« Waddup at 166 Carlton? Getting Head in Clinton Hill »

December 22, 2006

Sterling Place Crash Site Shaping Up Nicely

house
It looks like the new building on the site of the 1960 airplane crash at Sterling Place and Seventh Avenue is almost done. Unlike the new building across the street, this one is a contextual success (barring any last-minute flourishes!): Perfectly proportioned windows, unobtrusive brick choice, simple lintels. The two wild cards at this point are how they will finish the bay window sections and whether they choose to add a cornice. This building was designed by the Manhattan-based Danois Architects. Anyone know anything else they've done? On a prior thread, a reader mentioned that this building will be condos while the uglier one across the street is a rental. That true? GMAP
Developments Rising at Sterling Place Crash Site [Brownstoner]




Posted by Brownstoner at 10:15 AM | Comments (22)
Categories: Development

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/195

Comments

This building is not contextual.

This building is a fraud. It doesn't need concrete or stone lintels above the windows, but it has them. It has bays, but not for any reason other than pure hokey formalism. It is made of brick, but the brick is a cladding material only and as such should be regarded not as some wonderful tribute to the architecture of the nieghborhood but as a convential building skin like any other.

I hope people who talk the talk about "context" are prepared to accept tons of this boring brick nonsense.

Posted by: Dan at December 22, 2006 10:28 AM

the listings are now on corcoran. saw them last night. pricey. they start at like 900's and go up to high 1.xx's

Posted by: ltjbukem at December 22, 2006 10:38 AM

I haven't heard anything about this building but I believe, the one across the street is getting developed by Dolly Williams development company. Dolly Williams sits on the New York Planning Commission at the behest of Markowitz and I think is a minor partner with Ratner in the Atlantic Yards Project

todd

Posted by: todd at December 22, 2006 10:42 AM

I think the ones on Corcoran are further up the block between 7th and Flatbush.

Posted by: Anonymous at December 22, 2006 10:50 AM

Read link to archives on bldg across street....and in that entry don't you say you like the building? Now you're saying it is ugly?
You said- "Our verdict? Looks fine. It looks like the developers are even taking pains to create some terra cotta (?) panels underneath some of the windows that from this angle appear reasonably authentic.

Posted by: Anonymous at December 22, 2006 11:10 AM

"Perfectly proportioned windows" what? I am actually not sure what you mean by this but they are certainly not historically contextual proportions. go back to another architecture class as the Learning Annex before you play architecture critic.

Posted by: nit at December 22, 2006 12:06 PM

I was looking at the crash building yesterday when walking home from the Slope and the absence of cornices makes it stand out from the surrounding buildings. I think it needs them. And by the way, I never understood people in PS complaining about strollers until I tried to do some shopping yesterday. Yikes! I fled.

Posted by: Anonymous at December 22, 2006 12:08 PM

OUCH! You dissed the B-man! Nit, since you are an architect, please shed some light on this matter for us.

Posted by: Yente at December 22, 2006 12:11 PM

Both buildings are ugly.. that is my opinion...better than fedders but not by much.

Posted by: Anonymous at December 22, 2006 1:07 PM

wow, even the nitpickers have nitpickers! we need some benchmarking here, somebody show me a new construction that is fully contexualized with this historicosity of the surrounding buildings. once we establish that such buildings do exist in new york then we can properly criticize an otherwise perfectly fine house.

contextually yours,

Posted by: Jimmy Legs at December 22, 2006 1:25 PM

I thought I would be the only one who didn't like this. It reminds me of the ugly new apt building by the Park at 9th Street. Yeah, the windows are lined up and similar size, yeah, there's brick, and maybe that makes it "contextual" by whatever committee these buildings had to get past (is this block landmarked?). But it's also dull and institutional looking. It's not unlike some of the new additions on Methodist Hospital.

People dissed that "uncontextual" modern townhouse with the metal cladding a few days ago, but here I'd rather see something noncontextual and imaginative that this lump of blah.

Posted by: linusvanpelt at December 22, 2006 2:37 PM

I agree with Linus completely. It's better to go modern. I find attempts to match period buildings in Brooklyn to be failures, and ugly ones at that. You have to go very very high-end with your materials to do that, and none of these condo developers are spending that kind of money.

Posted by: Anonymous at December 22, 2006 6:09 PM

Please let us dummies know what historicosity means and then maybe we'll answer your question.

Posted by: Anonymous at December 22, 2006 6:27 PM

how many of you critics are actually FROM brooklyn? i love the opinions, but i suspect you are all transplants. my family grew up on park place and lived there on the day of the plane crash. we all think the new development looks fine and it's nice to see something getting built.

Posted by: native at December 23, 2006 12:40 PM

The window openings are nearly square on the long facade! This is not historically accurate. Battery Park City's design guidelines allow this same offense: the ganging of individual windows that are each vertical in aspect ratio into groups that are square or horizontal. You'll find it in the modern brick buildings, but not the turn-of-the-century types that this building seeks to emulate.

Posted by: Anonymous at December 23, 2006 12:45 PM

This building looks really nice to me. I guess it would be better to build taller windows, but in a regular brownstone there really isn't as much light as there would be with wider windows. So I think it's smart to let in more light. I think historically accurate is a funny concept because nothing about the way we live today in actual old houses is historicallly accurate. They used to have riotous colors everywhere and very dimly lit interiors and heavy, heavy furniture. I think it would be funny to have to live like you are the curator of a museum inside your own house, why do you people insist that new construction adheres to curatorial standards on non-landmark blocks? And of course our fantasy version of how things ought to be accurate also is related in NYC to everybody being familiar with the WPA photos which were taken within 10 years of the depression, which was after a very affluent time period. So certainly it's more of a disneyland kind of time capsule for photos I think because people then didn't have any money to do anything to their houses exteriors and that's what we remember about our houses to be historically accurate. But if they did they would have most certainly done a lot of different things to them I think. Really what is a brownstone now besides a house made out of concrete?

Posted by: Anonymous at December 23, 2006 2:44 PM

This is a landmark block, I believe.

Posted by: Anonymous at December 23, 2006 7:28 PM

I lived on this block for ten years. It's not a landmark block, hence the condos midway down the block on the south side. Not very "contextual" but better than the vacant lot from the 80s. We have bigger fights than this to fight. These buildings will do. Could be much much worse.

Posted by: Don at December 24, 2006 11:56 AM

i believe the building is by the same developer as 618-626 dean street in prospect heights. the name is abe pinson. i live in the dean street building......still awtg our J51. hope this building has better luck than we have had.

Posted by: michael bonauto at December 25, 2006 11:01 AM

This is a brand new building so I think it's going to qualify for a 421a tax break. J51 I think is only for renovated buildings.

Posted by: Anonymous at December 25, 2006 7:26 PM

I spoke to Dolly on the 4 unit building, it's all rented. Also spoke to Abe Pinson on this 38 unit bldg. It is largely going to be 3 and 4 b.r. duplex apts. for large families (check DOB filing.) Corcoran is handling the crap on Park Place and Flatbush. This building is not yet approved for sale but will be handled by Brown Harris on 7th Ave. at Union St.
I live in the Slope and am not displeased at all with the building. Construction however has been amazingly slow. The foundation was untouched for about a year. The architect, Dave Danois, started out 35 years ago with the Bedford Stuyvesant Restoration Corp. where I met him. I think he is trying to fit the building as best he can in the neighborhood but after all has to please the client.
Expect these units to go for $1,000 per s.f. per Abe. I actually might sell my small 825 s.f. 3 b.r. for a unit here but await more details. This building will definitely get a 421a exemption.

Posted by: Marion at December 26, 2006 1:29 AM

Beware of Pinson's shoddy work and shadier character - know thine developer before you buy and don't ever judge a book by its cover.

Posted by: incredulous at December 26, 2006 3:18 PM

Post a comment

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

Latest Restaurant Additions