« Atlantic Yards: Suit Filed Against MTA How Much to Live in that Slope Scarano? »

October 14, 2009

2 Lefferts Comes Into Focus, Exceeds Expectations

The developer of 2 Lefferts Place (at right) deserves some kind of medal or something. Though the property is not within the Clinton Hill Historic District, he still made every effort to build a contextual new building, down to the cornice (which actually looks a little big) and the choice of brick. Hopefully his choices will be rewarded by the marketplace. Meanwhile a few lots down across the street, at 19 Lefferts Place (photo on the jump), a developer's effort to create some kind of penthouse apartment has just marred the otherwise charming stretch of facades. Nice goin'.
Development Watch: 2 Lefferts Place Gets Windows [Brownstoner]
Development Watch: 2 Lefferts Place [Brownstoner] GMAP P*Shark
Mini Flatiron Building Coming to Clinton Hill [Brownstoner] DOB

19 Lefferts Place

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/11823

Comments

Kudos. Beautiful.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at October 14, 2009 10:02 AM

Very nice job, if I were his neighbor I'd send him flowers and banana bread.
Mr. B, are these going to be condos, or rentals? Maybe you can help out with a write-up when he gets ready to market the units.

Posted by: Maly at October 14, 2009 10:08 AM

I agree that it looks very nice and contextual but I wonder why we can't find some happy medium for new buildings between the garbage fedder specials and this kind of pure replication of the past. This offers no style or personality to reflect the time we are living in. It's a fake, what's the point?

Posted by: TD at October 14, 2009 10:12 AM

Something like this, TD? http://bk.ly/M8

Posted by: brownstoner at October 14, 2009 10:16 AM

TD, given the choice as either-or, I'll take the fake past anyday. It's in the middle of an historic neighborhood, and looks great. I think that's a personality right there, and the style complement buildings that have passed the test of time.

Personally, I think any architect who designs a building that gives a nod to the past and the surroundings, while serving the needs of the present and future, shows more talent than someone designing some space aged fantasy in the middle of a 19th century block, just to show how cutting edge they are. Maybe this building won't win any originality awards, but I bet the units will sell faster than the condobox down the street.

Posted by: Montrose Morris at October 14, 2009 10:21 AM

They've done a good job, and it is not a pute replication. I actually think the larger cornice works here, especially as you approach from St. James - it being a corner lot it really anchors it and makes for a nice entrance to the street.

We'll see with 19 Lefferts place. They built to the maximum height after the set back (50'), and it is less visible from other angles (besides the one in the photo). At the end of the day it will depend on the exterior facade finish.

Another smart think, imo, about 2 lefferts place is that it will be two duplex apartments. I would think that would provide two family size apartments of 3 BR each, which are in short supply. With a yard for the bottom, and roof space for the top unit, all in a contextual package on a nice street with close subway access, I would think that they'd sell easily.

Posted by: 1842 at October 14, 2009 10:25 AM

Yawn.

Small windows to boot.

Posted by: crimsonson at October 14, 2009 10:25 AM

Sure that's one possibility. Something so minimal isn't exactly my taste, but at least it reflects a modern sensibility. One building that comes to mind is that building on the corner of S. Portland & Hanson Place with the yellow base and the wacky metal panel that comes out the side and forms a roof above. That's cool. it fits in and it's undeniably modern. Obviously a developer would never build something like that though...

Posted by: TD at October 14, 2009 10:28 AM

I agree, MM, given the choice of fedders or this, I would take this hands down.

Posted by: TD at October 14, 2009 10:33 AM

meh. it's the Jon Benet of buildings. when a little girl dresses up like someone much much much older... it just doesnt work.

*rob*

Posted by: Butterfly at October 14, 2009 10:40 AM

Actually, the windows aren't that small, and they have three exposures, north, west and South. I think this looks great. Plus they'll be planting more street trees (3 on St. James and one in front on Lefferts Place). Frankly, looks like the best one could have hoped for in this situation, imo.

Posted by: 1842 at October 14, 2009 10:44 AM

I think if you're 'dissing this building you real don't belong on brownstoner.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at October 14, 2009 10:59 AM

Yeah, the windows should be a little larger and a little more beading detail arounf windows, etc would be nice. Otherwise I wouldn't be able to tell it was so new from the picture.
Definitely closer to 16-year-old jailbait than Jon Benet...

Posted by: Joe from Brooklyn at October 14, 2009 11:03 AM

As nice as this building looks, I doubt it would have passed LPC. LPC's microscope would point out that this building is entirely out of context with the neighboring historic buildings. The new Goggle Street Views map, shows this clearly.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=2+Lefferts+Place,+Brooklyn&sll=40.682526,-73.963437&sspn=0.007648,0.0156&g=2+Lefferts+Place,+Brooklyn&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=2+Lefferts+Pl,+Brooklyn,+Kings,+New+York+11238&ll=40.681867,-73.963442&spn=0.003197,0.005348&t=h&z=18&iwloc=A&layer=c&cbll=40.681795,-73.963099&panoid=YWP-q0ZeXsaDLWzNcB00Jw&cbp=12,157.38,,0,1.45

The lack of front stoop, out of context window elevations, minimal historic window detail, as well as the oversized and inappropriately style cornice would give LPC fits.

Alas, the building falls outside of LPC and Brownstoner has given it the seal of approval. So everything is good to go. Any ideas on what the double duplexes will sell for. Over $1 million each or under?

Posted by: Colonel Steve Austin at October 14, 2009 11:11 AM

I don't think that's true at all, dave. i have a great appreciation for historic brownstones.

Just because we can appreciate historic styles and structures doesn't mean we should copy them forever into the future. Should we build another Woolworth Building? no. It's a great building historically but not relevant in today's architecture.

Posted by: TD at October 14, 2009 11:17 AM

Why DIB - is low aesthetic standards a prerequisite here?
It looks like an old building but that is about it. It definitely does not have the detail or charm of one.

Posted by: crimsonson at October 14, 2009 11:32 AM

Looks fantastic. I hope there are high ceilings hidden inside there.

Posted by: mopar at October 14, 2009 12:25 PM

Does anyone know who the architect or builder is on this one?

Posted by: beeb78 at October 14, 2009 12:28 PM

Col. Steve - have to disagree. LPC has approved buildings like this, both contemporary and historicist. Current code requires at-grade entries, and stoops require revokable consent and have other difficulties. I agree that the cornice is wrong for what the building is trying to be, but otherwise, this is a decent interpretation of a historic brick row house. LPC has approved worse in Clinton Hill (I've seen a couple of sore thumbs, can't remember exactly where), and has approved better in CH and Fort Greene (a couple of new ones on Cumberland between Lafayette and Dekalb).

Historicist done right is good, and this looks generally good (though I'm only judging from this one photo). Personally I prefer a more contemporary approach, but whichever way you go, do it right and do it well (and pay attention to the details).

Posted by: WBer at October 14, 2009 12:33 PM

Colonel, that linked worked perfectly - thanks. I can't tell if there is a small set of stairs there, my FAVORITE entryway style. I'm not crazy about stoops.

But I agree, this is a success story and we should be uniformly appreciative.

Posted by: infinitejester at October 14, 2009 12:40 PM

1842,
The windows are actually sized to match the width of the house next door. They're not too small. The thing is, these new buildings need to have barrier-free entrances which changes the ground floor/garden level compared to the traditional rowhouse. Also, because builders have to make the ground floor higher and don't necessarily want to give any of the units lower ceiling compared one to the other, the "parlor floor" goes away in a sense and all the floors basically have the same height ceiling resulting in the same height windows.

Granted, they could have dropped the second floor windows, made them taller but I'm sure it was 1) cheaper to get all the same sized windows and 2) it's hard to use a wall that has windows down to the floor...trust me. Many people want to put a couch or table on that wall. Having parlor floor windows down to the floor can change the way you use a room. Granted, they bring in more light...but who's sitting in the parlor window in a bonnet these days embroidering and hand-sewing clothing during daylight hours to save on lamp oil?

I think they did a great job. Agreed, the cornice is too deep but it's not that bad. Does the cornice wrap around the corner?

Posted by: BrooklynGreene at October 14, 2009 12:41 PM

Yes, stoops can be a pain! Living with one, I agree...not always fun. I like the idea of a barrier-free entrance but also like the wide low steps of the Anglo-Italianate (English Basement?) rowhouses. They usually have only two or three steps...very gracious but not wheelchair accessible unfortunately. Those houses often have a tall first floor and also a high second floor like a parlor floor/piano nobile.

That'll be our next house, one with the low wide steps...the problem is, those houses are often very narrow. I guess the style came in when lots were being cut narrower as, often, infill in rows of older, wider houses.

Posted by: BrooklynGreene at October 14, 2009 12:49 PM

quote:
but who's sitting in the parlor window in a bonnet these days embroidering and hand-sewing clothing during daylight hours to save on lamp oil?

weird, cuz that's kinda sorta how i picture YOU sometimes :)

*rob*

Posted by: Butterfly at October 14, 2009 12:53 PM

BrooklynGreene, I think your comments were meant for another poster. I'm fine with the window sizes and understand the limitations with stoops, ceiling height etc.

Posted by: 1842 at October 14, 2009 1:02 PM

The cornice does wrap around the corner, and looks like it will wrap around the back of the house too which is visible from St. James as you get closer to Atlantic.

Posted by: 1842 at October 14, 2009 1:04 PM

Very large windows are over-rated. It's expensive to find shades or curtains for them and many people compromise with butt-ugly window coverings. Ever looked up at some of the new condos in Billyburg or Prospect Heights? Hideous vertical blinds in some; sheets (apparently) in others. Ugh! They are also decidedly energy inefficient: too hot in summer, too cold in winter.

This looks just fine. I might prefer something bold and modern to shake up the streetscape but if you can't afford to do modern well, this is a good alternative and an appropriate fill-in building.

Posted by: grand army at October 14, 2009 1:27 PM

The corniche is too big.

Posted by: East New York at October 14, 2009 1:51 PM

The older converible corniches are really nice. Rolls Royce made a nice car back then, not this kind of crap they sell now.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at October 14, 2009 2:04 PM

cornice

Posted by: East New York at October 14, 2009 2:10 PM

I like it. And it pleases me hugely to see the occasional nod to contextual historic building. I'm surprised at the number of votes for something "contemporary and bold" because, walking down virtually any street with construction anymore, that is what is going in, period. I often wonder how long it will take for us to resemble Berlin.

And Rob, on a side note, sometimes your comments make me positively cringe. Can we please refrain from evoking the image of a little girl who did absolutely nothing wrong, was too young to even understand what was being done to her via pageants and so on, and who was viciously attacked, raped and murdered - as a wry explanatory example of something you find distasteful?

Posted by: Nokilissa at October 14, 2009 2:30 PM

Now as that so hard?

Posted by: pfa at October 14, 2009 2:52 PM

Montrose Morris - "It's in the middle of an historic neighborhood."

I agree. I love the historic residential enclave of Lefferts Place. I'm happy that the the owner and architect decided to design and build a townhouse that is contextual and respectful of the neighborhood's rich architectural history. However, I'm utterly shocked and dismayed that Letitia James, Hakeem Jefferies, Velmanette Montgomery and CB2 are actually considering upzoning Lefferts Place from R6B (same as all residential streets in Clinton Hill and Fort Greene) to R7A (same as Fulton, Myrtle and Atlantic) to accommodate a health care developer's plan to build a mammoth senior housing and nursing center on the street.

Where are the presevationists on this issue? It took the Dept of City Planning 40 years to change the zoning law to protect the low scale character of our historic neighborhoods but now a mere two years later they are attempting to selectively reverse this much sought after protection. Where's the outrage? Where does the Society for Clinton Hill and the Fort Greene Association stand on the possible upzoning of Lefferts Place? If DCP and SBA upzones Lefferts Place, it should send a chill down the spine of everyone living in Brownstone Brooklyn.

Posted by: DoubleBlackDiamond at October 14, 2009 2:52 PM

cornice makes no sense, at least from the photo. Looks like something to hang a window-washing machine of off. Woulda looked better smaller, to come closer to the others on the block. Still, A for effort.

Posted by: denton at October 14, 2009 3:01 PM

1842,
Sorry!!! Yes, someone ELSE wrote the windows were too small and you were only responded writing that you didn't NOT find them too small...

Rob,
Well, yes, maybe I sometimes am as you picture me...although, I haven't embroidered since I was a child. I still knit though! I agree with Nokilissa regarding your comments.

David,
I thought the Corniche was set of roads running from Nice to Menton: one down by the water, one half way up the slope and another way up high haute corniche. I prefer the middle one, although the haute corniche can be nice too. The basse corniche has too much traffic.

Posted by: BrooklynGreene at October 14, 2009 3:11 PM

While it might be preferable to the Scarano edifices, what's to cheer about it? It's basically Yet-Another-Boring-Brick Building. And the cornice looks like it's about to fall off.

I'd go with the modern townhouses on 13th St any day...how come we never see them here?

Posted by: cmu at October 14, 2009 3:54 PM

Exactly CMU - it is boring as hell. They go all that trouble emulating a plain old building. And to make it worst, it is not even look that accurate since the floor level are off (probably because of modern zoning rules), cornice too large and windows that lacks the details.

Seriously, this is as bad as praising a metal-n-glass modern building.

Posted by: crimsonson at October 14, 2009 4:18 PM

BrooklynGreene...you can walk those roads. I'll wave as i drive by in my gas guzzling Corniche.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at October 14, 2009 4:34 PM

David,
Isn't that hysterical?! We actually DID walk the basse corniche once and the moyenne corniche another time. NOT, of course all the way to Menton, just around the bend to Villefranche...gorgeous, clear and sunny winter days.

We have also done our fair share of gas guzzling along that stretch! It's about as scenic as it gets.
:-)

Posted by: BrooklynGreene at October 14, 2009 5:09 PM

« Atlantic Yards: Suit Filed Against MTA How Much to Live in that Slope Scarano? »

October 14, 2009

2 Lefferts Comes Into Focus, Exceeds Expectations

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions