Civil War Era Gem Facing Wrecking Ball
When 70 Lefferts Place, the old free-standing woodframe between Grand and Classon, went on the market last Spring, there was considerable speculation and fear in the neighborhood that a developer would buy the house only to tear it down. And indeed, now that the sale has been finalized for $2.4 million, it turns out that…
When 70 Lefferts Place, the old free-standing woodframe between Grand and Classon, went on the market last Spring, there was considerable speculation and fear in the neighborhood that a developer would buy the house only to tear it down. And indeed, now that the sale has been finalized for $2.4 million, it turns out that this is the old beauty’s fate. From what we hear, the developer who bought the place, Christopher Morris, is planning a full demolition to be followed by a 21-unit condo building. While we’re saddened that this is the case, it was almost inevitable given market forces: here was a 7,000-square-foot house with an extra 11,000 square feet of buildable air rights in an unlandmarked part of town. The house’s only real hope had been for the same person to buy the house and the adjacent vacant lot so that the air rights could be transferred and thus fully utilized. We gather that Morris is planning to try to incorporate some the house’s elements into the new facade. We had the pleasure of seeing the gorgeous staircase and widow’s walk first-hand when it was on the market. Stunning. Mr. Morris has received an invitation to attend the Lefferts Place Community meeting on August 2 to share more details of his plans. At this point, we’d describe the mood of residents as a mix of resignation and cautious optimism. We hope Morris’ heart is in the right place on this one. We’ll be watching closely, that’s for sure.
Stopping to Smell the Roses on Lefferts [Brownstoner] GMAP P*Shark
How about buildings that:
a. use natural and earth friendly materials?
b. incorporate/factor in the surrounding area…do you really think someone like Gehry is even competent if he doesn’t factor in snow in Cincinnati or sun in Los Angeles?
You speak of ‘modernization’ as it if inevitably leads to your aesthetic.
Gee should we get rid of the farmers markets because Fairway and wal mart are ‘inevitable’.
on the contrary marcy I believe it is you aesthetics that are on their way out.
I guess we just will have to agree to disagree, dreadnaught. However, regardless of what I think, the world is going to continue to modernize. All things being equal, if I had the millions to live in a pristine Brownstone or a new Meier or Herzog & de Meuron apartment, I’m really not sure what I’d choose (if I did live in the b’stone, though, the interior would not be a period restoration. I want Cappelini in the living room). However, I’m glad that in 2006 there is that choice in NYC. We don’t dress as though we’re living in 1851, we don’t want our kitchens to be of the 19th century, or our cars, our homes don’t need to be anachronistic either. I don’t understand why architectural progress is not more warmly embraced here as it is in other parts of the world.
Anyway, as was pointed out before, this is not going to be a Herzog and de Meuron condo complex, I’m sure, so it is lamentable. You spoke of differing philosophies though dreadnaught and whatever the merits, I don’t believe your philosophy is what the future has in store for NYC.
“For the record, I spend a lot of time on South Portland Ave in Fort Greene and absolutely love brownstones. They’re beautiful. But there are many forms of beauty. You cannot tell me this is some ugly crap you would hate to live in!: http://www.40bond.com/hdem.html”
Well Marcy, I do think it’s ugly crap (we obviously have different tastes, but for the record I haven’t accused you of being superficial, as you have me). A building like that would be out of place.
Let’s take the example of Nantucket…or a cotswold village – the beauty of them is in variation of buildings but all within a certain style – what would building a structure like the one you listed do to those communities? so it goes for brownstone neigborhoods, IMO
The only good thing that will come out of this building’s demise is, perhaps, a broader awareness and community focus on landmarking this portion of Clinton Hill. A rallying point, like the 1960’s demolition of Penn Station which, like this building, suffered from being “merely” a civic landmark.
“And while I don’t know that Ghery’s stadium design really fits in BK, there is no doubt that he is a first rate architect as well. His work in LA is perfect for the surrounding areas.”
You call this perfect:
http://www.boingboing.net/2005/03/02/gehry_fries_pedestri.html“>Gehry Building Fries eggs!
Gehry fries pedestrians, eggs with solar death ray Sunlight reflected from the Walt Disney Concert Hall in downtown Los Angeles has “roasted the sidewalk to 140 degrees Fahrenheit, enough to melt plastic and cause serious sunburn to people standing on the street”. The fix: dull the building’s highly reflective surface. Or — meep-meep! Paging mister Christo! Need some orange curtains over here.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Midwest/03/01/offbeat.school.building.ap/“> $62M building imperil sidewalks
Case Western takes precautions with Gehry’s sloping roof
I will again say that in ten years, after the novelty wears off, his buildings will be an eyesore. And to anyone who doesn’t get their opinions spoonfed from the New York times, they already are. BTW have you ever seen his home in santa monica? google it. it literally looks like something in a trailer park. The man is a fraud.
“I have to say that you have a superficial understanding of Modernism”
No Marcy, I don’t. I ‘get it’ i studied architecture as an undergrad and currently study art – you know the kind where you actually have to be able to render the human figure?…I just think it’s crap. My eyes don’t lie to me. Critics like abstract art for example because they control the meaning of it. I like buildings you can look at, not talk about.
“You cannot lump Metrotech (or the WTC) in with a Mies Van der Rohe designed building (The Seagram’s) or a Niemeyer/Corbusier collaboration (The UN)”
I can lump them quite easily marcy – the fail the litmus test that i noted the areas around them (the seagram excepted) are dead space. the WTC design broke up the street pattern and destroyed a vibrant market that was NYs ‘covent garden”.
For the record, I spend a lot of time on South Portland Ave in Fort Greene and absolutely love brownstones. They’re beautiful. But there are many forms of beauty. You cannot tell me this is some ugly crap you would hate to live in!: http://www.40bond.com/hdem.html
Brooklyn needs some ugly crap like this!
For the record, I spend a lot of time on South Portland Ave in Fort Greene and absolutely love brownstones. They’re beautiful. But there are many forms of beauty. You cannot tell me this is some ugly crap you would hate to live in!: http://www.40bond.com/hdem.html
Brooklyn needs some of this!
Since we’re in agreement re the unfortunate demolition plans in this instance, let’s not get into an argument. I think everyone can appreciate fine architecture from different eras, and understand the desire to preserve fine architecture where it does exist, whenever it was built.
Since we all seem to agree that the demolition of this building represents the destruction of something significant, let’s not give each other a hard time.
Dreadnaught,
Of course I have been to UN. Many of the interior spaces are even more remarkable than the exterior, btw. In regard to this building there are security concerns and other planning issues that affect that whole eastside of NYC and make it a difficult place to navigate. I have to say that you have a superficial understanding of Modernism to make the comparisons you do. You cannot lump Metrotech (or the WTC) in with a Mies Van der Rohe designed building (The Seagram’s) or a Niemeyer/Corbusier collaboration (The UN). There’s simply no comparison; those buildings are as different from Metrotech as this Italianate mansion in Clinton Hill is from an Italianate McMansion in New Jersey.
The Brownstone areas in BK are indeed pleasing to look at and live in, but it is not the only pleasant way to live. Brooklyn has only recently begun to catch the eye of truly cutting edge contemporary architects. The Richard Meier building will be the first that I am aware of to be built by a capable modern architect. And while I don’t know that Ghery’s stadium design really fits in BK, there is no doubt that he is a first rate architect as well. His work in LA is perfect for the surrounding areas.
I have not read this book by Tom Wolfe, but I am very familiar with the Bauhaus movement, which has produced many, many worthy buildings around the world. Bottom line, in a modern world, we need a modern design language. It is inappropriate in 2006 to build as we built in 1906 or 1856. And while it is valuable to preserve some of these buildings (this one I agree should be preserved) it makes no sense to continue to ape these designs in contemporary construction.
Have you ever seen a building desinged by Herzog and de Meuron or Tadao Ando? You cannot generalize about all Modern (which is a period from the past now too, btw) and contermporary design.