This site is closed to new comments and posts.

Notice: This site uses cookies to function.
If you are not comfortable with cookies then please don't browse this website.

Today's article on real estate in Crown Heights - Page 5 — Brooklynian

Today's article on real estate in Crown Heights

1235»

Comments

  • The landlord can neglect the RS 20%, but is unlikely to let the common areas fall into disrepair, because they don't want to lose the support of the market rate 80%.
  • While the properties in this article aren't in Crown Heights per se, they are in adjacent neighborhoods (like PLG and Bed-Stuy).


    The former shelter residents were left over from when the buildings were used as "cluster sites". The tenants are new residents to the building. 
  • Wow. That's horrible.
  • Imagine moving into a building a having your neighbors immediately knock on your door while holding a large orange extension cord and asking if they can have some of your electricity.

    Good times
  • Author of article must not have done on the ground research.  Owl & Thistle is referenced under shopping section.  Didn't it close recently?
  • yup.

    Many of these articles are written by simply reading other articles and then republishing them under one's own name.
  • Because the article is dated January 2016
  • That would do it too :)
  • Tiresome article relying heavily on stats but not research of details. That catch word Gentrification is tossed about like we all agree what it means. She starts by stating wrongly that Crown Hts was not diverse a century ago but only occupied by Jews and Carribians. Doesn't look that way to me in the old photos at the historic society. Is she suggesting people should never move from the neighborhood they were born in? Or if they do move who is going to regulate who is allowed into that apt.?
  • The language in that piece is shockingly close to what internet trolls have to say about immigrants coming to the US. The “plague” of newcomers changing the culture and economy to the detriminent of long-term natives... It’s the same ignorant nonsense about the threat of outsiders, only wrapped in the cloak of social justice rather than xenophobia. Places change. We should make sure the poor and elderly are taken care of, and there IS great value for new and long-term residents alike in getting to know their neighbors. That shouldn’t get lost. But there’s nothing righteous about wanting to ensure some kind of cultural and economic stagnation in the most diverse and ever-evolving city on the planet. Unless you live in a forest hut and trade in wampum and beaver furs, congratulations, you are an active participant in changing the culture of the land we now call New York City.
  • yes, everyone plays a role, even those who swear they don't and/or really wish they were not: politicians, activists, store owners, home owners, renters, home buyers, small businesses, etc.
  • mugofmead111
    edited February 2018
    Dawndew said:
    TShe starts by stating wrongly that Crown Hts was not diverse a century ago but only occupied by Jews and Carribians. Doesn't look that way to me in the old photos at the historic society.

    You forgot about blacks who came up north in The Great Migration:

    "Over the past century, Crown Heights has been a neighborhood that includes communities of Hasidic Jews, African-Americans who migrated from the South and Caribbean immigrants."

    Is she suggesting people should never move from the neighborhood they were born in?
    Sounds good to me. (Tongue planted firmly in cheek) Then again, I was raised here.

    Or if they do move who is going to regulate who is allowed into that apt.?
    Rent regulations, if those units are subject to those rules, would "regulate" who is allowed into that apartment, no?
  • mugofmead111
    edited February 2018
    monobo said:
    The language in that piece is shockingly close to what internet trolls have to say about immigrants coming to the US. The “plague” of newcomers changing the culture and economy to the detriminent of long-term natives... It’s the same ignorant nonsense about the threat of outsiders, only wrapped in the cloak of social justice rather than xenophobia. Places change. We should make sure the poor and elderly are taken care of, and there IS great value for new and long-term residents alike in getting to know their neighbors. That shouldn’t get lost.

    Ideally both things should happen, but not as much as it could or should. #justsaying

  • I also find it interesting that some are jumping on the vilification of gentrification but not addressing this issue:

    But researchers are just beginning to consider how gentrification ― the process by which working class neighborhoods are infiltrated by upwardly mobile newcomers, whose presence prompts rent rises, as well as cultural, social and political changes ― could damage longtime residents’ most fundamental asset: their health.

    It can be an interesting thing to research; health disparities do exist. If gentrification can improve an neighborhood, will it improve health outcomes for its residents as well?

  • I find the use of the word "infiltrated" somewhat disturbing. Has a very negative connotation to it. Years ago when minorities moved into white areas it was called block busting so is this reverse trend now called "infiltration?"
  • I think nativism is something that is inherent to humanity. ...it isn't going away.
  • mugofmead111
    edited February 2018
    I find the use of the word "infiltrated" somewhat disturbing. Has a very negative connotation to it. Years ago when minorities moved into white areas it was called block busting so is this reverse trend now called "infiltration?"

    This link contains a precise definition of block busting: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/blockbusting.html

    Block busting was a tactic used to scare people out of a neighborhood, and prompting them to sell for below market value. That’s not really what is going on here.

  • Here's the definition of Nativism I am using: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nativism_(politics) While it is usually associated with the Right, the present day Left will embrace it if they believe that doing so helps a less powerful (oppressed) group. ...they will just call it something else.
  • Nice article whynot_31, thanks! "Experiments and evidence dating back generations, in psychology, sociology and anthropology, have established firmly that human opinions and emotions, loyalties and affiliations, religions and customs, and even perceptions are shaped by our need to belong to a group — and by our proclivity to hate rival groups. " we need to de-tribalize!
  • We certainly do. ...however, if we could do it peacefully, that would be nice. :)
  • mugofmead111
    edited March 2018
    Flatfix said:
    Nice article whynot_31, thanks! "Experiments and evidence dating back generations, in psychology, sociology and anthropology, have established firmly that human opinions and emotions, loyalties and affiliations, religions and customs, and even perceptions are shaped by our need to belong to a group — and by our proclivity to hate rival groups. " we need to de-tribalize!
    That sounds all fine and dandy...until someone does or says something that indicates that vestiges of tribalism dies hard. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

  • For the right price, many people are willing to leave their tribe.
Sign In or Register to comment.