Jammypup

Wed, 08 Dec 2004 10:05:52 -0500

I bought a loft in Tribeca a few years ago, sold this year and bought another in Tribeca with part of the proceeds. Instead of being somehow elitist about this I can see nothing wrong with calling any other development in any other city a loft. In NYC we have generic post war high rises on the UES being marketed as "loft like" for those uptowners that don't want to venture out of their comfort zone. We have the aforementioned pre war 400 sqft studios being called lofts. Which is worse? Why is this not hilarious? Does it really matter? The point of the article is more to do with architecture in housing becoming more adventerous all over the US. Contrast that with the built to a price condos and apt buildings in NYC and NYC does not come off favourably. Check out Dwell magazine for examples of truly innovative, environmentally friendly, beatiful homes and you may get an idea of how far behind NYC really is when it comes to our homes.

brooklyn baby

Tue, 07 Dec 2004 16:41:20 -0500

Let's not be so quick to judge--what about the fake siding on the brick buildings in Greenpoint?

Dirk

Tue, 07 Dec 2004 12:09:45 -0500

It's like living in a Blue State, without all the Blue State hassles!

Ronald Smith

Tue, 07 Dec 2004 11:09:34 -0500

That's true. Those midwesterners have a lot of nerve, trying to use different building materials and architectural styles. How dare they?

Gothamist: The Lofting Of the U.S.A.

Jammypup

brooklyn baby

Dirk

Ronald Smith