Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Some of those buildings are fantastic, and even the abuses that they have suffered over the years through deferred maintenance and the like has not really done much to undermine the substantial structure of the buildings themselves. Many might need some restoration to get back to their former glory, but the integrity of the construction is there, such that it's a driving force as to why people want these "neglected" treasures. And, some buildings in the area didn't suffer too much at all, even as the neighborhoods went through various cycles.
Thank You.
I totally agree. Those old buildings add a certain ambiance and character to the neighborhood. Add a mix of flavorful people and now you have a neighborhood with personality as well.
Rents in the area seen reasonable and from some limited research I’ve found that Inwood/Wash Hts appears to have some great shopping streets.
Any tips or interesting information about that area would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks. I love NYC - it’s New Yorkers that make this city great!!!
The parks of Inwood are really what sets this neighborhood apart, since some of them are landscaped, and others are more natural, akin to the pre-development Manhattan.
Cultural institutions are also very strong in Washington Heights and Inwood. In particular, some of the theatre groups are great, especially the Shapespeare in the Wild and Moose Hall Theatre Company which hosts the annual Shakespeare Festival in the park. Here is a link that provides descriptions and links to theatre groups and other cultural institutions of Upper Manhattan. Arts Resources - WaHIarts.com
I vigorously disagree with the statements above. New buildings are NOT 'better.' New buildings often have no character. Those buildings that you call 'old' have beautiful architectural details, with beamed ceilings, nice wood (usually oak!) floors and beautiful glass doorknobs. Those apartments, because of the solid construction, are also incredibly soundproof.
I live in up in that area during medical school and had a beautiful, spacious apartment with 10 foot ceilings and lots of closets in an 'old' building that was far superior to any of the 'new' construction.
Have you ever been IN one of those 'old' buildings? They're chock full of detail and craftsmanship that you'll never see in a cookie cutter 'new' apartment building.
Far superior construction? New buildings have: better fire protection. better air circulation systems. More natural light, as windows are larger. Wood floors in much better shape. Usually at least ten feet high ceilings (unless its some kind of low income housing). Better amenities. Better soundproofing. Lower energy costs, as insulation has evolved greatly, and of course, that means overall much better for the environment. And no, these buildings are built in no less time than they were 100 years ago. The construction process takes the same amount of time, if not longer, for a similar sized building.
Yes, old buildings do have craftsmanship. But we're talking about buildings in inwood. Some of them have a little bit in the lobby, but the apartments themselves are pretty conventional, wood floors and nothing that isn't produced with better materials today. There is nothing particularly distinct about inwood apartment buildings, except for a handful of art deco buildings that have been preserved to perfection.
Either way, it makes much more sense to build new buildings for new people, and how they want it too (with craftmanship) as old buildings serve as an important source for affordable housing. People who aren't poor should want better quality than what was made 80 years ago.
Far superior construction? New buildings have: better fire protection. better air circulation systems. More natural light, as windows are larger. Wood floors in much better shape. Usually at least ten feet high ceilings (unless its some kind of low income housing). Better amenities. Better soundproofing. Lower energy costs, as insulation has evolved greatly, and of course, that means overall much better for the environment. And no, these buildings are built in no less time than they were 100 years ago. The construction process takes the same amount of time, if not longer, for a similar sized building.
Yes, old buildings do have craftsmanship. But we're talking about buildings in inwood. Some of them have a little bit in the lobby, but the apartments themselves are pretty conventional, wood floors and nothing that isn't produced with better materials today. There is nothing particularly distinct about inwood apartment buildings, except for a handful of art deco buildings that have been preserved to perfection.
Either way, it makes much more sense to build new buildings for new people, and how they want it too (with craftmanship) as old buildings serve as an important source for affordable housing. People who aren't poor should want better quality than what was made 80 years ago.
The old buildings with PLASTER walls are fireproof!!! And, prior to A/C (in the era when these buildings were built) cross-circulation was built into buildings. All you needed to do was open two windows.
These apartments were, in their day, considered quite luxurious! Back when I was a child this area was known as 'Frankfurt on the Hudson' because all the German immigrants lived there in beautiful, big apartments. I know, because a family member had one of those apartments.
I don't see the logic in building 'new buildings for new people.' What was made 80 years ago is far superior to the garbage being built now, where you can hear your neighbor sneeze.
The old buildings with PLASTER walls are fireproof!!! And, prior to A/C (in the era when these buildings were built) cross-circulation was built into buildings. All you needed to do was open two windows.
This is much better for the environment too. I live in a grand old building and we use the AC maybe 5 days a year (if it's over 98 outside) -- the electric bill is low and it feels good to know you're making a better choice for the planet. I hate some of these new buildings where the windows won't even open. (Though some new buildings are starting to catch on and use the older methods.)
it would appear, jackson, that the real estate industry pretty much disagrees with your assessment, as "people who aren't poor" are placing a premium on prewars in all the boroughs as vs postwars. But with our frenzied scarce housing, beggars can't always be choosers, as the saying goes, and if postwar is what one ends up with, it's still usually a good physical structure with its own amenities and desirable characteristics.
miles, you can thank architects for building buildings that are architecturally inferior to those pre-war. That's actually why I'm studying to become an architect--I'd make mad money for building what people want, and thats flava, detail, earthy materials, .... everything we did BEFORE. I'm thinkin contemporary art deco--definitely 21st century, but evolved straight out of our last real style before architects threw all principals of design out the window.
let me do a lil informing. Over the past 80 years, building construction methods have evolved to make buildings far more energy efficient than in the past. The heat transfer of older buildings is far greater than newly constructed buildings. The heating costs are greater. The cooling costs are greater. Some of the new buildings are ugly, and have windows that don't open. And they have boring designs. But that can be changed easily.
When I say "new People" i mean people who are moving to the city. I don't see why they don't demand better designs from architects. I understand that craftsmanship today is more expensive. But there are certainly techniques in both designing and construction, such as plaster molding, that can be done today extremely effectively and beautifully. We could be building buildings that have just as much architectural articulation, if you will, and at the same time being much more energy efficient, and much better materials, and not necessarily at an exorbitant cost. All that "character" you speak of is simply most craftsmanship put into these buildings, and buildings built at the same scale to produce a very nice environment. This can be done even better today. Leave the old housing for people who can't afford the new housing. But it is definitely conceivable for new buildings, just as I described, to be built and profitable for the very market that inwood is now attracting. This is the 21st century. We should be making places to live that are a step ahead of the 20th century. Maybe most buildings are not, but there are definately examples that I could point out in this city that have way more craftsmanship, detail, and quality than the 80 year old tenament buildings in inwood and have been built within the past few years. And if I were moving to this city, and had 12-1400 dollars for an apartment, that would definitely be my top choice.
Washington Heights and Inwood are better now than they were just a few years ago.
During the 1980's, Washington Heights was the Miami Vice of NYC. But instead of Cubans dealers, you had their "brothers" the Dominicans. The place was crack city and suppiled the entire northeast with drugs. Homicides were a daily occurence and abandonement engulfed the neighborhood. Has the 2nd highest ever recorder homicide number in any precinct with 102 in 1990.
So the neighborhood has come a long way. Inwood had a bit more crime than the Heights last year, but to me they're identical neighborhoods. It appears very ghetto, especially east of Broadway. Very very dense neighborhood dominated by buildings/tenements. Dominicans easily make up the majority of the neighborhood with a up and coming Mexican population. Whites are found mostly to the west of Broadway. If you're not hispanic/spanish then you may find it hard to assimilate. Spanish is pretty much the only language spoken in the neighborhood. Lots of noise and congestion, aswell as graffiti. The neighborhood is still the drug capital of the city so it still has a strong presence of drug dealers. In terms of safety, it isn't as bad as anywhere across the river in the Bronx, but things do happen.
My best advice to you would be to visit. Some blocks are really bad others not so much. Overall, I think its a bad neighborhood. But it has some nice, quiet areas to the west of Broadway.
As with any neighborhood in New York City, some parts are better than others. Washington Heights above 181 Street and west of Broadway--also sometimes known as Fort Tryon--is, shall we say, rather more upscale.
And as far as the kinds of buildings go, there's very little anywhere in the city that compares to Art Deco apartment houses. Check out Fort Washington Avenue. Along there and Bennett...two of the few places I'd actually consider outside my home borough of Brooklyn (it's true, it's true!)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
