Bigger But Not Better in The Slope
Looking at this kind of before-and-after is a good way to get depressed. The transformation of 561 11th Street was noticed and mused upon by the blog Save The Slope: We have no idea if the new building is great architecture or not. Personally we prefer the old building. One wonders, though, what has really…
Looking at this kind of before-and-after is a good way to get depressed. The transformation of 561 11th Street was noticed and mused upon by the blog Save The Slope:
We have no idea if the new building is great architecture or not. Personally we prefer the old building. One wonders, though, what has really been gained in this process? The new building is not dramatically larger than the old one. The old building could have been a 1- or 2-family; the new building appears to be a 3-family. Perhaps we have managed to squeeze another couple of people into Park Slope, which is great. Probably someone has made a lot of money in this transaction, or hopes to. But the one certainty is that we have lost a bit more of Park Slope’s historic fabric and unique “sense of place”.
Bummer.
11th Street: Another One Bites the Dust [Save The Slope] GMAP
If you want to tear the little old brick building down, fine. (I wouldn’t personally, but that’s just me, and if it’s not landmarked, then to each his own.) But why is it seemingly so difficult to build a NICE looking building in its place. That’s the part I don’t get.
> the garage which looks to be from the 1920s.
And in 70 years, somebody will be fighting to preserve this significant example of “Late Aughts” design.
Good point DIBS.
> I’m glad I don’t live across the street from it & have to see it every day.
As pointed out above, this is next to a parking garage. And lets be honest, the old house was rather unremarkable.
Nothing of any real significance was lost, and two more housing units gained.
“It already looks dated and not in a pleasing historical way.”
Yeah, it looks like Soviet-era Eastern bloc “architecture”.
I agree with Save the Slope. (surprise!)
I don’t think it’s as much a case of the world ending because this new building is here, but the precedent this building represents. It is precisely this reason why landmarking an entire neighborhood is the only way to be sure you won’t wake up tomorrow to find one of these things next door to you. I will be the first to say that landmarking, per se, can be overkill. But since we don’t have anything in place to provide guidelines in what can be built that can complement our old neighborhoods, then I’m with Save the Slope. Many cities have such guidelines, it’s time we did too.
Looks like quite a bit more sq footage was added. This is a 25′ wide lot where old house was not the entire width(horsewalk on side) and probably not very deep. And perhaps not so great inside to begin with. Someone sold for close to $1M.
Now looks like new bldg total (4 condos) is listed close to $4m. and probaby 4000 sq ft.
First point…. when many of the widget prices go eeew dumpy little house can’t be worth anything…they forgot that the LAND is worth quite a bit…based on FAR.
And what do you think this new bldg cost to construct (plus demo of old)? – Even if developer is dreaming at the $4m price tag…Is still going to make mucho $$$.
2nd… If this were middle of intact row of houses I would cringe a bit. Based on bldg next door doesn’t seem like that. New building looks fine to me.
TownhouseLady…My thoughts exactly!
Why can’t contractors build properties that at least similair to those on the block? Why such ugly and poorly contructed buildings?
If you don’t want this sort of thing then get your block landmarked. Not all blocks are worthy of landmarking. Apparently this one was not.
That said, if you took the time to look at Streetview, the little frame to the right is quite nice and although it’s not an 1880-1910 block, a lot of the early 20th century buildings on this street are interesting, including the garage which looks to be from the 1920s.