Ghost of Vetruvius
Someone’s mad as hell about the crappy architecture on Fourth Avenue and they’re not going to take it! Remember the craptactular rental building that went up at 126 4th Avenue a couple of years ago? Someone with the moniker “The Ghost of Vitruvius” posted the above screed on the side of the building recently, and…
Someone’s mad as hell about the crappy architecture on Fourth Avenue and they’re not going to take it! Remember the craptactular rental building that went up at 126 4th Avenue a couple of years ago? Someone with the moniker “The Ghost of Vitruvius” posted the above screed on the side of the building recently, and a tipster sent it in over the weekend. The text says “ARCHITECT: Is this really the best you can do? This building is UGLY, and therefore IRRESPONSIBLE” and a logo in the corner reads “NYC Building Aesthetics.” Has anyone spotted more of these around town? GMAP
This needs to be said: I don’t think there is a single architect with a small practice who wouldn’t be delighted to design a 2-3 family infill project. These buildings are important, and people really care about how they look. Trouble is, bottom-line focused developers want to pay for a design that will sail right through the DOB, and ask for “cookie cutter” projects by name. There are a number of firms that specialize in this niche, and as long as there are cheap developers, there will be architects who produce design on the cheap.
I also want to say that although I have done a number of small, inexpensive, vernacular builder-type projects, none of them looks remotely like a “fedders”. I would guess that a number of the other architects who post here can say the same.
“I thought architects busied themselves with better and more important projects”
Funny.
By the time you revise a sears catalog design to meet the zoning conditions of an urban site, the specifics of the program, and budget of the developer, you might as well start from scratch. You could theoretically have a sketch for a generic site, but it’s not like you can take a set of drawings from the internet to the DOB. You’d have to hire another architect to execute the design and oversee construction, meaning you’d be better off just hiring the design architect in the first place. Sorry, we’re not nuts – your idea is just not very good.
I’m talking about two and three family infill Fedders.
You guys are nuts. I’m saying design some nice buildings to replace Fedders. Or sell the darn plans for a set fee like the old Sears idea. You telling me your bread and butter is Fedders? I thought architects busied themselves with better and more important projects.
Face-lift, eye-job, tummy tuck, botox, nose job, brow lift, lipo-suction …
mopar – you want architects to give away their services for free so that developers can make more money by selling well designed condos? I could get behind that if we were talking about habitat for humanity housing, but c’mon….
Interesting architect66- I’m guessing the developer has an in-house ‘designer’? That’s the problem with focusing on the Architect in the first place – you have to push back on those holding the purse strings.
That’s easy Mopar – obviously everything built in Brooklyn should be a brownstone!
Hell – even the stadium at atlantic yards should be a brownstone!
bet you NIMBYs really wish you still had that Gehry designed one huh?
Great suggestion mopar! Why don’t we architects just give it all away and go into another line of business, or something? That’ll really improve the quality of what gets built – not to mention the safety and integrity of buildings! Heck – it might limit the practice of architecture to independently wealthy people – what a bonus!
Open source cheap row houses!