Brooklyn Buyers Dominating On Prospect Park Sales

"more than had been expected at this stage"

what do you expect them to say? do you actually work on the sales team? come on, dude!

Posted by: Anonymous at May 10, 2007 10:02 AM

10:02, if you like this place, you'd love the old Union Carbide Plant I visited a couple of months ago.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 10, 2007 10:11 AM

Sure, if you want to live in a glassed in, overpriced fishbowl.

When this type of architecture is so over, what then? The style dictates a certain kind of decor, which I personally find cold and uncomfortable.

Nothing against putting it out there, just not what I would want to live in. I just hope it's put together well, too. I'd hate to try to replace one of those glass walls.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 10, 2007 10:12 AM

Not for nothing, but this building looks like those non-descript mid-century office buildings on Park Avenue in the city (without the balconies, of course). In fact, it's nearly identical to the building I work in!

Posted by: Anonymous at May 10, 2007 10:20 AM

"When this type of architecture is so over, what then?" I think that is what people used to say about Victorian rowhouses, the style of which "dictates a certain kind of decor," as 10:12 put it, which I personally find overly decorative and fussy.

10:11, can you give me the address of the Union Carbide plant? You're right; I probably will love it. And if they convert 10:20's office building, I will consider living there too ... just not at these prices (I add to thwart the 'you're the broker' responses.)

Posted by: Anonymous at May 10, 2007 10:51 AM

All new buildings suck. Landmark everything. I love vacant lots. Screw the rich. Power to the people. Free Mumica.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 10, 2007 10:53 AM

All shades/blinds need to be white in the side outside/can have any color on the inside.

Building Rule!

Posted by: Anonymous at May 10, 2007 11:06 AM

Also, whatabout window washing as the windows will become dingy over time. This may be a good thing as it will tone down the glass and make the building resemble its neighbors a bit.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 10, 2007 11:31 AM

PLGfan - what would be interesting to know is what the developer had to promise in order to qualify for the abatement. presumably there is some obligation to build subisidized housing somewhere in the city, no? Anyway while I think you're right about the incongruity of providing tax relief for $6M apts, it is worth noting that whenever that apt does sell, it will generate enormous tax revenue via transfer taxes.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 10, 2007 11:39 AM

I am eagerly awaiting seeing the many expensive items in full display adorning these apartments while biking by.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 10, 2007 11:55 AM

A vacant lot at least has the potential to become something beautiful. This "thing" is just sad.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 10, 2007 12:07 PM

I looked at the pix of the rock star apt and I have to say - what's with the pillar in the middle of the living room. As a newly designed building do you have to look at supporting columns all over your living spaces. It seems to me a mark of a poorly desgined building. They are all over that awful building at Park Pl and Flatbush too. -also I didn't care for the oddly shaped smaller bedrooms. The are really tiny with diagonal walls.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 10, 2007 12:10 PM

Now, now, are you all really throwing stones a glass houses? Come to think of it, this being in Brooklyn and all, it's only a matter of time til that's a popular after-school activity...

Posted by: Anonymous at May 10, 2007 12:37 PM

I gotta say, I walked by this place recently, and I don't quite get it. I understand Procida's vision of creating a super-high-class starchitect-designed residence on Brooklyn, similar to some of these places in Manhattan; and I understand that even in Prospect height it's not too unreasonable to see ~$1500psf prices if such a building is successfully realized.

But I don't think this is. Meier's stuff on the West Side is tall, thin, shiny, beautiful. This building is squat, heavy-seeming, hulking, and dull aqua/blue all over. Even on the spectacularly sunny day when I walked by, it seemed dull and boring. The vision of the developer is fine, and the thirst of potential buyers is fine, but I think Meier himself really failed here. He had the opportunity to create something amazing, to stand next to the new museum facade and the soon-to-be-revealed library... but this isn't it.

I could conceivably see paying ~$1,500psf for a Meier building in this location, but not this building.

Oh well: this is the new Brooklyn. It'll sell out anyway.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 10, 2007 12:53 PM

What is interesting is that these buildings (the Meier's on the Hudson, the Gwathmey at Astor Place, etc) usually appeal to people looking for pied-a-terres. They are fabulous (in my opinion) and a great place to spend the weekend, or a week now and then, or when you have to work late and can't back to Greenwhich or Bedford-- but you don't want them as your primary home. Which is why the fact that most buyers are Brooklynites is soo interesting.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 10, 2007 1:18 PM

Gargoyles are cool.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 10, 2007 1:19 PM

I don't why you think that Brooklynites are most of the purchasers. Almost a third of NYC population is in Brooklyn and usually those living closest to a property are primary market.
Also, looks like great building and location but there will always be the 'haters' but they are mostly people that can't afford this anyway
(not that I can - but I still think great addition).

Posted by: Anonymous at May 10, 2007 1:37 PM

I meant don't know why you a surprised that most purchasers already live in Brooklyn,

Posted by: Anonymous at May 10, 2007 1:39 PM

"...if this building makes you SO sad about brooklyn and not at least partially excited, then i'm guessing you are about 96 years old."

Actually, if he were 96 he probably wouldn't be able to see the building very well, and this would undoubtedly make him more enthusiastic about it.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 10, 2007 2:17 PM

Has anyone else noticed that some of the criticisms of this building that were made earlier have been deleted?

What's going on? There's no commercial connection between Brownstoner and this building is there?

Posted by: Anonymous at May 10, 2007 2:21 PM

That's perfectly fine, but there were also some substantial posts taken down. I'm just sayin'....

Posted by: Anonymous at May 10, 2007 2:30 PM

"...6 or 7 simplistically negative comments made by the same person under either anonymous or different handles..."

Ummm, if they were anonymous, then how do you know it was only one poster?

Posted by: Anonymous at May 10, 2007 2:32 PM

But if it was based on an ip address, the person could simply be banned, no?

Posted by: Anonymous at May 10, 2007 2:37 PM

What about all the simplistically positive posts? Why don't they get deleted?

Posted by: Anonymous at May 10, 2007 2:47 PM

That makes perfect sense to me--you can be a jerk but you can't pretend to be 3 different jerks. Good policy.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 10, 2007 3:35 PM

And to say what you just said is really just equivalent to saying "I like modern."

Yawn.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 10, 2007 4:42 PM

I actually thought your one line glib comment said more than your extended reply. It does work that way sometimes. Brevity is a virtue.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 10, 2007 7:36 PM

My only major concern about this building is whether it means I will have to wait on line for my morning coffee at Joyce. That place rocks. Hopefully they will have some sort of latte machine in their lobby so I am covered.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 10, 2007 9:17 PM

to bob marvin: First perry building was badly built because Meier didn't control construction. Said he learned his lesson, then took control ...

as for scale, those arguing for a smaller building are just wrong. There must be a grand building of scale here. You must complete the circle as it were -- from meier building all the way around to plaza street west. Would look stupid with a smaller building.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 10, 2007 10:39 PM

Those arguing for a less fugly building were correct, however.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 10, 2007 11:26 PM

The last poster is right -- a smaller building would not be appropriate. The building's scale and massing is correct for this monumental location.

That being said, I'm not convinced this is a great building, and not because its steel and glass and some people can't deal with that (really, the idea that somehow this building should be materially contextual with nineteenth century buildings is both simplistic and the road towards creating urban disneylands; and while the fedders nostolgia is merely silly). In my opinion buildings like this depend on having a strong silhouette, and the Eastern Parkway facade is too broken up to be convincing. Looking at the building from Vanderbilt it's better, but not masterful.

Meier's an odd one. Some of his buildings are knockouts: Islip courthouse, for example. But the whole Getty complex in LA? The plumb commission of the last twenty years? A billion dollar project? A solid B+. Not a great grade for the acropolis of Los Angeles...to my mind he simply put up an office park there.

I agree that (construction follies aside) the Perry Street efforts are more elegant than GAP. A previous poster is right that the Brooklyn building isn't in the same league. I suppose because of the site and zoning maxing out the massing is less inherently satisfying here, but I wish the detailing (while better than 90% of new construction in the borough) helped break up the bulkiness of the GAP facade better. That is, the EP side is too disjointed, the GAP too monolithic.

Of course, we're talking a higher level of criticism than for most buildings in Brooklyn. But such a magnificient site demands a magnificient building. I'm still reserving judgment, but I think this may be another B+.

--an architect in Brooklyn

Posted by: Anonymous at May 10, 2007 11:42 PM

The poster at 11:26PM has pretty much hit the nail on the head. The building sucks, period. You can dress it up in all the verbal finery you like, but it's still a resounding failure and a scar upon Grand Army Plaza.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 10, 2007 11:52 PM

I don't get you folks. 3 million bucks for a 2000 sq ft glass box off Flatbush Avenue?

You can get new condos in Tribeca for less. I'm sure the views from the top are great, but I'd MUCH rather own a smaller condo AND a house in the Hamptons for that price.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 11, 2007 12:23 PM

I love modern all-glass buildings next to old buildings. I appreciate the contrast. It makes me see what I love in old buildings all the more, and vice versa. For a building to be in harmony with its environment doesn't mean it has to be "matchy" and match the other buildings. That's such simple, pedestrian, unimaginative thinking.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 13, 2007 1:39 PM