« Five Brooklyn Rental Props Change Hands Red Hook Un-Modern: CB6 Dings Townhouse Proposal »
April 3, 2007
Modern Design: Brooklyn Plagued by Mediocrity
We had just read Nicolai Ouroussoff's article yesterday raving about Jean Nouvel's two new residential buildings in Manhattan (which we share his enthusiasm for) on the subway and were walking down Washington Street towards our office in Dumbo when we were confronted with this vision of the Beacon and J Condo. All we could think was, "How mediocre." The following statement from the Ouroussoff piece certainly couldn't have been written about either of the new Dumbo towers or much else that's been built in Brooklyn during the current building boom: "Mr. Nouvel doesn’t reject this history; he tips his hat to it, showing us what can be accomplished through ingenious planning and calculated consideration of the setting." Besides Richard Meier's design for On Prospect Park, there's very little recent architecture that would merit the attention of critics. (The fiberglass house on Vanderbilt Avenue is one exception. What are some others?) We understand that the economics probably aren't as compelling for starchitect-designed developments, but that's no excuse for the lackluster buildings that will define the skyline for decades to come. There are certainly plenty of un-famous architects out there who could do better than the status quo. The hurdle: A little imagination and appetite for risk on the part of developers.
Seductive Machines for City Living [NY Times]
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/867
Comments
Agreed. These condos are sh$t. Richard Meier's building, however, is fantastic. Of course, most of the commenters on this site think that building is sh$t as well, so it makes me very doubtful that much of the commentary below will mean anything.
Posted by: Ed at April 3, 2007 9:48 AM
That fiber glass building may look interesting if you have a rear view but from the front it looks unfinished and doesn't fit the neighborhood at all.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 3, 2007 9:48 AM
so let me get this straight, bronstoner, you want ingenious design in EVERY new building built, but if it's not ingenious, then it had better be neo-historic? go back to being a cog in the wheels of finance, and quit postulating about design (of which it seems you know little about beyond what the ny times tells you to think). i certainly hope that in 30 years when it comes time for all those condos to replace their extraordinarily expensive facades, the boards are respective to the original intent and don't crap them up like all buildings have a tendency to do when it comes maintenance time. does no one think of that when it comes to starchitect designed residential buildings? and frankly, it's a sad statement of our society that the only thing new yorkers will consider living in these days is a "couture" building. "but it has to match my handbags and shoes!" puh-leeze. give me a white brick building on 3rd ave any day; at least those buildings were modernism for the masses, instead machines of living for the ever-shrinking few...
Posted by: tuesday at April 3, 2007 9:48 AM
Although the you may appreciate a couple of the new apt. bldgs in Manhattan, I think to be fair you'd say most of the ones on that side of east river are also pretty mediocre.
I don't think ones in Brooklyn are any more(or less) appealing on average.
Same can said for Queens, NJ or rest of country.
The Nouvel ones are more modest in scale compared to the bigger projects in Manhattan. I think issue is even in upper price ranges, the percentage of buyers impressed by outsign design of bldg is small.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 3, 2007 9:52 AM
You're absolutely right. Can't think of anything recent on the UES that's compelling.
Posted by: brownstoner at April 3, 2007 9:54 AM
Really Brownstoner?… I say this with all sincerity; you should really read a few architecture/urban design books before passing yourself off as an expert. Just the basic ones would help.
Posted by: nit at April 3, 2007 9:58 AM
this site represents the view of those that accept the mediocrity, unfortunately. all the "brownstoners" want all real estate to have the "look and feel" of the late 1800's. until Brooklynites become more open minded towards their neighborhoods, the Meier's of the world - and the REAL money, I might add, will just stay away. the meier building is easily the most architechturally significant building to be raised in brooklyn in the last 100 years and all people do is criticize it. it's a joke.
Posted by: Brownstone Dreamin at April 3, 2007 9:59 AM
Certainly a building's exterior becomes less important as building density increases. Who can even get a decent look at the exterior of an Upper East Side building with all that visual clutter around it? But this "J" condominium has plenty of space around it. It should be prettier.
Meanwhile, there hasn't been much interesting post-war residential architecture in NYC due to cost and greed. Anyone know why Chicago has a plethora of interesting post-war residential buildings?
Posted by: Ed at April 3, 2007 10:03 AM
I think the new addition on 110 Livingston is very cool and is a great addition to the Downtown Brooklyn skyline. It's a glittering little jewel box. I like it.
Posted by: anonymous at April 3, 2007 10:05 AM
THIS architect is in agreement with Mr B. The path for good design now does not lie in recreating nineteenth century facades, nor does it lie in "couture" or boutique efforts. Both of these pursuits will always be marginal; the value-engineering (that is, cutting everything to the bone) of most current developments does not allow for either approach.
But time and again we see efforts Mr B links too where plenty of money was spent, but not well. Were I some overarching czar of development, I would push developers to understand the applications of scale and proportion, light and shadow, layers, public and private, what materials can and cannot do, and finally what rules should be respected and what are worth breaking.
--an architect in Brooklyn
PS I don't love love J-condo, but it really could be so much worse. There are interesting things going on with the facade, and no, I had nothing to do with it.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 3, 2007 10:13 AM
Its like all the developers and architects in New York City took a crap pill... now all they can build is crap. Its more apparent in Brooklyn because the new crap is so much taller than the old. In Manhattan they actually have nice old tall buildings that makes the new crap squeezed between them harder to focus on.
Some of the architecture in the Times article looks great. OnProspectPark's OK. But its such a low percentage of what's going up. Look at all the 8' ceiling, crappy brick, small windowed "luxury" condo buidings going up all over manhattan... they would've barely passed for Mitchell-Lama buildings in the 60s. And half of the glass buildings look like they belong in an office park in Parsippany, NJ.
Sad really. Do they teach design anymore in architecture school or just bean counting and how to win the project?
Posted by: Anonymous at April 3, 2007 10:15 AM
Scarano is building modernism for the masses today, or at least what passes for masses in Brooklyn's condo market.
Glad to see people are realizing that J Condo is an awful design.
Posted by: GrandPa at April 3, 2007 10:16 AM
Walk down Bond Street in the City for some interesting and decent new architecture. At least three under construction that I can see.
Meier is tops in BK for the time being.
One more thing, Brownstoner, are you referrring to yourself as "we" in this article? Where you with someone else?
Posted by: Slevin at April 3, 2007 10:21 AM
slevin, where you been? he always writes "we".
I love the meier building. it would be great as stoner suggests to have non starchitects aim for good design in the borough.
Posted by: miss priss at April 3, 2007 10:25 AM
Traveling through Brooklyn, I am just heartbroken at the ugliness I see taking over. There is a universal crap aesthetic that is stripping our many neighborhoods of their individual characters. You can walk down a lovely block of contextual buildings, and there, smack in the middle, is the same cheaply-bricked, bizarrely-balconied, fedders-scarred piece of junk you've seen ruin other blocks in other nabes. They are disruptive in ways other earlier additions to these streets weren't. There is no effort at all made to build housing that displays pride of place. I like the Meier building. I'm not opposed to glass and steel. I dislike the cheap, taste-free idiom of this boom, which to my eye has its bust already built in.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 3, 2007 10:31 AM
I love it when the archisnobs here go nuts upon reading Mr. B's architecture critiques. How dare he deign to comment when he is not a member of the profession, or better yet, of the Critical Priesthood? In general, Mr. B's "take" is pretty reflective of how "the rest of us" reasonably educated and aesthetically conscious bourgeouisie would react--which is precisely what drives the archisnobs into fits. We are supposed to humbly await our orders and be *told* by the cognoscenti how to feel about architecture, not go making our own judgments! Don't let them snow you, Mr. B.
Posted by: brenda from flatbush at April 3, 2007 10:32 AM
Ah, but what of the mighty 145 Park Place. An interesting, yet unappealing, mix of both impulses. You have the faux Brownstone facade on Park Place, and then you have the ungainly glass and metal thing on Flatbush, and both of them combine with dubious internal construction to produce some very awkward living spaces.
As for this "you know nothing of this architecture, Brownstoner man", I think you miss the point. These buildings are public spaces, and they do need to be at the very least easy on the eye. We all get a say, even crazy-azz old lady dominated community-boards.
Posted by: Gari N. Corp at April 3, 2007 10:32 AM
have any of you people ever heard of 15 Central Park West!! it seems to fit what everyone on this site wants, an excellent recreation of a pre war coop.
there are plenty of great buildings and conversions in manhattan, but that is because the sky is the limit there. to name a few:
urban glass house
40 bond
40 mercer
tribeca summit
many new buildings going up along the high line
Scarano and his imitators are ruining brooklyn simply because too many buildings have gone up that look similar. big windows and high ceiling do not make for good modern design.
what i'd like to see are more modern townhouses. if you look at some of the most expensive townhouses in the west village they are all modern and very beautiful. check these out. brooklyn needs more of this (not the prices tho)
http://www.elliman.com/Listings.aspx?ListingID=859024&rentalperiod=&SearchType=houses
http://www.elliman.com/Listings.aspx?ListingID=851636&rentalperiod=&SearchType=houses
Posted by: anon at April 3, 2007 10:36 AM
for what its worth (and I know plenty of critics of 14Townhouses on this site), seems that quite a few lately are going into contract (on Corcoran website).
I think that development looks great from outside and from what I can see thru windows and pics.
(too bad backs of houses face parking lot with bright stadium lighting - but maybe that will end soon enough).
Posted by: Anonymous at April 3, 2007 10:38 AM
everyone seems to forget that one of the bigest and best architects in the world is about to remake brooklyn. Gehry is responsible for some of the most radical and forward thinking architecture the worls has seen in the past 30 yrs. i personally wish Ratner had held open design competitions or multiple great architects work on atlantic yards but he could have easily someone like Costas Kondylis who would have designed much blander and much, much easier to build buildings. he should be applauded for that.
Posted by: anon at April 3, 2007 10:45 AM
Mr. Brownstoner and An Architect in Brooklyn are 100% right.
Does anybody travel anywhere in the country? Or do you just stay in NYC all the time? All anybody has to do, is visit any number of other cities (both big and small cities) around the country right now, and they'll see the evidence that supports what these guys are saying. Other cities are doing a far better job building both the significant, big-name architects' buildings AND talented local architects' buildings. As well as a better job renovating old historic downtown buildings, with an innovative vision. For just one example, Minneapolis totally blows Brooklyn out of the water right now. And beats Manhattan too, if we're looking at recent buildings.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 3, 2007 10:48 AM
Can you imgaine the views from the higher floors? Magnificent!
The advantages of living in a lux hi-rise like these is that they take care of you, not vice-versa. 24/7 doorman, superintendent, laundry service.
A brownstone, which I have owned, is sheer bondage to ancient wood, plaster, stone, and pipes. To each their own.
Posted by: condo-ite at April 3, 2007 10:54 AM
as a big fan of Meier, I don't think his Brooklyn building is all that great. He has done much better work. Its true it might be better than a lot of crap going up but its not such a great looking building, no matter what people want it to be and want Brooklyn to be...
Posted by: Anonymous at April 3, 2007 11:01 AM
very interesting thread although i think some people are missing out on a key point here. brooklyn, up until 20 years ago was not the minneapolis of today. brooklyn, in many areas probably looked a lot closer to the bronx in many of the areas we are talking about a lot of this in my opinion subpar building is being done.
for this reason, people have been anxious to see ANYTHING go in it's place over an abandoned car lot or a burned out building.
take 15 central park west for instance and many of the places you have mentioned on bond street that are spectacular. these are going in as 2nd or 3rd generation buildings and are improving upon a neighborhood that was already there.
here in the south slope, bed sty, clinton hill...areas that are seeing some of this crap go up are in areas that having 4 walls and a roof are better in many circumstances than that which was before it.
give brooklyn a chance. in many ways it is young...it will grow into itself, and places like j condo will last for 20 years, then someone will tear it down and build something more in line with what people desire.
just my own personal take.
Posted by: jm at April 3, 2007 11:06 AM
Mr. B is right, as usual. Above building is decidedly mediocre--would be right at home alongside the interstate in any Edge City, USA. And the fiberglass house on Vanderbilt is magnificent--fresh, original, different--that's the kind of contemporary I would love to see more of. Anybody who thinks new buildings should attempt to look like the ornament-festooned wedding cakes of the 1800s is crazy--and unimaginative. Thanks to the professional architects who were kind enough to share their well-informed views here, too. By the way, for the record, it is a longstanding tradition among columnists to use the third person--in part, I think, a quaint throwback to Murrow, Parsons, Kupcinet, you name them, in part perhaps to represent to the viewpoint of themselves *and* their publishers, or staffs (e.g. "we, the people of Brownstoner, feel this way.") Even though Brownstoner has a staff of one. Besides, who cares? You really want to spend your time copy editing somebody else's blog?
Posted by: bob999 at April 3, 2007 11:47 AM
It's smaller, and a complete reno ext and interior, but I've grown to love it: David Salle's (the famous contemporary painter) property on the corner of S. Portland and Hanson Pl. It's cool. And merits some attention of the arch critics in my mind. Also I like the cool, modern house's ext. that was featured in the NY Times on Vanderbilt between Dekalb and Willoughby.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 3, 2007 11:51 AM
there's that interesting building on the corner of hanson place and south portland... definitely not traditional
Posted by: dahl at April 3, 2007 11:55 AM
Anon 10:48 - I was just in Mpls, and there is indeed lots of neat stuff there, particularly on the riverfront. But there is also plenty of cookiecutter stuff (also on the riverfront). There is also lots of relatively cheap land, which gives developers/architects the chance to play around, and there is very little old housing stock worth saving/emulating, which eliminates alot of the wistful "I was it was an 1880s brownstone" critique we see on this site. Also, it is in Minneapolis, which is a lovely city but is no Brooklyn. I'll put up with some Fedders, thank you very much.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 3, 2007 12:20 PM
NY is full of ugly buildings, Face it this town is not pretty most of the time.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 3, 2007 12:27 PM
new york has always been ugly.
that's what makes it beautiful.
to not appreciate that is to not fully understand that which is great about this city.
sorry to sound so cliche, but it's true.
Posted by: anon at April 3, 2007 12:29 PM
If you want to see ugly...go to L.A. Then you won't think NYC is so bad. At least we don't have strip mall after strip mall...
Posted by: jigman at April 3, 2007 1:10 PM
agree completely about la salle house - those kinds of projects are great in an intimate way. the mix of that with beautiful old b'stones is wonderful. throwing in the fedders bldgs and those weird faux fancy jobs with ornate balconies and cheap brick is just plain gross.
Posted by: miss priss at April 3, 2007 2:27 PM
The mediocrity is certainly everywhere in Brooklyn (and beyond). Short of AiB's development czar, the market will always dictate. And unfortunately, the market of the past few years has been a seller's market. Combine that with the fact that (most) development is all about maximizing every last penny, and its a race to the bottom.
But we're buying it, so we really don't have anyone else to blame.
This came up in a post yesterday on North 5th Street, and AiB and Brownstoner have echoed my sentiment there - good design is not about being modern or historicist, its just about good design.
Finally, the blame does not rest entirely with developers and their architects. Marketers deserve a lot of the blame for the banal cookie-cutter architecture we see everywhere. They dictate layouts, finishes and so much more. The result is the off-the-rack mediocrity we see everywhere.
Posted by: Halden at April 3, 2007 3:56 PM
I wasn't saying we should all move there, 12:20. I was just saying that not all hipness is centered in NYC anymore, and that in fact, there are more interesting buildings getting built in other cities in the country now. All cities have some ugly buildings, but compare Brooklyn's new buildings to Minneapolis' new buildings - the new Walker Art Center, the new Guthrie Theatre, the condo conversions in the warehouse district, the old mill building on the river that was gutted by fire many years ago and the inside all rebuilt very modern with an all-glass wall in back. Where you can look out and see the ragged edges and ruins of the burnt out shell of the building on the sides. Sorry, no developer is doing innovative buildings like those in Brooklyn.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 3, 2007 4:11 PM
Just think, they could have done something similar to the burned warehouses in Red Hook:
http://www.nationaltrust.org/Magazine/archives/arc_news/091003.htm
Posted by: Anonymous at April 3, 2007 4:16 PM
Don't want to turn this into a Minneapolis Brownstoner - tho if Mr. B hasn't already thought about expanding this concept in general to other cities I'd be surprised - but I think you have to compare apples to apples here. The Walker and the Guthrie are indeed groovy (though also flawed, methinks, but not relevant here) but you don't compare them to residential developments, you compare them to other museums or theaters. Say, the new/revived MOMA. And I think there are people doing all sorts of interesting things with brownstones, but landmarking means you will almost never be able to tell that from the outside.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 3, 2007 4:37 PM
i agree. while brooklyn may be lacking in its design for new developments, i'd argue that we've got probably one of the better senses of restoration of anywhere in the country....
Posted by: anon at April 3, 2007 4:44 PM
This is more complex than BS makes it out to be. Design is only one aspect of an architect's service. The design portion of a project is probably 10-15% of the entire scope of services. All developments that are ground up require the architect to produce building department application sets and comprehensive construction bid documents. The architect typically monitors the project as well. It is hard to find firms that excell at all aspects of the service. I bet that most developers would prefer to go with a firm that was better at drawing production and project management then say design.
Furthermore, as far as I know banks don't typically like to lend money on projects that have higher than proven market pricing and/or incorporate materials and construction details that are atypical.
Residential real estate development is inherently risky. Why should a developer take on more risk if they are already saddled with market risk, interest rate risk, construction risk, etc. In order to mitigate these risks the developer would have to pass some of them on to the buyer in the form of higher prices. It looks and sounds like, in Brooklyn anyway, that the end-user is unwilling to accept that risk.
On Prospect Park should give some insight into how much responsibility the end-user is willing to take when it comes to balancing the risks associated with "good design."
Posted by: DT at April 3, 2007 4:50 PM
It might not be the original intent, but it's clearly not just residential development people on brownstoner are concerned with. Thus the heated debates over Gehry's design for the stadium at AY. And the Gowanus Canal. And the Brooklyn Bridge park. People are concerned about the city's plans and its developers' visions (or lack thereof) for developing Brooklyn overall.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 3, 2007 4:51 PM
european cities have done a much better job of blending historic buildings with newer modern buildings. it doesn't happen as much here, but it is catching on. the new glass addition to the Library at bryant park, the museum in minneapolis are a few examples. but europe also tends to produce the best architects and cutting edge design. they hold many more design competitions there and smaller firms are more likely to get larger commisions
Posted by: anon at April 3, 2007 5:40 PM
on the one hand, I'd wish for a review board that would evaluate and kill all crappy projects early, something like they do in Chicago. on the other hand, I would worry that some genuinely good stuff would get passed up. but I think it's a shame that we have to wait around for the market to demand good design before developers start building it. it's like american car companies back in the 50's refusing to put seatbelts into their cars until the government required them to do so. if you build a car, you should have certain responsibilities to the safety people who will drive it. similarly, if you are going to put something into the built environment, you should have a responsibility to not fill that environment with crap!
Posted by: much less crap in chicago at April 3, 2007 6:53 PM
True, much-less-crap-in-chicago, especially when public dollars DO go into a development. Like AY's design should have gone before a community review board of architects and reps from the community. Aside from reviewing whether there should be a stadium there or not, which we have no say over, can we at least have some say in what it looks like?
Posted by: Anonymous at April 3, 2007 7:29 PM
"reps from the community"? If Lumi Rolley and Patti Hagan are as competent at critiquing architecture as they are at community organizing, then AY would look far worse than it already does.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 3, 2007 8:07 PM
Whoa, whoa, whoa--what are you talking about, vis-a-vis some review board that stops crappy projects in Chicago? Are you kidding me? What review board? I lived in Chicago for 14 years, until 2003, and the last decade or so have seen a HUGE proliferation of hideous housing. Hid-eee-ous! Not only of the Fedders variety, but also among the more fancy price points. Garages in front (in a city that is blessed with alleys), ridiculous overornamentation, ostentatious copper gutters alongside *cinderblock* that's been goofily chiseled up to supposedly look like stone (it doesn't). The list goes on. Granted, Chicago has some wonderful programs to encourage facade improvements on the loathed 4-plus-1 apartment buildings, and to the wonderful, ubiquitous bungalows. And I have no doubt that Chicago does a better job generally than Brooklyn in this area. But still, there are bucketloads of crap built in that lovely city--and far too many beautiful buildings torn down in the name of "progress." Developers are bottom-line oriented everywhere, and there is no overabundance of talent or taste, either. That said: I love Chicago dearly. Bklyn, too.
Posted by: bob999 at April 3, 2007 8:59 PM
Mr. Meirs Perry street clone will suffer the same leaky faith as its NYC alter ego except instead of being filled with the rich and famous it will be EMPTY.
Long live stupidity
Posted by: Anonymous at April 3, 2007 9:11 PM
Interesting comment re: cars - I think part of the problem American auto makers face right now is that their cars look like crap, are cheaply put together, and fall apart sooner than their Japanese counterparts. They look inexpensive compared to a well-made car, but are really just cheap and will cost you in the long run. But mostly, they are hideous.
Wait a second - I just described most of the new development in Brooklyn (except for the Japanese part). Maybe there's hope yet.
Posted by: Halden at April 3, 2007 9:32 PM
Perfect comparison to American cars, Halden. I always think that whenever I go into new-construction condos or townhouses in Brooklyn or in FL where my parents live and where developers spend all of a week building a house (in a hurricane prone zone, no less). I always think these places won't "age well". It'll look like crap in even just a year or two.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 4, 2007 11:57 AM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.