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]
“Everything that was built in the past could be built again” I beg to differ. the aesthetics, the building materials, the construction techniques, the skilled labor- all of that is changed. True there are wonderful artisans today who can do this kind of work- but at one time the construction techniques, materials and skills were standard for the day, not the work of preservationists and artisan specialists.
There’s a world of loss with every old building that gets torn down, and in brownstone neighborhoods, this building is a perfect example of why they shouldn’t be demolished, but instead reused and renovated. You aren’t getting much more density out of the new buildings, it impacts the value of surrounding properties, the construction is often crap and it destroys the beauty and charm of these old neighborhoods, things which contribute to their desirability and value as real estate.
I’m all for building housing- there’s plenty of places where it can be done without destroying valuable older housing stock and rendering abominations like this in brownstone neighborhoods. Or at least doing so without destroying a reclaimable old building that could have been re-used. A green option, by the way too.
You, polemicist, and MM are both right, but MM’s assessment is a much surer way to go. regulations won’t be ironclad, sadly, and will always be subject to change. there’ll always be some buddy in the DOB to sign off on your plan, always another Scarano around to reinterpret the regs.
Polemicist, if you didn’t just have a knee jerk negative reaction to everything I write, you’d see my first sentence was to ask for a board of standards.
Currently, as I understand it, there is no such board which would govern the aesthetics in building design. If you live in an attractive newer building, it’s only because you had an enlightened developer along with a real architect with some vision. Too many projects have neither.
I don’t believe everything should be landmarked. I might want it so, but that’s a reflection of my tastes. I am not so unattached to reality that I can’t understand why that will not work in a city that needs to grow. However, landmarking is currently the only protection against this kind of crap. We do need a board of standards. If you actually read my post, we are agreeing here.
Nice. Wow. The choice of doors is amazing. Another project brought to you be DUMBFUCK Contracting.
If Landmarks doesn’t step in and designate parts of Sunset park, this is going to be the fate of the neighborhood. The influx of Asian and Arab immigrants are changing the landscape.
There are some great streets of brownstone, limestone and brick beauties.
I fail to see how this hellacious rebuild does anything for poley’s hi-density needs argument. It looks to have 8 apts? FAR is a joke in brownstone neighborhoods. If you’re going to tear down a lovely old building, there ought to be design regulations to limit what you can do. It looks like crap- it’s built like crap.
We need more regulations on what goes up in place of these wonderful old townhouses. I hope the developer sits with this for a long time.
Best View in Brooklyn had a post a while back with some close ups:
http://bestviewinbrooklyn.blogspot.com/2008/08/update-on-some-6th-avenue-construction.html
Dittoburg,
What I’ve really advocated is a mix of reasonable density restrictions AND aesthetic standards. This building is unattractive (and, with a 2.43 FAR – it’s NOT “high density), yes, but such is life when you have a housing shortage that results in land value (the price per sq. ft. of FAR) rising to a disproportionate level of overall property value. Money that could be spent producing a high quality facade similar to what was common in the past instead goes into the pocket of the landowner.
A simple solution would be to mandate aesthetic standards. Buildings would cost more, but the end result is the price of land would drop.
All over Park Slope, especially closer to the park, townhouses were torn down and replaced with 4- and 8-family floor-through apartment buildings. I live in one myself. They can be made very attractive, and if standards were required – we might even have economies of scale again. Many of the nice features of these buildings were mass produced and cheap – the wrought iron, the precast lintels, even fine brick.
So, Montroe Morris is wrong – landmarking is NOT the only way to “stop the horror”. Everything that was built in the past could be built again, we simply need proactive regulations rather than reactive preservation.
WTF aren’t these landmarked??? This needs to be tore down and replaced by a turn-of-the-century replica. THERE IS NO REASON WHY YOU CAN’T BUILD WHATEVER THE F*** YOU WANT INSIDE BUT MAINTAIN AT LEAST A HISTORICAL FACADE THAT BLENDS IN. VERY TACKY AND VERY LOW CLASS.
This is why I don’t feel at all depressed or anxious about the bursting of the real estate bubble.
It will put an end to these atrocities, and meanwhile we will have some breathing room to revisit zoning regulations in places like Sunset Park and the fringes of non-landmarked Park Slope that are threatened by such toxic crap.