A New Home in Clinton Hill (!)
It is official. I am a resident of the borough of Brooklyn.
But the hours following my last post were more drama-filled than I ever dreamed apartment-hunting could be. It all began when my roommate came upon a blog that serves as a local forum for discussing the architectural integrity of various Brooklyn neighborhoods. As I mentioned previously, the building in which we're taking up residence is pretty damn ugly. The contrast between this contemporary structure and the beautiful brownstones in the area is quite striking (nauseating to some, I'm sure); the colors and materials don't match its surroundings, it stands rather forlorn with small empty lots to both sides, it's rather oddly shaped, etc. It ain't pretty. I get it.
But I was completely unprepared for the virulently critical nature of some of the posts and discussion on this blog. There were absolutely valid points being made--for example, the presence of this building and its likely depressive effect on the value of the other real estate on this block--that if I were considering buying property in the area, would be things to take into consideration. Another interesting area of discussion was the nature of speedy development and what considerations are made about the value of a property vis-a-vis its ability to add value to a neighborhood by blending cohesively with the existing architecture--how often to developers take this into account? Are they in it to make a quick buck by building and flipping the property, at the expense of longer-term planning that keeps the neighborhood's best interests at heart? Certainly, topics of great concern and import for a forum dedicated preserving what makes Brooklyn what it is.
However, there were other posts and comments that were of a much less level-headed nature. Some called into question the structural integrity of the building, despite a lack of an architecture or construction license (though one cheeky individual posted back that people living in 80+ year old brownstones should be more concerned about what is hidden behind their own walls, which made me chuckle); others accused the owner of 'false advertising' on Craig's List when all he did was use sample photos to give an idea of what the units would look like upon completion. Another comment called the construction workers "illegal", though it appears they were inferring this from the fact that they "looked Latino." The number of unsubstantiated yet vigorously asserted comments was breathtaking; one wonders whether these people would feel comfortable making such accusations without the cloak of anonymity the Internet has to offer.
Hearteningly, there were also a few people who sought to temper the conversation. Some voices of reason queried whether the neighborhood would truly prefer the "rat-infested, trash-strewn lot" the building replaced, indicating that development, ugly or otherwise, was a good thing: the fewer empty lots, the safer the area feels. Others stated there was nothing to be done about it, because the developers were the one with the cash for investment, and the residents--despite their highly vocal indignation--were in no place to question the market at work. Others asserted that this was merely a question of aesthetic taste; some people prefer a contemporary style (both on the inside and the outside of a building), and this is simply a matter of stylistic dissonance in a neighborhood that has had a singular architectural aesthetic for many decades. The spectrum of responses (from expletive-filled one-liners to mini-treatises on the nature of development in historic neighborhoods) proves to me that if nothing else, Brooklyn truly is as diverse as it touts itself to be.
In light of these new revelations--and I will admit, completely unnerved and rather shaken by the intensity of feeling expressed towards our potential future home on this blog--I embarked on a mini due diligence to figure out what was really going on. The accusations about the structural integrity of the building were laid to rest with a call to the broker and much trolling of the NY Department of Buildings website, where it became clear the building had been inspected and signed off as sound. (I didn't have the time or energy to question the DOB process itself; that battle is for someone else to fight, on another day.) I also got on the phone with the former tenant of the unit we'd be living in to ask about their experience in the neighborhood (e.g., did the commentators on this blog throw rocks at them for residing in this architectural blemish?) and what the owner was like in terms of responsiveness, and whether there were any issues with the apartment itself. As it turns out, there were minor leaks in the upper floor bedrooms in early 2007--the owner has since re-sealed the rooftop--and we were able to write into the lease rider that we would be fully compensated for any potential water damage if this were to occur again. All in all, the former tenant was quite positive both about the neighborhood and the owner's responsiveness, and we felt comfortable signing the lease yesterday morning. Yes, we fully acknowledge the building is ugly. But we love the apartment, and love the neighborhood: every deal is a lesson in compromise.
This whole experience has gotten me thinking about the nature of blogs and the purpose they serve. Blogs are an incredibly useful way for like-minded individuals to discuss things in a forum that would be difficult to recreate in person. The blog that set all of this off, for the most part, appears both well-written and well-intentioned; it serves as a neighborhood watchdog to preserve the architecture that makes Brooklyn's neighborhoods historic and unique. That being said, the very nature of the blog and the people it attracts also has the potential to lead to a serious skewing of perspective that can quickly spiral out of control. This is especially true for political blogs, but I now fully understand that it holds for others as well. I am and will remain a huge fan of the medium; but perhaps will heap on a little bit more salt when I'm reading them in the future.
And so, having survived this trial-by-fire of an apartment search, I can now say with confidence and relief: It is official. I am a resident of the borough of Brooklyn.
But the hours following my last post were more drama-filled than I ever dreamed apartment-hunting could be. It all began when my roommate came upon a blog that serves as a local forum for discussing the architectural integrity of various Brooklyn neighborhoods. As I mentioned previously, the building in which we're taking up residence is pretty damn ugly. The contrast between this contemporary structure and the beautiful brownstones in the area is quite striking (nauseating to some, I'm sure); the colors and materials don't match its surroundings, it stands rather forlorn with small empty lots to both sides, it's rather oddly shaped, etc. It ain't pretty. I get it.
But I was completely unprepared for the virulently critical nature of some of the posts and discussion on this blog. There were absolutely valid points being made--for example, the presence of this building and its likely depressive effect on the value of the other real estate on this block--that if I were considering buying property in the area, would be things to take into consideration. Another interesting area of discussion was the nature of speedy development and what considerations are made about the value of a property vis-a-vis its ability to add value to a neighborhood by blending cohesively with the existing architecture--how often to developers take this into account? Are they in it to make a quick buck by building and flipping the property, at the expense of longer-term planning that keeps the neighborhood's best interests at heart? Certainly, topics of great concern and import for a forum dedicated preserving what makes Brooklyn what it is.
However, there were other posts and comments that were of a much less level-headed nature. Some called into question the structural integrity of the building, despite a lack of an architecture or construction license (though one cheeky individual posted back that people living in 80+ year old brownstones should be more concerned about what is hidden behind their own walls, which made me chuckle); others accused the owner of 'false advertising' on Craig's List when all he did was use sample photos to give an idea of what the units would look like upon completion. Another comment called the construction workers "illegal", though it appears they were inferring this from the fact that they "looked Latino." The number of unsubstantiated yet vigorously asserted comments was breathtaking; one wonders whether these people would feel comfortable making such accusations without the cloak of anonymity the Internet has to offer.
Hearteningly, there were also a few people who sought to temper the conversation. Some voices of reason queried whether the neighborhood would truly prefer the "rat-infested, trash-strewn lot" the building replaced, indicating that development, ugly or otherwise, was a good thing: the fewer empty lots, the safer the area feels. Others stated there was nothing to be done about it, because the developers were the one with the cash for investment, and the residents--despite their highly vocal indignation--were in no place to question the market at work. Others asserted that this was merely a question of aesthetic taste; some people prefer a contemporary style (both on the inside and the outside of a building), and this is simply a matter of stylistic dissonance in a neighborhood that has had a singular architectural aesthetic for many decades. The spectrum of responses (from expletive-filled one-liners to mini-treatises on the nature of development in historic neighborhoods) proves to me that if nothing else, Brooklyn truly is as diverse as it touts itself to be.
In light of these new revelations--and I will admit, completely unnerved and rather shaken by the intensity of feeling expressed towards our potential future home on this blog--I embarked on a mini due diligence to figure out what was really going on. The accusations about the structural integrity of the building were laid to rest with a call to the broker and much trolling of the NY Department of Buildings website, where it became clear the building had been inspected and signed off as sound. (I didn't have the time or energy to question the DOB process itself; that battle is for someone else to fight, on another day.) I also got on the phone with the former tenant of the unit we'd be living in to ask about their experience in the neighborhood (e.g., did the commentators on this blog throw rocks at them for residing in this architectural blemish?) and what the owner was like in terms of responsiveness, and whether there were any issues with the apartment itself. As it turns out, there were minor leaks in the upper floor bedrooms in early 2007--the owner has since re-sealed the rooftop--and we were able to write into the lease rider that we would be fully compensated for any potential water damage if this were to occur again. All in all, the former tenant was quite positive both about the neighborhood and the owner's responsiveness, and we felt comfortable signing the lease yesterday morning. Yes, we fully acknowledge the building is ugly. But we love the apartment, and love the neighborhood: every deal is a lesson in compromise.
This whole experience has gotten me thinking about the nature of blogs and the purpose they serve. Blogs are an incredibly useful way for like-minded individuals to discuss things in a forum that would be difficult to recreate in person. The blog that set all of this off, for the most part, appears both well-written and well-intentioned; it serves as a neighborhood watchdog to preserve the architecture that makes Brooklyn's neighborhoods historic and unique. That being said, the very nature of the blog and the people it attracts also has the potential to lead to a serious skewing of perspective that can quickly spiral out of control. This is especially true for political blogs, but I now fully understand that it holds for others as well. I am and will remain a huge fan of the medium; but perhaps will heap on a little bit more salt when I'm reading them in the future.
And so, having survived this trial-by-fire of an apartment search, I can now say with confidence and relief: It is official. I am a resident of the borough of Brooklyn.
posted by the Assistant at 10:40 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home