Modern Design: Brooklyn Plagued by Mediocrity
We had just read Nicolai Ouroussoff’s article yesterday raving about Jean Nouvel’s two new residential buildings in Manhattan (which we share his enthusiasm for) on the subway and were walking down Washington Street towards our office in Dumbo when we were confronted with this vision of the Beacon and J Condo. All we could think…
We had just read Nicolai Ouroussoff’s article yesterday raving about Jean Nouvel’s two new residential buildings in Manhattan (which we share his enthusiasm for) on the subway and were walking down Washington Street towards our office in Dumbo when we were confronted with this vision of the Beacon and J Condo. All we could think was, “How mediocre.” The following statement from the Ouroussoff piece certainly couldn’t have been written about either of the new Dumbo towers or much else that’s been built in Brooklyn during the current building boom: “Mr. Nouvel doesn’t reject this history; he tips his hat to it, showing us what can be accomplished through ingenious planning and calculated consideration of the setting.” Besides Richard Meier’s design for On Prospect Park, there’s very little recent architecture that would merit the attention of critics. (The fiberglass house on Vanderbilt Avenue is one exception. What are some others?) We understand that the economics probably aren’t as compelling for starchitect-designed developments, but that’s no excuse for the lackluster buildings that will define the skyline for decades to come. There are certainly plenty of un-famous architects out there who could do better than the status quo. The hurdle: A little imagination and appetite for risk on the part of developers.
Seductive Machines for City Living [NY Times]
Perfect comparison to American cars, Halden. I always think that whenever I go into new-construction condos or townhouses in Brooklyn or in FL where my parents live and where developers spend all of a week building a house (in a hurricane prone zone, no less). I always think these places won’t “age well”. It’ll look like crap in even just a year or two.
Interesting comment re: cars – I think part of the problem American auto makers face right now is that their cars look like crap, are cheaply put together, and fall apart sooner than their Japanese counterparts. They look inexpensive compared to a well-made car, but are really just cheap and will cost you in the long run. But mostly, they are hideous.
Wait a second – I just described most of the new development in Brooklyn (except for the Japanese part). Maybe there’s hope yet.
Mr. Meirs Perry street clone will suffer the same leaky faith as its NYC alter ego except instead of being filled with the rich and famous it will be EMPTY.
Long live stupidity
Whoa, whoa, whoa–what are you talking about, vis-a-vis some review board that stops crappy projects in Chicago? Are you kidding me? What review board? I lived in Chicago for 14 years, until 2003, and the last decade or so have seen a HUGE proliferation of hideous housing. Hid-eee-ous! Not only of the Fedders variety, but also among the more fancy price points. Garages in front (in a city that is blessed with alleys), ridiculous overornamentation, ostentatious copper gutters alongside *cinderblock* that’s been goofily chiseled up to supposedly look like stone (it doesn’t). The list goes on. Granted, Chicago has some wonderful programs to encourage facade improvements on the loathed 4-plus-1 apartment buildings, and to the wonderful, ubiquitous bungalows. And I have no doubt that Chicago does a better job generally than Brooklyn in this area. But still, there are bucketloads of crap built in that lovely city–and far too many beautiful buildings torn down in the name of “progress.” Developers are bottom-line oriented everywhere, and there is no overabundance of talent or taste, either. That said: I love Chicago dearly. Bklyn, too.
“reps from the community”? If Lumi Rolley and Patti Hagan are as competent at critiquing architecture as they are at community organizing, then AY would look far worse than it already does.
True, much-less-crap-in-chicago, especially when public dollars DO go into a development. Like AY’s design should have gone before a community review board of architects and reps from the community. Aside from reviewing whether there should be a stadium there or not, which we have no say over, can we at least have some say in what it looks like?
on the one hand, I’d wish for a review board that would evaluate and kill all crappy projects early, something like they do in Chicago. on the other hand, I would worry that some genuinely good stuff would get passed up. but I think it’s a shame that we have to wait around for the market to demand good design before developers start building it. it’s like american car companies back in the 50’s refusing to put seatbelts into their cars until the government required them to do so. if you build a car, you should have certain responsibilities to the safety people who will drive it. similarly, if you are going to put something into the built environment, you should have a responsibility to not fill that environment with crap!
european cities have done a much better job of blending historic buildings with newer modern buildings. it doesn’t happen as much here, but it is catching on. the new glass addition to the Library at bryant park, the museum in minneapolis are a few examples. but europe also tends to produce the best architects and cutting edge design. they hold many more design competitions there and smaller firms are more likely to get larger commisions
It might not be the original intent, but it’s clearly not just residential development people on brownstoner are concerned with. Thus the heated debates over Gehry’s design for the stadium at AY. And the Gowanus Canal. And the Brooklyn Bridge park. People are concerned about the city’s plans and its developers’ visions (or lack thereof) for developing Brooklyn overall.