301 Cumberland Eyesore
Has anyone noticed the “planters” being built at 301 Cumberland? Though this building is not a townhouse is a pretty nice 1920-30’s apt. building with beautiful stone carvings. I didn’t notice any landmark approval for this eyesore of a job.
Has anyone noticed the “planters” being built at 301 Cumberland? Though this building is not a townhouse is a pretty nice 1920-30’s apt. building with beautiful stone carvings. I didn’t notice any landmark approval for this eyesore of a job.
People need to mind their business.Dont look at the damn planters if you dont like them.No need to get into whether they have permits. That kind of crap will definitely come back to bite you in the ass cause God dont like ugly and maliciousness.
I live there, and it seems part of the whole fix what ain’t broke approach that Dermot Company has taken since buying the building earlier this year.
They have also installed ugly porch lights, unneccesarily repainted the interior common area a drab brown, and put up an awning that they then took down so they could do the gross white trim painting. Oh, and put in a new brass intercom board but neglected to update the actual names there, which reflect tenants from the early 2000s. No fixing of the actual intercom system, natch.
Darn,
I just wrote a long diatribe and the Brownstoner commenting system flunked out so it didn’t post.
I live nearby and may have missed seeing this the last week when it was being built but happened to walk by this morning.
First off, the “stone carvings” are actually (probably off-the-shelf) terracotta building elements from that moment. They are effective with their stone-like glaze but now it has been covered up the slumtractor’s hideous deck paint. Those elements had escaped uglification since the building went up in the mid-1920’s to wait for a moment of ultragentrification…for this owner to give the go-ahead to slumify and uglify the facade.
Now, these terracotta elements were in great shape. The paint is way brighter and an eyesore AND (yes, People) should probably should have been filed with the LC. Sorry to say, but when changing trim and entryway paint colors in a landmarked district, you’re supposed to file. Granted, people don’t and as long as no one complains or has photo evidence, the City doesn’t seem to care. Have seen whole clapboard houses have their colors changed (in some cases for the worse) in FG with what appears to be NO filing with the LC. Whatever.
The planters as you call them (I thought they were enclosures meant to hold rubbish bins) which are built in cinderblocks MUST-MUST-MUST be filed with Landmarks. There are no two way about it.
I wonder if they’ll just slap the same (soon to peel) cream-coloured deck paint onto the cinderblock, if they’ll make an attempt to match the lugubrious, dark brick of the facade to face the planters (HA!), or if they’ll choose some eyesore, bright brick or other nonsense to face them.
I guess it was a half-witted, poor attempt at freshening up the building by someone who does not understand how to do it with style. So much for gentrification. They just slumified it…might as well cover the entire front with fake field stone.
They would have done better with their money spent on scraping down the lobby walls which have a heavy, heavy stalactite stucco job…kind of retro but kind of FUGLY. Its dusty, moss green grimy splendour is extremely visible at night (despite the wan lighting) through the big glass entry doors. It ugly.
I also wonder to what extent these bins/planters encroach on the sidewalk clearances. The DOB might be interested since this is a permanent structure encroaching on an area that previously was sidewalk paving.
Hmmm…
they suck and they are totally against the LPC rules.
Yup, they’re definitely not pretty. Much like the previous commenter.
B!tch!!!!
Forgot to leave that out….
EZ…..
Get a F&^%ing life!!!!