastly underrated and takes a back seat (shut it Dave) to the typical “fag hag” type arrangement.
Fag hags are useless. I want the straight guys so I can meet the bi-curious hot jock-type guys. ;-)”
11217 and I work in fashion with alot of pretty gay men so I think we could scratch each other’s backs hahah.
Can we make it Thursday instead??????
Last one there is a rotten egg!
yes snappy you should definitely come. i will have to think about going to the excelsior meet up tho. i dont feel comfortable in that bar.
*rob*