« The Answer to What's Happening at 342 Smith Handouts from NY State for Preservation »

January 25, 2006

1067 Fulton Street: The Plague Spreads

development
We wanted to give this development at the corner of Classon and Fulton the benefit of the doubt. Really we did. Given the location, it seemed like a real opportunity to be a beacon of hope on this stretch of Fulton and set a positive tone for new development further east. Unfortunately, our hopes could not have been more misplaced. What an abomination! We understand how reasonable people could disagree about the merits of a building like this, but we can't imagine anyone being able to find anything nice to say about this monstrosity. The design decisions on the facade, and the ground-level entry area in particular, are a disgrace. Developers like this are a menace to the future of Brooklyn--destroying the borough, one lot at a time, with short-sighted eyesores that, ironically, may even be leaving profit on the table. Interestingly, continuing a proud Brooklyn tradition, the developers of this site were cited by the DOB for working without a permit last March. We wonder what other corners may have been cut? Who are these guys anyway? Do they have other projects on their resume? GMAP
Update on 1067 Fulton [Brownstoner]
New Build at Classon and Fulton [Brownstoner]

PLEASE EMAIL THE DEVELOPERS OF THIS BUILDING AT INFO@NEWSTARTLLC.COM TO LET THEM KNOW THAT THEY ARE MISJUDGING THE MARKET AND RUINING A NEIGHBORHOOD IN THE PROCESS.




Posted by Brownstoner at 9:40 AM | Comments (88)
Categories: Development

Comments

It looks like the Bklyn House of Detention without the bars.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 25, 2006 9:45 AM

this building reminds me of the building on Bedford at Halsey. Could they be related?

Posted by: anon at January 25, 2006 9:51 AM

I agree, they really had a chance to make a statement piece on this corner. Well, I guess they did make a statement:Ugly/Wack/Disrespectful.

What I mean is they could have made every one thinking of developing condos in this part of Clinton Hills/Bedstuy step their game up.

Who is going to want to pay their hard earned bucks to live in there? They most definetly left money on the table; making some bullshit like that

Posted by: Disgusted at January 25, 2006 10:08 AM

Ugggggly! Really, people complain all the time about buildings that are "too tall." To me, having an eyesore like this is much worse than an overly tall but attractive building.

Posted by: Anon at January 25, 2006 10:11 AM

wow...a six-story methadone clinic!

Posted by: Anonymous at January 25, 2006 10:28 AM

I agree. My wife and I were commenting the other day on how this was a lost opportunity. It is a mish mash of materials and colors that screams "shoddy". What's up with the doors several stories up leading to a, literally, one or two foot deep "balcony"? If I had to pick between this and a thirty story out of context (not that this is really in context), but well done, modern glass tower, I'd choose the modern tower. What a shame.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 25, 2006 10:30 AM

No hope. Fulton street is over

Posted by: Anonymous at January 25, 2006 10:30 AM

Let's see how the free market plays out at this building. Will people deem it to ugly to live in (even with those relatively reasonable condo prices) or are the units cheap enough to make people overlook the facade?

Posted by: Shahn Andersen at January 25, 2006 10:32 AM

I don't agree that Fulton Street is "over". I just think that an opportunity was sqandered on this large lot. I think this is actually on classon between Putnam and Fulton, more towards the corner of Fulton. The only good thing is that you don't really see the building from most vantage points!

Posted by: Anonymous at January 25, 2006 10:32 AM

Yes, it is the same developer as the Bedford condos (on Bedford & Halsey). New Start LLC are the developers. I'm not surprised that they got in trouble with the DOB. I use to have an apartment in the Bedford building...needless to say I was happy to sell the place and get out of there rather quickly. I'm very disappointed with the design of this place on Fulton Street. It's such ashame that some of these developers don't care about maintaining or enhancing a neighborhood.

Posted by: CLD at January 25, 2006 10:34 AM

i held out a lot of hope for this building. are they in the middle of painting it or is that the actual end product? prices? website?

Posted by: 9000 at January 25, 2006 10:40 AM

I would venture to guess that the little mini balconies are there because they are used in the Jewish harvest holiday, Succoth.

Posted by: Hal at January 25, 2006 10:48 AM

Then give people a real balcony--you're supposed to eat all your meals outside during the festival. This is like a formality, as inconsiderate as it is ugly.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 25, 2006 11:01 AM

Train wreck. There is a total disconnect where certain developers are trying to make their buildings look "classy" with the random flourishes like the stylized bars and the ridiclous white urns on the brown brick pillars. How will our culture be judged by future generations? This is where New York is at in 2006.

Posted by: Ferrerin05 at January 25, 2006 11:15 AM

I commented on the other building yesterday, and I agree that this is horrible for an entirely different set of reasons. First of all, the pictures do not do it justice. The sheer stank that is this building must be seen to be believed. The mismatched facade, the ugly gates, the excuses for balconies are all better experienced up close and in person. It is so asthetically unpleasant that you may have a physical reaction upon first glance.

I assume that the same developers that have been busy building up the corridor between Park Avenue and the BQE with cheap housing designed to appeal to growing Hassidic families are responsibe for this, noting Hal's thoughts about the Succoth balconies. With few acceptions the buildings are poorly constructed and look like they were designed by a voc-tech class at the school for the blind.

WHY can't people build buildings that are in keeping with the neigborhoods, that are constructed of materials that will last, and do not look like they'll fall down in the first huricane, snowstorm, or nor'easter that hits the city?

Posted by: Oh Lord! at January 25, 2006 11:19 AM

Shahn - I would think you would know better. The free market does not decide if a building is ugly or not. This thing is fugly regardless of who will buy it. The architect and developer have to be shamed into doing the right thing. Obviously the free market does not help in this instance.

Posted by: Dave at January 25, 2006 11:27 AM

This is a godawful piece of crap, but I suspect that building new construction out of materials that match the existing housing stock is easier said than done. I wonder what it would cost to re-create one of the original brownstones or apartment buildings of this neighborhood today—same materials, construction, interior details, etc.

This is going to sound smug, but this is one reason I think townhouses, even all the overpriced ones we see on this blog, are at least relative bargains compared with condos. Even if you build the modern equivalent with the equivalent-quality contemporary materials, it costs a ton. Look at the 14 Townhouses on State Street, which look to be top-shelf, contextual, etc.--but cost a freaking fortune.

Posted by: linusvanpelt at January 25, 2006 11:28 AM

Hal:

I don't think the balconies could be used for Succoth because they are stacked up above each other. You'll notice that the buildings where the Hasidim live have staggered balconies so the sky is visible from each one as in accordance to tradition.

This one is for the goyim to enjoy.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 25, 2006 11:28 AM

Maybe that's what it will take...a high-cat hurricane or ferocious nor'easter to reveal how truly flimsy this type of construction is.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 25, 2006 11:29 AM

Here's a question, and it's not meant to be inflammatory, but does the Hasidic community as a culture not place value, or place less value than others, in the aesthetics of their surroundings? Clearly a lot of the land owners in the community have made a lot of money in recent years so it can't be a lack of funds leading to these horrible results. I would really be interested in hearing from a member of the community or somebody who really knows and can help explain, because obviously the buildings they are putting up are creating a lot of bad will for them. Is there anything in the religious teachings, perhaps, that discourages caring about such materialistic things?

Posted by: Anonymous at January 25, 2006 11:34 AM

I think there are plenty of examples of non-Hasidic developers building crap in this city. It's just that the Hasidim seem to concentrate on mid-density buildings rather than Ratner-scaled behemoths or low density Nehemiah abominations.

Give the Hasidim credit at least building at a density consistant with historic Brooklyn (even if they are typically out of context with their immediate neighbors.)

Posted by: Preston at January 25, 2006 11:43 AM

Ughhh! Can't this be stopped? I mean it appears that market forces won't stop it or most of Queens wouldn't exist. Market forces don't appear to be thwarting this current plague as it explodes throughout Brooklyn either. A neighborhood is either Landmarked or left completely to the whim of these so-called developers and so-called architects to build these horrendous buildings that ruin blocks and entire neighborhoods. Does it really cost that much more to design and build a decent building? Is there really no way for city agencies to enforce a minimum design aesthetic?

Posted by: Seamus at January 25, 2006 11:45 AM

I didn't say the free market would dictate whether this is ugly or not, but if it is cheap enough for people to overlook its ugnliness. If no one buys at the prices they are asking, the prices will come down on this building, making other developers think twice about building a similar piece of shit. Hence - the free market will not save this building, but it will influence whether other abominations like this are built.

Posted by: Shahn Andersen at January 25, 2006 11:45 AM

So you're asking what there is in the culture of a certain group of Jews, what with their deep pockets and all, that makes them cheap out on the aesthetics of their homes? No, that's not inflammatory at all. 'Scuse me while I get my asbestos jumpsuit.

I would only note that the various condo monstrosities built in Greenwood Heights, for instance, don't seem to be particularly intended for the exclusive use of the Hasidim, and yet they're finding buyers too.

Posted by: linusvanpelt at January 25, 2006 11:48 AM

Mr. 'Stoner: Word.

Posted by: Mr. Minerva at January 25, 2006 11:57 AM

Ferrerin05 hit it on the NOSE! i can't even add anything else. this bldg is soooo ugly, i was totally repulsed when i walked down fulton over the weekend. SUCH a shame. the bldg looks like its about to fall over. to the person who asked is it waiting to be painted the answer is NO.

it boggles my mind how people cannot see how ugly some buidings are. I DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND IT.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 25, 2006 12:02 PM

Linus-

I think you are right with respect to recreating the housing stock, but I've seen some of these new prefabs that come much closer to the original look and feel than some of this stuff going up. I have spoted some in Carrol Gardens that fit in with the surrounding brownstones and townhouses. I also look at the rehabs the city did downtown on St. Felix. On that block they had to come in and fix all of the building foundations. As part of that process they removed most of the stoops and front yards and rebuilt them with the current version of period matching fixtures. The results are quite nice. Were they cheap? No. Do they look better? Yes.

Posted by: Oh Lord! at January 25, 2006 12:02 PM

no, it's not just hasidim. it's also hispanic and asian in queens. just take a look at some of the stuff in queens.

http://ltjbukem.blogspot.com/2005/12/brooklyn-doesnt-have-monopoly-on-ugly.html

when will you people get it? not everyone wants a 100 year old brownstone. some want (in your opinion and mine) ugly brick homes that will amply room their large families. you have to understand that a lot of chinese asian families came from villages in china where there homes were HUTS, people. we're talking shanty-town type erections.

sorry to tell you, but a lot of developers don't give a rat's ass about building in context. esp in queens, where there's not the civic-minded architectural historians like we have here, this stuff is buttah.

Posted by: ltjbukem at January 25, 2006 12:06 PM

I don't think that people want ugly brick homes. I think that people, (especially new immigrants) want homes, period. They are far more likely to save to buy or pool their money to buy. They end up looking for entry level starter homes. Today those homes are the Fedders we all gnash our teeth over. In some respects it is a chicken and egg problem. If these starter homes were better designed would they still be purchased? Absolutely. But when you are looking at $500k or less in Brooklyn and Queens, the overwhelming stock is unattractive Fedders. If my choice is continuing to rent an apartment to house my large family and extended family or moving into a brand new ugly house I own and can afford, yeah I'm buying.

I don't think these folks don't want brownstones. I think they want ownership and this is what they can get today.

Posted by: Oh Lord! at January 25, 2006 12:19 PM

Oh Lord! (great handle),

I guess we're agreed except that I don't see the solution that you're asking for. There are some cases where you can make a development less ugly without it costing more, but in general quality costs, and you seem to agree. You also note that people wants homes and will buy what they can afford. So unless I'm missing something, the answer is

- build higher-quality, better-looking construction, and if it means entry-level buyers have to keep renting, so be it

or

- find some way to make developers -- unlike people in pretty much any other business -- accept a lower margin on what they're selling, so they can build places people can afford that will be more pleasing to our eyes

I'm not trying to pick a fight but you had asked, "WHY can't people build buildings that are in keeping with the neigborhoods..." I think that's your answer: $$$.

Posted by: linusvanpelt at January 25, 2006 12:36 PM

Yes, we do agree. And you are right, there is no solution. Its just unfortunate that there aren't developers who have more than just maximizing profits in mind when they build.

I know that's a lot to ask for, and its not like I'm out here working for free, but it is a shame nevertheless.

Build something that you would let your kids move into, and for my sake, have a little pride in your work!

Posted by: Oh Lord! at January 25, 2006 12:45 PM

One solution would be for government to incentivize developers to build more attractive buildings--give a tax break for agreeing to get approval from some landmarks-like committee...

Posted by: Brownstoner at January 25, 2006 12:55 PM

The ethnic arguments are daft (and offensive) -- this all comes down to zoning and building codes. If the city mandated a higher aesthetic level in new construction, that's what we would get. Until it does, this kind of fugly building will become more and more prevalent. Good looking low cost housing is an easily attainable goal. Lots of other countries manage it. Bring on the socialist revolution! That, or only let people with good taste get the money.

Posted by: Anon at January 25, 2006 12:57 PM

I think Oh Lord and others are correct. Why do they do it - because they can. You couldn't build a POS like this in a more affluent neighborhood. Aside from better enforced zoning and landmark restrictions, the developers know that their target clients want a quality looking building. Ugly may be in the eye of the beholder, but a certain amount of quality will get you the kind of money and people you want. Out here in the hood, the target market may overlook a butt ugly building in order to buy into the American dream of home ownership. There may or may not be racism present, but there certainly is classism, and a basic distain of their target market, as in "they don't care what it looks like,(or how badly it's built), they are just dumb peasants from (fill in the blank)who are happy to buy something. Lets save the money and use what's left over from six other projects."
It would serve them right if they couldn't fill the building, but unfortunately in this market, that probably won't happen.

Posted by: Bunky at January 25, 2006 1:04 PM

To all.
I’m a Hasidic Jew, living in Williamsburg, and let me say to you all, that first of all this building will never be for Hasidim, they will never go out so far from their neighborhood, and the balconies are not "kosher" for the use of "sukkos", and if you check on Property shark, the names for the permits etc. are Chinese names.
So let me see now, if the same people who jump out of their chairs at any opportunity to attack us, will they rip into the Chinese as well of will it be "racist" so they will shut up, as they turned out to be fools again.

Posted by: Mentch at January 25, 2006 1:10 PM

interesting that chinese developers have branched out into bedstuy of all places.

Posted by: ltjbukem at January 25, 2006 1:22 PM

Bukem, You already gave us one wildly offensive post (12:06pm, with its asinine comments about the apparent predeliction of the chinese for huts and shanty towns), now you're back with more inflammatory BS. Why on earth shouldn't Chinese developers be in BedStuy, or anywhere else for that matter? Brownstoner: Can't you fire this dude?

Posted by: Anon at January 25, 2006 1:40 PM

(a) this building is fugly;

(b) if I were asked to invest in the development, and the expected rate of return on my money was large enough, I would invest, notwithstanding the fugliness, and so would all of you.

Has nothing to do with Hassidic Jews, WASP Gentiles, Chinese, Homosexuals, Women, other minority and non-minority historically disadvantaged groups or otherwise.

Posted by: Anon at January 25, 2006 1:43 PM

I stand corrected.

Posted by: Hal at January 25, 2006 1:46 PM

Bunky,

I don't see where disdain on the developer's part fits in, unless you're contending they could build a more attractive building without spending a dime more. Developers are out to maximize profit *everywhere*. If they build more attractive buildings in rich neighborhoods, it's because the clientele has more money and more options. And developers try to make as much money as they can get away with in Park Slope and Brooklyn Heights just like anywhere else. They're not in the business of giving charity to customers, rich or not rich.

Posted by: linusvanpelt at January 25, 2006 1:52 PM

I think ltjbukem was just making an observation that Chinese developers appear to be branching out to the Bed-Stuy area. And I think the original poster's carefully worded question about the Hasidim was respectful and sincere. Let's not be so quick to call people racist.

Posted by: Park Sloper at January 25, 2006 1:53 PM

Yes the building is as ugly as imaginable.

Bigger problem is that if the developer team performs like they did on Bedford and Halsey there will be problems with the plumbing, the roof, the heating system and just about every other major building element. The owners in that building are still trying to get the attorney general to take some meaningful action against the developer and contractor.

However, in the September Brownstoner posting we saw the real catch:

Studio, $150K; Studio with Study, $225K; One bedroom, $250K; Two bedroom, $380,000. And, in what must be a first in this part of town, parking spaces can be bought for $25K.

Compare this with the post later today about the apartments on Luquer. Where else can an average working person with a modicum of savings afford to buy a place to live? Many a hardworking person of any ethnic background would be lucky to be making $65,000 at age 30. After paying off the student loans do they have even $25k in the bank? They will just barely be able to buy a one BR here. They will be happy to see this on the market at all. Unfortunately "quality housing" for average New Yorkers looks like this.

A little musing about the balconies: They are not for Succoth, but I believe they help provide fire egress/rescue. My guess is that they also help with ventilation. There is no central AC in this building and look! No ugly "FEDDERS" boxes! That means awkward window AC installation and high electric costs. Not to mention that once the AC is in the window you can't really open it. So the ability to open the door as things cool down outside might be a welcome thing. An operable window of that size probably costs as much as the door and the iron work, and the open door provides more ventilation then the window, so it might just be a developer trick, but I am just guessing here.

Chinese contractors doesn't surprise me at all - their reputation at the moment is that they are the best for the money, but please don't consider that as some kind of racial slander.

Posted by: ameraleed at January 25, 2006 2:00 PM

I'd venture to guess, without knowing much about the costs etc, that the developers here missed out on a chance to make an even bigger (or a least comparable) margin if they had gone a bit more upscale in their design.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 25, 2006 2:03 PM

I get the feeling that the developers are not familiar with the demographic (changing one at that) of the area they were building in.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 25, 2006 2:04 PM

ameraleed,

amen. i sure as hell wouldn't want to look at this building every day. but i already own my house. it's really, really easy for me to carp about the aesthetics when i've got my piece of the rock.

Posted by: linusvanpelt at January 25, 2006 2:06 PM

anon at 1:40, please get a grip. i never said that chinese prefer huts/shanty-towns. i said that compared to what my ancestors used to live in in china, these brick fedders type buildings are truly their utopia, their american-dream. get it?

and thank you, park sloper, for showing that you, for one, are able to grasp nuances of the english language.

Posted by: ltjbukem at January 25, 2006 2:12 PM

I think the developers who make monstrocities like this on are complete morons. They THINK they will maximize their profits by being absolutely as cheap as possible, but they are wrong. Buyers in Clinton Hill are willing to pay enough more for good-looking, quality construction that the developer would actually make more money by spending more on the building.

It's a lose-lose situation. The developer loses because s/he isn't maximizing profits. The community loses because such an ugly building will sit there forever.

Posted by: veggieburger at January 25, 2006 2:53 PM

You get what you pay for. As per one of Brownstoners early post, "Ready? Studio, $150K; Studio with Study, $225K; One bedroom, $250K; Two bedroom, $380,000. And, in what must be a first in this part of town, parking spaces can be bought for $25K."

With 2 bedrooms going for $380K, what do you expect?

This is an good example of affordable housing. Everyone complains about how unaffordable housing is. Then some affordable housing comes along and everyone's up in a tizzy. I guess affordable housing is the enemy of gentrification as is seems like mostly gentrifiers who are carping about the building looks. Damn interlopers.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 25, 2006 3:12 PM

Does anyone know of a way to reach New Start, LLC. It would be a pity to keep all of these thoughts and opinions for ourselves. For all we know, New Start is running around thinking that the communities love them.

If anyone finds contact info on New Start, please post it.

Posted by: JJEsquire at January 25, 2006 3:14 PM

New Start, LLC
50 Greene Avenue
Brooklyn, NY 11221

Posted by: Anonymous at January 25, 2006 3:25 PM

http://www.newstartllc.com/Index.htm

Posted by: Preston at January 25, 2006 3:27 PM

We'll print out this thread and mail a hard copy to them

Posted by: Brownstoner at January 25, 2006 3:28 PM

From the NewStart LLC web site:
www.newstartllc.com

Our Mission:
We bring this vision and commitment to property management, where our attention to detail and proactive management approach create peaceful living conditions for our tenants and cost effective building management.

Company Profile:
New Start LLC developes unique housing and commercial projects in and around New York City. Properties are developed with architectural vision, a commitment to quality and the goal of weaving a valuable addition into the fabric of a community. Development financing has been secured from a variety of sources including Low Income Housing Tax Credits, Taxable and Tax-exempt Bond Syndication, NYC Housing Preservation and Development (HPD), NYS Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR), NYC Housing Development Corporation (HDC), NYS Housing Trust Fund (HTF) grants, banks, Private investors and syndication.

Contact Information
NEW START LLC

Telephone: (718) 399-7395
FAX : (718) 399-7217
Postal address: 50 Greene Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11238
Electronic mail:
General Information: info@newstartllc.com
Housing Coordinator: Mr. Momodou Colley properties@newstartllc.com

Posted by: chuckdwawa at January 25, 2006 3:29 PM

Just dropped it in the mail to them. Everyone should email them to register their discontent--though please don't be too nasty as they will be less likely to listen.

Posted by: Brownstoner at January 25, 2006 3:39 PM

The "balconies" are for the goyim to enjoy? I love Brownstoner. Now, where'd I put those square glasses....

Posted by: Lisa at January 25, 2006 3:52 PM

sorry, but making a building look nicer does not equal maximizing profits. look at the lofts on dekalb marketed by corcoran. every unit is from $320k to $490k and 25% have sold in 4/5 months, if not more. so this place is more modern-looking, has larger spaces, yet no one is buying. so how can you say that making more upscale spaces will increase sales? not true!

so to the guy who said buyers in clinton hill are willing to pay more? first off, this project and lofts on dekalb are in bed stuy, so if the proof is in the pudding, where is it?

the poor developer at lofts on dekalb followed your advice and is saddled with 24 unsold units!

Posted by: ltjbukem at January 25, 2006 4:03 PM

one good thing about newstart llc: at least they are giving the buyer the option to customize their unit with some upgrades, which is a hell of a lot more than what other developers out there are doing.

Posted by: ltjbukem at January 25, 2006 4:31 PM

I'm not sure what your point is ltjbukem? Not trying to offend, but what proof in the pudding are you looking for? Also, isn't the above location technically on the Clinton Hill/Bed-Stuy border, right on Classon? Are you defending the poor job as all the could be produced at this location in order to make a profit? I don't think they need to be super upscale, just not an extemely ugly and cheap looking monstronsity. Seems shortsighted to me. A better quality development on the border of Clinton Hill would be a real lynch-pin (sp?) for further development of that border area in my opinion. However, I do not think that NewStart is the sort of company that is in that business. Rather, they sound like they try to build low to moderate income housing. Fair enough, but was this a good site for it and did it have to be so unattractive?

Posted by: Anonymous at January 25, 2006 4:32 PM

What makes you think no one is buying? New Start has an application process for this building. I know several people whose applications have been accepted by New Start.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 25, 2006 4:35 PM

What makes you think no one is buying? New Start has an application process for this building. I know several people whose applications have been accepted by New Start for this building.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 25, 2006 4:35 PM

Also, ltjbukem, I'm not sure the Lofts at Dekalb are the best example. While definitely more upscale, they are far into Bed Stuy. This development is close to the subway and is right on the Clinton Hill border. Opportunity lost imo.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 25, 2006 4:40 PM

Shahn,
We're supposed to watch crap like this get put up and hope that the developer dosen't make enough money so the NEXT building he puts up is more asthetically appealing? Seems like a pipe dream to me. I don't think we can legislate taste, but buildings like this make me want to try. I am going to make my next (polite) call to New Start in a few minutes. By the way - those gates in the front of the building are so housing project chic.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 25, 2006 5:00 PM

BTW, to all you Jew-haters out there, the lofts on dekalb that is being marketed by the Corcoran Group, is a Hasidic developer.

Posted by: Mentch at January 25, 2006 5:03 PM

I know I'm late to this thread. I haven't been in this area in a while. Anyone know if the other big vacant lot on Fulton (one block closer to the Franklin st. subway) is showing any progress? I remember some church org started building there last year but the structure collapsed and the whole thing was bulldozed.

Posted by: ando at January 25, 2006 5:13 PM

OK, this is not my neighborhood, and so not my fight. And th ebuilding is ass-ugly. but can someone explain to me...

"misjudging the market"
"they sound like they try to build low to moderate income housing. Fair enough, but was this a good site for it"

OK, I don't mean to be a snob and I know that Clinton Hill / Bed Stuy are changing. But really, am I supposed to believe they no longer have a market for low to moderate income apartments, especially for first-time buyers?

I mean, I read on Bstoner all the time about the need for low/moderate income housing at the Ratner site -- at the nexus of Prospect Heights, Boerum Hill and Park Slope. Did Clinton Hill and Bed Stuy suddenly become more upscale than them?

Posted by: linusvanpelt at January 25, 2006 5:21 PM

"What makes you think no one is buying? New Start has an application process for this building. I know several people whose applications have been accepted by New Start for this building."

My money says that anonymous 4:35 is either Mr. Alfred B. Thompson or Mr. Paul M. Galvin of New Start LLC...

Posted by: Anonymous at January 25, 2006 5:21 PM

It's really funny that the same people who are carping about this ugly building think it is fine to place other ugly buildings on brownstone blocks in Bed-Stuy. "It's better than the garbage strewn lots" many of you said. Just because this building is on the Clinton-Hill/ Bed-Stuy border, it is sooo unacceptable. We should all be concerned about all of Brooklyn and not just our particular areas. When will we learn.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 25, 2006 5:22 PM

Linus- I think everyone here is sympathetic to New Start's goal of creating affordable housing. But the means they have chosen to distinguish their building have made it even worse than a sterile, utilitarian box.

Clearly the variations in materials and the balconies cost some money that the developer was spending to raise the quality of this project. Alas, it was not money well spent.

Posted by: Preston at January 25, 2006 5:25 PM

Linus, face it. You are a snob.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 25, 2006 5:45 PM

Anon at 5:22. I for one do not think its okay to place ugly houses on brownstone blocks. I think its a crime to place ugly housing anywhere. My problem is the assumption that developers make that affordable=ugly. The two are not synonymous. I say this as someone who grew up on Bedford Avenue.

Empty lots on brownstone blocks should be built out if the demand is there. What should not happen is that a developer comes along and throws up a piece of junk and then those of us who have lived through riots, crackheads, no services and basic fear of our neighborhoods should hear "Get over it, its affordable housing which is what you people claim to want".

I want to keep the general flavor of my neighborhood. I want to share it with others who have an appreciation for it. I do not want it to be overrun by ugly crap. Period.

Posted by: Oh Lord! at January 25, 2006 5:57 PM

Surely it is possible to have good looking, affordable housing. They shouldn't be mutually exclusive terms. If only architects and builders who believe this could rise to the surface in this city. Unfortunately, it is just easier to build crap. I wouldn't want to see this building anywhere in this city, in great, marginal or poor neighborhoods.

Posted by: Bunky at January 25, 2006 6:13 PM

Yeah, it sucks when affordable housing is built in your neighborhood. Deal with it.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 25, 2006 7:07 PM

Should swap the Lofts on Dekalb for this one -- I imagine they'd both sell better. The Lofts on Dekalb are in a terrible location, transportation and convenience-wise -- very few people will spend that kind of money for such a location, regardless of the quality of the construction.

And isn't Shayna Boymelgreen Hassidic? Or just othrodox? Lubovitcher? Is this a Satmar vs. Lubovitcher thing?

Posted by: babs at January 25, 2006 7:23 PM

oy vey.

Posted by: 9000 at January 25, 2006 8:11 PM

There's no reason why affordable housing has to be built this crappily.

It's not just hasidic developers. We've got a Chinese crew busy destroying my neighborhood right now.

These piece-o-crap buildings are going to be one of the major legacies of the Bloomberg Building Bubble era.

Posted by: adn at January 25, 2006 10:10 PM

As someone who lives across the block from this ugliness, I am just glad they left the backside bare concrete blocks. I am looking forward to it being sold to bring more people into this side of the neighborhood, which is oddly underpopulated (many of the brownstones and lots are being warehoused). It will create more customers for the Outpost Cafe (a nice place despite its unfortunate name), Kush, and other new places in what I am now declaring to be "Bedford Village" or maybe "Putnam Square." Heh, heh....

Posted by: Anonymous at January 25, 2006 10:17 PM

All one needs to do is visit the DOB web site to see what a mess this building was/is. They demo'ed the prior building with out any permits. Safety violations....no side walk shed on a six story building....no emergency egress/fire escapes...open exposed electrical wiring. This building is a prime example why Brooklyn DoB Commissioner Hinkson was recently banished to Staten Island. The DoB allows these buildings to be built. How come a building like 1067 has so few complaints, yet so many violations?

Posted by: Anonymous at January 25, 2006 10:17 PM

no one on this board has the nuts to put up all there money to develop something and not hope to see a return for two years or more. it's easy to talk about what should go where with no money up. that corner was pure dreck, you trying to tell me he should have spent much more on design and the the material of the building hoping to draw the higher end market?

no one here would have looked at that corner before that building went up and agreed to invest all of their $$ on some high end building. Let's not forget the process starts years before you see the building.......

Posted by: Anonymous at January 25, 2006 10:24 PM

I think the last poster is probably wrong. I for one, if I hadn't sunk so much into my brownstonek, would invest in such a project if done well. Maybe that's what we need to do, form an LLC, hire an architect that everyone likes, purchase some of these empty blocks and put the collective brownstoner money into projects furthering contextual development. If enough of us were members of the LLC, we could likely raise enough seed capital. Would be the biggest returns per capita with many investors, but it might be an idea worth pursuing.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 26, 2006 12:10 AM

I meant to say it would "not" result in the biggest per investor returns if there were many members of the LLC or LP.

Brownstoner Development, LLC - whose with me.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 26, 2006 12:22 AM

I meant to say it would "not" result in the biggest per investor returns if there were many members of the LLC or LP.

Brownstoner Development, LLC - who's with me?

Posted by: Anonymous at January 26, 2006 12:23 AM

Didn't mean to post twice, was correcting a typo...it's late

Posted by: Anonymous at January 26, 2006 12:25 AM

10:24

It's a pretty ridiculous assertion to go on to a real estate blog and claim that none of the readers have the courage to invest in real estate.

Surprisingly you might have a point about the lag time of construction and the changing market but _no one_ deserves to have this in their neighborhood. It is simply bad design- and for no reason- I'm sure this building (at least the exterior) cost more to build than some of the new construction in Bed Stuy. I suspect, alas, it is not the cost of the materials that doomed this building but the developers refusal to hire a competent architect.

Posted by: Preston at January 26, 2006 8:37 AM

I am a bit surprised that you mailed this quasi-offensive thread to the developer. With the rants about different ethnic groups, it's doubtful that they will take you seriously. Why not compose a letter expressing your aesthetic outrage and collect signatures instead.

That said, I totally agree that this building is a travesty. New Start is notorious for shodddy construction -- and low prices.

All of the armchair architects on this site should band together and start buying up vacant lots to prevent future tragedies like this one.

Posted by: clinton hillbilly at January 26, 2006 11:29 AM

Poster 10:24 you don't know what you're talking about. I invest, and develope heavily in this area. I think that's what has me so distgusted with this monstronsity.

In fact some business associates of mine where in contract to buy this property and they asked me to get involved. Their contract price was in 1.3M+ range.

I spent a couple thousand dollars on a zoning analysis for this property and a few others in the area that I either owed or was thinking about buying.

My associates deal fell apart, and I guess the owner took several hundred thousand dollars less for a super quick deal.

This "building" was erected IN LESS THAN 6 months after the purchase. so your assertion that this took years of planning is dead wrong. Because of real lack of planning Clinton Hills/BED Stuy gets exactly what this building looks like: A build as you go masterpiece.

Posted by: Disgusted at January 26, 2006 11:33 AM

EXACTLY! BUILD AS YOU GO! What you are looking at is what happens when you leave design and construction up to a contractor. Not everyone is Jefferson you know. All that extra ornamentation is an effort by uneducated masons to recreate their idea of luxury on a minimal budget. How many of you hire painters and let them pick the colors? In some countries it is a great sign of wealth and power to have two giant stone lions positioned at your front door...for examples the NYC Public Library and the Jamaican guy on Vanderbuilt who sells coconuts.

Posted by: Fascinating at January 26, 2006 12:48 PM

Was talking to someone from the nabe yesterday who referred to this as "the Patchwork Building". Nuff' said.

Posted by: Oh Lord! at January 26, 2006 1:25 PM

Unfortunately, I have no real money, but I would be willing to be in on a discussion of like minded people who wanted to invest in the hoods I have called home for over 20 years. I'm sure it would be quite an opinionated meeting, but if the goal was to preserve where possible, build where needed, have some design and construction standards, AND make money, sign me up!

Posted by: CrownHeightsProud at January 26, 2006 4:18 PM

Post a comment

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

Latest Restaurant Additions