« Catsimatidis on Myrtle Revealed Inside Third & Bond: Week 11 »
October 25, 2007
Man on the Street: How's the Novo Look to You?
We chatted up some Slopers to get their opinions on the design of the the Novo, the biggest condo to hit 4th Avenue since the thoroughfare was upzoned a few years ago. The people we talked to weren't feeling a lot of love for the building...
"I've been inside, and the units are nicer than they are at the one a few block away [the Crest]. But there's nothing architecturally interesting about it. It'd be a shame if all up and down 4th Avenue we got buildings like this as a result of the upzoning." -Patrick
"I never really paid much attention to it. It's just sort of there." -Linden
"It's pretty ugly and out of character with the area. The problem with this place is that it's been about three years in the making and they've used non-union labor and haven't been very friendly with the neighborhood...Basically, I think it looks like a low-income housing project." -Jim
"Hideous. An eyesore. Horrible. It doesn't fit in with the neighborhood." -Julie
"Looks like a big brown turd." -Boris
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/2693
Comments
Novo = HoJo
Posted by: guest at October 25, 2007 11:06 AM
Couldn't have said it better myself, Boris.
Posted by: guest at October 25, 2007 11:07 AM
My 2 cents: I'm no lover of the developer (the one who's name we dare not speak) and his construction quality but you have to love Park Slopers (I'm one of them).
If it was some name-brand 'starchitect' building a beautiful and architecturally significant tower, we would complain about prices/affordability. Put up an affordable but somewhat drab building on a former vacant lot and we complain about aesthetics.
Could he have done better with the same budget? Maybe, but it has a stone street wall, balconies and some nice glass elements. Plus, half the people interviewed said "it's out of character" … no crap … it's on an up-zoned 12-storey+ lot. Ever seen a 12-storey Brownstone?!
Ok, now everyone can say it looks like a mental institution, public school, how he could have done better with the same budget, non-union labor, trashed the park, etc., etc.
Posted by: Mr Joist at October 25, 2007 11:07 AM
Doesn't fit in with the neighborhood?
As opposed to the run-down plumbing supply "building" that preceded it?
And this is an "eyesore" by comparison to what? Honestly, I'm personally getting a little tired of real-estate related hyperbole...
What "neighborhood" did 4th Ave have that is so mourned now? Crappy industrial buildings and mostly crumbling old brick rowhouses? This is a huge improvement.
And my hope is that people move in, live happily and MORE improvement comes to that stretch.
It's certainly not the nicest building in the world, but it sure beats most of the other crap that line(d) 4th Ave. Glad it's there... hope 4th Ave "takes".
As for Boris, he certainly has "turd" problems if that's the color of his stool. Maybe he should try some fiber? oh wait, was he being comical? His articulate expression certainly made me look again... ugh.
And no, I'm not a broker, I don't have anything to do with the building, I didn't/won't purchase a unit (happy in my Brownstone, thank you) and I'm not a fan of the taxi-place across the street, but here's hoping they'll knock that beautifully in-character piece of architecture down and replace it with something a little more like this...
Posted by: guest at October 25, 2007 11:12 AM
..."We chatted up some Slopers"
Hey Brownstoner FYI - in British English vernacular to "chat up" is to try to get a date with someone or more. Usually more. ;-)
Posted by: 1910 at October 25, 2007 11:18 AM
I think it might look better with that giant inflatable rat out front as a permanent fixture...Kind of endearing.
Posted by: guest at October 25, 2007 11:21 AM
Brownstoner featuring people complaining about a new development?
I don't believe it!
Posted by: guest at October 25, 2007 11:42 AM
Jim is a dick who obviously doesn't live near any low income housing projects.
Posted by: guest at October 25, 2007 11:55 AM
Mr. Joist:
I don't think the Novo is particulrly afforadble at all.
Posted by: guest at October 25, 2007 12:12 PM
"The problem with this place is that it's been about three years in the making and they've used non-union labor and haven't been very friendly with the neighborhood"
Uh, that's THREE problems.
Posted by: guest at October 25, 2007 12:12 PM
It looks like a prison. Just like all the other garbage being built all over the place, by Boymelgreen and his friends.
Kind of ironic that the people who are behind all of these buildings that look like prisons, actually belong in prison.
Posted by: guest at October 25, 2007 1:08 PM
Mr. Joist:
Surely you jest. Boymelgreen should have built an elegant, Prospect-Park-West-like building, using union labor, then given the apartments *at cost* to the working class.
Anything else is unconscionable!
Posted by: guest at October 25, 2007 1:18 PM
Guest @ 12:12pm said:
"Mr. Joist: I don't think the Novo is particularly affordable at all."
I hear you. It would have been more precise to have said *relatively* affordable.
Although I do think $300k to $400k for a real one bedroom IS *relatively* affordable. That's ~$550/sf. (Source: StreetEasy, Apts. 4J, 4C, 4A, 4F, etc.)
1:18pm: Indeed, indeed.
Posted by: Mr Joist at October 25, 2007 1:40 PM
What considerations have been giving to expanding or developing the other elements of this area, e.g. schools, parking, mass transit services. It seems that these kinds of developments - regardless of their architectural merits - will put a hefty strain on the existing services available.
Does anyone know what the plans are for these other essential elements to a livable community?
If this building is a sign of things to come, 4th will look more like Manhattan than Brooklyn.
Posted by: guest at October 25, 2007 1:48 PM
Whoa whoa Mr. Joist. Cool it. There's no room on this blog for rational thinking.
Posted by: guest at October 25, 2007 1:48 PM
Obviously, since Joist is providing none himself.
Posted by: guest at October 25, 2007 1:54 PM
38 active sales listings: $769 per ft² (avg)
37 previous sales listings: $654 per ft² (avg)
Posted by: guest at October 25, 2007 1:58 PM
Ouch! The "guests" [in no conceivable way] got me!
Thanks for referencing the "overall" sales stats from StreetEasy which include sales data from numerous 1,200 to 1,500 square foot penthouse listings. I guess my source footnote with specific apartment numbers wasn't enough to stop your flame.
Is it relevant for apartment hunters looking for "affordable" units to consider the 3 bedroom, high-floor per square foot sales statistics? I think not.
Back to your cave, troll.
Posted by: Mr Joist at October 25, 2007 2:14 PM
So: The Novo apartments are crap, and nobody would want them. Also, they are too expensive, as proven by what all the people have paid for them.
What's the point in arguing how "affordable" a market-rate apartment is? 550/sf or 650/sf, they're more affordable than they would be on 8th Avenue. And they're more affordable than they would be had Boymelgreen built a building that I (a neighbor) would prefer to look at (much less ever buy in).
You can bitch about them not being prettier or not being cheaper, but unless you want to subsidize the place, it's ridiculous to bitch about both.
Posted by: guest at October 25, 2007 2:29 PM
Citing 4 units out of 70+? That's statistically insignificant.
Going back to my cave now...
Posted by: guest at October 25, 2007 2:55 PM
"If this building is a sign of things to come, 4th will look more like Manhattan than Brooklyn"
nevermind that Brooklyn and Manhattan include many different nighborhoods with many different makeups and looks -
But compared to what 4th Avenue has looked liked (depressing as all hell) - then let it look look Manhattan - it would be a blessing.
Posted by: Petebklyn at October 25, 2007 3:14 PM
*sigh* … why must I endlessly defend one of many points I made in a previous post from the "nameless guest troll who thinks he understands statistics."
There are 37 total apartments in contract, that is the total data set. (Your 70+ comment is irreverent as it includes 38 listed at asking price but unsold apartments. Only sold apartment prices are relevant.)
The relevant data set for a discussion of "affordable" apartments is, in my opinion, studios and one bedrooms. Out of the 37 sales listed on StreetEasy, 9 fall into this category.
I cited 4 of those 9 apartments by apartment number in my post as proof that Novo had *affordable* units.
APT PRICE BEDS BATHS SqF P / SqF
#4A $309,000 1 bed 1 baths 562 $550
#4J $345,000 1 bed 1 baths 621 $556
#4F $345,000 1 bed 1 baths 615 $561
#4C $419,000 1 bed 1 baths 670 $625
$573
That's $573 per SqF. If you include the more expensive 1 bedrooms and the expensive studio, the $573/SqF goes to $616/SqF.
Now please go away (and I'm sorry I had to make you look foolish but you brought it upon yourself).
Posted by: Mr Joist at October 25, 2007 3:35 PM
Wasn't there some kind of affordable housing element to the up zoning of Fourth Avenue ? If yes, is it being built somewhere else in Brooklyn?
Posted by: guest at October 25, 2007 4:34 PM
J a c k a s s
O n
I n t e r n e t
S t a n d s
T a l l
Posted by: guest at October 25, 2007 5:09 PM
4:34: There was no affordable housing requirement.
Posted by: guest at October 25, 2007 5:31 PM
How much do we think the prices will have to drop on the remaining units before they sell?
Posted by: guest at October 25, 2007 5:43 PM
Petebklyn, you can develop the area without it looking like the previous dump it was.
Obviously, the cat is out of the bag since the zoning for this area has been changed with no expectation that it will be reversed.
The admittedly less appealing, yet low-rise, nature of the current structures will be lost and not re-used in a more community-beneficial way.
Perhaps people like the Manhattanization of this area. I prefer something smaller in scale.
Posted by: guest at October 25, 2007 6:22 PM
Buy it, build it to any scale you want. Otherwise, shut the fuck up.
Like you all used to hang on 4th back in the day. Yeah for what? A vial of crack and a blowjob while you got your flats fixed for $3. Bunch of granola eating dickheads want to return it to it's former glory. What the hell are you smoking?
Posted by: guest at October 25, 2007 7:35 PM
7:35PM and 11:12AM are the only ones making sense here. 4th Avenue is disgusting. Any of these buildings are only an improvement. Also, more middle and high income residents will bring more demand for more amenitites. I WISH we had buildings like this going up in our own neighborhood that's so utterly barren of any decent restaurants or markets.
Posted by: guest at October 25, 2007 8:13 PM
well, i think that the comment about the over crowding at 321 is valid. we sold a 2 story house last year and we moved with our toddler because we don't believe in the future of the school system. crowded is crowded it's a problem.
Posted by: guest at October 25, 2007 10:28 PM
4th ave is a fucking shithole!
These ugly condos are a blessing to the area.
Posted by: guest at October 26, 2007 10:03 AM
The buildings are ugly - Novo and Crest.
At least they're not Fedders ugly, but they look like an upstate SUNY dorm.
But here's the question - why is it taking so long to finish? Comparable buildings in the same vicinity have been built and occupied since the two started construction.
Financial problems with the developer?
Posted by: guest at October 26, 2007 10:07 AM
those commenters are eye sores themselves
Posted by: guest at October 27, 2007 1:25 AM
excellent question, 10:07. i moved into the neighborhood near NOVO almost three years ago and they were excavating the site. seems a tad sloooooooow to me. and now both corners of 6th St. and 4th Ave are on the road to high rise condos...
Posted by: guest at October 27, 2007 10:04 AM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.