« FOB Hosting W'burg Open House Saturday Set Speed Condo Report: 364 Myrtle Avenue »

March 23, 2006

Burg Development: Hip to be Square on Roebling

building
Man, this new development at Roebling and South 3rd went up fast! And you know what? It doesn't look so bad to us. Does anyone know if it's rentals or condos? GMAP




Posted by Brownstoner at 11:10 AM | Comments (24)
Categories: Development

Comments

Hmm...

To my eye it only looks marginally better than most of the stuff that gets panned here.

(Though it doesn't have Fedders boxes to it's credit...)

Posted by: Preston at March 23, 2006 11:25 AM

brownstoner, you have the worst taste. seriously. it's amazing to me that you even have a following.

Posted by: huh? at March 23, 2006 11:40 AM

Agree it's not going to win any design awards, but we found it inoffensive which is more than we can say for a lot of new buildings.

Posted by: Brownstoner at March 23, 2006 11:44 AM

looks like a few hops, jumps and skips away from a fedders building. I think it's the windows that you like.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 23, 2006 11:48 AM

Not bad, relative to a lot of the new "fedder type" buildings. I like the larger windows, and what, from a distance at least, appears to be real brick (instead of the ubiquitous fake brick veneer).

Posted by: lp at March 23, 2006 11:54 AM

to huh? at 11:40:

Taste can't be quantified. If you disagree with someone's opinion, say so, and back up your opinion with reasons that can be understood by others. Childish comments don't accomplish anything, unlesss your goal is to annoy everybody.

BTW, you are part of the following.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 23, 2006 12:08 PM

Troll. Not even worth reacting to.

Posted by: Brownstoner at March 23, 2006 1:05 PM

I have to disagree with Brownstoner on this one. Compare this to the 324 and 342 Bedford projects posted the other day - those projects used massing and materials to create a much better design and a much better fit with neighborhood. Those projects are leaps and bounds better than this pig.

A few pieces of precast decoration should not qualify a project as architecture! And as far as I can see, that's the only place they went to any design effort here.

More importantly, walk by the different projects - see them in person. This is cheap construction and cheap design, unfortunately.

Irregular window patterns do nothing to add interest to the building; the vents on the Roebling wall show the developer was too cheap to run a real ventilation system (I bet the con ed meters are behind the sidewalk barrier!); the slot for the balconies on S3 could be an archtiectural element, but the way its executed here, its just a massive, uninteresting void.

Sorry, usually I'm with you, but not here.

Posted by: Halden at March 23, 2006 2:10 PM

Interesting points, Halden. You're way ahead of us there with your ventilation system analysis! The two Bedford sites were clearly built with a different price point in mind. These really feel more like rentals for the post-college crowd than condos--but we could be totally wrong on that. When we said these were better than some other things, we were referring to disasters like the building on the east side of Bedford between South 3rd and 4th and other Fedders-like constructions. Ultimately, there's something about how the square windows mimic the squareness of the overall building that we like. That said, we're not about to sell our place to move in here or anything!

Posted by: Brownstoner at March 23, 2006 2:15 PM

they're rentals and it didnt go up that fast....

Posted by: Anonymous at March 23, 2006 2:55 PM

No, it's not the greatest thing out there, but at least it's not an aggressively ugly Fedders building.

Posted by: DN at March 23, 2006 3:15 PM

I'm with you B-Stoner, not bad - quite frankly it looks like the thousands of brick/casement window apartment houses built all over the city in the early 30's. As for the vents - I have yet to see an effective ventilation system in a multifamily apartment houses - the static ones that vent to the roof, just dont work and the vent fans generally just blow (dont really vent anywhere) - In reality the ventilation system most buildings rely on is the window - so I wouldnt knock this building too hard for the vents

Posted by: David at March 23, 2006 3:35 PM

OK, its better than the average Fedders box in the neighborhood, and better than "KAI" buildings (including the one you mention, Brownstoner).

Still, that's a pretty low bar we've set for ourselves, isn't it??

Posted by: Halden at March 23, 2006 3:45 PM

Brownstoner, seriously: WHAT DO YOU FIND OFFENSIVE?

Posted by: Anonymous at March 23, 2006 3:47 PM

Actually I think the question Anon @ 3:47 built in the last 25 years do you NOT find offensive

Posted by: David at March 23, 2006 4:39 PM

Cant type meant to say:

What built in the last 25ys do you NOT find offensive

Posted by: David at March 23, 2006 4:51 PM

There's plenty we don't find offensive since a lot of what's been built in the last 25 years is bland, bland, bland. There's lots and lots of mid-century modern architecture we love. But the last 25 years? Honestly, in Brooklyn, nothing much comes to mind. Even in Manhattan, on the residential side, once again not much--though we do like a few recent things like the Meier buildings and Shrager's Bond Street condos. As for commercial, we were walking by the new 7 WTC the other day and thinking how successful that is.

Posted by: Brownstoner at March 23, 2006 5:42 PM

Halden,
Can you drop us an email?
Thanks

Posted by: Brownstoner at March 23, 2006 5:43 PM

I've been inside this place. It's a rental building, 2BR and 3BR only. It's not hideous but I walked out after the preview with no photos, simply because all it would have been is photos of white boxes.

The kitchens have a little bit of character but are small, imho. This place will appeal to people wanting to move here from the Upper East Side, who can't conceive of not having laundry in their building.

It will have a part-time doorman, a "fitness room," the terraces will be nice, and there's a roof deck. Some people will love the clean lines, other people will find it sterile. The apartments are generously sized (the building only has 2BR and 3BR) but you are paying for that.

In the interests of full disclosure, I am working on this building, but if I was trying to shill it I'd be typing in all-caps about it being sun-drenched :)

Posted by: brooklyn agent at March 23, 2006 6:28 PM

Brownstoner I was actually addressing the anonymous poster who seemed to be saying you SHOULD be offended by this building.

I know that there are modern buildings you like (or tolerate) b/c you post about them here.

I will say though that I kind of thinking it is silly and even disengenuous for some people to knock EVERY new building - I mean if you dont like modern architechture fine, I get it but then dont even bother to critic it - cause 1890 aint coming back and essentially youll never like anything.

Its sort of like someone who hates opera writing reviews of it - its always going to say the same thing and it wil be of no use to those that might enjoy it and can appreciate its beauty.

Posted by: David at March 24, 2006 12:22 AM


I agree it looks better than lots of other recent developments in that it resembles typical NYC architecture a bit more, but to me it looks like low income housing. If it weren't for the hot rental market, I would have guessed it was a new city housing project.

Construction costs are so high these day, it seems the nice stuff is only built for the super rich. I really like the Glass House in Hudson Square. It looks seriously cool. My favorite comment about it was from some banker who stated that when he moved into his new pad at the Glass House, he was going to throw huge parties and rename it the Ass House.

Posted by: ebomb at March 25, 2006 8:08 AM

Complacency is addictive.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 25, 2006 3:15 PM

These developers are creating sub-standard buildings - How can this be acceptable? Good design does not cost more money, it just takes more effort. Effort that these developers are unwilling to spend.
They have no interest in improving our community, they only wish to improve their bottom line.
But what is the ultimate cost? To our environment? To our streetscape? To our future?

Posted by: Anonymous at March 25, 2006 3:27 PM


Wrong, good design does cost more.

Cookie-cutter construction is generally the cheapest.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 25, 2006 8:36 PM

Post a comment

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

Latest Restaurant Additions