Triangular Tower for Fort Greene Revealed

Two weeks ago, while we were asleep at the wheel, the Clarett Group unveiled the plans for its 28-story residential tower at 230 Ashland Place that some are calling the Flatiron Building of Brooklyn. The 288-footer can be built as-of-right, meaning no special variances are needed. FXFowle, the architecture firm behind the project, said that the building will incorporate limestone-looking bands between the largely glass-encased floors to help it fit into the brownstone neighborhood. If this is done right, we think it could work aesthetically. Given its close proximity to Flatbush, we're less worried about sheer size than the aesthetics of the finished product and its impact (population, traffic, etc.) on the Fort Greene community. After the whole Frank Gehry experience last summer, we're pretty jaded about buying into the early drawings which are often no more than marketing tools to win over the local community. We'll see though. Do people think this is too big no matter what or do you think there's a chance it can work contextually. We're not writing it off yet.
Another Towering Condo [FG Courier] GMAP
Flatiron Building in Brooklyn [Curbed]

Comments

can this be any less residential looking???

Posted by: Anonymous at May 30, 2006 11:37 AM

Maybe the building will work, maybe it won't, but I don't see anything "contextual" about it.

Posted by: anon2 at May 30, 2006 12:03 PM

I think it looks great. It will fit in well with the "high rise" look that the general area will gradually assume over the next decade.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 30, 2006 12:25 PM

This is a a big residential tower. It is in context with the big residential developments: the W'burg bank building condo and the BONY office building. Metrotech is sure to extend along Flatbush and Ratner will build something. There is no such thing as "context" in this environment of rapid change. The word has no meaning.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 30, 2006 12:38 PM

I've walked past that corner a few times recently, getting off the Q train at Dekalb and Flatbush and walking to the Social Security office at Fulton and Rockwell. There's nothing there right now--just loading docks and traffic funneling to Flatbush and the bridges. I don't know how big a shadow it would cast though.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 30, 2006 12:59 PM

So much for the residential community feel of the neighborhood. I agree with anon 11:37 - this hardly looks residential. All these new developments are so depressing...downtown Manhattan has decided to cross the bridge and expand into Ft. Greene -- lucky us. As for the bank, it may be going condo but it's presence already has its place in the neighborhood. I imagine my building around the corner from this monstrosity will have little if any light left in its shadow...what's next??

Posted by: Anonymous at May 30, 2006 2:07 PM

i think it can work and it sounds like it will be in a fitting location. i like the concept in terms of shape and materials. as much as we love brooklyn for block after block of low-rise brownstones, we can't oppose every highrise. sound, progressive development can be incorporated into brooklyn imo.

Posted by: pietro at May 30, 2006 2:14 PM

Does the word "ugly" have meaning still? I don't oppose the tower, just its half ass design.

Posted by: GrandPa at May 30, 2006 2:27 PM

I second that opinion! UGLY UGLY UGLY. Its out of context, which isnt even the main problem. But that lazy design is going to look soooo dated in a few years. Will be an eyesore before long- Ill bet cha! Urgh....

Posted by: MJ at May 30, 2006 2:41 PM

Grandpa, what's wrong with the design? IMO, it looks like any other luxury highrise apartment building in Manhattan.

Posted by: BrownBomber at May 30, 2006 2:41 PM

Which one? Its looks very Seventies.

Posted by: GrandPa at May 30, 2006 3:18 PM

I like the shape of the building. I live in FG/CH and do not think the size is an issue. This is on the edge of downtown, not in the middle of a brownstone block. I'm not thrilled with the "skin" of the building, but don't think it is that bad. If they tried to clad it in brownstone as opposed to limestone, it would look to heavy I think (and we don't really need an enormous brownstone).

Overall, as a FG/CH resident, I think this is a good thing. I like the idea that there is going to be commercial space with awnings over the sidewalk downstairs. Hopefully, high end stores/grocery will take up that space. That stretch of Fulton is pretty desolate, and was prior to demolition of the old buildings too.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 30, 2006 3:26 PM

Way, way too big.

Posted by: mkovnat at May 30, 2006 3:29 PM

I think it looks great too. I like the blend of new buildings developing around here.

This looks clean and appropriate.

The coolest thing about the BAM Harvey is that it ISN'T perfectly "restored" but instead has a mix of old and new elements. I think the neighborhood overall can benefit from this sophisticated design approach.

Renovated neighborhoods often result in a gooey sentimental mix of Holly Hobby / Little House on the Prairie / Hallmark / Home Depot Victorian masquerading as good taste. We could do with a little less of that.

Posted by: coward at May 30, 2006 4:25 PM

I like it...

Posted by: Anonymous at May 30, 2006 8:20 PM

I love the modern buildings that are coming into Brooklyn. We need some high modern to mix-up with the brownstones, a la Richard Meier in the West Village. It works, I think - quite fabulously.

I will say this, however, we need to LANDMARK brownstone blocks so that they aren't destroyed! Save the modern stuff for the empty lots.

The real crime in Brooklyn are the "Feder's" buildings and Atlantic Center/PCRichards structures.

Posted by: Ed at May 30, 2006 10:33 PM

This looks much better than Ratner/Gehry's AY

Posted by: Anonymous at May 31, 2006 5:45 PM

« Some More 411 on the "Schermerhorn House" House Joke of the Day »

May 30, 2006

Triangular Tower for Fort Greene Revealed

Comments

Post a comment

Get Brownstoner on your Mobile Phone

Latest Restaurant Additions