Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

bkornblith t1_j8rszti wrote

This is how historic districts work.

63

[deleted] t1_j8rv4xx wrote

[deleted]

4

bkornblith t1_j8rvg7f wrote

There’s definitely a nuanced approach that thoughtfully thinks about keeping some historic buildings around… while massively taxing their owners for the cost to the city - and HEAVILY focused on ensuring we are constantly building a large inventory of multi family homes that are non rentals, but actually affordable to buy.

4

LongIsland1995 t1_j8s8224 wrote

"Cost to the city" Lol

Also, I want to point out that the densest residential neighborhoods in NYC are mainly made up of 3 to 6 story buildings. Upzoning so that luxury high rises can be built does not increase urbanity or even help the housing crisis.

3

bkornblith t1_j8sh0ce wrote

In no place in what I wrote did I imply in any way building luxury buildings.

3

[deleted] t1_j8rxwso wrote

[deleted]

1

LongIsland1995 t1_j8s97ai wrote

Aren't most Brownstones multi family?

You can't seriously be claiming that Bed Stuy, Park Slope, Brooklyn Heights, Harlem, etc. aren't urban enough. Every single brownstone neighborhood in NYC has a population density in line with European cities.

3-6 story buildings are actually better for urbanity than high rises. I don't see how an urbanist could argue that Co-op City and Rochdale village are better planned neighborhoods than the brownstone/3-6 story multi family neighborhoods.

5

Flaste t1_j8tzkaj wrote

Park Slope has lost units over the last couple years as people convert multi-family brownstones into single family ones. Many of the larger buildings are illegal to build today due to the downzoning and historic district. While it's not perfect, it is still pretty good compared to many other areas slightly further into the borough.

6

TizonaBlu t1_j8utlbo wrote

I don’t know the percentage, but a large amount of townhouses were converted to multi family rentals from 60s onwards, so that owners could collect rent. Often times configured as an owners unit and multiple rentals.

That’s also when many stoops were removed in favor of ground level entrance.

However, in the last 20-25 years, it’s been going the opposite direction, and multi families have been converted to single family.

Townhouses are really rare and coveted.

2

bkornblith t1_j8rym38 wrote

Yeah the taxation question is really complicated as to how we get from where we are to where we want to be… no denying.

You’ll get no argument from me as to who they benefit…

1

[deleted] t1_j8rzcww wrote

[deleted]

1

bkornblith t1_j8s17wg wrote

NYC has some particularly bad issues around property taxes —— https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2021-new-york-property-tax-benefits-rich/ that actually are totally different than the rest of the country.

2

drpvn t1_j8s1rmz wrote

This is the biggest injustice in the state of NY, and NYC especially, and little is said about itI and nothing is done about it.

3

bkornblith t1_j8s2lqs wrote

A lot has been said about it but I’d agree that nothing meaningful has been done. Getting from where we are to a better place is super tricky and no one has thoughtfully plotted out a path.

For example… people who bought a long time ago are living in nice Brownstones who if we raised taxes (as we should) would have to immediately move out as they can’t afford to pay. So should we immediately adjust taxes up and down…. Do we do change over a decade etc? There are a lot of complex questions that have to be thought about with a focus on what the middle class need… and Ofcourse none of that is happening.

2

drpvn t1_j8s31yn wrote

Wonks write a lot about it but I don’t hear much from politicians or even average people, who are tragically unaware of the issue. The thing where de Blasio pays under $10k annually on two houses worth at least $3.5 million is absolutely vomit-inducing.

3

bkornblith t1_j8s5w63 wrote

It needs a coherent simple story - and it doesn’t help that New York democrats are largely neolibs who don’t think this is a problem…

1

drpvn t1_j8s69ai wrote

I don’t have a big beef with neoliberals. I do have a beef with paying way more money than other people. That’s the story. Then it’s just a matter of comparing how many people who vote would stand to gain from reform to how many would stand to lose from reform.

1

LongIsland1995 t1_j8s8h4b wrote

"Multi unit affordable housing"

Not a real thing, the city will never go back to building NYCHA towers

4

eosag t1_j8rqsho wrote

Wild that this corner has not really seen any changes, except the tree on the right has grown!

43

damnatio_memoriae t1_j8vcbv1 wrote

it looks like they actually removed what i assume was a kitchen on the back of the house on the main floor.

2

LongIsland1995 t1_j8s7sd9 wrote

Redditors are really complaining that the house wasn't torn down for an ugly glass building?

28

Rubberbabybuggybum t1_j8tfsew wrote

Lol why?

2

IllBookkeeper1892 t1_j8thi6x wrote

Becuase we have too many people sleeping on the street , crazy how the thought of housing as an art et nostalgic aesthetic can be prioritized over the functional objective of housing which is protecting humans from the elements , the artificial supply & demand is already enough we don’t need ridiculous historical zoning clauses preventing the city from rightfully advancing into the future. This society has become too nostalgic for the past because we are so tragically depressed about our future & it shows lol

−14

ArmArtArnie t1_j8ti6wj wrote

There are 6000 empty NYCHA units right now.

Instead of tearing down history let's try to fix the present.

17

Mr1988 t1_j8tz1az wrote

And thousands of empty market rate apts too!

7

IllBookkeeper1892 t1_j8tj2ma wrote

Did I not mention artificial supply & demand ? Yes that is prime example & what history specifically are you referring to, this country’s history is progress , moving forwards not backwards , please pinpoint what history specifically you refer to as the architectural design is a cheap copy of European counterparts & is as my doctor likes to say “Unremarkable” even in extended observation.

−9

ArmArtArnie t1_j8tot9z wrote

The home is a piece of NYC history. Whether it is a "cheap copy of European counterparts" or not, it is a historical feature of the neighborhood. Very weird for you to ask me to pinpoint what history I'm referring to, that's not even a clear statement - as though history is something that can always be "pinpointed" and not a vast and often theoretical notion of viewing the past.

Perhaps we should address the "artificial supply and demand" problem first, before we tear more down, no?

5

Mr1988 t1_j8tzfp6 wrote

I get into arguments with my friends about this all the time. If you tear down what makes NYC special, it will become Houston. There is plenty of room to grow, but it doesn’t have to come at the expense of our historical and architectural fabric.

7

Rubberbabybuggybum t1_j8xccf5 wrote

Have you ever walked around Brooklyn Heights? It’s absolutely gorgeous BECAUSE of all the original houses that have been kept and preserved.

The old brownstones and stable houses show up on the picture subs all time and for good reason.

There’s a reason the people here fight so hard to preserve it.

1

An-Angel_Sent-By-God t1_j8ti4bl wrote

Yeah, all those hideous glass buildings that come up are really providing a lot of supply for people who used to sleep on the street. Lol. If you "upzone" this developers will build something that they can charge the maximum money for. If you try to require them to build "affordable" housing, well, check out how that worked at Barclay's.

11

Rubberbabybuggybum t1_j8tm978 wrote

By that logic we should plow down every public park in the city.

9

Mr1988 t1_j8txnrz wrote

Seriously! The city would be cheap tall shit housing from river to river, and no one would actually want to live here.

7

Mr1988 t1_j8tyw9n wrote

I read a great article about NYC’s architecture. NY was know to remake itself, and people were generally happy with that because what came later was bigger, grander, more advanced, and more beautiful.

You really don’t get that now. You don’t get a piece of architecture that works well with its surroundings, or is pleasing to the eye. You get glass middle fingers that shut out everything that makes the city great. You lose the smaller commercial spaces that allow a mom and pop shop to do business, you lose contextuality, you lose affordable housing that can allow someone to save for a place.

The UES has a ton of development happening along 2nd ave, but I’d argue they’re tearing down the buildings that are interesting and help the neighborhood feel special, because they’re replaced by glass shards that have massive commercial spaces.

It’s not really better for anyone.

6

LongIsland1995 t1_j8u5dm1 wrote

The beautiful pre war buildings are not the problem.

The low density zoning in the outskirts is, among other things

6

High-On-Benadryl t1_j8tzahs wrote

Did you forget the /s? Because this is comedy gold. Get off Twitter for a while.

2

112-411 t1_j8znfi6 wrote

It is foolish to mock the value of the aesthetic to society.

1

elizabeth-cooper t1_j8rywgw wrote

More trees now, but that old lamp post is so elegant.

23

Rubberbabybuggybum t1_j8tfnea wrote

There's an entire block around the corner from this photo that has nothing but gas lanterns. I love it.

10

mikeluscher159 t1_j8urou3 wrote

>There's an entire block around the corner from this photo that has nothing but gas lanterns. I love it.

Very few private house's still have the functional gas lamps, the pipework under the front yard is usually uneconomical to save, but they're so elegant when they do work

Some bold people (23 Middagh) IIRC still has the mantle lights off the front porch, and they showed me some in the yard at dusk, the class 🤌

I've been in nearly every basement in that corner of Brooklyn Heights, and I've clocked my head God knows how many times 😤

2

Niek_pas t1_j8srhwj wrote

The Dutch word for afternoon is ‘middag’; I wonder if that’s where this streets name comes from

8

PheonixClaws t1_j9i6q1m wrote

Middagh is the family name of one of the old colonial families that settled in that area of Brooklyn. The Middagh family laid out the streets in this corner of Brooklyn Heights and named one (really two, but the other one was changed to Henry St.) after their family.

2

spalding-blue t1_j8tsw4y wrote

I shot a commercial in this house..

3

mikeluscher159 t1_j8urtue wrote

>I shot a commercial in this house..

Something with paintings?

Lots of historical art being shifted around?

I might have rolled through, I can't remember which house it was on that street though

2

BushwickNormie t1_j8sidki wrote

really thought trees grow more in 100 years haha

2

fuchsdh t1_j8sx9di wrote

Could absolutely have been a succession of trees. City living is tough on trees, they don't live all that long compared to the boonies. I've seen trees that can get as big as the present one in 30-40 years.

6

Atlantan2020 t1_j8tguw0 wrote

Is that house on the right new or did they add a second floor?

2

d_Composer t1_j8u5uhc wrote

Looks like they renovated the shed on the back? You can kinda see it in the 1925 pic

2

bdftheman t1_j8to5xn wrote

That’s pretty !!

2

ME5SENGER_24 t1_j8ujoyx wrote

Now that is a thing of beauty!! It’s nice to see something the same nearly 100 years later in the US

1

mikeluscher159 t1_j8urash wrote

Warning for the tall ⚠️

The lower levels and or basements of that neighborhood I swear we're designed for people 3 feet tall

Were people on average shorter a century ago?

My thoroughly concussed brain would like to know 😖

1

SwampYankee t1_j8wn3cn wrote

Heh, not much change. Added some trees, lost the cool lightpost and added shutters that I always thought looked out of place. One wonders what a single family house with a garage, 2 car driveway and parking goes for in Brooklyn Heights these days?

1

mikewhoneedsabike t1_j92ahea wrote

Wow impressive how the world is less sideways today.

1

apextek t1_j8s9iqn wrote

sorry to jack this thread, was just reading the side rules,.. and wtf is a dogwhistle? Like I'm not saying something, but you think that what I'm saying implies something else so I could be breaking rule one?

A rule like that could totally be twisted to remove anyone that you disagree with their sentiment, and twist their sentiment to mean anything you want. Seems like a bad rule that could easily be abused.

−17

Fact-Cyborg t1_j8tgl8h wrote

That isnt what a dogwhistle is.

Dog Whistle:a subtly aimed message which is intended for, and can only be understood by, a particular group.

I.E. Racists using coded words to spread hate and signal said hate amongst themselves.

Or one political faction using terms they they created in their nomenclature to make fun of or spread hate about another group or person I.E. "Lets go brandon"

9