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
“I forgot about those beautiful 4-story row houses across the street should DEFINITELY be landmarked! They are treasures beyond compare.”
Thanks tybur6 – I live in one of the “treasures” across the street from this building. Why they look great from the outside our apts are poorly cared for by our landlord. As far as the new view from my window – I must say I miss the old house. It was charming. The owners had a parrot they hung in a cage outside and I liked listening to his ramblings. I also miss walking by the park the church sold but onward and upward I guess. The south slope in general has really suffered from cheap short-sighted construction.
(and I don’t know why I chose the 1910s… maybe for symmetry since we just started the twenty tens)
Nostalgia is right. It’s like dreaming about the 50s and early 60s when the reality was severe oppression for women and minorities, rampant drug use (amphetamines) and the start of the end of small business as they were devoured by new mega-sized corporations.
The row houses of the 1910s were all about high-level of craftsmanship… no cutting corners or maximizing profits! 🙂
The objection is simple – people like MM and petunia like older buildings and they use the ‘context’ argument as a pretext to oppose new ones such as this….
Sorry, fsrg, but I’m not that complicated. If I don’t like something, I’ll come out and say it, I don’t need to hide it with context or anything else.
I do, in general, like older buildings better than newer ones. But all old buildings are not wonderful, and all new buildings are not crap. I mostly object to perfectly good, functional buildings being torn down to be replaced by less than stellar replacements. I disagree with Tybur in that ordinary, functional standard housing should be sacrificed because it is what it is. We have the skills and technology to make those ordinary buildings as modern or as functional to today’s people as they were to those in the past, and if someone chooses to do so, why not? And why not protect it, if there is a mandate to do so?
No fsrg- nostalgia is when you want to live in the past. I certainly don’t. I can appreciate the past for what it is. My comment is based on some knowledge of architecture and building as well as art and aesthetics.
fsrg- i see your point even if I respectfully disagree with it. The brownstones and limestones of the wealthy were certainly the McMansions of the day but there were many smaller scale rowhouses that were for the working man (the smaller 2 stories for instance) that still showed a certain design aesthetic and even an elegance I don’t see today. But the times were different and the aesthetics were more ornate.
I’m not sure why cookie cutter and brownstone can’t be uttered in the same sentence. Rowhouses were envisioned with a certain repetition of design, which is a good deal of the beauty of a rowhouse grouping. Between the facades and yards and iron fences, it creates a rhythm that is very charming. To me “cookie cutter” is like Pete Seegers song, “Little Boxes” The ones made of ticky-tacky.
As I said, just my take.
“Not to say modern standardized buildings can’t be beautiful or of quality. But my feeling is that what is standardized today is more a matter of cutting corners and speeding up the process of throwing up a building to get income faster. Back then standardization was a matter of working more efficiently and well. Just my take on it. :-)”
There is a term for this paragraph – its called nostalgia
Every old and average building does not have to be mourned in Park Slope. The 2nd building is just new and average. I find it odd that a blog singles out buildings the ONE PERSON (the blog owner) has determined needs to be up for debate. As if to say, their taste should be the order of the day.
tyburg- I guess this is where my artistic/emotional issues come into play. 🙂
True, standard row houses were the forerunner of prefab today- but with such a world of difference. I’m sure the architect had standardized plans, and once those were chosen, building went ahead. But even then there was a level of craftsmanship and pride in work that you don’t find today. And granted, they were doing what they knew- but what went into building that one “standardized” old house yo can’t do today unless you have an enormous budget and you can find the craftsmen to do it. Its something I very much admire and respect.
Not to say modern standardized buildings can’t be beautiful or of quality. But my feeling is that what is standardized today is more a matter of cutting corners and speeding up the process of throwing up a building to get income faster. Back then standardization was a matter of working more efficiently and well. Just my take on it. 🙂