Talk:McKibbin Street Lofts

Link to articles
http://nymag.com/nymetro/realestate/neighborhoods/features/14884/ Published: 2007

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F05E1DC123DF933A05754C0A9669C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all Published: July 30, 2000

NYMag: "So I backtrack, past the used cars and the tire-fix man, the old guys in lawn chairs by the Bushwick Houses, until I again hear the rush of air through subway-ventilation grates and find the turn I missed.(16) Geographically, McKibbin Street is only 90 degrees off Bushwick. But culturally, it’s 180 degrees in the other direction.

Where on Bushwick I had seen a 99-cent store advertising new clothes for low prices, on McKibbin I find a vintage shop selling used T-shirts for twenty times that. "

The New York magazine article does not mention the building, but has a passing reference to the street where it is on.

NYTimes: "The building at 255-265 McKibbin Street, home to Ms. Bick and Quality Knits, is in the midst of a transformation. For decades artists have been moving eastward along the L train, out of the East Village and into Williamsburg, in search of bigger spaces, lower rents and hipper neighborhoods. Now the artists have reached farther still, renting former manufacturing spaces around the fifth, sixth and seventh stops from Manhattan on the L train. Most of the new arrivals call the area East Williamsburg, but to longtime residents it is Bushwick."

'''The article make no other mention of the building other than being where Ms. Bick and Quality Knits are located. Like the above article, this article is more about the gentrification of the neighborhood than anything else.'''

Notability requires objective evidence
"The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability. Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence, as do published peer recognition and the other factors listed in the subject specific guidelines."

Also, see below. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.6.145 (talk) 04:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

How is this notable?
This looks like some urban factory where they made mattresses or light bulbs or something. Was the first light bulb manufactured there? There must be literately thousands of these buildings all across America. Just because some "artists" currently live there does not make it notable. Did Andy Warhol live there, or was it a textile factory for the last hundred years. Just because _you_ live there does not make it notable, regardless of the awesomeness of your Pabst parties. Furthermore a mention in some Gawker article is not notability. Anyone can write a blog post, that is the definition of a blog. Was there an editor involved, was there any research done on this building for the article. Again, because some friend of a friend wrote something on a blog doesn't mean anything regardless of readership. A lot of people also bought the Weekly World News, should there be wikipedia articles about alien babies. If this continues, next thing you know every Hipster in Williamsburg is going to want to write a wikipedia article on the converted loft they currently live in, to re-enforce the awesomeness of the shitty building they're paying $3K a month to live in. In marketing terms, this is called "diluting the brand" every address in the world could potentially have its own wikipedia entry, but why. What thirteen year-old is going to look up "12 Main", or whatever. Also, Bushwick Brooklyn is definitely not known for its young, artistic population. Its known as a place to score some coke on a Friday night, and for the Housing projects in the neighborhood and historically for the riots that took place during the blackout of 1977. Because some self-referential art-school grads move to the same neighborhood does not make it Greenwich Village circa 1968. Again did Rothko or Jackson Pollock live there. No, then it is not notable. Delete please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.6.145 (talk) 04:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, on all points. There are more noteworthy buildings in the Bushwick section of Brooklyn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.64.218.57 (talk) 18:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

notability
255 McKibbin occupies a somewhat legndary place within Bushwick, a neighborhood in Brooklyn known for its young, artistic population. Bushwick has been the subject of several articles in recent years in New York magazine and the New York Times. 255 McKibbin has a rich, colorful history, some of the stories of which have already been written up in this article and others of which will be added shortly. The building has already been mentioned in an existing wikipedia article East Williamsburg, but the link was previously empty. Remote table 04:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The article already has a link to a Gawker post. The building has also been mentioned in the Gotham Gazette, it has a MySpace page,and 250+ hits on Google. Do any of these mean anything??? Remote table 04:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This article does not yet demonstrate that this topic is covered in enough sources for us to have an article here. Blog posts don't really count for anything.  The above mentions don't really do much for us either. Friday (talk) 04:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "Blog posts don't really count for anything." You've got to be kidding.  More people read Gawker than most local newspapers.  Does the fact that it's on the internet make it less legitimate than a printed paper?  That's exactly the same kind of prejudice that people have against wikipedia.  Don't be a net-hater.  Gawker is a legitimate news source, as is Gotham Gazette. Remote table 14:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's leave aside whether Gawker is a good source or not in general, then. This particular page, written by "Josh"- is he "on staff" at Gawker or do they let readers post too?  I can't tell from looking at it.  Even if we assume the best, all we have in a little blurb about the change of address.  Not much on which to base an encyclopedia article.  The other sources you mention above are far less useful than this one.  I still see nothing resembling the kinds of sources that would allow an article.  So where did the information in the article come from?  Sounds like it's all first-hand knowledge to me, which is something we want to avoid using on Wikipedia. Friday (talk) 15:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed the notability tag, since I think we've adequately established its notability. If anyone disagrees, feel free to reinstate it (or, better yet, explain your objections here and we can talk about it). Remote table 03:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

wikify
I added internal posts, bolded the subject in the first sentence, and gave it a category, so I removed the wikify tag. Remote table 14:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Notability and Minor Changes
I congratulate the people that have created this article, I have tried in the past and had my article removed due to a notability issue as well. It is certainly something that is incredibly notable and legendary. This building and the one across the street are known throughout New York City. I made minor changes to things that I knew were incorrect. Most notably the fact that there are five floors in the building, the fact that the unit ranges were drastically off, and the fact that there are 75 units in the building as opposed to 73, and that five are duplexes. The five floor thing is obvious. The unit sizes come from units that I have either personally measured or know people that have measured and the amount of units come from discourse with the landlord. '''I think the reason these mistakes may have been made is that due to the haphazard nature of the building, records are not always accurate. I think for the wikipedia article we should choose the correct version over the improperly recorded version.'''

Fyi there used to be only 4 floors, technically one is still a basement. They hired some architecture firm to illegally turn it into 5 floors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.152.72.97 (talk) 05:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Major events
The event removed on 7/27/07 did not take place at 255 McKibbin, but elsewhere in Brooklyn, in late February of 2006. See: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2006/02/27/2006-02-27_fdny_water_leak_hunt_yields_150_pot_plan.html --BFDhD 19:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

hipness
what happened to the pop culture and book references about how cool this building is? was... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.2.153 (talk) 21:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I think 255 Mckibbin is of cultural / anthropological significance. As an example of Bushwick Brooklyn architecture and for the adult children of baby boomers moving to industrial space and living communally in small groups in brooklyn. The scale of this migration is noteworthy. The emerging social contracts needed to live in that building is worth documenting. There is a strong artistic, musical and cultural economy.

Please help expand this article.

J23yrne —Preceding unsigned comment added by J23 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

well it appears the ny times thought it was hip enough to land the valued spot in news paper real estate. i guess that settles that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.2.135 (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Further Changes
We're keeping the article with the cultural references, otherwise this article has no value. If anyone wishes to make any further changes please discuss them here first. The original intention of the article's author appears to have been as a notable cultural landmark, and as an example of adapting to the architecture and landscape available and working within it, and as an example of the gentrification of Brooklyn's industrial park neighborhoods. This appears to be a prime example of both.

Let's not forget that there are TWO buildings on McKibbin Street, each as important as the other. I'm new to this, can we change the name of the article to "McKibbin Street Lofts"?

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on McKibbin Street Lofts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120205220052/http://a810-cofo.nyc.gov/cofo/B/000/079000/B000079582.PDF to http://a810-cofo.nyc.gov/cofo/B/000/079000/B000079582.PDF

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

David R Brody's history of tenant harassment
User:Viewmont Viking has been engaging in an edit war regarding the relevance of lawyer David Brody and his history of tenant harassment. I feel that his relevance to the McKibbin Lofts needs no justification. His history of harassment is outlined well referenced      and does not violate BLP policy. AnonKibbers (talk) 22:42, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * As mentioned earlier the NY Times article never states that David Brody harassed anyone. The rest of your references are considered Primary sources and do not stand up to the claim that this lawyer is harassing people. For BLP you need strong sources. Please do not add this back without strong sources specifically stating that David Brody has a history of tenant harassment, and a consensus that the information is relevant to the article and not just being used to attack a person.-- VViking Talk Edits 14:19, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have actually read through a few of the "references" provided by User:AnonKibbers no where does it state the individual has harassed tenants. One is an apology to the court for actions of a lawyer that happens to be in the same law firm as Mr. Brody. The NY times article never states Brody harassed tenants and the final one I read was one of the cases, the court found in favor of the Land Owners in that case therefore how was that harassment. Please do not continue to add information that is in violation of the WP:BLP policy.-- VViking Talk Edits 18:34, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree that the lawyer himself does not harass anyone. I am stating that he and his law firm are known to represent landlords who do. AnonKibbers (talk) 00:46, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The article isn't about the lawyer and his law firm. It is specifically about these buildings. Therefore this information is not relevant to the article if all your trying dois state that this laywrr and law firm harass tenents. The references you have provided are considered primary sources and therefore need to be used with excessive care. If you feel the law firm or individual is notable enough for their own article that would be the place to add this information with RS. Sorry about typos I'm on my cellphone VViking Talk Edits 02:34, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Tenant harassment is relevant to this building and article. None of the references are primary sources, these are national media companies as well as official court documents. The various judicial bodies of Brooklyn are neither tenants nor landlords.
 * Suggest re-adding the law firm, with some indication that they are notorious for tenant harassment back to the relevant section -loft law. AnonKibbers (talk) 00:42, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Please review WP:PRIMARYCARE as it specifically states Court Documents are considered primary sources. Therefore the only secondary source you have listed does not specifically state that the lawyer or his law-firm harassed the Tenants. VViking Talk Edits 14:10, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I have requested a third opinion as I don't believe you and I are going to be able to resolve our differences. I believe it is a BLP violation and you are using Primary sources, and you seem of the opinion that the information must be included. Thank you for the ongoing civil discussion. VViking Talk Edits 14:24, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not an article about David Brody, this is an article about the McKibbin Lofts. Regardless from WP:PRIMARYCARE "court documents, are usually not acceptable primary sources, because it is impossible for the viewer to know whether the person listed on the document is the notable subject rather than another person who happens to have the same name." This does not apply to this case, we know that this is the same David Brody as it also lists the law firm. Disagree with you that the NY Times article does not point to tenant harassment. AnonKibbers (talk) 21:24, 2 March 2020 (UTC)