Photo Wed 012914: Lonely Soldier on Schermerhorn Edition

With scheduled construction of a hotel to the left of it (from this angle) and the largest tower in Brooklyn slated to go up to it's right, this lonely little building is at more than a few interesting intersections on Schermerhorn Street at Downtown's edge.


In Downtown Brooklyn, Schermerhorn Street is a heat sink, to borrow and adjust the term for a computer part who's principal purpose is to suck all the heat to one location. In computers this is useful because heat sinks sit on or next to fans and vents, that allow the heat to be dispersed. Lonely Livingston Avenue, sitting parallel between the active avenues of Fulton Street and Atlantic hadn't been as useful for decades.

In my life time of several decades it's been home to city offices, like the Board of Education (now moved to midtown in an effort to reign in their ranks) and state service offices like medicaid, unemployment and the bureau of child welfare. Other than that, the back side of a municipal parking garage, occasionally wafting with the fragrance of urine, a small sadly neglected city park, and a few other odds and ends were all I could tell you about Schermerhorn  until about ten years ago when the condo boom erupted in downtown Brooklyn. Since then there are a few tony developments. For example the "Be@Schermerhorn" is complete with an anchor retail tent in the style of a whole-foods-esque, which made me laugh because I remember when a hotdog and a person in need of medical attention was much of what you could reliably find on Schermerhorn, and those days weren't long gone when that particular condo and market went up. Which could account for some of the issues they had filling the vacancies before an angel swooped in and saved them.

I found myself downtown this week. "Found" being a disingenuous term for my guilty pilgrimage to Brooklyn's own ShakeShack, which besides staying delicious, stands as in this era as an appropriate if unofficial greeter to the western edge of Fulton Street and the Downtown Brooklyn shopping area.

Travel home by chilly bike (I'm a blogger remember) I came across many freshly vacant lots, (which I've learned from Brownstowner are owned by Steiner Development and slated to be discount hotels) some already deep in the throws of new residential construction. There wasn't much time for me to take in the flurry of new before I can across this lonely outpost.

I also found this sate-photo I've highlighted to be pretty hilarious as you can see where the lonely soldier stands in regard to the development.

This gritty little building shares the block with the mega development "The Hub" as reported on Gothamist (seen below) which as shown in this rendering will not only be a major real estate development but the new largest tower in Brooklyn (It'll be 52 stories) will push the borough's vertical profile further to the stratosphere.

That of course means it'll become a commercial destination. With BAM, "The Theater for a New Audience" on Rockwell as well as the high-rise residential tower 66 Rockwell all one block away it's guaranteed to be a hot spot. And that doesn't even include the Two-Trees mega BAM tower slated to go up across the northern nub of 3rd Avenue and Flatbush, which would add another cultural center, replacement library (there's debate about whether it's a replacement library or not) and residential tower. This area now has potential to be a consistently vibrant and enriching center in the way it hasnt been since the 50's when it was just around the corner from rows of Brooklyn's theater district. All of this development no doubt benefiting from tax exemptions, and the market cultivated by buildings like "Be" and the Barclay Center just (technically) three blocks away.

Personally I'm curious to know how all all this will embrace the African Street Fair that has been part of BAM's spring Dance Africa event for over a decade. Since the Two-Tree's project is aimed at the footprint of the street festival, it would make sense to me that some sort of connective supporting relationship be made.

Other than concern for Dance Africa and the annual street festival, I got no gripes about all this mind you. I don't want massive condos towering over and killing classic city and neighborhood sight-lines in Prospect or Crown Heights and the like, but this is Downtown, it's were massive projects should be. Hopefully since so many are residential the city has plans in the works to address the reality of the thousands new people who will be using nearly century old infrastructure in that area, and new school with all those some of the cash from all those new tax payers would be good too.

Vaguely I recall seeing a few residents on Schermerhorn and my guess (+mischieveous hope) is at some point in the down and out 70's or 80's a resident bought this building, thus ensuring a place in the glistening tomorrows to come. Of course it could be that some speculator came along at the right moment and there's nothing romantic about this building, but eh, in a life less ordinary, I'll vote for the romance.

So maybe it's good if there's a hold out relic from the past sticking up like a thumb against the new. Judging from the generic glass-rectangle-rific architectural design of many of these new projects it might be the easiest way for new comers to see what character looks like.

PhotoWedns 3/11/09 Grey Skies are Gonna Clear up Edition

The forecast for this week in the BK seems to be various shades of grey, just the sort of thing to give greater appreciation for skies of blue. Here's some blue sky over the rapidly rising new residences in Downtown Brooklyn.

On the left the Avalon Fort Greene and on the right the Toren Condos

Urban skies interest me in the way they're often framed, essentially becoming a map of the negative space of cities. I find the contrast between buildings and open spaces interesting as well.

Least I confuse anyone keeping track of my feelings toward mega-buildings, while I'm not a huge fan of clustered residential towers, in the Upper East Side, Chelsea or wherever, in this part of Downtown Brooklyn it generally doesn't bother me as this was a under-utilized space on which sat businesses that were not major growth providers for the surrounding neighborhoods. The Avalon (on the left) is especially huge, and I can only hope not ugly in it's final design, but I have to accept that if these things are going to be built, at least they be built in areas like underused commercial downtown as opposed to residential neighborhoods.

Now ask me about the development a block away that is going up in the space of what was the area's main supermarket and hear my blood boil.

Photo Wednesday: "What Recession?" Edition

According to recent news Chrysler and GM plan to drop a combined total 50,000 jobs this year so by comparison I guess we should be happy for people like those hearty construction workers who reach for the sky everyday in order to lift still going condo projects over our heads, like the development at 80 DeKalb pictured below.

Say what you will about the Condo-virus, capitalism, the perils of navigating construction sites or what-have-you (and you know I usually do) none of that changes how surreal it is to watch buildings rapidly grow. From my vantage point up in the Brooklyn Born Aerie, I've watched a total of over 100 stories go up in five buildings in the last twelve months. I find it mesmerizing in a weird artificially organic way.


80 DeKalb development comes into view behind the Forte Condos

My trance starts to wear off when I think of the needs of the average working family to find an affordable and acceptable place for a family of three or four to live. It doesn't disparage the desire to build and sell condos to admit that the price point for many condos in otherwise middle-income areas leaves them vacant for long periods, even in a good economy while developers weight for buyers to help them turn a profit.

However 80DeKalb is a rental development, which thankfully was pointed out to me by Norman Oder of the Atlantic Yards Report, whose blog has much more detailed info on the developer (Forest City Ratner of Atlantic Yards infamy) and the specifics of the project much of which can be seen positively and negatively depending on your politics.

Case in point the quickly constructed "Forte" with it's 30 stories, 500k+ starting price, and already dingy outer walls, is visibly 50% unoccupied three years after completion. A fact you can see from nearby Fort Greene Park. (below)

Many vacancies are visible in the Forte Condo building.

Watching the skyline change before my very eyes (often one floor per day) is nothing when you consider the video below presenting the plan for downtown Brooklyn in 2012 that barely has anything to do with the Atlantic Yards calamity. Many of these towers are under construction at this moment.

Maybe you've seen this video, maybe not, I think it's interesting to see the 2012 plan, appropriately narrated by "X-Men" super-villain "Magneto" (Sir Ian McKellen provides the v.o.) The 80 DeKalb building materializes into view at 1:00 of the video from the left side. Check it, pass it, and try and wager which of these giants will actually be completed...

"When Gentrification Attacks...(tough questions)!"

This Sunday's New York has a piece about Bedford-Stuyvesant and gentrification.


"It's sad that money can change a neighborhood" says Roy Vanasco, owner of All Appliance Refrigerator on Myrtle Av where developers have sought to buy him out. (source/credit: Ruby Washington NY Times)

I followed the Times article to the blog of one of the people profiled, the aptly named new Brooklynite and subsequent gentrifyer, Dakota Blair creator of the blog Antbed.com.

The reading inspired me to create another edition of the feature I started a few weeks back "When Gentrification Attacks" about my desire to discuss "what privileges does money as opposed to history, afford individuals."

My intention was to talk about what I see as a debate over who matters more new-comers with money, or the people who've weathered the neighborhood storms and in some cause maintained enough of the neighborhood to allow there to be something worth gentrifying in the first place.

But the Times article and especially a question raised by Blair on his blog led me to another part of the gentrification discussion: How willing are people to acknowledge the influence their presence has on longstanding communities? And does that acknowledgment affect how we live together?

Yes there are positive and negative aspects to gentrification. But I think it's hard for people to associate themselves with the negative aspects of it. Which I think affects what (if anything) we decide to do adjust those negative aspects of gentrification.

Blair writes on his blog:

"Concerning crime rates, apparently the police presence around this area was increased significantly once we moved in. Where was that heat coming from? Why would the police suddenly decide this block was worth policing? It’s a question which might have answers that many would like to ignore. Heck, I’d like to ignore it because it’s quite uncomfortable to think that I am being given special treatment just because I’m new. But I will not. I cannot. Now that I’ve worded the question, I need to find its answer, or at least acknowledge it. I don’t even know where to begin. Maybe they were already going to do it. Maybe it was, as someone else told me, all for the Jews."

From the antbed.com blog 7/22/08

Dakota I give you credit for asking the question despite the fact that toward the end you try backing out of the spotlight you're casting. But that's the tough part, right? It's gotta be hard flashing the light in your own eyes. Most of us want a better more equal world but it gets all complicated when we're in the middle of it.

Which is one of the reasons things don't get better or get better at a glacial pace. Because it's hard for us to look at a problem that we might be complicit in.

It seems to me that people don't want to see the reality; that anyone who can gentrify can create negative consequences for long-term less influential residents. I can think of two general reasons for this:

1) Nobody wants to be perceived as part of an unsavory situation, especially if all you're looking to do is get a break on rent or mortgage, and kick back with a nice Shiraz, not trample on a community.

2) I've heard some on blogs and in public express the philosophy, "everyone who wants to earn, can earn. So if I get better treatment it's not given to me, it's earned, I earned it." So for people who think that way, giving credence to the idea that there are inequities in how gentrification plays out, undercuts that argument and ends the discussion.

As a result we get half-hearted questions like Dakota's above. I don't pretend to know what Mr. Blair thinks his influence in Bedford-Stuyvesant is, but I wrote my two cents (posted below) on his blog which was basically to say,"yes! anyone who moves into a low-income area and can afford to pay for a condo or NYC market rents and above is a game changer for that area."

If you're part of the gentrification of an area (in this case northern Bedford-Stuyvesant) on the upside you may attract dynamic new businesses that will grow the area and on the downside, in addition to raising prices faster than the incomes of long-term residents it also means the city will promptly direct services to you that are not directed at or worse may be diverted from long-time lower-income residents.

I recall about two years ago one of the new downtown Brooklyn condos was advertising on the subway. The ads boasted great views, gym facilities, yadda yadda, starting at just $250,000. Yah. On the subway car, in Brooklyn where the median income is $32,135. So if you're a commuter who makes 32k a year and can barely afford to make ends meet, how does that make you feel to look at that ad?

Does it make you think you are at the bottom of the heap? Does it make you think there is a reality occurring right next to you that you'll never be part of? These questions and others can really demoralize a person, whether you are the one struggling with finances or you're the one coming to terms with being able to do what other hard working people can't. But that's the reality isn't it?

Rather than being embarrassed by the financial realities, that having more money in a capitalist society makes you preferred, I think we should try to find a way to interact with our new and old communities in ways that might lead to more equity between new and old over time.

What do you think?

-ubb

*Brooklyn median income source wikipedia (2000 census)
-- (below is my response to Mr Blair posting on his Antbed.com blog) --

You seem to be looking for opinions so I'll offer mine.

I'll assume based on the way you formed your question that you are the kind of person who doesn't want to perceived as receiving "special attention" but the reality is you do.

Anyone who matches the template that can probably be drawn from you:

that of a financially able person whose youth could translate into a long-term residence, with a desire to invest in new developments, and yes, a person who is "white" (which is as much of a code for upward progress in many minds as low-income is a code for downward progress in many minds)

Anyone who fits that outline, as you seem to, is going to get more police protection.

You probably realize that, and it may make you uncomfortable to do so, but simply this is all more about wealth and lack there of than anything else. Unfortunately we make snap judgments about those qualities, who has and who doesn't based on what people look like and what they can seemingly afford.

The reason Bedford-Stuyvesant and neighborhoods like it are moving the way they are, having zoning laws relaxed to allow outscaled developments for example, is also due to another financial realty, one the city has a larger stake in.

People who can afford at market and above market rates grow the tax-base. Which of course benefits the city and it ultimately has the potential to directly benefit local government more than people who for the moment need assistance.

Residents like yourself grow the population in areas that have room to grow which can affect representation, and residents like yourself are more likely to increase the valuation of the neighborhood, as measured in financial terms.

Cops lets face it protect the city structure and finance as much, if not more the citizenry.

You may friend and anyone like you, are considered a resource for these reasons and as such you are afforded more protection. As well as better services, which may be less than what you are accustomed to (depending of course on your experience) but are probably better levels of service than they had been before you got there.

This is where my disappointment with the state of redevelopment in areas like Bedford-Stuyvesant comes in. Because in my opinion, based of over 30 years in Brooklyn, there are and were people in these neighborhoods already, homeowners and financially able renters, who could have redeveloped the neighborhood as it is happening now. But their numbers have plummeted in the last two decades because in my view those people were not viewed with a favorable superficial lens. The black and latino residents of the past who could built a new upwardly mobile community were left without the policing you receive without asking for it. The loan allowances that allowed so many to come into Bedford-Stuyvestant and Harlem in the last eight years wasn't as readily available to the previous generation of renters, owners and potential buyers. Yes there were drugs and crime devastating these neighborhoods in the 1980s, however it takes a complicit governance to let things go to the level they did.

So to summarize, a person who is new relatively young, able to afford at or above market prices, and who has the superficial look of financial solvency is going to be treated better, and will receive benefits in neighborhoods even while the longtime locals with lesser finances go without.

-umbrooklynborn