Submitted by libananahammock t3_113rfbs in nyc
Comments
drpvn t1_j8rrg1c wrote
Upzone it!
bkornblith t1_j8rszti wrote
This is how historic districts work.
[deleted] t1_j8rv4xx wrote
[deleted]
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.
[deleted] t1_j8rxwso wrote
[deleted]
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…
elizabeth-cooper t1_j8rywgw wrote
More trees now, but that old lamp post is so elegant.
[deleted] t1_j8rzcww wrote
[deleted]
diet_shasta_orange t1_j8rzzsm wrote
I've heard that happens in Brooklyn
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.
[deleted] t1_j8s1jhr wrote
[deleted]
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.
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.
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.
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…
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.
LongIsland1995 t1_j8s7sd9 wrote
Redditors are really complaining that the house wasn't torn down for an ugly glass building?
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.
LongIsland1995 t1_j8s8h4b wrote
"Multi unit affordable housing"
Not a real thing, the city will never go back to building NYCHA towers
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.
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.
bkornblith t1_j8sh0ce wrote
In no place in what I wrote did I imply in any way building luxury buildings.
BushwickNormie t1_j8sidki wrote
really thought trees grow more in 100 years haha
Niek_pas t1_j8srhwj wrote
The Dutch word for afternoon is ‘middag’; I wonder if that’s where this streets name comes from
iv2892 t1_j8stobd wrote
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.
Rubberbabybuggybum t1_j8tfnea wrote
There's an entire block around the corner from this photo that has nothing but gas lanterns. I love it.
Rubberbabybuggybum t1_j8tfsew wrote
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"
Atlantan2020 t1_j8tguw0 wrote
Is that house on the right new or did they add a second floor?
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
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.
ArmArtArnie t1_j8ti6wj wrote
There are 6000 empty NYCHA units right now.
Instead of tearing down history let's try to fix the present.
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.
Rubberbabybuggybum t1_j8tm978 wrote
By that logic we should plow down every public park in the city.
bdftheman t1_j8to5xn wrote
That’s pretty !!
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?
spalding-blue t1_j8tsw4y wrote
I shot a commercial in this house..
Mr1988 t1_j8txbr7 wrote
drpvn t1_j8txm97 wrote
I got carried away and thought we were upzoning everything.
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.
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.
Mr1988 t1_j8tz1az wrote
And thousands of empty market rate apts too!
High-On-Benadryl t1_j8tzahs wrote
Did you forget the /s? Because this is comedy gold. Get off Twitter for a while.
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.
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.
ArmArtArnie t1_j8u2ibr wrote
Absolutely. Well said!
Mr1988 t1_j8u2nqb wrote
[deleted] t1_j8u35qj wrote
[removed]
LongIsland1995 t1_j8u5dm1 wrote
The beautiful pre war buildings are not the problem.
The low density zoning in the outskirts is, among other things
d_Composer t1_j8u5uhc wrote
Looks like they renovated the shed on the back? You can kinda see it in the 1925 pic
bornlikethisss t1_j8u7jdn wrote
Same shit, different day.
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
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 😖
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 😤
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
Shoddy-Lawfulness-26 t1_j8uscbo wrote
Turn around and you’ll see the destruction from the BQE.
Shoddy-Lawfulness-26 t1_j8usd1c wrote
Turn around and you’ll see the destruction from the BQE.
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.
damnatio_memoriae t1_j8vc9nt wrote
easy there bloomberg
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.
damnatio_memoriae t1_j8vcnuz wrote
yes... people were shorter a century ago.
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?
Rubberbabybuggybum t1_j8xbtvo wrote
Make New York Houston again!
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.
112-411 t1_j8znfi6 wrote
It is foolish to mock the value of the aesthetic to society.
confused_grenadille t1_j8zz42x wrote
A lot of streets here have Dutch names. Even Breuklyn > Brooklyn.
mikewhoneedsabike t1_j92ahea wrote
Wow impressive how the world is less sideways today.
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.
eosag t1_j8rqsho wrote
Wild that this corner has not really seen any changes, except the tree on the right has grown!