A Brownstone [Still] Dies in Brooklyn
Back in April, the folks at Cititour noted that while brownstones were plenty protected in neighborhoods like Park Slope, non-landmarked neighborhoods like Sunset Park weren’t so lucky. They documented the dismantling or dismembering of a brownstone on 54th and 6th. Five months later, they’ve got new documents: these photos of what replaced the turn-of-the-century building….
Back in April, the folks at Cititour noted that while brownstones were plenty protected in neighborhoods like Park Slope, non-landmarked neighborhoods like Sunset Park weren’t so lucky. They documented the dismantling or dismembering of a brownstone on 54th and 6th. Five months later, they’ve got new documents: these photos of what replaced the turn-of-the-century building. Kind of resurrects the old progress-versus-preservation argument, don’t it?
Follow-Up to A Brownstone Dies in Brooklyn [Cititour]
benson- unfortunately I spend too much time reading what you actually wrote. Would that you spent as much time thinking before you wrote.
I would have to say in re nimbyism, you voted with your feet. But the agreement here is the building is a travesty, you made several assumptions regarding the developer, and you seem to think the developer should be congratulated for putting up an ugly pos, with the implication that poor or moderate income people don’t care. “like it or not, immigrants and moderate-income folks largely do not consider the outside aesthetics when choosing a place to live.” Coupled with patting the developer on the back, that’s a pretty elitist attitude.
And, as DIBS points out, you really know nothing about the developer, his finances or his intentions.
You know it’s a pos, I know it’s a pos. You wouldn’t live there- I wouldn’t live there. The difference is I think it’s a slap in the face to the community and the potential tenants. You think the developer should be applauded for his “altruism.”
So please spare me the wide-eyed innocent defensive, “oh, I never said that.”
Seriously – while the jutting out in front of the neighbors is very strange indeed (and shouldn’t have been allowed if there were any way to prevent that)… the COLOR is the crazy thing.
If the building had just been a darker color — or really ANYTHING other than this light sandy crap — it wouldn’t have been quite as much of an atrocity.
Developers: If you don’t want to do anything better than this pathetic excuse for architecture… could you AT LEAST get some feedback about the color? Is that too much to ask?
This is hideous and despicable. Building a bigger building is one thing – building an eyesore that is completely out of context with the surrounding buildings is quite another. Unfortunately you can’t legislate against bad taste.
This is so SAD it makes my heart weep. Who approved this monstrosity? It is an absolute POS and has not only destroyed the neighboring house but the entire block as well…trop dommage!
Now any architects out there that can suggest a cosmetic remedy? Can this crap be fixed? I am thinking maybe bring down the entire facade and do something contextual or maybe dark brown hardy plank siding? I don’t know its just such an eyesore right now. Merde!
or better yet, sell them to middle to upper income people!!!
You all should pool your money toegther, buy land and/or run down houses, build/renovate aesthecticly appealing contextual buildings and sell them to lower/moderate income people.
Looks more like a 6 family plus retail, if you count the doors. Someone in the hood should check out the meters.
benson, i agree with some of your points, but it appears that the central premise of your argument is incorrect. according to the dob records for the property, the new building is intended to be a 2-family + retail. it’s a big increase in square footage, but it’s not a significant increase (if at all) in the number of housing units in the community. (the address is 5405 sixth avenue if anyone else wants to dig around.)
Some neighborhhods go through genetrification….this is:
Uglification of a neighborhood!