Queens Central Forums

Queens Central Forums » Idle Chatter

1. 

   metrosexual
   Member
   ( me)

   God I hate these things!

   Why isn't someone doing something to stop the destruction of the homes in Forest Hills between 108th Street and the Grand Central Parkway.

   I understand that one of the homes that was destroyed was Al Jolson's old home.

   And they're building these really ugly, gaudy mansions in there place. They also try to maximize the land so that they can squeeze every bit of land out of the plots, removing all the grass. The whole thing becomes this disgusting brick and mortar, fenced in monstrosity.

   They're destroying the neighborhood. Doesn't anyone care?

   Posted 2 years ago #
2. 

   phatcat43
   Member
   ( me)

   Not Al Jolson!

   Some of the new houses look really nice, some are horribly ugly monstrosities. Mostly the problem is that they're too damn big for the lots.

   Posted 2 years ago #
3. 

   Steve
   Proprietor
   ( me)

   Nobody likes the McMansions, but unless you create a historic district -- which, let's face it, isn't happening -- there's really no way to prevent them. Though the Jolson house probably should have been saved. That's really too bad.

   Posted 2 years ago #
4. 

   FHGuy
   Member
   ( me)

   Metrosexual

   I don't like the McMansions either, but I don't agree that they are "destroying" the neighborhood. There is only a small area of FH on the North side of Queens Boulevard that still has single-family homes. The remainder of the North side consists of apartment buildings that range from 6 stories to over 15 stories tall (taller if you include Kennedy House and the Pinnacle).

   I don't think there is much of a single-family neighborhood left to destroy. In fact, I often wonder why developers haven't tried to buy up the houses that are within walking distance to the 71st/Continental station and build condos. I'm not saying that all of the houses should disappear, but the area you are talking about is not a pristine low-density area and it hasn't been one for a long time.

   Posted 2 years ago #
5. 

   metrosexual
   Member
   ( me)

   FHGuy:

   Actually I'm not talking about the buildings on Queens Boulevard and in the immediate area which consist of apartment buildings. I am well aware of those buildings as I live in one of them.

   I am talking about an oasis of single family homes which people from the high desnsity area can enjoy. It would be a terrible loss to the whole neighborhood to lose this respite from the high density area. One of the key features of our neighborhood, has been the ability to get away from the high density housing and enjoy the bucolic small greenbelt of the area nearby the Grand Central Parkway.

   This is an valuable asset to our neighborhood and expanding the area of high density housing would constitue a serious blow to the quality life of all Forest Hills residents. Every Forest Hills resident has a stake in perserving this very unique and wonderful part of our neighborhood.

   Posted 2 years ago #
6. 

   foodie
   Member
   ( me)

   I have to agree with you. I know there's nothing that can be done, but it's my impression that a new wave of ultra-rich Forest Hillsers with no respect for the neighborhood's history are moving in.

   The almighty buck speaks louder than anyone else.

   Posted 2 years ago #
7. 

   FHGuy
   Member
   ( me)

   "One of the key features of our neighborhood, has been the ability to get away from the high density housing and enjoy the bucolic small greenbelt of the area nearby the Grand Central Parkway."

   Sorry, I'm still not convinced. I'm not aware of anyone in the neighborhood actually using the area you are talking about as a place to take a walk. And describing the area as "bucolic" is a bit of a stretch. In my opinion, nothing of much value would be lost by converting the area in question into apartment buildings. As I said before, with the value of real estate increasing in FH, I would not be surprised if some of the homes on the North Side close to 71st/Continental were bought by developers in order to build more apartment buildings.

   Don't get me wrong, there are definitely areas of FH should be preserved as low-density areas, like the Gardens. But I think that we should be careful when using words like "destroying the neighborhood". Trying to preserve something that no longer exists in that part of FH does not make any sense. It also gives people outside of FH the impression that we are against reasonable and sensible development that will improve our neighborhood.

   Posted 2 years ago #
8. 

   peterd
   Member
   ( me)

   I don't mind that the new houses are big, but I also don't mind the area remaining a stretch of single-family houses (even if big). I just wish the new houses weren't so darn gaudy. I mean really freakishly laughably gaudy. What's up with that? Why is Forest Hills attracting so many people with money to burn, yet without a molecule of taste?

   Posted 2 years ago #
9. 

   DaveS
   Member
   ( me)

   ditto peterd.

   some of those houses that were torn down were actually quite nice. I have been passing the shell of a nice tudor that will soon be replaced by a giant pinkish brick fortress. The problem with the size of these new turd boxes is that they build these things to the edge of the property and pave over whatever grass or greenery that might be left.

   Posted 2 years ago #
10. 

    hordonc
    Member
    ( me)

    Why on earth would people rip up beautiful trees and replace them with concrete? "Craptastic" is the only word that seems to describe these homes. I feel sorry for the people in the Cord Meyer section of FH and Kew Gardens that watch as these monstrosities are built next to their beautiful old tudors and colonials.
    I know you cannot legislate taste but these great old neighborhoods have been permanently ruined.

    Posted 2 years ago #
11. 

    peterd
    Member
    ( me)

    Yeah, you can't legislate taste. But I wish we could legislate house-building counseling.

    I have this funny thought that preservationists 50 years from now are going to declare that area a historic district. "The nation's foremost example of turn-of-the-century indigenous Queens style" they'll say...

    Posted 2 years ago #
12. 

    foodie
    Member
    ( me)

    Aren't there building guidelines? I know in one of my old neighborhoods, there's some kind of community organization that fines particular homeowners if they, say, paint their house magenta. There aren't any homeowner associations with any rules?

    Posted 2 years ago #
13. 

    msforesthills
    Member
    ( me)

    I noticed there seems to be more and more drainage problems in a lot of parts of Forest Hills. Especially during/after a lot of rain. Covering what was once grass/lawns with cement is really bad. Just the last few years I started noticing more and more streets having drainage problems. Not to mention contributing to increase in temperature in the neighborhood during the summer.

    I think a lot of those new houses are not up to building codes. I am sure some are adhering to the codes but we should really all just call 311 on houses that have a ton of violations. I hear a lot of complaints from neighbors of people building monster houses that they encroaching into people's lots. They are building massive brick walls that steps into neighbor's land. That's not right. We need to file complaints instead of watching it go by.

    Posted 2 years ago #
14. 

    metrosexual
    Member
    ( me)

    Looks like the 'White House' is the latest causality of the Cord Meyer redevelopment onslaught.

    I'm referring to the home located on 110th and 68th Road that is white with pink shutters. Everyone I know always liked that place and its a shame to see it be destroyed. Unfortunately they will definitely replace it with another gaudy McMansion. It really seems that the politico's in this area are in cahoots with the developer's. I know in Riverdale, the local politicians there were fighting this type of redevelopment.

    Posted 2 years ago #
15. 

    LarryB
    Member
    ( me)

    While still a monstrosity, a house is coming together which looks to be in pretty good taste on 112th and 69th something. Not so sure about the precinct style lights, but pretty classy overall in my opinion. Great roof with really nice brickwork and no huge corner blocks. Can't say the same thing about the house right next door to it going up.

    Posted 2 years ago #
16. 

    Speedbird
    Member
    ( me)

    What is going on with all these houses looking like Mideveil Times (the restaurant). Why does Forest Hills look like the Kremlin?

    The only part of Forest Hills that remains "sane" is the gardens. I live on 108th and can't stand these TACKY houses anymore. There is NOWHERE to walk without seeing all of this CRAP. This area is turning into shit. I HATE it.

    Posted 2 years ago #
17. 

    FHGuy
    Member
    ( me)

    Speedbird, get a grip. Your flair for exaggeration is admirable, but your statements are simply ridiculous.

    Yes, there are a few large houses that have been built in FH that are not that pretty. But there are still plenty of places to walk around in FH that are perfectly nice and pleasant. Go a few blocks to the east of 108th to the area between 71st Avenue and 72nd Drive and there are tree-lined streets with tasteful 6-story apartment buildings. Go to the South Side between Ascan and 75th Avenue and there are beautiful pre-war buildings like Holland House, Wakefield and others on quiet side streets. Walk along Austin Street for great shopping and the active bustle of city life.

    As I have said in a previous comment, the area where the McMansions are going up (Cord Meyer) is not anything that special that it needs to be preserved. Forest Hills is predominantly an urban area and I think this is as it should be. In my opinion, the suburban parts of FH (other than the Gardens) do not add anything to the neighborhood and trying to preserve them as low-density serves no purpose.

    Posted 2 years ago #
18. 

    West
    Member
    ( me)

    Speedbird, your comments were addressed by metrosexual in a previous post, so we'll leave it at that.

    I disagree with the claim that suburban parts of FH do not add anything to the neighborhood. The unique character of FH is the availability of both apartment and low density housing in close proximity to Manhattan. The area was specifically planned this way, and thus should be preserved. I'm not sure how a McMansion or another slipshod multiple unit dwelling would add purpose to the neighborhood.

    If dense, more urban-like settings are what you desire, places like Flushing, Woodside, Kew Gardens, and LIC have a supply of co-ops/condos, and new builds. Very much like FH. Often at better prices with convenient access to mass transit.

    You'd have to ask yourself, why did you choose FH?

    Posted 2 years ago #
19. 

    Michael1
    Member
    ( me)

    There's only one purpose in multiple unit dwellings: increased density. Sell them as a whole for the real estate to make a huge gain, forcing the new owner to sell off the other parts of the duplex. As for those McMansions, I'm still stuck on a couple things: why would you tear down a single family house to build a single family house. Money is just thrown away for demolition costs and you end with the same type of unit you started, just bigger, uglier but with a higher market value. Yeah, I mentioned higher market value, but how much of a profit are the developers making, when you factor in buying the old house, demolition and reconstruction?

    metrosexual mentioned politicos in cahootes with developers? How so?

    Posted 2 years ago #
20. 

    QueensCrapper
    Member
    ( me)

    "I'm still stuck on a couple things: why would you tear down a single family house to build a single family house."

    Why do you have to tear the house down at all? Why not live in it?

    Posted 2 years ago #
21. 

    QueensCrapper
    Member
    ( me)

    "Yes, there are a few large houses that have been built in FH that are not that pretty. But there are still plenty of places to walk around in FH that are perfectly nice and pleasant."

    Until the developers discover that area and rip it down as well.

    Posted 2 years ago #
22. 

    FHGuy
    Member
    ( me)

    Hey Crap, don't you have your hands full running your own anti-all-development blog? Your "all development is bad development" line is not going to fly on Queens Central. Here on Queens Central, there are actually people who support reasonable development and realize that it is the key to the improvement and progress of Queens. And unlike your blog, people here can actually disagree with each other without infantile cursing, ranting and name-calling.

    Posted 2 years ago #
23. 

    foodie
    Member
    ( me)

    FHGuy, for what it's worth, I am a fan of both your blog and QueensCrap's blog. But a lot of Queens residents really do QueensCrap's support his vision of a non-corrupt, sustainably developed Queens, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

    Posted 2 years ago #
24. 

    Michael1
    Member
    ( me)

    Not all development is bad development. It's just that the common trend is to tear down something that doesn't need to be torn, only to be replaced by something less appealing aesthetically (an environmentally-friendly but that's another story). This develops an "all development is bad development" mentality which doesn't necessarily apply to every single site in Queens. For example, what's going up on Kew Gardens Road across from the cemetary. They're actually making an effort to abide by the zoning laws, even the Tudor nature of Kew Gardens near Lefferts; I saw who's working the job and the permits.

    I like Queenscrap.com. A grey brick house is just an architectural sin.

    Posted 2 years ago #
25. 

    FHGuy
    Member
    ( me)

    Foodie, I actually don't have a blog but thanks for the compliment.

    And as for the Queens Crap blog, I've said this before--I just don't see anything positive about the discussion that goes on there. It's supposed to be about "overdevelopment" and instead it's become the anti-all-development blog. The level of discussion is about the same as a group of kids in a sandbox. If the Crap blog was a place where there was intelligent discussion taking place about what "overdevelopment" really means, I think it would be useful and beneficial to Queens residents. Instead, that blog is a forum for narrow-minded people who want to stop all new residential development so that they can keep Queens looking like it did fifty years ago.

    As an example, just look at the comment the Crap blog owner just posted above. Developers are not "ripping" down buildings all over FH. Far from it. There is no "overdevelopment" going on in FH. The first new building to be built in over 10 years was the Windsor. There is now one more building (Novo64) going up in FH (really, the outer edge of FH). I wouldn't call two new buildings in 10 years "overdeveopment". There was also just a down-zoning approved for the southern part of FH around Metropolitan Avenue--the area of FH that is most like the suburbs. Is there any mention of this in the Crap blog owner's comment above? Of course not. Because it wouldn't fit into his/her hyperbole about all of Queens being overrun by "overdevelopment".

    Posted 2 years ago #
26. 

    Uther
    Member
    ( me)

    FH Guy: While I agree that Crap gets a bid repetitive, are there any new developments that you don't like?

    Posted 2 years ago #
27. 

    FHGuy
    Member
    ( me)

    Uther, yes there are some new developments that I don't like. But none of them are in FH. When one is proposed for FH that I don't like, I will be the first one to say so.

    Posted 2 years ago #
28. 

    West
    Member
    ( me)

    On the flip side of your reasoning. Not all people that oppose development are narrow-minded people who want to keep Queens like it did fifty years ago. I think the consensus understands that reasonable development can occur with preserving the existing character of a neighborhood. As Michael1 said, there are developers who make an effort to plan with the neighborhood in mind. Extremely rare, but they exist. I think it is the "in your face", and "we'll do as we please" attitudes that we take offense to.

    Neighborhoods all over the city, especially the most desirable ones, seek to preserve its character. Why should FH be different?

    From your comments, progress should come at the expense of replacing low density housing. After all, it is no longer the 50's.

    Posted 2 years ago #
29. 

    flocat
    Member
    ( me)

    I agree with you, West -- it's the "in your face" attitude that is objectionable.

    My father was an architect (at Harrison & Abramowitz) and when I was a kid he always told me that architects had to consider the setting and try to fit into it beautifully; this was part of his training. That concept seems to have disappeared.

    Posted 2 years ago #
30. 

    Michael1
    Member
    ( me)

    My professor said that only 8% of the buildings built in New York City, today, are created by architects. I don't think the concept has disappeared, just the architects.

    Posted 2 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.