(for those for whom the Parkside Q is their hometrain)
News and Nonsense from the Brooklyn neighborhood of Lefferts and environs, or more specifically a neighborhood once known as Melrose Park. Sometimes called Lefferts Gardens. Or Prospect-Lefferts Gardens. Or PLG. Or North Flatbush. Or Caledonia (west of Ocean). Or West Pigtown. Across From Park Slope. Under Crown Heights. Near Drummer's Grove. The Side of the Park With the McDonalds. Jackie Robinson Town. Home of Lefferts Manor. West Wingate. Near Kings County Hospital. Or if you're coming from the airport in taxi, maybe just Flatbush is best.
Tuesday, February 2, 2016
Neighbor Takes Some De(Con)struction Pics
Thx to Diane Greene Lent for taking some pictures of the carnage. Nicely collaged to boot!
A lot of low skilled (and often undocumented) workers are being injured and killed due to improper working conditions at these sorts of construction sites all across NYC: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/03/nyregion/fatal-construction-accidents-are-rising-in-new-york.html
I don't know if "low skilled" is the right phrase. I sure as hell couldn't take down a house without killing myself or someone else. (Actually I tried once; it was a disaster). As for the construction trades, I'm not sure the unions would agree that this type of work is low skilled either.
Too bad there aren't any "before" photos of all the beauty we have lost to these tidy, soulless buildings. Ah, the broken windows, the caved in roofs, the abandoned cars, the vacant lots filled with piles and piles of garbage. Sigh and sniffle... This neighborhood is losing all its character!
You'd be surprised smartass. The houses on Clarkson were lovely and well-kept, and housed dozens of people. The ones across from the playground on Parkside were equally nice.
I wonder how those in the suburbs would feel if folks started randomly tearing down houses for "soulless" buildings. I don't think it would fly. Granted, a lot of our buildings are beyond repair and not well-suited to the City and its needs. That makes it no less sad to see history razed before your eyes.
Granted, once the new neighbors move in we'll all move on. They will be welcomed like anyone else who puts down roots here. Though many will be transient at best.
No one is just "tearing down" houses. Either owners are making a decision to cash out, based on their individual circumstances, or slum lords are going for the bigger bucks, as slum lords will always do. I see no reason to cry over the loss of these dilapidated eye sores.
paid? who's paying you MikeF? now THAT would be a conspiracy theory for you! I think you meant "not get paid." I wouldn't do what I do for money because no one would ever pay me to shoot my mouth off like this.
As to skills, I can play the funk out of any Funkadelic tune and I write a mean math rock riff. My lyrics are half decent and I write a ship-shape grant proposal. Beyond that it's pretty much low-skills for me. My typing is pretty good. Does that count?
Carnage? Seems there's plenty of that in this area, and I'm not referring to old buildings being cut down. Seems these new buildings are part of a proven strategy for creating a safer community, though maybe not the primary reason for their being erected. Why not discuss in a hopeful light?
Anon 8:31: If by safer you mean richer and whiter, then yes, new buildings will bring a safer community.
And you wonder why some folks use the term the "new colonialism" to describe gentrification. The cry of "safer" sounds and awful lot like "civilized" to me.
Forgetting the greater issues of class, race and violence among poor black men, I believe your analysis is completely tone deaf to the realities and struggles of Black Brooklyn. If by safer you mean that thousands of decent folks who have the audacity to earn low incomes will no longer be able to afford the neighborhood...I'd say you're spot on. Because the few troubled and desperate souls lost in a sea of incarceration and violence will be moved from this neighborhood also, and become some other zip code's problem. Until, of course, some "new buildings" come in and move them even farther to the outskirts and to the edges of society. Sounds like a great game plan, yes?
Your statement speaks volumes; move 'em out. All of them. Urban renewal, indeed.
Q, you extrapolate a lot from my pithy comment, all incorrect -- going so far as to make crass insinuations regarding my meaning. It's your blog and I respect you putting forth, but your response is in bad form and off-putting.
Not that you asked, but by safer I mean, you know - more safety, less crime. At what expense? I don't have that answer but certainly don't advocate the solutions you've taken upon yourself to assign me as owning; I do know a solution is needed though (is that ok to know or does that demonstrate that I'm a "pioneer" ?). There are possibilities that can bring about positive outcomes regarding the safety issue that are not as extremely polarized as the "game plan" outlined in your response, yes? It's not impossible to get there from here, even, no? Why not try to mitigate the negative impacts of change while embracing the positive impacts, even if they both stem from the same event?
Turn and face the strange, while being stewards for one another - something like that.
Of course, polarization, complaining, rudeness, resistance, screaming about the falling sky, and name calling seem to be elements of a common game plan as well.
This neighborhood used to be mostly detached wood frame houses. Scores of them were torn down from the 1920s to the 1960s. Nearly every rent stabilized building is sitting on a site once occupied by a detached wood frame home. So in a way these houses long ago gave way to a form of housing, the pre-war, 6 story apartment building, which served low income communities fairly well. In fact, the period of wood frame homes didn't last very long. Apart from some of the large old Flatbush mansions, which are all gone now, most of the wood frame houses were built from around 1890-1910, and then started to be torn down around 1920-1930. The ones that remain are really outliers to a larger trend. Streets like Lenox, Clarkson, and Linden were almost completely transformed during this period. The area south of Caton and West of Flatbush had rows and rows of Ditmas Park-style houses, which are mostly gone and replaced with big buildings like Chateau Frontenac or the Cathedral Arms. You can see it all using NYPL's map warper site, on maps like this one.
This neighborhood has long been the dense heart of Brooklyn. The census tract from Clarkson down to Church, in between Bedford and Rogers, is one of the densest in Brooklyn, with about 7500 people. Much more than most brownstone-lined tracts in, say, Park Slope or Bed Stuy. We have the services to match, with more bustling commercial corridors than you find in Bed Stuy. But still less dense than very dense tracts like the Upper East Side, which might have 12,000 or so.
The developers are filling in the gaps and bringing in new housing which will be as dense as what surrounds it. Expensive and market rate now, but so was 60 Clarkson when it was built!
Jacob: Right on. I've said so myself. It seems to be hard for some readers to accept that you can both "welcome the new" and bemoan the destruction of perfectly good houses. It's no an either or. I continue to think that building affordable is the way to go, but our community has basically struck down that possibility.
To Anon: I'm being off-putting? I think your comment was off-putting. So be it. We can still be friends.
Your pithy remark suggests that we kick the can to another community. All well and good I suppose, but hardly a problem solver.
I'm forever hopeful, whatever you may extract from my rantings. However, you said quite plainly that erecting new buildings is part of a "proven strategy." What proof is there, and what social factors happen to make that safety possible? I've heard of better lighting, better schools, better community centers, better conflict resolution, neighborhood watches, smarter policing - all of those have some proof behind them for increasing safety. The only thing that I associate with the tearing down of old apartments and putting up new ones? Replacing the old residents with new ones. A twist on Urban Renewal. That's why I gave chase to your statement, not because I think your character is out of whack. You made a statement - you can own it, defend it, or restate it. I'm not here to judge you, only the ideas.
And if the "best economic use" is necessarily racist, because the system is racist, then so be it? or does government have an obligation to encourage equal rights and access and to mitigate the negative effects of unfettered capitalism? Is urban planning always synonymous with best economic use?
you're asking a big question, mike. Clearly if it were all left to our overlords we'd have a very different society than the one we have today. I would imagine that you too have benefited from not living in Russia.
25 comments:
A lot of low skilled workers are getting paid as a result of these sites.
A lot of low skilled (and often undocumented) workers are being injured and killed due to improper working conditions at these sorts of construction sites all across NYC: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/03/nyregion/fatal-construction-accidents-are-rising-in-new-york.html
I don't know if "low skilled" is the right phrase. I sure as hell couldn't take down a house without killing myself or someone else. (Actually I tried once; it was a disaster). As for the construction trades, I'm not sure the unions would agree that this type of work is low skilled either.
As babs points out, very few union workers are on these jobs.
not my point...the point was whether these jobs are skilled, not whether they're union.
Most work on these site is done by very low skilled labor.
...they might be above your skill level, but I was trying to avoid pointing that out.
Too bad there aren't any "before" photos of all the beauty we have lost to these tidy, soulless buildings. Ah, the broken windows, the caved in roofs, the abandoned cars, the vacant lots filled with piles and piles of garbage. Sigh and sniffle... This neighborhood is losing all its character!
You'd be surprised smartass. The houses on Clarkson were lovely and well-kept, and housed dozens of people. The ones across from the playground on Parkside were equally nice.
I wonder how those in the suburbs would feel if folks started randomly tearing down houses for "soulless" buildings. I don't think it would fly. Granted, a lot of our buildings are beyond repair and not well-suited to the City and its needs. That makes it no less sad to see history razed before your eyes.
Granted, once the new neighbors move in we'll all move on. They will be welcomed like anyone else who puts down roots here. Though many will be transient at best.
MikeF: So is blogging and commenting on other people's blogs now considered "skilled labor?"
I make no claims regarding my writing skills. ...but I can take down a house without it being disaster.
No one is just "tearing down" houses. Either owners are making a decision to cash out, based on their individual circumstances, or slum lords are going for the bigger bucks, as slum lords will always do.
I see no reason to cry over the loss of these dilapidated eye sores.
Regardless of the skill level required, blogging and commenting is merely a way to get paid.
However, deconstructing a house actually gets one paid. ...especially if you are the developer or owner, ie anyone but the actual laborer.
paid? who's paying you MikeF? now THAT would be a conspiracy theory for you! I think you meant "not get paid." I wouldn't do what I do for money because no one would ever pay me to shoot my mouth off like this.
As to skills, I can play the funk out of any Funkadelic tune and I write a mean math rock riff. My lyrics are half decent and I write a ship-shape grant proposal. Beyond that it's pretty much low-skills for me. My typing is pretty good. Does that count?
Those skills won't come in handy in construction. Sorry.
...btw, the best way to "save" or "destroy" a house is to own it.
Posting photos of them just preserves their moment in history.
Carnage? Seems there's plenty of that in this area, and I'm not referring to old buildings being cut down. Seems these new buildings are part of a proven strategy for creating a safer community, though maybe not the primary reason for their being erected. Why not discuss in a hopeful light?
Anon 8:31: If by safer you mean richer and whiter, then yes, new buildings will bring a safer community.
And you wonder why some folks use the term the "new colonialism" to describe gentrification. The cry of "safer" sounds and awful lot like "civilized" to me.
Forgetting the greater issues of class, race and violence among poor black men, I believe your analysis is completely tone deaf to the realities and struggles of Black Brooklyn. If by safer you mean that thousands of decent folks who have the audacity to earn low incomes will no longer be able to afford the neighborhood...I'd say you're spot on. Because the few troubled and desperate souls lost in a sea of incarceration and violence will be moved from this neighborhood also, and become some other zip code's problem. Until, of course, some "new buildings" come in and move them even farther to the outskirts and to the edges of society. Sounds like a great game plan, yes?
Your statement speaks volumes; move 'em out. All of them. Urban renewal, indeed.
Q, you extrapolate a lot from my pithy comment, all incorrect -- going so far as to make crass insinuations regarding my meaning. It's your blog and I respect you putting forth, but your response is in bad form and off-putting.
Not that you asked, but by safer I mean, you know - more safety, less crime. At what expense? I don't have that answer but certainly don't advocate the solutions you've taken upon yourself to assign me as owning; I do know a solution is needed though (is that ok to know or does that demonstrate that I'm a "pioneer" ?). There are possibilities that can bring about positive outcomes regarding the safety issue that are not as extremely polarized as the "game plan" outlined in your response, yes? It's not impossible to get there from here, even, no? Why not try to mitigate the negative impacts of change while embracing the positive impacts, even if they both stem from the same event?
Turn and face the strange, while being stewards for one another - something like that.
Of course, polarization, complaining, rudeness, resistance, screaming about the falling sky, and name calling seem to be elements of a common game plan as well.
This neighborhood used to be mostly detached wood frame houses. Scores of them were torn down from the 1920s to the 1960s. Nearly every rent stabilized building is sitting on a site once occupied by a detached wood frame home. So in a way these houses long ago gave way to a form of housing, the pre-war, 6 story apartment building, which served low income communities fairly well.
In fact, the period of wood frame homes didn't last very long. Apart from some of the large old Flatbush mansions, which are all gone now, most of the wood frame houses were built from around 1890-1910, and then started to be torn down around 1920-1930. The ones that remain are really outliers to a larger trend.
Streets like Lenox, Clarkson, and Linden were almost completely transformed during this period. The area south of Caton and West of Flatbush had rows and rows of Ditmas Park-style houses, which are mostly gone and replaced with big buildings like Chateau Frontenac or the Cathedral Arms.
You can see it all using NYPL's map warper site, on maps like this one.
http://maps.nypl.org/warper/maps/15955#Preview_tab
This neighborhood has long been the dense heart of Brooklyn. The census tract from Clarkson down to Church, in between Bedford and Rogers, is one of the densest in Brooklyn, with about 7500 people. Much more than most brownstone-lined tracts in, say, Park Slope or Bed Stuy. We have the services to match, with more bustling commercial corridors than you find in Bed Stuy. But still less dense than very dense tracts like the Upper East Side, which might have 12,000 or so.
The developers are filling in the gaps and bringing in new housing which will be as dense as what surrounds it. Expensive and market rate now, but so was 60 Clarkson when it was built!
Jacob: Right on. I've said so myself. It seems to be hard for some readers to accept that you can both "welcome the new" and bemoan the destruction of perfectly good houses. It's no an either or. I continue to think that building affordable is the way to go, but our community has basically struck down that possibility.
To Anon: I'm being off-putting? I think your comment was off-putting. So be it. We can still be friends.
Your pithy remark suggests that we kick the can to another community. All well and good I suppose, but hardly a problem solver.
I'm forever hopeful, whatever you may extract from my rantings. However, you said quite plainly that erecting new buildings is part of a "proven strategy." What proof is there, and what social factors happen to make that safety possible? I've heard of better lighting, better schools, better community centers, better conflict resolution, neighborhood watches, smarter policing - all of those have some proof behind them for increasing safety. The only thing that I associate with the tearing down of old apartments and putting up new ones? Replacing the old residents with new ones. A twist on Urban Renewal. That's why I gave chase to your statement, not because I think your character is out of whack. You made a statement - you can own it, defend it, or restate it. I'm not here to judge you, only the ideas.
Is Urban Renewal a milder form of Slum Clearance?
I tend to think of it merely as people using their land to achieve the best economic use.
And if the "best economic use" is necessarily racist, because the system is racist, then so be it? or does government have an obligation to encourage equal rights and access and to mitigate the negative effects of unfettered capitalism? Is urban planning always synonymous with best economic use?
you're asking a big question, mike. Clearly if it were all left to our overlords we'd have a very different society than the one we have today. I would imagine that you too have benefited from not living in Russia.
Unless of course Vodka is your drink of choice...
I think individual Russians pursued their self interests as best they could.
...we might drink less vodka and have fewer children named Ivan or Helga, but that doesn't bother me.
Here's a fresh filing for a current vacant lot:
http://newyorkyimby.com/2016/02/permits-filed-45-lenox-road-flatbush.html
and we have alicia boyd and her cronies to thank for all of this!
Post a Comment