Building of the Day: 386 Halsey Street
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: 386 Halsey Street, between Marcus Garvey and Throop Avenues Name: 2 family house Neighborhood: Bedford Stuyvesant Year Built:…
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: 386 Halsey Street, between Marcus Garvey and Throop Avenues
Name: 2 family house
Neighborhood: Bedford Stuyvesant
Year Built: 2003
Architectural Style: Pseudo-Mediterranean?
Architect: TSL Architects and Planners
Landmarked: No
Why chosen: Bedford Stuyvesant can easily boast that it has some of the best preserved row house architecture in New York City. Currently, there is a concerted effort by preservationists, homeowners and community leaders to get vast swaths of that very large community protected by landmarking. This is why. Once this address belonged to the first of a group of very fine Italianate brownstones, the rest of the row still stretches unbroken and undisturbed, halfway down the block. By the 1970’s, when the tax photo was taken, this brownstone was boarded up and abandoned, and was now owned by the City. The building was torn down in 1991, the lot, like many others in Bed Stuy, was allowed to lie fallow, until this two family house was built in 2003. I’m sorry, but they could have done better. The original house was 20×40 on a 100′ lot. This house is 14×69, the missing width taken up by a parking corridor. The house itself is just odd. The side windows are certainly necessary, since the house is now so long and narrow, but the sizes are stingy, as are the front windows. The upper doors and the small balconies are superfluous, especially if this is a two family. The top floor set back and roof garden are probably the best features of the house, but should have been done at the rear of the house for the best curb appeal. The ornament in cement is not working either. There certainly is no context here. It seems to me that the city should have simply rehabbed the brownstone, easily making a double duplex like this is. Too many of Bed Stuy’s empty lots were carelessly built on. There are many examples of decent in-fill houses across the city, but most of them seemed to have missed being in Bed Stuy. Landmarking can’t come soon enough.
(Photo: NYC Records, via PropertyShark)
The balconies of 386 can be seen at the end of the row to the far left.
Mr. La Feverish, in my golden years, it is a gratification to know that I have at least one area of expertise.
Have you ever considered the possibility that Wrey Mould is the Victorian Gothic equivalent of Morris Lapidus?
Chew on that for a while, buster.
Mr. Gris,
LOL. OK, I concede your superior knowledge of all things artless, awful, and naked. No worries, you have a wide field.
Mr. LaFevre: In its original, TSL Architects state, fresh and unblemished, I liked it. Endearingly, artlessly, nakedly, wonderfully awful – just like many of our now-favorite 19th and 20th century Holy Landmarks.
However, now it is in a ruinated, blemished condition. Now, I like ruins – they almost invariably improve the original work. (“A noble wreck in ruinous perfection!†– Byron)
However, this ruination, which is really just cosmetic, is solely because of cheap. Cheap construction, cheap materials, too cheap to last for its appropriate term of years. Cheap never looks good.
Christopher Gray
What if it had been landmarked but was falling apart; i.e. it had to be demolished because it was a hazard? Would it have been cost effective to build a new house that met landmarks requirements? I doubt it.
Plus, I agree with the minority here – it’s a cute little building to me. I also suspect that the cutaway for parking was a requirement not an aesthetic choice, but I could be wrong.
We’re all convinced it’s ugly. It’s not demanding attention or mucking up the entire block. It’s kind of like the girlfriend or boyfriend you had who was kind of unattractive, but was still funny or pleasantly gawky.
What am I saying? Bulldoze this sucker.
you all need to mind your own business. did you put money up to build this? no. did you buy it? no. do you live in it? no. i still think it’s a cool little building.. maybe i like ugly or something, i dont know.
*rob*
Or rather, the width and scale of the building.
Incredible. In any case, I remain convinced that the problem here is mostly the width of the building.
but it shows a certain panache.
-I think it shows a certain pain-ache
whoever built this should write a book “how to build a house from things that fall off a truck”