and clinton hill used to be part of bed-stuy, so wow, was bed-stuy that big that it comprised all of its current area plus present-day clinton hill and fort greene?

Posted by: Marcy2Hollywood at August 2, 2006 3:53 PM in response to Meltzer/Mandl Release Deets on 174 Vanderbilt

sorry for the multiple posts, my computer is having issues and it freezes.

Posted by: Marcy2Hollywood at July 28, 2006 5:59 PM in response to The War For Brooklyn

my issue with dreadnaught's posts is that he has a strong viewpoint, which is fine, but he takes it to the next level and first assumes and then demands that everyone agree with his position. he attempts to browbeat anyone who doesn't hate AY, etc. Obviously from reading plenty of comments in this thread and others not everyone feels exactly the same as D-naught does (a good thing). I noted his comments bordered on the fascist because he has a singular vision which he attempts to impose on all others. Luckily, he is not in a position of power. I don't particularly care for Ratner, but I shouldn't have to put up with someone trying to FORCE me to hate him.

Posted by: Marcy2Hollywood at July 28, 2006 5:58 PM in response to The War For Brooklyn

Dreadnaught, your posts are damn near fascist. I don't really care one way or the other about AY, but its hearing people like you, who are so fanatically opposed to the project and want to control every aspect of a neighborhood, that makes me hope the project succeeds. What will you put all of your time and effort into opposing (in vain) next?

Posted by: Marcy2Hollywood at July 28, 2006 3:26 PM in response to The War For Brooklyn

dude, you need to calm down. your whole tone is too nasty. the problem you are having is that (thankfully) not everyone in NYC or Brooklyn views things the way you do. it is possible to read the facts about AY and simply not reach the same alarmist/reactionary conclusions you have reached. don't get me wrong, everybody doesn't have to love AY, but your reactionary response is offputting. you would like to control every aspect of a neighborhood or possibly a borough and have it fit your aesthetic. i like south portland ave a lot. i don't think that every building is a beautiful building on the block. a beautiful modernist townhouse that uses similar materials and makes allusions to its surroundings would not be unwelcome in my book.

back to AY, i don't really have a problem with a very dense area.

and the eminent domain issue is not a real big problem from what i can tell. if you owned a property in that area and you sold to Ratner, you did VERY well for yourself and quite possibly got rich. again, i'm not an AY advocate, so please don't paint me that way. i just don't a priori hate the project the way you do. and i will say this, if it would serve to increase the property values at one hanson place, then i am partial to its success.

Posted by: Marcy2Hollywood at July 27, 2006 5:35 PM in response to Civil War Era Gem Facing Wrecking Ball

I'm not sure what to think of AY yet. My initial reaction a couple of year's ago was that it would be bad. But now I'm not so sure. That is not a pretty area over there, as it stands now. I don't particularly like Gehry's Net's stadium design. I especially don't like all the signage and the Net's Logos everywhere. I do think his residential towers will look cool. I think Metrotech and the Atlantic Center (which were of course Ratner developments) are architectural abominations and I hope the talent of Gehry can prevent something being built that resembles those two disasters.

All in all, I am not against AY. However, what I am eagerly anticipating is Richard Meier's new building at Grand Army Plaza and I hope to see more projects like that and like the modernist Fort Greene townhouse I mentioned above interspersed with the architectural gems from the past. In short, I don't think the best possible Brooklyn would be today's Brooklyn frozen in time. I think a lot of Architectural progress can still be made, without losing respect for architectural achievements from the past.

Posted by: Marcy2Hollywood at July 27, 2006 5:05 PM in response to Civil War Era Gem Facing Wrecking Ball

Bx2Bklyn, I respect what you're saying. I really think the problem with much contemporary design is that corner's are cut to maximize profit margins. I believe there was a significant amount of 18th, 19th and 20th century architecture that was poorly and cheaply made and has not survived. What has survived, and is appreciate, has tended to be what was of the best quality.

Dreadnaught, you say:
"How about buildings that:
a. use natural and earth friendly materials?
b. incorporate/factor in the surrounding area...do you really think"

Many modern buildings perform both of these functions far better than older buildings ever could. Green architecture is a contemporary movement. 19th century B'sotnes and Victorians are definitely not the most eco-friendly, energy efficient buildings in NYC.

And in terms of incorporating natural surroundings into the design, this was an inherent goal of the modernist movement. look at the work of Frank Lloyd Wright (Fallingwater?) for evidence of this, or look at Neutra in Los Angeles. Indoor space flows into Outdoor. This was also achieved to an extent with Taniguchi's new design for MOMA. I don't understand where you were going with this one...

I think we're confusing bad buildings that happen to be recently constructed with Modernist buildings and quality contemporary design, lumping all of them together as one, which is unfair.

Posted by: Marcy2Hollywood at July 27, 2006 3:14 PM in response to Civil War Era Gem Facing Wrecking Ball

I guess we just will have to agree to disagree, dreadnaught. However, regardless of what I think, the world is going to continue to modernize. All things being equal, if I had the millions to live in a pristine Brownstone or a new Meier or Herzog & de Meuron apartment, I'm really not sure what I'd choose (if I did live in the b'stone, though, the interior would not be a period restoration. I want Cappelini in the living room). However, I'm glad that in 2006 there is that choice in NYC. We don't dress as though we're living in 1851, we don't want our kitchens to be of the 19th century, or our cars, our homes don't need to be anachronistic either. I don't understand why architectural progress is not more warmly embraced here as it is in other parts of the world.

Anyway, as was pointed out before, this is not going to be a Herzog and de Meuron condo complex, I'm sure, so it is lamentable. You spoke of differing philosophies though dreadnaught and whatever the merits, I don't believe your philosophy is what the future has in store for NYC.

Posted by: Marcy2Hollywood at July 27, 2006 2:22 PM in response to Civil War Era Gem Facing Wrecking Ball

For the record, I spend a lot of time on South Portland Ave in Fort Greene and absolutely love brownstones. They're beautiful. But there are many forms of beauty. You cannot tell me this is some ugly crap you would hate to live in!: http://www.40bond.com/hdem.html

Brooklyn needs some ugly crap like this!

Posted by: Marcy2Hollywood at July 27, 2006 1:33 PM in response to Civil War Era Gem Facing Wrecking Ball

For the record, I spend a lot of time on South Portland Ave in Fort Greene and absolutely love brownstones. They're beautiful. But there are many forms of beauty. You cannot tell me this is some ugly crap you would hate to live in!: http://www.40bond.com/hdem.html

Brooklyn needs some of this!

Posted by: Marcy2Hollywood at July 27, 2006 1:33 PM in response to Civil War Era Gem Facing Wrecking Ball

Dreadnaught,

Of course I have been to UN. Many of the interior spaces are even more remarkable than the exterior, btw. In regard to this building there are security concerns and other planning issues that affect that whole eastside of NYC and make it a difficult place to navigate. I have to say that you have a superficial understanding of Modernism to make the comparisons you do. You cannot lump Metrotech (or the WTC) in with a Mies Van der Rohe designed building (The Seagram's) or a Niemeyer/Corbusier collaboration (The UN). There's simply no comparison; those buildings are as different from Metrotech as this Italianate mansion in Clinton Hill is from an Italianate McMansion in New Jersey.

The Brownstone areas in BK are indeed pleasing to look at and live in, but it is not the only pleasant way to live. Brooklyn has only recently begun to catch the eye of truly cutting edge contemporary architects. The Richard Meier building will be the first that I am aware of to be built by a capable modern architect. And while I don't know that Ghery's stadium design really fits in BK, there is no doubt that he is a first rate architect as well. His work in LA is perfect for the surrounding areas.

I have not read this book by Tom Wolfe, but I am very familiar with the Bauhaus movement, which has produced many, many worthy buildings around the world. Bottom line, in a modern world, we need a modern design language. It is inappropriate in 2006 to build as we built in 1906 or 1856. And while it is valuable to preserve some of these buildings (this one I agree should be preserved) it makes no sense to continue to ape these designs in contemporary construction.

Have you ever seen a building desinged by Herzog and de Meuron or Tadao Ando? You cannot generalize about all Modern (which is a period from the past now too, btw) and contermporary design.

Posted by: Marcy2Hollywood at July 27, 2006 1:20 PM in response to Civil War Era Gem Facing Wrecking Ball

Well, I definitely agree that its a shame to rip down something that is well-built and historically significant only to build in its place a mundane structure, which i'm afraid will definitely happen here. I do disagree, however, that much of the modernism from the 50's, 60's and 70's has not withstood the test of time. Its a matter of taste, and unfortunately NYC is not filled with nearly as many outstanding examples of modernism as some other cities are fortunate enough to boast (like L.A. and Chicago) but the Seagram's building in midtown or the UN building on the eastside, have always been and are still inherently beautiful buildings. The past was great, but things must continually move forward. I think I've gotten slightly off-topic here because we all agree that in this instance the old structure is most likely preferable. I guess I just hijacked the thread a bit to try to point out that we have a tendency to overvalue older structures and antiquities and shun progress, IMHO. Change is inevitable, but what I think really should be done is that we should demand (and enforce) higher architectural standards in new construction so that all of Brooklyn doesn't become Scarano's banal vision, or lack thereof.

Posted by: Marcy2Hollywood at July 27, 2006 12:37 PM in response to Civil War Era Gem Facing Wrecking Ball

It is not inherently problematic or "bad" to demolish old buildings and build new structures. in NYC circa 2006 a mid-19th century Italianate mansion is not necessarily the "best" structure in which to live. We need to not only fetishize past architectural and design achievments, but also be forward-thinking. The only problem I see is that the developer will most likely not seek to create something modern that is equally beautiful or thoughtfull as what already exists here. But new buildings like what Richard Meier is doing over at Grand Army Plaza for instance should be embraced. Older buildings are not inherently better buildings.

Posted by: Marcy2Hollywood at July 27, 2006 11:51 AM in response to Civil War Era Gem Facing Wrecking Ball