Kensington Townhouses: Affordable or Avoidable?
A group called Gracie Developers is finishing up its Kensington Townhouses project at the corner of Beverley Road and East 7th Street in Kensington. We haven’t seen a photo of how it looks from the outside yet (anyone?) but judging from the rendering above it’s a step up (just) from a lot of the crap…
A group called Gracie Developers is finishing up its Kensington Townhouses project at the corner of Beverley Road and East 7th Street in Kensington. We haven’t seen a photo of how it looks from the outside yet (anyone?) but judging from the rendering above it’s a step up (just) from a lot of the crap that’s being built on small lots in the area but a far cry from 14 Townhouses. We’ve talked about it a thousand times, but why do architects persist in designing these ridiculously-scaled stoops? The name of the development is a little misleading, too. From what we can tell, these are really just apartments within a larger building that’s designed in a kind of Disneyfied townhouse theme. Regardless, the interiors are unexciting, and for $600 a foot in this part of town we’d expect some higher ceilings, bigger windows and nicer doors. Corcoran is also its own toughest competition on this one. If we were a buyer in this part of town, we’d opt for the Park Circle over this place in a heartbeat. Cheaper by the foot and far superior views. If any of you check out the open house this weekend, please snap up us a photo of the exterior. Update: The developer sent us a photo which we’ve included on the jump. It looks a little better in real life, but we still don’t get those stairways and those slope-roofed entranceways. A lesson to err on the simple side if you’re not going to spring for real architectural talent.
336 E. 7th Street – Apt: C [Corcoran] GMAP
Bob999 is right, and the rest of you apologists for this pastiche doth protest too much. Especially the “taste is subjective” crowd; of course it’s subjective — some people have better taste than others.
Other people have correctly noted that the proportions of this building is awkward, and that there are all kinds of “I am architecture” pieces stuck on that are neither gracefully integrated with the idea of the building nor seemingly useful in function. To take one example: the stoop is too narrow and too high, and not just because I said so, but because it ignores the plain-to-everyone lessons of hundreds (if not thousands) of stoops all around the borough.
Why does it do this? Because the second floor is too far up. Why is that? Because the ground floor isn’t lower. Why is that? Who knows — I suspect an attempt to max FAR combined with sneaking in under the maximum building height, perhaps.
Now, there’s nothing wrong with max’ing FAR or respecting zoning rules. But what is wrong is taking the logic of one type (a townhouse and its stoop) of building and plastering it on to another type (here, an apartment house).
Better to just make an honest apartment house, or better yet, a modern, interesting one. Because contextually really cannot be done well (this developer and labor market does not have cheap skilled labor at its disposal, in contrast to a hundred years ago) better not to be contextual at all.
But why is one tempted to build this paste-up? Probably because someone thinks it’s “classy.” But also because people like the broker “context” like the availability of marketing buzz words (here “stoop” and “architectural detail”) over all else. Whatever parses nicely for the prospectus. It goes without saying that the appliances are “stainless.”
So the problem for me (and others) is this development, from these pictures, runs the risk of resembling a marketing exercise rather than being architecture. Fine if you like living in a marketing world and see nothing wrong with $$$ as the bottom line of everything. Some of us, however, want different, and want better.
This building is neither attractive nor affordable. It looks out of proportion. What is with all the cheap-looking crap stuck on the design, ie weird stoop and odd useless porch? Agree that it is better than a lot of stuff out there, but can we please have a developer who builds something contextual and modern and proportional?
Yes, congrats BiB. Its nice to see pictures of the finished product too (was the photo above added after the fact, or did I miss the first time through?).
I’m still not a fan of the building, but will say a) the building looks a lot better in person than in rendering (we really shouldn’t base our opinions on a SimCity rendering…); and b) the simple turning of the stoop makes a big difference. And I still suspect that good design or bad, this probably is in keeping with the neighborhood.
What do you do with three bathrooms? Great for parties, I guess.
“When did design become more important than affordability and quality of life?”
Good design is an essential part of quality of life. If you don’t realize that, maybe you should read this book:
Alain De Botton, The Architecture of Happiness
http://www.amazon.com/Architecture-Happiness-Alain-Botton/dp/0375424431/sr=8-1/qid=1171685754/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-3643362-1793436?ie=UTF8&s=books
Last time I checked Brooklyn was not a museum of art. When did design become more important than affordability and quality of life? Sometimes the two don’t meet. And i think most of you comparing the design of these units to that of 14 townhouses probably couldn’t afford to purchase @ state street.
Great for you BornInBrooklyn!
Wow, everyone is giving Bob999 a very hard time. You are needling each other like a bunch of 12 year olds. I agree with him completely. He did say he liked the 14 townhouses. Why would you all settle for something that is mundane? There are loads of incredible architects all over this borough doing great work on a residential scale, and probably no more expensive than Scarano — it is just a level of awareness to the possibilities. Although it is not an example of residential architecture, I love the connecting building for the Pratt Architecture school by Steven Holl Architects. Brilliant resolution of connecting two buildings from the 1800’s with something totally new and still respecting the context. Check out Brownstoner’s post of the AIA awards from earlier this week – it is featured there.
Let me be clear: I’m not saying that only fancy, expensive buildings should be built. Good architecture can–and has–been applied to all kinds of buildings. You’re right that I don’t have a list of contemporary success stories in Brooklyn–I am not an architect myself, nor have I surveyed the borough to research an argument on a fricking blog–nor is that necessary to validate the point. As I said, there is not much good new architecture in Brooklyn, or anywhere else, and I wish there were. For you to argue otherwise is silly. Of course 14 State would be out of context in Kensington–but it’s beautifully in context where it is. Whose context do we choose, you ask? Well-built, high quality, beautiful buildings that suit the needs of the neighborhood. Not people for whom bricks symbolize poverty and degradation and saw a bright shining future in “maintenance-free” aluminum siding. Those people were, in a word, wrong.
Sigh… I can’t believe I’m engaging with you, Context. But you’re just not making any sense. All I’m saying is that it would be great if builders would use good architects and create cool buildings. You disagree? Really?
born….good for you..congrats. i stand by my original post this morning, especially after seeing born’s pics, that this is actually pretty nice, despite mr. b’s bashing.