Building of the Day: 250 Joralemon Street
My camera setting were wonky, but it is atmospheric. The BOTD is a no-frills look at interesting structures of all types and from all neighborhoods. There will be old, new, important, forgotten, public, private, good and bad. Whatever strikes our fancy. We hope you enjoy. Address: 250 Joralemon Street, between Court and Boerum Name: Brooklyn…
My camera setting were wonky, but it is atmospheric.
The BOTD is a no-frills look at interesting structures of all types and from all neighborhoods. There will be old, new, important, forgotten, public, private, good and bad. Whatever strikes our fancy. We hope you enjoy.
Address: 250 Joralemon Street, between Court and Boerum
Name: Brooklyn Law School
Neighborhood: Downtown Brooklyn
Year Built: 1994
Architectural Style: Post-Modern
Architects: Robert A. M. Stern & Associates
Landmarked: No
Why chosen: The eminent architectural historian and writer Francis Morrone calls this building the best building built in Brooklyn since World War II. He liked it so much, he put a picture of the Law School on the cover of his book, An Architectural Guidebook to Brooklyn. Hey, who am I to argue? It really is a fine building, and the more I look at it, the more I like it. Stern had to squeeze his building in an odd shaped lot between the Neo-Classic Municipal Building and the rather uninspiring Modernist 1968 Law School building, which was set way back from the street with a gated plaza. Now this is where you separate the great architects from the hacks. Instead of ignoring the vastly disparate styles of both buildings and throwing up an institutional glass and steel ego finger building, Stern designed his building to be set back midway on the lot, allowing the viewer to catch a peek of the Municipal Building, a nice two sided view of his building, and the 1968 building in front. He used light colored stone to transition between the white marble of the Law School and the grey limestone of the Muni Building. The facades are full of windows of various sizes and configurations, and balconies with colonnaded enclosures, all functional elements for the school, as well as visually interesting, a transition of light as well as mass, and a nod of tribute to the buildings around it. The 1968 Law School building is modernism without context. Stern’s 1994 Law School building, built by a post-modernist master, calls attention to itself, not by dazzling us with steel and glass, but by the majesty of its graceful, yet strong, presence on the street. Mr. Morrone, you’re preaching to the choir.
Photo: Property Shark
Babs – not sure you read my posts to often cause I rarely rant against landmarking individual buildings and am often in favor (unless the landmarking is being used for some ulterior purpose – like what was tried at the Burlington Coat factory or Wards Bakery)
Nor am I saying that the old BLS building should have been landmarked (it cant be now it is only 2/3 a building) just that it would have had its proponents. It certainly wasnt the ugliest modern building ever built and railing against a pedestrian plaza in this use case seems a little over the top too.
as to be_rude – your point is well taken but creating an attractive “growth” doesnt change the fact that it is a growth….and there is no reason why the growth couldnt be of the modern variety to at least make the growth sort of fit.
I vividly remember when the building was being built and I thought – they are going to re-skin the old build…right????? or they are going to put a matching building one day on the East side of the plaza eventually…right???
Anyway the long and short of it is, while it might not be entirely Stern’s fault, I dont know how people (not saying you) who yell about “context” like it is the 11th commandment can praise this monstrosity.
I think there are many admirable qualities to this building / architectural solution, but “best building built in Brooklyn since World War II?” Just limiting myself to downtown Brooklyn and post-modernist office buildings, I think One Pierrepont Plaza is superior.
If this is really the best building built in Brooklyn since World War II, then it just proves Minard’s point that our borough is “used to bottom of the barrel scrapings for half-off”. It’s fine, but I’ve always been surprised that FM put it on the cover.
Oh, and BTW, I’m not swayed by “big names”.
I dislike most of the work of another postmodern luminary, Robert Venturi, and don’t necessarily love everything Stern’s done. But this specific building by Stern works for me…
I agree that the 1968 building is pretty cool – and I’d love to see it landmarked. I’d also love to hear fsrq’s rant about how landmarking is so overused, etc., which you know he would spew forth, if such a thing were ever proposed.
fsrg, your second point (4:16) is well taken, but therein lies the crux of the whole thing.
The school decided to use this sliver of the plaza to expand, and once that decision was made — to twist your words a bit — the space was by definition going to be difficult. But the results didn’t have to be a disaster, and I do think Stern rose to the challenge well.
Put another way, once the decision to develop that plot was made, what would you do differently?? A replicating white & black modernist addition? Erm, nope, then you’d have an awkward L-shaped modern building that would be all out of proportion. A pure glass FU tower? Maybe, but I think MM described pretty well how this result is far better.
Given my general aesthetic sensibilities, 9 times out of 10 I’d agree with you that fusing some sort of postmodern (or other style) addition onto a modernist bldg would create an awkward wart. But we’re not talking about a tower-in-the-park type building here; this is NYC and opposing styles sit next to one another practically everwhere. Thus, in both the broader context of NYC and in the context of the two, specific adjoining structures on this plot, I think Stern succeed.
I like the “rather uninspiring Modernist 1968 Law School building”.
Feel meh about the newer one.
Btw – “the space” wasn’t awkward or difficult – it was A PLAZA put in the front of a law school (thereby creating a quasi-campus – i.e. probably the only legitimate use for a set-back plaza I can think of).
And by using this sliver of the plaza they by definition were going to create an architectural disaster – mission accomplished.
Give me a break, people are so influenced by a big name (Robert M Stern).
This is the most out-of context building EVER built in modern history.
They took this post modernist building and literally fused it onto the side/front of a modern building (that btw had it not been given this wart would likley now or soon be considered a landmark) – now instead you have 2/3 of a modern building with a growth of a post-modern one attached.
And the whole thing looks stupid, awkward and unfinished.
I seriously do not want to hear another word about context from anyone praising this abomination.