« Atlantic Yards Shutterbugs Meet Up Co-op of the Day: 39 Plaza Street West »
February 11, 2008
Development Watch: 196 South 2nd Street
This baby's been a long time coming. We took a look at the 10-unit, Scarano-designed development back in September of 2006 when it appeared to be well on its way. From what we can tell, there was some kind of DOB audit that took place last April, most likely in connection with Mezzanine-gate, which probably explains the hold-up. (The plans now reflect that three of the four floors include mezzanines.) We've seen Scarano buildings similar to this before, but those small mosaic windows are a new touch. Thumbs up or down?
Development Watch: 196 South 2nd Street [Brownstoner] GMAP DOB
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/3821
Comments
I kind of like it
Posted by: guest at February 11, 2008 12:15 PM
Why do all Scarano buildings look like the work of first year architecture students?
Posted by: guest at February 11, 2008 12:24 PM
That's hot.
-Paris
Posted by: guest at February 11, 2008 12:29 PM
Why is this guy's name (Scarano) all over everything these days. I dont see anything remotely special about his designs, but yet his projects are going up all over Brooklyn.
Is he like the cheapest guy or something? Connected somehow, any other reason I am not seeing?
Posted by: newsouthsloper at February 11, 2008 12:29 PM
I think architecture students/recent grads do design a lot these buildings. If you look on Scarano's website you will see that many projects are designed by others.
Reminds me of the Bunker on Bond. The front of that building also has little "mosaic" windows.
Posted by: guest at February 11, 2008 12:37 PM
Fucking ugly. Just another condo that's destroying the character of a neighborhood.
Posted by: guest at February 11, 2008 1:09 PM
The "mosaic" windows are OK by me. The rest of the design, not so much.
Posted by: WBer at February 11, 2008 1:17 PM
Looks good!
Posted by: guest at February 11, 2008 1:20 PM
Not really surprising that a hack architect can get work from developers looking to cut cost corners. But given the shear awfulness of everything this guy has ever built, I have to ask: what idiots are actually buying these places?
Posted by: guest at February 11, 2008 1:23 PM
Looks way better than the fedders crap going up elsewhere in Brooklyn.
What would people prefer instead?
Posted by: Polemicist at February 11, 2008 1:27 PM
I think people prefer all of brooklyn be retro fitted with brownstones that are built with all of the original detail, charm, building materials, and workmanship of yesteryear.
Of course in order to do this, the price to build these brownstones will be more than the original vintage ones go for now, so that would make the price of housing higher than it already is. Of course people would not prefer this.
So, I think it is fair to say that we will never be happy no matter what is built. At least it makes for higher thread counts and someone (i.e. Mr.Brownstoner) can benefit.
Posted by: newsouthsloper at February 11, 2008 1:38 PM
A nice looking Bob, and better than any of Hot Karl's latest projects.
Posted by: guest at February 11, 2008 1:41 PM
Polemicist 1:27,
Saying Scarano places are better then "fedders crap going up elsewhere in Brooklyn." is like saying getting diarrhea is better than getting the flu.
Posted by: guest at February 11, 2008 1:41 PM
"So, I think it is fair to say that we will never be happy no matter what is built."
Speak for yourself. I'm happy!
Posted by: guest at February 11, 2008 1:50 PM
Condobot from the planet Craptaculon lands in Brooklyn.
Posted by: guest at February 11, 2008 1:56 PM
why, oh why can't brooklyn look exactly like it did in 1880? it also bothers me that people wear modern clothes. brooklyn women should be dressed in bonnets and bustles, while brooklyn men should sport beaver top hats.
Posted by: z at February 11, 2008 2:05 PM
Why are z and newsouthsloper so eager to argue for a false dichotomy? Just because a building is modern doesn't mean that it has to be ugly. Nobody in this thread is saying that.
This particular building, however, has got plenty of ugly. It's also got a distinct lack of subtlety, which explains the ugly more than building materials or construction methods do.
Posted by: tscola at February 11, 2008 2:27 PM
"Why are z and newsouthsloper so eager to argue for a false dichotomy?"
Perhaps the same reason you are so eager to assert that your completely subjective viewpoints are somehow equated with fact.
Posted by: guest at February 11, 2008 2:33 PM
You are all brokers.
In my opinion, the ugliness of the building has an inverse relationship to the charm of the neighborhood. This building would be incredibly awful if it were in Brooklyn Heights or the Slope, but since it's in Williamsburg it somehow isn't that bad. Most buildings, new or old, in the 'Burg are pretty ugly so this is par for the course.
Posted by: guest at February 11, 2008 2:43 PM
2:43=Park Slope broker.
Posted by: guest at February 11, 2008 2:54 PM
I've stood up for a few of Scarano's designs in the past, but this building is just not good. The massing, materials, windows, etc., etc. (everything tscola said).
A block to the north (S. 1st) there is a very nice looking Scarano project. I also rather like the one on Bedford and South 2nd (also hung up in audit). Two blocks west on Grand Street (just of Bedford) is another Scarano dog.
Posted by: WBer at February 11, 2008 2:56 PM
2:54 = East New York broker
Posted by: guest at February 11, 2008 3:05 PM
1:41
Criticism without the presentation of alternatives is simply not productive.
Sure, I'd love every building that is constructed to include architectural elements reminscient of Western Civilization - but, as I work in the industry I know the construction costs for such an endeavor are at the moment prohibitive for all but the wealthiest people in this city. Even they can barely afford it. How many brownstone mansions have been constructed since the depression? To my knowledge, none.
I look at this building, and it seems at least moderately interesting, if modernist/post modernist architectural style is your think - at least it HAS a style.
All I am asking is "what is the alternative?". What would have been a better option for this site? I'd even be happy with a link to something hypothetical that hasn't been built yet.
Posted by: Polemicist at February 11, 2008 3:15 PM
Considering it probably replaced something REALLY ugly, this is not bad.
Posted by: guest at February 11, 2008 3:15 PM
3:15-
Here you go: http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y48/davidt2/1metroplex.jpg
This would be way cooler.
/not a broker/
Posted by: guest at February 11, 2008 3:44 PM
3:44=broker
Posted by: guest at February 11, 2008 4:14 PM
3:44 - Now THAT's a price chopper!
Posted by: guest at February 11, 2008 4:21 PM
Are there any architects/builders out there who can explain why many of these new condo buildings use a similar ugly, flat battleship gray? I guess it's a minor point in the grand scheme of things but maybe something else would blend a little better with the old brick and brownstone buildings.
Posted by: guest at February 11, 2008 4:21 PM
I like the mosaic windows, but I don't like the all-silver pale look of the thing. Do they ever vary the metals used, or darken the metal like bronze or an onyx grey? It seems it would blend better with surrounding brick and brownstone facades. And why not do a surface treatment to the metal? Something dappled or dented. It would be more interesting. The pale smooth silver steel makes it look like a kitchen appliance.
Posted by: guest at February 11, 2008 4:25 PM
4:21
you know what, even when new buildings are done out of brick which relates to the existing area, people complain anyway. there is just a weird, in may opinion, hatred of new buildings on this site.
i personally have lived in a whole brownstone (see 1st marriage) and in prewar for most of my time in NYC - (going on 20 years). but, since i moved to a brand new condo, i am sooo much happier.
you simply cannot get the open, clean, light space in a brownstone - my main living level is 1000 sq. feet and features a big kitchen/dining room, full bath, office/guest room and a giant living room that leads to a patio that then has stairs down to a really good sized garden which we landscaped. (bedrooms are on a second level).
throw in central a/c, high ceilings, full laundry in the apt and storage, and i am just damn happy.
in my search for a condo, i really totally ignored the exterior - because finding the interior that i wanted so tough. if the building is well built - hire an inspector and find out - people will continue to flock to these new spaces just as i did for similar reasons.
honestly, so many new condos could be decorated to go any direction you want. mine is fairly contemporary, but my neighbor's is entirely antique/flea market/chandelier and even though we live in similar apartments - they look totally different.
prior to reading the posts on this site, it never occurred to me that people would be more wrapped up in the exterior than how they decorated the interior.
anyway, point is, the whole world is not dying to live in a brownstone. some people will prefer new.
Posted by: guest at February 11, 2008 4:40 PM
i live in a brownstone now and like it, but i also like these modern buildings. i get that they're not to everyone's taste though. "beauty" and "ugly" are in the eye of the beholder after all, and one person's beautiful brownstone is another person's plain ugly brown building.
Posted by: guest at February 11, 2008 5:42 PM
4:40, thank you for your thoughtful contribution to the annals of real estate broker-written drivel.
Posted by: guest at February 11, 2008 8:13 PM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.