Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

http://www.ny1.com/content/news/in_the_spotlight/212167/brooklyn-week--housing-costs-rise-alongside-demand-in-city-s--it--borough/

Nothing new in general except more precise statistics that concern Brooklyn only.

Brooklyn is leading the city's population boom. Since the 2010 Census, more than 87,000 people moved to the borough, marking a record high of nearly 2.6 million residents.

"Everyone from hipsters moving to Williamsburg to people emigrating from China and other nations in Asia and Latin America," says Romalewski.

They're coming from other states.

According to a report by the Ideal Properties Group that looked at Brownstone and North Brooklyn neighborhoods, 21 percent of new tenants came from Connecticut, 17 percent from California and 10 percent from New Jersey.

The report found that the newcomers are young—59 percent are between 21 and 30 years old.

But in my experience, there are also a hell of a lot of new young Midwesterners in Brooklyn as well supported by their rich parents and they are a significant part of the problem too. They're a cancer that won't stop metastasizing. How the fuck is anyone not concerned by any of this?

At 7/13/14 11:37 PM, GoryBlizzard wrote:

But in my experience, there are also a hell of a lot of new young Midwesterners in Brooklyn as well supported by their rich parents and they are a significant part of the problem too. They're a cancer that won't stop metastasizing. How the fuck is anyone not concerned by any of this?

Just fucking leave the city and go upstate. I hear its cheap and they have all of what you want in urban decay and despair. Such as Buffalo, Rochester and Syracuse.

At 7/14/14 01:20 AM, ToddM wrote: Just fucking leave the city and go upstate. I hear its cheap and they have all of what you want in urban decay and despair. Such as Buffalo, Rochester and Syracuse.

I already said I would go upstate or somewhere in LI and never cross my state's borders if push comes to shove. I am also very familiar with all 3 cities you listed, as well as their suburbs. But saving NYC by means of getting rid of utterly privileged trash comes first. I happen to know a large number of the poorer areas throughout the entire state but I know deep down that anyone committed to let NYC go back in time, make sure it has a negative public perception as a dangerous place to live, and to spread the wealth is doing the right thing.

We've already talked about how developers of new luxury developments usually allocate only about 20% of their units to the less fortunate just to get huge tax breaks (and you know where that will lead...), and I've already said that it doesn't go anywere near far enough. 100% would be a better number. And like I also pointed out, people who live in those buildings are surrounded by ultra rich wastes of space.

What's more--we haven't even talked about the physical segregation of the rich vs. the poor in these new units. As in, different entrances depending on your social class. This obviously hearkens back to the Jim Crow era when there were colored fountains vs. white fountains, colored bathrooms vs. white bathrooms, sitting in the back of the bus...you know.

This is just addressing one particular building, but we should all be worried about the precedent being set here. Extell is likely going to have people following them, and class issues will never go away until we're more or less on the same, rather low, wavelength.

Relevant link: http://newsone.com/3040430/extell-poor-door/

At 7/14/14 01:50 AM, GoryBlizzard wrote: I already said I would go upstate or somewhere in LI and never cross my state's borders if push comes to shove. I am also very familiar with all 3 cities you listed, as well as their suburbs. But saving NYC by means of getting rid of utterly privileged trash comes first.

In other words, get rid of the bourgeoise and have the lowest common denominator just come on in a rot a city from the inside. Detroit has done just that for decades, look where they are now. I just love how people blame folks with money for actually having some degree of standards when it comes to rebuilding a city's image, and not turn it into a slum.

I happen to know a large number of the poorer areas throughout the entire state but I know deep down that anyone committed to let NYC go back in time, make sure it has a negative public perception as a dangerous place to live, and to spread the wealth is doing the right thing.

So in other words, you want to go back to the days where New York was a dingy crime-ridden place a la Detroit? This is not a good example of positive nostalgia, and you're killing your reputation as a city and as a resident of the city. Remember Detroit, East St. Louis, Youngstown that did what you suggested, and it all came tumbling down.

At 7/25/14 12:31 PM, orangebomb wrote: In other words, get rid of the bourgeoise and have the lowest common denominator just come on in a rot a city from the inside. Detroit has done just that for decades, look where they are now. I just love how people blame folks with money for actually having some degree of standards when it comes to rebuilding a city's image, and not turn it into a slum.

An exorbitant number of people that fall into the "lowest common denominator" you're referring to have lived here all their lives, whereas most of the bourgeoise are unwelcome invaders. Those invaders are the ones really rotting the city, because they're soul-suckers. Did you bother reading my last post regarding the new rich 33-story luxury condo in the UWS being developed by Extell with only about a fifth of those units specifically geared towards those making less money? As I said, and as the link says, the poor and the rich will each have separate entrances with the poor also banned from using the gym and swimming pool. This is real, modern-day segregationism that you can only blame on the unwelcome, elitist and growing wealthy population in this city.

Furthermore, those people wouldn't even be allowed to live in that building in the first place if the developer didn't get massive tax breaks from the city, which would make way for them to build more luxury units, making more money, and then the vicious cycle will continue.

We all know what ultimately happened to the Jim Crow laws down south, and the justifiable backlash against the money-grubbing executives or affluenza-inflicted trust fund adult babies will only intensify, and they will lose. And people that are on their side all over the world, like you, will also lose.

So in other words, you want to go back to the days where New York was a dingy crime-ridden place a la Detroit? This is not a good example of positive nostalgia, and you're killing your reputation as a city and as a resident of the city. Remember Detroit, East St. Louis, Youngstown that did what you suggested, and it all came tumbling down.

Correct. Also, guess what? The city is going to tumble down anyway, and as I've said the entire time, the sooner the better. Gentrification and urban decay usually alternate cyclically as can be seen throughout history. I just want it to expedite the whole process, and to a significant and prolonged degree. It's just a matter of time. Part of that is because of how vulnerable we are to massive hurricanes and that's something we cannot avoid no matter what. Another hurricane far more destructive than Sandy can be a chance for us to take our streets back. I saw how NYC could barely survive Sandy, especially from my perspective as a municipal worker. I hope I'm not the only one actually looking forward to the next hurricane, or series of hurricanes, and maybe some people will finally get the hint that seawalls are a waste of both taxpayer and private money, and that this city is not for the privileged.

At 7/25/14 01:19 PM, GoryBlizzard wrote: An exorbitant number of people that fall into the "lowest common denominator" you're referring to have lived here all their lives, whereas most of the bourgeoise are unwelcome invaders.

How are they unwelcome for doing a city a solid, if small favor by moving in and improving the standard of life? It's not their fault that a lot of those folks who live there all their lives there just can't better themselves for whatever reason.

Furthermore, those people wouldn't even be allowed to live in that building in the first place if the developer didn't get massive tax breaks from the city, which would make way for them to build more luxury units, making more money, and then the vicious cycle will continue.

Rich people have often lived in big cities in the past, I don't really see much of a difference then and now. Also, a well-managed city knows that type of clientele will pay more dividends in the long run because it improves the quality of life for both the city and the perception from the outside. There are plenty of examples on how gentrification have improved the city's reputation and the standards as a whole. Just because you personally don't like it doesn't mean that it's all bad.

We all know what ultimately happened to the Jim Crow laws down south, and the justifiable backlash against the money-grubbing executives or affluenza-inflicted trust fund adult babies will only intensify, and they will lose. And people that are on their side all over the world, like you, will also lose.

You can't compare Jim Crow laws to gentrification, one is discrimination due to skin color that was a holdover from days of slavery, the other is a general inevability in society that been around forever. If I didn't know any better, you either sound like a Communist, one of those dimwit OWS types who dares to compare that movement to the Civil Rights movement, or are just that fucking stupid. I'm trying my best not to be insultive to you, but ad nauseum opinions based off silly sentimentalism is getting annoying to debunk.

Correct. Also, guess what? The city is going to tumble down anyway, and as I've said the entire time, the sooner the better. Gentrification and urban decay usually alternate cyclically as can be seen throughout history.

So going back to the 70's and 80's level of decay is considered progress? That's disgusting.

eat the rich, fuck progress.

Fixed for great justice.

In other words, you are trying to justify your argument by letting your own city rot to the ground because of abstract principles and folks that you can't personally stand for doing something that is part of a process that you just said. I just can't stand that kind of logic with such a flimsy justification for progress, if you are that opposed to this kind of thing, then move away. Progress is an unflattering march, either step in line or get left behind, and you don't want to be left behind.

At 7/25/14 03:16 PM, orangebomb wrote: How are they unwelcome for doing a city a solid, if small favor by moving in and improving the standard of life? It's not their fault that a lot of those folks who live there all their lives there just can't better themselves for whatever reason.

Because they're invaders. Uninvited scum of the Earth. I don't let people into my apartment that I don't personally invite and people that make a choice to come to NYC uninvited should do so at their own peril. Also, improving the standard of life--really? There's a reason we say that there's a tale of two cities. The standard of life, if anything, has gotten far worse for people living on fixed incomes. People are normally in that position not because of their lack of intelligence, lack of education or work ethic, but because there are so many people out there that not everyone can be modern day robber barons. People that start businesses, big or small, need staff, otherwise, guess how much work gets done? Nothing. The staff are just as entitled to live comfortably as their bosses are, but because of almost completely unregulated capitalism, they can't.

Rich people have often lived in big cities in the past, I don't really see much of a difference then and now. Also, a well-managed city knows that type of clientele will pay more dividends in the long run because it improves the quality of life for both the city and the perception from the outside. There are plenty of examples on how gentrification have improved the city's reputation and the standards as a whole. Just because you personally don't like it doesn't mean that it's all bad.

A well-managed city should actually retain its charm and stay the way it is, or encourage people staring at us from the outer geographic limits to fuck off, either subtly or actively. I've said over and over again that a negative perception from the outside is better in the long run. We don't want anyone to move here because of space and class issues. Also, give me some examples that you're talking about, and furthermore, I want to hear from the people that feel squeezed out that have done nothing wrong except live the way they always had. That's what these "improvements" do--they screw innocent, hardworking, low-wage people who have done nothing wrong except not make enough money for reasons beyond their control.

You can't compare Jim Crow laws to gentrification, one is discrimination due to skin color that was a holdover from days of slavery, the other is a general inevability in society that been around forever. If I didn't know any better, you either sound like a Communist, one of those dimwit OWS types who dares to compare that movement to the Civil Rights movement, or are just that fucking stupid. I'm trying my best not to be insultive to you, but ad nauseum opinions based off silly sentimentalism is getting annoying to debunk.

Slavery, too, was considered inevitable throughout history--as it was one of the key driving forces for our economy as well as many other foreign economies. Many people were also born into it. The whole system kept large groups down, and obviously in the US, it was mostly blacks. Same with gentrification. It took a while, but most people eventually saw why it was a bad idea to enslave and later, segregate blacks. As I've illustrated, luxury developments are now segregating people based on their class. The poor people can't use the rich doors and are banned from using any of the health club perks. There's no doubt that this building in particular, and gentrification in general, are both analogous to the Jim Crow laws that we had in place. Unless at the very least, everyone takes in the same amount of money no matter what they do (at the very least on a local level), many of the issues we're seeing now will pop up over and over. Never think that gentrification is inevitable because with the right mix of policies, it can be reigned in.

So going back to the 70's and 80's level of decay is considered progress? That's disgusting.

After everything we've been through, it's not disgusting in any way. Even with litter and drugs everywhere, housing and rent prices go down, and native NYers on the lower end of the spectrum can enjoy a real quality of life. And the affluent newcomers bothered by that? They'll shoo like the annoying flies that they are, as they should, because we don't want them here. Most hipsters and greedy executives that come here are just opportunists that are willing to bounce from state to state. If someone else wants them, fine, but they'll soon find out there will be consequences.

In other words, you are trying to justify your argument by letting your own city rot to the ground because of abstract principles and folks that you can't personally stand for doing something that is part of a process that you just said. I just can't stand that kind of logic with such a flimsy justification for progress, if you are that opposed to this kind of thing, then move away. Progress is an unflattering march, either step in line or get left behind, and you don't want to be left behind.

That's really one of the few ways or perhaps the only way to proceed at this point. There is absolutely no justification for pushing people out in the name of "progress," especially when those people lack adequate support systems. There are many people here that have lived here for generations and as of pretty recently are finding it tougher to keep going--that is if they're lucky enough to still stick it out, which fewer people are. They have a thousand times more of a right to stay here than someone who has only been here for a day, a year, 2 years, 3 years, or let's just say less than 20 years. When I go outside, it's generally pretty easy to tell who's not from here and needs to be shipped back to their midwestern or southern dumps.