« Urban Outfitters in Store for Atlantic Ave. Renovation Focus: Bathroom Time »
September 17, 2007
4th Ave. Buildings Have a Date With the Wrecking Ball
A row of Fourth Avenue buildings is about to bite the dust, clearing the way for a fairly massive development site. The properties, between Butler and Douglass, have been boarded up for awhile now, but the DOB just issued demolition permits for all of ’em. We got word of their coming demise via a tipster who noticed they were sporting tell-tale “big boxed X’s” and who opined “I wonder what crappy 20 story eyesore will go up in its place. All that nice brick...all gone...” Last we heard, a developer was planning to put a 12-story condo in their place. We’ll reserve judgment about the shape of things to come until we see some renderings, but like our tipster we’ve always had a soft spot for the old school tenement look of these buildings, and it’s gonna be sad to see them go. GMAP DOB
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/2152
Comments
I really don't understand why developers are continuing to build like there is no tomorrow. Whether or not you believe the bursting real estate bubble here in NYC or not, even a casual look tells any Joe Public that there is a glut of buildings and apartments. Downtown Bklyn alone is a construction zone, not to mention everything going up near this site, in Wmsbrg, Ft. Greene, and don't forget AY which will trump all of them. (anti AY, for the record) Seems to me, this end of the market - new condos, is going to drag the market down, not houses in Bed Stuy.
Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 11:05 AM
Not to long ago a new deli opened up on this block right on the corner of Butler (right under the cone covered building in the corner). It appears that the apartments over the deli are still inhabited--as is the building on the Douglass corner. Will those be spared?
Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 11:11 AM
This is exactly what is wrong with Brownstoner - no perspective!
How on earth could be unhappy about a bunch of architecturally deficient, dilapidated, tenetments?
Not only is better for the neighborhood, city and environment to replace these slums with better housing but it truly undermines any legitimate preservation efforts to even suggest that buildings like this should be preserved.
Btw - the replacement can only be 12 stories at max - although I am confident no matter what the renderings (and ultimate building) look like there will be hue and cry about how ugly the replacement is here.
Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 11:12 AM
I agree, 11:12 - no matter what goes up here, posters on this site will dislike it.
I'm sure that the corner deli will do a brisk business when the future yuppie inhabitants of this building shop there for beer, NYT, cigarettes, fruit, etc.
Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 11:16 AM
The reason for the rush is the change in the 421(a) laws - AND
Secondly, if there is a glut we should all welcome it since it will only lead to more affordable housing but Based on the number of shoppers looking at the new developments on 4th Ave this weekend there is endless demand for these type of projects
Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 11:18 AM
that's too bad. i've always appreciated that this block remained intact. it has the potential to be rehabilitated similarly to the project on atlantic avenue where all the old buildings were combined internally, but still appear to be separate.
Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 11:20 AM
The artist Edward Hopper might have disagreed about how "architecturally deficient" they are. Seems like a visionary developer could've taken the entire row, preserved the facade, and built a stepped-back set of extra stories above it. Buildings like these are fast becoming like paper ephemera--utterly ordinary in their day, but intrinsically more valuable as their numbers dwindle and the surrounding culture undergoes massive shifts around them.
Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 11:35 AM
I have no idea what relevance Hopper has to this discussion or why we should even care what is (speculated) opinion would be....
but if you think that (non-decript but old) tenements like this are becoming rare in NYC you must truly be blind.
JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING IS OLD DOESNT MAKE IT "GOOD"
Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 11:39 AM
just because something is new doesn't make it "better" either.
Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 11:47 AM
I don't think it's about what's better.
I think that some people value history more than others as well.
I personally would rather see these old buildings than just about anything new I could imagine being built here.
That doesn't mean that I hate anything and everything new (I happen to really like the new Meier building at GAP) it simply means that I like the old stuff better. It's not a even a conscious choice...innately these buildings are beautiful to me.
Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 11:50 AM
Your personal views are irrelevant. There is a huge housing shortage in this city. It is almost impossible for a middle class family to afford adequate housing, and the majority of unmarried young adults aged 22-29 live in shared apartments.
It is immoral to restrict development until the vacancy rate in this city reaches a reasonable level and average household sizes return to something approaching normal in the civilized world.
The issue is these buildings are obsolete in terms of density. Anyone with an ethical conscience should DEMAND they be leveled and replaced with something much larger and more suitable for the needs of the people. Even 12 stories is far too small. There should be no height limits anywhere in the city until the housing crisis is over.
Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 11:56 AM
So you think, 11:56 that the 12 story condo that will replace these buildings will be affordable?
You're living in a dream world.
These will be a million bucks.
Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 11:59 AM
True new does not equal better but these are dilapidated tenement housing with virtually zero architectural features (save a cornice and arched 4th floor windows.
Criticizing the replacement of these buildings based on their 'historical' value is like criticizing the replacement of shea stadium on the same grounds.
Its one thing to say - I hope the replacement building isnt ugly (or plain, or boring) but to suggest that these buildings are anything more then cookie cutter tenements (albeit old ones) is just silly. Not to mention the living conditions within buildings like this are horrendous and their loss is only
Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 12:04 PM
maybe you sould move to Dallas
Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 12:04 PM
11:59 is right. The "affordable housing" argument for unrestricted development is ridiculous. Nobody is building "affordable" housing right now in this city.
Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 12:10 PM
Umm - in reality people dont build 'affordable housing' they build housing - only 2 factors can make it 'affordable' - either the Govt mandates/subsidizes or otherwise incentivies affordability OR the laws of supply and demand reach equilibrium at a affordable level - no matter what the actual cost of new housing, every unit of market-rate housing pushes that equilibrium lower or at least slows the rise in the equilibrium at least by some amount.
This is economics 101 - and the level of ignorance of this says alot about the failure of our educational system.
Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 12:24 PM
Affordable's relative, no? Guaranteed you try to preserve every sad tenement building and allow no development to take place and even more people will get priced out of the city than are already. The preservationist crowd has really strained its credibilty by sticking up for buildings like these.
Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 12:25 PM
building marked with the X mean demolition? I have a building on my block marked with an X....hmmm
Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 12:41 PM
To the hard line "any limits are bad" crowd. I understand your advocacy for more density and housing, but do you think that truly should be achieved no matter what you are tearing down? In this case, you are right that preserving rundown, unexceptional tenements is not justifiable. (But to say you might have a soft spot for such building or will miss them is simply stating a sentiment and not a crime!) Isn't there some social good in preserving the more historic districts? In the entire five boroughs, aren't there some unique areas like Brooklyn Heights, the West Village, parts of Fort Greene, etc. that if treated as special cases, are simply being balanced against other interests? Zoning is changing all the time--there will never be "no zoning" in NYC. Just as some areas are downzoned, other are upzoned. It happens that at this moment, there are large towers going up in Williamsburg, Atlantic Yards, etc. The West Side of Manhattan is looking at big time development, as is WTC area. And the way West Village along the water has totally changed in the last decade.
Posted by: Carol Gardens at September 17, 2007 12:42 PM
If you think those old building are worth saving? Buy them, renovate them, put up your money. Better than that, those of you sitting on 2-3 family homes should chime in on how you are renting your extra apartments to low income families at less than half the market rate. I never see a listing in the real estate window that say "Owner occupied building Renting 1 Bedroom apartment for $500. Low income families need only apply". I am guessing those of you in that position are all benefitting from this. Since most of this neighborhood is 2-3 family homes, the rest of you are buying into these condos. Let me supply you the cheese for your "Whine".
Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 1:02 PM
Funny! This is the same block of Fourth Avenue that Berenice Abbott shot in 1936 for "Changing New York". It was boarded up and decrepit back then, with posters covering the ground floor. Nothing changes. Did it ever get renovated after the 1930s? It must have. How long has it been fallow this time around?
NYPL link to image:
http://digitalgallery.nypl.org/nypldigital/dgkeysearchdetail.cfm?trg=1&strucID=547026&imageID=1219144&parent_id=100160&word=&snum=&s=¬word=&d=&c=&f=&sScope=&sLevel=&sLabel=&total=344&num=168&imgs=12&pNum=&pos=169#
or
http://tinyurl.com/3xdfhe
Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 1:21 PM
Hey, guest, why don't you tell us about yourself? I suppose you are somehow improving the housing supply situation in this city? That you are completely selfless, unlike all those evil people you rail against? As I have mentioned before, I rent, so I am not particularly benefiting from low density. I just love my neighborhood. And why don't you just pick a handle already?
Posted by: Carol Gardens at September 17, 2007 1:21 PM
The X in a box means there's no floor or no safe floor, a warning for firefighters. (I think.)
Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 1:24 PM
Why is it that real estate blogs have a higher percentage of unbelievable a**holes posting comments than any other type of blog?
Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 1:27 PM
"Why is it that real estate blogs have a higher percentage of unbelievable a**holes posting comments than any other type of blog?"
Guest 1:27PM, Because Mr. B allows "guest" posts and all the trolls don't have the balls to register their names...even if they were fictional. Perhaps you can sign up yourself and not add to the anon clatter?
Nothing more to say on this particular 4th Ave. thread, since I spoke up last time around and got hit by the same Libertarian "build more now, it's our right" and "supply vs. demand" shit than I could stomach.
Snooze.
Posted by: Action Jackson at September 17, 2007 1:39 PM
(Funny! This is the same block of Fourth Avenue that Berenice Abbott shot in 1936 for "Changing New York". It was boarded up and decrepit back then, with posters covering the ground floor. Nothing changes. Did it ever get renovated after the 1930s? It must have. How long has it been fallow this time around?)
Now THAT is interesting. That could be a magazine article in and of itself!
Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 1:58 PM
Carol Gardens, I am assuming you are referring to me so, sure. I actually purchased a small parcel some time ago when they were more readily available, reasonably priced and it wasn't hip yet to live in glass fish tank. I had a developer build me a small multi unit residence (moderate, what I could afford). Almost went bankrupt doing it, but in the end live in a comfortable residence. Another option I did consider at that time was purchasing exactly a building like this (4 Units or less) for renovation. I didn't pick that option. Had I done so, it would not have been to save the historical architecture though, but rather the pure economics of it and what return I could generate. I hope that answers your question on what I have done. But I do appreciate what it took to get there, the risk I took, the money I laid out, time and sweat invested, etc. I don't claim to be selfless, just hard working like everyone else trying to own a home. It is precisely because of what is happening that I am benefiting as are a lot of other people. Anyone who owns any real property is benefiting. I don't consider many of those posters "evil", just hypocrites. Judging by what an apartment goes for in a lovely turn of the century brownstone or any square box for that matter, I would say you don't have to be a developer to be greedy. As for you who rent, sorry you are getting priced out of your neighborhood. Maybe your homeowner will not sell you out and jack you up for major rent increases. As far as my handle, what? You want to hang out a have a beer or something? Sounds unlikely, so why bother.
Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 2:54 PM
How does registering a fictitious name come to mean courage and bravery? Whether you are anonymous or have a name like Action Jackson, you remain just as anonymous. Unless we all begin posting our addresses, phone numbers and legal names, we are equally faceless.
If you're going to get angry at people who disagree with or insult you, debate the contents of their post.
And again, brownstoner has tried requiring registration in the past and the traffic here plummeted as a result.
Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 2:56 PM
I guess anyone that doesn't agree with you is an A HOLE. I believe some one before posted a "Move to Dallas" comment. Please move to France to instead. They think they are superior, elite, and rightous as well.
Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 3:05 PM
Also, scroll down any thread here and see how many registered posts there are as opposed to guests. People have voted and they don't want to register. If Brownstoner required it, this would become a little social club for Carol Gardens et al.
Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 3:07 PM
I think you've probably never set foot in France.
Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 3:08 PM
"Whether you are anonymous or have a name like Action Jackson, you remain just as anonymous."
Exactly!!
But at least you can develop a report with fellow posters, and extended debates...preservation, new building vs. rehab, the market, etc.
It allows me to see the big picture on "Carol Gardens" posts as he/she participates in this forum.
All of the "guest" stuff merely perpetuates much of the trollism that continues on this blog.
By knowing MY handle, you may know my POV, agreed or not.
My 2 cents.
and PS, perhaps less traffic on the site, but more astute posts, might be better...of course not for Mr. Brownstoner, I realize.
But no need to start this debate again, right?
Posted by: Action Jackson at September 17, 2007 3:15 PM
3:15, so kinda like Brower Park so that every time he/she posts a REGISTERED comment, he/she comes on and says that the comment wasn't made by him/her.
no thanks.
the guest posts add a benefit unatainable by a registration only blog. it's called as many viewpoints as possible.
to suggest taking that away suggests to me that you are unable to listen to viewpoints other than your own.
Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 3:27 PM
But really, since all guests show up as "guest" it really does make it difficult to keep track of how many individuals are posting and to follow a particular guest's train of thought.
Posted by: Carol Gardens at September 17, 2007 3:31 PM
What the folks so quick to dismiss this tenement row don't get is that the quality of the existing brickwork -- subprime in its day, to be sure -- is still head and shoulders above the panelized brick screens being hung off of most contemporary condo buildings. That is, architectonically speaking, the replacement building's materials and construction will (probably) be of lesser quality, in toto, that a fixed-up row existing.
New construction cannot afford even the most minor flourishes that already exist in this row: the rounded window tops, the cornice. Nor will more than three hours of design time be spent on the facade massing: after all, the bulk will be a (maximizing) function of what zoning allows, and the facades will be designed as if they could be silk-screened on, because protrusions and non-standard parts (things that add depth and shadow) are labor-intensive, and not just that, skilled labor-intensive.
Of course, not everyone cares about the quality of brickwork when raw unused FAR is at stake, and that's fine. What rankles, though, is the silly arguments that new construction will always trump old -- the reverse is, sadly, almost always the case. Why should any of us celebrate a developer's lowest-common-denominator effort at turning a buck, when the result will certainly not be "affordable"?
Posted by: an architect in Brooklyn at September 17, 2007 3:40 PM
"to suggest taking that away suggests to me that you are unable to listen to viewpoints other than your own."
NO, I'd just like to have some semblance of whom I am talking to, real name or pseudonym.
OK, I'll back off. Next topic.
How bout that 4th Ave ladies and gents? All ideas, other than my own, are suggested.
Posted by: Action Jackson at September 17, 2007 3:58 PM
As to the registering - I would love to but the damn thing never sends a verificaton email - I used to sign my name and people 'knew who I was and track my (usually) controversal' train of thought. - Personally I think this new "system " is the worst of both worlds.
I havent seen too many buildings that use 'panelized' brick - virtually all the buildings I see are buildt with 'real' brick - albeit in some strange colors. As for the "florishes" - I hardly see one row of rounded windows and a cornice as anything grander or more impressive then the fancy glass windows or odd-shaped balconies adorning the newer buildings going up on 4th Ave.
Frankly neither the old or the new deserve much in the way of architectural praise (all are built for function rather then form) but so many people love to pray to the godess of 'old'. Which is nice but totally out of touch with - 1. the reality of how badly designed, built and layed out these 'old' tenement buildings are 2. The complete economic impossibility of buying and renovating four story buildings on lots that have been re-zoned for 12 stories 3. The economic impossibility (and stupidity) of trying to retain the banal fronts of these building within a building built to zoning. 4. The enviromental benefit of increasing density on a major mass transit and surface transportation artery like 4th Ave and 5. The benefit to 'affordability' by increasing the overall number of units in Brooklyn - even if the units specifically being discussed will be 'market-rate'
David
Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 4:07 PM
Why does it matter who made a statement? Facts speak for themselves and eveyone is entitled to their own opinion. Usually, generally, maybe, sometimes,when convenient,,,I guess.
I like the link with the picture of the exact same buildings in the exact same state back in the 1930's. The reality that these have been sitting around as an eyesore for some time remains a fact. That you don't like someone tearing them down for another condo is your opinion. I don't personally like some of the architecture and may agree with you about how Fugly some may get, but I also believe in a Free Market and buyers should dictate that not a focused group with an opinion. These are private purchases not public works projects.
Train of thought? Let's see: As a currently vested property owner who has lived here since the 1960's and has seen many changes, I benefit greatly from the increased rental income relative to original cost. The more people here will support finer retail establishments for myself to frequent. I look forward to the day when I can say I am going to 4th ave for dinner and say I have reservations. I look forward to the day that I can walk to see a professional sports franchise, the Brooklyn Nets, play a game which hasn't happened in over 50 years. Great to have free concerts in Prospect Park again. I do not miss the open drug dealing and other criminal activity. I do not miss the auto chop shops and stolen cars being lined up for spare parts removal. 7th Avenue from 9th street on south was all boarded up buildings beleive or not back then. You didn't want to get off the bus on certain sections. If this is what it takes to get there, so be it. There are some negatives to this, that is understood. Parking, cost, people pushed out, etc. It isn't all great. But if you gave me a choice between this and what it became up through the 1980's, it isn't much of a choice. How's that for train of thought Carol Gardens?
I'll make one consession. I will get a handle if it makes you happy.
Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 4:40 PM
It would!
Posted by: Carol Gardens at September 17, 2007 5:12 PM
Carol Gardens, I Just tried. BS did not send me my confirmation e-mail as advertised to complete the process. I will check again. Whomever previously said this did not work may be right. Will check again later.
Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 6:05 PM
CG
Nix that. It works, albeit somewhat clugy to navigate through.
Just for you.
Posted by: Handle at September 17, 2007 6:12 PM
I'm inclined to agree with the pro-development folks under most circumstances anyway, but in this case it's just obvious. Dilapidated buildings should not be allowed to sit unused like that...if someone really wanted to develop these into anything, it woulda have happened a long time ago. Instead of just complaining about what kind of "ugly" or "plain" building might wind up here, just think about the unusable alternative.
Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 7:17 PM
amen about the never getting a verification e-mail problem. good idea, to just sign your name, so people can keep me separate from all the other anti-feddersites on the site...
-sylvia
Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 10:21 PM
Prima cosa -"There is a huge housing shortage" this is NYC there has always been a housing shortage, fluctuations in supply and demand being what they are, I left CG thirty years ago because I couldn't afford it, moved to Sheepshead Bay for 25 years, first as a tenant then as an owner, sold and bought something down here. Believe it, there is a lot of demand in downtown Brooklyn.
Seconda Cosa - "Just as some areas are downzoned, other are upzoned". No shit. And this is the perfect block to discuss that with the NIMBYs. This is one of those blocks where the Park Slope/4th Ave. FAR swap went down. Goes to show, the NIMBYs really do oppose all development. They got what they wanted protecting a lot of dumpy frame houses in the South Slope and in exchange got higher density on 4th Ave. And still the complaining goes on.
Terza Cosa - "Please move to France". I'm half French, take it easy please. There are lots of very friendly people in France. Americans hate the French now because they wouldn't send their people off to die in Bush's War. And, there is some pent up anger that they did not sufficiently kiss the US ass after WWII. To the French they think the US owes them for the help during the Revolutionary War. If it wasn't for the French Americans would have to speak English.
Cuarta Cosa - "develop a report" A report? Most English words have French roots, some are actually French words. Maybe this guy hated the French so much he refused to use the more overt French word.
Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 10:33 PM
It's completely nuts to try and "save" every old brick building in NYC.
The old bricks most 100 year old tenement buildings are made of were NOT intended to last forever and they're already starting to return to their original form -- DIRT.
In the near future, it's my prediction that old brick buildings all over NYC will being collapsing at an increasing rate.
I fully agree that old tenement buildings are much more attractive than most of the new housing shlock, but unfortunately, knocking them down to build safer building is another "necessary evil" of life.
Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 10:39 PM
"In the near future, it's my prediction that old brick buildings all over NYC will being collapsing at an increasing rate."
Could be, but I'd wager that many of them outlast much of the latest round of craptacular condo stock.
That said, that row on 4th Ave is past saving. Bring on 12 floors of new but habitable mediocrity.
Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 11:01 PM
I live down the block from these buildings and pass them everyday on my bike as I come home from work. It's nice to see the neighborhood change for the better, but I will not be able see all of it. I can no longer afford my the tiny closet I live in and am going to have to move...and I would move to Dallas if I knew I could get a job, be near my family....
Posted by: guest at September 18, 2007 12:42 PM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.