« Last Week's Biggest Sales Co-op of the Day: 279 Sterling Place, #1B »
April 1, 2008
Latest Addition to BAM Complete
A few days ago the Brooklyn Academy of Music unveiled the new glass canopy outside its landmark Peter Jay Sharp building. The multi-million-dollar restoration of most of the building was completed a few years ago, and BAM's website says the canopy was supposed to be finished in 2005. The organization declined to comment on the addition since it's issuing a press release about it in a couple of days, but our understanding is that the structure marks the end of Peter Jay Sharp's restoration. How do you think it looks? GMAP
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/4400
Comments
What's the opposite of lipstick on a pig?
Posted by: McFin at April 1, 2008 12:08 PM
Horrible!
I'm all about integrating new with old (I love what was done at the BK Museum of Art), but this is terrible. It seems like it was "designed for design's sake," with the Memphis-like waves not relating at all to anything on the building.
I hope this is an April Fools Day Joke.
Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 12:08 PM
looks like a mall awning. looks like the Bklyn Museum restoration writ small
Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 12:09 PM
Horrible!
I'm all about integrating new with old (I love what was done at the BK Museum of Art), but this is terrible. It seems like it was "designed for design's sake," with the Memphis-like waves not relating at all to anything on the building.
I hope this is an April Fools Day Joke.
Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 12:11 PM
shame
Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 12:13 PM
ew
Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 12:15 PM
it's gross, and i usually like modern additions
Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 12:16 PM
why was the awning necessary at all???
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at April 1, 2008 12:17 PM
Wonder how it'll fare in a heavy rainstorm?
Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 12:17 PM
hate it.i thought this building was landmarked.The landmarks commission tells owners of landmarked buildings what color to paint their window frames yet this completly out of context and cheap looking addition is allowed ? the rest of the restoration so far has been fantastic.
Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 12:18 PM
The BAM building is one of the most beautiful in the city. This awning looks like a suburban bus shelter. At least it's only bolted on.
Posted by: madison_st at April 1, 2008 12:19 PM
I think it looks great. Love the mixture of old and new. Reminds me of a Barcelona facade.
Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 12:20 PM
total fucking cock rock bullshit. ugly ugly ugly. what a fucking waste of money. i used to think BAM was one of the coolest old building and now it is screwed. why do people have such bad taste?
Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 12:20 PM
Terrible, just terrible. All new architecture sucks. Landmark everything. I love vacant lots. All buildings erected after 1930 are ugly. Buck Fush. Free Mumia.
Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 12:22 PM
It's a little ostententatious. And those diagonal support bars coming from the wall look rather awkward to me. Could you hit your head on them? But it could have been worse.
Of course nothing would have been as nice as a classically-designed marquee, but we are too sophisticated in Brooklyn to go for such an obvious solution.
I have a feeling it will leak like a sieve.
Posted by: sam at April 1, 2008 12:22 PM
Horrendous! Is this a PhotoShop April Fool's joke?
Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 12:22 PM
I like it a lot.
Agree that it reminds me of a few buildings in Barcelona.
If one wanted to make an interesting artistic statement, there's only SO MUCH you could do with an awning. I think they did a great job with this.
So many people quick to judge.
Posted by: jerri blank at April 1, 2008 12:24 PM
This is the look of Bam, the Theatre for a new audience and Danspace both have similar glass shells and awnings. I'm sure the Grand plaze will tie this all together.
Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 12:27 PM
ack! it's awful! Put the scaffolding back up, please!
Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 12:38 PM
"So many people quick to judge."
Like you, Jerri. Your judgment is that you like it.
Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 12:38 PM
wow, all these comments about how much people hate this design are really indicative of the general reactionary attitudes of brownstoner's readership. it's no wonder architecture in new york is such a bore.
Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 12:39 PM
I also took away Barcelona from it. I was just there over the weekend for Grupo Corpo. I wouldn't go so far as to say it's hideous, but in person, and in this picture, it does seem a bit incongruous with the rest of the structure.
Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 12:39 PM
12:39 PM is spot on the money. this pretty much goes for everybody who posts on blogs. hopefully this can be my first and . . . last posting?
Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 12:45 PM
Yes, I suppose saying I like it is judging, but I'd prefer to see it in person before I'd use words like "hideous, horrible, terrible, shame and total fucking cock rock bullshit"
Guess that's just me. Since when did giving something the benefit of the doubt become a crime?
Posted by: jerri blank at April 1, 2008 12:45 PM
i have seen in in person, stood under it, drove past it, seen it in both day and night. and i stand by my cock rock statement. this addition sucks.
Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 12:50 PM
this IS an april's fools joke - yes?
anyone nearby to confirm?
Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 12:57 PM
12:39...you got it right...brownstoner's readership are largely interested in the renovation and PRESERVATION of historic brownstone buildings (and buildings around them that are of similar vintage). That doesn't make them reactionary. It makes them focused.
If you want a whole lot of positive comments to support your view then find some modernist architectural site
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at April 1, 2008 1:00 PM
it's so obvious everyone's going to hate it, because it's g-damn ugly.
it's like they threw up on their beautiful building. shouldn't this be illegal?
Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 1:01 PM
Who even approved this crap?
I dont konw that the building even needed an awning since there is an internal central vestibule, but you would think that a historic monument would recieve a delicate addition that would be more harmonious with the Front elevation.
it even appears that the overhang would pour all of the water onto the people getting into their cars.
what the F?
Its a damn shame!
Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 1:02 PM
Why do people have to put f-ing glass dresses on our beautiful monuments?
one more crappy addition without a real architect on the job
Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 1:04 PM
Sadly, this is 100% not an april fool's joke. I can see this from my apartment.
Posted by: zinka at April 1, 2008 1:06 PM
Doesn't look that bad in a photo. I'll have to see it up close and in person.
Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 1:07 PM
I agree it looks vaguely Barcelonan and "fun" . . . Or Norman Foster circa late '80s. Yet unrefined and completely out of scale. This could have been contemporary AND elegant.
Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 1:10 PM
Yes 1:02...it certainly looks like a fair amount of water will be collected and funneled right onto the sidewalk at the concave areas of the roof. The pouring and splashing will make the sidewalk unusable
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at April 1, 2008 1:18 PM
Less is better and nothing would have been best. That building needed nothing.
Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 1:19 PM
Can't wait for the pigeon spikes!
Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 1:29 PM
How will more water spill onto the sidewalks than before? Won't it fall on the (indented drop-off) piece of road at the end of the roof?
Posted by: Biff Champion at April 1, 2008 1:34 PM
And the food court.
Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 1:34 PM
Seems to me that ANY awning would spill water onto the sidewalk.
Unless it had a gutter like a suburban roof.
Complaining about that proves that most of you will complain about anything.
Posted by: jerri blank at April 1, 2008 1:36 PM
Pigeon spikes? How 'bout bird dirt as seen thru glass?
This ranks up there with the new entrance to the Brooklyn Museum in gratuitousness!
Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 1:40 PM
I would rather have the poop (and rain) on the glass than on my clothes! But truthfully, I was wondering how they would keep the glass clean of birdie doo doo.
Posted by: Biff Champion at April 1, 2008 1:44 PM
My opinon is that it spoils the look of the beautifully renovated front of the building.
Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 1:55 PM
I guess someone could walk over right now and see if the sidewalk is unusable in the rain. Seems rather unlikely that BAM would have any interest in funnelling water on its patrons, but hey, I guess it is possible.
I like the design - but then I disagree with many who seem to confuse respect for context with recreation of 19th century streetscape. One of my pet peeves are those bishop crook streetlamps springing up all over the place, even in front of new modern buildings. How tedious! Tell me someone can't design a less clunky functional streetlight!
I went down to BAM last weekend, and was reminded again the strength of brownstone brooklyn is not just its housing stock, but the location of strong cultural institutions like BAM and Brooklyn Museum. Really a joy.
Posted by: Putnamdenizen at April 1, 2008 1:57 PM
jerri - I don't think rain run-off is a "complaint about anything", rather it is a critique of what is clearly a poor design. Awnings are intended to provide some form of cover from the elements, including rain. If they fail to do that in a reasonable manner, then they fail in their essential purpose. Check out other awnings on buildings (e.g. old Tribeca warehouses or new office buildings); they are designed to funnel wather away from the sidewalk.
Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 2:02 PM
And while of course none of you know who "Putnamdenizen" is, at least by having a monicker you can track my increasingly bizarre opinions. What truly, however, is the value of a "guest"'s opinion that is one line long? It isn't persuasive and given its anonymity isn't really a conversation.
Posted by: Putnamdenizen at April 1, 2008 2:04 PM
There is a good 3 feet it looks where one could stand under this without getting wet.
I see no difference between this or the hundreds of thousands of other awnings in the city which, yes...if you stand at the edge of it...YOU WILL GET WET.
And since some of you say you thought it should not have an awning at all, I suppose you think that nothing would give better weather protection than this?
Which I don't really think was the point, anyway.
Posted by: jerri blank at April 1, 2008 2:10 PM
Looks appropriate! C'mon philistines, it's musical, organic and creative. And it's a performance space for crying out loud. What a bunch of provincial pussies.
Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 2:27 PM
sloped glass wont have to worry about perching pidgeons.
I like the look too. The waves relate somehow to the arches in the windows.
Move on folks, nothing to see here!
Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 2:43 PM
I walked by this on Wednesday for the first time and my initial reaction was that I liked it. The waves and braces draw the eye to the doors and the fact that the canopy is transparent makes it less distracting.
I've had to wait outside BAM for friends coming from events and an awning of some kind was absolutely necessary. If anything, I'd love for it to continue down Hansen Place so there was some protection on the walk to the LIRR and subway stations.
I seriously would like to know what some who think its so ugly would have proposed for an awning. I've seen some old pictures of BAM and prior solutions were worse.
Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 3:17 PM
Anyone who buys near BAM, Atlantic Terminal, & Boerum Hill/Fort Greene will double see their apt double in value in the next 3 years. This will absolutely be the most desired place to live in Brooklyn in the next few years, especially after the Flatbush Ave is revived & the the BAM Grand Plaza is built.
Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 3:43 PM
Somewhere in Midtown, a salad bar is missing its sneeze guard.
Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 3:51 PM
Sorry to get all schoolmarmish, but I'm amazed by the fact that the comments section on this blog is almost always full of profanity and rapidfire exchange of insult. Is this really what brownstone Brooklyn is all about? I think the blog itself is really thoughtful and well done, but can't the tone be neighborly, civil, or, dare I say, kind and considerate?
As for the awning: inoffensive, but not super inspired.
Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 3:55 PM
All the trashy nouveau riche chumps on BAM's board should be sued for violating the public's view with such cheap, tasteless crap.
I've already started to hate BAM for their increasingly mediocre programming and hard-sell tactics (I think I get 5 pamphlets a week from them, and not for lack of begging them to stop). This is the mascarpone cherry on the stale deli cake that has become BAM's management.
Which is too bad, they really were a great institution there for a while. WHAT HAPPENED?
Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 4:05 PM
Shocking that Brooklyn is only a bridge away from what's arguably the world's bastion of cutting edge taste and design. Then again, even manhattan is looking like a cheesy mall these days. Maybe it's an epidemic. I did expect a little more from BK though. I thought we were supposed to be cooler. At least cooler than some Canadian suburb.
Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 4:08 PM
Reminds me of "contemporary italian furniture" circa beetlejuice dining room scene
http://www.1contemporary.com/
http://www.neointeriors.com/furniture/product.asp?id=591&cid=14
Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 4:21 PM
4:20 don't change the subject.
Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 4:22 PM
Is this building landmarked?
Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 4:44 PM
4:44: It is in a historic district, but it is not individually landmarked.
Posted by: zinka at April 1, 2008 5:01 PM
"Sorry to get all schoolmarmish, but I'm amazed by the fact that the comments section on this blog is almost always full of profanity and rapidfire exchange of insult."
You're obviously new to Brownstoner.
Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 5:40 PM
Wait, if it's in a "historic" district, i.e. a landmarked district, then i'm assuming that this had to go through LPC?
Can anyone with any experience of these procedures explain to me how something like this gets approved? I'm thinking of adding a similar tupperware inspired awning over my stoop.
Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 6:14 PM
If this were in barcelons the diagonals holding up the canopy would not be plain straight pieces, they would be gracefully curved to pick up on the wavy lines of the awning itself. juxtaposing those clunky straight diagonal braces with an undulating canopy is just BAD DESIGN. it is discordant. I agree with Sam that the diagonal struts are awkward. They look like an afterthought.
A traditional theater marquee, cantilevered from the facade, would have caught the rainwater and directed it towards the back to rain leaders and thus eliminating cascading waterfalls at the front edges, which this will produce. this is therefore a disaster functionally as well as aesthetically.
Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 6:21 PM
LOOK, Everyone...
The look goes with Chuck E. Cheese over at the mall down the block.
And yes, the BAM Opera House is supposedly landmarked.
All-in-all, it's kind of a "whatever" for me. Would have preferred a brilliant replica of a past marquis to go with the building.
I live in FG and have walked to the Q-train nearby day after day recently and not even noticed this ugly addition to the facade.
Oh, well.
I wonder how much it cost...
Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 7:28 PM
I wonder how much it cost...
If you need to ask, YOU CAN'T AFFORD IT!
Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 8:31 PM
can't wait for the thugs in the surronding projects to acid-etch graffiti on the MF glass. Now that's art!
Posted by: guest at April 2, 2008 12:55 PM
Did Fiberama do that awning??
"I'm impressed" as the as the lady (relative) says in the ad
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at April 2, 2008 1:11 PM
It actually is a landmarked building and this design was approved by the landmarks commission. I think it looks pretty good - I didn't love it at first but like the way the glass reflects the brick and detailing on the building and, while a little mid-90's, the 'waves' do in fact mirror the arches of the doorways and the large windows on the facade... Five 'waves', five doors, five windows...
Posted by: guest at April 2, 2008 1:44 PM
Totally incongruous. I am a fan of modern architecture, but Hardy's restoration of the BAM facade has been glorious and true in every other respect -- why would he tack on this random crap, and why would BAM (not to mention Landmarks) approve it?
Posted by: guest at April 2, 2008 5:22 PM
Just ghastly. As Prince Charles once commented, "it is like seeing a carbuncle on the face of a dear old friend"
Landmarks Commission has definitely failed in their duty.
Posted by: guest at April 11, 2008 4:24 PM
Another design flaw is that whenever it snows, they have to rope off the entire area under the front of the awning with cones and caution tape. I guess for fear of an avalanche.
Posted by: zinka at January 20, 2009 12:40 AM
Latest Restaurant Additions
-
Le Barricou
added November 20, 2009 12:00 PM in Williamsburg -
Der Schwarze Kölner
added November 19, 2009 12:00 PM in Fort Greene -
Oak Wine Bar & Café
added November 18, 2009 12:00 PM in Williamsburg -
Mr. Wonton
added November 17, 2009 12:00 PM in Park Slope -
Casa Rosa
added November 16, 2009 12:00 PM in Carroll Gardens -
Cousin John's Café & Bakery
added November 13, 2009 12:00 PM in Park Slope -
Elote
added November 12, 2009 12:00 PM in Williamsburg -
Miracle Grill
added November 11, 2009 12:00 PM in Park Slope -
Phoebe's Cafe
added November 10, 2009 12:00 PM in Williamsburg -
Ruthie's
added November 9, 2009 12:00 PM in Clinton Hill, Downtown Brooklyn
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.