Bedford Bummers: Number 805

building

Comments

I wonder what the process is to get one of these buildings approved. It's funny that we have these landmarked Brownstone communities controlled by the Landmark commission, which can be a stickler over little historic details. We worship these brownstones like shrines and then blocks and blocks of these extremely unattractive buildings are put up. Sometimes I think that our collective sense of aesthetics is too nostalgic. Is there a place in a free society for a Landmarks Commission which isn't for Landmarks but for neighborhood design?

Posted by: donatella at July 25, 2006 11:21 AM

Interesting question, Donatella. I wonder also, if 100 plus years ago, if this problem came up. Did builders just have more taste then, or was the social pressure to conform to a more rigid standard much greater? If you look at the apartment and general residential buildings built before WW2, it's hard to find a really ugly building. Some may not be too inspiring, but they certainly aren't ugly. Are certain segments of the society (us) too picky, too nose in the air snooty? Do we expect everything to look like McKim, Mead, and White, and we're just damn disappointed when we get Scarano?

Or is it just the marketplace, the times we live in, and the "advances" of technology and building practices? Or do we just have less people in the building business with taste?

Worse yet, is good architecture going to only be for the rich? Is good design seen as a luxury only for those who can afford it? I was walking around the Lower East Side near Orchard St, and noticed that all of the now infamous tenement buildings were actually quite beautiful on the outside, with facades festooned with cherubs and swags. Where is the modern equivelent for affordable housing today? A couple of ornamental bricks?

Posted by: CrownHeightsProud at July 25, 2006 12:24 PM

Yes, these are the questions that I have. I don't think that the desire for beauty is effete, ever, and that it is "snooty" to want that for our communities. I think that beauty in architecture and neighborhood design should be for everyone and that is why I ask about standard setting in a free society. In Japan, for instance, there is a tremendous public involvement in the urban design and investment in public spaces (though they have their share of hideous temporary buildings) and in Europe, zoning is very strict to preserve mountainsides for the enjoyment of all. Even in Kansas City, they spend 1% of their municipal budget on public art and everywhere you go are beautiful fountains and sculptures and that is for the enjoyment of everybody. I know this is a free society and I realize from my attitudes that I do NOT have a libertarian political view, because I think building should be publicly controlled in some way to shape neighborhoods in a better way. God, all you have to do is drive around Staten Island and you will want to cry.
You ask if 100 years ago, builders had greater social pressure to produce more attractive buildings. Did they? If so, what was it? Our great grandparents saying I won't live in that junk or was it some form of public institution? Well, that is my rant for the day, but contrast those Bedford buildings and how we react to them to the functional and beautiful buildings featured in Crown Heights last week. Wow. What a difference. OK, that's enough of me ranting. Peace.

Posted by: donatella at July 25, 2006 1:14 PM

Yes, these are the questions that I have. I don't think that the desire for beauty is effete, ever, and that it is "snooty" to want that for our communities. I think that beauty in architecture and neighborhood design should be for everyone and that is why I ask about standard setting in a free society. In Japan, for instance, there is a tremendous public involvement in the urban design and investment in public spaces (though they have their share of hideous temporary buildings) and in Europe, zoning is very strict to preserve mountainsides for the enjoyment of all. Even in Kansas City, they spend a significant part of their municipal budget on public art and everywhere you go are beautiful fountains and sculptures and that is for the enjoyment of everybody. I know this is a free society and I realize from my attitudes that I do NOT have a libertarian political view, because I think building should be publicly controlled in some way to shape neighborhoods in a better way. God, all you have to do is drive around Staten Island and you will want to cry.
You ask if 100 years ago, builders had greater social pressure to produce more attractive buildings. Did they? If so, what was it? Our great grandparents saying I won't live in that junk or was it some form of public institution? Well, that is my rant for the day, but contrast those Bedford buildings and how we react to them to the functional and beautiful buildings featured in Crown Heights last week. Wow. What a difference. OK, that's enough of me ranting. Maybe those houses on Bedford could use a few trees and some landscaping. Peace.

Posted by: donatella at July 25, 2006 1:17 PM

I think we also deal with a different aesthetic today. Thanks to architects like Mies Van der Rohe, less is more became a design choice. Unfortunately most people don't understand that the basis for that is using very hi end, luxurious materials- the more is a lot more. The beautiful detail on buildings was part and parcel of urban living because it was part of a visual way of life. Our visual perspective is much different so the visual choices we make are different too. The other big factor is that there are far fewer craftsmen around to carry one the traditions of the past. They went through rigorous training and apprenticeships, a system that barely exists today. Masters would pass down their techniques to apprentices, who handed them down when they became masters.

I also firmly believe that art,music,literature etc. and beauty in architecture and neighborhood are crucial factors in our psychological health as individuals and as a society. Slums don't depress just those who look at them, they deperss the hell out of those who have to live in them. I think it's odd that we have all of these rules and regulations in place for building -where they can go, how big they can be, how many windows per floor, etc. But nowhere do we rule that the building must be well designed or beautiful.Developers today cut corners where they can- other than paying for the utilitarian design to make sure the building meets most DOB regulations, they see money put into making a building beautiful or aesthetically pleasing as an extra, unnecessary expense.

Posted by: Bx2Bklyn at July 26, 2006 3:56 PM

Although the developer and contractor do play a role in the design and ultimate beauty of a building, its the architect who is most at fault whne they look unappealing. We (developers/contractors) are focused on the numbers, whether we can build something profitable give all the rules and regulations as well as market conditions. I don't tell the architect what to design or how it should look, just that it should cost x to build.

Posted by: jdylan3 at July 27, 2006 8:02 AM

« Bedford Bums: Number 809 Residential RE Squeezes Industrial Nabes »

July 25, 2006

Bedford Bummers: Number 805

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions