« Celebrating Vinyl and Aluminum in Greenpoint Historic Beauty Makes It All the More Painful »
January 26, 2006
Lost Opportunities: More Butchering of the Hood
In our rant about 1067 Fulton yesterday, we mentioned how we had hoped the building would have been able to raise the bar a bit for new developments further east. In this post, we'll look at little further east--into the center of Bedford Stuyvesant--to show how quickly and on what a scale the neighborhood's architectural future is being squandered. In particular, we'll look at the area surrounding Tompkins Park, which we would think would hold great potential (despite the existence of communist-era-looking projects).
260 Tompkins GMAP
352 Lexington GMAP 53 Van Buren GMAP
697 and 699 Lafayette GMAP
Comments
the good ole "FEDDERS" developments...what also irks me is the setback some of them have from the faces of adjacent historic buildings...
Posted by: Anonymous at January 26, 2006 9:49 AM
Instead of just downzoning neighborhoods which would still allow this crap, planning should be such to incentivize better design by allowing good design to be built taller. Again look what Vancouver and Portland have done on the design front. Another future is possible.
Posted by: Ferrerin05 at January 26, 2006 9:53 AM
Thank you for highlighting the devastating trend in Bed-Stuy. Is this all hopeless or can we do something to curtail this trend? Believe me, I acknowledge the free market, but as stated yesterday, affordable housing does not have to be ugly and out of place with the beauty of the existing buildings.
Posted by: anony at January 26, 2006 11:32 AM
Since many of these are two and three family townhouses, as are most of the Fedders type houses, someone somewhere figured out that people want affordable low density, rowhouse type housing, and that this style works best for the blocks with a few empty lots. And as someone who remembers the bad old days around that park and in Bed Stuy in general, even this crap is better than an empty garbage filled lot. Having said that, I really don't understand the lazy architecture. I've seen "new" brownstones that look way better than this in other parts of Bklyn, and not high end, either. The houses on Fulton in Fort Greene are good examples. I don't care what anyone says, they do it because it's cheaper to be ugly, yes, but also because they have no respect for the potential buyers. Show me one of these developers who would live in one of these houses. There is no attempt to make them in the least bit attractive.
Posted by: Bunky at January 26, 2006 11:56 AM
I would like to believe that you can build attractive low-cost housing just as cheaply as ugly housing. But all I'm seeing on this site are examples that suggest you can't. There may be stuff out there in Brooklyn I'm ignorant of. Can anyone from the "affordable housing does not have to be ugly" camp cite some examples?
I don't mean examples from other cities that "incentivize" (i.e., publicly help to pay for) more attractive housing. That may or may not be a good idea (ferrerin05's better-but-taller suggestion is intriguing) but it's a whole other discussion. I'm wondering what the options are for New Yorkers with less money who want to buy without waiting for a wave of social change.
Does anyone, for instance, have pix of the Fulton houses Bunky mentions, and info on what they cost?
Posted by: linusvanpelt at January 26, 2006 12:26 PM
Bunky, you hit the nail on the head. The asthetic choices are more a statement about how the developers are viewing potential occupants than anything else. All of the housing on Fulton in the area of Cumberland Street looks better than these photos. It's not a matter of can't, it is a matter of won't.
Posted by: Oh Lord! at January 26, 2006 12:28 PM
I agree with most of what you say Bunky. The only thing I have to say is that I don't necessarily thing the cheap and ugly construction is better than a vacant lot here or there. I have a vacant lot on my block and I regularly pick up trash in it. As a result, less trash seems to be thrown in it. Maybe organize a clean up day with the neighbors if the lots are seriously dirty. I do the same with the sidewalks. People seem much less prone to littering if the place is garbage free. One small thing that can be done I suppose while we fight against such ugly construction.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 26, 2006 12:29 PM
Ferrerin05, there is nothing affordable about those houses. They're selling for market value.
These things are all over Brooklyn and it's unfortunate that these designs haven't been outlawed.
We should rally against Fedder homes.
Posted by: TK at January 26, 2006 12:36 PM
Hi,
New to this....I've been reading a lot, but haven't commented.
I own a townhouse on Classon. I too resent other people's disregard for history. I'm either a snob or a sucker, I honestly can't tell right now with all the money I'm speading restoring my house back to it's original self. But I definitely know that community activism doesn't take place on a blog. So, count me in for any mobilization to thart the spead of the Fedder disease.
I'd hate to see the neighborhood turn into Clinton Hills......if you know what I mean
Posted by: joempire at January 26, 2006 1:10 PM
Joempire, it's Clinton Hill, and no, I don't know what you mean, please explain. And since Classon in the border of Clinton Hill and Bed Stuy, what is it that you don't like about Clinton Hill?
Posted by: Anonymous at January 26, 2006 1:19 PM
I know all about these Fedder homes first hand...I owned one until last May. They're not only ugly and without character, but the moment you close everything starts falling apart. These developers have no regard for the potential buyer, the neighborhood, etc. because they don't live in this communities. Five months after purchasing the house, the roof was leaking the doors shifted and wouldn't close properly. You might say why would you buy this type of home, well I've always loved older homes (especially brownstones w/ details), but at the time the bidding wars were so fierce, that I was getting priced out and I just sort of gave in and purchased one of these new construction. Thankfully, I was able to sell it. I will be closing on a brownstone/townhouse in Crown Heights; it will need major reno, but there is nothing like original details, a piece of history.
Posted by: faithful at January 26, 2006 1:34 PM
these pictures make me want to THROW UP. what is wrong with these designers/developers?!??
Posted by: Anonymous at January 26, 2006 1:34 PM
Right on-- I will protest Fedders any day, because it seems like a very practical kind of activism_- not arguing against all development, just against crappy development.
I mean, why doesn't some developer come into our neighborhoods with a good-design-for-the-masses approach-- I'm thinking of the way Target gets Isaac Mizrahi or H & M gets Stella McCartney-- or even Ikea. I mean, some of their furniture has particle board inside of it, but a lot of it is well made in the end-- and there's an underlying idea that *everyone* wants their home to look good, even people w/o piles of $$$.
And we don't have little children in poor countries working their little fingers to the bone to make it happen, either. WTF?
Posted by: Anonymous at January 26, 2006 1:45 PM
anon 1:34:
What is wrong with these developers has been aptly explained over and over by previous posters: it's utter contempt and disrespect for the community in which these shoddy developments are going up as well as for the people they anticipate will buy them. Regardless of race, ethnicity, nationality, etc., I would venture to say that most of these developers do not come from the communities in which they erecting these monstrosities and, as such, they have no sincere investment in neighborhood improvement. The only investment at play here is in a quick and cheap return on their benjamins at the expense of the most vulnerable consumers in the society. It's both a very old and very sad story.
Posted by: GardensGal at January 26, 2006 1:50 PM
Well put GardensGal.
Posted by: lp at January 26, 2006 3:11 PM
the row of newer townhouses on greene? between washington and st.james and the places mentioned on fulton (they even have meters on the front i think) across from 1 greene sushi- they've been discussed here before and can't remember how affordable they are now but they are relatively new and relatively attractive and I can't believe they were that much more to built- if there was atleast a mandatory brick style, that would solve half the eyesoar- there's nothing like the fake brick look or the cinder block look to turn your stomach- the best point here about it is if you wouldn't want to live in it yourself then don't build it
Posted by: luxeterna70 at January 26, 2006 3:23 PM
You know how some business owners advertise by standing in front of their product declaring "I make/sell this, and I stand behind my product."? Well, if developers had to show their faces, or if their architects did, would they? If you pass these places while they are being built, even a novice can see they are using the cheapest construction materials, and building methods. (I just don't trust metal framing. If you can bend it with your hand, how strong can it be?)
There are organizations, such as Neighborhood Housing Services, with citywide offices, which has first time homebuying classes, and also home repair classes. They are specifically geared to middle income people in what are now termed "emerging neighborhoods". I took their home repair class about 10 years ago, and it was priceless. The class took place in the Roosevelt Savings Bank on Broadway/Gates Ave, convenient as I lived in Bed Stuy at the time. We had men and women of all ages, and experiences. We had people who didn't know one end of a hammer from the other, and people who were working on their houses. We learned basic tools,(power and hand)and techniques, such as framing, tiling, painting, putting in a toilet, sweating pipes, basic electricity. The idea was that even if you weren't going to do it yourself, it helped in working with a contractor, if you had a clue how renovation worked. That would help you not to get ripped off, or would help you if you were doing it yourself.
Point of this being that education can help a first time homebuyer who doesn't have a lot of money, get the best bang for their buck, especially if they buy an older home. They would also be able to determine the quality of new construction, and ask intelligent questions, and look for quality, or lack thereof. Their first time homebuyers club was also great, although I didn't participate. They guided members through all the pitfalls and explained all of the complications of points, inspections, mortgages, etc, etc.
These are the kind of programs that need to be expanded and the word needs to get out about the good work they do. Local preservation organizations such as Brownstoners of Bed Stuy, and Crown Heights North Association need to begin to do whatever they can to influence both politicians and people in general in putting pressure on developers to do better. If you live in one of these areas, you need to join organizations like this, and do something. We may not succeed, but we can't just sit here and watch them destroy what we worked so hard to keep together when no one with a dime would think of living in these neighborhoods.
Sorry to be so long winded.
Posted by: CrownHeightsProud at January 26, 2006 4:03 PM
Yea, I know it's Clinton Hill....I was attempting to make a joke, a goof actually, about developers who advertise their new construction in "Clinton Hills."
Posted by: joempire at January 26, 2006 4:08 PM
To anon 12:29, one vacant lot per block, ok. I agree, clean it up, or make a community garden. That's great. But I remember blocks over near the park that had maybe 4 lived in homes, and the rest of the block was an overgrown forest with dead cars and old mattresses. Even if you worked at it full time, you and your neighbors couldn't keep that clean. As much as I really hate Fedders houses, I find them preferable to urban wastelands. It's a tough call, even writing this is causing me conflict. In the long run, I don't think this kind of housing does anyone other than the developer any favors, on the other hand, who am I to deny hard working people a chance of home ownership, especially since standards are not going to change overnight.
Posted by: Bunky at January 26, 2006 4:45 PM
I hear you Bunky. I'm not casting aspersions on you at all.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 26, 2006 5:27 PM
Here's a crazy idea,
Offer some kind of tax abatement for good architecture.
Posted by: JoshK at January 26, 2006 9:14 PM
I am new here and I am soooooooo glad that to know I am not the only one who think these houses are hideous. I live near Malcolm X and I'm totally disgusted with the construction that is going on over here. In Staten Island a few years ago I remember there was a moritorium on the over developement of buildings. The crazy thing about this is there are still brownstone buildings vacant in the area. why don't the architectural companies buy these buildings and enhance them. Maybe we should rally at the community board 3, I'm sure they have a hand in this.
As residents here we owe it to ourselves to make our voices heard. If this were Park Slope they would do it.
Posted by: anonymous at January 26, 2006 11:28 PM
In other communities outside of NYC, don't housing designs have to go before committees that grant approval not only on zoning issues but on aesthetic choices? Can't our community boards encourage basic standards and architecture styles, type/color of bricks, window styles, no fedders or meters in front... etc.
I think this trend is also encouraged by a couple of things. 1) Cheap cad/cam programs where anyone can "design" a building by stacking rectangles on top of each other, find the cheapest building materials available, put in the fewest, cheapest windows possible and put it on the market. 2) And can you really blame them, when the top down examples of major developers is so horrendous and approvals are granted for abominations like the Atlantic Center and most of the drugstore and bank boxes that get built and ruin retail strips like Smith Street or 5th Avenue or even Hudson Street in the Village.
There is something seriously askew with the whole new construction value chain - from developers through architects, through city agencies... and its going on at the largest developments and buildings in the city as well the kind on brownstoner this week.
Posted by: Seamus at January 27, 2006 7:47 AM
As I walk by these monstrosities, I often try to imagine what it would take to fix the facades (not to mention the shoddy work inside). Would it ever be worth it to buy one and fix it up???
As for decent looking new construction, there is a short row of brick houses on Gates bet. Classon & Franklin that looks halfway decent. According to friends who live on the block, their block association actualy contacted the developer and advised him on the look of the facades. He was quite open to considering their opinion and the project was a success.
Atlantic Commons and the row of brick townhouses on Greene bet. Washington and St. James are also fine. They are generic, but not offensive.
If a groups wants to get together, I would be happy to try to get on the agenda of the next CB3 meeting to discuss the issue. The photos on brownstoner would help. Perhaps we coud create a set of guidelines for use by the community board. Seems like a great project to work on with Pratt, Bed-Stuy Restoration Corp. or PACC.
Posted by: clinton hillbilly at January 27, 2006 11:22 AM
I will gladly join you Clinton hillbilly.
Posted by: Bedstuyer at January 27, 2006 12:25 PM
I would be interested in joining a group to address this issue.
Posted by: lyn at January 27, 2006 11:20 PM
Are we going to start a group to address the issue of ugly buildings sprouting up in our neighborhood. Lets do this.
Posted by: lyn at January 31, 2006 9:18 PM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.