« Another Sign of a Buyer's Market Residential Sales in Brooklyn »

October 13, 2005

The Horror, The Horror: New Build in The Stuy

new houses kitchen
Aw, man, seeing this ruined our day. Crap construction is a greater long-term threat to Bed Stuy than crime or racial tensions, in our opinion. The latter two problems can be improved over time, but an eyesore like this lasts a lifetime (or two). Does anyone know if this Lexington Avenue development is part of a government-subsidized program or is this just the worst side of the free market in action? Who's going to shell out $700K for this, anyway? Surely for $350 a foot one could do a little better. Heck, why not move to Gravesend.
Lexington Avenue 3-Families [Ardor NY]




Posted by Brownstoner at 10:08 AM | Comments (29)
Categories: Development

Comments

hideous. I totally agree that nothing ruins a neighborhood like ugly new construction. and you're right it will never go away. i wish i could buy up every vacant lot in bed-stuy to stop this scourge.


Posted by: clinton hillbilly at October 13, 2005 10:29 AM

I don't think the cretins at Ardor understand the concept of square footage. I have walked by this place and it has to be much bigger than 2,000 sq ft. It completely fills a corner lot which is probably 20 X 100. That would make the 3-story building approx. 6,000 sq. ft. Even if it's 15 X 80, it's still 3,600 sq. ft. Who is giving these losers their listings???!!!

The price is right for an investment property. It's ugly as shit, but if you could rent it out (even to Section 8), it might just be a decent investment.

Posted by: clinton hillbilly at October 13, 2005 10:37 AM

grrrrr, brownstoner! gravesend is only slightly better than crap? i'm offended!

Posted by: gravesend at October 13, 2005 10:38 AM

Okay looks pretty crappy but I hope you were only using hyperbole when you said " Crap construction is a greater long-term threat to Bed Stuy than crime or racial tensions" because if not you sound very foolish and very sheltered.

Besides with new front doors and some landscaping it will be nicer than 1/2 the stuff already in Bed Stuy

Posted by: David at October 13, 2005 10:40 AM

agree on the landscaping, put some trees in front of the these buildings and some bushes to cover up the meters and this will look totally different.

Posted by: Ben at October 13, 2005 10:46 AM

Investment property? The listing is unclear but if you could get $2000mo for each unit (not likely) your still loking at 10x the RR - unless your expecting huge spike in rents or major capital gain, not a very good investment where I sit.

Posted by: David at October 13, 2005 10:48 AM

love the legal 3 with 4 front doors

Posted by: clinton hillbilly at October 13, 2005 10:52 AM

A little hyperbolic, perhaps, but the quality of the housing--and the income profiles and tax revenues it generates--certainly does have a big impact on the ability to improve other quality-of-life issues like crime (though maybe not racial tension, granted). It's all a little chicken-and-the-egg, of course, and we're hardly professing to be socio-econonomic policy experts, but bottom line is we don't think this kind of building is a net positive for the neighborhood and it's the kind of mistake that's hard to take back.

Posted by: Brownstoner at October 13, 2005 10:53 AM

I love your blog, but while terrible construction *is* a curse, crime and racial tensions FAR override that. No offense, and like I said, I like you and the blog, but that sounds ignorant. The only reason you can possibly entertain that notion is because crime is at a record low, and racial tensions are not at a point where where they could ignite that easily at the moment.

Posted by: anonymous at October 13, 2005 10:54 AM

clinton hillbilly,

i think the 4 front doors are for 2 houses.

Posted by: gravesend at October 13, 2005 11:02 AM

Anon at 10:54,
Agreed that at any given moment crime and racial tension are much bigger issues--our only point was that over the longer-term, those issues certainly aren't helped (and are much harder to improve) if this kind of housing is being put up. We didn't mean to sound flip about those issues at all.
B

Posted by: Brownstoner at October 13, 2005 11:34 AM

Good grief, people, get a grip. I took the "terrible construction worse than racial tension and crime" comment as funny and a little sarcastic.

Besides, shoddy construction will definitely hurt the hood in the long run. Condos and apts selling for $700,000 can easily become future tenements and hellholes in 20 years.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 13, 2005 11:45 AM

many have made good points about this and I must admit I do feel that this is crappy construction and that the current rent roll doesn't look too tempting because I highly doubt that the rents will out-weigh the cost in the near future (approx 2000/mo) as someone pointed out. I may be playing the advocate here, but I'm sure there were many naysayers about the "modern brownstones" that were built in ft.greene for that gov't project a while ago. add a target/path mark conglomerate and a bit of change and suddenly these things are going for about a million dollars when you can get a prestine brownstone with orginal details and history for less than or about that much. at the risk of comparing apples and oranges allow me to acknowledge the fact that its highly unlikely that this will be the exact same sitaution but honestly you never know this could be an upswing (albeit very large) for this area so in comparison this could, optimistically, be a good investment if the stars align and someone puts a cafe or two. it could happen.

Posted by: stuy blkbuttrflie at October 13, 2005 12:46 PM

Agree the construction is not very attractive. As someone said though maybe with trees and gardens that can help. Look at the townhouses along fulton street in Ft Greene.

As far as the racial tensions - I assume that you mean whereever there are black people there is another Crown Heights in the waiting. There is a somewhat less than objective tone in your bedstuy postings as usual. However in fairness, you are just stating what many unfortunately are thinking.

Posted by: LABrooklyn at October 13, 2005 1:22 PM

Not necessarily. When any one racial, ethnic or religious group is dominant in an area and then another one begins to move in, there are bound to be tensions. The Hasidic Jews in South Williamsburg have certainly been vocal about the threat that encroaching hipsterdom poses for their community. The sentiments in that case have closely mirrored movements in Bed Stuy, for example, to encourage black homeowners not to sell to whites. If we were somehow anti-Bed Stuy, as you suggest, why would we even care that its landscape was being marred by this type of construction? It's simply not the case.

Posted by: Brownstoner at October 13, 2005 1:41 PM

Brownstoner, you have never impressed as being anti-Bed Stuy. If anything, I have always appreciated your consistent sharing about properties in the less than hot-hot Brooklyn nabes, including Bed Stuy, Crown Heights and my own 'hood, Prospect Lefferts Gardens.

While I certainly don't think your comment about crap construction being a greater long term threat to Bed Stuy than crime or racial tensions is the most brilliant thing you've ever said on this forum, I also don't think it deserves this much deconstruction.

Let's lighten up, folks.

Posted by: GardensGal at October 13, 2005 2:14 PM

Thanks Brownstoner for pointing this out and getting a conversation going - I always appreciate when Bed-Stuy is mentioned on my favorite blog. Houses like this are a HUGE problem in bed-stuy, and whether we like it or not race plays a big role in that, and YES, it does contribute to larger issues of crime and racial tension to be surrounded by, or living in, substandard housing - bushes in front or not.

On the "light" side...it makes me lighten up when I remember the poor craftmanship I witnessed when these buildings where being thrown up (!) all over my neighborhood, and too often "built" over our community gardens! They are built so poorly that they will self destruct within years and hopefully we will have got some better "development" sense by then! I've also noticed that the ones in my immediate area have stood empty for up to two years since they have been built (which is a huge problem also!) but indicates that people aren't being stupid enough to buy them which will hopefully show the builders that they are a bad idea and they will do better.

If anyone knows any of the builders please let me know, I have a genuine (not rude or sarcastic) proposition for them that I hope will benefit them and our communities.

Posted by: bed-stuy gal at October 13, 2005 3:08 PM

Bed Stuy Gal I really dont think you want these developments to deconstruct as the implications for Bed Stuy are very bad. But assuming they are economically viable (as investment property) or Bed Stuy remians desirable for private residential, your hope to be rid of this construction in the near future will not be reached. Despite the fact that much of the new construction is "shoddy"; the reality is that from a structural standpoint it is far sturdier than the vast majority of "vintage" housing. As many of the people here can tell you, the amount of structural issues that plaque your average brownstone are mind numbing. So I have no doubtt today's builders are cutting corners wherever possible (you think they didnt cut corner in the early 20th century?) and new owners are bound to find leaks, defects and problems galore - in reality the engineering and materials used in todays structures generally make them fundamentally stronger than virtually anything built 100 yrs ago.

Posted by: David at October 13, 2005 3:22 PM

Bed-stuy Gal. I hear what you are saying but my fear is that the substandard housing that is not occupied will not be redeveloped. Rather it would be filled with squatters or drug dealers if left unoccupied for years, creating an assumption that Bed Stuy is not worth investing in. Dramatic scenario, yes, but that's what I'd worry about if there are new properties lying vacant and unused, especially if they are unattractive and from the outside look bleak and ghetto like.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 13, 2005 3:41 PM

sorry, I guess that is another reminder that "tonque in cheek" does not translate properly through the internet. :)

Posted by: bed-stuy gal at October 13, 2005 3:44 PM

True. Let's just hope we see better development in the future...

Posted by: Anonymous at October 13, 2005 3:59 PM

I agree with the comment about B'stoner not necessarily being a bed-stuy basher and I'll be the first defend the stuy. I think some may be taking his comments too literally.

I also feel that he makes a good point about the housing issue being a contributor to some of the problems in bedstuy and a threat in the sense that these types of developments do indirectly affect communities. aside from the obvious, if you keep building projects in a neighborhood (not to suggest that this is the projects) that obviously has a effect on the area and the aesthetic of the hood. its just a fact. so indirectly b'stoner has a point.

Posted by: stuy blkbuttrflie at October 13, 2005 7:00 PM

well said, stuy blkbuttrflie and b'stoner!

Posted by: browngirl at October 13, 2005 9:08 PM

I own a new construction in bed-stuy. I admit that its as ugly as shit. I've dreamed of ripping down all this damn pink brick and putting up some old red clay brick and enlarging the window openings. Keep in mind that since the structural wall is a concrete wall behind the pink brick, this is entirely possible.

Another great point is that this house is so f**king strong. The floors use 2 x 12"s with oak hardwood over 3/4" plywood and the foundation is a foot thick poured concrete. The above grade walls are filled concrete block. Why do I care that my house is stronger then necessary?

Because I can add an extra floor and a concrete roof to hold a rooftop garden. (I checked the F.A.R. before I bought-- I've got room to grow.) Try adding a one foot thick concrete deck (needed to hold the weight of soil and trees) on top of an old brownstone and you'll understand what I mean when I say this house is strong.

Its going to take me years to realize my vision for this house but when its done, anyone who seems my house will begin to appreciate how flexible and desirable these ugly new houses are.

Just give me a few years.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 14, 2005 11:42 AM

What I think no one is commenting on is that new construction is basically necessary for there to be affordable housing. If anything, that will help ease "racial tensions"

There is a HUGE lack of affordable housing in New York City, and the gentrification of Bed-Stuy definitely has its pluses, but adding to the store of affordable housing is not one of them. Most of the readers of this blog would not be buying in gentrifying areas if affordable housing was NOT in short supply.

It's a very middle-class perspective to bemoan new construction ruining your pretty brownstones. I understand it, but I think readers of this blog need to be a little aware of the issues involved besides an ugly building.

Posted by: anonymous at October 14, 2005 1:52 PM

And by the way, I realize that this example is not affordable housing. Just saying that there needs to be new construction (and most of it will probably be ugly) for there to be affordable housing in New York City.

Posted by: anonymous at October 14, 2005 1:54 PM

As a new agent at Ardor NY and a long time brownstoner reader (since it was brownstoner.blogspot.com) I have to say the people I work with are not "cretins" for a bunch of brokers we are actualy pretty nice. As for the square footage issue and the 4 doors out front, there are obviously 2 identical buildings on this lot. One door is for the ground floor unit and the other door leads to stairs up to the other two units.

Now enough defending my colleages. The fact of the matter is this construction is ugly as sin and as it is priced is not even a good investment. I am an investor as well and I would not look at this twice. The rent role would be no more than $3600/mo in a best case senario, which would barely cover an investment interest only arm payment much less other expenses. This pricing is outrageous and thats why these types of houses have been sitting. If your going to buy for appretiation you have got to buy something somebody rich will want to buy when the neighborhood is fully gentrified ie: something pretty like a brownstone. What proffesional is gunna come and say "Bed-stuy is so nice now, i want to buy there! Let me buy a peach brick monstrosity instead of a gorgeous brownstone..." not gunna happen.

So these things will sit and well designed places will move, end of story.

Posted by: Mr. Digital at October 14, 2005 3:43 PM

Interesting perspective, Mr. Digital. Wish more brokers would chime in (or at least identify themselves when they do).

Posted by: Brownstoner at October 14, 2005 9:06 PM

clomid side effects http://www.noonhost.com/clomidsideeffec/clomid side effects http://www.gogetforum.com/clomid/clomid.html

Posted by: clomid side effects at June 30, 2006 3:45 AM

Post a comment

Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.

Latest Restaurant Additions