« Wednesday Food and Drink Round-Up New Merch on Myrtle? »
December 20, 2006
Have You Heard About the Lefferts Loser?
On Lefferts Place, the Landmarks gods give
and they take away. In case you needed another reason to convince you that the Clinton Hill Historic District should be extended two blocks south to include Lefferts Place, look no further: This building clearly does not belong on the block. Can some Lefferts Place rezzies provide some history please? GMAP
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/177
Comments
well, they didn't do so many of the things there are complaints about: it is flush with the other buildings; it is not overpowering in height; the floors line up; the brick and "limestone" are period-consistant. If they only got the window size right and added a cornice one might be able to overlook the balconies. Sigh.
I am curious as to why those critical two blocks south were not included in the original designation.
Posted by: glaph at December 20, 2006 10:36 AM
actually, this place looks a hell of alot better than some of the destruction going on. i'd take it over the many of the cubicles popping up in my nghbrhood.
as long as we're lobbying to extend the GC historic district, how bout going a few blocks north of grand towards the bed stuy side.
Posted by: savegreeneave at December 20, 2006 10:43 AM
See, this one bothers me a lot less than many of the Fedders originals. As the previous poster noted the flush lines and brick coloring are consistant. I would have put balconies on the rear of the house and made the windows full sized. I could even have gone with a floor to ceiling window in the front as well. Add a cornice and you're most of the way there. Overall this isn't tragic like yesterday's bed-stuy offerings.
Posted by: Oh Lord! at December 20, 2006 10:44 AM
I live on the block, and while not my ideal, especially the balconies (put them in back if you want them!), it is better than most things you see. It is flush with the facades of the other brownstones, plus they did not destroy the lovely London Plane tree in the front during construction. Overall, it is relatively innocuous, and because of the tree, does not stand out like a sore thumb. It is not my ideal, and if (hopefully when) the landmark district is extended to include blocks such as Lefferts Place next year, the aesthetics of any other construction will be even more in context.
Posted by: rez at December 20, 2006 10:48 AM
Fair points about avoiding some of the egregious things we usually complain about but, c'mon, it still sticks out like a sore thumb.
Posted by: Brownstoner at December 20, 2006 10:53 AM
It looks far worse in person than it does here in this picture. I've stood across the street from it on a number of different occasions trying to figure out if it's the windows that are slightly askew, or whether it's just my brain that is. Beyond the design, It looks slightly off, and I can never quite figure out what it is.
Posted by: Shahn Andersen at December 20, 2006 10:55 AM
Brownstoner - first off, second greatest headline ever... second... having grown up in Forest Hills and seeing the devastation there with McCrapsions popping up, I'd like to see what Santa's list of "naughty" builders looks like. Who are these aesthetic criminals fouling our nabes with bad workmanship. Oh yeah, include some lousy architects too.
Posted by: Homer Fink at December 20, 2006 10:58 AM
I do dislike the building aesthetically, don't get me wrong, I just feel that it could have been worse. I don't notice it so much anymore. It's too bad because this block is in tact with brownstones dating from 1861 to the late 1870s, with plenty of nice residents who've lived there for a long time, and newer residents too (probably about 50/50 or 60/40 split of old to new residents, depending on how you define new...) Most everyone knows each other and are very friendly. I really like living on this block.
Posted by: rez at December 20, 2006 11:01 AM
The list would be too long for modern web servers to handle Homer Fink. It would include 90% of the people who call themselves developers in Brooklyn, and from what I can tell, that's about 50% percent of the population.
Posted by: Shahn Andersen at December 20, 2006 11:04 AM
Haven't thought about that song in a while...
Lonesome Loser - Little River Band
Have you heard about the Lonesome Loser?
Beaten by the Queen of Hearts every time.
Have you heard about the Lonesome Loser?
He's a loser but he still keeps on trying.
Posted by: Argyle Road at December 20, 2006 11:07 AM
Yes this one's frustrating because it could've been a contender so easily... the first floor/entrance, while not perfect, is certainly better than classic fedders... and only one a/c hole per floor in a nice muted brown :-)... but I agree you can't have those windows and circular balconies with sliding glass doors and still give it any kind of love... too bad, probably wouldn't have even cost more to do right.
How much can 20' of cornice cost anyway?
Posted by: SeamusMacD at December 20, 2006 11:08 AM
I agree, a couple of tweaks and it could have pass minimum muster, but still be a bit off I think. The AC boxes are grates, so I don't think the ACs will stick out if installed. The balcony doors are normal hinged doors, not sliding glass, but they are on the front of the building...big no no on a brownstone block imo. The windows are odd, they open like doors and are a bit small. Would have been nice if they were larger, even the same size as the adjoining browstone.
Posted by: rez at December 20, 2006 11:15 AM
I was quote $20,000 for my 20 foot cornice. That's why I still have the crappy one.
Posted by: Anonymous at December 20, 2006 11:15 AM
This and the other ugly new places that we've been talking about make me think that although I'm not an architect, I could design something nicer with my eyes closed (as could all of us)! Even if you're constructing a place on the cheap, it just wouldn't be that hard to think up something more appealing than these.
Posted by: Anonymous at December 20, 2006 11:18 AM
I'm curious brownstoner, do you know of ANY examples of new construction brownstones/brickface townhomes that have been built in the last 20 years, that really fit in, meet architectural standards, make an effort to be historic... i.e. full windows, proper facade, cornices, etc???
If so, you should post them, and it would be really interesting to get the developers/architects to tell their stories...
I know, I know, get my own blog...
Posted by: SeamusMacD at December 20, 2006 11:20 AM
I agree Stoner. This building does not belong on Lefferts Place. Another example as to why the historic district needs to be expanded to include this architecturally significant stretch of Clinton Hill.
There are about five large empty lots on Lefferts Place that developers are clamoring over. Every developer wants to market their projects as existing on a "tree lined, brownstone block" but then they go and build something very much out of context with the low scale brownstone/federal brick townhouse feel of the community. I don't get it.
This building it not great but it's not bad either (e.g., proper building height and frontal line). With that being said, I don't think the "it could've been worst" standard of acceptance for projects of this sort is in the long term best interest of the nabe. It's a slippery slope and before you know it our sliding standards results in the destruction of the character and charm of the community. I'm afraid that without landmarking, the area will certainly fall to unscrupulous developers. Hopefully, the proposed expansion of the historic happens sooner than later.
Posted by: Anonymous at December 20, 2006 11:24 AM
Well, the Waverly building we posted a couple of weeks ago that was so good we thought it was original. The newish brownstones on Vanderbilt and Dekalb aren't perfect, but they're not bad, especially given the fact that we bet they were built quite inexpensively.
Posted by: Brownstoner at December 20, 2006 11:35 AM
the brownstone/brick rowhouse style apartment building in Fort Greene on South Elliot (I think) between Lafayette and DeKalb is nice (had to meet Landmarks Standards).
Posted by: rez at December 20, 2006 11:45 AM
What can the LPC do, if anything, to prevent further development on Lefferts Place before the proposed expansion of the Clinton Hill Historic District is finalized? A potential race to "beat the clock" could wreck havoc on the area.
Posted by: Anonymous at December 20, 2006 12:07 PM
"The newish brownstones on Vanderbilt and Dekalb aren't perfect, but they're not bad, especially given the fact that we bet they were built quite inexpensively."
If you really mean the buildings on the corner of Dekalb and Vanderbilt and weren't having a mental typo, they're not "newish" by a long shot. They were regular brownstones rehabbed in the '50s or the '60's by my late neighbor, who was a contractor responsible for a great deal of the facade detail removal in the neighborhood. The Vanderbilt side, with the garage and staircase, was an addon not too long ago. The garage had been there, the apartment on top with the stairway is an addition made in the past ten or fifteen years.
As far as nice new rowhouses are concerned, the infill houses over by Atlantic Ave. (between S. Oxford, Fulton and Cumberland? Thereabouts at least) are nicely planned and executed. There are some overly french looking but appropriate ones on Bergen or Warren St. between Smith and Court. The new buildings on Pacific St. between Jay St. and Hoyt are kickass drop dead gorgeous. There is a beautiful carriage house by the Brooklyn Veterinary Hospital on Vanderbilt between Gates and Greene.
Posted by: Anonymous at December 20, 2006 12:37 PM
"The new buildings on Pacific St. between Jay St. and Hoyt are kickass drop dead gorgeous."
I meant State St. I always get those two streets mixed up. Go figure.
Posted by: Anonymous just before this at December 20, 2006 12:39 PM
I live on Lefferts, and don't have strong feelings of hatred for this building. That said, I find that this level of attempt to design consistently with 100+-year-old rowhouses tends to stand out worse than good modern design. I can't cite specific examples of modern fitting well with old, but I've seen it done in various parts of the city. What's important is good, context-sensitive design and solid construction, not slavish attempts to imitate a style that probably can't be built cost-effectively in this century anyway.
Posted by: DC at December 20, 2006 1:02 PM
I went to the open house for this building last Sunday. It's a little blah on the outside, but inside doesn't look so bad, hardwood floors, granite counter, tiled bathrooms, stainless appliances...you know the drill. i agree with the previous posts that its not the height of design, but not home depot either. its a bunch of studios in the 340K range being marketed by the developers group... http://www.thedevelopersgroup.com/buildings/building.aspx?buildingid=1084&
I was thinkinb about buying one of the units myself. before i pull the trigger tho, does anyone else know about studios in the 300k range in the Fort green and clilnton hill area?
Posted by: Brooklyn Buyer at December 20, 2006 1:12 PM
I think I've seen some 300K range studios, though I can't remember exactly where. There are so few studios in clinton hill or forte greene. There are more 1 and 2 brs, and you will be hard pressed to find any 1 br in good shape for that price. But that's beside the point I guess, since you say these are studios. How many units?
Posted by: lp at December 20, 2006 2:07 PM
Either 6 0r 8, i dont remember. the ones with the balconies were actually pretty nice.
Posted by: Brooklyn Buyer at December 20, 2006 3:25 PM
Well, for $370,000 you can get a 2 bedroom on the South side of Prospect Park, in Victorian Flatbush.
http://www.brooklynhearth.com/listing.php?id=370
Posted by: Argyle Road at December 20, 2006 3:34 PM
seriously, what is the DEAL with these tiny balconies on the front of houses? they are popping up EVERYWHERE.
Posted by: Anonymous at December 20, 2006 4:47 PM
They're called "Juliet" balconies. Is it for smokers maybe? Because smoking indoors is not allowed in these buildings?
Posted by: Anonymous at December 21, 2006 2:32 AM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.