Small New Townhouse Condo Planned in Fort Greene

Ah, a new condo! Just what we need NOT! Here read this assholes, this shit is getting real good now. 2008 IMPLODE!

Countrywide Foreclosures Double in Servicing Business (Update3)
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601208&sid=a_ieJppswx8g&refer=finance

This means foreclosures are spiking!! This will put pressure on prices.

The What

Someday this war is gonna end.........

2008 is going to be a fun year!

Posted by: guest at January 7, 2008 10:46 AM

Dear The What:
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Posted by: guest at January 7, 2008 10:51 AM

Buying International Real Estate
Andrew C. Weitnauer
1-2-2008

Have you ever thought about buying a second home in a foreign country? Most of us have spent a few minutes online drooling over some of these properties. However, most of us quickly let the dream fade away when we realize how complicated and risky this venture can be.

The hardest part about buying property abroad is that every country, state, and city has different rules and conventions. So to be smart about it we usually start by researching foreign ownership restrictions, tax ramifications, currency issues, etc. This can be very time consuming, costly, and may even lead to out dated and incorrect answers. Along with this, doubt usually sets in; what if the property is over priced and I’m the only idiot in the world who doesn’t know it?

The best way to purchase real estate in foreign places is to contact a trustworthy, local, real estate professional. A local real estate agent will be familiar with the market value of properties in the area you are searching, and they understand the local laws. Your next question is probably; how do I find a trustworthy local real estate agent?

There is a website called UniFersal.com,
http://www.unifersal.com/index.php . You can find properties, look at property pictures, and even chat, call, or message a pre-screened, local real estate professional who speaks your language and specializes in the particular city you are searching in.

UniFersal.com does a background check on all of the real estate professionals that would love to help you buy real estate in their city. They confirm the professional’s real estate expertise in that city, and even ask for references.
If you are serious about buying a property in a foreign country, don’t try to do it alone. Use the internet to drool over properties, then get serious and contact a local professional.

Posted by: guest at January 7, 2008 10:54 AM

Any guess what is costs to build something like this. The last time I checked, the asking on this land was 800K or 900K. Assuming it costs a million plus to build from the ground up, it seems like a hard way to make money.

Posted by: guest at January 7, 2008 11:00 AM

traditional all the way - but thats unlikely, it'll probably be modern which is the cheaper option.

Posted by: guest at January 7, 2008 11:01 AM

Italian finishes all the way!

Posted by: guest at January 7, 2008 11:07 AM

What does a newly built traditional interior look like?

Posted by: guest at January 7, 2008 11:14 AM

The building should have been at least 2 floors higher in order to have more units. All the poor and jealous losers crying about all the condos being built should direct their misplaced energies on improving their own earning power as opposed to hating those that are doing better than them. Typical white trash losers. Reminds of my old neighbor who was actually old and he was very angry that people and charities would donate money to "foreigners and foreign causes" when "he" was hurting and how dare they give money and help others before helping him. God damn I hate white trash Brooklynites.

Posted by: guest at January 7, 2008 11:56 AM

Doing antique reproduction is always more expensive, if it's done WELL. Just ask our insurance company who estimated it would cost $1.5 million to recreate just the building, not buy the land underneath it mind you, just build the structure alone, for our 2-story 100 year old, 20 foot wide house.

For this reason, I always find cheaply done repro-traditional buildings end up looking awful. Remember this is just a computer rendering. It's not a photograph. The brick between the old building and the new building will NOT match, in real life when it's finished. It's impossible to recreate an antique building in the same high quality because it's cost prohibitive. Especially when it's being built as condos to sell for a profit, not being built as a custom private home which is the only case where people can choose to sink a ton of dough into all the right materials and details.

I just don't understand why people prefer an ugly building that imitates the old ones, over an attractive modern building. There's nothing inherently wrong with modern. The problem is in the talent-less architects running around Brooklyn building modern buildings. Please criticize their designs, not every single modern building ever made. Speaking of vast generalizations, there are plenty of old buildings that are ugly too. Old does not = pretty and modern does not = ugly.

Posted by: guest at January 7, 2008 12:04 PM

Left Hook, 12:04 -- you're both wrong. Cost has nothing to do with "traditional" vs. "modern". It has to do with the quality of materials and workmanship. Period. You can walk into a low income housing project and see that it was built in a " modern" style (i.e. no decorative details) but was done in the most economical way possible. Likewise, you can walk into a McMansion with mouldings up the wazzoo and see immediately that the developers just laid the mdf on heavy to cover up the shoddy sheetrock work.

ANYWAY, lame argument. Let's hope whatever they do, they do it with some modicum of sensitivity to materials and craftsmanship. Hey, one can dream!

MY QUESTION IS: Is there no building to the right of the new one? If so, will the new one have windows on that wall -- in other words, will it have three exposed walls with windows?

That would be a huge huge luxury -- the one thing all these brownstones lack is interesting exposures.

Posted by: guest at January 7, 2008 12:22 PM

I believe they will have to put a handicapped accessible entrance in front here. This take presedence over landmarks. See 242 Adelphi St. for an example.

Posted by: guest at January 7, 2008 12:25 PM

Actually that IS what I said, 12:22 in my post at 12:04. My post was entirely about quality of materials, regardless of style. You need to read more closely.

However in general, in my knowledge there are more affordable options in modern styles than there are in traditional styles. There's nothing traditional that's even close to the price range of Ikea's modern kitchens and built-ins and shelving, etc etc.

Also for a traditional living room, you'd have to pay for moldings, ceiling medallions, etc. when even made cheaply are not cheap.

Posted by: guest at January 7, 2008 12:30 PM

Impossible to replicate or recreate the past architecture. It's too good to be true, brick facades never look good when built.

Posted by: guest at January 7, 2008 12:35 PM

Agreed, brick never looks good new (or not the red bricks anyway), but it starts to look better over time as it acquires a bit of dirt.

What bugs me about the finishings in the new construction is not whether they are modern or traditional - but that they tend to be poor quality craftsmanship. I just want something I don't have to look at the shoddy mistakes in.

While I like the old brownstone look, I'd be happy with new construction that was "modern" - devoid of details like wood trim, crown and otherwise, medallions, etc. - as you can always add that stuff if you want - it is basically decoration - or you could go with a modern look, whatever your taste. But it would be nice if the walls weren't noticably crooked, and didn't have gaps where they meet, and if the rooms weren't cut out of the space in awkward configurations.

Posted by: guest at January 7, 2008 1:00 PM

There are a number of old brownstone type buildings (be they brownstone, brick, or limestone) around that were built as multi-unit buildings, usually 4-unit (one per floor.) You can spot them because the first living floor is raised above a stoop of only a few steps (over a true basement, with no "garden" level living floor). The apartments tend to be 3-bedroom apartments with a dining room. They are built much deeper than single-family brownstones, which allows for more interior rooms (the usual brownstone floor 4 rooms, plus 3 extra rooms in the interior.) The interior rooms tend to be rather dark (except on the top floor, where skylit shafts bring in light), as they get light only from airshaft windows and what comes from the adjacent windowed rooms, which are often connected by pocket or french doors with windows to let light into the interior rooms.

Having lived in one, I wouldn't copy the old layout if redesigning one. The seven rooms tend to make for many small rooms. They don't suit modern living, where the original kitchen was in the smaller back room, and the bedrooms originally were interior rooms with only airshaft windows.

Most useful for modern tastes are those where the kitchen has been moved forward to be near the living room, and the back rooms are bedrooms (more quiet than sleeping on the street.) Many have closed off the aishaft windows, as they aren't really sought after these days. Most spacious are those where some of the small rooms have been combined so the space isn't as cut up. Though I'd be very surprised if they do anything inspired with the interior layout when building new buildings like this.

Posted by: guest at January 7, 2008 1:16 PM

Alas, my bedroom overlooks the construction site. What do you think they mean by "break ground soon?" Next week? Three months? Two and a half years?

Posted by: guest at January 7, 2008 5:09 PM

FortGreeneOfficiando to chime in:

First of, the house to the left of the open lot/proposed building is very different from the one shown. If memory serves me right, I think the actual house has metal casement swing windows from the 20's, an L-shaped stoop and no cornice...am wondering if a deal was struck and the existing house next door will get a facade revamp...

Would be great if the new bldg could be super-insulated...probably won't be anything more than the regular for new construction since it might eat into the interior width.

The bodega at the opposite end of Cumberland (corner of Greene Ave.) from this proposed building had to rebuild it's outer wall. At first I thought they were just repointing and resetting as needed. In the end, they demolished and dumped the entire outer skin of facing brick and started putting in a hard, dark brick with a huge mortar line. UGLY. Work ground to a halt when the brick got nixed. It took a while, but the contractor got a decent brick from Glen Gery that mocks the brick on the surrounding bldgs colorwise, more or less. Not perfect but "okay", I guess. The mortar line, though thinner than how they started out (and were forced to rip out), is still too thick AND, they've recessed the mortar line...very odd because the brick was originally that very flat brick with a very thin mortar line up to the brick surface.

BTW, not many people are aware that mortar does is not really used to “hold” brick together. It is actually used for leveling and sealing. If one can make or obtain very flat units, e.g. cinderblocks or modern brick, they can be laid in a bed of mortar on the bottom layer to bed them with each successive layer being set down without mortar. If this method is used, the finished wall is parged with a mortar like coating on both faces to complete it. Another BTW: Using modern brick (high fired, hard brick) that doesn't breathe properly can lead to problems...you should always find a new brick (or any other material) that has the same hygro profile as the underlying material...that's free advice if you ever have to go through the process.

Check out the Glen Gery site (www.glengerybrick.com) for some photos of recent examples of that species of Schloss Nightmare d’Amerique. Lots of overblown junk that will be untenable some day down the road. Some of it really ugly too. These are the oversized houses built these last bunch of years. Just too much. Did almost everyone lose all sense of reality the last 15 years?

Now...the two-story infill building on Cumberland across Lafayette Ave from where the new infill bldg will go was built with ugly modern brick--wrong color, surface striations, set in a pattern that does not match the nabe, cast cement lintels that are ugly...plus, it has a paved front yard for the garage which is part of the building. All-in-all, the whole effect is fugly, or at the least, the building looks very much out of place.

This new one *could* end up fugly…of course.

I wish the architect had looked around the nabe...could have mimicked the building on Carlton (same corresponding lot as the unbuilt on Cumberland). The Carlton house is a 5-story mansarded brownstone at the end of a long line of brick rowhouses similar (though a touch earlier I believe) to the ones on Cumberland. I wonder how the sidewall will be finished...brick too? I would imagine, if it *is* brick, it will be laid inaccurately and give those wavy, slightly psychedelic patterns so of seen on new constructions. The laborers who lay these walls often do not have the skills or know-how to drop lines and guides to keep the brick courses lined up.

Now...the brick quite possibly might be matched colorwise. It is unfortunate that the ground floor entry and tall basement floor has to look this way and that the window lines are all thrown out of whack from the block (BTW, this is one LONG row of brick houses all with the same window and door lines). Accessibility on the door issue…marketability on the ceiling height issue?…

The tower-like bloop at the top is ugly of course...It would be nice if it could be worked up as regular roof walk-out stairwell so it would not be so odd looking. [Obviously, a simply roof hatch would not do since the roof will be decked to up the sale price.] This bloop-thing will be highly visible from Carlton and Lafayette of the backyards of the Lafayette houses.. There are currently some nice overhanging trees that will end up being cut away for this construction...

An idea they should have thought of to mask the tower-y thing, would have been to create a peaked parapet on the visible property line side like the house that is in the corresponding lot on S. Oxford. You can still have a flat roof behind it but it would give the impression the roof is peaked and could be more attractive.

Also, like on Carlton with that other end house, to avoid the matching-brick issue, the proposed building might, just might, have been done in a "brownstone" coating...but maybe the LPC wouldn't accept this since this part of Cumberland has no brownstoned building on it at all. The facing side of the street on this block of Cumberland is very, very eclectic. There are three narrow brownstoned buildings all the way down next to the Bishop Mugavero Senior Apts. (the old Brooklyn Eye and Ear Hospital). That’s it for brownstones.

With this proposed building, I’m sure they’ll get the cornice all wrong…they usually do. The new buildings in Park Slope on 7th Avenue look the architects got their degrees at P.U.

Don’t know why the rendering is so misleading. The big open area to the right of the proposed building is completely backed by a view of the First Presbyterian Church…not it’s nicest side but okay.

All in all, despite the noise, at least FINALLY, the MESSED up, broken up flags of the sidewalk will be dealt with. That lot is a hazard to walk in front of. Been getting progressively worse over the years.

One last thing, since the building will be taller than the one next door, would be swell if some solar hot water and/or PV panels could go in...that’s another thread.

Posted by: guest at January 7, 2008 7:38 PM