Development Watch: 475 Lafayette Finds Its Form
Back in December 475 Lafayette, off Bedford, wasn’t much more than an empty lot, just getting prepped for construction. Now… well, here it is. (Kinda looks like two homes that came out as conjoined twins.) When construction wraps up, this will be a two-unit building. New Building for 475 Lafayette [Brownstoner] GMAP DOB
Back in December 475 Lafayette, off Bedford, wasn’t much more than an empty lot, just getting prepped for construction. Now… well, here it is. (Kinda looks like two homes that came out as conjoined twins.) When construction wraps up, this will be a two-unit building.
New Building for 475 Lafayette [Brownstoner] GMAP DOB
Look, architects generally are not to blame (well a few are like Scarrano). In reality, it’s real estate developers who cut costs and generally plan out these horrible eyesores. The downside is, they rarely go for what they’re originally priced as, and well, it’ll turn into a cheap rental if it’s lucky.
And if it doesn’t work, it will sit vacant. Check out Grand Avenue near Myrtle near where I reside. It’s a derelict alley of generic condos, two of which are not even finished construction.
Bad development will ruin Brooklyn forever.
I’m not defending this architect necessarily, but the design or lack thereof present in this building is NOT a result of architecture as a profession.
There are all kinds of decisions that an architect can and should influence in the design of any given structure.
I’ll agree with you on the windows, but in fact the architect probably had very little authority on the roof design and most certainly the lot line issue. (The developer can make more money with private parking spaces in front. End of lot line discussion.)
Also take into consideration time. The architect was probably given weeks, maybe a month or two, to complete these drawings. With the fee they are earning and the time given, they had barely enough time to make sure the thing can stand up, let alone think about any design issues.
It’s the same as building a building. If you may very little and force them to build it quickly, you’ll have crap workers and crap quality, same with design.
I love when Amzi gets passionate like that.
randolph- actually a lot of developers buy plans from “design” firms. So TD is right- in order to build an architect has to sign off on it- but it doesn’t mean he actually designed the place. It’s akin to using drawing templates from a commercial web designer.
so RD you are saying that the architect doesn’t draw out where the windows will go or the shape of the roof or where is sits on the lot line or a million other things that are so obviously wrong with this place….
i’ll give it to you that a crappy developer/contractor would pick out these ugly bricks and other finshes, but the rest is the fault of the architect.
I could not put it better myself TD. As a architect looking this kind of building hurts my eyes. This place is just a mess. Where did this guy draw his inspiration clearly not from the 100 yer old buildings around it. I don’t want this part of Bedford Stuyvesant to start looking like southern Williamsburg. There really should be some kind of panel that approves these types of buildings landmarks area or not…. I HATE HATE HATE THIS PLACE!!!!
“Why is this sort of thing rampant? Is architecture so lucrative that it draws people who are in it for nothing but the money, and actually have zero interest in aesthetics?”
Who’s the moron that told you architecture is lucrative?
You really think some architect is sitting in his Tribeca penthouse counting the stacks of money he earned on this project? It’s just the opposite. It’s such a poorly paid profession that somebody has to take these jobs just to pay the bills.
This building has nothing to do with architecture. Architects on these projects are hired to stamp the drawings, not to voice their aesthetic opinions. Every time one of these pops up the architect is blamed, clearly without an understanding of how things really work.
Except for very rare situations, the architect has no ownership stake in a project. The developer and/or the owner hire an architect who will draw whatever they tell them to. It is the DEVELOPER who doesn’t care about aesthetics. They build it for as little as possible, and sell it for as much as possible. The architect gets a flat fee of the CONSTRUCTION cost, not the amount that the project SELLS for.
Yes, I’m an architect and that’s the end of my rant.
Andrew- I was thinking the same thing. The new buildings at Gates and Bedford and Monroe and Bedford are both nice and are selling 1 bedroom apt. for $300 – $450,000.
The developer missed an oppurtunity to make real $$ and the community just took an overall hit. Even if these were built for mid to lower income folks, there was still no need for it to look this bad.
This puts the ‘f’ in fugly.
Too bad too, that part of bedstuy is really starting to improve otherwise.