Set Speed Condo Report: 364 Myrtle Avenue
Today’s new condo reports focuses on a development that has been profiled on Brownstoner before. Located on a busy commercial stretch of Myrtle Avenue between Clermont and Adelphi, lies this unique 4 story building. Featuring angled windows to take advantage of light and outdoor spaces, this new construction attempts to set itself apart from the…
Today’s new condo reports focuses on a development that has been profiled on Brownstoner before. Located on a busy commercial stretch of Myrtle Avenue between Clermont and Adelphi, lies this unique 4 story building. Featuring angled windows to take advantage of light and outdoor spaces, this new construction attempts to set itself apart from the others.
The site consists of one commercial condo and three large floor-thru duplex condominium units. The ground floor commercial unit measures in at just under 2000 square feet for $994K, while the other three units are 1533-1688 square feet and cost $877K, $890K and $919K. The residential units have 3 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms. Maintenance is about $260 a month.
Units feature 17 foot high ceilings, large gourmet kitchens with stainless steel appliances, en-suite bathrooms, spacious closets and laundry hook-ups. This condo is located close to many amenities, like supermarkets, restaurants, bars and hardware stores. But as last week’s two shootings attest, the area still contains some rough spots. An open house is scheduled March 26 from 12:30 to 3:30pm.
364 Myrtle Avenue [Corcoran] GMAP
New Building on Myrtle [Brownstoner]
Every Thursday, ltjbukem, whose own blog Set Speed scrutinizes the progress and quality of new developments in the area we know as Brownstone Brooklyn, pens a guest post about goings-on in the condo market with an emphasis on new projects.
“It my surprise you folks who blithely post that you must move if you can’t “afford” your own neighborhood, that not only is it a painful process, but those who are being forced out are at a disadvantage and do not have the financial resources to fight back.”
This is not something special that applies only to poor people. It applies to people at all income levels. Everyone can get priced out of a neighborhood except perhaps for the the one wealthiest person on the planet. It may not be fair but it is what it is. I agree that moving from your home is a painful process but its something that everyone experiences.
“Once a neighborhod becomes trendy, there is a concerted effort to force out the old for the benefit of the new.”
I’ve never heard of this. Is there some new owner’s society that secretly meets to plan the ouster of people who have been there x number of years? People don’t move or purchase property as an organized group. Its many indivuals making their own decisions.
Aren’t we talking about 2 separate things here:
* whether projects should be torn down and residents relocated
* whether people in gentrifying neighborhoods should be protected from rent increases, condo conversions, etc.
To lump both together as the same thing — people with money “forcing out” poor people and “saying who can live” in a neighborhood — is a stretch. The first is a clear application of force. But how does someone with “with money” (however defined) prevent the second? By refusing to move to any neighborhood where there are poor people?
There is a huge difference between being priced out and being systematically forced out. Once a neighborhod becomes trendy, there is a concerted effort to force out the old for the benefit of the new. It my surprise you folks who blithely post that you must move if you can’t “afford” your own neighborhood, that not only is it a painful process, but those who are being forced out are at a disadvantage and do not have the financial resources to fight back. Could happen to any of us- there but for the grace of G-d go I. Wish more people had more of a moral code instead of believing they can buy one.
One assumption many people are making is that poor or working class people are all on welfare or in subsidized housing. That is simply untrue. I live in one of those lower income neighborhoods where, yes there are people on welfare or in section 8’s, but the majority of people have worked hard for years and what they have they have earned a hundred times over. They get forced out too- from their homes and neighborhoods that they have lived and invested in for years. Renter or homeowner, everyone plays their part in the social/economic fabric. And where would landlords be without renters?
My point was that “home” has a special meaning for people. The stability of neighborhoods, their character are important to the overall health of the city. No one group should be forced out at the behest of another- and there is a world of difference from being the gentrifier who sees the earlier residents of a neighborhood as something to be swept away (and has been pretty much bluntly stated on this thread) and being the recipient of such unwanted attention. Mixed income housing and neighborhoods are the best solution but I see very little interest in that from upper income level. I don’t complain about the “white stroller set”- I like the amenities they can bring, the mixing up of groups, etc. What I don’t like are people coming in and deciding that they have the right to say who should live in their neighborhood or not. If you want that much control, move to a nice gated comunity in the heartland.
Good posts David and anon 9:42. Most people have to make some sort of compromise regarding where they live based on their means. I’m sure most people at some point have had to move from someplace they would have liked to stay because the rent got too high. That’s the way it is.
All these complaints about “I lived here for this long when no one else would so I should get to stay” are silly. If you bought something then yes you get to stay if not when rents get too high you have to move. Yes you may have lived their when no one else wanted to but if you were renting then there is a landlord who risked his capital by owning something in that same neighborhood.
Yes I wish there were better low income housing options in NYC. The bottom line though is that owning a specific piece of property is your only way to guarantee your right to live there.(Let’s save eminent domain for a shorther thread.)
If we have those laws, then what is the problem?
“Should we pass laws that give renters the right to stay in an apartment even if the property owner does not want to renew their lease, simply because the renters have lived there a long time?”
Ummm… we already have those laws…..
“Should we pass laws that give renters the right to stay in an apartment even if the property owner does not want to renew their lease, simply because the renters have lived there a long time? Should we prevent owners from selling buildings at a profit when the market is up because it will change the demographic of a neighborhood?”
Yes, yes, yes!
Property is theft! Change is violence! Freedom is an illusion that justifies oppression!
Now give us your money and move back to Iowa!
Bx2Bkln stated: “It’s one thing if I can’t afford a neighborhood, it’s another if I am forced out by gentrification.” I don’t see the distinction. Either way you cannot live where you want to because you cannot afford it. Why is it that only very poor people who live in subsidized housing can gripe about market forces pushes them out of a neighborhood. If you want to overhall the whole system and become a more socialist society, fine, say so. But it is hypocritical to villify the “white stoller set” who were priced out of more expensive neighborhoods and are gentrifying enomically depressed neighborhoods. It thind David was spot on.
What also seems to be coming out in this thread is that if you rented an apartment (I’m not talking about people who own) in a bad neighborhood through the tough years, you are entitled to stay in that neighborhood if it gets gentrified. Why is that? Should we pass laws that give renters the right to stay in an apartment even if the property owner does not want to renew their lease, simply because the renters have lived there a long time? Should we prevent owners from selling buildings at a profit when the market is up because it will change the demographic of a neighborhood?
I think lp has a point. Most people sympathize or empathize with the plight of poor and low income people trying to get by in NYC, agree housing is needed, don’t like the idea of projects as they simply create ghettos, think mixed housing is the better alternative, but don’t think that people receiving subsidized or free housing should be able to have the ultimate decision in where their free or subsidized housing is going to be. It should not be a segregated ghetto as the projects are, but why should low income or poor people be able to demand where they want to live when no one else can simply demand conveniences but have to pay for location?