« Warm and Cozy Sales Effort at 75 Smith After the Hipsters, Before the Condos »
February 7, 2006
An Open Letter to Fedders re: Fedders Houses
Think of this letter as a form of group therapy. A concerned Brooklyn resident writes an open letter to the president of Fedders, trying to convince the exec of the damage to his company's image by being associated with the lowest form of architecture known to man:
Seemingly profitably for FEDDERS, these buildings—ghastly in their plain-as-cardboard architecture from the get-go—require an air conditioning unit under every other window. Unfortunately, each FEDDERS air conditioner is giganticly emblazoned with the word FEDDERS across the public-facing side of the unit. So an unsightly edifice in the first place becomes [number of windows with FEDDERS air conditioners] times uglier. It’s about as repugnant as seeing the word FEDDERS boldly capitalized 29 times here in this letter. The net effect I describe is now commonly referred to as a FEDDERS House.
Letter to Fedders [Open Web Letter]
Comments
retarded.
Posted by: suzy at February 7, 2006 10:59 AM
Brilliant.
Posted by: jasont at February 7, 2006 11:09 AM
Oh if only all of us could live in $2.0 million brownstones or $1.0 million condos. These buildings are fine and the Fedders covers are usually gone after a year. They are not that bad.
Posted by: Anon at February 7, 2006 11:26 AM
Hey, that's not me -- please note the capital letter above. I guess imitiation, as they say, is the sincerest form of flattery -- although in this case I'd liken it more to character assassination, since I am in disagreement with the post in question.
Posted by: babs at February 7, 2006 11:31 AM
I think maybe you are too used to seeing them. After a year or so - many are rusting and look even worse. On my corner - in a 4 year old condo bldg with a recent sale of close to $1m - many remain - and ones where A/C has been put in don't even fill the sleeve correctly.
What could a simple grill work cover cost? $200?
You'd think it would be against zoning regs to have these advertising signs on residential streets.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 7, 2006 11:36 AM
genius.
Posted by: adn at February 7, 2006 11:37 AM
And now for my real thoughts on the subject -- I doubt this letter will do any good, although its intent is laudable. I'm sure Fedders company execs are thrilled to see thier name repeated endlessly on all of these crackerbox horrors and are even more pleased to have become a generic term.
My other fear is that the developers of these places actually think they look nice, as do friends of mine, who mostly grew up in "disadvantaged" situations and thus think that anything new, without the "taint" of the old, crumbling, poorly-maintained buildings in which they grew up (and which are now selling as million dollar brownstones or condo conversions), is superior. Some of the people I've asked love the cemented front yards, perfect for parking your car, and the exterior stairways, so practical and space-saving.
Posted by: babs at February 7, 2006 11:39 AM
test
Posted by: Anonymous at February 7, 2006 12:17 PM
babs, I'm afraid you are correct on all accounts. It's the same reaction some people have towards well worn antique furniture vs new covered foam and/or wood veneered furniture.
I applaud the letter writer's efforts, and would love to hear what the corporate response was.
Posted by: CrownHeightsProud at February 7, 2006 12:58 PM
I agree with babs and CrownHeights Proud, but these buildings are yucky--and an insult. Look at the details and care put into workers housing 100 years ago--a little respect for the eventual owners not contempt. Please post Fedders response!
Posted by: Anonymous at February 7, 2006 2:01 PM
Babs - you are so right... And that is what will be the downfall of Brooklyn. Not brilliant, high-minded modern design (which we see precious little of), but the cheap and ugly, so long as it's brand spanking new....
Posted by: Anonymous at February 7, 2006 2:20 PM
Wall through AC units like these (which vent in only the back) are rather expensive, at least $400, so most people in rental units don't buy them (if you are going to stay in a place for a few years you don't want to drop $1000 on ACs that may be of no use in your next flat). Instead, they put in window units which are much cheaper but need to vent through the side and back. This is a hazard and these units will quickly burn out. Landlords should either provide the units or not provide the wall through holes.
Posted by: x at February 7, 2006 2:31 PM
Isnt it annoying how those "disadvantaged" peoples have such bad taste!
Posted by: David at February 7, 2006 2:50 PM
Where are you people from??? Are any of you originally from Brooklyn any of part of NYC???? I'm guessing most of you are new to the block particularly the person who posted the ridiculous comment "and that is what will be the downfall of Brooklyn ...not brilliant, high-minded modern design but the cheap and ugly,"
There have been, what you call Fedders houses, built in Brooklyn for at least 40 years if not longer. Brooklyn is still standing and doing well, very well thank you. Why...diversity, diversity in the population, the housing stock, and taste; yes taste some in fact many who did not grow up disadvantaged but rather quite well off like the new construction. Those who can not appreciate that part of what makes Brooklyn great is this wonderful diversity should consider moving back to the little towns and suburbs they came from.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 7, 2006 3:14 PM
"Oh if only all of us could live in $2.0 million brownstones or $1.0 million condos. These buildings are fine and the Fedders covers are usually gone after a year. They are not that bad."
No - they're terrible and if you think they're not, please start your own blog named something like: "notasteatall.com", or "idontgiveashitwhatitlookslike.com" and you and the other 10 percent of posters here who keep defending ugliness can go trade your intelligent banter over there.
And a few of you should also start a blog called: "affordablehousinghastobeugly.com" because evidently you can't understand 1) that almost none of the units that have been discussed here are designed for, or have been sold to, low income families and 2) that it is possible to build housing which is simple, affordable yet well designed.
Posted by: Seamus at February 7, 2006 3:16 PM
ugly as i think the fedders-buildings are (one is next door to me), it looks ridiculous for a 'horrified' resident to try to explain neo-brownstone aesthetics to sal giordano. i'm sure sal's response is a big "f--- you, you freakin' pansy!"
Posted by: the golden bear at February 7, 2006 3:30 PM
The 1st time I read about community complaining about 'Fedder's Building's'
is not from the 'elitist' Brownstone belt but from BayRidge/Bensonhurst.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 7, 2006 3:52 PM
this is ludicrous. i love the comment about how building were constructed 100 years ago. 100 years ago, workers had few rights, there was no workers comp or disability infrastructure, and precious little regulation of the entire construction business. Labor was cheap and living standards were much lower across the board. One of the prices we have all paid for a larger middle class is less beautiful handicrafted items- buildings clothes and etc. It is very sad. But when you leave out all the context and just call something 'cheap' amd 'tasteless' you sound so silly. we all prefer caviar. but we can't always have it. in the meantine, save your precious eyes and look away. THIS will not be the downfall of brooklyn,,,
Posted by: Anonymous at February 7, 2006 4:56 PM
The "disadvantaged" are accustomed to accepting ugly architecture (as long as it's new) as desirable, because this is pretty much all they are offered. Beautiful neighborhoods engender pride in those neighborhoods, and a better quality of life for those residents, rich or poor. This has been the case, proven again and again, by ugly housing projects all over the US and Europe. No one should have to settle for ugly and soul destroying, just like no one should have to settle for crappy education or poor medical care. Just because something is functional does not mean that it can't be attractive. Just ask William Morris.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 7, 2006 4:56 PM
Aesthetically speaking, which is what I assume this discussion was about, crappy architecture is the downfall of Brookly. I was not aware that we were discussing Brooklyn in any other context. Brooklyn has some of the most beautiful residential housing stock of any city I have ever visited. The crap that is springing up now is an insult to the architectural history of this once beautiful borough. And just for the record, Brooklyn was hardly working class one hundred years ago.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 7, 2006 5:01 PM
The consensus seems to be that the built in Fedders A/C wall vents are unattractive and only add insult to many already unattractive new construction buildings. What's even uglier is seeing an in wall A/C unit cut into the side of a Brownstone.
Personally I also dislike the precarious window A/C units. If central A/C is not available does anyone have a constructive suggestion on a more attractive installation of an in wall "Fedders" type A/C?
Posted by: jim at February 7, 2006 5:24 PM
Seamus ~
What a nice invitation to an intellegent discussion. All of us who disagree with you can leave? How about you kiss my ass and I continue to tell you that people who rant about Fedders signs on buildings are elitest snobs. Yuor arrogance is beyond the pale. I also don't care if I am in the minority. I can handle that or even being wrong, but don't tell me to leave because you don't like my opinion.
Posted by: Sally at February 7, 2006 5:41 PM
Anon 5:01
99% of this new construction is not replacing Brooklyn's architectural history; and while I certainly dont like cookie cutter "fedder" style construction, if our old housing is more "insulted" by this new construction then by the empty lots and delapidated/abandoned housing that was dominant 20 years ago then tell the old houses to go Fu$# themselves.
Posted by: David at February 7, 2006 5:45 PM
The ironic thing is that the Fedders boxes wouldn't be so bad if the Fedders name wasn't so large, and they didn't feel the need to have that huge name printed on each and every one. But then we couldn't call the houses "Fedders houses" then. We'd have to come up with something shorter than "those awful new houses with the air conditioning boxes and small windows and too many stair cases and doors made out of strange colored bricks and dubious building materials, that are popping up like mushrooms after a rainfall all over New York city, especially in formerly underpriveleged areas now coveted by developers and realtors."
For what it's worth, I really hate it when people punch holes in walls for a/c units too. I don't like window a/c's either, but I certainly wouldn't try to ban them, I think that's unfair and unrealistic.
Posted by: CrownHeightsProud at February 7, 2006 5:45 PM
Hey--to the guy saying workers had no rights 100 years ago--you're right--most advances made by labor have been in the 20th century--but that doesn't change the fact that when developers built for the poor and working class, they actually built quality product that showed respect for who would live there. They had a forward attitude and also ego to be seen as guys of taste, etc.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 7, 2006 6:36 PM
Brooklyn wasn't working class 100 years ago? What does that even mean? My family's been here for about 125 years, and I can assure you there were rich poor and in between all along. Look at the old Brooklyn Eagle online--lots of poor, immigrants, blue collar--I mean, c'mon.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 7, 2006 6:38 PM
Contractors here are cheap. How come no one puts in central air in a new building when the apts cost $555555, Look at the crappy thing on park place and flatbush, is this good design NO and it aint Fedders either. So we are F>cked, MOVE , NY is not really known for its cutting edge architecture. And by the way is a brownstone really all that great. I can hear my neighbors water pipes bang. I have to climb stairs. Maybe I should move to a McMansion.. HA At least then I would have mirrors on my ceilings...
Posted by: Anonymous at February 7, 2006 6:40 PM
The letter writer displays an uncanny financial mind, attributing the decline in a company's stock price to the display of their logo on buildings deemed to be unattractive. The logic of the argument is only surpassed by the tenuous grasp said letter writer has on the english language and basic grammar.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 7, 2006 7:52 PM
Seamus, what right do you have to dictate who can post or not post?
The fact that someone disagrees with you should give them more right to post, not less.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 7, 2006 8:23 PM
Of all the posts defending these pieces of crap, the one about Fedders housing lending "diversity" to Brooklyn is the most senseless. What's this about going back to the suburbs--like the suburbs are't bastions of bad, cookie-cutter architecture. I also love this cry of "elitism" -- the very term the right wingers are always tossing about in their attempt to turn quality and intellect into dirty words.
Posted by: anonymous at February 7, 2006 10:30 PM
Anon 6:36 - I suggest you read some history (try Jacob Riss to start) before you make retarded statements like
"when developers built for the poor and working class [100 years ago], they actually built quality product that showed respect for who would live there."
The quality of the housing for poor peope 100 years ago was horrific; most even more frightening then your level of ignorance.
Posted by: David at February 7, 2006 10:43 PM
David, I live in a house built 100 years ago in a working class neighborhood, for the immigrant blue collar population--and people now spend $1-$1.5 million for the quality and details it was taken for granted all homeowners, even lower class or uneducated newcomers, would expect and could demand. Jacob Riis wrote about people living in tenements--not the houses we live in and, in many instances, houses that had been built for the wealthy in the 1820s and later converted for poor renters. Houses and quality apartments were indeed built for the lower echelons--you just don't know much about history.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 8, 2006 12:22 AM
Brownstones were mostly built for the middle class and wealthy, as they fled the stinking tenements of Manhattan.
Welcome to NYC, now learn your history.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 8, 2006 1:42 AM
Yes Alfred Treadway White and a few other Brooklyn Developers built some decent housing for workers in the late 1800s but they were TINY exceptions and it wasnt until the "new" tenament laws were passed in the very eary 1900s that housing for working/poor could be considered even remotely decent (having A window, a private toilet, etc..)
Anon 12:22AM yes Jacob Riss wrote about tenaments - what in the hell did you think the poor/working people were forced to live in during that period? Do you think working people crowded in tenanments w/ no windows, little or no plumbing and unimaginable filth because their vVictorian detailed townhouses were being painted???
Your knowledge of this city's history is frightening incorrect and I suggest you do a little bit of reading before you make more absurd statements.
Posted by: David at February 8, 2006 9:25 AM
Vast tracts of Brownstone Brooklyn, Kensington, Bay Ridge, and Flatbush, just to name a few had a solidly middle to upper class population one hundred years ago. These neighborhoods are hardly considered that today.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 8, 2006 9:42 AM
There is an apartment building built back in the 60's on Herkimer St in Bed Stuy. They installed Fedders in wall units in each of the living rooms, below the windows. The answer to the asthetic issue was to put a terrace outside each of the living rooms that was about 4x8 with a separate door entrance. Voila! AC in the living room, without Fedders being seen from the street. Driving or walking by all you see is the outdoor terrace of each apartment on the front of the building. Apartments on the side and rear or the building (which looked out onto Atlantic Ave) had the air conditioners in the wall, but there was a limited sight view and my recollection was that at the time the building went up almost all of Atlantic was manufacturing or light industrial, thus the air conditioning covers didn't mar any existing views.
Posted by: do or die at February 8, 2006 3:46 PM
Great, constructive comment, DO!
Posted by: Anonymous at February 8, 2006 3:57 PM
FYI--my family's been living in the same house for close to 100 years and we've never been wealthy--although, I suppose if we sold the house today, we would be. Homeless, but with some cash. Working class means people who have to work for a living, usually blue collar jobs, usually with minimal education. Sometimes, when times are rough, these guys qualify as poor. And they lived in houses in Brooklyn 100 years ago. Riis wrote about the abject poor, the most destitute. It's like saying all the poor people live in the most run-down projects today. People with not much to spare do live in houses. It's not a privilege reserved for rich out of towners. I know my NY history, I've lived it. These houses in this quiet but now quite expensive area were built for working people, not rich people--that's why they were built with apartments and fewer whistles and bells than Park Slope. There used to be real economic diversity in many neighborhoods. My god, I had a grandfather grow up in Kensington with 13 siblings, a widowed mom, forced to quit school and start working at 11 and he wasn't even the poorest kid he knew. Yet they lived in a house his parents had scrimped for years to buy. Come on. You're the one needing a history lesson. Housing and its history are mighty complex.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 9, 2006 1:53 AM
If your family owned a home a 100 years ago then they were far from the definition of "working class" that most people use.
Developments like Parkchester were built and wildly successful precisely because the housing for Working people early in the last century were dreadful and rare exceptions aside, the notion (expressed above)that developers of poor/working class housing 100+ years ago built quality housing that showed respect for these people is just wrong.
Posted by: Anon at February 9, 2006 10:25 AM
I like my Fedders sleeve. With the AC unit in it doesn't look so bad. Besides, I hate the heat.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 9, 2006 10:59 AM
Let me throw something out there. I'm not taking side because I don't know who's right or not. Just remember that most working class housing is probably now long gone due to the fact that it was built so poorly.
Posted by: Chris Erb at March 20, 2006 8:28 PM
Latest Restaurant Additions
-
Abistro
added January 5, 2009 12:00 PM in Fort Greene -
Wing Wagon
added December 30, 2008 12:00 PM in Prospect Heights -
Babouche
added December 29, 2008 12:00 PM in Park Slope -
La Maison du Couscous
added December 23, 2008 12:00 PM in Bay Ridge -
Sotto Voce
added December 22, 2008 12:00 PM in Park Slope -
Pedro's
added December 19, 2008 12:00 PM in Dumbo -
The Moxie Spot
added December 18, 2008 12:00 PM in Brooklyn Heights -
Kiku
added December 17, 2008 12:00 PM in Park Slope -
Bocca Lupo
added December 16, 2008 12:00 PM in Cobble Hill -
Maggie Brown
added December 15, 2008 12:00 PM in Clinton Hill
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.