Newsletter |
« Just Sold in Brooklyn Condo of the Day: Waverly Carriage House »
36

Bricolage New-Build in Red Hook Ready (Already)

Categories: Development

71 coffey
The Bricolage-designed building at the corner of Richards and Coffey in Red Hook appears done. According to The Real Estate, this is a pair of 3,400-square-foot carriage houses and not one multi-unit building. While it looks like the architect tried to make this nicer than his average fare (and we'll give him credit for the windows), it still looks odd to us. Are these on the market yet? Who's got the listing?
Red Hook: Where Time Really Stands Still [The Real Estate] GMAP P*Shark



By Brownstoner at November 30, 2006 10:51 AM | Comments (36)

36 Comments

By Anonymous on November 30, 2006 11:08 AM

They've been on the market since the summer. I believe Bond NY was repping them. The ask back then was $850K.

By Anonymous on November 30, 2006 11:20 AM

Are these on the market? Or have they been sold already?

By David on November 30, 2006 11:30 AM

Come on B-stoner, if your not going to cheer this project's design WHAT are you going to like?

By Anonymous on November 30, 2006 11:31 AM

I like. Relatively decent.

By Anonymous on November 30, 2006 11:36 AM

Me too. While the facade would probably benefit from some sort of detail that would help to separate the two units, it is much better than it could have been.

By Anonymous on November 30, 2006 11:37 AM

I would have put arched windows on the 2nd floor also, but overall, it's not as frugly as it could be.

By loser on November 30, 2006 11:41 AM

Its not so bad, just a little bottom-heavy. Could have balanced it out up top.

By loser on November 30, 2006 11:43 AM

what does frugly mean? I keep seeing it. As I understand it the word fugly is a contraction of f%^&ing ugly. But what is frugly?

By Bob Marvin on November 30, 2006 11:53 AM

A cornice would have been a nice addition, but, compared to a typical Fedders building, this is pretty good.

By Oh Lord! on November 30, 2006 11:56 AM

I agree that arched windows on the 2nd floor would help as would some decorative additions at the roof line. One of the things that bothers me most about much of the new construction is that the tops of the buildings are stark. Some decorative brickwork would move this from good to great. On a scale of one to ten I'd give it a 6.5.

By west on November 30, 2006 11:57 AM

According to Websters, "frugly" is a contraction of "frugal" and "architecturally". It means that while the developer was "frugal", s/he was still able to render something pleasing "architecturally". I think this could actually end up being a valuable addition to Brownstoner's lexicon.

By Anonymous on November 30, 2006 11:58 AM

I can't find them on Bond NY's site...have they sold already?

By Anonymous on November 30, 2006 11:59 AM

How about a parapet. Would have balanced it out and give it a nice touch to cap off the building.

By Halden on November 30, 2006 12:10 PM

For me its neither fish nor fowl - while it has some old timey decoration, its not in the least bit historical.

The details are ALL wrong (seriously - Bricolage seems to think that keystones somehow give a building class). As others have noted, a cornice (or even a decorative parapet) would have gone a long way to helping this. The pattern of the windows is pretty dopey, and the stone water table on the front is very dopey.

On the whole, this is better than average for Bricolage. But I guess my basic point is build it old or build it new, but get it right.

By ex-redhooky on November 30, 2006 12:53 PM

I've met the guy that built these. Him and his father have been doing projects around the neighborhood. Nice guys. They did a very nice (but high-end) renovation job on Coffey street. (First building in from the corner on the north side.) And I'm pretty sure they did the town houses on I-forget-the-street, a couple of blocks up from these. I think they are also doing a whole block at Conover and Coffey. That's a loss actually because those were nice little single family houses.

By David on November 30, 2006 12:55 PM

This thread is complete proof that the naysayers will never be happy with anything. If pleasing the 'public' was a criteria, a developer would be smart to build Feders houses b/c at least maybe he'd save some $ in exchange for the critisim that EVERY new building seems to get.

Halden please post one example of a building built in the last 50 years that meats your definition of "right"

By Halden on November 30, 2006 12:55 PM

Further to my post above, compare this to the condo of the day today (434 Waverly). Both are new buildings designed to look like carriage houses. But 434 Waverly LOOKS right, historically. Coffey Street is so obviously new, and they just plain got it wrong.

Personally I'd prefer a new building that fit in by looking new, and didn't try to be old. But if you are going for a historical look, get it right.

By Anonymous on November 30, 2006 1:02 PM

Halden, I agree that a cornice would definitely leave it looking less "bald" (I always feel old buildings look weird without their cornice) but I think the Italianate style windows and the blocky bottom are nice.

By David on November 30, 2006 1:11 PM

Uh Halden - 434 Waverly IS a historic building - it isnt new - so I repeat please show me one building built within the last FIFTY years that meets your criteria of 'fitting in' and looking "right"

By Anonymous on November 30, 2006 1:15 PM

Halden is right -- the facade has too many inconsistancies. The "stone" (probably concrete) base should have turned the corner -- this is the first piece of evidence that the building was designed as 2D facade drawings with applique details, rather than designed as the 3D object it is. Along these lines one can plainly see the top is also lacking in treatment. Finally, the proportion of the windows is wrong (should be taller and skinnier), while the second floor windows should probably be up higher (period houses would have a variety of ceiling heights; this one looks uniform in section). The rigid facade looks more deployed than designed, and I'll bet a section was never drawn which would reveal plainly what we can all see isn't working in real life.

I interpret Halden's point this way: build well. If you are going to go all faux-contextual, you'd better understand, and understand well, what you are imitating.

And for the whining about naysayers: you want to settle for half-ass, go right ahead. But the rest of us prefer more effort and skill in the design phase. The group that designed this would have been wiser to try something understated and modern, as historical is not in their skill set.

--an architect in Brooklyn

By Anonymous on November 30, 2006 1:21 PM

David, 434 Waverly was built in 2001. Its facade has its own problems, by the way, but on the whole is more successful -- let's say successful enough to fool Brownstoner that it was a conversion.

(I saw the property a while back. The interior is not nearly as nice as the exterior.)

--an architect in Brooklyn

By Anonymous on November 30, 2006 1:36 PM

we tried to buy one of these this summer, word of warning, they are not really on the market at all. A friend of the developer owns one of them and he has first right of refusal on the other. We were strung along for months trying to get one and it ended up being a huge waste of time. I will say this, they are really well put together and are a great deal at $1.2 (that price may have changed since last I looked) I do know that the developer is building more just like these just down the block.

By Anonymous on November 30, 2006 1:49 PM

First I heard these are not for sale because the zoning is wrong - it is commercial not residential then the Corcoran signs came down

By David on November 30, 2006 1:51 PM

If it is new construction then so be it - Halden has found his 'perfect' building - although apparently you havent. (BTW it is unclear from DOB and Acris when this building was built). That being said, my point is that no matter what is built someone is complaining. You dont like the proportion of the windows - ok fine - do all 'historical' brownstones have perfectly proportioned windows? And while the stone might have looked nicer going all around the fact that it is just a facade shouldnt 'kill it' - hell Brownstone is just a facade.
This isnt a matter of us "settling" for 'half-assed' - I dont live there or own the building. What it is about is that the architect clearly tried to build something that 1. Gives respect to the history of many of the nearby buildings 2. Provides good windows for the occupants 3. Hides the A/C units 4. Uses the color of brick everyone here generally thinks is "ok" and 5. Isnt built with a setback. - these are the main things everyone here is ALWAYS screaming about.

And rather than the people hear cheering that this is what they wanted all along - they are complaining that there is no cornice or that the stone facade isnt carried over onto the side.

By lostinbrooklyn on November 30, 2006 2:09 PM

Two words (and I have used these before on 99% of Bricolage designs):

Shit Sandwhich!

By Anonymous on November 30, 2006 2:18 PM

and don't forget no visible utility meters or mailboxes!
(my only addition would be some sort of cornice - but you know what - if new buyer wants one and is important to them they can add one.)
And - BTW even much of old RedHook ain't so pretty either.

By Anonymous on November 30, 2006 2:28 PM

"My point is that no matter what is built someone is complaining."

Not much of a point, really. Everyone knows you can't please everyone, so criticism is always to be expected. As for this effort, there are plenty of folks who like it, and then there are those who think it comes up short.

In my opinion, David, your list of "successes" for this building is analogous to saying a car design managed to include wheels, a steering wheel and brakes. So it was built out to the lot line and the bricks aren't jumbo; that's a good START. It's nice the designer got halfway into a good design, and what I'm saying, as well as others, is that it would have been nice to get some distance further.

--an architect in Brooklyn

By combustiblegirl on November 30, 2006 3:45 PM

I live in Red Hook (own an 1880s brick rowhouse there) and think the developers did a very nice job, especially compared to a lot of the other new builds and renos that have been done recently. And for all of you crying about "context", I'd invite you to walk down that block and then revisit your point. What does "context" mean for a neighorhood where the lion's share of original buildings got the wrecking ball over 30 years ago? Most of what else is on that block is on par or worse. This is an improvement. I agree, a cornice would have been nice but that can be added after the fact. And yes this is in an area zoned industrial, so they were originally being touted as Live/Work spaces.

By Halden on November 30, 2006 3:57 PM

combustible - I wasn't responding to context, just the design of the building itself. I know the area pretty well (lived on Dikeman for awhile), and you're right, this is probably an improvement over the lion's share of buildings in the neighborhood. And as I noted earlier, its also an improvement over the lion's share of Bricolage's work. But that's all damning with faint praise - I don't think either of those statements is really saying all that much - for me (personally), this is not a great design.

By Anonymous on November 30, 2006 4:33 PM

The top really does look weird in the photo -- just a stark box. It can't be that it would have cost that much more to put some kind of cornice on. It looks okay, but it's annoying that with the slightest bit more effort it could have looked much better.

By Carol Gardens on November 30, 2006 5:46 PM

I think a good example of a new building that fits in is the one on the corner of Degraw and Clinton. It is 4-story brick apartment building that wraps around the corner. It blends in and the proportions are pleasing. I think that is what often grates on the nerves of people who are really into architecture--there are just some proportions that look "right" and others that seem clunky or clueless. BTW, I do think the building that started this thread is better than most new construction.

By adriennui on November 30, 2006 9:09 PM

this must be a sad commentary on the state of architecture in NYC, but this looks pretty decent, there seems to have been some effort made on the design! congrats!

By Anonymous on November 30, 2006 11:19 PM

doesn't look that bad...
at least they tried to make it sort of look like something of a brownstone type building.

(also, compare to the building they are putting up on Hicks St. near Kane)

By mikros on December 1, 2006 1:39 PM

What'd they run out of money half way up?
That thing needs a cornice or some visual weight up top, it's unbalanced.
The windows are a little funny, too. The size and spacing are wrong: too big/close for row house double hungs, but not massive and banked enough for an industrial look.
Oh, well. At least they tried.
7/10

By mikros on December 1, 2006 2:18 PM

quoins, too
it needs quoins

By pfa on December 3, 2006 6:54 PM

I applaud the degree to which they didn't fuck up this project. but jeeze, would a cornice have really broken the bank?

Post a comment

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

Related Posts with Thumbnails