« Foreigners Start to Fancy Brooklyn Glassy PLG Tower Bad News for Birds, Says Expert »
April 4, 2008
Gloomy Reception for 340 Court Plans
Last night the Clarett Group made a presentation at a community meeting about the firm's plans for a development at 340 Court Street that will rise in place of the under-demolition International Longshoremen’s Association building between Union and Sackett. The Rogers Marvel-designed development Clarett currently foresees in Carroll Gardens will involve 14 townhouses on Sackett and Union streets, and a large multi-unit building fronting Court Street. Several blogs covered the meeting, and by all accounts the community members gathered last night seemed quite wary of Clarett's plans. The audience booed the rendering of the Court Street building (above), according to Gowanus Lounge, and many vocally objected to its dark color and height. Counting mechanical equipment on the roof, the building could be around 85 feet tall. "We're designing with the existing zoning," GL quotes Clarett's Daniel Hollander as saying. "Many developers felt a big tower would have been the way to go." The unit mix will range from studios to four bedrooms, and there will be retail space on Court Street. According to Lost City, architect Rob Rogers said the building on Court will sport a "'fabricated cement board' meant to simulated stone"; LC writes that "since Rogers Marvel did seem to have made a thorough study on the neighborhood (based on their film presentation), it did seem an odd choice of color and material. I don't know of any other buildings on Court Street of that color or gloomy appearance." Pardon Me for Asking, meanwhile, writes that "The Clarett Group faced a very skeptical crowd at P.S.58 last night. This is a community that has been to one too many meetings about planned developments lately."
340 Court Developer Presents Plans to Skeptical CG Crowd [Gowanus Lounge] GMAP
Meet Clarett's New Carroll Gardens "Mausoleum" [Lost City]
CG Not Exactly Loving Clarett's 340 Union Design [PMFA]
Photo of rendering from Gowanus Lounge .
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/4437
Comments
Can't the Mob stop this? What happened to the CG mafia?
Posted by: guest at April 4, 2008 10:13 AM
SO typical, everytime something like this comes up I have to laugh at those that say "we're not against development......." (a la DDDB) - here is a plan that removes a horrible building that is totally out of context, that breaks the street wall and is surrounded by an ugly parking lot - and replace it with totally contextual buildings, that restore the street wall, eliminate curbcuts, and brings more retail, to a retail street - and the "community"(not) protests because they don't like the color?
I hope Clarret pulls the plan - and replaces it with a 50 story building, surrounded by a gas station
Posted by: guest at April 4, 2008 10:20 AM
The 'Loan Shark' Union building is/was one ugly monstrosity much like the Mormon church across from it. And the Marco Polo, too. Time for change.
Posted by: guest at April 4, 2008 10:27 AM
I mostly agree. There is almost no reasonable proposal that you wont have the 'vocalists' from neighborhood complaining.
From what I understand they are building 'as of right' so I think going out of there way to be good neighbor.
I wish they would get more involved with real issues in the neighborhood... graffiti, dirty streets/sidewalks, rats, schools, etc.
So much more satisfying to be a critic of developers.
Posted by: guest at April 4, 2008 10:28 AM
Sometimes the protests are just plain frivolous... this development seems thoughtfully planned...
Posted by: bren at April 4, 2008 10:28 AM
What is it with architects in America? Why must everything they design be ugly? Is this some modernist trend I don't understand in which the pursuit of beauty or grace is considered undesirable? If you can build anything, why build ugly?
Posted by: guest at April 4, 2008 10:28 AM
10:13 am you keep saying the same thing on every post about the Mafia. I guess you have not been in CG in a Long time. Did you read the article about the sex in the city ladies wanting to live in CG? stay in park slope and keep stroking it.
Posted by: guest at April 4, 2008 11:18 AM
10:28: If you think this is ugly, I'd venture to guess that you won't like architects in Europe and Asia as well. It must be hard for you to live in the 21st century. I feel your pain, not.
Posted by: guest at April 4, 2008 11:27 AM
10:28 I'm with you. That Court Street building is gratuitously ugly. The proposted townhomes (posted on Curbed) look nice to me, but the bigger building is an eyesore. What do people learn in architecture school? I thought architects had to be smart and creative, as well as arrogant.
Posted by: guest at April 4, 2008 11:43 AM
Won't somebody save the children?!
Please, somebody save my NIMBY spotted owl!
Posted by: guest at April 4, 2008 12:05 PM
The biggest tip-off to the mentality of these NIMBY's is their reference to "the community". Do these people live in Jones Town?? They speak as if they live in a tribe, not a modern democracy with a variety of viewpoints.
Benson
Posted by: guest at April 4, 2008 1:16 PM
I can't even make it out. Beware when the renderer puts in too many trees.
From what little I can see it is gross.
Posted by: guest at April 4, 2008 1:30 PM
Actually 1:30 that rendering probably accurately depicts the number of street trees as City regulations require street trees ever 15 feet or so (I don't recall the exact number). As you can see, the renderer purposely rendered the trees without leaves so that you can see as much of the building as possible. If they really wanted to hide the building they would've rendered those trees in full bloom - you barely would have been able to see anything behind the tree canopy. And it would've been inaccurate to leave the trees our entirely, because that is not hoe the building will be visually experienced
Posted by: guest at April 4, 2008 1:40 PM
1:40, that's ridiculous, there are graphic conventions to show the presence of trees while not actually having every branch hide your elevation. Drawing the trees in full leaf would be a litle too obvious, no?
Architects can take a little poetic license with their renderings. In real life trees do not really obscure facades completely because you can move around them.
Posted by: guest at April 4, 2008 2:26 PM
Guess what folks - design is in the eye of the beholder and currently (outside of height/FAR, usage and landmarking) the Government still allows the OWNER to decide what type of design to use
Posted by: guest at April 4, 2008 2:56 PM
2:26 - you're wrong. I have actually stood in that exact spot and tried to get a good a picture of the existing ILA building and it's really hard to do because your view is blocked by ALL OF THE EXISTING TREES!!! I've tried to get pictures of this facade from every angle along Court Street and it's really hard. For the record, I also tried to do this is the summer, and I can show you my photos - they all just look like photos of trees where you can kind of see a corner of the existing building peeking out. What you're saying may be accurate in other locations. But since this is a relatively small development in a small scale neighborhood without alot of wide open spaces around it surrounded by a pretty dense series of trees - this is actually how this will be experienced. Deal with it.
Posted by: guest at April 4, 2008 3:08 PM
such annoying young republican property rights advocates on this blog. This isn't Houston or Dallas you know.
Posted by: guest at April 4, 2008 3:09 PM
They made a mistake with that rendering - obviously - because that's all people have to complain about.
The trees are there because - they are there, in real life. (google street view). The building is brown - like a brownstone. The developer screwed up by not spending more time on the rendering but really, would people rather have white brick, or beige brick like the lovely apple bank building next door? or gray metal plate boredom like in so much of Williamsburg ?
Next time they should remember to add some rainbows & unicorns to the facade to cheer things up.
Posted by: WillBklyn at April 4, 2008 3:16 PM
It's damn ugly, period. Only the mafia guys appreciate this eyesore of a property bec it's good front cover. In the darkest night, who cares?
Posted by: guest at April 4, 2008 3:17 PM
if it was up to you idiots nothing would ever get built
Posted by: guest at April 4, 2008 3:21 PM
people who complain on Friday pm blog are lonely and no dates for the weekend. Losers.
Posted by: guest at April 4, 2008 3:26 PM
Oh, another "republican" come-back at 3:09. There are people who are liberal and still support sensible developments you know. Next time try the more classic Nazi put-down. Thanks.
Posted by: guest at April 4, 2008 3:51 PM
carroll gardens - yickety yuck. who cares what is built there. horrible nabe. worse people. this nonsense that they are sputtering is the last nail in the coffin. run screaming from these people.
they just blow.
Posted by: guest at April 4, 2008 4:00 PM
More like Park slope Yickety yuck you should run from the element that lurks everyday around 3pm. You know what im sayin
Posted by: guest at April 4, 2008 4:24 PM
3:08, you need to get out more, maybe even go on a date. somebody will probably go out with you if you pay for dinner and the movie.
go on!
Posted by: guest at April 4, 2008 4:38 PM
I realize that everyone has an aesthetic opinion about certain things, but architects are trained PROFESSIONALS who have graduate degrees, pass a board exam and are licenced by the state just like doctors and lawyers. Imagine what you would sound like telling a doctor or lawyer how to do their job...'Blowhard' or 'ass' comes to mind.
Posted by: guest at April 4, 2008 6:39 PM
Oh, come on! Some architects have shitty taste. Btw, there are also crappy doctors and lawyers, but aesthetics don't usually come into it. Architects are licensed and trained so that their building don't fall down; it is no assurance that they will design something attractive. And this just looks ugly in the rendering.
Posted by: guest at April 4, 2008 10:17 PM
This is just a rendering and i don't see what is so objectionable about it. I agree with limiting the height to reasonable levels but this isn't that high! Court Street is a commercial strip with two - three story buildings with no remarkable charm or historical significance. This is very good for the merchants - more people and more retail, more traffic and the local economy. It rids the neighborhood of an awful eyesore which was dedicated to a mobster. Schools and infrastructure will follow as incentives to develop manifest. Nothing stays the same forever - get over it.
Let CG evolve as it deserves - pay attention to your own property. This is harassment.
Posted by: guest at April 5, 2008 9:01 AM
If it is a new building in Brooklyn, shouldn't it have to be ugly in order to blend in?
Posted by: guest at April 5, 2008 11:17 AM
I read on another blog that someone in the audience at the meeting suggested no elevators in a seven-story building as a way to keep the height down. Well, what about the elderly and the disabled?!
Posted by: guest at April 5, 2008 3:34 PM
To all you NIMBY'S- STOP, THINK! when was the last time you got laid? 3:26 is right on, if you guys had a life you wouln't be so worried about this. If this was next door to my house I would shrug my shoulders and so be it. This is becaue I have a life. The reason you Nimby's get press is because the majority of us who have lives can't be bothered to come down to a community board meeting etc. to shut your lame asses up, but 60 seconds on a blog that I can do. Just read the blogs the tide is against you losers.
Posted by: guest at April 5, 2008 8:51 PM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.