• Development
• Forest Hills
• Real Estate
• Religion

• Log in
• Register
• RSS for this post's comments

Comments

• actually what they are doing in paving over lawns is on violation of the zoning but good luck getting anyone to enforce it. Sure in Tajikistan they don’t have grass and their land is in a shambles. They come here and continue the trend.

  Posted by kgresident
  on July 5th, 2008 at 2:01 pm

• While I don’t like the look of many of the new houses being built, I think this article has several misrepresentations in it. First of all, they make it seem like these new houses are taking over the entire neighborhood, which they are not. They also make it seem like the entire area north of Queens Boulevard consists of singe-family homes. They totally ignore the fact that there is a large area adjacent to Cord Meyer that has many co-op buildings that range from 6 stories to 30 stories.

  As I’ve said before on the forums, I don’t think it would be a big loss if more apartment buildings were built to replace many of the homes in the Cord Meyer area. Forest Hills is not a suburb, it is part of NYC. I don’t see the benefit of trying to preserve the Cord Meyer area like it is a suburb. In my opinion, most of the houses don’t have any architectural significance.

  Posted by FHGuy
  on July 5th, 2008 at 2:41 pm

• That new home looks nice. Though whether it is my style or not is another question altogether . True luxury at its finest with a fancy Benz.

  Just one question, what does the owner do for a living which is bringing in that much cash?

  Posted by HSBC
  on July 5th, 2008 at 3:29 pm

• http://www.notsobighouse.com/

  PRETTY PLEASE
  THANK YOU

  Posted by mb
  on July 5th, 2008 at 8:12 pm

• HSBC that house does NOT look nice. These people are destroying the grass and the trees in the neighborhood turning it into a concrete jungle where once that area was primarily green. FHGuy, I understand your point, but please remember that the area that the NYTimes is writing about is the Cord Meyer area where there were small single family homes, not all of the area North of Queens Blvd. Unfortunately though Mickie is right, the NY Times has taken up the cause way too late. This is really an sad situation. The homeowners should be forced to dig up their driveways and return the land to their previous state, given that what they are doing is creating problems for the rest of us in the way of flooding.

  Posted by Bill
  on July 6th, 2008 at 11:23 am

• At the very least there should be a special McMansion tax to help pay for a fund out of which upgrades to the storm drain system will occur and repairs and compensation will be paid to people who have lost money as a result of flooding.

  Posted by Bill
  on July 6th, 2008 at 11:26 am

• As discussed before, Forest Hills was purposely planned to include a mix of both dense apartment living and sparse “suburban-like” properties. The fact that a small community of private homes exist in close proximity to mass transit and the city is what helps distinguish the area. Feel free to consult any FH realtor of your choice. See how they sell the Forest Hills neighborhood.

  Forest Hills is not a suburb. Correct. It certainly is not a metropolis of apartment buildings either. However, if you wanted either, you would find it here.

  Posted by West
  on July 8th, 2008 at 10:58 am

• This is why Queens will never be catch up to Brooklyn in so many ways. These houses make me want to puke and cry and ruin my neighborhood strolls.

  Posted by H
  on July 8th, 2008 at 4:23 pm

• Couple of comments:

  1. Thanks for all the contributions!
  2. FHGuy - I agree with West: The SAT analogy test of of “suburb: houses/urban:apartment buildings” does not hold true. The concepts are not mutually exclusive. Besides, everything east of Brooklyn Heights and Astoria was basically “suburban” or “rural” until about 60 years ago. Look at Jackson Heights, parts of Jamaica, Pelham Parkway, parts of Riverdale, Kensington and Park Slope, just to name a few examples. There is a mix of both types of buildings in those areas.
  3. My spouse is an architect, and we perused the “not so big house” book this weekend. The ideas seem to be pretty standard and commonplace for maximizing small spaces. The DW uses those techniques all the time.
  4. Re: Brooklyn - sorry to break it to you, but the same McMansion invasion has already started on Ocean Parkway, Brighton Beach, Coney Island, Canarsie and other “bedroom communities” in Brooklyn. So when you say we’ll always be behind Brooklyn, either you might mean only the trendy areas of Brooklyn or you might mean, “we’ll never get as many McMansions as they have!”

  Posted by Mickie T
  on July 8th, 2008 at 4:37 pm

• i was reading an article on the happiest nation in the world - DENMARK. at the end the article concluded the danes are the happiest not because they have a big house, big car, big job but because they DON’T have big expectations. what does this tell us?

  and another thing

  the country i grew up in is very big on recycling as well as everything grown “organic”. we had a class in highschool that taught us how to compost, how to separate and recycle to a point where no waste was left. oh, and gas was always 4 times more expensive than in this country and still his. when i came here 11 years ago i was amazed how these things were/are a non-issue. things are changing now i guess, hope it’s not too late.

  Posted by mb
  on July 8th, 2008 at 8:25 pm

• MickieT and West: Neither of you have explained how the Cord Meyer houses have any architectural significance. Also, just because Forest Hills has had a mix of apartment buildings and single-family homes for a long time doesn’t mean that this is how the neighborhood should stay forever. At one time, FH only had single-family homes. Neighborhoods are supposed to evolve and progress. The fact that FH is part of NYC argues even more strongly for more dense development.

  Posted by FHGuy
  on July 8th, 2008 at 9:08 pm

• The houses on the north side of QB are examples of Tudor and Colonial styles, which are very traditional examples of “Americana” . They are architecturally significant because of their era, charm and scale. They are humble and welcoming. They have examples (outside the borders of the FH Gardens) of hand-crafted artistic elements, such as stained glass panels, that are neither ostentatious nor flimsy. They demonstrate how a homeowner in New York City can own a house with tasteful decorative elements and still hop on the subway to go to Midtown. The lawns, trees and greenery are also to scale with the houses. The mix of single family homes and apartment buildings in this area creates a nice visual balance, and allows exposure to sky, sunshine and air flow, unlike densely developed areas of Manhattan.

  Now, it’s your turn, FHGuy. You did not explain why an urban area must be dense with only apartment buildings, like Manhattan. Why does that equal progress and modernity? You also did not explain why you think that suburbs have only single family houses. You did not explain why the presence of so many single family homes in Queens makes it so much like a suburb. I admit, I’ve never lived in a suburb, so please explain where you’re coming from.

  Jamaica Estates, Douglaston, Bayside, Kew Gardens, Fresh Meadows, etc are dominated by single family homes, and they are all well within the boundaries of NYC. What’s your opinion on those nabes?

  Finally, you didn’t explain why neighborhoods within the NYC borders (or in any city, for that matter) should not have a mix of building types.

  Posted by Mickie T
  on July 9th, 2008 at 12:01 am

• There are usually designated places for denser development, and I don’t think it should be at the expense of a vibrant, successful community.

  If property value is a concern to you, I would suggest pricing some of the FH properties in question. People seem to be paying a premium for these “single family homes” which do not fit in your criteria of evolution and progress. Would their premium have an effect on nearby co-op and neighborhood values as a whole? I tend to think so.

  It wouldn’t be unreasonable to think if FH haphazardly replaced it’s lower level structures for more dense development, it wouldn’t be any different from other mass transit hub neighborhoods. If you don’t think the character of the neighborhood matters, I’d like to hear reasons why you didn’t buy in other areas with similar demographics.

  Posted by West
  on July 9th, 2008 at 1:30 am

• I believe Mickie T and West hit it all on the head. There are areas that are appropriate for density, and areas that are not. KG and FH have always attracted certain folks who wanted easy access to the City (Manhattan) but did not want to live with the high density. The old adage of just because you can doesn’t mean you should holds very true here.

  I think that FHGuy is missing that these areas are not being rezoned for higher density. They are having out of context and over sized single family homes being built. This discussion is not about building apartment buildings. As far as architectural interest, the Landmarks Preservation Commission deems something of architectural significance if it signifies a time and has a sense of place. It is not necessarily something that may be specialized, such as a tudor or Georgian, etc. If the community was developed with a certain look to it, that is of architectural interest. Hell, Levitt homes are not considered lovely little gems that should be saved. Obviously 40 years ago, they were not considered as such.

  I would say that the above ugliness will not engender the same feelings 40 years from now. The mishmash of styles does not age well as it has no real sense of anything.

  Posted by kgresident
  on July 9th, 2008 at 10:48 am

• I never said that Forest Hills housing should be all apartment buildings. I’m OK with a mix of apartment buildings and single-family homes. But FH will always have its share of single-family homes. FH Gardens can never be touched and the area south of the Gardens was recently down-zoned so that apartment buildings can never be built there. In my opinion, those two parts of FH have enough single-family homes to ensure that FH will always have a mix housing types. Because of this, I fell there is no need to try to preserve the Cord Meyer area as an area which only has single-family homes. As I have said, I don’t feel that Cord Meyer really adds any real character to the neighborhood.

  Posted by FHGuy
  on July 10th, 2008 at 8:53 pm

• Just to clarify, when I say, “mix of buildings”, I guess I’m using the “M&Ms” usage - all types in one area, like a mix of colors in M&M’s or Skittles. To me, a mix of M&Ms is not having one bowl of red M&Ms over here and one bowl of yellow M&Ms over there, etc. So, a “mix of buildings” means having different types of buildings next to each other, such as on 112th Street, near 71st Avenue - where you have large apartments (e,g, the St. Moritz) and single-family houses next to each other.

  Posted by MickieT
  on July 11th, 2008 at 9:15 am

• There is a shortage of suitable development property in FH, and getting rid of the Cord Meyer area for more apartment buildings is not the answer.

  And to clarify, there are not only single family homes in the area. I think you mean houses in general.

  Clearly, there is a demand for these houses judging by their prices. You also assume that everyone prefers to live in an apartment. Nearly every major city that I know of has mixed housing types outside of the urban center. To reiterate, the fact that FH offers both near a major transit hub is a large part of the appeal.

  The question, again, is why did you buy in FH? There are plenty of neighborhoods that have a predominance of apartment buildings, with close proximity to mass transit, often at competitive prices.

  Posted by west
  on July 11th, 2008 at 11:26 am

• I guess West hasn’t noticed that I keep ignoring his question about why I live in FH. That’s because the issue I brought up is whether Cord Meyer should be preserved as a single-family home area. The reason(s) why I live in FH have nothing to do with the issue I brought up about Cord Meyer.

  Posted by FHGuy
  on July 12th, 2008 at 11:41 am

• Why ignore the question? It is a perfectly valid question in regards to your argument for dense development in FH or the Cord Meyer area. Your answer to the question may help explain why you chose to buy here, but feel it should become more dense like other neighborhoods.

  You feel compelled to give other people grief over mundane issues like diners, burnt pizza, overhyped bars and bakeries, but you won’t answer a simple question when the answer may not be convenient for you. If you make controversial statements, be prepared to answer for them.

  Posted by West
  on July 12th, 2008 at 5:43 pm

• West - sorry, I can support FHGuy’s response in part. Opinions about where you live may have nothing to do with why you live there. But, since you live there, you might as well have opinions!

  I also did not move here for the pizza, building mix, restaurants, etc. I moved here because we found an amazing real estate deal. I grew up a mile from here, and I never in a gazillion years thought I would do a “Welcome Back, Kotter.” In fact, I was incredibly happy in Park Slope for 15 years, and I really, really, really didn’t want to move back here at all. But, you know, life is funny that way.

  No matter where I live, I’m interested in my community. Just like I was in Brooklyn, I follow what’s going on in my nabe. And here, McMansions, dining, commerce, street culture and housing stock are hot issues that are critical to the neighborhood identity.

  Personally, I think there’s a LOT to be desired here, and sorry, local FoHi places are not at the top of my go-to list either. But, by writing to companies I want to see plant roots here, by writing to local elected officials, or getting involved in bicycle promotion, stray cat rescue or whatever, I feel that I can improve the area. The old saying goes, “If you’re not a part of the solution, you might be a part of the problem.” So, step away from the computer and get out there.

  Posted by Mickie T
  on July 12th, 2008 at 9:23 pm

• Mickie, it was an attempt to understand why such a vocal proponent of density chose an area known for mixed housing types…..and is so adamant about altering it. There was clear bias against private homes in favor of large scale development.

  Posted by West
  on July 13th, 2008 at 2:51 am

• Mickie, thanks for your support. Some people are more interested in holding a grudge based on my prior comments than having a real discussion. And, by the way, I don’t think my statement about Cord Meyer is “controversial”. I think there are a lot of FH residents that support reasonable development. Just because West doesn’t agree with my statement, that doesn’t make it “controversial.”

  Posted by FHGuy
  on July 13th, 2008 at 12:42 pm

• Typical FHGuy response. When you don’t have an answer, or are called on your remarks, you try to ignore the issue or claim no one else but you are capable of having a real discussion.

  When you are capable of having an open-minded discussion, you might learn about or even appreciate other people’s opinions.

  Posted by West
  on July 14th, 2008 at 2:05 am

• Funny how the first people to accuse others of not listening to their opinion are the people with the closed minds. I read, understood and responded to both Mickie and West’s opinions. I stated my disagreement and gave my reasoning behind it. Instead of responding to my opinion, West chose to ask me an irrelevant question about why I chose to live in FH. When I did not answer this question, West called my statement “controversial” and re-hashed some old comments that I’d made in the past. It is obvious that West is not interested in the opinion I expressed about Cord Meyer and is only interested in his own opinion and criticizing me for comments I made in the past that he didn’t agree with.

  Posted by FHGuy
  on July 14th, 2008 at 9:31 pm

• “I think there are a lot of FH residents that support reasonable development. ”

  LOL, the problem is, no one can agree on what is “reasonable development!” Too subjective. For example, replacing small quaint houses in the Cord Meyer area with tall apartment buildings is not my idea of reasonable development. On the other hand, taking down one of the new McMansions and turning the space into a community garden would be perfectly reasonable, imho!

  Posted by Mickie T
  on July 14th, 2008 at 10:16 pm

• Again, the question is perfectly valid. By your statements, you believe that FH should not be identified as a suburb, and should change to see more density….specifically, the rezoning of the Cord Meyer area. The question was to understand why you bought in an area that you believe should be more dense, when the existing character is not. There really is no right or wrong answer, and as Mickie has pointed out, could be a variety of reasons.
  Instead, you chose to ignore and avoid discussion of controversial remarks that you have made. The last I checked, preserving the character of the Cord Meyer area has been a controversial topic. Since you have been vocal about the matter….guess what? Your comments are controversial.
  Trying to understand reasoning to an opposing viewpoint is having an open mind. Hence the question. Ignoring the issue is not.

  Posted by West
  on July 15th, 2008 at 1:40 am

• West says that he has an open mind but at the same time says I gave people “grief” in my prior comments, that my opinion about Cord Meyer is “controversial” and that I have a “clear bias against private homes in favor of large scale development.” Note that West decided my opinion is “controversial” because he doesn’t agree with it and that the bias he’s talking about doesn’t exist–I specifically said that I’m OK with a mix of single-family homes and apartment buildings and that there will always be single-family homes in FH Gardens and the area south of the Gardens. For someone with an open mind, he has a funny way of showing it.

  Posted by FHGuy
  on July 15th, 2008 at 9:22 pm

• Let’s review:

  “I don’t think it would be a big loss if more apartment buildings were built to replace many of the homes in the Cord Meyer area.”

  “Forest Hills is not a suburb, it is part of NYC.”

  “just because Forest Hills has had a mix of apartment buildings and single-family homes for a long time doesn’t mean that this is how the neighborhood should stay forever.”

  “Neighborhoods are supposed to evolve and progress. The fact that FH is part of NYC argues even more strongly for more dense development.”

  Bias and controversy? Noooo way!

  Posted by West
  on July 16th, 2008 at 1:19 am

• West seems to think that repeating the same untrue statements over and over will make them true. It is only his opinion that my statements about Cord Meyer are “biased” and “controversial”. I could just as easily call his opinion that Cord Meyer should be preserved “biased” and “controversial”. After he takes a poll of all FH residents and finds that his is the majority opinion and mine is the minority opinion, then he may be able to accurately call my statements “controversial”. Until then, he is just showing how biased and closed-minded he is by characterizing my statements in that way.

  Posted by FHGuy
  on July 17th, 2008 at 8:44 pm

• Ok, enough already!

  Look, let’s settle this the old-fashioned way: Whoever can lift the largest stone lion over their head and walk back and forth across Queens Boulevard at Yellowstone Boulevard first, wins.

  If there aren’t any additional comments about the actual subject at hand, I’ll close this thread.

  Posted by Mickie T
  on July 17th, 2008 at 11:12 pm

• Your statements speak for themselves. But since you insist on being contentious:

  You don’t need a poll or a survey to figure out the Cord Meyer area zoning is a controversial topic. Perhaps the recent efforts to rezone the area are fictional and imaginary, and the rezoning just happened for no particular reason.

  Your whole FH = NYC = more density reasoning is controversial. Not everyone wants more density in FH. I think some would be against. Controversial.

  Read your statements again. You support apartment buildings in Cord Meyer, and believe it should replace the houses. You are biased against one for another.

  You have made biased and controversial statements. Is this still unclear?

  And to further note, you have ceased to treat this as a discussion. When you are not addressing the other parties directly, you are just making subjective statements to an audience who may or may not exist or care. Judging by the participation, it seems more like not.

  Careful though, FHGuy. It almost sounds like ranting.

  Posted by West
  on July 18th, 2008 at 9:52 am

• Mickie, please do not close this thread on the account of this exchange. The matter is still vague related. If posts were closed due to straying off the main topic, this forum would have about 2-3 posts.

  I’d like to learn more about the lion contest. It sounds like an easier (and more civil) way to settle things.

  Posted by West
  on July 18th, 2008 at 10:53 am

• Mickie, it’s fine with me if you want to close the thread. I should have known from past experience that it is a waste of time and energy to try to have a real discussion about any issue with West.

  Posted by FHGuy
  on July 18th, 2008 at 8:36 pm

• Of course it’s a waste of time if it doesn’t fit FHGuy’s agenda. Only he is capable of conducting a real discussion.

  Posted by West
  on July 19th, 2008 at 1:29 pm

Post a Comment