schermerhorn-house-042709.jpg
The Schermerhorn is not your average affordable housing project, as The Times makes abundantly clear in its profile this weekend. (As we put it a couple of weeks ago, “This place is about as sexy as supportive housing gets.”) Stand-out amenities include a gym with floor-to-ceiling windows and a ground-floor performance space. (The Brooklyn Ballet will be the anchor tenant.) Designed by Polshek Partnership Architects, the 217-unit building will end up being split fairly evenly between arts-related professionals who don’t make a lot of dough and those who qualify for supportive housing, typically the formerly homeless and others in need of help. The interior photo in The Times story is pretty darn slick for this type of thing, seeming to confirm our suspicions that lack of creativity and resourcefulness is usually more to blame than small budgets when ugly new buildings are put up.
New Homes for a Varied Cast [NY Times]
Schermerhorn House 1/3-Rented [Brownstoner]
Development Watch: Schermerhorn House Nears Completion [Brownstoner]
Development Watch: Schermerhorn House Gets Its Skin [Brownstoner] GMAP
Development Watch: 160 Schermerhorn Tops Out [Brownstoner] P*Shark
Development Watch: Schermerhorn House Rising [Brownstoner] DOB
Some More 411 on the “Schermerhorn House” [Brownstoner]


What's Your Take? Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

  1. Roberto,
    Both Benson and I clearly said that if this was 100% privately funded then it is none of our concern. If taxpayer dollars are used, then it is. The article does not give the breakdown of funding for the non-profits involved.
    The debate moved on into one about subsidies for the arts in general, which do come from taxpayer dollars and which I oppose, because the government should not have a role in determining what is ‘good’ art. I am not ‘angry’, just stating my opinion. I did see the part about income levels and don’t see why that is relevant to whether one group should get a special subsidy.

1 2 3 4 5 26