Our previous post entitled Crap on the Ranch chronicled two rare ranch houses in Middle Village in the process of demolition. They've now been replaced by these: 4 two-family (wink) houses with addresses ranging from 66-63 to 66-73 78th Street. Apparently there was one complaint for non-compliance with rear and side yard requirements, but the inspector found that the foundation was 90% complete and therefore vested, as if that makes it all okay.
Monday, July 28, 2008
A crap on the ranch - now complete
Our previous post entitled Crap on the Ranch chronicled two rare ranch houses in Middle Village in the process of demolition. They've now been replaced by these: 4 two-family (wink) houses with addresses ranging from 66-63 to 66-73 78th Street. Apparently there was one complaint for non-compliance with rear and side yard requirements, but the inspector found that the foundation was 90% complete and therefore vested, as if that makes it all okay.
35 comments:
These aren't so bad. The only thing I see that looks odd are those floating canopies over the front doors. Some decorative bracing might make them look a little less silly.
Let's move away from aesthetics. I would say 8 (more like 12) units where there were previously 2, in a community that found itself underwater last summer, is pretty bad. Plus, lack of front, side and backyards and parking. Bad, bad, bad and bad.
at least you can get slice at rosa's across the street
the house that was there before was pretty sweet
You people are not happy unless you are complaining. There is nothing wrong with these houses. This is a big piece of property and four nice, attached two-family homes are just fine. Not everyone wants Middle Village to be a poor man's Long Island. Should the prior owner not have been allowed to sell unless he cleared everything with Crapper?
"You people are not happy unless you are complaining."
Then why do you keep coming back to this blog, asshole?
"Not everyone wants Middle Village to be a poor man's Long Island."
Yes, turning the place into something resembling a third world country is some people's vision instead. And why exactly would have made keeping the ranch houses made MV look like a poor man's Long Island?
So the seller should have taken less money to keep Crapper happy? You think these houses look third-world? I think that says a lot about how jaded you are.
There was nothing wrong with the ranch house that was there, but there is nothing wrong with these houses either.
If you want a bunch of boring small houses with yards all around, go move to Plainview; why live in NYC?
Just so we understand each other: you think overdeveloping an area that already is afflicted with school overcrowding, shitty public transportation and electrical and sewer problems is a good idea and that paving over everything that was open space at one point is okay. I don't.
Let's not forget the built-in illegal apartments. on the ground floor.
"If you want a bunch of boring small houses with yards all around, go move to Plainview; why live in NYC?"
Are you saying that there should not be places where there are small houses with yards all around in NYC? Those are actually the houses with value. Forest Hills Gardens, Douglaston, Riverdale - worth millions of dollars. Your statements are quite ignorant.
If you want off-the-books income and temporary "guests" in your neighborhood, I would definitely agree that these are good for that.
Where is the stormwater runoff from this property going?
These are great for Middle Village! (I don't live there.)
It's funny how you don't live in Middle Village yet you know what's good for her.
why live in NYC?
is your point-- that all 5 boroughs look like Manhattan? where does this logic come from? and wasn't it just 1 ranch house on that lot, the other ranch house is still to the left of this mess. I think they swapped 1 house which had a huge piece of property for 4 "houses' and at least 10 times the number of people on the parcel.
It's funny how you don't live in Middle Village yet you know what's good for her.
I think that was sarcasm
When I move out, it won't be Plainview - it'll be way upstate, or better, to the Southwest, far far away from Bloomberg, Paterson, Cuomo, Marshall and their ilk. If I had been able to convince my wife, I'd be gone already. I do know the upstate house should be mine before the end of the year (with a little luck)
it was only 1 of the ranch houses that came down for this crap.
BTW interesting front page article in Bayside times about a local developer funding the campaign of Padavan's rival. No matter who you like it is interesting to see the developer's problem with Padavan, is Padavan has blocked attempts by this developer to build a huge dock into little neck bay for his private use, no matter the party the graft rolls on.
Where is the stormwater runoff from this property going?
straight down 78th street into that crap close out paradise $1 store at the end of the block
Since when is replacing single-family homes with multi-family homes ever a good idea for a neighborhood?
All your creating is a transient community. THAT is never a good idea. Not if you intend to raise a family in that community. Renters in Queens are never a good thing. I mean no offense out there. I was a renter myself for a while. However, a lot of renters just don't give a sh#@ about the area. And you just don't know who's really living in that three-family across the street from you.
So anyone who thinks these attached multi-family units are a great thing, then you need to have your head examined. These are not MY idea of the ideal home. That ideal is slowly slipping away in Queens. Who the hell wants to be attached to another family if they don't have to be with windows only in front of the house and in the back? Yuck!
Who the hell wants to be attached to another family if they don't have to be with windows only in front of the house and in the back?
most of what you said is correct, however most of the neighborhood is atttached houses. 4 homes for 1 never works out well attached or not.
No, the problem is not RENTERS. The problem is ABSENTEE LANDLORDS. If you are just owning the place as a cash cow and not living there yourself, that's when you tend to have problems. The BEST communities are always the ones with high owner occupancy.
But aren't most multi-family houses owned by an absentee landlords? Hasn't that been the trend? And don't these landlords rent to whoever? Not many people build a 2-or 3-family so THEY can live in it.
As I said before, renters suck. We need to have less of them not more.
No, the houses are usually sold individually, but the buyers live elsewhere and rent it as a source of second income. They do minimal repairs and come around maybe once a month to collect their rent checks.
But aren't most multi-family houses owned by an absentee landlords? Hasn't that been the trend?
only recently, if you look at some of the older 2/3 family homes( say 10 plus yrs old) you'll find most people bought them to live in one apartment and helppay the mortgage with the other. Lately however, with prices being out of sight it has actually been a less than stellar investment because the rent barely covered half the note so you needed to have a large amount of disposable income, in step developers who build monster projects to sell a portion and then own and rent out the other portion thus increasing your absentee landlord percentage.
what has also contributed to absentee ownership is second generation owners. Kids who grew up in a house that was paid off by the rent income, they move to Plainview apparently, and when mom and dad die, or retire elsewhere they leave the property to the kids who are now no longer concerned with the neighborhood just the free quick cash renting can provide them.
what has also contributed to absentee ownership is second generation owners. Kids who grew up in a house that was paid off by the rent income, they move to Plainview apparently, and when mom and dad die, or retire elsewhere they leave the property to the kids who are now no longer concerned with the neighborhood just the free quick cash renting can provide them.
Someone explain it to me:
If you want to invest in a property and buy a 1 million dollar 2-family, how in the world can you profit from this? I mean what kind of rents do your tenants need to pay so you can pay your mortgage? It makes no sense to me how real estate is a good investment nowadays. Definitely a long time ago, but I don't think so anymore.
you want to invest in a property and buy a 1 million dollar 2-family, how in the world can you profit from this?
exactly, that's why the absentee landlord issue is a more recent problem. a mortgage on a 1 million dollar house if you put 20% down you're looking at about 4800 a month plus, you have to pay to heat the place, so if you get 2200 (maybe) your losing money because if you had this kind of money it would be better invested else where.
It makes no sense to me how real estate is a good investment nowadays
because God's not making any more land. When the 2 families by hope were going for 150k people said you can never make your money back but...
"You people are not happy unless you are complaining. There is nothing wrong with these houses. This is a big piece of property and four nice, attached two-family homes are just fine. Not everyone wants Middle Village to be a poor man's Long Island. Should the prior owner not have been allowed to sell unless he cleared everything with Crapper?"
Thank god for ignorant people like you who can't do their math and who don't understand or care that 20+ people using infrastructure meant for 5-10 = a problem.
But I don't care about these problems in Queens, and I count on idiots like you to support my building craze. Thank you so much.
Its interesting that because the foundation was 90% vested he didn't have to correct violations. Until owners and builders are forced to remove violations this will continue. They will build at night and on weekend and hope they don't get caught before they are 90% vested. If rear and side yards are required that should be enforced!!
People put 300000 or more down on house like these and get 2000 a month rent per unit. They build them with separate heaters and hot water tanks and maybe even individual water meters. They get some kind of tax abatement and lo and behold they break out even. The tenants pay off the mortgage and in 25 years they have a house with no mortgage. By then the rents may be 4000 per unit. Remember when houses were selling for 75K and everyone thought they would never get to 100K. Back then rents were $300 and no one thought they would get to $500. Times change don't they?
italian girl, Crapper said on an earlier post a few months ago that he rents an apartment in a two-family house in Middle Village. Maybe you are right and this neighborhood is being brought down by the damn renters!
People put 300000 or more down on house like these and get 2000 a month rent per unit.
for that kind of money it's a bad investment, seperate heaters or not landlords need to provide the heat.
Post a Comment