« After Languishing, Rentals Picking Up Development Watch: The Cladding of J Condo »
August 21, 2006
Don't Like the Flatbush Flatiron? No Worries
We've got nothing against the upzoning and resulting building boom on Flatbush Avenue in Downtown Brooklyn; in fact, it makes a lot of sense to us. We also think that the derogatory implications of the term "Manhattanization" are overdone (usually in the process of opposing the Atlantic Yards project). That said, Ismael Leyva's design for the 108-unit condo destined the triangular lot bounded by Flatbush Avenue Extenstion, Tillary and Duffield is a downer, we think. It feels soul-less, robotic even. We aren't going to get to worried about it though for reasons one commenter on Curbed summed up very nicely:
It's one building by one architect for one developer. And when another building by another architect is built next to it -- blam! -- you start to get an interesting streetscape and diversity. and the people who didn't like the first building may like the second. And problems that are encountered after the first building can be addressed by the second building. It's not like, oh, say...16 skyscrapers designed by one guy being dropped in one fell swoop on top of an entire neighborhood.
And, there, folks, you have our biggest objection to the Atlantic Yards project.
Flatiron on Flatbush [Brooklyn Papers] GMAP
Alien Spawn of Flatiron on Flatbush [Curbed]
Comments
Somtimes I think that the sole reason for the existence of this site is for people to complain about how ugly any and every new building is. Are there any new buildings out there that are acceptable?
Posted by: Anonymous at August 21, 2006 9:52 AM
It looks like a cool building to me. I'd love living near the top with one of those balconies.
Most brooklyn brownstones look pretty much identical. This building reminds me of the Jetsons and I think that's great!
Posted by: Anonymous at August 21, 2006 10:10 AM
Yeah, I think this is a pretty darn good one. C'mon brownstoner this is certainly better than a parking lot or a fedders adorned building or might I say what was there before.
Posted by: Anonymous at August 21, 2006 10:13 AM
When I initially read that Curbed comment, I thought the poster was trying to be sarcastic. Now I realize he was just making another (tired) reference to the AY development.
The poster (and B'stoner) should have read the Brooklyn Papers article more carefully before defending this building. It clearly states that, in addition to this tacky building on Tillary, the same architect "is the designer of adjacent twin luxury towers on Gold Street, which will stand 40 and 35 stories, and “two or three” other buildings already in the works for the short stretch from the Manhattan Bridge to DeKalb Avenue."
While it may not be 16 skyscrapers, 6 Jetson's-style monstrosities hardly constitutes variety.
Posted by: AJ at August 21, 2006 10:25 AM
Not sure what folks expect a new high-rise apt building to look like. If don't like that genre then I guess none (or very precious few) will pass muster but then you loose credibility as valid critic on individual buildings.
What could you conceivably expect to be built on such a lot/location? I think its great that this depressing
stretch of real estate is changing for the better.
Also add that from these archtitect or developer renderings, it is often difficult to imagine what final product will look like.
Posted by: Anonymous at August 21, 2006 10:40 AM
I don't hate it but it just reminds me of something you would see in the "edge cities" of Atlanta or Houston.
Posted by: Morkfrombrooklyn at August 21, 2006 10:52 AM
while it may not be to everyone's tastes, it certainly shows some creativity and adds variety to the bklyn-scape. the development of downtown can only be a positive thing, architecture aside.
Posted by: local at August 21, 2006 10:57 AM
You're absolutely right that this is not in the same league as the things we usually complain about. Maybe it's just that we're not big fans of curves in architecture. It's the balconies that bother us.
Posted by: brownstoner at August 21, 2006 11:18 AM
Not a fan of most modern residential design here in NYC, but I find myself liking this one. The architect seems to have at least taken the time to actually design. I like the curved balcony front. It will tower over the site, but this is inevitable for the location, and better there than in a brownstone neighborhood.
The comment from Curbed was right on point, I thought.
Posted by: CrownHeightsProud at August 21, 2006 12:38 PM
Brooklyn MAY be a scary place 10 years from now. I'm not sure what I think of all this new stuff. But a change is definetly a coming between AY and these type of developements.
Posted by: I dunno at August 21, 2006 12:59 PM
why do you say scary, i dunno?
Posted by: local at August 21, 2006 1:03 PM
"no one's ever quoted me back to me before" (rip bruno kirby). thanks b'stoner.
AJ - i DID read the BPaper article. And in defense of my comments, I explicitly said "one building by one architect for one developer." The other buildings are for other developers with different needs, budgets and preferences.
Similarly, Gehry's proposed "Theatre for a New Audience" building on Flatbush is very different looking than from all of the nearby AY designs. IMHO, better looking. Same architect, sure, but different developer, different project.
So take your (tired) comments and put them to bed.
Posted by: chuck at August 21, 2006 1:41 PM
Looks great to me. I don't see the problem. This building, along with the projected AY development, comports with the upzoning of Downtown Brooklyn. It might stick out now but it will not look out of place once surrounded by 20-25 similar structures. In ten years, Downtown Brooklyn and the Brooklyn waterfront will be riddled with high rise commercial and residential buildings. The anti-development crowd needs to accept this reality - cities grow organically both upwardly and outwardly.
According to demographic projections, New York City's population is expected to reach 9 million by 2025. How are we expected to accommodate this significant increase in population size without high density development? We can't. Sound urban planning by city officials requires upsize development in Downtown Brooklyn, close to the city's business and financial center - Manhattan.
Anti-development arguments about protecting Brooklyn charm and appeal through restrictions on upsize development is pure NIMBYISM. Brooklyn charm is not a static concept. The Brooklyn charm that existed in 1800 was vastly different from that which existed in 1900 and 2000. Nothing stays the same and Brooklyn 2050 will look nothing like the Brooklyn we have today in 2006. Worried about the potential destruction of our beloved low scale brownstone communities? Simple - get all of these neighborhoods landmarked and downzoned. On the other hand, opposing every form of high rise development (trust me, it comes across that way to many) just because it's located 1/2 mile of your brownstone doesn't garner you much support from the vast majority of Brooklynites, many of whom can not even afford the luxury of owning a brownstone and are simply looking for additional housing and job opportunities. The NIMBY attitude of Brownstone Brooklyn (engulfed by a swarm of newbies) has for all intents and purposes alienated the rest of the borough. This is the main reason why projects like AY and Downtown Bklyn Development will move forward as planned.
Posted by: SuperAnon at August 21, 2006 2:09 PM
I don't know means exactly that. I have mixed feelings. I don't hold any sentimental attachedments to the old Brooklyn. But this new stuff??? I DON'T KNOW. Time will tell about the socio-ecomonic,the architectutal, enviromental impact these developements will have.
Posted by: I dunno at August 21, 2006 3:40 PM
Re: SuperAnon's comments, a large problem with all this new large-scale development and projections of a burgeoning population (smacks of build it and they will come, no?) is that existing infrastructure (e.g., roads, combined sewer system, subway system) ALREADY has insufficient capacity, let alone sufficient capacity to absorb all this growth. (An "inconvenient truth," NYC-style.) I read about all these new plans for a glittering Brooklyn Oz, but I don't read about concomitant upgrades to the largely neglected and insufficient infrastructure.
If the rosy (?) population projections are true, it cries for a need for better regional planning - no reason why an additional million or two need to be crammed into NYC proper. By the way, I assume that much of this new population will be poor immigrants - is it to accommodate them that these high-rises are being built? Of course not.
These overscale developments signify to me that moneyed interests trump ALL other values, including civic (unchecked capitalism - any value that isn't about maximizing $$ is sneeringly pooh-poohed). Government is hand-in-hand with the developers, and part of the strategy is to create class warfare, getting poorer communities on their side in order to cram in whatever they please.
Posted by: anon2 at August 21, 2006 5:53 PM
Too true, Anon2. I think those who oppose AY are not so unrealistic as to expect no new development, or even no high rise development. But the opposition is to outscaled projects that will strain, rather than benefit the area. Sure it's great construction workers will have jobs, sure it's wonderful that some lower income people will be able to get apartments there (if Ratner keeps his word). But when all is said and done, what happens after all the builders, developers and ribbon-cutters go home? It isn't NIMBYism to want to know how and why a development will affect an area. And shouting NIMBYism everytime someone objects to the Ratner development as it stands now, or constantly harping on their methods, only serves to highlight the validity of their objections. If AY supporters can't counter with a better reply that "its NIMBYism" or "DG has alienated everyone with his protests", one has to wonder why they are avoiding a reply with substance.
Posted by: jennyanne at August 21, 2006 8:19 PM
If that is indeed the case, rather than protest against high density development, why not put forth your energy and efforts towards holding city hall accountable for improving existing infrastructure to support the burgeoning growth of Brooklyn? Since we simply can't put up signs telling immigrants, transplants and college graduates - "No Vacancy in Brooklyn - Please Keep Out", why not reallocate city resources to better prepare the borough for the increase population? These are facts: (1) people are relocating to New York in ever increasing numbers; (2) a large segment of the new population will be comprised of poor immigrants (as was the case in New York for the past 100 years - what's new?); and (3) the city is ill equip under present form to handle the surge in population growth.
With that being said, am I terribly worried? No. Why? As history has proven, the city will adapt. Rest assured, the "insufficient capacity" argument is not new. It has been an issue in New York City at every population milestone from 1 million to 8 million. Nonetheless, New York continues to grow and flourish despite a myriad of environmental concerns and structural limitations. Why? Because the public and private sector are keenly adept at developing innovative measures for dealing with the influx of people moving into New York; whether it's through improving the sewage system, building more schools, roads, tunnels and bridges or developing additional housing. The reason why "real Brooklyn" has not embraced the anti-development movement is because it is disingenuous, insincere, self-centered and contravenes everything that is truly Brooklyn: a community built on change, inclusion and pride. The newbies will never get this plain and simple fact. They think that Brooklyn was born with their personal discovery and that the borough owes its current popularity to their efforts - whatever! Brooklyn was great before many of the newbies arrived and will be great long after they're gone. So lets prepare Brooklyn for the next 100 years and stop the with NIMBY bullcrap; it's so transparent that it's both laughable and embarrassing.
Posted by: SuperAnon at August 21, 2006 9:09 PM
And there you have proven jennyanne's point- the best argument you have is to shout NIMBY NIMBY!! You think everything comes down to newbies wanting to keep their neighborhoods as they are. You insist that if someone protests against AY they don't want any development. Or that they must be newbies.
According to the news and polls, a lot of Brooklynites don't like the AY project for a lot of different reasons. And as for the public and private sectors being so adept at innovative measures for dealing with population growth- I wonder what Brooklyn you live in? No one is saying keep out. But even you have to admit that using the poor immigrant population as a convoluted reason to support out of control development is laughable and embarrassing itself. How much "affordable housing" for those poor immigrants do you think will get built? Because all I see is luxury housing with a few subsidized housing bones thrown to the masses.
"The reason why "real Brooklyn" has not embraced the anti-development movement is because it is disingenuous, insincere, self-centered and contravenes everything that is truly Brooklyn: a community built on change, inclusion and pride." Not quite. Brooklyn's history and tradition make the real Brooklyn. Ratner doesn't get that at all- and he is not a native Brooklynite either.
Posted by: Anonymous at August 22, 2006 12:25 AM
Test: The following will be announced today: (1) NYC will earmark $1.5 billion to improve the infrastructure in and around the AY development site; (2) the city will build and open additional schools to accommodate the increase in population size in Downtown Brooklyn; and (3) the entire AY project will be strictly dedicated to low income housing (~ 7k apartment units for the working poor).
Question: do you think the opposition, including but not limited to DDDB, PHAC, FGA and CHS, will support this initiative? I seriously doubt it. If the above hypothetical were true, AY would turn into a huge class and race battle and the true colors of the anti-development/NIMBY coalition would certainly come to light. The opposition is primarily against AY because of the arena and the "undesirables" that it will attract to their newly created utopian communities. They focus on the luxury housing component of AY to garner support from the masses and block the entire project since it can't be done without the arena. IMHO, I don't think that the opposition has any issue with luxury housing on the development site. Their issue is strictly limited to the arena and low income housing but they can't frame the argument in such way and obtain widespread support. So they focus on luxury housing instead, a small sacrafice to pay when the real issue is to block the arena and prevent the development of low income housing, i.e., "if it can't be done our way, then lets block the entire thing".
If Ratner is not truly genuine about creating low income housing and low income housing is desperately needed in NYC, why isn't the opposition demanding widespread low income development on this site? Heath Ledger, Rosie Perez, where are you? The opposition is silent on the issue because the opposition is comprised of the same people (e.g., Pat Hagan, PHAC, etc.) who fought to the bitter end to block a homeless shelter on Clermont Ave in PH and now conveniently uses these "formerly" despised residents as a human shield in their war against Ratner and AY. Pathetic.
http://www.jrn.columbia.edu/studentwork/cns/2004-02-16/384.asp
Posted by: SuperAnon at August 22, 2006 6:46 AM
"The opposition is primarily against AY because of the arena and the "undesirables" that it will attract to their newly created utopian communities." ha ha ha ha ha- good one! For a moment there I thought you were serious. Oh, wait...you are.
Oh well,I love your paranoia tho'- very creative. However, IF you recall, Ratner was forced to include low income, affordable housing. SO here is this guy who decides to build a humongous, money making, publically well subsidized project, who wanted all luxury housing until the community brought him up by the short hairs, and who made sure to write in enough loopholes to his agreement to drive a crane through, is now the racial savior of Brooklyn? And objecting to the scale of the project and the arena makes you a racist?????? Damn fine pretzel thinking, Superanon. Not valid-but a nice exercise in spin control, failing miserably. Are you so desperate to go to a Nets game (I feel sorry for you)? If you represent the spirit of Brooklyn, I see why the Dodgers left.
Oh, and since we're talking about hypocrisy here, are you going to give up your beloved brownstone to move into one of those luxury apartments you seem to adore? I thought not. So who is the hypocrite? Not DDDB, pal.
Posted by: Anonymous at August 22, 2006 8:46 AM
The trick of PR hacks working for Ratner like SuperAnon is the same trick used by the Republican party in framing/reframing issues. People who oppose the war in Iraq are weak on fighting terrorism. Laws that allow more air pollution are called Clean Air Initiatives, etc. And people who oppose AY are "anti-development" or "Newbies" or "NIMBY'S". None of which is true of course, but George Bush is still president and AY will surely be built. SuperAnon asks why the "opposition" doesn't come up with a long term plan to accomadate growth and provide low income housing? Hmmm, how about having our elected officials come up with a plan instead, I think most of us have day jobs. Instead of horrendous developers like Ratner coming up with a "plan"... how about the city coming up with a plan and then soliciting out the development? Instead of all the behind the scenes secret deals that have gone on to push AY this far, how about a transparent plan that really does take into account the needs of the city? Allowing someone like Ratner who has already built some of the most horrendous structures known to man, to plan all of downtown Brooklyn, and then give him our tax money to do it is criminal... and the criminals are Marty Markowitz, Michael Blooomberg and all the pols that support and promote this abomination.
Oh and Brownstoner... that building's not so bad ;-)
Posted by: Yer' Not So Super at August 22, 2006 10:11 AM
very true, yer. It's all about the technique, not the substance. At least, like Lincoln said, you can fool some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time. I think the GOP is seeing that now.
Posted by: Anonymous at August 22, 2006 10:28 AM
It's no political accident that Bloomberg's a Republican. This zero-sum game of winner-takes-all is what the high stakes real estate development scene is ultimately about here, and AY represents the pinnacle of the most rapacious capitalist aspirations. Team Doctoroff/Ratner are the latter day Robert Moses, reshaping by soviet-style executive fiat outscale developments. Surrounding neighborhoods, user perceptions, communities all be damned. Brooklyn's being invaded. War of the Worlds indeed. Communities should totally fight this, a la Jane Jacobs. It's a land grab.
If there's one thing AY does NOT represent it's the "organic" growth the city (SuperAnon's laughable 2:09 characterization of Downtown Brooklyn redevelopment.)
(Rant over.)
Posted by: anon2 at August 22, 2006 11:05 AM
The battle is over. Downtown Brooklyn and the Brooklyn waterfront will be developed according to plan. All the scare tactics and character assassinations in the world will not change this incontrovertible fact.
Posted by: SuperAnon at August 22, 2006 11:32 AM
Anon 12:06 pm, aren't you doing the same - "shrieking like a 2 year old in the sandbox"?
Posted by: Anonymous at August 22, 2006 12:10 PM
Nope :*)
Posted by: Anonymous at August 22, 2006 12:53 PM
The plus side to the design is that it's at the foot of the Manhattan Bridge and sort of "out of the way" of the more residential parts of Brooklyn... but, seriously, that intersection is never quiet... who is going to want to live there? When the Manhattan Bridge gets backed up the horns alone are deafening...
Then again I think people living beside the Manhattan Bridge in Dumbo with trains going by outside your window every 2 minutes are nuts...
But that's just me.
:)
Posted by: Rich Woods at August 22, 2006 1:59 PM
I actually like the building (surprised the heck out of myself!)- I like that it is a modern take on the flatiron building in Manhattan. DOn't know if that was intentional or if all flatiron type buildings tend to do that. The flat planes glass reflect the surrounding neighborhood- it almost makes the walls disappear and blend into the surroundings. Metaphorically neat. Not like Ms. Brooklyn. That'll reflect a fractured neighborhood and make everyone look like a bad Picasso.
Posted by: jennyanne at August 23, 2006 8:52 AM
I think Flatbush bythe Manhattan bridge is a world away from AY. AY very well may overwhelm the low rise neighborhoods it borders. This part of Brooklyn coming off the Manhattan bridgeis busy budy and economically depressed- high rises seem perfect here to me. And I'm opposed to AY.
Posted by: Anonymous at August 23, 2006 11:36 AM
Doesn't anybody else look at this building and see one giant screw?
Posted by: Safado at October 24, 2006 11:54 AM
Latest Restaurant Additions
-
Le Barricou
added November 20, 2009 12:00 PM in Williamsburg -
Der Schwarze Kölner
added November 19, 2009 12:00 PM in Fort Greene -
Oak Wine Bar & Café
added November 18, 2009 12:00 PM in Williamsburg -
Mr. Wonton
added November 17, 2009 12:00 PM in Park Slope -
Casa Rosa
added November 16, 2009 12:00 PM in Carroll Gardens -
Cousin John's Café & Bakery
added November 13, 2009 12:00 PM in Park Slope -
Elote
added November 12, 2009 12:00 PM in Williamsburg -
Miracle Grill
added November 11, 2009 12:00 PM in Park Slope -
Phoebe's Cafe
added November 10, 2009 12:00 PM in Williamsburg -
Ruthie's
added November 9, 2009 12:00 PM in Clinton Hill, Downtown Brooklyn
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.