"My neighborhood is so auTHENtic. People get, like, mugged here."

 

Cited for Sale

A map of Bushwick's new razorwired palaces, by Erica Lies

In rapidly changing New York neighborhoods, converted warehouses are easy to spot. One only needs to look up to find them.   New windows on top floors give them away, their shiny white sills carefully sealed for best insulation. By now the story of these warehouses is a familiar one. The expansive and inexpensive spaces attract artists. By virtue of being more visible, the artists raise the area's cultural capital, shifting neighborhoods once thought of as dangerous, bleak environs to edgy artistic enclaves.   Recognizing the opportunity to suck capital into investment, developers move in to renovate and create more housing. Rent rises as a result. The neighborhood is deemed officially improved. The question is, for whom?  

This is oversimplifying a complex process, of course, but the change is visible in Bushwick, and the contrast between new residents and established ones is a sharp one. Census statistics from 2000 indicate that 81% of Bushwick households are comprised of families, with an average rate of 3.5 people per household, the highest of any community in New York City.  In 2000, a third of Bushwick's population (36.6%) received some form of public assistance; by 2004, the figure had risen to half (51.7%). If the number of residents receiving public assistance has risen, how has the neighborhood improved? With that in mind, let's consider a word problem, alå grade school math:  

If the low-end of rent for a two-bedroom in your neighborhood is $1300 a month, and the median household income in your area is $22,100, what sort of apartment can you likely afford if your household has four people, and groceries cost at least $100 a week?    

Answer: You should move.  

With new construction being tossed up on every corner, often without the proper approvals, it is important to ask how accountable developers are to the community and to tenants. The following map is a look at a two-block section of a rapidly changing part of Bushwick, also known as Brooklyn Community District Four. Most of the buildings highlighted here were previously occupied by garment manufacturers, therefore not directly displacing families, but the disparity in income between newcomers and those who have called Bushwick home during bleaker periods is extreme. The building numbers and street names have been changed to prevent attempts to use this research as an apartment-finding guide. All of the information contained herein was gathered through public records.

Bushwick's largest green space
Alleged Latin Kings' Gang Leader(s) Arrested, 2005

1.  

A New York Times article written on the renovation of this particular building claimed the architect had plans to include "a gym and parking in a multi-level lot, glass tile in the bathrooms and granite counters."   Sold in June 2004 for 1.9 million dollars, this building was a manufacturing space. Converted from two stories to five, work began in June 2005, without a permit. A stop work order was issued in November 2005 when a complaint was filed with the New York City Department of Buildings, stating that the additional three floors compromised the buildings' stability. Still zoned for Industrial use, the unfinished renovation does not seem to have been thwarted by building safety woes; the approved paperwork was filed in April of this year.   The resulting lofts and duplexes "with private courtyard" (oooh, aaah), will ease your mother's anxiety, while the corrugated metal façade will earn you street-cred with friends, "No, seriously, my new 'hood is authentic .   People get, like, mugged here."

2.  

Last sold in 1987, this building was converted from a warehouse to a building in the last 2 years. While this author couldn't turn up evidence of filed alteration paperwork, the building is now classified (by the Department of Finance, at least) as a loft building. Too bad building classifications based on tax status have nothing to do with whether or not the structure is legally zoned in the same category.

3.  

This building is for sale, actually. It's been a loft building for some time, but was cited in 2003 for residential use in a building zoned for industry. Again, this author could not find evidence on the NYC DOB website of permits being filed to have this rectified, but window dressings visible from outside indicate it's still in use as a residential space. Unless factory foremen have some penchant for linen window panels that I don't know about.

4.  

Still a garment factory only 3 years ago, this structure was last sold in 1998, and mortgaged at 2.9 million dollars. All the paperwork for legal building conversion is shockingly in order. But then, it should be. The resulting condo lofts are selling for $300-650K. Really. Why hello, Wall St.

5.  

No sale since 2000, though residents have grown accustomed to knocks on their doors with offers to buy. Too bad they don't own their apartments, particularly since the building was cited in 2004 for use as four residential apartments, rather than the light manufacturing that it's (still) zoned for.

6.  

An empty building a year ago, the renovation in this building sprung up like pus on a wound (complete with balconies!). Selling from $250 - 550K, the one, two and three bedroom apartments in this building are affordable--if you go by Manhattan standards. Do developers really think the ugly stucco they painted it with will succeed in renting out apartments? A sign hung across the front advertises "Condos/Medical Space." Regardless of how nice the inside may be, it gets my official Ugly Development award.

7.  

Another new building, not quite as ugly as number 6, this one sits in a parking lot an old roommate of mine once made the mistake of parking in front of. Her car was towed within minutes. While no one seems to be getting towed for parking out front anymore, the one extra parking space isn't going to make up for the number of spaces that will be needed for new tenants. And it certainly won't help out with an overcrowded morning commute. Oh, I forgot. Those who can afford these apartments aren't dragging themselves out of bed every morning at 7am, anyway. A McDonald's sign on the corner of the block reads, "Food stamps accepted."

8.  

Right off the subway exit that makes this location so popular, building 8 has had the same owner since 1980. If there are high rents (or even vacancies) in this building, they aren't being advertised. A drug related shooting here in May 2005 will keep the faint of heart on the other side of the street.  

9.

A giant sign has advertised lofts at this location for the last 2 years. Last sold in 1998, the price is unavailable, but property records indicate that it's been mortgaged for $2.5 million. Keeping with the trend of other converted warehouses on this stretch, it was cited in 2000 for illegal conversion and illegal occupancy. No action was taken when inspectors observed the building to be vacant, save for a clothing manufacturer. A mere two years later the building was cited again, this time for "Massive construction without a permit." The DOB's words, not mine. The stop work order was rescinded in March of 2006, but this author has taken note of residents coming and going for years now. With the earliest date of complaint, this building has the proud distinction of being the forerunner of unlawful residences on our top ten survey.

10.  

Aside from the "seconds from the train!" amenities that most of these building can claim, this one has one more to brag about: a grocery store. A friend once told me she loved her experience in here because the aisles, stacked to the ceiling with Goya products, made her feel like she was in Central America again. Despite changing ownership in the last couple of years, the store is still without an organic section, which probably explains why residents across the street still drag home Whole Foods and Trader Joe's bags.

All photos by the author