24 Middagh Street, Brooklyn Heights, New York. (1925 vs. today)Submitted by libananahammock t3_113rfbs in nyc
Rubberbabybuggybum t1_j8tfsew wrote
Reply to comment by LongIsland1995 in 24 Middagh Street, Brooklyn Heights, New York. (1925 vs. today) by libananahammock
Lol why?
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
ArmArtArnie t1_j8ti6wj wrote
There are 6000 empty NYCHA units right now.
Instead of tearing down history let's try to fix the present.
Mr1988 t1_j8tz1az wrote
And thousands of empty market rate apts too!
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.
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?
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.
ArmArtArnie t1_j8u2ibr wrote
Absolutely. Well said!
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.
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.
Rubberbabybuggybum t1_j8tm978 wrote
By that logic we should plow down every public park in the city.
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.
Rubberbabybuggybum t1_j8xbtvo wrote
Make New York Houston again!
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.
LongIsland1995 t1_j8u5dm1 wrote
The beautiful pre war buildings are not the problem.
The low density zoning in the outskirts is, among other things
High-On-Benadryl t1_j8tzahs wrote
Did you forget the /s? Because this is comedy gold. Get off Twitter for a while.
112-411 t1_j8znfi6 wrote
It is foolish to mock the value of the aesthetic to society.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments