[incogitomode]

Until a week ago I lived around the corner from the n+1 office and the buildings they're talking about. It's astounding how expensive the new developments are around there — like, $8k/month 2-bed rentals — and how terrible much of the new architecture is. It's a part of Greenpoint that has some of the most beautiful buildings in Brooklyn, most built in the late 18th and early 19th century. Which is all to say, I understand where the author is coming from and mostly agree.

That said, there actually are some attractive buildings in the mix. The massive OMA development, Eagle+West, is grossly overpriced but also shows what some amount of creativity and care coupled with new building techniques and materials can offer. It's not perfect, but we probably have to build in new ways if we want to solve problems of homelessness and affordability — again, my example is not affordable, but I think that has more to do with the developers than the actual input costs.

When you look at the beautiful old streets in Greenpoint you're seeing an investment of human labor and materials that is incomparable in today's terms. Those homes were built in a time when labor was cheap, and the people they were built for far wealthier relative to the labor pool. I just moved into a townhouse built in 1900 and when I hire a mason or plumber for repairs there's a good chance they earn more than I do — and I'm a well-paid developer.

This is all to say, I don't think there's anything fundamentally beautiful about the old — survivor bias, lack of context, and aesthetic conditioning are all at play. Nor does the new have to be universally ugly. I've seen plenty of new, dense construction in northern Europe that is beautiful and affordable.