Register to leave a comment, or log in if you already have an account
Malymis- not sure where you were going with that post but certainly publically Hasidim don’t worry about the aestetics. In their homes, however, they do care very much. CHP made a good point about architectural beauty and money. Beautiful detail and finishes cost big bucks. And while even a minimalist building can be well designed, the price for a good architect/designer is also much higher. As far as the balconies- I actually don’t mind them because they add some detail to the front of the building. Face it, anything that covers up the truly ugly facade is a plus. But why should we point out the less than stellar designs of buildings built by Hasidic developers? Look all over- money can’t buy taste. All the fedders buildings? A lot of nightmarish visions are going up all over the city. I doubt the Hasidim are the only group putting up ugly buildings (Look at what Gehry wants to do0 perfect example.)
Menlch
You totally didn’t understand my comment.
I am actually happy that they are here they make Brooklyn unique and great. And I was not trying to be sarcastic. I really like this neighborhood and I am happy for them to stay.
They building are quite bad I mean truly third world quality and it is not any anti-Semitic statement it is just a fact.
So please don’t overreact with your false anti anti-Semitic and watch your language
Hey malymis, I understand your grief when you look at those pictures, and you realize that the Jewish community is expanding, and there are more and more Jews around, well my only solution to you is probably that you should move to Iran or some other terrorist or fascist country. [EDITED BY ADMIN]
These buildings look shitty period.
Religious, traditional or whatever it does not meter.
Hasidic Yews simply are not interested in aesthetic, they don’t care, they drive minivans, have million children all wearing the same cloths and live in prison like buildings. They have other concerns and priorities and this that’s why I consider this hood to be so cool. It has a lot of charm and extremely unique character unseen anywhere else.
Can anyone explain to me bars in the windows? Is it security, protecting they “gold†from burglars or simply it protects they children from falling over it must be hard to keep eye on ten children
Hey, Crouchback, you’re preaching to the choir here. I agree that ethnic makeup, religion, whatever, is no excuse for an ugly building. I think it’s a shame that it’s a rare developer, indeed, who gives a flying fahootie about aesthetics in lower income buildings. You’re right, it does matter to the greater public. (At least it should.) But in the long run, since most developers know that the people who are on waiting lists for these buildings are not going to, or cannot afford to, balk at living in an uninspiring, or even butt ugly building, why bother? They are just going to get the most bang for the buck out of basic utilitarian housing.
Beauty has become the property of the rich, because they are the only ones who can afford the extra to pay for it, and it has gotten to the point where they are the only ones even offered a choice. The rest of us are supposed to settle and shut up. Historically speaking, this is one of the signals the decline of a civilization. Hmmmmmm. Something to think about, there.
CHP, thanks for attempting to enlighten me. However, I do think that the facade of a building is (or becomes) a public asset. It follows then that critiquing (and certainly regulating) a buildings exterior would also be within the public’s purview. I refuse to accept that stating that a building (or a series of buildings built for a specific community)is not beautiful is a commentary on the people who live in them. One of the main ingredients for ugliness in the buildings showcased on this forum is the balconies. There are other ways to accomodate this design aspect without compromising on the quality of the public side of the building.
Crouchback, everyone is usually very busy trying not to offend. These buildings are built by and for the needs of a very insular community that consists of very large families, and has certain other cultural and religious requirements, the festival of Sukkot being only one of the more outwardly visible. Since being in the community itself, and being within walking distance of the synagogue is very important, and since new land can’t be created, it is only logical that the buildings are going to go up wherever they can. The Hasidic community is in the position of having community members with money who become developers for their own community, and build according to their special needs. They are not building for anyone else here. Most of the families that live in these buildings are not wealthy,either, and many are on food stamps and other forms of public assistance. Having ten kids is really expensive.
So we are basically talking about low to middle income housing for a specific group. That being the case, should we be surprised that the aesthetic quality of the facades is uninspiring, at best? No one seems to be too interested in providing a modicum of architectural beauty to those who can’t pay for it. That truly is a shame, and lessens all of us.
A good portion of the new classics in architecture being built along Bedford Avenue are done by developers with ties to the Hasidic community. The staggered balconies are done so as to permit light and sky for each owner, which, in turn, I think, is tied to the Sukkot tradition of living in a temporary structure during the period of the festival. The structure must be outdoors (hence the balcony) and the roof of the structure must be something that grew from the ground and was cut off, such as tree branches, corn stalks, bamboo reeds, sticks, or two-by-fours. The roofing material must be left loose, not tied together or tied down. The roofing material must be placed sparsely enough that rain can get in, and preferably sparsely enough that the stars can be seen, but not so sparsely that more than ten inches is open at any point or that there is more light than shade (hence the staggered nature of the balconies). So, if you drive around Williamsburg or parts of Crown Heights around September-October, you will notice these wooden structures.
What I don’t understand, is why the designers do not put the balconies in the back of the building where the unesthetic aspect of the balconies won’t be noticeable.
In any event, brace yourselves for a lot more of these buildings.
Malymis- not sure where you were going with that post but certainly publically Hasidim don’t worry about the aestetics. In their homes, however, they do care very much. CHP made a good point about architectural beauty and money. Beautiful detail and finishes cost big bucks. And while even a minimalist building can be well designed, the price for a good architect/designer is also much higher. As far as the balconies- I actually don’t mind them because they add some detail to the front of the building. Face it, anything that covers up the truly ugly facade is a plus. But why should we point out the less than stellar designs of buildings built by Hasidic developers? Look all over- money can’t buy taste. All the fedders buildings? A lot of nightmarish visions are going up all over the city. I doubt the Hasidim are the only group putting up ugly buildings (Look at what Gehry wants to do0 perfect example.)
Menlch
You totally didn’t understand my comment.
I am actually happy that they are here they make Brooklyn unique and great. And I was not trying to be sarcastic. I really like this neighborhood and I am happy for them to stay.
They building are quite bad I mean truly third world quality and it is not any anti-Semitic statement it is just a fact.
So please don’t overreact with your false anti anti-Semitic and watch your language
Hey malymis, I understand your grief when you look at those pictures, and you realize that the Jewish community is expanding, and there are more and more Jews around, well my only solution to you is probably that you should move to Iran or some other terrorist or fascist country. [EDITED BY ADMIN]
These buildings look shitty period.
Religious, traditional or whatever it does not meter.
Hasidic Yews simply are not interested in aesthetic, they don’t care, they drive minivans, have million children all wearing the same cloths and live in prison like buildings. They have other concerns and priorities and this that’s why I consider this hood to be so cool. It has a lot of charm and extremely unique character unseen anywhere else.
Can anyone explain to me bars in the windows? Is it security, protecting they “gold†from burglars or simply it protects they children from falling over it must be hard to keep eye on ten children
Hey, Crouchback, you’re preaching to the choir here. I agree that ethnic makeup, religion, whatever, is no excuse for an ugly building. I think it’s a shame that it’s a rare developer, indeed, who gives a flying fahootie about aesthetics in lower income buildings. You’re right, it does matter to the greater public. (At least it should.) But in the long run, since most developers know that the people who are on waiting lists for these buildings are not going to, or cannot afford to, balk at living in an uninspiring, or even butt ugly building, why bother? They are just going to get the most bang for the buck out of basic utilitarian housing.
Beauty has become the property of the rich, because they are the only ones who can afford the extra to pay for it, and it has gotten to the point where they are the only ones even offered a choice. The rest of us are supposed to settle and shut up. Historically speaking, this is one of the signals the decline of a civilization. Hmmmmmm. Something to think about, there.
CHP, thanks for attempting to enlighten me. However, I do think that the facade of a building is (or becomes) a public asset. It follows then that critiquing (and certainly regulating) a buildings exterior would also be within the public’s purview. I refuse to accept that stating that a building (or a series of buildings built for a specific community)is not beautiful is a commentary on the people who live in them. One of the main ingredients for ugliness in the buildings showcased on this forum is the balconies. There are other ways to accomodate this design aspect without compromising on the quality of the public side of the building.
Crouchback, everyone is usually very busy trying not to offend. These buildings are built by and for the needs of a very insular community that consists of very large families, and has certain other cultural and religious requirements, the festival of Sukkot being only one of the more outwardly visible. Since being in the community itself, and being within walking distance of the synagogue is very important, and since new land can’t be created, it is only logical that the buildings are going to go up wherever they can. The Hasidic community is in the position of having community members with money who become developers for their own community, and build according to their special needs. They are not building for anyone else here. Most of the families that live in these buildings are not wealthy,either, and many are on food stamps and other forms of public assistance. Having ten kids is really expensive.
So we are basically talking about low to middle income housing for a specific group. That being the case, should we be surprised that the aesthetic quality of the facades is uninspiring, at best? No one seems to be too interested in providing a modicum of architectural beauty to those who can’t pay for it. That truly is a shame, and lessens all of us.
P.S. I am not certain why it is culturally insensitive to note that a building has poor design esthetic? Can someone enligthen me?
A good portion of the new classics in architecture being built along Bedford Avenue are done by developers with ties to the Hasidic community. The staggered balconies are done so as to permit light and sky for each owner, which, in turn, I think, is tied to the Sukkot tradition of living in a temporary structure during the period of the festival. The structure must be outdoors (hence the balcony) and the roof of the structure must be something that grew from the ground and was cut off, such as tree branches, corn stalks, bamboo reeds, sticks, or two-by-fours. The roofing material must be left loose, not tied together or tied down. The roofing material must be placed sparsely enough that rain can get in, and preferably sparsely enough that the stars can be seen, but not so sparsely that more than ten inches is open at any point or that there is more light than shade (hence the staggered nature of the balconies). So, if you drive around Williamsburg or parts of Crown Heights around September-October, you will notice these wooden structures.
What I don’t understand, is why the designers do not put the balconies in the back of the building where the unesthetic aspect of the balconies won’t be noticeable.
In any event, brace yourselves for a lot more of these buildings.