Horror Show Friday: 170 Clermont Avenue
We just love what the developer has done with this this new four-story building at 170 Clermont Avenue. We’re dying to pick up one of those little eaves over the doorway for our place and that little nook he carved out to display the lovely Con Ed meters is to die for. And just imagine…
We just love what the developer has done with this this new four-story building at 170 Clermont Avenue. We’re dying to pick up one of those little eaves over the doorway for our place and that little nook he carved out to display the lovely Con Ed meters is to die for. And just imagine all the great parties the residents of the upper floors are going to be able to throw on their balconies. It’s great to see such creative, innovative design going on in Fort Greene! GMAP P*Shark
We didn’t say anything about the structural quality of the building. Our comments were strictly about the design. The Department of Buildings is supposed to be paying attention to the structural elements though since they have no power over aesthetics.
ENY,
Fail to see your logic. Because there are a lot of crappy buildings we should give a pass to the folks who keeping putting them up? Not sure if you noticed but real estate and architecture are two of the central topics of this blog so, no, we’re not going keep quiet while philistines destroy the urban landscape. Sorry. No one’s forcing you to read.
I think this weekly feature and think it should be kept. It’s provocative on a number of levels:
Are aesthetics merely personal taste? Is complaining about how a building fits into a neighborhood really elitist? Is affordable housing held to a different standard? What’s good, what’s ugly? As a designer, this conversation interests me.
I appreciate that b-stoner has opinions on this and takes developers to task. The buildings are here for a LONG time, there absolutely should be a debate about how they affect neighborhoods and streetscapes.
Thanks Mr. B. Now, about hiring that engineer/inspector….
Snappy,
We spent a whole year posting photos of the renovation of our house. Go to town:
http://bstoner.wpengine.com/renovations/
“A good architect could have built a much nicer building for the same price.”
Certainly! Instead, they hired an architect of whom you do not approve, who built something you do not like, something that clearly could have been “nicer.” Hey, why don’t you just take a walk all around all of Brooklyn, figure out which buildings could have been built “nicer,” and don’t look like you think they should, take photos, POST the photos, and make fun of the buildings. That way, EVERYONE could join with Mr. Brownstoner in hating on buildings that don’t meet his aesthetic standards. What fun!
No way is this better than the red siding next door. This is hideous!
A lot of comments are being made regarding the structural quality of these buildings. How can you be so sure they are not sound? Unless you have an inspection report, it’s all conjecture. Maybe an educated guess, but still a guess at the end of the day. How about this, Mr. B., you pay an engineer/inspector to go there and give this building a good once over and report back to us what his/her findings are. Or better yet, how about you post a pic of *your* house, interior and exterior so we can pick apart your landscaping, front door color, furnishing choices, kitchen table placement, etc.
ditto stoner and bxgrl – even just to design it so the facade features are symmetrical and in balance would have cost $0 additional dollars. and when a building is the product of someone who doesn’t give a crap about what you CAN see, there’s no way i’m going to assume that everything you CAN’T see is functional or durable (let alone to code!).