Sign up for the Brownstoner daily email
« 205 North 7th Street: Oh So Modern Checking in on Windsor Terrace's Simone »

November 13, 2006

Library Plan a Win-Win on Paper

house
Representatives from the affordable housing group Fifth Avenue Committee are meeting today with City officials to discuss their proposal totear down four single-story libraries in Brooklyn and replace them with larger buildings that have more library space as well as apartments for low- and moderate-income tenants. “This is a great opportunity to look at a resource that is in every neighborhood and that has the ability to generate additional housing,” said Rafael Cestero, deputy commissioner for development at the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development. “You’re looking at pieces of property that have underutilized development rights, and libraries that need rehabilitation and expansion.” The four libraries under consideration are in Clinton Hill, Red Hook, Sunset Park and Brower Park in Crown Heights (above). While we agree that this sounds like a win-win on paper, we're concerned about the aesthetic implications for the Clinton Hill location. (Not sure about the others.) With the PACC buildings in the process of ruining lowering the design quality of the block of Washington between Gates and Fulton, it would be a shame to impose another eyesore just up the street. Granted, the existing "bunker-style" building is nothing to look at, but one story of cinderblock construction is a hell of a lot less obtrusive than four or five. At least in the case of the library, the site falls within the Landmark district so there would presumably be some control over what was put up there. Can someone point to some of the other projects that the Fifth Avenue Committee has built? What is its track record for building in historic areas? If the city gets behind a project like this, can it steamroll Landmarks or is LPC's power sacred?
Stranger Than Fiction? [NY Times]




Posted by Brownstoner at 10:32 AM | Comments (23)
Categories: Development

Comments

Why so negative? They haven't touched pen to paper and you're worried about it ruining the neighborhood. Honestly a 4 story piece of crap would be more contextual than a 1 story piece of crap.

Posted by: P at November 13, 2006 11:00 AM

Why so negative? They haven't touched pen to paper and you're worried about it ruining the neighborhood. Honestly a 4 story piece of crap would be more contextual than a 1 story piece of crap.

Posted by: P at November 13, 2006 11:00 AM

The current Clinton Hill branch is very unobtrusive, you can almost miss it. I like the idea, and considering that the block is landmarked, if it was built to landmark standards, it could be a great thing.

Posted by: lp at November 13, 2006 11:02 AM

I think you are going to find that a lot of people on this site believe that affordable housing should always trump aesthetics...and sensible development...and personal property rights (ahem Atlantic Yards).

It may be easy to disagree with some of the Fifth Avenue Committee's aesthetic decisions, but it's hard to disagree with their drive to create housing as their take on Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative.

Posted by: Shahn Andersen at November 13, 2006 11:03 AM

Is it too much to hope that affordable housing look nice?

Posted by: brownstoner at November 13, 2006 11:09 AM

anything the gov develope isn't good. at all look at all the housing projects!!!

Posted by: armchair_warrior at November 13, 2006 11:09 AM

I can't think of a reason why anyone would be against this. I'm all for it as long as the library is completely separated from the condos (separate entrance, separate elevators/stairs) and the library is able to lease the space for the same $$ that it paid before the new construction.

By the way, I wouldn't say that the PACC building is ruining the block. That block was in disastrous shape (still is in my opinion). Give the new buildings a chance to complete.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 13, 2006 11:11 AM

I think Fifth Avenue Committee has done a good job with the aesthetics of their buildings. Tgey're not going to win any architectural awards, but they don't make you want to put your head in your hands and weep with sorrow either. They seem to be very sensitive to the enviroments they're building in. I think they're generally doing a very good job with the project they've got underway in Red Hook at the moment and the community could certainly use a more substantial library. That branch does have a sweet little reading garden on the side and I would hope that remains.

Posted by: combustiblegirl at November 13, 2006 11:18 AM

I honestly have to say that worrying if a building will be ugly seems to pale in comparison to the fact that it would be an opportunity to build expanded libraries in these neighborhoods. The apartments are icing on the cake- and I have always taken a strong stance to protecting brownstone neighborhoods. But if an ugly building is the only way to get an expanded library I'm all for it. Visual is only one aesthetic- a library contains them all and opens them to all.

Posted by: Bx2Bklyn at November 13, 2006 11:28 AM

there is a (fairly on-point) withering aside in the AIA guide about the clinton hill BPL branch (built in '74): "Here a library program is in obvious conflict with the scale and character of the neighborhood. A much better solution would have been to purchase one of the grand mansions available inexpensively in the 1970s. A stunted shopping center among serious neighbors"

zing!

Posted by: steev at November 13, 2006 11:30 AM

it would be wonderful to have a larger library with more extenstive facilities. As you all know, we have a very active community and currently all the events that are held in the library are in the middle of the school kids and a lot of other mayhem. I, too, think it would be great if the building were attractive- perhaps someone might suggest a Pratt competition for design- but it is most important for the space to be usable and technologically up to date.

Posted by: anon at November 13, 2006 11:56 AM

For those who are worried about the aesthetics, I believe the FAC would have to follow landmark rules. My sister-in-law purchased a co-op in Boerum Hill built by the FAC and the building seem to be well built. It's not the brownstone type architecture, but it's not an eye sore either.

Posted by: faithful at November 13, 2006 12:41 PM

As lp pointed out at 11:02, any new project would be reviewed by LPC. Secondly, I think Fifth Avenue's Atlantic Terrace project (http://tinyurl.com/yg3hte) could very well win awards. Also, the NYT didn't paint a very complete picture; redevelopment of the Clinton Hill branch may not include any housing. Finally, it is really unbecoming to do so much whining when a project is at the concept stage. I agree with a lot of the values expressed on this blog but many of you act like nine-year-olds.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 13, 2006 12:41 PM

Anon 12:41,
It's a bit of catch 22. A lot of us get criticized for not being more proactive in the planning stages of projects and just whining when something is all but a done deal. Isn't it better to get a discussion going now?

Posted by: brownstoner at November 13, 2006 1:39 PM

I was about to say the same thing as brownstoner. If you don't raise potential concerns and "whine" before plans are approved and work begins, then you are called out for obstructing with approved plans. So what is it, just don't discuss or offer critiques of anything? Come on...

Posted by: lp at November 13, 2006 3:39 PM

RE: steev's comment, I believe that the CH library was built on the site of one of the "grand mansions" on Washington. I recall going on a Clinton Hill house tour sometime in the '70s and being told that the owner of the original house made arrangements for it to be torn down following their death--a shame, but perfectly legal in the pre-HD era.

Posted by: Bob Marvin at November 13, 2006 3:44 PM

Underwood playground is also on the site of a torn down mansion. I guess the theory being that they didn't want anyone else to live in their home. That said, tearing down that eyesore and building something larger and more contextual, even if not perfect, can only be good. How about a Gugenheim-Bilbao style blob. Oh sorry that would be Gehry...heee, heee.

Posted by: putnam-denizen at November 13, 2006 3:51 PM

The 5th Ave committee is one of the few truly respectable organizations in this city. Although they wont win any architectural awards they are not going to screw their neighbors, the people who work for them, or anyone else for that matter; the way that most of the Developers in this City do. They will build something decent and useful to the neighborhood as well as the people who will be living in the building.

Posted by: My-2-Cent at November 13, 2006 4:52 PM

Underwood Playground is built on the site of the Underwood mansion, the fine folk that brought the world the Underwood typewriters. Not sure how many bloggers remember typewriters....

Posted by: Anonymous at November 13, 2006 6:53 PM

The library pictured above is on St.Mark's between Nostrand and New York Ave. It is sandwiched between two apartment buildings, and was also built on the site of an old mansion. That must have been de regueur in back in the day. I agree with Bx2bklyn, a chance to both update and expand the library, as well as add needed affordable housing should not be passed up lightly. Hopefully, now that the community is getting more organized and proactive, a decent design will be put forth. We have the Vignoly addition to the Children's Museum going up only a block from here, it would be nice to have the public library built with a similar level of design. Many of the Manhattan libraries, such as the one in Harlem, were designed by McKim, Mead and White. Building an edifice for the public good should mean something.

Posted by: Crown Heights Proud at November 13, 2006 8:46 PM

I love this idea in theory--tho I agree w/anon 11:11 that library wd need separate entry and guarantee on lease--but I worry that in practice this is not going to work.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 13, 2006 10:36 PM

Aesthetics in affordable housing is another catch-22: if the design is somewhat scaled back as compared to SOME market-rate housing, people complain that its ugly. If the architect pays extra attention to the aesthetics AND the funding agencies approve it (which doesn't always happen), the feedback is often to the tone of the building being too nice for the population or complain that their tax dollars are being used carelessly. In affordable housing, the focus is usually getting the most bang for the buck, the most units for the buck, which will house the most people and prevent homelessness and poor living conditions. Personally, I think that there needs to be more focus on the aesthitics, but the reality does not always match up. Brownstoner: you can check out FAC's website too: fifthave.org

Posted by: anon at November 14, 2006 1:54 PM

yes, yes. we musn't let poor people live someplace too nice.

Posted by: pfa at November 20, 2006 10:52 AM

Post a comment

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

Latest Restaurant Additions