LPC Green-Lights New "Old" Townhouse at 314 Hicks Street

On Tuesday, the Landmarks Preservation Commission approved plans for a new four-story Greek Revival townhouse at the northwest corner of State and Hicks Streets in Brooklyn Heights; the developers plan to submit plans soon for a second stage of the project on a contiguous plot on State Street that involves conversion of existing ground-floor commercial and parking space to residential usage. Judy Stanton from the Brooklyn Heights Association spoke in favor of the project and the LPC commissioners were generally positively disposed, although there was some concern about an old tree (see photo) being cut down as part of the work. The developers promised to plant three trees in its place—the commissioners suggested that they be 10-inch cavalry pear trees. One question we have is whether the cornice should look more like the one next door. Another is whether the ceiling heights are too small—but we gather that's because they're trying to jam four stories into the height limit imposed by the zoning regulations. Given the height of the building next door, it could have been worth it to ask BSA for another few feet, no?
On LPC's Plate Tomorrow... [Brownstoner] GMAP DOB

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/2348

Comments

I am in general a supporter of Landmarks, but this case provides a clear example of the problems of contextualism that they champion and the downside of new buildings in protected districts where designs are vetted by committee.

The drawn submission suggests the trappings of a Greek Revival, but one really wonders if the built effect will resemble more than superficially the real mccoys further up the block. And judging from the utter lack of variety in the window scale (that is, the parlor windows should be much larger, but of course we can guess there's no parlor here), I wouldn't be optimistic.

It would have been better to see something sensitively massed and scaled for this block -- modern, even -- rather than voting approval based on applied ornamental trappings which aren't even convincing (anemic cornice, anyone?)

Posted by: an architect in Brooklyn at September 27, 2007 10:30 AM

Unfortunately, these faux retro buildings rarely look "right" when built. The construction technologies are so different, and the cost of adjusting to truly match historic detailing so high, that the end result is usually a watered down version of the original. There are a couple example of this in FG/CH.

Posted by: WBer at September 27, 2007 10:32 AM

I disagree with the prior posters. There is no reason why a new building cannot be a convincing replica of a greek revival or other style. This particular effort is good, though not great. The floor to ceiling heights are too low but otherwise it looks fine. The cornice next door is from a later period.
99.9% of the population would prefer to see this in an historic distrcit than an artsy "Architectural original".

Posted by: sam at September 27, 2007 10:47 AM

According to the original post on 314 Hicks, brownstoner stated that the owner was applying for a curb cut. Was this rejected or never applied for?

Posted by: guest at September 27, 2007 10:54 AM

I agree with the first two posters. With an empty lot, the only preservation question is - does the proposed building preserve the landmark character of the block and the neighborhood? It's hard to say how a bland imitation of a period style does the job better than a more imaginative contemporary structure. Who wants the neighborhood to look like Disneyworld, with fake facades lining the street? In many cases, a modern style can provide some nice balance that actually accents the classical elements of its neighbors. It does require some thoughtful design, though, so you don't end up with something like the concrete bunkers that went up on Willow Place right before the landmarks designation came in.

Posted by: guest at September 27, 2007 10:56 AM

Not sure where you get the figure "99.9% of the population would prefer to see [a replica] in an historic district...." Even the Brooklyn Heights Association was in favor of a "modern" building to go up in an empty lot on Pineapple Street (although in that case they did object to the actual proposal).

Posted by: guest at September 27, 2007 10:59 AM

10:54,
This is probably part of the second stage of the application that we mentioned in this post. Don't know for sure, though.

Posted by: brownstoner at September 27, 2007 11:00 AM

yeah yeah, disneyland blah blah.
I'm so tired of the 1960's mindset argument that only "new" architecture is correct.
Newer trends give people more design latitude. We no longer have to toe the line and pretend that there is only one politically correct sort of design. That is such antiquated nonsense. The Landmarks Commission and the BHA, to their credit, are not dogmatic about it. A good modern design can be OK and a good historical design can be OK. I think on this lot, the "new classicism" approach works.
ALso, I think we should retire the word "disneyland" from architectural critiques. So tired.

Posted by: sam at September 27, 2007 11:20 AM

Sam, perhaps we don't disagree in principle, but that proposed cornice is about as Greek as my corner deli, and I'm not so sure of your poll numbers either. I don't mind historicism, and I don't mind modern; what I do mind is mediocre.

In my experience a POV that champions the historicist above all else also tends to treat architecture (and facades) as 2D compositions with plays deployed from a kit book of treatments. The Disneyland moniker is a good one because it underscores the Potemkin-village quality of some of these efforts. That is, more important questions of scale, profile, shadow and material construction are secondary or even ignored, with the results predictably mediocre.

Now I'm not saying this effort is a Potemkin corner, but I am saying already by its scale and proportions it cannot be called Greek Revival or antyhing other than "watered-down" contextualism.

Posted by: an architect in Brooklyn at September 27, 2007 12:31 PM

The funny thing is, if they really wanted Greek Revival, want not just copy *exactly* another building in the neighborhood? Not sure what value the architect is adding here. This wheel has already been invented, no need to tweak it (poorly).

Posted by: guest at September 27, 2007 12:50 PM

First off, Landmarks has a record of approving BOTH modern buildings and historicist buildings. At both the macro and the micro level, I think the modern buildings are more successful.

At the macro level, this building (for instance) has no facade hierarchy and a questionable cornice.

At the micro level, unless you are using 19th century construction methods, it won't look "right" - it will look like what it is, a modern replica. Some details might be apparent only to a trained eye, but many would be apparent to all. For instance, is this real bearing wall or a brick veneer? Is the stone masonry real stone or faux? Is the cornice wood or something else? Are the shutters wood? Are the windows real divided light or simulated?

I don't think that is necessarily wrong, just that it is usually not as successful as a modernist solution.

Posted by: WBer at September 27, 2007 1:17 PM

Creating an authentic replica, like accurately restoring an existing building, is a labor of love. The more effort one puts into it, the better the outcome. There are many half-ass restorations out there that could have been done so much better just as there are half-ass replicas, it does not mean that either endeavor should be banned.
If the architect for this would have made the parlor windows taller, so the height more closely matched the height of the entry, the proportions would be greatly improved. Otherwise I think it is spot-on. the 2-over-2 windows and the doors look like later modifications (just like the neighbors) that is a nice artistic touch, In other words it is not a pure style. I say bravo to the developer and the architect. A great proposal, I hope we see more of this type of truly contextural designs in the future.
Am I crazy? What do other folks think?

Posted by: sam at September 27, 2007 8:15 PM

« Time for a Moratorium on the Moratorium Talk? Happy Ending for Fireplace Renovation »

September 27, 2007

LPC Green-Lights New "Old" Townhouse at 314 Hicks Street

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions