BK Developers: What Are They Thinking?

lets get something straight...developer = money provider, architect = design. Why is it that developers take the hit for architects poor design. I know many a developer that just goes with the architects concept. The responsibility needs to be fairly shared.

Posted by: guest at December 21, 2007 9:53 AM

But it has Italian kitchens...and the bathrooms have Italian tiles..

Italian, people, I-tal-ian!!!

That means its gotta be classy!

Stoner, are you smoking the crack again?

Posted by: guest at December 21, 2007 9:55 AM

9:53 architects, not all, usually cave to developers bec they pay them to design. And because money is always the issue, they want it as cheap as possible. If you buy from a dollar store, you get a 99 cents item not to mention bad taste.

Posted by: guest at December 21, 2007 10:08 AM

This fits in perfectly with all of the other architechtual masterpieces on 16th Street.

Posted by: guest at December 21, 2007 10:12 AM

Developer= runs project/hold purse strings
Architect= contractor

Posted by: guest at December 21, 2007 10:12 AM

9:55 Italian has to be classy...ha ha ha.
thank god this is not on the north side of the slope.

Posted by: guest at December 21, 2007 10:14 AM

I walked by this thing yesterday and was also stumped by the odd choice of railing (not to mention the silly facade.) I asked one of the builders outside if that was something temporary (perhaps while they wait for the Italian marble/steel/tile/chrome railing to arrive,) and the man looked like he wanted to slap me right there! I wonder who in their right mind would want to live in that terrarium!?

Posted by: guest at December 21, 2007 10:15 AM

Holy weirdly intersecting angles Brownstoner! Get out the Brown phone call Commissioner Lancaster and lets start the defuglification!

Posted by: guest at December 21, 2007 10:19 AM

Some small property owners do their own design and hire contractors to do the job. The house is practical utilitarian type, but no design. Is it fair to blame architects when they have nothing to do with it? Then again there as many bad architects as there are awful and greedy developers.

Posted by: guest at December 21, 2007 10:19 AM

16th street = Test tube baby for architects

Posted by: guest at December 21, 2007 10:22 AM

Is there a law that allows firebombing ugly houses? Like a Giuliani way of clean up?

Posted by: guest at December 21, 2007 10:25 AM

In 40 years your children will be flooding this blog with calls to landmark the innovative, early-21st century architecture of 16th Street.

Posted by: guest at December 21, 2007 10:33 AM

In 40 years our children will be flooding this blog asking how their parents could have let this shit happen to Brooklyn.

Posted by: guest at December 21, 2007 10:39 AM

In 40 years our children will be a lot smarter than us and will erase the whole area for better architecture.

Posted by: guest at December 21, 2007 10:44 AM

In 40 years I will be sitting in a nursing home crapping my pants still posting on this blog.

Posted by: guest at December 21, 2007 10:49 AM

Hope that's tempered glass. I'm gonna ride that building with my skateboard.

Posted by: guest at December 21, 2007 10:54 AM

This same developer has put a similiar monstrosity on the south side of 12th Street, between Sixth and Seventh Aves. The whole block is far from a gem. It has some truly ugly buildings. But the new building doesn't help the block at all. These people have no sense of context, of building something that fits with the streetscape and the area. It's too bad.

Posted by: guest at December 21, 2007 11:00 AM

"Some small property owners do their own design and hire contractors to do the job."

10:19am, this is not some small fry guy. This property was the first to win their BSA vesting appeal after the rezoning of the South Slope. Mark Zeldin, owner and scumbag is also the great guy bringing you the triple mint POS across the street at 226-230 16th St. across the street (another great design http://tinyurl.com/26v7hu ). Working through SWO's and violations on that one.

Then there's 18-20 Jackson Pl. Remember the building that collapsed in July 2007...made the papers, the blogs? Mr. B, link here? Same great fellow who attempted to bribe a neighbor on Jackson Place who just so happens to be a Community Board member. And he's still harassing the adjacent property owners as I type this.

And then there's his property on 19th St. with it's SWO due to undermining of adjacent properties.

What a gem of a guy, and such a great addition to the South Slope.

Blast this sucka Mr. B.

-ccgh

Posted by: guest at December 21, 2007 11:08 AM

lol how long until someon tries to skateboard up that thing?

Posted by: guest at December 21, 2007 11:14 AM

and looking through his past projects, i see that he is responsible for one of the most disgusting departures from context in a borough brimming with them at 480 State St - lovely block except for his POS.

Posted by: guest at December 21, 2007 11:17 AM

That Trump photo really bugs.

Posted by: guest at December 21, 2007 11:19 AM

11:08 did Zeldin take advantage of undocumented laborers, too? Thanks for shedding light on the builder of monstrosities.

Posted by: guest at December 21, 2007 11:34 AM

Hope the future owner looks good in the buff.

damn, that is some seriously ugly design. mindblowing bad.

Posted by: guest at December 21, 2007 11:35 AM

I thought this building looks similar to the one on 12th Street. The 12th Street building truely sucks..... You would have thought that any new building on this block would have been an improvement over what's existing, but in this case, certainly not!!

Posted by: guest at December 21, 2007 11:48 AM

you park slope people are funny. you choose to live in an area with dollar stores and low income people who live in hideous boring 100 year old homes with aluminum siding but criticize this?

most of the west south slope is crappy. big deal.

Posted by: guest at December 21, 2007 11:56 AM

What Trump photo/ad are you people talking about?

Posted by: guest at December 21, 2007 12:17 PM

Okay, I'll say it. I like the rendering. I would have to see how well the actual building turned out and how it looks in the context of the street before having a firm opinion, but I like facade. No idea what's up with the railing in the picture above though, especially since the renderings on the developer's website show contemporary interiors.

And since I am often frustrated by the absence of any explanation of why people do or don't like something, I'll add this: the front facades of the neighboring buildings don't align and I like how this building handled that. Dramatic yet relatively simple.

Posted by: guest at December 21, 2007 12:28 PM

It is a weird Trump photo that suddenly appears in the right column and then just as quickly, poof, it is gone.

Posted by: guest at December 21, 2007 12:29 PM

He was just there staring at me with that shit eating I'm-richer-than-all-of-you-losers grin on his face. Where did he go?

Posted by: guest at December 21, 2007 12:31 PM

bottom line, developers and architects are both to blame for the change of scape throughout bklyn. whether its the chicken or the egg, dunno..just think its time architects come out from the ivory tower and face the music. I'm sure Zeldin could give a crap about design, all that matters is that an architect design and get approval, and a brokerage can sell them. If anyting, architects and brokers are to blame for this mess.

Posted by: guest at December 21, 2007 12:43 PM

9:55 you are cracking me up.

Posted by: guest at December 21, 2007 12:54 PM

He didn't line up anything. He put a trapezoid to nowhere on the sidewalk which increases the cramped feel of the building.

Posted by: guest at December 21, 2007 1:04 PM

12:13 south slope is still dominated by low income hispanics with tons of illegals. it's gross. most buildings are not updated. they are gross. this new condo building kicks the ass of most of the west side of south slope. it blows.

maybe one day it'll have lovely shops and restaurants, but i lived there, so i know.

it's massively yucky.

Posted by: guest at December 21, 2007 1:16 PM

After looking over the Past, Current, and Upcoming projects, its almost as though the developer discovered a lost archive of architectural plans from 1983 and decided to save some money by just going with them.

Posted by: guest at December 21, 2007 1:39 PM

Let's face it, Park Slope is not South Slope. You can tell the difference.

Posted by: guest at December 21, 2007 1:45 PM

The "design" really has to be understood in context. The weird glass atrium juts out in space in order to enclose the below street level cellar. There are a hand full of these buildings in the SSlope that use this technique, but most have an open courtyard, open to the elements, with windows or even sliding glass patio doors. These below street level spaces I suspect are designed into the building to gain the extra ceiling height for a legal floor with natural light, in this case a duplex with staircase. There are two other buildings right on the block, that attempt to do the same thing.
When I saw them remove the construction fence to pour the cement sidewalk, you had to wonder what they were thinking. Glass right up to the public sidewalk? Every three year old in the neighborhood is going to want to try and play on that window. I guess next comes the fence in front.

Posted by: guest at December 21, 2007 1:50 PM

All you people who see Trump are nutso. I don't see him.

Posted by: guest at December 21, 2007 2:04 PM

1:04, sure looks to me like the building lines up with the more-recessed building on the left and the less-recessed building on the right:
http://tinyurl.com/yuegn9
What trapazoid? -- 12:28

Posted by: guest at December 21, 2007 2:53 PM

They were thinking they will enjoy replacing those windoes evey spring when some ice comes off the roof and breaks them every winter. Dumabasses.

Posted by: guest at December 21, 2007 3:50 PM

I will take the hard working immigrants over you pretentious idiots any day. Now go and circle your block for an hour to find a spot for your beamer and go away.

Posted by: guest at December 21, 2007 4:16 PM

Brownstoner has time to "bike around the S. Slope"?

Posted by: guest at December 21, 2007 4:33 PM

i guess no worries - the types of lawsuits this thing will attract from kids on razors braking thru the probably tempered but certainly not laminated glass will land any owner of this building in chapter 11 anyhow. so it'll be a steal for the next person to redo.

Posted by: guest at December 21, 2007 9:23 PM

If you can't afford a private garage spot for your "Beamer," what's the point?

Posted by: guest at December 22, 2007 8:08 AM

I just bought a new 745i beamer but realize I really should have used more of my year end bonus for the V-12 750iL because I can afford it and I have three parking spaces at the union street car co-op.

Posted by: guest at December 22, 2007 11:51 PM

Thanks, cmu. I was beginning to feel awfully lonely -- 12:28/2:53

Posted by: guest at December 24, 2007 12:36 PM

Brownstoner said: "This stuff is horrendous and, project by project, ruining the landscape of the neighborhood."

Right....because the landscape of South Slope hasn't been ruined already by the vinyl-sided houses, large tenement apartment buildings, and hideous storefronts.

Hilarious! Really truly can't believe that line about one new building "ruining the landscape" of South Slope wasn't purely sarcasm. Come on people, South Slope is not Park Slope. South Slope is on its way to becoming all new development. That is its future. It is not a precious, historic, landmarked area. Which is okay. Embrace what it is for what it is.

Posted by: guest at December 25, 2007 11:27 AM