Civil War Era Gem Facing Wrecking Ball
When 70 Lefferts Place, the old free-standing woodframe between Grand and Classon, went on the market last Spring, there was considerable speculation and fear in the neighborhood that a developer would buy the house only to tear it down. And indeed, now that the sale has been finalized for $2.4 million, it turns out that…
When 70 Lefferts Place, the old free-standing woodframe between Grand and Classon, went on the market last Spring, there was considerable speculation and fear in the neighborhood that a developer would buy the house only to tear it down. And indeed, now that the sale has been finalized for $2.4 million, it turns out that this is the old beauty’s fate. From what we hear, the developer who bought the place, Christopher Morris, is planning a full demolition to be followed by a 21-unit condo building. While we’re saddened that this is the case, it was almost inevitable given market forces: here was a 7,000-square-foot house with an extra 11,000 square feet of buildable air rights in an unlandmarked part of town. The house’s only real hope had been for the same person to buy the house and the adjacent vacant lot so that the air rights could be transferred and thus fully utilized. We gather that Morris is planning to try to incorporate some the house’s elements into the new facade. We had the pleasure of seeing the gorgeous staircase and widow’s walk first-hand when it was on the market. Stunning. Mr. Morris has received an invitation to attend the Lefferts Place Community meeting on August 2 to share more details of his plans. At this point, we’d describe the mood of residents as a mix of resignation and cautious optimism. We hope Morris’ heart is in the right place on this one. We’ll be watching closely, that’s for sure.
Stopping to Smell the Roses on Lefferts [Brownstoner] GMAP P*Shark
“A shaming campaign?”
Ba ha ha good one angyou! Developers are right up there with personal injury lawyers in the ethics department. I suspect as with the dot com bubble – the current real estate bubble there’s so much quick money to be made that people start to break more and more rules and basic principles – a friend who lives in miami tells me developers repeatedly raze landmarked buildings and accept the fine as a cost of doing business.
“I agree with Dreadnaught about Portland St. too. It is the architecture that creates the wonderful neighborhoods we live in. Once the character of these older neighborhoods are destroyed, that’s it.”
Amen! Its what made Brooklyn attractive in the first place – that’s why these neigborhoods revitalized and are attractive and developers destroy the neighborhood’s character and at the same time sell the buiding based on the idea that its in a ‘charming historic district'(with the exception of the crap we just erected..
Think of the literally thousands of buildings dozens of neigborhoods destroyed by robert moses’s schemes – this is just an updated version of that, along with some Tammany hall level corruption.
I think Gehry is talented but his ego has gotten way way out of hand. More bluntly, I believe great architecture can’t be built without a great architect. And no architect is great if he does not build first and foremost buildings actual for human beings, and for the site they will inhabit. Otherwise they are just futile exercises in imagination. Truly great buildings use those elements and make them reality. Like the Gothic Cathedrals or the Roman Aqueduct.
Sure the Atlantic Yards are ugly, but they aren’t destroying the surrounding neighborhoods, draining resources and straining utilities. But if Gehry’s plan will. Building for the sake of filling an empty space seems foolish to me, and since the project could be done in much better ways, I wonder why the “talented” Gehry hasn’t figured out how.
What was both amazing and heartbreaking about the Towers was that after they were destroyed, the remains themselves were such powerful architectural statements. They were an iconic statement about loss, politics and spirituality. Like a ruined Gothic Cathedral. Maybe we just needed to see them that way, but the Towers spoke much more eloquently after their destruction than when they were whole. Still, if it could bring everyone back, I’d say build a whole slew of them.
At the risk of bringing down much ridicule on my head, I will say I thought the Libeskind design was wonderful-although I didn’t like his individual building designs.I agree with you about the Freedom Tower, dreadnaught. The problem with the Tower is that it is a political statement driving the design.
I agree with Dreadnaught about Portland St. too. It is the architecture that creates the wonderful neighborhoods we live in. Once the character of these older neighborhoods are destroyed, that’s it.
“the problem you are having is that (thankfully) not everyone in NYC or Brooklyn views things the way you do. it is possible to read the facts about AY and simply not reach the same alarmist/reactionary conclusions you have reached”
Umm the Municipal Arts society has reached that conclusion, the ESD own study reached that conclusion, and just about every prominent urban planner and architect who is not on Ratner’s payroll has reached that conclusion. Again it doesn’t sound like you have really read up on this, and we really can’t have a discussion on it unless you have
http://atlanticyardsreport.blogspot.com/
“and the eminent domain issue is not a real big problem from what i can tell.”
i’ll just let that stand on itself.
“you would like to control every aspect of a neighborhood”
you’re having a discussion with your impression of me, not me, (and you accuse me of being nasty – you’ve called my views superficial and simple simply because they didn’t agree with yours..I post clear examples of Gehry’s incompetence which you have yet to comment on. as for controlling every aspect of a neighborhood that is exactly what Ratner’s project does.
dude, you need to calm down. your whole tone is too nasty. the problem you are having is that (thankfully) not everyone in NYC or Brooklyn views things the way you do. it is possible to read the facts about AY and simply not reach the same alarmist/reactionary conclusions you have reached. don’t get me wrong, everybody doesn’t have to love AY, but your reactionary response is offputting. you would like to control every aspect of a neighborhood or possibly a borough and have it fit your aesthetic. i like south portland ave a lot. i don’t think that every building is a beautiful building on the block. a beautiful modernist townhouse that uses similar materials and makes allusions to its surroundings would not be unwelcome in my book.
back to AY, i don’t really have a problem with a very dense area.
and the eminent domain issue is not a real big problem from what i can tell. if you owned a property in that area and you sold to Ratner, you did VERY well for yourself and quite possibly got rich. again, i’m not an AY advocate, so please don’t paint me that way. i just don’t a priori hate the project the way you do. and i will say this, if it would serve to increase the property values at one hanson place, then i am partial to its success.
PS
I have posted some pretty clear examples of Gehry’s incompetance…do you really want him designing the largest building in Brooklyn? I think it is an obnoxious eyesore….and look what happens to neighorhoods around his crap -ooops- buildings:
http://www.pps.org/info/ppsnews/brooklyn_essay
An ad highlights Gehry’s Düsseldorf buildings to symbolize the city’s trendiness…
…but up close, the only signs of life are the dumpsters. Is this what Brooklyn really wants?
http://atlanticyardsreport.blogspot.com/
“I do think his residential towers will look cool. ”
have you read up on this project? it will make that area of Brooklyn the most densely populated location in the United State, overload sewers and infrastructure, drive out mom and pop business by essentially giving subsidies to big corporations….and all on the taxpayer’s dime
Plus it uses eminent domain, and destroys several historically significant buildings. Have you really given this serious thought? its the worst sort of big developer urban ‘planning’ around.
“The Municipal Art Society of New York
But in its present form, the Forest City Ratner plan does not work for Brooklyn. To work, the project’s design, size and scale should be altered to fit with …
http://www.mas.org/”
you keep responding with slogans about the past being frozen and no one here is advocating that. But as mentioned progress doesn’t inevitably lead to your modernsist. and again, you honestly think Portland street would look better inter dispersed with modernist buildings rather than in its present form?
I’m not sure what to think of AY yet. My initial reaction a couple of year’s ago was that it would be bad. But now I’m not so sure. That is not a pretty area over there, as it stands now. I don’t particularly like Gehry’s Net’s stadium design. I especially don’t like all the signage and the Net’s Logos everywhere. I do think his residential towers will look cool. I think Metrotech and the Atlantic Center (which were of course Ratner developments) are architectural abominations and I hope the talent of Gehry can prevent something being built that resembles those two disasters.
All in all, I am not against AY. However, what I am eagerly anticipating is Richard Meier’s new building at Grand Army Plaza and I hope to see more projects like that and like the modernist Fort Greene townhouse I mentioned above interspersed with the architectural gems from the past. In short, I don’t think the best possible Brooklyn would be today’s Brooklyn frozen in time. I think a lot of Architectural progress can still be made, without losing respect for architectural achievements from the past.
Ahhh… The evils of Gentrification strikes again.