Gentrification

[HartfordTycoon]

Well, I don't want to sound like a let-'em-eat-cake right winger -- it's not that I don't care about housing affordability. But rent control, restrictive zoning, and an overall attitude of trying to limit what developers can do to respond to market demand just ends up limiting the supply of housing and making it more expensive, not more affordable.

I'm not really up on what they're doing in Providence right now, so I'll shut up about that. Part of my grumpiness on the subject has to do with the housing situation here in Flagstaff, which is totally stupid. Everyone complains about the high cost of housing, but there are a lot of zoning restrictions that prevent a lot of types of housing that would mitigate the problem. And anytime a developer proposes something in the way of housing aimed at middle-class demand, the city and county vote it down, in the name of "controlling growth" and "preventing sprawl." Well, I suppose it does do that -- but at the cost of having no housing anyone can afford. We do have a couple of new mixed-use-zoning developments (straight out of Jim Kunstler's books), which is a step in the right direction -- but what we need is more of that, not more restrictions. Developers *will* build affordable housing, if you cut the red tape and let them build what people want.

Urb

Nobody wants multi family developments geared toward the working class in their town. Unless it's luxury housing (very expensive too keep out the riff raff) they are not allowing it to be built, at least not in the Northeast. There's a ton down south, that's why we are losing the middle class. One problem is the small towns in the Northeast being able to control themselves with no regional oversight. In the south with county government, they don't have this problem. Southern County governments are way more open minded towards development in my observation than are New England towns. Never gonna change. So with that said, we either need to wake up because this is a crisis across the Northeast, or concede that the Northeast is not going to be for the middle class in the future. Only the poor and the wealthy will live here.

[Garris]

Nobody wants multi family developments geared toward the working class in their town...

In the south with county government, they don't have this problem. Southern County governments are way more open minded towards development in my observation than are New England towns...

Both comments are correct and both problematic, one of the downsides of living in a democracy...

I understand, to a particular degree, why NE communities don't want working class housing. Usually, that means families, and most NE communities don't want families. For sprawling communities in the Midwest and South where everything is dirt cheap, new families means new jobs and new revenue and new funding for infrastructure development.

In the NE, where the infrastructure is already in place and strained and everything is so expensive, municipalities don't make money on families moving in. That's certainly the place in the town in the New York suburbs where I grew up, where the aging population (who once had kids there themselves) votes down almost everything that has the potential to add families in density and thus bloat their already crushing property taxes (6th highest in the nation) funding schools. They have, however, approved 3-4 senior living developments. Interesting, no?

Per my mother, who is a teacher there, the community groups are quite vocal saying they don't want the noise of kids; the mischief, loitering, and petty crime of teens; and the costs of their schooling.

Also, and this gets to some touchy and un-PC gentrification issues regarding how well the poor and lower middle class do (or don't, as it often is) upkeep and maintain their communities, many of the few remaining pockets of lower-middle class and working class communities in the New York suburbs can be kind of sketchy places, which has unfortunately spooked more affluent middle to upper class voters into voting down anything that could attract them to their communities.

- Garris

[HartfordTycoon]

Both comments are correct and both problematic, one of the downsides of living in a democracy...

I understand, to a particular degree, why NE communities don't want working class housing. Usually, that means families, and most NE communities don't want families. For sprawling communities in the Midwest and South where everything is dirt cheap, new families means new jobs and new revenue and new funding for infrastructure development.

In the NE, where the infrastructure is already in place and strained and everything is so expensive, municipalities don't make money on families moving in. That's certainly the place in the town in the New York suburbs where I grew up, where the aging population (who once had kids there themselves) votes down almost everything that has the potential to add families in density and thus bloat their already crushing property taxes (6th highest in the nation) funding schools. They have, however, approved 3-4 senior living developments. Interesting, no?

Per my mother, who is a teacher there, the community groups are quite vocal saying they don't want the noise of kids; the mischief, loitering, and petty crime of teens; and the costs of their schooling.

Also, and this gets to some touchy and un-PC gentrification issues regarding how well the poor and lower middle class do (or don't, as it often is) upkeep and maintain their communities, many of the few remaining pockets of lower-middle class and working class communities in the New York suburbs can be kind of sketchy places, which has unfortunately spooked more affluent middle to upper class voters into voting down anything that could attract them to their communities.

- Garris

Garris, I agree with pretty much everything you said. I think one reason why the lower income areas in the Northeast are rundown is simply due to the age of the housing stock. It's certainly not the only reason why the areas are not kept tidy (mowed lawns, litter, etc.) however it is very much the reason why the structural bones and other essentials in this housing stock are falling apart. The people renting aren't going to replace plumbing, siding, drywall, roofs, or repair fences and such because they have no equity in these properties. In Atlanta for example they can roll out a new subdivision with houses or townhomes or whatever priced from the mid $100's. It's new, feels new and thus the residents take better care of it. In the Northeast there is no such thing. You can't buy any affordable housing. Even in Hartford's less affluent suburbs, you can't get a single family house for less than $250k and that's not going to be a very nice one. I imagine it's the same or worse in RI, and know it's worse in Boston. NYC Metro forget about it!! My grandmother just sold her raised ranch in Montclair that she bought for like $75k 40 years ago for about $500k like 4 months ago. When you move into an old, under-maintained tripple decker or "perfect six" like we have in Hartford, it's not the same feeling. And it's a collective feeling, so the whole community basically just gets used to things looking how they always have, and that's run down. In my experience, I haven't really witnessed owner occupied neighborhoods in very bad shape. Mainly renting communities. Maybe you guys have some examples of run down owner occupied areas.

[runawayjim]

Garris, I agree with pretty much everything you said. I think one reason why the lower income areas in the Northeast are rundown is simply due to the age of the housing stock. It's certainly not the only reason why the areas are not kept tidy (mowed lawns, litter, etc.) however it is very much the reason why the structural bones and other essentials in this housing stock are falling apart. The people renting aren't going to replace plumbing, siding, drywall, rooves, or repair fences and such because they have no equity in these properties. In Atlanta for example they can roll out a new subdivision with houses or townhomes or whatever priced from the mid $100's. It's new, feels new and thus the residents take better care of it. When you move into an old, under-maintained tripple decker or "perfect six" like we have in Hartford, it's not the same feeling. And it's a collective feeling, so the whole community basically just gets used to things looking how they always have, and that's run down. In my experience, I haven't really witnessed owner occupied neighborhoods in very bad shape. Mainly renting communities. Maybe you guys have some examples of run down owner occupied areas.

the problem with a lot of the lower income areas of providence being run down is due to absentee landlords who just don't give a damn about their properties as long as they just barely meet code. other than that, they just forget about them. the reason renters don't do any work is because they don't own the place. i'd put money into the house i live in if i could get a huge decrease in rent because i really like the house and would take care of it. but i don't own it and i have to pay rent which is supposed to take care of this stuff. luckily, my landlady lives next door, so she does care about it because she lives near it and lives in the neighborhood.

[jencoleslaw]

there is actually a pervasive feeling in the city that code enforcement can't be enforced in lower income neighborhoods (until it is convenient--ie., to get people to sell like in O-ville) because no one can afford the repairs. It is also the reason i have gotten for why folks don't get pulled over for expired registrations and insurance violations and the like in poor neighborhoods--because the people driving can't afford to lose their cars and why enforcing environmental laws on polluting businesses on the river is discouraged. But laws like this are there to protect everyone and need to be enforced regardless of the socio-economics of the neighborhood.

[damus]

Garris, I agree with pretty much everything you said. I think one reason why the lower income areas in the Northeast are rundown is simply due to the age of the housing stock. It's certainly not the only reason why the areas are not kept tidy (mowed lawns, litter, etc.) however it is very much the reason why the structural bones and other essentials in this housing stock are falling apart. The people renting aren't going to replace plumbing, siding, drywall, rooves, or repair fences and such because they have no equity in these properties.

How does our aging housing stock compare to what they have in Europe? It's a complicated problem with no easy solution. I certainly don't know what to do. No one wants to subsidize people's housing especially when it means that someone in your building/complex gets just about what you're getting for less money, just because they're poor. The richer the demographic, the more adamently against the residents will be to living side by side with poor people. I'd have thought they made brothels illegal after all the fuss they made about it last year. Does Amsterdam have the same street hooker problem we do? I think a good solution to a lot of the causes of problems related to poor people would be to legalize all or most drugs and prostitution. Nationwide, preferably, to keep out the seedy "smut tourists".

[runawayjim]

there is actually a pervasive feeling in the city that code enforcement can't be enforced in lower income neighborhoods (until it is convenient--ie., to get people to sell like in O-ville) because no one can afford the repairs. It is also the reason i have gotten for why folks don't get pulled over for expired registrations and insurance violations and the like in poor neighborhoods--because the people driving can't afford to lose their cars and why enforcing environmental laws on polluting businesses on the river is discouraged. But laws like this are there to protect everyone and need to be enforced regardless of the socio-economics of the neighborhood.

that is really pathetic if those are the real reasons they don't enforce those laws... the state needs money. dishing out a violation gets them money. after all... enforcing code in poor neighborhoods makes the absentee landlords pay, not the poor (although they may end up paying by way of increased rent). allowing people to drive with expired registrations really allows people to steal cars and change the plates and get away with it more easily. allowing people to drive with insurance violations is even worse! it's a reason the rates in this state are so high. and environmental regulations are also important... no wonder the river is a lovely shade of brown.

[HartfordTycoon]

that is really pathetic if those are the real reasons they don't enforce those laws... the state needs money. dishing out a violation gets them money. after all... enforcing code in poor neighborhoods makes the absentee landlords pay, not the poor (although they may end up paying by way of increased rent). allowing people to drive with expired registrations really allows people to steal cars and change the plates and get away with it more easily. allowing people to drive with insurance violations is even worse! it's a reason the rates in this state are so high. and environmental regulations are also important... no wonder the river is a lovely shade of brown.

I haven't heard too many people tell me they were let go without a ticket or being arrested for automobile violations.

[DrStink]

:

- Like old houses, dont like old problems. My condo is in a house that was totally renovated inside and out, but keeps original detail.

- Could have bought a multifamily, but dont feel like dealing with tenants.

- Do not have the time to renovate an old house.

Now I agree, a lot of developers dont do much to make a condo conversion attractive. They put in granite/stainless, paint it and call it done. But the units that are in my house were ripped down to stud and completely rebuilt. All the systems are completely new. All the work is custom and quality. And its big, about 1700 sq ft.

So with the convenience of a new place with an old soul, it was very worth it to my wife and I.

I completely agree. MrsStink and I came this close -> <- to buying that type of conversion in the Armory except our single family house in CT took too long to sell so we ended up renting.

Let me add one more reason:

Lead - we love old buildings with sloping floors and plaster medallions and wainscotting, but with a 7 month old, fixing up as we go just isn't a option, because of time and more importantly, because of lead. Buying a conversion is a way to get the charm without having to worry about controlling lead dust while renovating.

[DrStink]

In Atlanta for example they can roll out a new subdivision with houses or townhomes or whatever priced from the mid $100's. It's new, feels new and thus the residents take better care of it. In the Northeast there is no such thing. You can't buy any affordable housing. Even in Hartford's less affluent suburbs, you can't get a single family house for less than $250k and that's not going to be a very nice one.

Respectfully HT, I disagree.

We have been trying to sell our well maintained 3 bedrooms single family in Meriden since Midmarch. Maybe you don't consider Meriden to be a Hartford suburb, but I regularly could make it to the capital building or Hartford Hospital in 25 minutes at rush hour. Its three minutes from a 691 onramp, and a 12 minute walk from the Meriden train station. It was built in 1927 and has unpainted original woodwork throughout. The roof and gas fired forced air heating system are 5 years old. The fridge, water heater, gutters and washer and dryer are new, and we also put in a new brick patio and asphalt driveway. It has detacted single car garage and a working hot tub in the backyard. We listed it in the low 2s and got no offers, we reduced to 190k and got no offers. When we reduced to 170k, we got a flurry of interest and accepted a good faith offer the night before an open house. Closing will hopefully be in the next 2 weeks

Is 170k affordable? Probably not for many people, but to suggest that you need to pay at least 250k for a not very nice house doesn't ring true. Admittedly, the plural of anecdote is not data, but for my n of one, your statement doesn't match my experience.

[jencoleslaw]

i respect that the three families---> condo thing is an alternative to some folks but i still believe that it can more damage to need of affordable housing than almost anything else. And when a three family is converted into 9 600 sq foot "studios" that is tripley worser! Because no one can raise a family in 600 square feet of living space, and it doesn't encourage long term ownership or tenancy (that's a word, isn't it?) which is bad for neighborhoods.

[HartfordTycoon]

Respectfully HT, I disagree.

We have been trying to sell our well maintained 3 bedrooms single family in Meriden since Midmarch. Maybe you don't consider Meriden to be a Hartford suburb, but I regularly could make it to the capital building or Hartford Hospital in 25 minutes at rush hour. Its three minutes from a 691 onramp, and a 12 minute walk from the Meriden train station. It was built in 1927 and has unpainted original woodwork throughout. The roof and gas fired forced air heating system are 5 years old. The fridge, water heater, gutters and washer and dryer are new, and we also put in a new brick patio and asphalt driveway. It has detacted single car garage and a working hot tub in the backyard. We listed it in the low 2s and got no offers, we reduced to 190k and got no offers. When we reduced to 170k, we got a flurry of interest and accepted a good faith offer the night before an open house. Closing will hopefully be in the next 2 weeks

Is 170k affordable? Probably not for many people, but to suggest that you need to pay at least 250k for a not very nice house doesn't ring true. Admittedly, the plural of anecdote is not data, but for my n of one, your statement doesn't match my experience.

Well Meriden is kind of an "urban area" in many people's eyes. You can get at great older house in Hartford for $170k as well. But you will be closer to the urban core. In Atlanta they are all over the metro. Mostly New construction. However in any inner ring Hartford suburb the price is much higher, even for older houses. And the new luxury units are very pricy. Recently new townhomes in Hartford sold out at $400-$500k a unit. My co-worker owns a house in Meriden. I was aware that there are bargains down there.

[basachs]

i respect that the three families---> condo thing is an alternative to some folks but i still believe that it can more damage to need of affordable housing than almost anything else. And when a three family is converted into 9 600 sq foot "studios" that is tripley worser! Because no one can raise a family in 600 square feet of living space, and it doesn't encourage long term ownership or tenancy (that's a word, isn't it?) which is bad for neighborhoods.

A lot of these conversions are bigger than 600sq ft. Most of the ones in my neighborhood are at least 1000.

I was raised in a single family home that is only 1200.

I guess my point is that a lot of these conversions are being done right. Almost as many that are being done wrong.

[jencoleslaw]

A lot of these conversions are bigger than 600sq ft. Most of the ones in my neighborhood are at least 1000.

I was raised in a single family home that is only 1200.

I guess my point is that a lot of these conversions are being done right. Almost as many that are being done wrong.

but it doesn't matter if the conversion is done "right," it still takes what was previously affordable rental stock off the market.

[runawayjim]

A lot of these conversions are bigger than 600sq ft. Most of the ones in my neighborhood are at least 1000.

I was raised in a single family home that is only 1200.

I guess my point is that a lot of these conversions are being done right. Almost as many that are being done wrong.

i was raised in a home of similar size... but it had 3 bedrooms, a separate dining room, a family/living room, and a separate den/family room (which was used as a bedroom). most of the floor plans i've seen for these places have very few rooms, but all the rooms are enormous. what good is that for a family? the children end up having to share a bedroom in those cases.

[Garris]

At least on the East Side, the conversion market is taking some gorgeous old rental properties, some of which were quite run-down, and are beautifully restoring them. That's certainly true of a beautiful Victorian across the street from my condo which, while architecturally stunning, looked like it was on the verge of falling over.

Now, work has gone on for several months lovingly converting it to condos and it's just stunning, inside and out, a real standout in the neighborhood. The Wayland neighborhood has had several conversions like that.

I'm sure some similar high quality, architecture saving projects must have been done on the West End as well.

- Garris

[DrStink]

At least on the East Side, the conversion market is taking some gorgeous old rental properties, some of which were quite run-down, and are beautifully restoring them. That's certainly true of a beautiful Victorian across the street from my condo which, while architecturally stunning, looked like it was on the verge of falling over.

Now, work has gone on for several months lovingly converting it to condos and it's just stunning, inside and out, a real standout in the neighborhood. The Wayland neighborhood has had several conversions like that.

I'm sure some similar high quality, architecture saving projects must have been done on the West End as well.

I know of a perfect example on Oak, because, as I've already said above, we almost bought it. The building is a 6585 sq ft Victorian divided into 5 units, so we're not talking 600 sq ft studios. The last unit was the entire top floor; 1800+ sq ft with an eat in kitchen, a family room, a dining room, a front parlor, 3 bedrooms and 2 full baths. We were even thinking we'd have enough room to maybe forgo daycare entirely and use the front bedroom, bath and parlor for an au pair (Surprisingly, when you run the numbers, an au pair is cost comparible to daycare if you have the space).

So anyway, I agree that chopping 3 family rentals into tiny studios is a problem as far as rental stock is concerned. That having been said, is this really the norm in Providence? Also, I'd suspect that conversion (vs multifamily owner occupency) has a much better shot of preserving old buildings due to the large capital investment needed to pull off a renovation/restoration. On a 5k or 6k or 7k sq ft building, just stripping and replacing siding is a huge expense. Likewise, if you have 40+ openings, replacing windows for lead abatement gets very very pricey very very fast. Maybe we just differ dramatically in the relative weights we give to preservation and social justice? Deplacement via gentrification (like what happened so dramatically in the Mission during the dot-com boom) certainly isn't a good thing, but neither is letting our cities rot while the professional class (and their investment capital) watches from the 'burbs.

Getting back to the East side - there is a gorgous house at the corner of Hope and Olney across from Tortilla Flats - someone did a nice job with a historically appropriate paint job and the roof seems in decent shape but several windows are boarded up with plywood. Anyone know what the story is?

[basachs]

i was raised in a home of similar size... but it had 3 bedrooms, a separate dining room, a family/living room, and a separate den/family room (which was used as a bedroom). most of the floor plans i've seen for these places have very few rooms, but all the rooms are enormous. what good is that for a family? the children end up having to share a bedroom in those cases.

I have seen these types too. As a comparison, mine has a double parlor, formal dining room, eat in kitchen, 2 nice sized bedrooms and a huge bathroom. It easily can support a family if I wanted.

At least on the East Side, the conversion market is taking some gorgeous old rental properties, some of which were quite run-down, and are beautifully restoring them. .

I'm sure some similar high quality, architecture saving projects must have been done on the West End as well.

- Garris

Yep, exactly. That is what mine is, and there are tons of them like that. I can appreciate Jen's concern that it takes rentals off the market but I am having a tough time being that concerned about it. I would rather have quality conversions that save the houses than rental units that continue to keep the property in crappy shape.

[jencoleslaw]

I have seen these types too. As a comparison, mine has a double parlor, formal dining room, eat in kitchen, 2 nice sized bedrooms and a huge bathroom. It easily can support a family if I wanted.

Yep, exactly. That is what mine is, and there are tons of them like that. I can appreciate Jen's concern that it takes rentals off the market but I am having a tough time being that concerned about it. I would rather have quality conversions that save the houses than rental units that continue to keep the property in crappy shape.

the ones i have seen have been three family units, on on each floor, turned into two or three on each floor. the one across the street from my old house made one unit per floor but completely gutted the historic nicities and replaced it with crap from home depot.

however, this is heart of the gentrification debate: isn't there some middle ground where there are housing units to buy but that there are also rental units? The idea that housing stock has to be a wreck in order for people to afford to rent it is obscene. But, equally obscene to me are these real estate people coming up down from boston or up from E Greenwich, flashing cash, buying a perfectly acceptable house with three floors of tenants, evicting them and turning it into a bunch of temporary condos for people just trying on providence for size. I appreciate that the market is driving some of these conversions, that folks are buying them, living in one of the units and selling the other two, but let me ask you this, what happens when the house needs a new roof, or a paint job? Do the condo fees cover the cost of painting a big victorian? a roof? new heating system?

i think the key is making it easier for owner occupied landlords to keep their houses and keep them up to date and to figure out a way that allows for folks (owner occupied, not investors) to keep rents low in exchange for property tax relief because there's great value in having a neighborhood of many socio-economic backgrounds who stay in the neighborhood.

[basachs]

the ones i have seen have been three family units, on on each floor, turned into two or three on each floor. the one across the street from my old house made one unit per floor but completely gutted the historic nicities and replaced it with crap from home depot.

That is atrocious, one of the reasons I love our place is due to the mix of historic detail with modern convenience.

I appreciate that the market is driving some of these conversions, that folks are buying them, living in one of the units and selling the other two, but let me ask you this, what happens when the house needs a new roof, or a paint job? Do the condo fees cover the cost of painting a big victorian? a roof? new heating system?

They should. At least for the roof and painting. But a new HVAC is solely the responsibility of the owner, as each unit has their own. That is part of doing a conversion "right".

Plus a condo association can always vote to increase the monthly fee if the coverage is not there. Same as in a condo complex with a ton of units. They can get burned too by not having enough to cover capital improvements.

there's great value in having a neighborhood of many socio-economic backgrounds who stay in the neighborhood.

In general I agree, but am uncomfortable about such blanket statements. It really depends on the people versus whether they are rich, middle class, or poor. I would rather live on a block of upstanding people that are all of the same socio economic background, than a block of people of varying socio-economic backgrounds who could care less.

[Garris]

They should. At least for the roof and painting. But a new HVAC is solely the responsibility of the owner, as each unit has their own. That is part of doing a conversion "right".

Absolutely. This is the case with our condo. We have funds set aside for "big" projects in the future (ex, upcoming roof repairs) and "maintenance" funds for the month to month stuff. If the entire condo wants to take on a bigger project (the conversion of car ports to garages done many years ago, apparently), the fees go up temporarily until the project is paid for, then go back to previous values. AC is individual in our condo, heat shared.

In general I agree, but am uncomfortable about such blanket statements. It really depends on the people versus whether they are rich, middle class, or poor. I would rather live on a block of upstanding people that are all of the same socio economic background, than a block of people of varying socio-economic backgrounds who could care less.

Someone should enshrine this comment in stone, as this is the absolute heart of the gentrification argument in my opinion.

We have to separate the issues of background, socio-economic status, and residential quality of life and upkeep. They should, in an ideal world, be separate. Being of some certain economic status or some certain background doesn't mean your neighborhood should be miserable. The fact that the people living in those neighbhoods feel that improvement in upkeep or services automatically equals that they won't be able to live there in the future shows that, to a degree, they have bought into those same stereotypes.

As Jerry has pointed out, there are other clear, shining examples of neighborhoods in places like EP, Pawtucket, and other areas with similar socioeconomic demographics to some of Providence's neighborhoods that are far nicer, better kept, safer, and easier to live in.

- Garris

[Rudolf_Rocker]

Getting back to the East side - there is a gorgous house at the corner of Hope and Olney across from Tortilla Flats - someone did a nice job with a historically appropriate paint job and the roof seems in decent shape but several windows are boarded up with plywood. Anyone know what the story is?

Ahhh i helped paint that house 3 years ago. Glad you like it. The reason it's boarded up is there was a fire in it this year. Inside is all messed up. A beautiful home....even had one of those old toilets with the gravity tank up above your head. Anyhow - hopefully some good will come of it. And maybe being so close to Hope High will scare off the yuppies.

-RR

[Pseudo_Work]

Ahhh i helped paint that house 3 years ago. Glad you like it. The reason it's boarded up is there was a fire in it this year. Inside is all messed up. A beautiful home....even had one of those old toilets with the gravity tank up above your head. Anyhow - hopefully some good will come of it. And maybe being so close to Hope High will scare off the yuppies.

-RR

I've always noticed that house, and thought it was absolutely stunning, and also wondered why it was boarded up. How bad was the fire? Is the house officially a "shell", or was it not all that bad? I worry about things like that in RI - people don't seem as willing to restore things simply for the sake of keeping beautiful pieces of architecture intact. I've seen other cities restore historic neighborhoods full of (literally) transparent houses. Maybe I'm just imagining that, though.

[gregw]

I've always noticed that house, and thought it was absolutely stunning, and also wondered why it was boarded up. How bad was the fire? Is the house officially a "shell", or was it not all that bad? I worry about things like that in RI - people don't seem as willing to restore things simply for the sake of keeping beautiful pieces of architecture intact. I've seen other cities restore historic neighborhoods full of (literally) transparent houses. Maybe I'm just imagining that, though.

From what I know, the fire (which started in the fireplace) did a lot of damage in the downstairs (including taking out a parque floor) but the house was not completely gutted and should be restored once insurance matters are taken care of. It's going to go on the market in the near future.

[eltron]

Wow, Brooklyn knows how to do it right:

Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn

Rally against the Ratner/Gehry stadium and skyscraper city. The gigantic complex is planned to be built at the cross-roads of the residential neighborhoods Park Slope, Prespect Height, Fort Green, and Boerum Hill.