Rental Building on Former Order of Tents Property Just About Done
We have been remiss in not stopping by earlier to check on progress at 196 Macon Street, where a rental building is taking shape on an empty lot formerly owned by the African American women’s fraternal organization The United Order of Tents, which formed in 1848. Well, it’s just about done, as you can see…
We have been remiss in not stopping by earlier to check on progress at 196 Macon Street, where a rental building is taking shape on an empty lot formerly owned by the African American women’s fraternal organization The United Order of Tents, which formed in 1848.
Well, it’s just about done, as you can see in the photos. The last time we stopped by it was just a hole in the ground. The five-story, 28-unit building will start leasing in the next eight to ten weeks, according to Curbed. It’s going to have an exercise room, roof deck, laundry, bike parking and 15 parking spaces, according to Schedule A filings.
Developer H Holding Group started construction a year ago at the site between Throop and Tompkins, which they bought for $760,000 in May 2012, as we previously reported. We think the new building looks pretty nice for new construction. The brownstone-style details fit in well with the surrounding brownstones, even if the massing is modern.
The building sits behind the 1863 mansion still owned by the Order of Tents. The group has owned the landmarked house at 87 Macdonough Street for 65 years, and the property stretched all the way to Macon Street until the Tents divided the lot and sold a piece to H Holding Group.
Click through to see another photo of the new building. What do you think of it?
28 Rentals With Parking Coming to Bed Stuy’s Macon Street [Curbed]
Work Starts on Big Build Behind “Tents” Mansion [Brownstoner]
DH,
The COTD in my opinion from the exterior is much better than this Chocolate marshmallow. It isn’t poorly pretending to be something it’s not a 19th Century Apartment Building. Conceptual Integrity! – That’s all you have at the end of the day.
from the picture – this doesn’t look subpar.
calling ANYTHING new subpar will just ensure that a developer says “fuck it” and you end up with buildings like the COTD.
Well first off the block is kind of a jamble of a mix, Wood frame and brownstone and brick apartments. So I get that it’s a tough context to wrk with. But excusing sub-par work because it’s in B-Stuy is unacceptable sorry.
Here’s an example of a brand New Townhouse done well by a real architect fairly recently: FYI
http://www.nantucketpreservation.org/npt-event-lecturer-in-the-news-2168
The limestone Building replaced an old townhouse, the owner purchased the building to tear it down and built something phenomenal on an un-land marked site. i recognize not everyone has this kind of dough. – I say to that Design some gorgeous in another material that’s a least articulated well and isn’t at least trying so hard.
Here’s the old building:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.775833,-73.958874,3a,75y,23.21h,112.72t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1ssCMqlo5T5W_kVtLOX_C3ew!2e0!5s2009-05
I think this is becoming a terrible yucky trend sadly. And actually the house next to the one you mentioned also has had the same thing done to it. One is Brown Faced and to the right of it they left it White Faced: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.681942,-73.942131,3a,75y,352.87h,96.21t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1sAki-MwnTRrIEVKYePX7gVA!2e0!5s2013-10
Thanks to google you can now go back in time and see what it looked like pre-reno
Also I’ve notice that they just tend to put the Foam right over the Vinyl Siding, I imagine the original shingles are buried 3 layers deep now. I wonder about the integrity of this over time.
That’s exactly it! You hit the nail on the head. It is just OK. It doesn’t standout like a sore thumb which I think we all appreciate. But I don’t believe in praising mediocrity by any means. Something like this posing as a brownstone is like a cheap gimmick to me. Accepting things like this have made places like downtown BK look like a Fugly Hotel Zoo… 🙁
“Personally, I’m not into this need to recreate the past via the projection of an architectural style.”
*FACEPALM*
so either something is an abomination that’s out of context with the neighborhood – or “meeeeeh”
this is the most contextual new construction building bed stuy will EVER see. everyone make a big deal about it.
On the positive though, at least it doesn’t have the exposed AC vents on the Facade 🙂
I agree…I wish people would stop hiring crap Arch. The talent def. exist, but I guess it does come at a premium that these guys aren’t interested in. I saw this same foam stuff used on Marcy and lex. They just put it up over a wood framed shingle house. I mean directly over them and painted it white. Looks really nasty. Looks like Cali Stuco 🙁
I haven’t seen the above in person so… not sure of the craft, but I do know the material and it’s no bueno
Personally, I’m not into this need to recreate the past via the projection of an architectural style. It’s looks like it’s trying way too hard to be something it’s not. If you gonna use this type of Arch. vocabulary it needs to be done well. Not from a schematic shared among-st the house in a box people ie: Fedders house folks. I would much rather see a more contemporary contribution that actually reacts and forms an Arch. discourse with the surrounding structures… and not this phony play pretend crap.