WTF on Union?

It's like real-estate roadkill. That you can't scrape off.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 26, 2007 12:10 PM

We should lead a movement to ban all of these butt ugly balconies from our streetscape! They do not belong in bronwstone neighborhoods!!

Note to developers: Instead of putting up balconies, how about adding a freak'n cornice for the same if not less money!?!?

Posted by: Anonymous at April 26, 2007 12:24 PM

some developers put up balconies for orthodox jews.
But this may not be the case here. The lot this is built on was vacant for many many years. at lease there is a building there now.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 26, 2007 2:19 PM

I'm no expert but I did live in southern Williamsburg for 20 years and it is my understanding that balconies built for those who celebrate Sukkot need to be open to the sky so they tend to not align vertically.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 26, 2007 3:24 PM

2:40 pm: I COMPLETELY agree. What would the requirements be, though? How do you tell someone "Your building is against the law on the basis of the fact that we think it looks like a turd with balconies stuck to it."?

Are there places in the world (attractive places) that have laws that actually encourage interesting design and prohibit hideousness?

Posted by: Anonymous at April 26, 2007 3:46 PM

requirements=criteria (wrong word choice)

Posted by: Anonymous at April 26, 2007 3:46 PM

Thanks, NeoGrec. This would make a fascinating New Yorker or NYTimes Magazine story. I seriously havent heard a peep about this issue in the U.S. and its becoming a pretty serious one for us and the future generations of people who will have to live with our crap. Thanks. Will try to do my own research.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 26, 2007 8:47 PM

"I live diagonally behind this monstrosity and all I can tell you is that it went up super fast - lot's of Chinese workers, and the quality is horrible too, there is much rust at the back of the building and very bad brick laying, I wouldn't be surpirsed if there are structural issues."

OMG!! Chinese workers?!!!??! Oh, the tragedy!! Who would have thought?!!!?

"Structural issues?" I take it that you're a structural engineer. Or did you stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night?

Posted by: Anonymous at April 26, 2007 10:00 PM

It's not just Europe, 6:34pm. My parents live in a town in Florida where there are ordinances in the old, historic part of the town that strictly regulate the design and the height of the buildings. Everything has to be harmonious with the older buildings and the general ambiance of the area. There are plenty of communities in the States that do that.

So it's not culturally out of place in the U.S. to have building ordinances like that. The only reason it's not done in NYC is NYC chooses not to implement anything like that.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 27, 2007 9:27 AM

Correction, there is landmarking in NYC, which has restrictions. But I'm saying there are towns in the U.S. that choose to have building codes to make new buildings harmonious with the existing ones, even without a landmark status.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 27, 2007 9:29 AM

Christ. Modern design is going to ruin this borough.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 27, 2007 11:02 AM

No, modern design doesn't have anything to do with the ruining. Like the posts before state, there CAN be a regulated process whereby design itself is encouraged. The above building's problem is that it has NO design. It's basically the prefab crap you can get from a catalogue. I only WISH there was more design in our current construction.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 27, 2007 11:40 AM

What really should be discouraging this kind of fugly condo buildings is the fact they don't sell! They can't give away these condos in this building. One would think that would discourage developers from building these things ever again. Guess the developers are even more stupid than we thought.

This one and another condo building on Union that seem built by the same people, are serious ugly. Totally disharmonious elements on the buildings. Orange brick facade, modern steel balconies and front stoop rails, but with a tacky brass and leaded glass windowed "oakey" wood front door only a 90 year old Granny would love. Weird weird weird. Seems like an amateur developer who bought whatever was on sale at Home Depot.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 27, 2007 12:08 PM

Actually, good modern design can be wonderful. This is not modern design at all.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 27, 2007 12:09 PM

11:40 is exactly right. It's not designed, period. Which is what I was observing when I said it's like the guy just picked out whatever he could get cheap at Home Depot. For windows, doors and railings, etc.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 27, 2007 12:42 PM

So what do we, a concerned audience, do to encourage the enactment of laws that regulate contextual design? This could include the intelligent integration of modern and classic desgin...as long as there is some design!.
Each building like this, put up by greedy developers, chips away at the borough's rich character. With the profits developers are able to reap (even in this "housing market slowdown") a little more regulation isn't going to scare them away.
Where do we start?

Posted by: Anonymous at April 27, 2007 2:08 PM

"Actually, good modern design can be wonderful. This is not modern design at all."

Actually, modern design can't be wonderful at all. Modern design is the entire problem here.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 27, 2007 2:12 PM

But it's not Modern Design, 2:12pm.

Maybe you're thinking contemporary design. Meaning it's something that was designed and built now, in contemporary times.

But it doesn't make it "Modern".

Posted by: Anonymous at April 27, 2007 2:21 PM

Me at 2:21pm. Would you call a building built in the 1920's "Modern Design", and would you hate it because it's Modern?

Well there are many buildings that were designed and built by the architects of the Bauhaus during that time, that are far more modern looking than this building. And yet they are historic, older, treasured buildings.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 27, 2007 2:27 PM

I should have said "me again at 2:21" and I was addressing 2:12pm once more.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 27, 2007 2:36 PM

I don't care when it was built.

I don't care what "school" it derives from.

If it stinks, I won't like it.

And if it stinks, it's more likely to be modern in design.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 27, 2007 3:49 PM

Please, you've never even seen the buildings I'm talking about, 3:49pm. You of course have the right to your own opinion and your own tastes, but why make opinions about something you've never even laid eyes on? Have to say I would never admit to doing that, myself. It would make me feel ignorant and stubborn.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 27, 2007 5:24 PM

It would make me feel ignorant and stubborn, too. That's why I wouldn't do it.

It would make me feel equally ignorant and stubborn to make unfounded assumptions about what others have and have not seen.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 27, 2007 7:05 PM

But he did say he hadn't seen the buildings, in the language he used. It's not unfair to ask simply for people to actually see art or design, before they dismiss it completely. It shows such a lack of curiosity to outright refuse to even enter or consider a type of building. Plenty people dismiss Victorian brownstones because they don't like dark interiors. And I can state for a fact it would offend the brownstone lovers if a brownstone hater had never seen many examples of brownstones, or even been inside one. They would say, please check it out, don't be closed-minded. But apparently it's not okay to say that same thing here, to someone who hates modern design.

(This is all OT - I'm absolutely not defending this monstrosity of a building on Union Street.)

Posted by: Anonymous at April 28, 2007 2:31 PM