Boom Spawns New Mutant Form of Architecture

Honestly, I much rather have an "empty lot full of rubbish" than THAT.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 14, 2006 10:57 AM

i doesn't look THAT bad--- i've seen worse. at least the windows (such as they are), are not microscopic!

Posted by: Anonymous at March 14, 2006 11:01 AM

I think you're right - a lot of them are empty. But the building of these properties has very distorted supply and demand (with city incentives etc)

Posted by: Anonymous at March 14, 2006 11:02 AM

Sorry - don't know what think its hunk of crap ( at least from I what can see in pic).
Facade does not prove how well contructed a building is ( and that goes for any 'Fedders' bldg).
This may look more ugly because of sides - supposed to be row house- so eventually not going to see sides.
But if row of these built I think would like halfway decent.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 14, 2006 11:09 AM

its a giant piece of rubbish

Posted by: Anonymous at March 14, 2006 1:45 PM

I don't think it is so bad.. As usual on this board, a reasonable structure that may house a nice family is a 'piece of crap' because it doesn't look pretty enough.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 14, 2006 1:53 PM

I'm with anon 1:53. There comes a point where "obsession with historic Brooklyn brownstones and the neighborhoods and lifestyles they define" turns into smugness.

We get it. You bought a lovely brownstone with excellent bones in Clinton Hill and renovated it at much expense and inconvenience. Your taste, fortitude, wisdom and superiority to the knuckle-draggers who would build or buy a place like this are to be praised.

Now can you give it a rest?

Posted by: Anonymous at March 14, 2006 2:08 PM

Hi. It's 1:53. Brownstoner, I've heard this concern for low income people from you before... I suspect you are sincere and I respect that.

However, that does not mean your rationale is sound. I work with poor people every day in my job, and the concerns you have about their lives (developers supposedly taking their money for inferior and unattractive new housing) are the not the problems they actually have.

The line between 'sticking it to the developers' and just being superior is very thin indeed. Although these may not be low income houses, they are definitely 'lower income' than restoring a brownstone in most parts of Brooklyn.

NYC desperately needs more housing stock and although this structure may not be perfect, I am not convinced that your visual annoyance is a good enough reason to be opposed to such devlopments.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 14, 2006 3:29 PM

Anon 3:29--I think anybody defending these ugly/cheaply made houses on the grounds that poor people need housing too is living in cloud cuckoo-land--too many of these buildings are not rentals, but co-ops or condos selling for $400,000 or more--You can make a nice living in Brooklyn and not have the downpayment for that, and you obviously know how it is for the people who aren't making a nice living here. The problem is, crap is being built and sold for an awful lot of money, and EVERYONE deserves better for their hard-earned money--the folks buying and the homeowners on the block. Some of you guys say, Well, don't buy on a block with an empty lot--but how can you know that people are going to sell their sideyards, and even their frame houses as teardowns. These houses look crappy and far from satisfying the urgent need for quality low-income housing, they just drive up housing costs on newly-built and even existing houses/apartments in the area--at the cost of getting your money's worth, aesthetics and even security--because, when the bubble bursts, houses will go into default and when it's a buyers market, crap will look like crap and be the rundown housing of the near future.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 14, 2006 5:44 PM

I disagree. I certainly don't think that such structures "drive up housing costs on newly-built and even existing houses/apartments in the area." On the other hand, you also argue that it will harm the neighborhood down the line, which I also don't buy.

At the end of the day, NYC has a supply problem, which is one of the many many reasons housing is so expensive. I think more supply is desperately needed. Not only for the very poor, but also for the middle class. The truth is, I see many maligned 'luxury condos' being discussed and I tend to accept the criticism, because at that price people should demand more. I also happen to think peopel should get more for 400k...

But we have to live in reality, and what else are people going to buy for 400k? Tell me what they should do! I get a little tired of every middle class-looking new structure being criticised on this board. What do you want-- everyone to stay in their crappy rentals and be priced out?

I make less money than a lot of people on this borad, and when I buy my next place, I will face a bunch of difficult trade-offs-- one of which may be looking at places that I find unattractive, but which meet other needs of mine, including price. You can tell me as much as you want that this ain't about money, but as a person without a lot, it kinds sounds the same to me.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 14, 2006 6:41 PM