« Open Thread Bed-Stuy, a Harbor in the Tempest? »

September 28, 2009

The Darkness at Richard Meier's Brooklyn Tower

When Richard Meier, the architect famous for his glass and steel towers such as those on Perry Street in Greenwich Village, announced plans in 2005 for one of his signature buildings at Grand Army Plaza, the idea met with plenty of resistance from residents of Prospect Heights, Crown Heights, and Park Slope, as well as Brooklynites throughout the borough. Thus, some people might have read with relish the New York Times article profiling the building, now open ten months but on the market for much longer. Through interviews with neighbors and residents, the article leaves final judgment somewhat up to the reader: its vacancy rate proves the Richard Meier experiment in Brooklyn a failure, or a building planned in the boom years that is now struggling to fill spaces (the developers report sales of 50 percent of the units, while Streeteasy has recorded only 25), just like many other new developments, independent of architect or developer. Some residents of the sparsely occupied glass box expressed worry about the dropping values of their new purchases, while one retired couple showed more longevity of thought: "We’re living here for the rest of our lives. We know there are ups and downs in the market. It’s not a time to panic."
Glass Half Empty: Richard Meier's Brooklyn Tower [NY Times]
On Prospect Park: Is Anybody Home? [Brownstoner]
Photo via Curbed

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/11640

Comments

Not a big fan, but in the long run I actually think it is a great investment. You can't beat the view and location. Nothing on that side of the park will ever be built.

Posted by: crimsonson at September 28, 2009 9:35 AM

I don't beleive anyone who bought here in the last year or so is worried about the value of their apartment dropping. It was a nigh on certainty that the value would fall for a while. These buyers are surely longer-term. A transpartent attempt to elicit schadenfreude by the reporter?

Posted by: dittoburg at September 28, 2009 9:37 AM

"We’re living here for the rest of our lives. We know there are ups and downs in the market. It’s not a time to panic."

If only Team Bear could grasp the concept.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at September 28, 2009 9:40 AM

"We’re living here for the rest of our lives. We know there are ups and downs in the market. It’s not a time to panic."

Likelihood that a bubble buyer at Richard Meier's OPP actually believes himself when those words come out of his mouth: approaching 0.0%

Posted by: lechacal at September 28, 2009 9:45 AM

I'm not a fan either. The structure is an eyesore and the apartments are extremely over priced.

Posted by: A CrownHeightsLady at September 28, 2009 9:46 AM

It was an interesting article. It mirrors very closely what is happening in my neck of the woods at One Brooklyn Bridge Park. Both are buildings that people love to hate, both offer exceptional and expensive apartments and both have fallen victim, for the time being, to the strong recession and drying-up of credit. The high-end real estate market is on hold, that's what it looks like to me. Meanwhile apartments for the less high-and-mighty seem to be selling.
I can imagine it's no fun to buy at the top of the market and then move into a largely empty building and see your investment go down and down, no matter how philosophically you take it. I also suppose being literally in a fishbowl, doesn't help things.

Posted by: Minard Lafever at September 28, 2009 9:51 AM

One thing that this article fails to bring up is where these people get their money to buy these units. If I sold a house out on Long Island I bought for $90,000 twenty years ago and got $800,000 for it, I wouldn't care if the market went up or down either. The problem is, your pool of buyers is limited to those who obtained money through the housing bubble. These prices are a much harder sell for first time buyers who actually worked and saved the money for a down payment. And the pool of buyers who would even be able to save up this kind of money is also limited - even in New York.

Posted by: kvnbklyn at September 28, 2009 9:51 AM

I think most of the ones quoted had sold something else and moved here. So seems also sold into high market. And sounds like many had plenty of cash and maybe no mortgage anyway.
I think some folks here think whoever has the most money when you die wins.
These people spent money on a product they wanted. They are not buying to 'invest'. Buying to consume.
I think it is great addition to area...and wish I could afford one.

Posted by: Petebklyn at September 28, 2009 9:53 AM

for what it's worth, my friend who lives in the bldg told me that the story was reported back in May and to get the numbers it did in terms of percent sold relied on counting apt units in floors not yet sold, not counting those under contract on those unfinished floors and bc. it was written in May didn't have up-to-date figures.

as for design, i happen to like the looks of it. but if you don't like modern design that's your right, though it's definitely not out of context with the neighborhood... there are plenty of taller buildings on grand army plaza, and OPP is roughly the same size as most of Eastern Pkwy.

Posted by: havelc at September 28, 2009 9:53 AM

and I don't care if people can see me in any form of dress or undress.

Posted by: Petebklyn at September 28, 2009 9:54 AM

While this is not the case for all... there are a couple units that are filled with folks with BAD taste in home decor. And you can see it all! :-)

I though money bought good taste? Or at least a decorator.

Posted by: tybur6 at September 28, 2009 9:55 AM

I don't care if you are loaded and/or plan to live there for 30 years; taking a quick hit of 30% on your investment is never fun. While some in the building might not be fretting, I'm sure that more than a few spend a few moments every now and then beating themselves up.
Its probably going to take a drop to $750 sq ft to move these puppies. Looks like the first round of sales were well over $1000 and the current listings are in the $900's.
Some of the layouts are silly, like a 3 Bedroom, 3 Bath where they make 10X10 bedrooms so that everyone in the freakin' family can have a soaking tub. Quick way to make a 1700 sq/ft apartment feel like 1200.

Posted by: Brokedeveloper at September 28, 2009 9:56 AM

"We’re living here for the rest of our lives. We know there are ups and downs in the market. It’s not a time to panic."

I'd have this attitude too if I were a retiree like these guys. But I'm not and I need my home -- a substantial investment -- to make money for me at some point along the way. This article says asking prices are down about 30%. So even if prices rose 10% annually starting in year 2, I'd be flat 5 years out and losing ground to inflation. Ouch. This is the problem for us non-retirees not in our forever homes.

I like this building, but I'd only want a unit on a high floor facing Manhattan or the park.

Posted by: Ringo at September 28, 2009 9:58 AM

The couple that said, "We’re living here for the rest of our lives", are 64 and 66 years old.

Another couple(aged 80 and 84) said, "their next condo will be coffin."

Geriatric homesteaders.... That's what team bull is relying on now.

Posted by: Colonel Steve Austin at September 28, 2009 9:58 AM

The building is an egotistical eyesore, and certainly not in character with the neighborhood. No wonder it is half empty.

Posted by: henrycurtis at September 28, 2009 9:58 AM

"I think some folks here think whoever has the most money when you die wins.
"

I love this comment.

"I thought money bought good taste?"

Tybur, the saying is "money can't buy taste". But as you say, you can buy someone else's taste.

Posted by: dittoburg at September 28, 2009 10:06 AM

the maintenance on it is super expensive - especially when it's a new condo with abatement of some sort

Posted by: more4less at September 28, 2009 10:07 AM

The building does seem to appeal to the older buyers. We would not hear the end of this if the building were in Brooklyn Heights. But it does spotlight an important trend that as folks get older they don't want the hassle of brownstone living and cash in to live in a swanky condo. That's going to be a big part of the future even though many on this blog are quite ageist in their attitudes. Probably reflecting their own insecurity and naivete.

Posted by: Minard Lafever at September 28, 2009 10:08 AM

Umm... by the way, not to cast a Brownstoner advertiser in a bad light, but has anyone caught the One Brooklyn Bridge Park banner ads?

30% cut in prices... 2-bedroom unit $1.45 million --> $945k.

WOWZERS! Still crazy prices, but wozers!

(And the Toren ad, looks like those prices are shaved too, eh?)

Posted by: tybur6 at September 28, 2009 10:11 AM

Methinks that there alot of knee-jerk schadenfreude in the article and some of the posts.

The interviews demonstrates well that the target market for this building are those who already have alot of equity in their abode. Given that fact, these folks will do fine.

Question to the envious ones in this thread: which do you think represents a greater downside to your equity: holding on to your 40-year old ranch house in Great Neck (with its super-high property taxes), or trading it for a new apartment in a signature building in an up-and-coming area?

Posted by: benson at September 28, 2009 10:11 AM

Some buildings, for good or ill, become icons of their particular eras, and Meier's creation looming over the park is a fine candidate to embody the Bubble in Brooklyn; it even looks like a bubble, bloated, glassy and a bit unreal. In the age of reality TV paeans to house-flipping and crib-pimping, what could have been more emblematic than a luxury pile that's literally all windows? And now, what could be more richly symbolic than that the windows are dark and empty? Here's to the Bubble Building!

Posted by: Brenda from Flatbush at September 28, 2009 10:11 AM

at the end of the day, the meier towers in the west village work because they are tall, on the water and have floor to ceiling windows crating unobstructed views of the hudson rive, the city, etc as well as privacy above, say, the 4/5th floor.

OPP, on the other hand, is a short, squat version of those towers, and instead of being high in the sky, the floor to ceiling windows create a fishbowl effect thus eliminating privacy for the inhabitants. Instead, they require full curtains / blinds to provide a semblance of privacy -- this is the antithesis of why you would want to live in the meier building in the first place -- so the whole thing fails in my opinion.

Posted by: AJAS at September 28, 2009 10:16 AM

Judging by the condition of the street level stone ramps, the area skateboarders are loving it.

Posted by: IMBY at September 28, 2009 10:16 AM

Brenda - I like the bubble idea - its even irridescent in the pic above.

Posted by: dittoburg at September 28, 2009 10:17 AM

I like this building. Would I buy there? NO, Do I think the prices will keep going down ? YES, DO i think the people who purchased there dont mind losing hunderds of thousands f dollars in equity? DUH

Posted by: bitter_bubble_buyer at September 28, 2009 10:17 AM

This post demonstrates exactly why so many in the Brownstoner, Brooklyn, NYC community are total a$$holes.....

Really read this quote (from the B'stoner post above):

"Thus, some people might have read with RELISH the New York Times article profiling the building"

Now lets ignore taste (i.e. whether you like the building or not) and lets ignore price (i.e. whether or not you think prices are too high and want them or hope that they come down)

On what planet does anyone who is not a total schmuck take relish in the failure of building built in a signature location, in the middle of our boro????

WTF is the explanation for this - the only one I can come up with is jealousy - which is sad and pathetic.

Who benefits if the building (now completed so even if you dont like it its not going anywhere) remains empty???

Posted by: fsrg at September 28, 2009 10:19 AM

That's an interesting observation Brenda. I like the idea of the bubble building.

Posted by: Minard Lafever at September 28, 2009 10:21 AM

Brenda;

Yes, this building is certainly embalamatic of the bubble.

Surely they didn't have the prudence of those who could be convinced that 100 year-old WOODEN homes in Flatbush with antiquated mechanical systems, electrical systems bathrooms and kitchens are worth over a million dollars.

Posted by: benson at September 28, 2009 10:22 AM

FSRG;

Well said. You've hit the nail right on the head. Some of the posters in this thread are pathetic in their thinly-veiled jealousy/idiocy.

Posted by: benson at September 28, 2009 10:26 AM

I'm not sure about a "signature location". I think the location is kind of sucky. It is right on top of the most confusing and life-threatening mishmash of traffic in all of Brooklyn, perhaps in the whole city. Like most drivers I avoid the hellish traffic pattern of GAP if I possibly can. But if you live there, you can't avoid it.

Posted by: Minard Lafever at September 28, 2009 10:31 AM

Who benefits if the building (now completed so even if you dont like it its not going anywhere) remains empty???

Posted by: fsrg at September 28, 2009 10:19 AM

am sure there are others who would like to live there but cant afford it currently so if it sits vacant for a while, that might create an oppty for further price chops - to point where they can afford to buy it someday

Posted by: more4less at September 28, 2009 10:32 AM

I agree, that circle is scary in a car let alone on foot. And I'm from a land of roundabouts.

Posted by: dittoburg at September 28, 2009 10:38 AM

I really like this building. To me, this is a succesful integration of a very modern building in an older neighborhood. The prices were stratospheric, but then they all were 2 years ago. Maybe it's high profile makes it emblematic of all that ails the real estate market. I am sure that as selling prices slowly come down to meet buyers, OPP will become the trophy property it's meant to be. It was interesting to see the demographic forces at play, with grandparents moving back to the city to live close to children/grandchildren. It's interesting to see that wealthier people get to stay in cities while middle-class are pushed out to the suburbs.

Posted by: Maly at September 28, 2009 10:38 AM

fsrq, I don't relish a building remaining empty in one of the only truly *iconic* locations in Brooklyn. However, the fact that this property is having serious trouble pleases me. Not because of the current tenants and their loss of equity etc.

Why it pleases me is because it's a WAKE UP call.

Architects and investors and developers might begin to understand that "build it and they will come" is not the best approach to life. And perhaps, just perhaps, $600k - $1.5 million average price points is a bit ridiculous... not in general, it's ridiculous when ALL new buildings and major renovation/rehab projects are priced in this range.

Posted by: tybur6 at September 28, 2009 10:38 AM

There is a reason other than jealousy, fsrq. greed. If the developer would have priced these things to move when they came on the market -- or a year ago when it was clear nothing was moving -- everyone would have been better off: owners, developers, brooklyn. But they didn't and now they're stuck. I feel for the people who bought at those inflated levels. But I don't feel for the developer who bought that land for next to nothing and still wanted the moon. Remember the last big article about this building in the Times? How they wanted to attract Manhattan buyers so they opened the sales office in Manhattan? Foolish.

Posted by: Ringo at September 28, 2009 10:38 AM

FSRQ - what does it mean for a building to "fail"? That a developer loses on the bet where he probably had no real skin in the game in the first place? When a bank takes a big hit on their balance sheet when the developer defaults?
The units WILL get sold some day, either by the developer at drastically reduced prices or by the bank, at even more drastically reduced prices. There are buyers, just not at these prices.

Posted by: Brokedeveloper at September 28, 2009 10:39 AM

Benson:
ROFL!!! No one could ever have convinced us of that, including the city, which has sent us hilarious statements to that effect from the tax assessor's office. (I imagine those statements may make us look a bit less Trump-like next year.)We never bought our Flatbush pile of wood as an investment; we just needed a place to live (or, as George Carlin put it, A Box for Our Stuff. Its "market value" will slosh along in the wake of whatever tide is created by things like the Bubble Building, and we are pretty philosophical about that after 20+ years. If it goes further up, or precipitously further down, we will still have what we started with: A Box for Our Stuff. So, for that matter, will the people in the Bubble Building (and they'll never have to invest in anything more than Windex and full-length curtains...)

Posted by: Brenda from Flatbush at September 28, 2009 10:42 AM

Not sure why there is so much emotion here. I'm not jealous of this building. I wouldn't live there if the prices were 50% of what they are now, but that's just my preference. My only observation is that the right price point for these units is significantly south of where they started marketing and somewhere south of where they are now. It's just an observation of market dynamics. People who bought at bubbly prices have a loss that is extremely unlikely to be recouped (in real terms). They can couch their response to this in empotional terms and explain why they are at peace with it, and that's fine, but the fact remains they have lost a bunch of money. No big deal to me and great if its isn't a big deal to them.

Posted by: lechacal at September 28, 2009 10:54 AM

Benson's10:22 comment [Surely they didn't have the prudence of those who could be convinced that 100 year-old WOODEN homes in Flatbush with antiquated mechanical systems, electrical systems bathrooms and kitchens are worth over a million dollars] was meant to be humorous [or sarcastic], but taken literally, it's perfectly true--they DIDN'T have all that much prudence, or enough common sense to realize that emperor Meier had no cloths. Even without the bust this mediocre building wouldn't have done all that well at the ludicrous asking prices.

Posted by: Bob Marvin at September 28, 2009 10:58 AM

I wouldn't want to live there but the only people I know who bought in OOP sold a gorgeous PS brownstone on a named street at the height of the market. They're in their mid-40s w/ kids going to college. They bought OOP high when it first went on the market but have since negotiated what they feel is a good deal & are still happy they did the switch.

Posted by: Arkady at September 28, 2009 11:00 AM

FSRQ - what does it mean for a building to "fail"?

Remain vacant for extended periods of time, unable to generate cash flow to support proper maintenance and upkeep; detract from the social and economic vitality of its neighborhood.

Look I was the 1st to say the original askings were ridiculous and would never be met - but now the building has cut prices by what appears to me to be close to 50%, and it still hasnt sold...the building risks being put into a death spiral (not enough sales to allow financing, no financing = no sales)....

Sure the building isnt going to fall down tomorrow - at some point and and at some time it will be filled but that ignores the YEARS that it risks sitting as black mark on the neighborhood.

Instead of viewing everything through your sad little glasses of class warfare, greed and envy....why not consider that a developer took a multimillion dollar gamble on our boro, with the idea of erecting a premiere building (not everything has to be affordable housing) where one hadnt been built for almost 100 years (yes all those admired buildings running down Eastern Parkway were built during previous bubbles as monuments to their "greedy" developers too") A building, if too expensive at least dedicated to architecture (dont all you always complain about the Fedders buildings and say - "why cant they get a good architect?") and making a statement as to the vitality and prominence of Brooklyn.

This failure is not one to celebrate (and no one is asking anyone to through a charity benefit for the developer), it is sad and depressing (even if in the long run their will be some nice glass apts to be had at a more reasonable price) - and trying to gussy up your schadenfreude with excuses about "greed" and "life lessons" is a denial only Freud could penetrate.

BTW - "Signature" (as in Signature location)doesnt mean "great" - it means unique, distinctive and prominent - which this building clearly meets.

Posted by: fsrg at September 28, 2009 11:00 AM

Ugly building with glass the wrong shade of green; but if you're buying, it's the inside that counts. Maybe the interior design puts people off.

Are there enough retired-age people to buy all the new apartments in this City, the age group that is most suspicious of the quality of construction?

It seems that young families are still transient and are saving up for the wooden playset in the backyard of their suburban McMansion. These developments aren't attracting enough potentially permanent (20+ years) residents that give a sense of neighborhood and make Brooklyn, Brooklyn.

Perhaps the realtors should advertise to European companies to buy for their temporary US employees.

Posted by: FiredUpReadyToGo at September 28, 2009 11:01 AM

I certainly wouldn't live there either for a variety of reasons. Including the location right on the traffic maelstorm and the fact that I am not an exhibitionist.
But the building is perfetly nice to look at from the outside, which is more than I can say for the Forte or the Toren or the Livingston.

Posted by: Minard Lafever at September 28, 2009 11:04 AM

In a possibly related story: I'm pretty involved with two private schools in brooklyn, and I'd guess as high as half of all students have at least part of their tuition paid for by the grandparents. There have been a few people who have left the schools this year (or rather, who didn't return) for financial reasons and 100% of those families have mentioned the hit the grandparent generation has taken in this economy. So while the equity loss may not mean much to these residents, this "non trickle down" economy may hurt in other ways.

And I'm sure this isn't only tuition but down payments and other big ticket items young families sometimes got from the folks. You may say, "not my folks!" and I could say the same, but if the hypothetical family who wants to buy my hypothetical home no longer has this $$, it hurts me too.

Posted by: Ringo at September 28, 2009 11:06 AM

"Are there enough retired-age people to buy all the new apartments in this City?"

I fit that demographic and while I imagine I could sell my house for enough $$ to buy an apartment at OPP (at least at the reduced prices) there's no way I'd ever consider doing so.

Posted by: Bob Marvin at September 28, 2009 11:06 AM

This building has always interested me in terms of being a bellweather for the ultra high end condo market. There have been a number of times that frothy sales in this building have been held up as evidence of a continuing bullish market, mostly because they continue to show up in the last weeks biggest sales section. Then there was some major price cuts which wasn't clear if it was alte in the sales cycle deals or real trouble. Interesting to get a fuller picture of the building.

Posted by: Ledbury at September 28, 2009 11:12 AM

"Remain vacant for extended periods of time, unable to generate cash flow to support proper maintenance and upkeep; detract from the social and economic vitality of its neighborhood."

Again, IMHO, the vacancy is only a short term problem driven by the asking prices, which will only come down so far until the developer throws in the towel. I don't think it will get to the point where residents of the building are vacuuming the hallways and shoveling the sidewalks.

As you point out in your well written post (I am serious here), in the long term the greed behind the building will result have resulted in an iconic structure that would not have existed without the greed. That's fine with me. In the meantime, I am not crying any tears for the developer or the bank. I am also not concerned that the vacancy will have any lasting impact on the neighborhood.

Posted by: Brokedeveloper at September 28, 2009 11:12 AM

"BTW - "Signature" (as in Signature location)doesnt mean "great" - it means unique, distinctive and prominent - which this building clearly meets."

Fair point.

Posted by: dittoburg at September 28, 2009 11:13 AM

Ringo is 100% correct. I owudl say most of the first-time buyers in our building got significant (if not 100% cash) help with the $400K+ starter apartments. That is not so much the case -- so those $450K one-bedrooms are getting big price cuts. And the tading up is at a stand-still.

Posted by: BH76 at September 28, 2009 11:14 AM

I seriously considered buying an apartment in this building. But even for a person like me, who has owned a brownstone in Park Slope for over 20 years and who has accumulated big equity, the apartments seemed overpriced. The whole place has a certain zen-like spareness, which is an aethestic opposite from the parquet, woodwork, decorative plaster etc of a brownstone, which might be a welcome change of pace or might seem too austere to someone who has grown accustomed to victorian excess. I'm not sure. With prices seriously reduced, I think I'll take another look.

Posted by: probopop at September 28, 2009 11:16 AM

probopo - its the pseudo-ascetic aesthetic.

Posted by: dittoburg at September 28, 2009 11:22 AM

FSRG once again hits it out of the park with his post. I'd like to add a few more points.

I find it amusing that every announcement of a new "affordable" housing development in the boro is met with effusive, uncritical praise on this site, even though:

-these developments are heavily subsidized by the state government, at a time when it is careening towards insolvency.

-the private developers who put up these homes make a quite good profit (and good for them, I say).

-many of these developments are- shall we say - banal in apearance.

Yet, when private developers put their own money at risk to add to the high-end or middle-income stock of housing in our borough, there is a troubling precedent on this site to wish them ill and to mock the architecture (unless they replicate an 1860 era brownstone). What can account for this phenomenon? Does anybody think our borough was better off when it consisted mostly of poor and working-class folks,like in the 70's?

As I said on another thread today, methinks there is some envy at play.

Posted by: benson at September 28, 2009 11:26 AM

BH76... "$400K+ starter apartments"

I wish I was part of this world where those two things make sense together!!

Posted by: tybur6 at September 28, 2009 11:33 AM

How funny --all the emotion is now on the side of panicky buyers. Rest assured, I say with relief, and no envy, that the building is ahistorical, ugly, the developers have miscalculated the cycle and to make good have lied about vacancy rates, the idea that the Times story was written and fact checked in May is silly, and thankfully the problem of owning an overpriced and excrescent white elephant in a down market is not mine. Now what part of that is envy?

Posted by: Whuh at September 28, 2009 11:34 AM

The lack of trade-ups will take years to work its way through prices. It's kind of like the person at the front of a slowly moving line just stopping and everyone else bumping into the back of the next person. Two thing I can say with confidence:

1. It will take years for the removal of consistent equity gains and consequent trade-ups to work its way through NYC housing prices. People are still talking about how many people out there have so much built up equity that they just don't care about prices

2. Once that process is done the kind of upwards price pressure created by consistently rising housing prices will be very difficult to get started again.

Posted by: lechacal at September 28, 2009 11:36 AM

loved your post, Whuh.

I thought the article was interesting but I can't beleive poeple love living in a fishbowl. Didn't a foremer thread talk about how the apartments were selling on one side of the building and not the other? I'm not envious of anyone who wants to live in the Meier building- I certainly wouldn't. I think the developer overestimated the worth of the building and the livibility. I rather like the contrast it presents to the buildings beside it but it could have been much better although at night it does look lovely.

Posted by: bxgrl at September 28, 2009 11:48 AM

Look, the building's a clunker, it's only a third sold. Those are facts, its not class warfare. Millions for a condo in Prospect Heights was a bit of a stretch to begin with, and of course it hit on the wrong side of the cycle.
As a result I do not expect to see a string of new glassy Meier buildings springing up any time soon.

Posted by: Minard Lafever at September 28, 2009 11:55 AM

I really like this building, and I'm also a person that enjoys classic Victorian-style residential architecture. I'm sure this place will always have a loyal group of those who hate it (based at least on this thread), but I'm willing to bet that in time it will be looked upon as something of a landmark.

I thought the most interesting residents mentioned in the article were the 84- and 80-year old couple; the guy is a holocaust survivor who lived for a year in a hole dug in a forest in Eastern Europe. They are clearly living here because they like the place. As the wife points out, she doesn't care much about the apartment's decrease in value because her next condo "will be a coffin." Pretty cool people.

Posted by: East New York at September 28, 2009 12:37 PM

ENY- I was thinking, anyone who spent a year in a hole in the ground would love a place that is all windows. My last apartment was as dark as a tunnel- I hated it with a passion and now I have a place with huge windows front nad back and I hate to close the curtains at night. Still, I would be so uncomfortable living in a fishbowl.

Posted by: bxgrl at September 28, 2009 12:46 PM

This is a story about the failure of the market- not the building. All condos, luxury or not, are experiencing the same fate.

This building has 95% of the quality of the Perry Towers in Manhattan at 50% of the cost. Because it much lower in cost, it is more accessible to Brooklyn residents (retirees, etc), not just celebrities. That is a pretty cool thing!

The market will bounce back quicker than we think. The developers should be applauded for investing their time and money in this borough. BTW, they could have built a generic brick building for asking prices not much lower.

When the building is filled with 'real families' who decided to make brooklyn their home (and not celebrities who bought for investment), this building will shimmer with life and energy that the towers in Manhattan will never achieve.

Posted by: brklyn architect at September 28, 2009 12:47 PM

"ENY- I was thinking, anyone who spent a year in a hole in the ground would love a place that is all windows."

Well, I'd think he'd love ANYWHERE else in comparison, but I catch your drift. Yeah, it's a fishbowl, but there are curtains, you know. Problem solved.

Posted by: East New York at September 28, 2009 12:51 PM

I do not like this building. There's nothing wrong with it intrinsically, but it is out of context. If Meier (or the developers who hired him) was so set on building in brooklyn, then downtown or waterfront is the place for this (or maybe Long Island City in qns). But they tried to trade on the Park Slope cachet, and hey, it didn't work, because people think of brownstones, not glass boxes, when the think about Park Slope.

Posted by: Bolder at September 28, 2009 1:19 PM

building was over-priced because of being in PH and not PS. school district/crime/etc.. implications.

however, it is fabulous. was sitting in the backyard of some restaurant on Vanderbilt with this amazing view of the building and could not stop staring at it.

at reduced prices, people will eventually buy remaining units and have a good long term investment.

it's the opposite of stiffling victorian ugliness, and will appeal to tons of people no worries.

Posted by: wine lover at September 28, 2009 1:31 PM

eny- true. except you'll be spending thousands on curtains for that expanse, and one person even mentioned having to get extra thick blinds (whatever that means). I wonder how green this building is in terms of heating and cooling?

(so benson by your lights isn't winelover also suffering "envy" since he has stated he hates "stifling victorian ugliness?")

Posted by: bxgrl at September 28, 2009 1:36 PM

Living right on top of the deathtrappy-ist intersection in Brooklyn: no thanks.

Posted by: infinitejester at September 28, 2009 1:41 PM

I don't get the attitude that there is something morally offensive about living in a glass modern building in Brooklyn. That repeated use of "glass houses" carries an implicit judgment, like "These people are exposing their shame!" Like the market is giving them a well-deserved comeuppance for their hubris. And I say this as someone who lives in a 120-year-old house.

It's a freaking apartment building, not the Tower of Babel.

Posted by: basementalist at September 28, 2009 1:41 PM

I would love a view of (into) this bldg if only the demographics were a bit (well maybe a lot) younger.

Posted by: Petebklyn at September 28, 2009 2:12 PM

Anyone arguing that this building is overpriced because it is in PH rather than PS should just stop. The plaza is the plaza. If it was overpriced, which it was, it is because they priced it too high during pre-construction for apartments that, because of the their size and luxury, wouldn't move quickly even in a bubble. Then the bubble burst and they were stuck. I love this building. It is beautiful. I have some friends who bought an apt. there. The floor to ceiling windows makes the views in even the smaller apartments on lower floors, hers is about 1600 square feet (which is huge for any other building but not huge for this one apparently), amazing. She got in after the bubble and paid I think about $750/sq.ft on a lower floor. When you walk into the apartment (furnishings aside as she is still unpacking) it looks like a trophy apartment. This is what people are paying for. Interesting layouts and beautiful views. They want Manhattan luxury in Brooklyn's more relaxed setting. Wow, I sound like a broker!

Posted by: JENNYFROMTHEBLOCK at September 28, 2009 2:13 PM

OH and for those of you who think looking at GAP and prospect park is not amazing... think again. It is like transplanting yourself to Paris. Her apt. is amazing!

Posted by: JENNYFROMTHEBLOCK at September 28, 2009 2:16 PM

"except you'll be spending thousands on curtains for that expanse, and one person even mentioned having to get extra thick blinds (whatever that means)."

I'm sure you're right. But I'm sure anyone who can afford an apartment in this building can afford some pretty fancy curtains/blinds, etc. Good question though on how "green" the building is.

Posted by: East New York at September 28, 2009 2:33 PM

Many/ most "geeen" buildings - as in LEEDS certified - are predominatly glass-

Glass allows lower heating and lighting costs and when the right kind is used can offer almost as much insulation as more solid walls. Not to mention Glass is a totally renewable resource.

Posted by: fsrg at September 28, 2009 3:11 PM

Thanks, fsrg

Posted by: bxgrl at September 28, 2009 3:41 PM

"Instead of viewing everything through your sad little glasses of class warfare, greed and envy....why not consider that a developer took a multimillion dollar gamble on our boro, with the idea of erecting a premiere building (not everything has to be affordable housing) where one hadnt been built for almost 100 years (yes all those admired buildings running down Eastern Parkway were built during previous bubbles as monuments to their "greedy" developers too")"

Well, lawdy, I never thought I would find myself somewhat aligned with fsrq on anything, but I guess this building is one of those things that brings out the contradictions in my politics and preferences. There's no question that I'm a lover of old buildings and am a historic preservationist at heart, but I also love Richard Meier's modern glassy high rise structure sticking up its nose on the GAP as it looks over the Park. And, while I'm seriously pro-affordable housing, I also get that, in a capitalist society, rich folks have the right to sink their roots somewhere -- including the borough of Brooklyn. Finally, unlike Bob Marvin (with whom I'm almost always in agreement) I confess that I'm entertained by the fantasy of trading in my much beloved century old rowhouse on Prospect Park for a great single level, apartment with floods of light and modern conveniences IN On Prospect Park when it comes time for retirement.

Bottom line -- I find myself departing from standard positions and preferences when remarkable, exceptional people, things, conditions, etc. come into the picture. In this case, I think Richard Meier's "bubble building" is an exceptional piece of work by a gifted architect that introduces a whole new vibe of contemporary art and architecture at Grand Army Plaza without diminishing the beauty or historicity of the scene that is already there. So if even with market correction and the eventual sale of my home it's more likely than not that I'll never be able to afford the claim of a grand residence in OPP, I certainly don't begrudge the people who can and do. (BTW, having lived through a housing market bust of the late 80's, I do believe this current down cycle will also correct and vindicate the investments of those who can wait out the storm.) As a matter of fact, I look forward to seeing OPP when it's fully sold and inhabited and completely lit up at night. Beyond the aesthetics of such a sight, it's likely to also be an indicator of an economic upturn for all.

Posted by: Brooklynista at September 28, 2009 4:20 PM

well said Brooklynista. Although there are other modern lass buildings I would have preferred to this one, I don't begrudge anyone their ability to live in OOP. I think the acrimony came from the assumption that if you said anything against the building or developer it was out of envy, not because of the facts.

Posted by: bxgrl at September 28, 2009 5:06 PM

Brooklynista, I was about to type a much less literate version of your second paragraph. Thank you for saving me the trouble :-) Except that I too will throw my hat in with those who find it a gorgeous building.

The NYT photog who took that shot made love to it for sure. Note how he spent time, apparently early on a weekend morning, to keep the cars out of the photo as best as possible.

ML said early on:
"It mirrors very closely what is happening in my neck of the woods at One Brooklyn Bridge Park."

Funny, I was thinking the same thing, perhaps for a different reason. My reasoning in comparing the two buildings is that you have two classes of apts in the same building. In the case of BBP, you have the grand apartments overlooking the harbor, and then you have the crapola overlooking the BQE. In the case of OPP, you have the higher apts overlooking the park, that will certainly not be like 'living in a fishbowl'. Then you have the smaller apts overlooking someone's terrace.

As far as a bubble, I disagree this is symptomatic of one. This is a glorious building. In a bubble, you can sell anything to anyone. What's representative of a bubble is these 4-6 unit shitholes thrown up all over the South Slope, Billyburg, PH, and many mostly or somewhat 'marginal' locations. They will never sell at any price, post-bubble. They will end up as decent working class rentals.

This building will always be owner-occupied, and will sell out faster than most people realize. Especially after that article and its free publicity.

Posted by: denton at September 28, 2009 5:24 PM

Bxgirl, I am laughing over your transposing of the building's name acronym from OPP to OOP. Guess that tells us what you think of this structure. LOL! But, not to worry, girlfriend, while I have my doubts about the motives of some, I think I know you well enough to also know that the point of your comments was not to throw stones against people who live in glass houses. :-)

Posted by: Brooklynista at September 28, 2009 5:31 PM

Given that the focus of this article about price chops and failure of units to sell, I'm not so sure it is going to be very valuable as free publicity.

Posted by: DitmasSnark at September 28, 2009 5:42 PM

whoever said that the plaza is the plaza and that it doesn't matter whether one is on the Park Slope side or the Prospect Park side, needs to take a refresher course in real estate 101 and buy the textbook "location, location, location, for dummies".

Posted by: Minard Lafever at September 28, 2009 6:57 PM

Oh lord, brooklynista- I really did that by accident (my oops!) Damn that Freud! And really, I admire people who can live in places like this- I love all that sunlight and the views but I need brick. OPP is too open for me but I think the elderly Holocaust couple ar wonderful and anyone who invested that kind of money into this building shouldn't have to lose by it. I hope it sells out and I hope its not a mistake. And it does look beautiful all lit up at night.

Posted by: bxgrl at September 28, 2009 7:44 PM

Well, there's finally something that my friend MM and I disagree about. Sorry, but I think Meier.unlike your namesake, is more fashionable hype than great architect. Not that I begrudge anyone the right to live there if they so choose, as much as I dislike the building.

Posted by: Bob Marvin at September 28, 2009 11:21 PM

The surprising thing about the article is the demographic of many of the buyers - aging pensioners. With all that glass, they probably thought it was a nursing home. I'm sorry. Forgive me.

Posted by: Crownlfc at September 29, 2009 1:08 PM

« Open Thread Bed-Stuy, a Harbor in the Tempest? »

September 28, 2009

The Darkness at Richard Meier's Brooklyn Tower

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions