One Prospect Park is going to be huge
Comments
-
Subject: Re: Remember....
sterling2000 wrote: Does a lot of the debate come down to people who rent are anti-development and people who own are pro-development?
Start the poll, yo! I would be interested to see the results, as I've wondered the same.
As for myself, I do own, but I wouldn't say that I'm straight pro-development. I would like to see the values increase, but I'd rather see conservative development as opposed to trendy development. I don't want to see anything that screams 'circa 2006' being put in place... it's like the trap that I fell in to with those damn sweatshirts in high school- I can't think of any specific examples, but many had the year of production emblazoned on the chest. While it was very cool to have the shirt that year, it was very not cool to have it 12 months later. -
Subject: Rent vs. Own
Yes,
The distinction between renters and owners is an important one to make.
I think people who are renting are definitely "against" development more.
Owners can also be against certain types of development ( Like the Arena) but for the most part, anything that brings positve amenities to their neighborhood is considered a good thing. Count how many people will use the stores and shops that arrive becuase of the arena).
Residents who have lived here longer but do not own are also in the same boat. This is an unfortunate reality: Even if the places people rent from went for sale today, most people could not afford to buy their place out right. But this is fodder for another forum which should be started!
In my opinion as an owner, The Meier building will do some good for the neighborhood. While I will not be able to afford an aprtment there it will hopefully bring amenities that I want near my home. This is one of the reasons you buy in the first place - as an investment. I put a lot of blood, sweat and tears in to my place and would like a return on it when I decide to sell. OR if I never sell, I will have stores, shops and cafes that make my home comfortable. When I have guests over from out of town, I hate having to walk to 5th Avenue in Park Slope for a nice cafe that should be on Underhill and St. Johns - or Washington!!
There are no promises - only precedents in development. 10 years after the Meier Building is completed and the other new condominims in the area are built I will bet that this neighborhood will be a more desireable place for those who call it home: renters and owners.
The Sweatshirt analogy is a good one but I would encourage you to check out Meiers recent work ( last 15 years or so) and decide for yourself if he is better or worse that the crackheads who built that debacle on Atlanitic Ave and Court Street. THAT is a developer building with all of the "sweatshirt" qualities you speak of - just a quick buck for a developer all the way down to the cheap iron-on letters and details....
As far as Meier being worthy of comparison to Michelangelo or anyone else, I would say our culture will not allow anyone else like Michelangelo or Davinci to exist in the same manner ( Re: American Idol Please). I would say he is one of the top 10 -15 architects in the world and be comfortable with that. I am not a big fan of Gehry, but understand his place in history or Pop Culture and contemporary architecture. -
718 and Sterling2000 have got it going on!
Aesthetically, architecturally: it will stand out, but not like a sore thumb. Take a walk around the plaza. You ALREADY see several different styles, scales, etc, from classics like the Montauk Club (Venetian Gothic, 1891), 47 Plaza (Tudor Revival? 1928), and 20 Plaza (Art Deco, 1940), to crap like 10 Plaza (1959). About the only style of multiple unit apartment that is missing IS an all glass, po-mo Meier job...think of it as completing a set!
And even an ugly 'out-of-place' building is preferrable to a dark and dangerous corner - have we already forgotten how many car windows used to get smashed there?
Bring on these 119 new apartments - that's at least 119 more demanding consumers who will spend money at local merchants (if the merchants smarten up and start meeting their demands!), who will lend their voice to the cry for better patrolling, better sanitation, better traffic control, better parks maintenance. -
I think that this building is going to be interesting from some angles and jarring from others: I love the idea of seeing, from way down Eastern Parkway, the Museum and the new Meier building bracketing GAP.
But, from down along St John's? Much less the far side of Underhill? The issue that concerns me is not so much the actual aesthetics of this building or that, but rather, equality and affordability. There is a very, very serious housing problem in this city -- its tied into much larger issues, involving education and employment and race, and we could argue any of those to no end -- so seeing new development happening seemingly everywhere that practically ignores the realities of the 'other half' of the city..
One building doesn't settle this argument one way or the other. But when you see so many other new 'luxury' buildings under development, slowly moving into an older, poorer, *blacker* nabe, I think you need to start asking questions about who really owns this city. -
Having taken a look at Meier's work, I can see why people might like to see him bring his vision to the neighborhood. And while his glass structures seem to have a feeling of airiness and light from inside, I was struck by the fact that from outside they give this uniform impression of cold glass.
I also wonder about the message that a building like that sends to the folks who live around it. Here you have homes that are owned by a solid middle-class population (at least to the east and south) which are now literally being towered over by people who can afford to spend in excess of a million dollars for a home. I understand that this may end up being an architecturally significant building, but if you compare it to his three glass towers on the West Street, the sense of the folks in the ivory tower giving their finger to the masses they are lording over is a lot more overt. -
pete_c wrote: There is a very, very serious housing problem in this city -- its tied into much larger issues, involving education and employment and race, and we could argue any of those to no end -- so seeing new development happening seemingly everywhere that practically ignores the realities of the 'other half' of the city..
One of the absolute most revealing things on this subject was printed in the NY Times over the weekend, and, as it was the last paragraph of an article, I doubt many took note. The article is about the unsustainable growth that is projected for the next 20 years in NYC.
One building doesn't settle this argument one way or the other. But when you see so many other new 'luxury' buildings under development, slowly moving into an older, poorer, *blacker* nabe, I think you need to start asking questions about who really owns this city.
Here's the quote:
Robert D. Yaro, president of the Regional Plan Association, said that with nearby suburbs nearly saturated, the city was no longer at as much of a competitive disadvantage. Still, he said, "New York's got to find a place to put another 1.2 to 1.5 million New Yorkers," adding, "One way to keep these forecasts from happening is to make it prohibitively expensive to live and work here."
I will unpack that for all the free-marketeers on this board: The municipal government is encouraging development at outrageous prices as a way to stem the tide of growth due to influx of poor people. I know that's not what he says exactly, and I know it sounds like a conspiracy, but then again, what else can you call the collusion of developers and the municipal government, especially when things happen like the developer's own lawyer is supposed to be in charge of an environmental review? (Yes, I know FCRC is not the developer of Plaza St.'s great white shark.) -
Stuart wrote:
One of the absolute most revealing things on this subject was printed in the NY Times over the weekend, and, as it was the last paragraph of an article, I doubt many took note. The article is about the unsustainable growth that is projected for the next 20 years in NYC.
I think Stuart misinterpreted the Times article. The background for the story is a study by an outfit called Urbanomics predicting population growth for the city, with all boroughs except Manhattan recovering post-WWII population losses. The study predicts a much wealthier population by 2025, not "a tide of growth due to influx of poor people."
Here's the quote:
Robert D. Yaro, president of the Regional Plan Association, said that with nearby suburbs nearly saturated, the city was no longer at as much of a competitive disadvantage. Still, he said, "New York's got to find a place to put another 1.2 to 1.5 million New Yorkers," adding, "One way to keep these forecasts from happening is to make it prohibitively expensive to live and work here."
I will unpack that for all the free-marketeers on this board: The municipal government is encouraging development at outrageous prices as a way to stem the tide of growth due to influx of poor people. I know that's not what he says exactly, and I know it sounds like a conspiracy, but then again, what else can you call the collusion of developers and the municipal government, especially when things happen like the developer's own lawyer is supposed to be in charge of an environmental review? (Yes, I know FCRC is not the developer of Plaza St.'s great white shark.)'"The overall driving concept is that a favorable employment situation in the New York region will attract an increase in population," said Prof. Joel E. Cohen, who heads the Laboratory of Populations at the Rockefeller University. '
The article discusses how the City intends to plan to facilitate, not choke off, this growth. The Yaro quote should be read as, "High costs could prevent these beneficial changes from taking place." Even supposing the nefarious Bloomberg administration were conspiring to drive up costs to keep poor people out, it is highly unlikely that Yaro and the RPA would be cheering him on. -
I'm continually amazed by the apparent consensus that increasing supply will increase prices. I learned the "law" of supply and demand when I was in junior high school, and I have yet to hear that it has been disproved.
I understand that real estate is a bit of an anomaly, in that development can actually make a neighborhood more attractive and thus drive up prices in the short run. However, in the long run an increase in development and in the supply of housing will put downward pressure on prices, not the reverse!! If there were a conspiracy to keep prices high, the government would be chasing developers out of town to make sure the supply stayed low! Witness the hyperinflation of brownstone areas where supply is restricted by landmarking.
Yes, high quality can mean high prices, but would you seriously prefer low quality construction? There is not an unlimited supply of millionaires out there, nor will the market forever continue to boom, so the best way to encourage affordability is to encourage high quality development up to the point that the market can bear. Should we allow an unregulated free for all? No, not at all--I support certain regulations and zoning. But addressing the city's housing shortage is the general trend we should be pursuing.
People who claim that increased housing supply will raise prices remind me of those who doubt evolution, global warming, the earth being round, the earth revolving around the sun, etc. Get with the program, guys! -
this escap person makes very salient arguments. hmmm...must be an mba'er.
on a lighter note, i belong to the eastern athletic gym and one of my favorite things to do while slacking off in the gym is looking out their windows and looking at the great panoramas and vistas of brooklyn that their location affords. i think i could spend a whole day there just looking out into brooklyn.
this also includes looking down into the one prospect place construction pit. -
escap wrote: I'm continually amazed by the apparent consensus that increasing supply will increase prices. I learned the "law" of supply and demand when I was in junior high school, and I have yet to hear that it has been disproved.
*best read using Comic Book Guy voice* -
jimbo79 wrote: I think Stuart misinterpreted the Times article. The background for the story is a study by an outfit called Urbanomics predicting population growth for the city, with all boroughs except Manhattan recovering post-WWII population losses. The study predicts a much wealthier population by 2025, not "a tide of growth due to influx of poor people."
I think you're misstating what the story means, which is that the city will have to contend with growth in population that will seriously strain municipal resources and infrastructure, and Yaro, as the RPA boss, is concerned about this strain. Upgrading infrastructure is not so much a choice about facilitating growth as a necessity.'"The overall driving concept is that a favorable employment situation in the New York region will attract an increase in population," said Prof. Joel E. Cohen, who heads the Laboratory of Populations at the Rockefeller University. '
The article discusses how the City intends to plan to facilitate, not choke off, this growth. The Yaro quote should be read as, "High costs could prevent these beneficial changes from taking place." Even supposing the nefarious Bloomberg administration were conspiring to drive up costs to keep poor people out, it is highly unlikely that Yaro and the RPA would be cheering him on.
Here is my point: the city is facilitating growth/development that benefits rich people not poor people. But it often justifies it with spurious arguments about job creation. A perfect example is our local Atlantic Yards project: after the construction is finished (construction which will, incidentally, probably not create nearly as many jobs as might be expected--that's another story for another post), there will be jobs created...in the service sector, all at minimum wage, serving overpriced Brooklyn Lager and hot dogs to Nets fans or manning the security booths. Excuse me for finding fault with the drift of the US economy for the last few decades, but I believe that a shift to a service economy is a byprouct of de-industrialization, not a solution to it. That's a tangent, though.
As far as the supply/demand argument: Please explain how the housing boom, which is a simple fact (lots of houses have been built in the last decade), was accompanied by a price boom. If the supply kept going up, the prices should've gone down, right? I'm oversimplifying of course. Sure prices are now beginning to decrease, but the people hurt by that are not the developers (or the economists who encouraged the boom) but rather the lowly buyers whose equity is destroyed when the house they bought with a mortgage they couldn't afford in the first place is now worth a fraction of what they paid. Escap, you keep repeating the same truisms about economics that do not take into account the fact that markets don't work like textbook examples exactly because of things like governmental interference--on behalf of the developers. You mention a housing shortage, but there is a housing shortage for poor people not rich people. I'm sure you don't think that Meier's building will open its doors to poor tenants if its apartments don't sell for a million bucks and up, right? -
I'm sure you don't think that Meier's building will open its doors to poor tenants if its apartments don't sell for a million bucks and up, right?
Come on, do you really think that this is what people are saying? Of course not, that's not how supply and demand works. Too many luxury units will put downward price pressure on the market from the top. This would allow everyone to take a step up. It's not the poor people that will go into Meier's building but maybe middle class instead of upper class. Then you have a bunch of middle class units freed up that the lower class people move into.
The reason you haven't seen prices drop during a building boom is that that for one the building boom is very recent and many of these units have not even come online yet, even once they do it takes a little while for the economics to play out due to leases and so forth. Secondly and more importantly, demand continues to outpace supply. Build all you want, if there are 2 new families for every one new housing unit built prices will continue to go up! -
I think the one obvious thing being left out as a negating factor on "more housing will mean lower prices" is that this is New York City, not Schenectady. Prices will never go down because this place will always be desirable and people are forever moving here with the disposable income and/or naivete to pay top dollar. Prices are more likely to keep going up instead of down, barring an economic downtown.
-
Candicissima wrote: . Prices will never go down because this place will always be desirable and people are forever moving here with the disposable income and/or naivete to pay top dollar.
Prices have gone down in the past '89-94 20-30% decline for example and they will again. Which is why when Stuart saysStuart wrote: If the supply kept going up, the prices should've gone down, right? I'm oversimplifying of course.
he is correct - he is oversimplifying, so many factors of economics and psycology effect a market like Real Estate at any given time that it is impossible to point to one period and look for only supply/demand price changes.
But something to consider is that a huge percentage of all affordable housing in Brooklyn (except for public housing) was originally built for wealthy or upper middle class people. - Brownstones were never built for the poor. -
OK guys, I'm not so naive as to suggest that we live in a perfect world where textbooks reflect reality. I understand that there are tons of forces at work and that we can't oversimplify the situation. However, it is still a truism that it's a shortage of supply relative to demand that has pushed up prices, and that building more housing puts downward pressure on prices. Does downward pressure mean prices will fall? No, not if demand increases even more--but it does mean that prices will rise LESS than they would have given a constant supply. I guess we could try to reduce demand by making our neighborhoods crappy, but that's not my preference.
Also, I'm alarmed at the repeated assumption that prices will rise FOREVER, and that demand will continually increase. Are you kidding? My, how short people's memories are, and how easily we can be hypnotized by boom cycles. I guarantee you there will be a bust, as there have been so many before, so we should enjoy the boom while we can.
Unfortunately, the 10,000 lb elephant in the room is rent control, which is the single largest factor causing NY's housing shortage and unaffordable prices. I know this is heresy, but it's unfortunately true. Believe me, I'm from an extremely liberal family and I understand that your hearts are in the right place on this issue--sadly, this is one of many examples where good intentions don't necessarily make good policy. Just good politics. -
escap wrote: Unfortunately, the 10,000 lb elephant in the room is rent control, which is the single largest factor causing NY's housing shortage and unaffordable prices. I know this is heresy, but it's unfortunately true. Believe me, I'm from an extremely liberal family and I understand that your hearts are in the right place on this issue--sadly, this is one of many examples where good intentions don't necessarily make good policy. Just good politics.
best rent I ever had, in terms of turning my life around, were rent controlled. I understand that there is abuse. but for myself, I couldn't have survived without this. I love these laws. -
Housing prices can go down, but the market is cyclical so it's unlikely that they'll stay down. Usually, 6 years is enough to see you through a regional downturn.
-
I agree. Mostly due to increased wealth and productivity, continued immigration, and plain old inflation, prices will surely rise in the long run. In response to this influx of people and money, my suggestion is encourage the devlepment of as much quality housing as the market will bear, within the reasonable parameters of certain zoning restrictions, allowing for landmark where appropriate, etc. Other suggestions are to curtail quality housing development in favor of poor quality development. Or, finally, to scale back development altogether. Bad ideas, in other words.
People seem to think that if developers were to build 8 million units of "luxury" housing, that all the poor people would be forced out and there would be nothing but millionaires from the Bronx to Staten Island. Can no one else see the gaping hole in this argument? -
wait, what's the gaping hole?
-
:roll: :roll: :roll:
-
escap wrote: People seem to think that if developers were to build 8 million units of "luxury" housing, that all the poor people would be forced out and there would be nothing but millionaires from the Bronx to Staten Island. Can no one else see the gaping hole in this argument?
er. what are you talking about? luxury housing is being built constantly - no one is building "working-class" housing. what's the gaping hole? rich people will have to house their servants again? -
Good lord, people. The argument that the more luxury units you build, the more rich people will move in rests on the assumption that there is an unlimited supply of rich people out there. This assumption is false.
Geez!! Hey, I know--we could just carpet the whole country in luxury housing and voila, poverty would be eradicated as the entire nation magically turned into the super rich. :? :?
The fact is, the vast majority of people moving into NY are working class immigrants, not millionaires. And the largest population growth in this country is occurring in the Southwest. I don't think we need to worry about wealthy Arizonans selling their mansions to outbid transit workers in Staten Island for a two bedroom condo.
Oh, and count me in as one who thinks that if we actually can attract some wealth into this city instead of setting middle/upper class flight as a policy goal, that would be a good thing. When paying for pensions, schools, police, public welfare, anti-terror measures, etc., it sure helps to have a tax base. -
escap wrote: Good lord, people. The argument that the more luxury units you build, the more rich people will move in rests on the assumption that there is an unlimited supply of rich people out there. This assumption is false.
the assumption may be false, but what happens before the assumption is made is the actual point. if low-income housing is being destroyed to make room for luxury housing, it doesn't mean that rich people are moving in: it means that poor people are being forced out, both because their housing was destroyed or because values/rents have gone up around them. that doesn't change - doesn't matter if the rich folk show their faces or not. -
I applaud your efforts, Escap, but there's one thing that you have to realize. For many who frequent Dailyheights, it comes down to this: condominiums = evil. Period. End of story. All attempts to discuss more complex matters are doomed to fail.
Remember, you're dealing with a board where 45% of the people say that they prefer "empty lots and grit" over "world-class development". -
Jack Krohn wrote: I applaud your efforts, Escap, but there's one thing that you have to realize. For many who frequent Dailyheights, it comes down to this: condominiums = evil. Period. End of story. All attempts to discuss more complex matters are doomed to fail.
actually, most people prefer something between those two options, Jack. the world isn't binary.
Remember, you're dealing with a board where 45% of the people say that they prefer "empty lots and grit" over "world-class development". -
Gritty development?
World class empty lots?
Escap, Jack is right you are outnumbered but some of us are with you - actually refreshing to see I am not alone. -
Escap, your "obvious" assertions honestly just doesn't make sense. If there's a great increase of luxury developments, all the people who can afford it that are currently hoarding the middle-class price apartments will suddenly jump ship and let those places trickle down to actual middle/working-class people? That's a pipe dream. And how exactly is the guy next door to me paying less than $1000 after being in his place for 30 years especially symptomatic of what's wrong with NYC housing? Oh I know, throw everyone who doesn't want to play in the inflated market out on the street, right?
-
Haha, I know, I'm banging my head against the wall here on this board. Why do I bother?
alafairnadia--what you're saying is that improving conditions for the city are driving up prices to the point where many former residents have to move. Right? No argument there.
Assuming for the moment that the city should help these displaced residents, I suggest allowing developers to meet the residents' needs, providing incentives where necessary, and perhaps some housing aid to those people, etc. I strongly oppose most of the suggestions presented on this board--increased "community" obstructionism, curtailing development, landmarking, caps on building heights, market distorting price controls, etc.--all of which I believe will badly worsen the plight of those same poorer residents that we're ostensibly trying to help. -
Candicissima wrote: Escap, your "obvious" assertions honestly just doesn't make sense. If there's a great increase of luxury developments, all the people who can afford it that are currently hoarding the middle-class price apartments will suddenly jump ship and let those places trickle down to actual middle/working-class people? That's a pipe dream. And how exactly is the guy next door to me paying less than $1000 after being in his place for 30 years especially symptomatic of what's wrong with NYC housing? Oh I know, throw everyone who doesn't want to play in the inflated market out on the street, right?
You misparaphrased me twice. First, I'll just ask you to reread my post regarding the luxury units issue, since you are just completely off on what my point was.
Second, rent control is not a symptom of the problem, it's a cause. -
escap wrote: Haha, I know, I'm banging my head against the wall here on this board. Why do I bother?
what is the difference between "providing incentives where necessary" or "housing aid to those people" and "market distorting price controls" (by which I think you mean rent control/stabilization)?
alafairnadia--what you're saying is that improving conditions for the city are driving up prices to the point where many former residents have to move. Right? No argument there.
Assuming for the moment that the city should help these displaced residents, I suggest allowing developers to meet the residents' needs, providing incentives where necessary, and perhaps some housing aid to those people, etc. I strongly oppose most of the suggestions presented on this board--increased "community" obstructionism, curtailing development, landmarking, caps on building heights, market distorting price controls, etc.--all of which I believe will badly worsen the plight of those same poorer residents that we're ostensibly trying to help.
Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- 40K All Categories
- 27.1K Neighborhoods
- 5.1K Crown Heights/Prospect Lefferts Gardens
- 7.1K Prospect Heights
- 2.3K Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, Bed-Stuy
- 8K Park Slope
- 549 Williamsburg, Greenpoint, Bushwick
- 442 Flatbush/Midwood/Ditmas Park
- 657 BoCoCa (Boerum Hill, Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens)
- 151 Red Hook
- 104 Gowanus
- 304 Bay Ridge/Bensonhurst
- 130 Coney Island, Brighton Beach, Sheepshead Bay
- 270 Brooklyn Heights, DUMBO and Downtown
- 598 Windsor Terrace / Kensington
- 673 Greenwood Heights and Sunset Park
- 749 Brooklyn and Beyond
- 6.3K Stuff
- 86 Brooklyn Back When
- 1.2K Brooklyn Pets
- 257 Brooklyn Kids
- 241 Brooklyn Eats
- 51 Brooklyn Booze
- 3.6K The Lounge / Random Stuff
- 611 Brooklyn Politics
- 122 Brooklyn Sports and Fitness
- 111 Brooklyn Photos
- 339 Site Issues
- 8 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
- 6.2K Listings
- 1.1K APARTMENTS and REAL ESTATE
- 1.3K Sales Openings Events
- 2.3K The Classifieds