Reason #1,001 For Landmarks To Exist
Blogger Transfer is hatin’ this building and so are we. Now if someone could just tell us where it is. Answer: Wyckoff between Smith and Court. Thanks, Peter. Bad Volume [Transfer]
Blogger Transfer is hatin’ this building and so are we. Now if someone could just tell us where it is. Answer: Wyckoff between Smith and Court. Thanks, Peter.
Bad Volume [Transfer]
An ugly building uglifies the block. Why justify that? Whether for aesthetics or economic return, we all want nice looking blocks. At the end of the day, a good looking block will give you a better return than a shabby block. And a block where people dig the architecture and care about the feel will survive any downturns better than a block infected with cheesy who-built-it-and-ran crap.
Awww yeah, it’s da brownstone playa thinking ahead….lol
It’s Friday people. Let’s lighten up and laugh a bit. C’mon, it’ll be fun…
If that building were full of hot chicks and I were single and the rent was reasonable, I’d move it.
We definitely don’t want any vacuous slaves to aesthetics. But I think it is legitimate for people in a neighborhood that has a distinct built character, to want to maintain that character so that 10, 25, 50 years from now what is cherished about the neighborhood is still there and recognizable, even through all the ensuing years of re-development and renovation. It’s appropriate for stakeholders to identify characteristics that they cherish about their neighborhood, and to see if there are ways they can be codified. Maybe that’s out-and-out landmarking, or maybe there are zoning changes (e.g., contextual zoning) that could be contemplated, along with some neighborhood-specific design controls. (Uphill battle, but still.)
Iceberg, I would say that I am very worried about the growing power of the corporatocracy (private sector and government working hand in hand) and how the “collective will” of our free market capitalist system, unrestrained, squashes the individual the way every other “ism” ever has. But when it comes to certain zoning and design controls, it seems to me that the corporatocracy would prefer to have as free a rein as possible to build whatever they want. But on a human scale, individuals love their neighborhoods and want to see what they love protected. So if individuals on a grass-roots level can gain some regulations (design controls) that seems to me to be helping the underdog, not feeding the Corporatocratic Monster.
Anon 5.13 – lmao!! I’m rubber, you’re glue, bounce off me, stick on you. Haaaaaaah, haaaaah, haaaaaah! I think it is hilarious you’re offended and are professing you’re flare for design, your superior taste and creativity. I feel like we’re on a playground… Seriously, I literally laughed out loud at your post. I can’t see why you are offended. You stated you are not a slave to aesthetics (if you are the same anon) and then get offended when people tell you to go elsewhere if you don’t want to discuss aesthetics and design and profess how creative and design savy you are. Weird, and funny…
Anonymous at March 10, 2006 05:00 PM,
I can guarantee that I’ve got more design, taste and creativity than you. Just don’t have time to waste ridiculing the domicile of others.
It would be nice if there were some happy medium between landmarked and not. Maybe a restriction requiring large proportion of the older buildings to be preserved but temporary things like window styles and paint colors would be up to the owner. New buildings would undergo a minimal quality and esthetic review. It’s harsh to have to choose between the frozen landmark blocks or a free for all that yields ugliness like the house above.
Has anyone over read the children’s book the Big Orange Splot by Daniel Pinkwater? Wonderful book but not for the Landmarks Commission.
I’m sorry, I don’t get it…am a bit dense. Don’t see why anyone would care that much about a fedders building going up. Three years ago there were parts of Brooklyn that was awash with abandoned, vacant, unimproved properties. The fact that someone is improving these infills should be a welcome change. But instead, most of you johnny-come-latelys, bitch and moan about how ugly the new building is. I’m just happy that the new house adds additional lighting to what once was a dark deserted street.
Yes, the new fedders building may be barebones; but eventually it will change hands and the new owners will put up window boxes/planters. The point is that the city will improve block by block over time. And fedders building are an improvement over what used to be there.
Slave to aesthetics? What are you going on about Anon 4.49? You don’t get it do you… Go read another blog where people don’t discuss design and architecture….