« Development Watch: St. Marks Doubleshot House of the Day: 1199 Bergen Street »
March 13, 2007
New Development: 46 Lefferts Place
While we doubt neighbors on the otherwise historic block of Lefferts Place between Grand and St. James are too thrilled about having to look at the new facade at 46 Lefferts Place, the developer should get credit for making the effort to align the facade and roofline with the neighboring brownstones. (While he was at it, we wish he sized the windows similarly.) The developer should also get some credit for bringing the an upscale-ish condo development to the immediate area. Why is this a good thing? Well, it gives young, single people the option of taking a stake in the neighborhood, rather than being forced to rent. And there are a number of apartments that are actually within reach of this demographic: All but one of the condos are priced between $275,000 and $355,000. As you can see from the photo, there were already potential buyers checking our the model apartment yesterday evening.
Lefferts Place Listings [Corcoran] GMAP P*Shark
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/712
Comments
if they would just add a cornice, this place would look 100% better and i wouldn't even have an issue with the rest.
Posted by: anonymous at March 13, 2007 10:34 AM
This is not bad, but those ^#&@! front balconies!
Posted by: z at March 13, 2007 10:42 AM
yikes! $345K for a 600 square foot studio in a less than prime, although hardly terrible neighborhood. this is my price range, but increasingly i compare this with moving, and i don't mean bay ridge; i mean pittsburgh ... the administration really needs to address affordability at all price-points or new york city will become paris.
Posted by: Anonymous at March 13, 2007 10:46 AM
Not a single unit has sold or gone in contract in 3 months. Tells you something.
Posted by: Anonymous at March 13, 2007 11:08 AM
$275K for that teeny tiny studio?! On the first floor?! My Willoughby Walk studio is looking better and better every friggin' day with these prices.
Posted by: BrooklynZoo at March 13, 2007 11:10 AM
I live on this block. A few tweaks that would have made this a bit better have already been mentioned.
1. Add a cornice
2. No balconies on the front.
3. larger windows (double hung) matching the brownstone adjacent to it.
4. Nicer brick.
5. Add an iron fence in the front with a gate and a small tree, landscaping like the other rowhouses (this could be done after the fact of course and hopefully will be by the collective owners.)
Luckily, this does not stand out too much on the block, and in the summer you don't see it so much trough the leaves of the trees.
Hopefully, it will be a good entry point for young professionals looking to get out of the renting cycle. Whoever buys, welcome, it's a nice block.
Posted by: Anonymous at March 13, 2007 11:11 AM
I think you are being very generous, Mr. B, as it's impossible for me to give praise to the developer/architect team for any aspects of this facade.
1. It needs DIFFERENT windows that are scaled correctly. The windows should be more rectangular, black or brown framed, and they should be double hung sash windows (real wood a BIG plus) that match the size of the windows of the neighboring existing housing stock. (And yes, looks like all the neighbors have made the same mistake of getting replacement windows with white frames. Not good.) These are a joke, and they ruin every aspect of the potential for the rest of the facade. They are WAY too small and too square - double hung sash is what would be appropriate. (and not in white, please!) Because of the silly scale problem, the windows must be placed higher on the facade at the bottoms, throwing off the sill "line" with neighboring buildings.
What you see here is inexcusable and devoid of even the most basic architectural sensitivity and awareness.
2. The lintels and surrounding trim of the windows are also a joke. Plain concrete lintels (even painted) would have been better, without any decorative trim on the side of the windows. (should be just a window opening in the common brick with the lintel above the window and perhaps a simple sill on the bottom. Man, I've recently seen some new construction that used inexpensive poured concrete form sills and lintels and it's FINE! It looks absolutely cool, especially if the surrounding common brick is a nice solid red color, or better yet, a random blend with specks of darker reds and blacks. Of course, real stone would be best but this fussy prefab white stuff with arched trim looks so dumb...
3. The balconies should be outlawed. No explanation needed here.
4. The stone on the facade at the entry is another horrible aesthetic seen all too often these days. It's just trying so hard, man. but you know - some things are better left in plain common brick.
Could it have been worse? no doubt, but where is the skillset these days? This is not rocket science!
Posted by: Anonymous at March 13, 2007 11:16 AM
I gotta go with 11:16 on this one. Keystones do not equal contextual.
Didn't we see something pretty similar recently - another building with a ridiculous faux-stone base that didn't turn the corner?
Posted by: Halden at March 13, 2007 11:57 AM
Only an a-hole would build a building with that shitty Altantic City facade next to classic brownstones.
The developer clearly only cares about money and it looks like he won't be making much any time soon.
Posted by: Anonymous at March 13, 2007 2:00 PM
Where are the closets? How can you live in a tiny studio without any closets?
Posted by: Deb at March 13, 2007 2:03 PM
I always thought the ubiquitous balconies on new construction were meant to appeal to the Hasidic community by giving them a place to celebrate that outdoor festival (forget the name but it starts with an S and means "booths" or something). I can't really picture single condo dwellers wanting to chill on a front balcony. That's what stoops are for!
Posted by: anonymous at March 13, 2007 2:07 PM
To 10:46AM: I think, unfortunately, that the city's intention really is to turn New York into Paris, and push all the lower-income folks to the outskirts. That's basically what's already happened to San Francisco, which is essentially one big over-priced Park Slope, with hills.
Posted by: Park Sloper at March 13, 2007 2:17 PM
I love all these outraged comments....If this isnt good please post 1 or 2 new developments (last 10 yrs) that are acceptable to your taste. If the answer is none, then clearly your opinion has little value.
Posted by: David at March 13, 2007 2:29 PM
Or clearly, there haven't been any decent developments in Brownstone Brooklyn in the last 10 years!
Posted by: Park Sloper at March 13, 2007 2:33 PM
Park Sloper - Do you think it is a coincidence that the 3 cities you cite - NY, SF and Paris with terrible affordability problems are the same 3 cities that have probably "done" the most to "address the affordability problem."
In the case of supply and demand (affordability) Government isnt the solution, it is the problem.
Posted by: David at March 13, 2007 2:33 PM
I agree with you, David. That's the point I was trying to make, though apparently not very well.
Posted by: Park Sloper at March 13, 2007 2:35 PM
At least when the city develops a block they do follow some sort of plan from yesteryear like installing cornices and using similar colored brick.
For example Bergen street between Vanderbilt and Underhill. The whole south oxford and South Portland areas.
Posted by: Anonymous at March 13, 2007 2:48 PM
Do people commenting here live somewhere other than brooklyn? So often i see houses/buildings that are in ill repair with facades that are literally crumbling, brick facades in need of pointing, frame houses with exteriors that are at least 50 years old and are in dire need of replacement, sagging porches, shingles missing on roofs, vacant lots used as garbage dumps, illegal structually unsound front extensions, garbage strewn front yards and the list goes on and on. To me any work on a block that is new, clean and legal is an asset to that block. Not everyone is an architect and appreciates such fine level of detail but no one likes living on a block with the stuff i listed above. Sometimes you need a little perspective in what you appreciate.
Posted by: Anonymous at March 13, 2007 3:13 PM
and people on here thought Novo Slope sucked.
Posted by: Anonymous at March 13, 2007 3:21 PM
David at 2:29.
anon 11:16 here...yes, I can give you four examples of brand new construction that looks GREAT, all around my nabe of the south slope.
1. 17th street between 4th and 5th ave. There is a 3 year old new building housing about 10 condos on the north side of the street. Perfect contextual building, looks great on its own and with it's neighbors. The lintels and sills are simple and the brick is nice. windows have perfect proportions.
2. The new 12 story building on 16th street between 4th and 5th avenues. I think the brick looks great, and the windows are going to be awesome. There are balconies on every floor, which I normally oppose, and until the railings and other finishes are up I can't be sure, but so far I like what I'm seeing. And yeah, it's a 12 story building, and I think it looks GREAT. Flame away everyone...
3. Two new condos on 21st street between 5th and 6th avenues. One is an ultra modern 3-family condo in gray stucco, with offset metal casement windows and assymetrical lines, right next to the beautiful St. John's catholic church. The units are being offered by corcoran. sorry I don't have the address. It looks like something out of Dwell magazine. I give it 4 stars.
4. The other is an under-construction 4 story condo about 2 properties away, with REAL wooden sash windows that have perfect proportions and beautiful brickwork. It's clearly going for the historic contextual blend and its going to be lovely. (although there appears to be one front balcony - aaarrrggghhhh.)
There are your examples...
Posted by: Anonymous at March 13, 2007 3:35 PM
Anon@335 - okay thanks - now post some pictures and watch as everyone else here tells you that they are an ugly eyesores.
Posted by: David at March 13, 2007 3:49 PM
Nope, David, you're going to have to deal with the fact that there can be good new construction, but this just ain't it. Anon 11:16 is right -- most of the facade's mistakes are with scale (the windows) or with the application of faux detail in an attempt to be "classy."
My guess is Brownstoner was reacting to the not-offensive massing. Yes, well. How low the bar really is.
Posted by: Anonymous at March 13, 2007 4:11 PM
David, the row of houses on 3rd st bet 4th& 5th ave are not too shabby looking.
Posted by: Anonymous at March 13, 2007 4:23 PM
3rd st bet 4th& 5th
You mean the ones with the mail boxes at the curb....sorry but that's nasty
Posted by: Baer at March 13, 2007 4:27 PM
Baer, those buildings are gems compared to the 2 Fedder's I have on Putnam and Marcus Garvey.
Wanna swap:-)
Posted by: Anonymous at March 13, 2007 4:46 PM
Mailboxes? Sure ;-)
Posted by: Baer at March 13, 2007 4:50 PM
You're too generous!
Posted by: Anonymous at March 13, 2007 4:56 PM
I have to say, move a few blocks out and do much better. I know this link here is really Bed Sty, and not the "edge of Clinton Hill" but it is a short walk from Lefferts to a real 2 br with real closets and really 850sf. Plus the joys of an express stop.
http://www.corcoran.com/property/listing.aspx?Region=NYC&ListingID=934770
Posted by: ameraleed at March 13, 2007 6:14 PM
Cornice, Cornice, Cornice! You cannot overstate the importance of a cornice on a building to give it a polished look. It is the top hat on a tux or the frame on a painting. The city should really do more to set guidelines for minimal requirements on architectural work. I mean, how much does it really add to the cost of twenty foot wide building to top it off with even a rudimentary faux wood roof line? Even a simple, painted, linear structure along the roof line to contrast with the verticality would do. I understand that the modern aesthetic limits the ornate cornice structures on many buildings, but a developer must pay attention to the historical context of the neighboring structures. The ironic thing is, that this building would be quite attractive with that small detail added. Another poster mentioned landscaping. I totally agree. And again, what does it cost to build a nice wooden tree box or cut out a hole in the sidewalk and plop a tree down in it? Last time I checked, you could buy a nice flowering pear tree at Home Depot for all of 40 bucks. Anyway, I guess that's why some architects get the awards and accolades and others get to stew.
Posted by: Antoinne Roquetien at March 13, 2007 7:38 PM
in my home town of Philadelphia the city is pretty hard core about not letting crap like this get built.
I live in clinton hill just one block from the historic district, and I think the new stuff they are building is truly atrocious. As they say, "there oughta be a law"
Posted by: jvf at March 13, 2007 9:22 PM
B-stoner: Isn't this the same place you wrote about before with the headline "Lefferts Loser"? I don't get it. Why the sudden change of opinion?
Posted by: Anonymous at March 13, 2007 9:50 PM
Oooh so interesting anon 9:50. You're right.....
Posted by: sal at March 14, 2007 10:03 AM
I went to the first open house for this place over 6 weeks ago. Kitchen and bathroom were adequate but only 1 tiny, tiny, tiny closet in each place. The layout is atrocious - there is no logical place to put your bed due to the french doors. The larger apartment for over $500K had the tightest set of stairs down to the dark basement level.
Also, the front window of the first floor apartment was broken the night before the open house and its still not fixed as of this past Sunday. No open house this past Sunday and website indicates by appointment only. I think the developer sales team have given up on this one. Maybe they should adjust the price.
Posted by: sarah at March 14, 2007 1:08 PM
It's at corcoran now. And no laundry in the building! Not just no laundry in the units - none in the building. It's a new development. You expect certain things.
Posted by: Anonymous at March 14, 2007 4:33 PM
Does anyone have any views on Lefferts Place, especially from Franklin to Classon? Do people think this blook and neighborhood are on the up?
Posted by: Anon at March 14, 2007 10:42 PM
Lefferts Place is a great street, especially the block between St. James and Grand, as well as most of the Grand to Classon block.
I personally really like the part of the street from Classon to Franklin. Technically that part is Bed Stuy. There are some great houses (row houses and a few free standing) on that block that, and although they look a little worse for the wear, have great potential in my book. I know at least one has gone for over a million on that block so I'm not sure if you'll be getting any fabulous deals. Others on the Clinton Hill side have sold in the $1.5MM range for some four story brownstones. I think it would be a good long term investment. Plus, with the proposed landmarks extension to cover the blocks from St. James to Classon, as well as the pending zoning restrictions that would prevent houses being knocked down to build high rises on these blocks, the long term outlook is good. It's a quiet street with lovely large trees.
Posted by: Anonymous at March 15, 2007 8:42 AM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.