Match the Boymelgreen Building to its Catty Comment

1.

Zoning doesn't prescribe style... architects do. I'm not so sure there was even an architect involved here... and the balconies... ugh god... I must go relieve myself... excuse me.

2.

They are all pathetic.
"4th avenue can be like park avenue"
yeah, park avenue - after a tornado ran through a particle board, sheet rock and glue factories and dumped everything there.
I love the slope but these buildings are exploiting zoning changes. It isn't an accident that the biggest is slap bang in the middle of the over-full PS321 zone.

3.

Does anyone who lives in the Slope (or Gowanus for that matter) want to claim Fourth Ave as their own? Seriously, I think had it right when he labeled it the DMZ.

I did love this man-on-the-street observation:

“I don’t think the attractiveness is the most important factor. It’s a question of what people in the buildings bring to the neighborhood.”

4.

slow day today huh?!??!

5.

F. Gehry:

You obviously know nothing of real estate nor architecture as a business. There is a reason virtually no attractive buildings have been built since the enactment of zoning restrictions in New York City.

The constant restrictions on supply has ensured that there is always a shortage of usable real estate, while the ridiculously low maximum densities, sky planes, height factors, etc ensures that anyone who owns land will maximize their profit at the expense of anything and everything.

People will live in whatever you give them, and companies will accept anything that is built as long as it is functional.

And that is the issue here: function. People and businesses are desperate for functional space FIRST , and only that matters.

Only when you have a true free market willed with relatively wealthy buyers and sellers can people begin to actually turn their sights to less practical concerns, such as aesthetics.

Historically, aesthetics was important purely for the marketing standpoint. When everyone was building enormous apartment and office buildings 100 years ago, there was no shortage of supply. If you didn't build an attractive, comfortable facility, you wouldn't get any customers. It's that simple.

This is today, no longer the case. For residential property, it is only compounded by rent control which makes it painfully difficult to demolish obsolete structures.

You want beautiful buildings? Fight zoning laws. Fight for politicians who advocate eliminating them, and fight for politicians who will get rid of rent control.

The beautiful buildings of yesteryear are getting old really fast. Property owners are not going to pay for their upkeep unless they have to (historical preservation laws).

If things don't change soon, whatever beauty is left in this city will ripped down as property owners turn existing buildings into soulless, functional boxes.

Architects are not aesthetic government bureaucrats. They do what they are told to do by their clients, and right now the guiding mantra is simple: Make it as functional as possible for the lowest cost.

6.

Eryximachus = moron

7.

All are obvious indications of the current theme of architecture being a slave to the almighty dollar. Quality construction of old is so expensive that developers have their architects draft up the cheapest construction possible. This results. It's a sad, sad commentary to the state of no inspiration amongs architects. This is the shitty architecture we pass along to the next generation. Gee, thanks.

8.

#5 = spot on

9.

jbjb touched on a point here...
if a developer actually wanted to create a building simulating pre-war style, do you know how expensive the construction costs would be? i bet no architect has a problem designing it, the question is, who's paying? and how is the developer going to make his money back after spending all that cash in the name of architecture? only the filthy rich can afford a 1 mil studio for the bragging rights of living in a building that keeps up with architecture of olden times...

10.

It is well known that real estate people have no sense of aesthetics or idea of quality workmanship. Being an architect doesn't guarantee that either. When you put the two together you are lucky if you get a 25% chance of creating a good building from an aesthetic point of view. Building aesthetics are a very small part of what is involved in real estate development. Most people complaining about new buildings worry about aesthetics which is completely subjective. Most do not understand the process that creates the buildings we see.

For the realtor it is mostly about having a successful project that comes in under budget and makes at least a minimum desired profit.
A good architect is not always the one with the best sense of aesthetics but one that can satisfy the functional requirements of the program and still create a building that looks good. Most people are subjective and judge the buildings from the outside without any knowledge of what issues had to be addressed to get it built and whether it satisfied the program requirements or not.

11.

#9 - it isn't necessarily necessary to "keep up the architecture of old times" this is about giving developers enough breathing room to compete with each to create remarkable structures.
I have no problem with historical districts but outside those little islands of preservation zoning laws and rent control mean a shortage of supply, and that in turn means every square foot of new development is maximized, squashing out room for any MODERN aesthetics (let alone faux victorian reproductions or whatever).

Basically the market is warped way out of shape right now and the result, if the situation continues, is going to be a decade or more of blah structures that are soul crushing to live amongst while these little fey historical districts skyrocket in desirability more because the alternatives (pictured above) are so fucking dismal than because it is wonderful to live in a structure designed by someone who died in 1920.

Being an architect in brooklyn is probably the most depressing profession. There are many exciting and modern and inexpensive residential ideas in other world cities - from small scale to large - but we all buy this crap because there isn't any other choice.

12.

seven

such a chimp

13.

The apts. at Novo and the Crest are pretty nice and somewhat afforable considering their proximity to the subway, shops and restaurants. I agree the buildings could be more unique but if they were, very few could afford them. Also who would choose a dressed up box over a historic brownstone.

14.

Shit sandwich(es).

4th Ave a Park Ave NOT!

15.

Hi,
I have set up a group for contract holders at Crest Park Slope, 302 Second St. Please join to share information on closing and the development.

Email me for an invite Yunghi@gmail.com

Thanks
Y