« Let's Talk About Commenting 20 Bayard's Been Rental Since February »

March 27, 2009

Horror Show Friday: 8 Dikeman Street

141 Dwight Street
Rather than resorting to Craigslist for some bottom-of-the-barrell action, today we present you with this gem at 141 Dwight Street in Red Hook that we spotted last Sunday morning on our way to Fairway. Couple interesting facts about the place: 1) It's a commercial building and 2) it was designed by Henry Radusky. GMAP




Posted by Brownstoner at 11:00 AM | Comments (27)
Categories: Architecture, Development, Red Hook

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/9015

Comments

I think it's lovely.

Posted by: tybur6 at March 27, 2009 11:02 AM

Reminds me of the contents of my daughters diaper this morning.

Posted by: billyboomer at March 27, 2009 11:06 AM

These must be luxury offices, right? Any prices hints?

Posted by: KHuebbe at March 27, 2009 11:06 AM

Can we PLEASE discuss this with a SERIOUS tone a la the new commenting "guidelines?"

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at March 27, 2009 11:10 AM

kinda blah...

The problem with Redhook is that many of the suspect developers who have gotten their hands on a lot of land over there are then turning around and creating these bland buildings.... however most of the housing stock in Redhook are dilapidated little ramshackles or old brick/frame houses that haven't been taken care of. I wish more regular people could commit to that part of brooklyn and buy these old houses and restore them to their glory.

Posted by: gemini10 at March 27, 2009 11:12 AM

Granted, it's kind of ugly, but IMO there are many MUCH uglier buildings being built these days.

Posted by: Bob Marvin at March 27, 2009 11:20 AM

No Fedders, No balconies, nice roof deck- this is not the worst building ever.

Posted by: Karka at March 27, 2009 11:27 AM

The fact that ugly buildings are sprouting up all over Red Hook is due to the special district X zone which allows residential atop of industrial uses (see the truck bays). This zone text was passed as part of the Fairway ULURP and was supposed to appease some community stakeholders by allowing more residential not higher buildings. Instead of a one-story industrial building or 6-story resident (R-6), you get these fugly buildings. I would prefer a taller apartment buildings.

Posted by: mare at March 27, 2009 11:28 AM

gemini10 - From what I understand, the loss of above-ground trolleys in the 50s and 60s pretty much presaged Red Hook's present dilapidation. It's just a pain in the ass to get there, so it has a much harder time attracting people than similarly "edgy" areas like Williamsburg, Bushwick, Sunset Park, etc that all are on major subway lines.

Posted by: cwbuecheler at March 27, 2009 11:44 AM

If Redhook ever gets a streetcar, the electric/communications infrastructure is buried, and Brooklyn rids itself of another commercial area... then the properties that spring forth will be the $2+ million single-family houses that everyone thinks are "gorgeous"

Until then, maybe a business will be able to have an assembly and distribution shop or office space without having to be in New Jersey... and folks that are just looking for a home and "only" make $60-80,000 can actually get something. (Maybe)

Posted by: tybur6 at March 27, 2009 11:47 AM

Horror show?? - The building is attractive.

Is there anything you like?

Posted by: fsrg at March 27, 2009 11:52 AM

By the way - was my comment OK? Since Mr. B just posted a purely aesthetic commentary about a building that is perfectly suited to being in Red Hook (a mixed residential, commercial, industrial neighborhood)... or is calling out this bullcrap not up to snuff?

Posted by: tybur6 at March 27, 2009 11:53 AM

I don't hate this. Then again, I think I live in a Radusky building so maybe my aesthetic has been dulled. What sort of commercial tenants are they going to get over there though?

Posted by: Heather at March 27, 2009 12:26 PM

This lot is not included in the MX rezoning that allowed Fairway and the apartments above to go through. This lot is zoned M1-1 and should be strictly commercial/industrial.

Posted by: rmd at March 27, 2009 12:26 PM

I love RedHook so much and Tyburg - I think if the city would fund a rail-line/Lightrail that connected to the F - then I think that neighboorhood could boom. That is the most prized real estate in all of brooklyn, yes am sure people can argue about the projects etc - but I am talking the land that sits closest to the water and or views of NYC& Harbor...

Posted by: gemini10 at March 27, 2009 12:48 PM

I thought the BQE killed Red Hook. The Red Hook commute is not as bad as people pretend. Once you get over the concept of changing trains or doing a bus/train transfer, you are fine. My morning commute to Union Sq takes 20-25 minutes from Van Brunt. The B61 is fine leaving Red Hook, but awful returning. But as someone else was observing yesterday, the return commute is often a more mellow experience. I love having many many options to get home; almost any train to downtown Brooklyn and then the bus from various points, or a relaxing walk from Carroll St. It is actually much more pleasant than when I lived in Carroll Gardens and was at the total mercy of the F.

Posted by: mshook at March 27, 2009 12:56 PM

gemini10 - The other concern with red hook is that it floods fairly frequently. The city would need to put in some infrastructure to deal with that, in addition to building the light rail. At that point I agree, Red Hook could become very desirable.

I seriously wish that parts of Brooklyn could go back to having streetcars. A) I think they look cool and B) they'd open up a LOT of neighborhoods that suffer from distance-to-subway issues like inner Bed Stuy, Red Hook, and similar. Buses just aren't a good enough solution due to traffic and such.

Posted by: cwbuecheler at March 27, 2009 1:00 PM

mshook - "The Red Hook commute is not as bad as people pretend. Once you get over the concept of changing trains or doing a bus/train transfer, you are fine."

THAT CONCEPT=bad commute; no way around it - sorry

We do not need streetcars - horribly inefficient - we need buses with dedicated lanes and the syncronization of some lights with the busses.

All a street car is; is a bus with a dedicated lane but can only ride on rails.

Posted by: fsrg at March 27, 2009 1:20 PM

fsrq, not being stuck on one crowded train = good times in my book.

Posted by: mshook at March 27, 2009 1:26 PM

fsrq - If I thought people would respect dedicated bus lanes, I'd agree ... but I don't think they will.

Posted by: cwbuecheler at March 27, 2009 1:33 PM

I love the though of street cars but imagine VanBrunt St with one.

Posted by: cggirl at March 27, 2009 1:43 PM

This is veering off-topic (i think with the new rules), but I think I might have started it by mentioning streetcars.

Streetcars are NOT buses. The track itself is something of permanence and something that business and community can grow up around. A bus route is NOT this. A bus route can shift and be erased from existence over a weekend.

By it's nature, a streetcar requires more planning and community involvement and urban planning decision... it can't just be "tried out" like a bus. Also right-of-way is much narrower for tollies/trams/streetcars -- i.e., takes up less space.

You should visit cities with trams/trolleys -- cities that do them well, Berlin, Paris, Amsterdam, Stuttgart, Portland (small-scale, but effective), etc. etc. New York City could learn a lot!!

Has anyone ever taken a bus up an down Flatbush Avenue from, say, Atlantic down to Kings Highway?! PLEASE tell me how a streetcar/tram would not be a hugely TRANSFORMATIVE addition to that major corridor!? (And don't tell me there are subways that serve the same route... if that was the case, then the busses wouldn't be packed and getting trapped in traffic -- car respect trains, they don't respect busses.

Posted by: tybur6 at March 27, 2009 2:24 PM

I have to say, when we drove by this building one evening to visit a friend who is renting in the building over Fairway (GREAT views!), I made my disgust clear to the husband unit. This building is kind of ugly from the street. I'm sorry.

The keystones over the windows are ridulous and the wide windows are ugly and a bad proportion...especially considering the okay little wood clapboard house next door.

With that proportion of window, they might as well have gone modern. The "medical office" rental bldg look, and in those colors, is a minor eyesore. Who needs more eyesores?

Posted by: BrooklynGreene at March 27, 2009 2:34 PM

Is that marble on the first floor???

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at March 27, 2009 3:43 PM

It looks like a La Quinta Inn stacked on top of a loading dock. Totally out of context, but I've seen worse.

Posted by: gracias at March 27, 2009 8:57 PM

tybur6 - The fact that Bus routes can be adjusted and changed - demonstrates their efficiency. (and not sure how permanent Brooklyn trollys proved to be anyway) As for the rest of the problems you describe in terms of traffic and cars not respecting buses - it is not a problem with the bus but a problem with the bus lane....
it is far far far easier and cheaper to develop anti-car provisions (like offset heights, barriers, and enforcement mechanisms) for a dedicated bus lane - then it is to lay track, electric and signaling for trolley cars (billions less in fact). As for business and community development - both would develop far more easily without having to pay the tax on the enormous debt required to build an unnecessary new rail system, and would thrive just as well by people transported quickly and efficiently by buses as they would by people transported by streetcars.
Again the issue isnt the vehicle (or they type of wheels it has); it is just a matter of dedicating a portion of the surface roads for traffic-free for mass transit. Buses operating in dedicated lanes offer ALL the advantages of streetcars at far less expense.

Posted by: fsrg at March 27, 2009 8:58 PM

Gracias... totally out of context with WHAT? You've been to the architecturally consistent neighborhood called Red Hook? Or is the context you speak of based purely on the house next to it?

fsrq - i guess we can agree to disagree... but I (and the thousands of folks like me) hope our side wins... eventually.

Posted by: tybur6 at March 27, 2009 9:25 PM

Post a comment

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

Latest Restaurant Additions