Thursday, September 13, 2007

Houses that aren't Crap


We decided to take a break from crap to bring you 2 houses in Flushing that aren't. (Sorry for the reflections)

19 comments:

Anonymous said...

very refreshing.

eamallc said...

Sorry Crapper. Close but no cigar. You didnt exactly pick the two best examples from Flushing. There is much better stuff to be found in the section of Flushing near Kissena Park and in Waldheim. Should have gone to Jamaica Estates or Forest Hills Gardens for the real deal. These are two very ordinary homes. The second home has gated windows like a prison,overgrown landscaping, a cheap add on/dormer on the roof, a satelite dish hanging above the doorway and wires hanging out the second floor window. The first house is not bad. Crapper your losing your touch. Start training your eyes.

Queens Crapper said...

This isn't my post, so perhaps it is you who needs to train his eyes.

Furthermore, there is always something "worse" or something "better." What's important is that it isn't crap. There's nothing wrong with ordinary.

JM said...

I'd take gated windows like a prison, overgrown landscaping, a cheap add on/dormer on the roof, a satelite dish hanging above the doorway and wires hanging out the second floor window over a new McMansion with those ridiculous columns in front or an uninspired blond brick box anyday of the week.

Anonymous said...

These are just ordinary, decent looking houses, at best. Some of the new houses that commenters here complain about are much nicer than these, especially the second house. These houses are fine but I would not want to see Queens filled with houses no better than these.

Anonymous said...

If "eamallc" would be less dismissive
and become a little better educated.....

despite the barred windows
that portico on the second home
couldn't be replaced today
without paying top dollar.....
if you could even find a qualified craftsman.

Anonymous said...

I don't understand the criticism of the houses pictured. Hooper said "houses that aren't crap." Clearly, these houses are not. He didn't call them "The most beautiful houses in Queens."

Anonymous said...

QC: You can please all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot please all the people all the time.

Caitlin B said...

I think that first house is darling. The garden gives it such character. I'm surprised at the negative remarks - these houses are certainly "not crap," and the taste factor is leaps and bounds higher than anything else in a large and growing part of the borough.

eamallc said...

There is old crap and there is new crap. Crap comes in many forms and its not just about architectural elements. Whether its new or old, what we are looking for is QUALITY! One of the houses is great, but the other one is clearly a pile of crap. However, with a coat of paint,removal of the cages over the windows,removal of the window and wall airconditioners, some landscaping,
removal of the cheap light fixture, removal of the satelite dish and some TLC, it could be a showplace. Crapper, I know its not yours, but you placed it on the front page.Your responsible.

Queens Crapper said...

I didn't paste it on the front page. You are mistaken. Hooper has access to this site just as I do.

Connie R said...

Two nicely constructed, typical homes in Flushing. The second one could use some help. I remember seeing a similar house with a spanish tile roof and shutters on the windows. The bars on the windows scare me. Makes me feel that Flushing in no longer a safe place.

Wine Crackers said...

Still better than the Fedders nightmares normally posted here. A nice break to cleanse the palette as it were.

I like the top house better. We need more of these breaks from crappiness, so QC and Hooper, thanks!

Anonymous said...

to the crew at the crapper website

stick to what you are good at

leave quality to the rest of us

Anonymous said...

the burn tool on photoshop works pretty well to tone down reflections in photos.

Anonymous said...

Got nothing better to talk about
than using photoshop's "burn tool" ?
C'mon....fella!

Anonymous said...

"Leave quality to the rest of us".....
why don't you post flix of your own personal picks?

Anonymous said...

I wasn't critiquing Hopper's photo, which is fine. I was only offering some friendly advice.

I know about fixing photos because the ones I take usually require a lot of fixing. So I don't think I'll be posting any pics of my own, as you suggest, unless people here are interested in viewing close-ups of my thumb that has a way of winding up in front of the lens on my hock-shop camera.

My thumb, with a trace of dirt beneath the jagged nail, is sort of interesting, though, from an aesthetic standpoint, in comparison to some of the posted crappy buildings.

So perhaps I will post pics after all sometime soon . . .

Carol said...

I like this house. This is old Flushing – no doubt about it. And I love old Flushing – Flushing North by Bowne Park – beautiful – so far most of the houses have not been destroyed by the new builders. Old tutors and colonials beautiful gardens old oak trees.

But what’s up with the big blonde rectangular boxes that are everywhere these days. And please someone tell why they have to put those huge columns on the new houses? These are then repeated in a smaller scale going down the steps usually. These houses are very spacious on the inside with large attractive kitchens – this I like – but the outside of these houses – horrible. Big windows on the new houses – love it – but, they usually put this absolutely huge crystal chandelier hanging for all the world to see in the front window and on top of the entrance door. If this ever fell, it would wipe out the entire family.

Then there’s the exterior chrome railings and gates with chrome front security doors on the old capes and ranches. What style is this supposed to be? If the chrome was used for the home’s interior, I would consider it modern – slick looking. But the outside – horrible.

JM said it perfectly for me!