« Tower To Go Up Next Door to BAM? Did Bob Dylan Really Live In Brooklyn Heights? »

August 10, 2005

Burg Bummers: Developers Just Don't Get It

bldg bldg
New architecture in Williamsburg just continues to disappoint. Our most recent stroll brought us face-to-face with these two atrocities. The left one is on North 9th between Bedford and Driggs. The right one is on Bedford between North 4th and North 5th Streets. It's almost as if developers were trying to build ugly buildings...At least they're consistent!




Posted by Brownstoner at 10:05 AM | Comments (26)
Categories: Development

Comments

It's not a surprise. B-burg is already one of the uglier "desirable" nabes in the city.

Maybe it's all those toxic gasses seeping into developer's brains from the contaminated soil.

Posted by: Anonymous at August 10, 2005 10:10 AM

I think those ugly buildings (if not put up by United Homes), are simple contractor-built housing. Wouldn't it be nice if the city zoned a stretch of land for up-and-coming architects to create state-of-the-art design.

Posted by: TeoNYC at August 10, 2005 10:15 AM

yes, in truth these building aren't really messing up the landscape that much- it's always been a bit of a mis-mash. it's interesting that the "fancy" glass buildings or the buildings where someone seems to have tried something also don't fit in- you don't live in b-burg for the aesthetics.

Posted by: Anonymous at August 10, 2005 10:24 AM

The new buildings are ugly, but in that sense it's in keeping with the whole Williamsburg aesthetic. I've always found the place to be pretty unattractive.

Posted by: Anonymous at August 10, 2005 10:30 AM

True enough. At least these buildings aren't "out of context"!

Posted by: Park Sloper at August 10, 2005 10:49 AM

Having just gone through the strangulation that is the Landmarks process, I wonder why there is not an architecture review process for new buildings. Why do we hold pre-existing buildings to such standards and these pieces of c**p can go up just outside, sometimes immediately next to, Landmark zones?
I wondered this after seeing the Linoleum-like facades of the Court St. Theater and Atlantic Center Malls go up. The rapid rate of development in our borough and the fact that these buildings are being thrown up by developers with clearly no architectural integrity shows we need a review board for new as well as older dwellings.

Posted by: renogirl at August 10, 2005 10:53 AM

But I thought hipsters liked things other people don't, like industrial buildings? Isn't that why they're hip?

These are ugly, but I can never resist a hipster dig.

Posted by: Anonymous at August 10, 2005 10:59 AM

I spoke with a friend of mine who works for a developer and he told me that developers in NYC shoot for the most "plain" designs b/c they face too much opposition when trying to build anything at all unusual.

But, if you want ugly, walk down Amsterdam Ave from 100 on down. That's a plate full of ugly.

Too bad, beautiful buildings like the Woolworth building don't seem likely to ever be built again.

Posted by: JoshK at August 10, 2005 11:12 AM

renogirl,

I feel your pain, but the answer to LPC-caused pain is not to spread the misery around evenly. My solution is to eliminate the LPC. Your proposal to enact an architecture review process goes against the founding principles of liberty, and even worse makes real estate of all types more expensive that necessary.

Architectural integrity? Whoa, you've got priorities blown out of proportion.

Posted by: iceberg at August 10, 2005 11:50 AM

At the high-end, it looks like buyers are willing to a pay a substantial premium for attractively designed buildings. It'll be interesting to see if it ever trickles down the scale. I suppose developers have a reasonable sense if it pays for them to commission a handsome building or just go with eyesores like the two pictured here.

Posted by: Daniel at August 10, 2005 12:49 PM

Uh oh, Iceberg is back!

Posted by: Anonymous at August 10, 2005 12:59 PM

Isn't this the part where someone accuses me of trolling or being a blowhard for having the gall to demand the right to be left alone and live peacefully?

Posted by: iceberg at August 10, 2005 1:16 PM

Sorry, Iceberg. Landmarks does need to be reformed, but owners insensitive to their architectural gems or the history of their neighborhood should be tarred and feathered.

Posted by: Anonymous at August 10, 2005 1:21 PM

Could you please stop with your hatred for Williamsburg

Posted by: VOS IZ NEIAS at August 10, 2005 2:03 PM

as long as people are buying units in these buildings, developers are going to keep building. supply and demand. developers are driven by profit, not by pleasing the local aesthetics constituencies. as much as i'd love to see some tasteful BK development, it's crazy to think that some bureaucratic nyc entity can serve as the arbiter of blog-readership approved housing design.

Posted by: j. matthew hijuelos at August 10, 2005 2:58 PM

iceberg is right

Posted by: Anonymous at August 10, 2005 3:02 PM

I know ugly buildings are sad, but yes, as long as people are buying them, they will continue to go up. We live in a truly ugly building-- really little redeeming about it from the outside-- but it's beautiful on the inside. Someday we dream of having both, but for now... inner beauty will have to do!

Plus all of our neighbors are a) quiet and b) very cool. Lucky us!

Posted by: c at August 10, 2005 3:58 PM

What is the verdict on Isaac Katan? He is building the 10 story high-rise where Delmonico's was on 15th Street in the South Slope.

Ron Weasley

Posted by: Anonymous at August 10, 2005 7:08 PM

No Ayn Rayn fans to tell us that if the buidling serves it's purpose, it's good?
I think most professional architects would hate to put up another woolworth building, but like buildings like the Richard Meile buildings on the West Side H'way, so if we let them decide, some of the people on this blog may not be happy with the results..
(apologies for any spelling errors)

Posted by: Anonymous at August 10, 2005 8:43 PM


It would be interesting to read an interview with one of these builders to find out what they are actually thinking.

The desire and drive to build that people had in NYC a hundred years ago must be the same as today, but why are so many new buildings so ugly?

Meat-head builders are likely partly to blame as well as the current economy in which anything with a bedroom, kitchen, and bathroom can fetch a couple hundred thousand dollars. Why paint a Picasso when you can sell a paint-by-the-dots for the same price?


Posted by: Anonymous at August 10, 2005 10:28 PM

Ron W.,

You wish it was just a 10-story building. Minimally it will be 124' (12-stories) per current DOB filings. http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/JobsQueryByNumberServlet?requestid=5&passjobnumber=301791318&passdocnumber=05&s=4F669CACC2CC7742D4BAAB12088F0A5C

The latest rumor floating around is that it will be (3) 11-story towers. Who knows?

I've got three words for you though - "out of context"

But he does have some sharp south of the border crackerjacks doing the demolition with hand tools, one brick at a time. At this rate, they should be done by next Spring.

Posted by: Anonymous at August 11, 2005 8:55 AM

Anonymous at 10:28PM,

The blame for this latest housing craze, and its ugly results lays partially at the door of the Fed which is responsible for this "cheap" money phase and it's accompanying disasters.

The masters at the Fed are all Keynesians, and in order to forestall a much-needed minor recession to correct the reckless spending of the dotcom era, they pump the system with more money (by way of lowering the rates and by purchasing treasury notes) in order to boost even more consumer and government spending- which was the root cause of the recession in the first place!

So instead of letting the market ride out the brutal, but usually short term recession (which in fact is a healthy function of the market, since it weeds out the less-efficient investments which were unsound business proposals) the Fed policies delay the less minor recession, and in its place they add an unhealthy housing boom which was partially encouraged because when interest rates are so low:

A) it's actually pointless to hold onto savings which don't generate enough bank interest to offset the price inflation, so you might as well spend it today and worry about it tomorrow (ask anyone who took and ARM or interest-only loan how they plan on paying for it tomorrow)

B) it lowers the barrier of entry for developers to build projects, so that any Joe Sixpack who is not experienced now can join the "everyone is a developer" crowd.

The results of inexperienced developers flooding the market with "cheap" money leads to first-time projects which don't really make sense when the rates are higher. You've got architects whom are overwhelmed with the sheer volume of new projects, so that they can't really dedicate their time and energy to designing the best structures. Or maybe the developers don't really care much about aesthetics, because it doesn't make a difference when consumers are spending everything but their last 2 cents.

Posted by: iceberg at August 11, 2005 9:17 AM

I know a lot of folks don't like him, but Iceberg makes a point - why should developers care about looks if people will spend insane amounts of money to buy something that requires less of a developer's time and money?

Posted by: Anonymous at August 11, 2005 9:44 AM

3 towers?....bummer

Ron Weasley

Posted by: Anonymous at August 11, 2005 10:30 PM

Geez, go away for a week and more ugliness peeks above the sidewalk sheds. The Bedford Ave. building is a true shame, since its sits next to one of the neighborhood's little gems - the building at the corner of N 4th and Bedford (terra-cotta clad in what looks to have been the 1920s or so).

Posted by: Halden at August 12, 2005 9:30 PM

http://www.sexeici.com/gai/mmmak/rape/38153/young-gay-rape.html clungglisteningkeyboard

Posted by: twenty at January 25, 2006 5:02 PM

Post a comment

Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.

Latest Restaurant Additions