Good and Bad Design: A Side-by-Side Look
Here’s an interesting side-by-side comparison from Grand Avenue in Clinton Hill that relates to the recent ongoing debate about the viability of achieving moderately attractive contextual new construction. The far more appealing building on the left was built gutted at some point in the last few years; the building on the right has been going…
Here’s an interesting side-by-side comparison from Grand Avenue in Clinton Hill that relates to the recent ongoing debate about the viability of achieving moderately attractive contextual new construction. The far more appealing building on the left was built gutted at some point in the last few years; the building on the right has been going up over the past few months. In some ways, it’s surprising that the building on the left was built earlier, when the area was a riskier bet. The only explanation–other than ignorance and incompetence–to explain the lower quality of the eyesore on the right is that the developer had to pay so much more for the land in this market that he didn’t have enough dough to build anything decent. But presumably he’ll be able to sell it for more too.
You’re wrong, any affordable housing project goes before the community board. This building would have gone before the community board for the community to express an opinion on the project.
Anon 9:49 – CB only gets to weigh in if its a variance application or a landmarks applications. And only on landmarks applications does aesthetics matter. Half the plans for variance applications I’ve seen are unbuildable (as in bedrooms need windows; apartments need doors). The plans are just zoning placeholders to get through the process.
The community’s opportunity to express an opinion on the aesthetics of a new development is through the land use committee of the community board.
If you attend these meetings, you will have a chance to discuss the designs with the developer’s representatives.
My experience in attending these meetings is that the developer does not generally incorporate the community’s feedback into the final design.
A negative endorsement from the community board due to design or other reasons rarely has any influence whatsoever on the final product.
Merely writing a letter or attempting to meet with the developer to express similar views would be even less effective.
Your best bet is to work through the community board, which, as I stated, is generally a waste of time.
No
The condo on the left was marketed in 2004 by the ethically challenged jerry minsky of corcoran’s ft. greene office – one guy every red blooded American should avoid. This guy is so greasy your cholesterol level will skyrocket from a moment in his presence.
anon2:40 you have no clue.
excavation is no indicator, anything can change up until the plan is approved and can be amended after. Brownstoner needs a professional as a guest columnist that actually knows the business not someone sneaking around the borough speculating, void or merit or expertise.
The comments that are all over the board are evidence of the need for legitimacy which would help propel this spunky blog rather that promote the senseless rant that is beneficial to no one.
How refreshing would it be to empower Brownstoner readers with fact and knowledge so they can better identify junk from quality and in doing so boycott the garbage and ultimately making it unprofitable to keep marring our nabes.
Halden said all there is to say about these two buildings.
Developers that build Fedder covered crap do so because it is cheaper and people keep buying this sh*t. Refuse this junk – if it won’t sell they won’t build it. It’s like fast food, you know it’s gonna kill you but it’s cheaper and faster.
Good concept, design, layout, finish, is all a result of engaging the consultant capable of bringing together the quality ancillary professionals and in doing so understanding what the consumer really enjoys which requires a great deal of effort and study. Anything of quality and significance does not happen by accident. The builder/developer most often engages the architect first, sounds logical, however they then fall prey to a single motivation which, in a worst case scenario, can result in the debacle known as the mezzanine. Often the architects hyper focus on design results in a project that will never be built because of cost alone. Point being, there must be balance, and balance requires a leader, echoing the voice of the consumer, balancing cost effectiveness with quality and good taste, all while proving to the developer that good planning is lucrative as well as publically appreciated.
In the past I’ve been very put off by my perception that Brownstoner was not geniunely caring about the bigger picture but, I felt, high on the rant and resulting spotlight.
I’m sensing that change, I hope.
Hey, we all need to weigh in, that’s what drives these forums, but I’d love to see some reality interjected from a knowledgeable source. Anyone agree?
Quite honestly, I’d rather live on the the on the right. The left building looks like it would be cramped and dark inside.
With all due respect, if they are excavating, you are a little late to the game to express opinions about design or materials.
know who they are? have an exact address?
There is a big dig going on on Greene and Classon just in from the corner and one about to commence on the corner of Quincy & Franklin. Now’s the time to talk to the developers — before they order the shitty bricks.
They might welcome some respectful input from the neighbors, espcially if it’s posed as suggestions to help them market their buildings to upscale buyers.