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
Oh, come on, WhatBubble– are you telling us you find this building attractive? Really? Hey, if you want to live next to a Days Inn, that’s your business. Point taken, though, about my use of “contextual”–under that criteria, you could build all manner of fugly buildings, since Brooklyn has no shortage of those, old and new.
Also, David, I TOTALLY agree that it would be ridiculous (and impossible) for today’s builders to copy 150-year-old brownstones. What would be really great would be some new architecture–genuinely new–that was interesting, attractive, and high quality. It is verrrrry rare, sadly.
bob999…if you claim the context is brooklyn, then you clearly haven’t driven down bedford ave by quentin rd and ave p, b/c many houses in that area look like this (on a smaller scale as they are single families)…so to say that this building ignores the context of all of brooklyn is just plain wrong.
and another thing…the first brownstones were developments…houses back then were detached homesteads…i can only imagine what all of you would have said about attached housing being built if you were around in the late 1800s
I’m a little less testy now that I’ve had coffee (sorry, folks). Fair question, David. What do we like? I can only speak for myself, and I will: I like beautiful buildings, contemporary *and* historic, fancy and affordable. It IS possible to build attractive buildings that aren’t crazily expensive. This building fails because it ignores its context–which is to say, Brooklyn–and because its proportions are all out of whack. It looks suburban. It’s a little bit Mediterranean, a little bit Colonial, with weirdly huge stoops that I guess were an attempt to make it a little bit Brooklynish. It looks like a Days Inn, or maybe the main building in a midwestern apartment complex–you know, the building with the office, the Party Room, and the swimming pool. Could it have been worse? Definitely. Better? Yep.
All new buildings suck. I love vacant lots. Landmark everything. More crime, please. Free Mumia.
further, many, many houses resemble (though not exactly) this type of design in midwood and madison areas.
not all of brooklyn is brownstones and frame victorians.
I really have a problem with the garages, although I am sure they’re a real marketable amenity.
David 12:15
you are my hero. well put.
The stoops are high so that the 1st floor apartments are ground level as oppossed to basements like in typical brownstones.
I say this over and over – what do you like (Brownstoner I know you like 14 Townhouses). I mean this is an attractive building (at least in rendering) it is far from a slab-sided plane jane building. The developer is clearly trying to create something attractve – yet unless someone builds a 1885 Brownstone replica it seems like the posters here are going to say “crap”, “ugly”, “cheap”.
Now besides the fact that I can think of nothing tackier and uninspired then someone simply copying a 150yr old brownstone design – what on earth would you people actually LIKE