« Streetlevel: New French Restaurant Coming to W'burg Today on the Forum »

October 29, 2008

Development Watch: 272 19th Street

272-19th-st-1008.jpg
We'll give you one guess who's developing this four-story, six-unit building in the South Slope/Greenwood Heights. You're right! It's another BK Developers building, which looks a heck of a lot like many of the other buildings these folks have erected in infill pockets throughout the neighborhood. Hey, if you like this kind of thing, looks like it'll be ready any minute. GMAP P*Shark DOB




Posted by lisa at 2:25 PM | Comments (19)
Categories: Development, South Slope

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/6929

Comments

How much more could it possibly cost to make this thing even slightly contextual? A few grand for a cornice? That lack of imagination in new builds never ceases to surprise me.

Posted by: Frederick Law Homestead at October 29, 2008 2:28 PM

I would be less upset if they weren't charging shitloads of money for these apartments.

Posted by: Santa at October 29, 2008 2:33 PM

FUGLY

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at October 29, 2008 2:36 PM

By the looks of it I'm guessing the whole place can concertina away into nothing. Which is handy.

Posted by: dittoburg at October 29, 2008 2:40 PM

Yuck. Poor South Slope...

Posted by: ctinbklyn at October 29, 2008 2:43 PM

They splurged by not putting in feders.

Posted by: bayridgegirl at October 29, 2008 2:46 PM

Brownstoner, and all brownstoner readers-

Do any of you have a solution to these kinds of demo/quick-rebuilds?

Or will you all be content to make snide comments on brownstoner while the architecture of brooklyn as you like it disappear?

It's peculiar that developers and the city think that tearing down most of the south slope if just fine, but that many people on this site (who probably live in much nicer nabes) think that this area should not be torn down. Why is it? What unites our complaints? Can't we work together to find some sort of argument to save what it is we all agree on?

New York now takes for granted (mostly) the value of brownstones. I think there is a nascent awareness in this site that the woodframe houses are also inherently valuable, as are the streetscape in these areas.

However, I don't think anyone has yet made a compelling landmark or business argument to save them. Clearly it can be done. It's hard to imagine, but people felt much the same way about blighted old federals and brownstones not so long ago.

What can we do?

Posted by: Park Place at October 29, 2008 2:49 PM

I don't see a single fedders unit sticking out of it. Can't these guys get anything right?

Posted by: pfa at October 29, 2008 2:50 PM

"I would be less upset if they weren't charging shitloads of money for these apartments."

Fret not, Santa. It doesn't look like many of these South Slope travesties are selling.

Posted by: SnarkSlope at October 29, 2008 2:50 PM

Hey, on the upside it does look to be flush with the adjacent building.

Posted by: serpentor at October 29, 2008 3:01 PM

Looks like it was made out of Legos. Well, the cheaper legos sets that don't have any of the fancy add-ons.

Posted by: broadwayron at October 29, 2008 3:07 PM

park place - Arson!

Posted by: troll at October 29, 2008 3:08 PM

OK.

From an architectural standpoint, it seems that the following easy to follow steps would make this or any building ok:

1. Avoid fedders and other really cheap methods of construction.
2. Make the building flush w/ adjacent buildings (presuming they are row houses).
3. Add a cornice that lines up w/ rooflines of adjacent buildings.
4. If the building is going to be taller than its neighbors, set back the upper floors 10 ft or so.

Posted by: slick at October 29, 2008 3:34 PM

Let's be honest everyone... other than the cornice, what EXACTLY is so amazing about the building next door that makes this new construction a "travesty" ??!!

The place next door is the same... just older. Why is that OK?

Posted by: tybur6 at October 29, 2008 3:52 PM

well the white outlines on the windows, windows that go up and down instead of open outward, etc. i dont know. i can sorta see both sides of the argument with this example tho

-rob

Posted by: PitbullNYC at October 29, 2008 4:51 PM

OK, so maybe this one does rank as a travesty. It's just sad, bland and charmless. When I think travesty, I think of this slice of sweet condoliciousness:

- http://www.brownstoner.com/brownstoner/archives/2008/02/athena_prices_a.php

Posted by: SnarkSlope at October 29, 2008 5:14 PM

This architectural beauty from the people who brought you typos on their home page web site...this is your chance to own a "prefect home." Yep. That figures.

Posted by: samlucas at October 29, 2008 6:18 PM

Hey, this new building is actually much better than most. It blends in. The windows look nice. If every infill building was this good, we would be lucky. Also, FYI, developers of infill buildings on the West Coast (Palo Alto, Portland) and in Florida have started building new buildings to look like old ones. Arts and Crafts cottages are extremely popular. There are even fairly convincing fake Victorians with gingerbread galore. The biggest difference is that on the insides, they have combined family rooms-kitchens, which apparently no buyer can be without. Naturally, these spec infill houses have smaller footprints than a McMansion and more expensive details and built-ins. It's quality over quantity.

Posted by: mopar at October 30, 2008 1:38 PM

Its tough to legislate esthetics but I think there are a few good ideas out there. First, some sort of contextual zoning would help. Something short of landmarking but that would require new buildings to be built in similar scale and materials to their neighbors. I think the idea of requiring some sort of cornice, prohibiting the use of metal, vinyl or stucco siding, limiting curb cuts and garage doors at street level would help.

Posted by: JoeBushwick at October 30, 2008 2:10 PM

Post a comment

Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.

Latest Restaurant Additions