Development Watch: 53 Java Street
Other than the way it seemlessly blends into the streetscape, this 8-unit, Scarano-designed project at 53 Java Street in Greenpoint that is looking just about done is notable for an accident that happened at the site in late 2007: While pouring concrete for the foundation in violation of a Stop Work Order at the time,…
Other than the way it seemlessly blends into the streetscape, this 8-unit, Scarano-designed project at 53 Java Street in Greenpoint that is looking just about done is notable for an accident that happened at the site in late 2007: While pouring concrete for the foundation in violation of a Stop Work Order at the time, this truck tipped over and landed on a piece of the neighboring building. Good times!
Greenpoint House Attacked by Truck [Gowanus Lounge] GMAP P*Shark DOB
Photo by New York Shitty
I spent the best years of my life on 47 Java Street, and googled “java street” to see what came up. I saw this picture, and thought “Oh how terrible” until I realized that my house was just 2 doors down! 47 Java is that building in the corner. My heart sank and I just cried. But this would be something someone with a heart and feelings and emotions would understand… not the developers of this project. Sad to know the neighborhood will never be the same.
Maly,
Also,
You’re right, this is getting too heated.
I’m sorry i called you a pompous douchebag (and cmu). However, you really have no basis to judge my professional skills.
Here’s the only point that’s worth addressing:
Should aesthetics be regulated?
I don’t think so (except if they are of historical value (landmarks) or in some exclusive subdivision where you know you are buying into a set of restrictive covenants).
Why don’t I think aesthetics should be regulated?
I think it leads to design stagnation and limits new ideas. Not because i like that building particularly. Design by committee is almost always a disaster.
Maly,
You’re right, I meant to call you the pompous douchebag.
As to math skills: i never said you were wrong about the 1/3.
How is it morally bankrupt to develop property?
How come I am a pyschopath because I don’t agree with you?
dittoburg,
i agree, but i never said the constitution said you could build whatever you like.
14th amendment and subsequent rulings thereon pretty clearly establish an individuals right to own and develop property.
Obviously (as I think I’ve stated in previous posts) if there is a law regulating building construction (IE building code, zoning, landmarks etc etc etc), you have to follow it (no one’s saying developers should challenge zoning on constitutional grounds).
However, as long as you are operating within the context of the Federal, State and Municipal laws and codes, you absolutely have the right to develop your building to its maximum potential in any way you see fit, regardless of the opinions of your neighbors and/or blog postees.
Interesting posting history for young archi and wpg. You guys seem to share a lot of knowledge, opinions and writing style.
I think you are pretty transparent, down to the inability to read and comprehend at the same time. I wrote that the building was a third taller, and that the belief that one could build whatever one could afford was morally bankrupt. I didn’t call him names, although that didn’t prevent him from calling another poster a pompous douchebag. Being generous, I will not push too hard into your pretense that you are someone completely different from young archi (maybe you are his true soulmate?)
How can you be a good architect when you have poor reading skills, poor math skills and behave like a psychopath?
Regardless of the anger boiling over here, many communities in the US regulate aesthetics without there being any landmark status. Whether its wise or not, all they have to do is pass a local law. And as for the reference to the constitution, you’d better read it. There’s no constitutionally protected right to build whatever you like.
Now if we could only pass an aesthetics law to remove vinyl siding and front-door awnings in Greenpoint we could see the cute timber framed and handsome brick buidlings with cornices underneath all the make up.
Young archi, is correct. I believe s/he makes quite clear the difference between zoning and aesthetics. There is really not much to dispute in his/her first post.
Also, if you step back a little bit, (photo 1) the new building is maybe a 1/2 story taller than the one three doors down. It is not “twice as large” (Maly) as the neighbors -you are being hysterical.
i think the building looks cool….there is stuff out there much much worse that is so called blending in
cmu
seriously. you need to stop putting words in my mouth and pretending to know how i design buildings.
you have no idea what i think is aesthetically pleasing nor do you know what my buildigns look like.