Developer and Plan Picked for BAM's Mixed-Use Tower
The RFP process for the mixed-use building on Site 4 in the BAM Cultural District has concluded with the selection of a plan by Harlem-based developer Full Spectrum over such big local names as David Walentas’ Two Trees and Dermot Company of One Hanson fame; the architect for the plan is studioMDA. The decision comes…
The RFP process for the mixed-use building on Site 4 in the BAM Cultural District has concluded with the selection of a plan by Harlem-based developer Full Spectrum over such big local names as David Walentas’ Two Trees and Dermot Company of One Hanson fame; the architect for the plan is studioMDA. The decision comes just a couple of months after local outcry put Full Spectrum, whose head Carlton Brown has lived in Fort Greene and Bed Stuy for 25 years, back in contention after being eliminated in August. “Their level of affordability was great,” said HPD spokesman Seth Donlin, explaining the pick. And the design of the building architecturally was fantastic. The new 30-story building, to be located at the southwest corner of Ashland Place and Fulton Street, will be known as Borough Gardens. The marquee tenant for the building will be DanceSpace, which will be housed in a 40,000-square-foot rehearsal and performance space. The tower will include 185 apartments, half of which will be set aside for low- and moderate-income residents; there will also be a retail and gallery component. Construction of the building, which will incorporate many green components (Full Spectrum has developed both the Solaire and 1400 on 5th in Manhattan), is expected to get underway in the first part of next year, with a target completion date of 2010.
Local Planner Gets the Big Job at BAM [Brooklyn Paper] GMAP
Unusual Building in Brooklyn’s BAM Cultural Center [Brooklyn Eagle]
Small Developer Beats Walentas & Dermot for BAM Tower [Curbed]
Downtown Update from Joe Chan at CB2 Meeting [Brownstoner]
BAM Cultural District: Alive If Not Exactly Kicking [Brownstoner]
in sustainable architecture, natural light on two sides of a unit are not possible with double loaded corridors- (long dark hallways with apartment doors on both sides)- the only light would come in from one side of a unit- this makes energy costs much higher for lighting.
Natural Ventilation- I should be more specific- cross-ventilation- yet another benefit only possible from having openings on two sides of a unit- this is a “passive cooling” strategy that greatly reduces demand for AC.
Ventilation and Lighting in urban buildings are responsible for the greatest consumption of energy/
4:04: “every single unit has natural light and ventilation” — doesn’t this just mean that they have windows? Or is there more to it?
“Is it just me, or is there really no evidence on their website of studioMDA ever having ever designed a job that actually got built?”
This is only because as studioMDA, the built projects have been primarily interiors and the firm is young- further research reveals that the principal, Markus Douchantschi was in charge the American division of Zaha HAdid’s office for many years and was director of many projects including the Contemporary Arts Center in Cincinatti. The loft they built in soho was just in an issue of vogue living.
I have had the privilege to speak with the people at studioMDA and see the entire design narrative and my understanding of its architectural difference is now married to the wonderful things about it. For example, the fact that every single unit has natural light and ventilation, every single unit is no farther than 5-10 floors from outdoor shared greenspace (hence the interspersed roof gardens accessible to all.) In a situation where the city has asked for so many units of appordable housing, and a tower is the only option- I think the way in which they have intepreted “context” (Brooklyn of brownstone and stoops and mid-rise)is very sophisticated. Their scheme is an approach at making a stack of mid-rise buildings where a tower must and will go.
Considering this, I think the design is pretty great.
Oh, you mean contemporary modern like the design for buildings at Ground Zero, 12:56? Or Gehry’s buildings at AY? Yuck. We’ll take early 60’s, thank you.
3:35 – This design would have been modern in the early 1960s. Now it’s just retro-ugly.
Tish goes for the black card
Peabody Terrace is in Cambridge not Boston. And I sorta like it. But then again my vantage point was a much uglier brutalist dorm next door…
4:15
Let go of the past, Brooklyn is evolving. The Brownstone community of BK is gorgeous and always desireable. But as times change young professionals want simple luxuries, level concrete flooring, big shiny windows and so on. Don’t expect everyone to have the same opinion, especially when it is so narrowminded as yours.
Shouldnt most of you be cheering the price declines at projects like forte? – I mean no one here would ever own in such a ugly, poorly build, sheetrock house of cards like that, so you arent losing any $ and of course Brownstones will not be effected by price declines (so your safe) and now since they cant sell it and hundreds more condos are coming these will have to be rented out at more affordable prices – seems like everyone here should be happy?