Modern in The Heights (Give Peace a Chance!)
In the wake of yesterday’s at-times heated discussion about the Fort Greene do-it-yourself brownstone, we should probably steer clear of modern design for a couple of days, but yesterday’s this listing of the 1960’s double-wide Willow Street house just can’t be ignored. Rather than have the discussion devolve into a pointless debate of traditional versus…
In the wake of yesterday’s at-times heated discussion about the Fort Greene do-it-yourself brownstone, we should probably steer clear of modern design for a couple of days, but yesterday’s this listing of the 1960’s double-wide Willow Street house just can’t be ignored. Rather than have the discussion devolve into a pointless debate of traditional versus modern, though, we thought it would be interesting to hear people’s thoughts about this house on its own merits as a piece of modern design. In this context, the question is not whether one would prefer to live in a more traditional brownstone but rather how has this particular design stood the test of time? Aesthetically and practically? Personally, we are attracted to the simplicity of the rather monolithic facade, though if we lived there we’d probably wish the architect had been a little more generous with the windows. The type of wood (what kind is it anyway?) used for the garage and entry doors feels a little too “Ice Storm” as well. But the 30-foot atrium ceilings and the use of skylights to bring light down into the house are certainly compelling. Anyone know who the “award-winning architects” are?
Willow Place [Corcoran]
I’ve managed to save up roughly $53528 in my bank account, but I’m not sure if I should buy a house or not. Do you think the market is stable or do you think that home prices will decrease by a lot?
while i prefer the more traditional houses in the area (we just bought such a house around the corner from this one) i can say this is one of the best little corners in all of nyc to live—modern or not, the new residents will be lucky to get it
The exterior is a little bland but the atrium dining room looks amazing. The bathroom looks a little small. Overall looks pretty decent but the price 4.25 Mil ouch!
I agree with the posters regarding the institutional unfriendliness. 1960’s/70’s Riot Resistant Housing, not done very well.
Transfer has a picture of a library in Kips Bay inspired by the same “movement”
http://www.usemenow.com/web-log/archives/2005/03/kips_bay_branch.html
This reminds me of many houses that I’ve seen in Tokyo. With the risk of generalizing too broadly, when they build custom homes (as opposed to the ordinary and more prevalent characterless boxes), the Japanese tend to build very bland-looking residential structures on the outside that masks beauty on the inside.
No, this is not some mystical Japanese thing, but reflective, in my opinion, of the deep envy that culture engenders in people. From the time they are children, Japanese are taught to fit in and tow the party line. Standing out from the crowd is definitely frowned upon. In order to blend in and avoid the envy of others, wealthy Japanese would tend to build characterless boxes on the outside that hide wealth and beauty on the inside of their houses.
In my opinion, this house on Willow Place fits into this category. It would seemlessly fit into a Tokyo neighborhood. Bland on the outside and, possibly, striking on the inside.
There are not enough photos to really judge the inside of the Willow Place house. Perhaps the architects did a good job, but I think you would have to tour the place to really know if they pulled it off.
As for the block, Willow Place is charming despite the NYCTA building. It has the feeling of a remote, forgotten place right in the middle of a huge city. There is some background BQE noise, but it is not noticeable unless you focus on it. Garden Place, which is just east of Hicks Street, is a much more refined one-block street. Willow Place, which is also a one-block street that runs parrallel to Garden Place just west of Hicks, may be less refined, but it is more charming in my opinion because it is more “mixed.” By this I mean that it is not lined solely by elegant townhouses. It’s streetscape has the wonderfully aging Collonade houses, a small and charming church, a NYC Transit Authority garage, a few carriage houses, elegant townhouses, and this 1960s modern house that is the subject of this post.
It is a beautiful “forgotten” urban street. The 1960s house adds to the charm of Willow Place because it shows its evolving life over the years.
Now, I must admit that I prefer the North Heights precisely because it has more mixed structures than the center and south Heights. The North Heights (say, north of Clark Street) was developed much earlier than other parts of Brooklyn Heights because it was closer to the original Fulton Ferry that docked in that area. As a result, you’ll find many charming and well-preserved clapboard Federal houses that were built in the 1820s. And you’ll find mixed in among those 1820s structures the larger and more elaborate Greek Revival brick townhouses that newly wealthy merchants started to build in the mid- to late-1830s. Scattered about are apartment buildings that were mainly built in the 1920s, but some later than that. And in the middle of it all is the lovely Plymouth Church where Abraham Lincoln came to hear the leader of the Abolitionist movement in the 1860s.
A poster in another thread on the Brownstoner was lamenting the fact that it costs $30 for the Brooklyn Heights open house tour, which is today (May 7). But just think of all the history you can explore by visiting those homes and seeing the surrounding area. If you know what you’re looking at, the $30 seems a bargain for a day of stepping back in time when New York was first developing into the largest city in the US.
Sorry for the long post! I just got carried away 🙂
am i the only that thinks it looks like waste processing facility or a prison?
the windows looked like they were designed to resist riots and escape.
not very welcoming.
(i mean like compare it to the amiable little “colonade row” across the street. given a choice, which one would you rather live in?)
why is there this compulsory lemming-esque fawning over these hideous mid-century designs? ( is it because “the protruding nail gets hammered down”?)
why must modern design have to look cold and soul-less?
perversely, hundreds from years from now there will probably be a “1960’s” revival movement.
these were ugly designs that didnt age very well.
the promenance of the garages is interesting … it was probably thought to be essential to keep people from fleeing to the suburbs.
mixed? mixed with what? heaven itself? people LOVE those 2 blocks down there.
Funny, I had just noticed the building for the first time. I’m glad to see that it is a design from the ’60s and not today…
It’s a little symmetrical for my taste. And I agree with the comment regarding the few windows- but I believe the back is much more open.