« Plenty of Condos Left at Montrose Morris' Roanoke Houses of the Day: Live-Work Comparison »

February 1, 2006

Good and Bad Design: A Side-by-Side Look

2 buildings
Here's an interesting side-by-side comparison from Grand Avenue in Clinton Hill that relates to the recent ongoing debate about the viability of achieving moderately attractive contextual new construction. The far more appealing building on the left was built gutted at some point in the last few years; the building on the right has been going up over the past few months. In some ways, it's surprising that the building on the left was built earlier, when the area was a riskier bet. The only explanation--other than ignorance and incompetence--to explain the lower quality of the eyesore on the right is that the developer had to pay so much more for the land in this market that he didn't have enough dough to build anything decent. But presumably he'll be able to sell it for more too.




Posted by Brownstoner at 11:04 AM | Comments (22)
Categories: Development

Comments

THe building on the left is old. It was gutted and an additional story was put on top. It used to have a retail store on the first floor with apartments above.

Posted by: Anonymous at February 1, 2006 11:35 AM

Really??? It looks new, especially with those window layouts...Okay, then, guess the question becomes why would it be so hard to create something of this standard that's not all detailed-out but is simple and not a sore thumb?

Posted by: Brownstoner at February 1, 2006 11:38 AM

even the one on the right is not THAT BAD- not as bad as the one on Fulton with all the pillars. It's ugly, don't get me wrong, but I don't think it's going to scar the neighborhood. it looks more like a cheap Manhattan construction than a Brooklyn monstrosity.

Posted by: Anonymous at February 1, 2006 11:42 AM

I think it just gets back to affordable housing. If the project on the right is a tax syndicated affordable housing deal, the sponsor acquires the parcel and the development generates tax credits that are sold for fee income.

The concept that a more attactive looking affordable housing development can be sold for a higher price is based on a flawed understanding of the affordable housing industry.

Posted by: Anonymous at February 1, 2006 11:42 AM

True, but with a different colored brick and a few more dollars on the windows, this would be transformed...

Posted by: Brownstoner at February 1, 2006 11:43 AM

I'm happy neither one has the Fedders a/c sleeves. Nor the silly grill-work.

Posted by: Anonymous at February 1, 2006 11:56 AM

there are a couple buildings similar to the right monstrosity where I live in harlem. neither seem to have anyone in them and appear shoddily built (gaps around windows, off center windows, off center fedders boxes). a real shame actually.

Posted by: anon at February 1, 2006 11:58 AM

the building on the left used to be a beverage distributorship. i think it was 3 years ago that they built the addition to the top and renovated the building to become a double duplex; it took them a long time to find buyers.

i don't think either building is as bad as a lot of the other new construction in the area. at least the windows are a good size and not just one to a floor like in a lot of uglier buildings. but that's just aesthetics, who knows what's inside.

the building on the right would look a little better if they had just used 'regular' facade bricks, instead of those pre-fab 'distressed' looking bricks.

Posted by: Jimmy Legs at February 1, 2006 12:15 PM

It looks like the eight family down the block is for sale too. I wonder if they could gut it and make it look like the nicer of these two.

Posted by: Anonymous at February 1, 2006 12:18 PM

The store in the building on the left went through several businesses. The last was the beverage distributorship; a few years before that it was briefly a pizzeria. Upstairs there were occupied apartments.

I believe that the lot on which the building on the right was built is owned by the same people who own the wholesale cell phone (or whatever it is) business across the street. They have owned the building across the street, along with the parking lot beside it, for at least 10 years. They rented parking spots on the current construction site for several years before they started construction.

Posted by: Anonymous at February 1, 2006 12:21 PM

I just looked at today's live-work comparison photo. Before the gut reno and additional floor, the building on the left here (the former beverage distributorship/pizzeria) looked a lot like the building on the left in the side-by-side comparison.

Posted by: Anonymous at February 1, 2006 12:26 PM

The 8-unit building up the block has 8 tenants, many of whom have lived there for many years under stabilization or rent control, I'm sure. It could cost a pretty penny to vacate. The beverage distributor/pizzeria only had 2 apartments above and I think they just left them empty when the tenants left.

Posted by: Anonymous at February 1, 2006 12:29 PM

I don't think either building looks particularly good. The SCALE of the left building may be more pleasing to a lot of people, but both buildings are CHEAP and ugly.

The building on the left is pretty clumsily put together, architecturally. The window openings and string courses are hardly contextual. The top floor could be read as an addition, but then why run quoins up the side to tie the whole thing together? Basically, this looks like a poorly considered california stucco job (the latest artificial siding craze, viz. Williamsburg and Greenpoint).

I can't see enough of the building on the right to know what it is all about, but other than its scale, the most offensive aspect is the rather dopey lintels and the cheap windows.

In short, two lost opportunities, side by side.

Posted by: Halden at February 1, 2006 1:14 PM

There is a big dig going on on Greene and Classon just in from the corner and one about to commence on the corner of Quincy & Franklin. Now's the time to talk to the developers -- before they order the shitty bricks.

They might welcome some respectful input from the neighbors, espcially if it's posed as suggestions to help them market their buildings to upscale buyers.

Posted by: clinton hillbilly at February 1, 2006 1:21 PM

know who they are? have an exact address?

Posted by: Brownstoner at February 1, 2006 1:41 PM

With all due respect, if they are excavating, you are a little late to the game to express opinions about design or materials.

Posted by: Anonymous at February 1, 2006 2:40 PM

Quite honestly, I'd rather live on the the on the right. The left building looks like it would be cramped and dark inside.

Posted by: Whitbo at February 1, 2006 5:22 PM

The condo on the left was marketed in 2004 by the ethically challenged jerry minsky of corcoran's ft. greene office - one guy every red blooded American should avoid. This guy is so greasy your cholesterol level will skyrocket from a moment in his presence.
anon2:40 you have no clue.
excavation is no indicator, anything can change up until the plan is approved and can be amended after. Brownstoner needs a professional as a guest columnist that actually knows the business not someone sneaking around the borough speculating, void or merit or expertise.
The comments that are all over the board are evidence of the need for legitimacy which would help propel this spunky blog rather that promote the senseless rant that is beneficial to no one.
How refreshing would it be to empower Brownstoner readers with fact and knowledge so they can better identify junk from quality and in doing so boycott the garbage and ultimately making it unprofitable to keep marring our nabes.
Halden said all there is to say about these two buildings.
Developers that build Fedder covered crap do so because it is cheaper and people keep buying this sh*t. Refuse this junk - if it won't sell they won't build it. It's like fast food, you know it's gonna kill you but it's cheaper and faster.
Good concept, design, layout, finish, is all a result of engaging the consultant capable of bringing together the quality ancillary professionals and in doing so understanding what the consumer really enjoys which requires a great deal of effort and study. Anything of quality and significance does not happen by accident. The builder/developer most often engages the architect first, sounds logical, however they then fall prey to a single motivation which, in a worst case scenario, can result in the debacle known as the mezzanine. Often the architects hyper focus on design results in a project that will never be built because of cost alone. Point being, there must be balance, and balance requires a leader, echoing the voice of the consumer, balancing cost effectiveness with quality and good taste, all while proving to the developer that good planning is lucrative as well as publically appreciated.
In the past I've been very put off by my perception that Brownstoner was not geniunely caring about the bigger picture but, I felt, high on the rant and resulting spotlight.
I'm sensing that change, I hope.
Hey, we all need to weigh in, that's what drives these forums, but I'd love to see some reality interjected from a knowledgeable source. Anyone agree?

Posted by: truepro at February 2, 2006 9:32 AM

No

Posted by: Anonymous at February 2, 2006 9:42 PM

The community's opportunity to express an opinion on the aesthetics of a new development is through the land use committee of the community board.

If you attend these meetings, you will have a chance to discuss the designs with the developer's representatives.

My experience in attending these meetings is that the developer does not generally incorporate the community's feedback into the final design.

A negative endorsement from the community board due to design or other reasons rarely has any influence whatsoever on the final product.

Merely writing a letter or attempting to meet with the developer to express similar views would be even less effective.

Your best bet is to work through the community board, which, as I stated, is generally a waste of time.

Posted by: Anonymous at February 2, 2006 9:49 PM

Anon 9:49 - CB only gets to weigh in if its a variance application or a landmarks applications. And only on landmarks applications does aesthetics matter. Half the plans for variance applications I've seen are unbuildable (as in bedrooms need windows; apartments need doors). The plans are just zoning placeholders to get through the process.

Posted by: Halden at February 2, 2006 10:46 PM

You're wrong, any affordable housing project goes before the community board. This building would have gone before the community board for the community to express an opinion on the project.

Posted by: Anonymous at February 5, 2006 10:04 AM

Post a comment

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

Latest Restaurant Additions