« Calls for Reining in Development at Carroll Gardens Meeting Change Coming for Old Bergen St. Buildings? »
August 24, 2007
Glass Construction Towering Over Brooklyn
An article in yesterday's NY Sun takes a look at the wave of glass-sheathed high-rises under construction in the outer boroughs, with shout-outs to two of Brooklyn’s biggest new towers o’ transparency, Williamsburg’s Northside Piers and Prospect Heights’ On Prospect Park. The article notes that developers “say the contemporary aesthetic of glass towers does not detract from typical brownstone neighborhoods' charm.” Done correctly, we'd agree. On Prospect Park’s developers believe the condo will enhance its surroundings because Richard Meier’s design is “an opportunity to have an impact on the urban landscape.” A spokesman for Toll Brothers, meanwhile, says 20 percent of Northside Piers buyers are from Brooklyn, suggesting that Brooklynites are hungry for translucent architecture. Of course, the Williamsburg waterfront is hardly a “typical brownstone” ‘hood like Prospect Heights, so it’s difficult to compare how Northside Piers and OPP gel with their respective surroundings. Where do you come down on the great glass debate?
Glass Towers on the Rise Outside of Manhattan [Sun]
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/1963
Comments
key words : when done right
Posted by: guest at August 24, 2007 9:49 AM
Done right? Does that mean constructed so that water doesn't run down the inside walls when it rains, like in Meiers' Greenwich Village buildings?
I don't know the W'Burg buildings; FWIW I think Meiers' OPP is a mediocre glass box that would fit better on Park Ave. in midtown. I find it amusing that something that would have been innovative in 1925 is being successfully marketed as a masterpiece to rich people who are so insecure that they can't see that the emperor has no cloths.
Still, I realize that my opinion is probably very much in the minority AND I'll admit that OPP does less violence to GAPthan I would have imagined from the renderings. {And, of course, I love buildings that were innovative in 1895, so maybe it's not only those who live in GLASS houses who shouldn't throw stones :-) No accounting for taste, and all that--I'll duck now]
Posted by: Bob Marvin at August 24, 2007 10:16 AM
It's somewhat of a monumental building here in a prominent location. It's not unsuccessful, but I wonder if it would be considered anything but a glass box without RM's name attached to it. As much of a fan as I am of (appropriate) modern design in historic neighborhoods, I'm underwhelmed. This building could be anywhere. How do the lines in this building align with those of its neighbor to the right? How does this building echo the vocabulary and the scale of the buildings nearby?
That said, however, overall I find the new construction going up in Brooklyn to be a lot more interesting than what's going up in other boroughs.
Posted by: guest at August 24, 2007 10:24 AM
I actually like it. The Prospect Park building, that is. I was very very skeptical, and, granted, I have no training in architecture, so it might not be on the cutting edge of residential design and I wouldn't know the difference. But it looks kinda sharp, and I don't think it ruins the neighborhood at all... And this is coming from someone who would rather live in a 100-year-old shingle shack with an outhouse than a contemporary stainless-steel-appliance condo.
Posted by: guest at August 24, 2007 10:35 AM
What is so special about glass? It is the architecture that inspires or not, not so much the transparency of the sheathing.
NYC deserves great architecture or at least innovative or at worst impressive architecture. OPP is far from great or innovative but IMO squeaks by on impressive.
But to get a good idea on comparative value, (to the overall architecture of the neighborhood), just look at the library across the street and then look back at OPP.
Posted by: guest at August 24, 2007 10:40 AM
For what it's worth, Frank Lloyd Wright also built leaky buildings.
Posted by: GHB at August 24, 2007 10:53 AM
I have gone to see the building several times, and each time I am disappointed. I was excited at the prospect of new architecture in this spot, but the proportions of this building lack elegance. It sits, squat and lumpen, in disharmony with its surroundings. Too bad, really. But I have not been impressed by the other Meier buildings in Manhattan, so I am not surprised.
Posted by: punko at August 24, 2007 11:37 AM
So strong statements from Ghery are a no-no because they are out of context, eminent domain abuse, etc., but this bland box (OPP)which already looks dated is OK?
Posted by: guest at August 24, 2007 11:37 AM
Eh, it's alright. Nothing impressive really. It just kinda sits there like a refugee from a suburban office park. And I find myself wondering why it could not have been designed in such a way as to not have the terraces screwed up with concrete columns running though them.
Posted by: guest at August 24, 2007 11:54 AM
I really like OPP. And I am a brownstone lover. I'm not going to deny that at least part of the love I have for it is what this building means for GAP and Prospect Heights and Brooklyn. It is a beacon that this area is one that is valued and thought of to be a jewel. I think that is special. I also happen to like the way it looks in its surrounding, nestled amongst the trees when looking at it from inside Prospect Park, but also like that it enables me to more fully appreciate the pre-war beauties all around it even more.
I think this building is a great thing for Brooklyn whether you like the look of the glass or not. For that, we should embrace it as much as possible. For that location, I think it is the best possible thing we could have hoped for.
The most successful building in Manhattan this year was 15 Central Park West. I believe that if that had been replicated here at this location, it would not have been nearly as successful as OPP will be in the long run. It IS something different for this neighborhood. And we needed something different, not another massive hulking building. I love them, but we've got plenty along the park and the surrounding areas.
Posted by: guest at August 24, 2007 11:58 AM
The problem with replicating 15 CPW in PH would be the height. Otherwise, it's a beautiful building for the UWS.
Posted by: GHB at August 24, 2007 1:17 PM
No, I agree, 1:17. It would have been too high. I was just giving an example of a building that probably a lot of people in Brooklyn would have liked to have seen at this site (albeit smaller) given all of the negative talk about OPP.
I just think this building gives GAP more prominence and allows the eye to see the beauty in the library, the park, the arch, the fountain, the glass, etc.
Just like at Columbus Circle you have a variety of architecture....limestone, brick, glass, etc to add to the diversity of styles.
I LOOOOVVE 15 CPW.
Posted by: guest at August 24, 2007 1:21 PM
generally i am a big fan of the glass skin style, but i'm just not feelin the blend (clash) of OPP with its surroundings in this instance.
everytime i walk by that building i can't help but stop, look up, and think to myself, WTF?
but this is exactly what is making brooklyn even greater as modern buildings continue to sprout up throughout the boro (excluding the fedder segment) - diversity of residents, diversity of architecture, diversity of residents' opinions of the architecture.
Posted by: BrooklynLove at August 24, 2007 1:24 PM
Bob Marvin - your opinions are fine. do think that there is a very large group of people who do prefer modern buildings and spaces tho, and until recently, really didn't have a lot of choices. remember moving here from Chicago in the early '90's and really just being amazed that the only way to get a clean modern space was to renovate an old space. Chicago had been building town houses and condos for years and mixing them in with older architecture, and everyone took it for granted.
personally, i would take any modern space every time. love clean clean clean and central air. don't leave near the Meier place, but the toll bros buidling has shot up extremely quickly and seems like it could be great. interested to see what it'll be like when there are the 3 planned high rises by toll bros.
Posted by: guest at August 24, 2007 1:56 PM
"So strong statements from Ghery are a no-no because they are out of context, eminent domain abuse, etc., but this bland box (OPP)which already looks dated is OK?"
Although I greatly prefer masonry to glass and 19th Century architecture to that of the present, I recognise that Gehry'swork is far more innovative than Meier's and speaks to the present, rather that 1he '20s. It seems to me that Meier has been more or less re-hashing the same old Bauhaus concepts for his whole career.
The problem with Ghery's AY buildings is that they're being built in the wrong PLACE.
Posted by: Bob Marvin at August 24, 2007 2:41 PM
These two buildings all in glass are done well and work with their surroundings. Fairly impressive craftsmenship. The issues i have isn't with the aesthetic, but with the lack of privacy the tenants suffer. I walked past a similiar glass structure in Brooklyn the other night and was able to see right into peoples homes. I could see what kind of art they decorate their walls with and what tv show they were watching (on their wall-mounted flat screen tv). I didn't stick around, but if i waited a few minutes i probably could've seen the occupant get up to go to the bathroom and observe what kind of comfy clothes they like wearing. I realize the city isn't for privacy, but these floor to ceiling glass dwellings take invasiveness to a whole new level.
Posted by: guest at August 24, 2007 2:53 PM
if people choose to live in a fish bowl, so be it. it sounds as though YOU are the one that has the problem with it. because you have to see them. which is pretty silly.
those who live in these places do have options for window coverings, you realize?
Posted by: guest at August 24, 2007 3:01 PM
It sure is a good time in history to invest in the window coverings business.
Posted by: guest at August 24, 2007 3:41 PM
FWIW I've read that the house rules in Meier's Manhattan buildings forbid window coverings. I'm not sure if that's actually true or, if so, whether it would also apply to OPP.
OTOH, many people who live in brownstones don't use window coverings.
Posted by: Bob Marvin at August 24, 2007 4:08 PM
bob - you just reminded me of a funny anecodote from my childhood - i grew up in a brownstone. one day my dad is getting dressed in the morning in the parental bedroom on the 2nd floor facing the street - so he's standing there in his undies looking out the window thinking to himself what a nice day it is out there and hey, what a fool that guy is across the street in the window on the second floor standing there in his undies looking out, can't he realize that i (and others) can see him. story ends when my dad and the guy across the street realize that they each are being seen by the other, and proceed to hastily drop the window shades.
Posted by: BrooklynLove at August 24, 2007 5:00 PM
I'm relatively down with OPP. It's certainly better than the completely uninspired condos sprouting up along Fourth Avenue.
Posted by: guest at August 24, 2007 5:29 PM
I think this place is ugly.So much glass makes it look dingy.Also if they don't regulate what can be put up at the windows it will look even worse.
Posted by: guest at August 24, 2007 5:50 PM
down with OPP - how did i not think of that? nice work 5:29
Posted by: BrooklynLove at August 24, 2007 5:54 PM
Northside Piers looks silly but will presumably drive my rent down in the long term. On the waterfront, context doesn't feel as relevant, and Kent Ave is mostly empty low-rise industrial buildings, with townhouses and factories scattered around haphazardly. I'd say it's basically a win.
Posted by: Zach at August 24, 2007 6:03 PM
How about "cheap and charmless"? Or, "swing by in a quarter century and let's see how the quality of craftsmanship has aged."
Posted by: guest at August 25, 2007 1:47 AM
What I really wonder about with these glass buildings is the amount of energy it takes to heat and cool them. They seemed absolutely unsuited to the extremes of New York weather. I don't find them aesthestically appealing enough (I think "suburban office park" is the operative word in describing the one in Prospect Hgts.) to warrant their lack of efficiency, even if rich people are williing to pay the bills.
Posted by: guest at August 25, 2007 2:41 AM
I think that OPP looks attractive. It's height is in context and it fills out the line of buildings stretching down Eastern Parkway. It looks much better than the vacant lot that was there before.
Sometimes I think that most posters on this site will hate anything that is built. It's a rare day that a new building is complimented on these threads.
Posted by: guest at August 25, 2007 9:28 AM
Observed over time, you start to notice some interesting plays with light and reflections.
I also like how it echos the old/new vibe at the nearby Brooklyn Museum, with its new glass face.
There's also some rumors of retail going in there -- which could be interesting.
Posted by: guest at August 25, 2007 10:39 AM
Speaking of the new glass face on the Brooklyn Museum, how do folks here feel about that? Personally I think it's a hideous clash of styles that failed utterly, like a piece of a cruise ship was grafted willy-nilly onto a grand old facade. Anybody here feeling the love for it?
Posted by: guest at August 25, 2007 12:29 PM
My biggest gripe about the Meier building is that it can be seen above the treeline from the lawn in Prospect Park.
Posted by: guest at August 25, 2007 3:36 PM
It's not bad looking, but the prices are absurd. The advertisements try to compare it to "brownstone" living. How's that? Just because you live in a neighborhood with brownstones you can analogize yourself with a brownstone? Might as well just buy a brownstone. It stands out from the surroundings, but not in an offensive way. It's a decent looking building all in all. One funny note about the glass windows. I went to an OH and apparently all tenants will be REQUIRED to have white blinds on all windows. The windows are pre-wired for them, you just have to pay for them all. I guess the building lives in fear of what might happen if individuals are allowed to choose their own colors and thus clash among themselves. I am reminded of a pink flamingo on the lawn in a nice neighborhood i know. LOL
Posted by: guest at August 26, 2007 2:28 AM
Overall i think it is fine. But it does remind me of a giant newly remodeled IKEA kitchen.
Posted by: MikeAndy at August 26, 2007 11:12 AM
Another arrogant starchitect. The building dictates what your window treatment must be, and then makes you pay for them? I'd like to think that is a joke, but it sounds oh-so believable.
Posted by: guest at August 26, 2007 11:46 AM
yeah, you're right. that's crazy 11:46.
i think i'm going to paint my brownstone white today.
oooh...or maybe purple.
meier is requiring some blinds. ever heard of a little thing called landmarks commission??
Posted by: guest at August 26, 2007 1:20 PM
Hey 1:20, Have you ever actually walked around a brownstone neighborhood like Park Slope? I've seen brownstones painted white, green, and yes, purple. And they get to hang whatever the hell they want in their windows.
Posted by: guest at August 26, 2007 9:32 PM
you can only paint your brownstone, if it pre-dated landmarks.
otherwise you can NOT paint your brownstone for the hell of it and you have to stick with certain colors for the trim, windows, doors, etc.
it's ridiculous to comment on blinds when landmarked brownstones are under far more scrutiny and rules for such things.
i'm not saying they shouldn't, i'm just asking that you not be such a hypocrite.
Posted by: guest at August 27, 2007 11:10 AM
For the record on the subject of window treatments at OPP, the "house rules" require that any treatments have white backing, but residents are free to have a different color on the inside-facing of the treatment, even pink flamingos. Can anyone seriously dispute tht the building will look best from the outside if the window treatments (i.e., the exterior walls) in every unit are uniform? I'm not sure how this is different from brownstone Brooklyn - I don't see a lot of brownstones with exterior walls painted different and perhaps clashing colors.
In any event, I imagine that the only people who will want to live at OPP are those who buy into RM's specific, modern, white, uncluttered aesthetic (like me!).
Posted by: guest at August 27, 2007 3:20 PM
I walked past OPP again this weekend. I realized that it seems familiar because it reminds me of all the smallish office parks that sprouted up around Houston during the late 70s and early 80s.
Posted by: guest at August 27, 2007 9:18 PM
I could very well be wrong, but I thought that only a small portion of the brownstones in Brooklyn were landmarked.
But that aside, I will concede your point and will not harp on the window treatment requirements at OPP. The uniformity will probably make it look better. I'll be curious to see how it looks when finished.
Posted by: guest at August 28, 2007 1:35 AM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.