Crown Heights or Bed Stuy...

My feeling is Bed Stuy (!) will be the more desirable of the two nabes. Some say it's poised to become the "next Ft. Greene/Clinton Hill." This is primarily due to its (as of now) affordable housing stock, much of which includes brownstones. I would stick with buying in or near the landmarked area of Bed Stuy. Not only are the streets quiet and tree-lined in that area, but it is also close to the A train. Express to Wall St. takes 15 minutes.

I wouldn't be surprised if some haters start bashing Bed Stuy on this forum, but believe me, the people are really nice there... much more friendly than the snobs in Manhattan.

One thing I would concern myself with, however, is the prudence of buying/investing in a place--any place--in this current economy.

although I think crown heights is slightly ahead now....i think bedstuy has better longer term potential. seriously considered properties in both areas a few months ago but have decided to hold out till feb as i think winter might take a bight out of some of those prices out there.

Cheers,
Dean

I am going back and forth.... I've been looking seriously in both areas.... There seems to be much more HYPE about Bed Stuy s the next great thing.... but...when I really break it down, it seems that Crown Heights has more to offer.... closer to things to do near home...Children's museum, Brooklyn Museum, Botanic Gardens, Farmer's Market. In Bed Stuy..I feel lke the only thing to do once you leave your house is go into the city or further into Brooklyn. As far as housing stock, Crowm Heights seems to be more limestone vs. the brownstones in Bed Stuy.... but both nabes have beautiful blocks w/ beautiful buildings.... I do agree the A train is faster than the 3.... but the 3 isn't awful. The other thing that Bed Stuy has going for it is how seriously invested the real estate machine is in that area. I am blown away as poke around some very out there and seemngly funky places and all of a sudden stumble onto a ginormous new condo development. Ther are some very cush buildings on some very rough blocks..... which I guess in the long run, is a good thing!

the_donald.... whn you say "landmarked" areas.....are you talking about the area around Stuy Ave? I agree it is beautiful around there, but the train stations at Utica and Kingston give me the willies.... I have been concentrating on the area w/in a quick walk to the NOstrand A station.....

deanc.... why do yo think Bed Stuy has more staying power? Hype? PR?

I would not invest my money in either neighborhood. They are both filled with high crime rates. I would wait and see what happens before putting my money there.

I vote Bed-Stuy. I agree with Deanc: Bed-Stuy has better long term potential. I'd like to point out that Bed-Stuy has much less large rent-stabilized buildings than Crown Heights. That means that low income residents will stay longer (if not forever) in Crown Heights. And some streets in Bed-Stuy (like Madison) don't have rent stabilized houses for 5-6 consecutive blocks. Owner occupants moving into Bed-Stuy will bring value.

True... but Bed Stuy also has more projects sprinkled throughout....low rise ones like on Putnam...I'm not sure...but I think that when you get west of Albany Ave in CH...there are no more projects....can anyone confirm or deny this for me?

To Susan: there is a difference between "pojects" and "rent stabilized (and rent-controlled) houses". Projects belong to the City. They can do whatever they want to them anytime. The ugliest BedStuy projects (like one between Herkimer and Fulton, between Utica and Rochester) will be gone soon. I can bet on that.

Rent stabilized and rent controlled houses belong to individual owners and they are there to stay until rents hit $2000 a month for an apartment, which gonna take decades.

IMHO Senator McCarthy went after the wrong guys. He should have hunted down Mitchell and Llama (or is it one person?) :)

You can check out the list of rent stabilized and rent controlled buildings here:

http://www.housingnyc.com/downloads/resources/sta_bldngs/brooklyn.pdf

The list is broken down by zipcode. See for yourself how many RS and RC buildings are in CH west of Albany avenue.

Igor777, you seem to have it quite backwards: City policy is moving heavily towards "preserving" existing low-income housing (which is a politically weasly way of sounding concerned while building nothing new. So they'll neither tear down nor rebuild any low-income housing.

On the other hand, inflation and the rent hikes it produces will eat away at the protection that $2000/$175,000 offers rent-stabilized tenants and apartments. And you can be sure that that's carefully-planned strategy, not a surprise defect.

Mitchell and Lama were NYS legislators who created a middle-income housing program -- not the low-income "projects." Many of those coops and rentals have gone market-rate over the past decade or two.

alanhart, Of course, I'm speculating about teardown of those ugly projects on Fulton-Utica-Herkimer-Rochester, I just assume that the land has become priceless after recent zoning changes on Fulton. I just assume that it would make no sense to preserve that particular project. However, I know no precedents.

There is another scenario for the City to get rid of project (nice ones, like on Woodbine street in Bushwick or on Lexington in Bed Stuy). They can be cooped. That I've seen being done in Manhattan. Works like this: current resident pays, say, $700 for 3 bedroom apartment now. He will be offered to buy it for, say, $100K (to keep the payment same). Then that current resident is tempted to sell it on the open market for $300K and pocket the difference. Most cannot stand this temptation. Project ceases to exist as we know it in 1-2 years.

How much time will it take for a $700 rent to become a $2000 one? Maximum allowable increase is about 5% a year, if I'm not mistaken. Besides, a smart tenant will decline any repairs done on his apartment and force the landlord to stick to 5% increase.

Many of Mitchel-Lama rentals went market rate, true. But IMHO too many remain (see the link that I gave in the post above). Come on, we all have friends or acquaintances that live in rent-stabilized housing. Are all of them low income? No way. I personally know a doctor who lives in a rent stabilized apartment in Manhattan (his wife "inherited" one). I'm not sure what those two guys "planned out" in 1945 is right and whether it was a carefully planned strategy or not...

I was born and raised in Brooklyn in a very nice neighborhood. I went to school with kids from all walks of life. I lived with kids from different backgrounds (class and race). I was lucky enough to have been able to get an education and obtain a job that affords me a comfortable life. I do realize that not everyone gets a good education or has the opportunities that I had. I wonder how many of you on this site are from New York? These people who live in the projects and in rent stabilized apartments are human beings who are just trying to live their lives. They have a right to be here and they shouldn't be pushed out by all of you from the midwest. Yes, there are some undesirable people in the projects but most of the people are good decent people. You all need to realize that you are displacing those who have been here for generations and your attitude is selfish. It sucks that you can't embrace diversity. That's one of the best things about this city.

RIGHT ON, brooklynnativeLatina!!

That having been said, and agreed with; however, . . . . get ready for the ONSLAUGHT from the "SE Projects!"

. . . Worse!!--In a wickedly deviant and powerful way . . . .

Unlike any one, or thing, you could encounter in Bed Stuy or Crown Heights!!

well 5 years pat since the OP. I think bedstuy won

http://allhiphop.com/2013/11/11/epic-fail-of-the-day-the-knockout-game/

Any recent feedback?

??