« Salvager: Man With the Mirrors Open House Picks: Townhouses »
September 22, 2006
Carroll Gardens "Bastardization" Hits Market
When we wrote about 45 3rd Place last Spring as it was still under construction, we had this to say: "The addition to this house has to be one of the greatest bastardizations of a beautiful old brownstone we've ever seen." (Click on the link below to see the photo from last April.) While some readers leapt to its defense, others chimed in with such comments as "jaw-droppingly horrendous" and "cancerous growth". Now the sucker is on the market. It appears to have been divided into two units, both two floors and approximately 2,000 square feet. They share the parking garage that sits were the garden once was. The lower unit is asking $1.45 million and interested parties as well as architectural critics can check it out at the open house on Sunday from 12 to 2 o'clock.
45 Third Place [Landmark Properties] GMAP
CG Atrocity: There Goes the Neighborhood [Brownstoner]
Comments
Can we see some recent photos?
Posted by: Anonymous at September 22, 2006 11:44 AM
IMO, this was a terrific blend of old and new, and retains the historic significance of the block from both the front and side
Posted by: Anonymous at September 22, 2006 11:54 AM
Sorry, I like it. But this is a rendering, not a photo, right? Is the building finished? Who's seen it?
I regret more the loss of the yard, but then again I'm not in the market for a condo.
Posted by: linusvanpelt at September 22, 2006 12:02 PM
In my recollection there was a garage before on prop. Where once was garden is the new extension (but admit not 100% sure).
Trying to figure out by ads whether this is 3 units and 2 avail or whether is now just 2 duplexes.
Since he bought for $1.4 and besides major reno - added quite a bit dq ftage onto back (which does look pretty bad and too bad because was very cute modest corner house.
Posted by: Anonymous at September 22, 2006 12:02 PM
I actually have seebn it - I live 2 blocks away. It is Hideous. the rendering actually looks better than the reality. i dont say this because I am a traditionalist - I actually think that blending traditional and modern styles together can make for facscinating buildings. This one was just executed very poorly.
Posted by: Anonymous at September 22, 2006 12:06 PM
This place is being shown by a firm called "Landmark Properties".
Oh the irony.
Posted by: Anonymous at September 22, 2006 12:07 PM
Anon 12:06,
Any chance you can snap a photo and email it to us?
Posted by: brownstoner at September 22, 2006 12:23 PM
I still think this a horrendous addition - scale, massing, materials: everything is wrong about it.
There are creative and elegant ways to add on to old buildings. This may be creative, but it is in no way elegant.
And I'd still like to see an actual photo, rather a rendering. Is it not finished, or is the finished product worse than the rendering?
Posted by: Halden at September 22, 2006 12:25 PM
An actual photo would be nice. Where is LPC when you need them? I thought they were coming back into Brooklyn in a big way. Nothing you can do now.
Posted by: donatella at September 22, 2006 12:30 PM
Anytime a "rendering" is used in an advertisement when a project is finished, the only possible reason is that the finished product looks terrible.
Anybody who claims they like the building since the like the drawing is nuts.
Posted by: Anonymous at September 22, 2006 12:31 PM
a rendering of my rear-end would look funny, but a photo of it would make you folks sick . . . same goes with this house!
Posted by: Anonymous at September 22, 2006 12:34 PM
I went past it last week. Ugly, ugly, ugly! Let me repeat that: Ugly, ugly ugly! And fugly.
Posted by: Carol Gardens at September 22, 2006 12:42 PM
Yeah. Butt ugly.
Posted by: donatella at September 22, 2006 12:46 PM
Any chance you can snap a photo and email it to us?
Will snap a shot tonight and submit it...
Posted by: chickenmadness (anon 12:06) at September 22, 2006 12:48 PM
That is the a most awful thing to do to a beautiful house. What a shame! I weep.
Posted by: de at September 22, 2006 12:55 PM
Well, there was a prob a lot of unused FAR on the lot, right? A fact which bstoner points out in practically every house of the day. How many ways can you have it, people?
Posted by: Anonymous at September 22, 2006 1:28 PM
The upside to European women is that even the hot ones are open to dating less attractive males.
If a group of Swedish au pairs moved in, I'd be happy to join them!
Posted by: Anonymous at September 22, 2006 1:30 PM
There were 3 garages; they tore one down to extend the ground floor out. Horrible, ugly piece of crap conversion, but that house wasn't huge before and it's a nice corner and, of course, the people inside won't have to see it.
Posted by: Anonymous at September 22, 2006 1:44 PM
I'm another neighbor, and I agree that it's an interesting idea, but very poorly executed. Probably the reason they're still using a rendering is that the building is nowhere near finished, at least from the outside -- the bare cinderblocks are still exposed, several broken windows, overgrown yard, the garages are in severe disrepair. But more than that, the place just looks cheap. I think this is another situation of a Fedders-quality reno asking top-quality prices. I'd be suprised if they get the prices they're asking for on these units.
Posted by: shelz123 at September 22, 2006 2:13 PM
like Scarano, the developer should be shot.
Posted by: Anonymous at September 22, 2006 4:22 PM
It's not that ugly when you pass it. There are uglier big things going up all over Brooklyn.
Posted by: Richard at September 22, 2006 5:35 PM
As underwhelming as this whole affair is, I would much rather see something like it than a vinyl-sided attempt to reproduce an older style. New methods of building are new methods of building, and old ones are old ones. Unlike the building in question, each has the potential to be excellent, and each, given that they are excellent, have their place in the urban context. Many older structures certainly warrant an extremely guarded preservation, but in many cases, especially in America, we are unable to recognize which have that value and which don't. In your quest for authenticity we would inevitably arrive back in Disneyland with such inane, indiscriminate casts of the preservationist's net. Tis a condition of such a young nation to overvalue the old. Webmaster: do venture across the pond, and behold the contrasts of old (hundreds of years older than Brooklyn's brownstones) and new architecture existing in harmony.
Posted by: Matthew Remy at September 22, 2006 6:40 PM
uh...don't you think murder is a little harsh over an aesthetic disagreement?
Posted by: Anonymous at September 22, 2006 6:40 PM
As underwhelming as this whole affair is, I would much rather see something like it than a vinyl-sided attempt to reproduce an older style. New methods of building are new methods of building, and old ones are old ones. Unlike the building in question, each has the potential to be excellent, and each, given that they are excellent, have their place in the urban context. Many older structures certainly warrant an extremely guarded preservation, but in many cases, especially in America, we are unable to recognize which have that value and which don't. In your quest for authenticity we would inevitably arrive back in Disneyland with such inane, indiscriminate casts of the preservationist's net. Tis a condition of such a young nation to overvalue the old. Webmaster: do venture across the pond, and behold the contrasts of old (hundreds of years older than Brooklyn's brownstones) and new architecture existing in harmony.
Posted by: Matthew Remy at September 22, 2006 6:40 PM
I'm really tired of those useless cantilevered porches on the rear facade. Also the roof top exit for the staircase, visible from the street, completely f*cks up the skyline of the new addition. It reminds me of something you see on tenement buildings. Mr. Remy....Tis?
Posted by: IMBY at September 22, 2006 9:20 PM
The real estate agent (and her agency) should be shamed into dropping this listing.
Posted by: Anonymous at September 22, 2006 10:43 PM
Passed by the place on my way home from a party in Red Hook tonight. Really, banal at greatest provocation. The addition seemed terribly typical eurotrash pagoda a la bedford ave, but if it had actually been a valid modernist addition (even a swallowing whole) of an historic building (see 23 beekman place), I do doubt it would have brought about any less cries of corruption.
Mr. Imby: f*cks?
Posted by: Matthew Remy at September 22, 2006 11:27 PM
Matthew -
I haven't seen it, but you hit it right - there is no harmony here. Old and new can work well together, or the new can just overwhelm the old and strip it of all meaning, as looks to be the case here.
Posted by: Halden at September 23, 2006 12:23 PM
I've interacted with many real estate brokers over the years. In general, success breeds arrogance and very few successful brokers are "nice" where nice to me means all of these things: 1) being diplomatic and pleasant in demeanor 2) prompt in returning calls and 3) as honest and as ethical as possible given the fact that ultimately, sellers tell the broker what to do. Successful brokers who have the volume don't have to act nice because they've already spent years being nice to get where they are. Most people will still sell through them because they know what to price the house at, and because they think that they will get the most exposure through them.
Posted by: Anonymous at September 23, 2006 4:13 PM
The developer should go straight to hell for destroying this block with this atrocity.
Posted by: Anonymous at September 24, 2006 9:59 AM
If you walk by the side of the building, you will see structural cracks in the cinderblocks. This is horrible construction and I feel bad for whoever buys into this disaster. These people will have lots of expenses in their future.
Also looked at the Buildings department site. There is still a violation on this place:
Total Open
Complaints 7 3
Violations-DOB 0 0
Violations-ECB 4 1
This property has 1 open ECB "Work Without A Permit" Violations and may be subject to DOB civil penalties upon application for a permit. After obtaining the permit, a certificate of correction must be filed on the ECB violations.
Jobs/Filings 5
PRA / ARA Jobs 0
Total Jobs 5
Actions 7
Posted by: Anonymous at September 24, 2006 3:07 PM
Sorry that's 7 violations not 73. The text got shifted while copying and pasting
Posted by: Anonymous at September 24, 2006 3:20 PM
Let's start calling them Bloomberg Buildings.
Posted by: D at September 24, 2006 4:40 PM
Hey, I love that idea. I will call them that from now on......
Posted by: Anonymous at September 24, 2006 4:59 PM
i have photos! how can i post them?
Posted by: modern in cg at September 26, 2006 10:47 AM
who's the star architect of these wonders....it would be nice to know that such creative energies still exist...
Posted by: sid at October 4, 2006 4:34 PM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.