our nabe according to corcoran

volition

http://www.corcoran.com/guides/index.aspx?page=BrooklynDescription&N=ProspectHeights

so i was just perusing the available properties in our nabe and happened upon corcoran's guide to our small, yet apparently expanded footprint. gotta love those agents ;-)

anyway, hope everyone is having/had a great holiday, and happy new year from your nitpicking neighbor.

carnivore

They are soooooo SLEAZY!!!!!
Just outright lying to people who go to their site for information! :x

armchair_warrior

after awhile, you guys know if there is alot more gentrification their definition would be the correct one .

carnivore

armchair_warrior wrote: after awhile, you guys know if there is alot more gentrification their definition would be the correct one .

No it wouldn't. Crown Heights doesn't turn into Prospect Heights just because it's gentrified. It'll be gentrified Crown Heights, that's all. Prospect Heights didn't turn into Park Slope when it gentrified.

anniewilde

sorry Carnivore, you're dead wrong. Prospect Heights DID turn into Park Slope. Have you heard of the "North Slope" area--it extends into Prospect Heights. Also, for your information, what is now "Prospect Heights" used to be CROWN HEIGHTS. Just look at the Crown Heights thread, there's a link to an old newspaper article about Crown Heights. These neighborhoods are all very fluid. Bedford Avenue will clearly end up as the border of Prospect Heights, just like Park Slope has expanded far beyond its original boundaries. That's elementary knowledge to anybody who can either do library research or even just use the internet well, although I guess that's asking a bit...Heheheh, just kidding--I'm a professor, so I'm used to doing research, but the history of NYC and neighborhoods is full of such ironies. the "East Village" is itself a recent invention. It used to all be the "Lower East Side," which, in fact, has shrunk considerably and will probably end up vanishing. And on and on...

anniewilde

I have to say, though, that the naivete and sort of Brooklyn micro-nativism is amusing. "It'll be gentrified Crown Heights, that's all." Very very funny, given that where you live, St. Johns and Underhill, is ACTUALLY "Gentrified Crown Heights" according to New York neighborhood history. Do you want I send you the link, or can you stoop to looking over in the CH thread and find it for yourself? Maybe even, you could stop by the library, look at some old maps--and find that--shockhorror--you actually live in--a neighborhood--invented--by--REALTORS--!!!!!

carnivore

anniewilde wrote: sorry Carnivore, you're dead wrong. Prospect Heights DID turn into Park Slope. Have you heard of the "North Slope" area--it extends into Prospect Heights. Also, for your information, what is now "Prospect Heights" used to be CROWN HEIGHTS. Just look at the Crown Heights thread, there's a link to an old newspaper article about Crown Heights. These neighborhoods are all very fluid. Bedford Avenue will clearly end up as the border of Prospect Heights, just like Park Slope has expanded far beyond its original boundaries. That's elementary knowledge to anybody who can either do library research or even just use the internet well, although I guess that's asking a bit...Heheheh, just kidding--I'm a professor, so I'm used to doing research, but the history of NYC and neighborhoods is full of such ironies. the "East Village" is itself a recent invention. It used to all be the "Lower East Side," which, in fact, has shrunk considerably and will probably end up vanishing. And on and on...

This has already been discussed ad nauseum elsewhere on the site, but I will make the following points again:
1) "North Park Slope" is a bullshit realtor invention. Nobody actually calls Prospect Heights North Park Slope.
2) The Encyclopedia of The City of New York lists Flatbush, Atlantic, Eastern Parkway and Washington as the borders of Prospect Heights.
3) Prospect Heights is not a recent invention. Some may have considered it a part of Crown Heights, but it was still called Prospect Heights. Here's proof it's been around since at least 1919 (thanks to Dan H for the pic):

This is in Prospect Park.

And believe me anniewilde, I'm plenty used to doing both library and internet research.

anniewilde

"The New York Times reported, in a 4/17/68 article headlined “Sale of L.I.U. Site Opposed by Mayor,” that, according to one CUNY source, Mayor John Lindsay supported a new site for Manhattan’s Baruch College “within a triangular-shaped area bounded by Atlantic Avenue, Vanderbilt Avenue and Flatbush Avenue, in the Crown Heights section.”

I guess the Mayor didn't know anything about the City either?

The point is, and it does take somebody a bit more familiar with doing historical research than you perhaps are to understand this--sorry if that sounds condescending--but the nature of NYC neighborhoods is far more fluid and complex than you seem to understand. The way historians answer these kinds of questions isn't just by citing a few sources as "proof"--to do real academic research requires a sense of the overall shape of a discourse--you have to know what to look for and how to analyze the data you come up with. No historian would cite the sort of stuff you're quoting and say that "solved" the argument. I could come up with fifty sources saying that what you're calling Prospect Heights has often historically been considered part of Crown Heights. The real point is that NYC neighborhoods differentiate and blend and shift and change in complicated and contradictory ways.

I can see that you haven't spent a lot of time with contradictions. Let me introduce you to this place you live in: it's called "America," and it tends to run according to the following notions: irony, paradox, and contradiction. I am afraid that "snark," which appears to be a recent tendency to reduce everything to aggressive insistence on one narrow fact-driven idea is, rather, I dare say it, not a very theoretically or intellectually sound approach to this United States of Incoherent Paradox we live in. Anyways--it's not Christmas anymore, thank god--

Should I give you a reading list, Mr. Snarky? There's more to research than you seem to get--there's this thing called "interpretation"--and that takes--analytical skills--they teach them in--college--I in fact, teach--in--college...
snarky enough for you?


Just joshing. But seriously, folks. There are no neighborhoods, just hallucinations, delusions, and realtors.

carnivore

anniewilde wrote: "The New York Times reported, in a 4/17/68 article headlined “Sale of L.I.U. Site Opposed by Mayor,” that, according to one CUNY source, Mayor John Lindsay supported a new site for Manhattan’s Baruch College “within a triangular-shaped area bounded by Atlantic Avenue, Vanderbilt Avenue and Flatbush Avenue, in the Crown Heights section.”

This does nothing to refute the idea that this part of Crown Heights was also known as Prospect Heights. Or do I need to draw a Venn diagram for you?

anniewilde wrote: The point is, and it does take somebody a bit more familiar with doing historical research than you perhaps are to understand this--sorry if that sounds condescending--but the nature of NYC neighborhoods is far more fluid and complex than you seem to understand.

It does sound condescending, and follows the usual pattern of those who don't have a valid argument resorting to personal attacks.

anniewilde wrote: The way historians answer these kinds of questions isn't just by citing a few sources as "proof"--to do real academic research requires a sense of the overall shape of a discourse--you have to know what to look for and how to analyze the data you come up with. No historian would cite the sort of stuff you're quoting and say that "solved" the argument. I could come up with fifty sources saying that what you're calling Prospect Heights has often historically been considered part of Crown Heights.

Cite them then.

anniewilde wrote: The real point is that NYC neighborhoods differentiate and blend and shift and change in complicated and contradictory ways.

No one has argued otherwise. I have never said that neighborhood boundaries will never change in the future. I did say that to claim that the current boundary is Bedford is a lie, because that boundary is quite clearly at Washington.

anniewilde wrote: I can see that you haven't spent a lot of time with contradictions. Let me introduce you to this place you live in: it's called "America," and it tends to run according to the following notions: irony, paradox, and contradiction. I am afraid that "snark," which appears to be a recent tendency to reduce everything to aggressive insistence on one narrow fact-driven idea is, rather, I dare say it, not a very theoretically or intellectually sound approach to this United States of Incoherent Paradox we live in. Anyways--it's not Christmas anymore, thank god--

Do you want to present some actual evidence supporting your view, or are you going to continue to just wax poetic?

anniewilde wrote: Should I give you a reading list, Mr. Snarky?

Like I said, cite your sources.

anniewilde wrote: There's more to research than you seem to get--there's this thing called "interpretation"--and that takes--analytical skills--they teach them in--college--I in fact, teach--in--college...

I'm well aware of what research involves. I also teach at a University. But let's discuss this based on the facts, not compare credentials.

anniewilde wrote: snarky enough for you?

Bring it!

anniewilde wrote: Just joshing. But seriously, folks. There are no neighborhoods, just hallucinations, delusions, and realtors.

You can't be from New York if you say that.

smokin joe

wow. i guess you're right anniewilde. that settles that then. thank god we have a professor, right here, one who even knows how to search the internet (i just use google--wtf do i know?), someone who can explain to the rest of us that there's more to research than our underdeveloped, google-addled minds could possibly get, that if we really wanted to make this an official, serious academic discussion, which we probably did and just didn't realize it, that we'd need a sense of the overall shape of the discourse, which, i'm just guessing here, because, i admit, i'm not a professor, anniewilde could probably be the one to tell us (although i think i know--judging by the messages here, i think the shape of this discourse is a rectangle--am i right, professor?), and carnivore, if i could just add here, and i think anniewilde would agree with me: you idiot! how could you possibly think just citing some "fact" would then "solve" the "argument"? i mean obviously "someone" a bit more "familiar" with doing "historical research," like, well, probably anniewilde here, would never, ever do that (except once, maybe, to cite a 1968 times article, which, well, short of the pope you're not likely to find a more infallible expert on brooklyn neighborhoods, except for that article they did on the shooting a while back where the got the neighborhood wrong, but anyway) the point is, carnivore, you fool, there are these things called contradictions. this is america dude! wake up and smell the bullshit! am i right anniewilde?

and btw, yes, dare i say, i would like that reading list, if you wouldn't mind, you know, one like--a professor--like you!--would use--in--college.

anniewilde

Well, you just censored my other posts, so I guess I'm forbidden to reply. I cited two pieces of written evidence that PH and CH overlapped, as well as abundant evidence that this is a common NYC occurence. However, the idea that it's somehow "wrong" or "scary" for the boundaries of Prospect Heights to shift is another question altogether.

We can have a war of sources--I can keep proving that Prospect Heights was once considered part of Crown Heights--if two NYT articles aren't enough and a Mayor of NYC--then we can keep going.

But that wasn't really my point--it was more methodological.

What I'm more worried about, though, is that you just attacked me personally, then removed a post of mine that you felt attacked you personally. This is just silly and ridiculous. Either there's an open debate or there isn't, but you can't just selectively remove posts and then reply yourself!!!!!

That's utterly ridiculous, whether it's happening in Crown Heights, Prospect Heights, or even--horrors--Bed Stuy!!!

anniewilde

Oh, and Smokin Joe just insulted me too--golly. Except, you know, it's a blog, and I think that's OK. I was being ironic and slightly absurd, mostly because of what I think this entire conversation represents, which is coded discussions about race, class, and other things. These "boundaries" have always been awash in other signifiers. Sorry if that's too "poetic," but I have this friggin' habit of reading--books--and then--trying--to--use--them--in--arguments--with--strangers--on--blogs--in--the middle of the night!

carnivore

anniewilde wrote: We can have a war of sources--I can keep proving that Prospect Heights was once considered part of Crown Heights--if two NYT articles aren't enough and a Mayor of NYC--then we can keep going.

Saying that the neighborhood of Prospect Heights was once included within Crown Heights is not the same thing as saying that Crown Heights east of Washington was or is considered part of Prospect Heights. East of Washington was never part of Prospect Heights, and if you have sources that prove otherwise, please show them. I am perfectly willing to change my opinion in the face of evidence.

anniewilde wrote: What I'm more worried about, though, is that you just attacked me personally, then removed a post of mine that you felt attacked you personally. This is just silly and ridiculous. Either there's an open debate or there isn't, but you can't just selectively remove posts and then reply yourself!!!!!

Please quote the part where you feel I attacked you.

apollonia666

anniewilde wrote: Oh, and Smokin Joe just insulted me too--golly. Except, you know, it's a blog, and I think that's OK. I was being ironic and slightly absurd, mostly because of what I think this entire conversation represents, which is coded discussions about race, class, and other things. These "boundaries" have always been awash in other signifiers. Sorry if that's too "poetic," but I have this friggin' habit of reading--books--and then--trying--to--use--them--in--arguments--with--strangers--on--blogs--in--the middle of the night!

Um... you're a professor, and you don't know the difference between a blog and a bulletin board?

jack krohn

If the border of Crown Heights is Washington Avenue, then why is *Prospect Heights* High School located on the corner of Classon Avenue, one block east of Washington? Why is there an old synagogue on St. John's between Classon and Franklin with a sign that states "serving the *Prospect Heights* community since 1929"? If this section of the neighborhood was never considered part of Prospect Heights, then why do these buildings show signs to the contrary?

Not that it matters, as each of us will cling to our opinions regardless of evidence...

carnivore

Jack Krohn wrote: If the border of Crown Heights is Washington Avenue, then why is *Prospect Heights* High School located on the corner of Classon Avenue, one block east of Washington? Why is there an old synagogue on St. John's between Classon and Franklin with a sign that states "serving the *Prospect Heights* community since 1929"? If this section of the neighborhood was never considered part of Prospect Heights, then why do these buildings show signs to the contrary?

Not that it matters, as each of us will cling to our opinions regardless of evidence...

That's interesting, since anniewilde seems to imply above (in her dismissal of the evidence from the landmark in Prospect Park), that the neighborhood did not exist at that time, not yet having been invented by realtors.

drano

anniewilde wrote: I guess the Mayor didn't know anything about the City either?

Correct. John Lindsay knew nothing about New York City.

karl the druid

Subject: the New Brooklyn Map

Thought I'd re post this for some humor. Here's our future if we let realtors define where we live.

Instead of just jerimandering this old Dutch colonly into voting districts or squeezing more people into even smaller spaces, I say we just slap on a few more neighborhoods and create a new map. Here's my diagram.



Let's say that people from ULESBO (Under the Lower East Side Bridges Overpass) move here, they can buy a house, or a co-op. They can live in lovely DUBuQE (Down Under the BQE). After they sell that first investment they might think of moving to ever sunny and cheery DUFTO (Down Under the F Train Overpass) or the GWAVA (Gowanus Valley).

If they were smart enough to have sold at the height of the market, they could buy some fancy dig at the Magic Johnson (AKA Williamsburg Bank) in BLOHA (Boerum Leading Onto Hannover).

But can one touch PROHO? It's borders keep expanding. Some are even calling it Down Town.

But check this out. As you can see on the NewBrooklyn Territory Map, The State of Park Slope and Providence Plantations keeps sprouting arms and legs. You can't fall over a stroller without landing in Park Slope PP.

phmimi

I have lived here about 25 years. As long as I have been here it has been PH. The NYT article mentioned by a poster is just wrong. Prospect Heights was, is and will be a separate community. Washington Avenue is the traditional boundry on the east.