Sign up for the Brownstoner daily email
« Brooklyn Sales: Under a Million Inside Third & Bond: Week 97 »

August 20, 2009

How the Argyle Greets 4th Avenue

argyle%2008-2009.JPG
Following in the footsteps of another 4th Avenue masterpiece new condo, the Crest, behold the latest grate addition to the Park Avenue of Brooklyn's streetscape, this time c/o the Argyle. Jane Jacobs would love this! GMAP




Posted by Gabby at 11:13 AM | Comments (29)
Categories: 4th Avenue, Architecture, Condos

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/11071

Comments

man, we walked by that last night on the way to LeBleu, and we commented on the same thing. Like, why didn;t they put the garage entrance on the side street?

Posted by: denton at August 20, 2009 11:23 AM

Flog the architect.

Posted by: DitmasSnark at August 20, 2009 11:23 AM

Is that the same thing as "flogging the bishop" Snark?

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at August 20, 2009 11:25 AM

Sweet - blank wall on the street. Or is that vent actually the entrance to a speakeasy cocktail/ramen joint?

Posted by: dirty_hipster at August 20, 2009 11:30 AM

same as crest on 2nd St and Park Ave of Brooklyn.

unbelievable.

Posted by: antidope at August 20, 2009 11:33 AM

Don't architects have to have degrees? Or can anyone's brother in law do the design work these days?

Posted by: bxgrl at August 20, 2009 11:38 AM

they're shooting themselves in the foot. why would people want to live in a building when the builders have expressed zero confidence in the street where it's located?

Posted by: i disagree at August 20, 2009 11:51 AM

Well the building has sold 53 units, 2 are in contract and 10 are for sale.

So clearly the people buying the place didn't seem to mind as much as everyone here.

Posted by: 11217 at August 20, 2009 11:54 AM

As hideous and horrible as this is, I don’t think you can blame the architects/developers. A combination of groundwater conditions and stupid stupid zoning makes it practically impossible to put nice retail in this space. On-site parking is required for 50% of the units, and the water table is so high along 4th avenue that underground parking is impossible. That means that the garage has to go on the ground floor. It’s really a horrible oversight that parking is required in dense multifamily new construction that literally sits atop a subway line.

Posted by: wellheythere at August 20, 2009 12:09 PM

Yes, bxgirl, anybody's brother-in-law CAN do the design work. You don't need a degree in anything to simply design a building. You only need a registered architect to sign and seal the drawings. As far as the law is concerned, the building has to be structurally sound and code-conforming. Other than in historic districts, aesthetics and urbanism don't matter.

Posted by: TD at August 20, 2009 12:26 PM

"On-site parking is required for 50% of the units"--seriously, this is required by the city?

Wow, that's stupid. Seriously, no parking should be required in any NYC building. Especially one so close to the subway.

Posted by: bkrules at August 20, 2009 12:26 PM

" 'On-site parking is required for 50% of the units'--seriously, this is required by the city?

Wow, that's stupid. Seriously, no parking should be required in any NYC building. Especially one so close to the subway."

Ridiculous, non-sensical rules in NYC (and NYS) - never! It wouldn't be a surprise if there's something in the building code requiring dirigible moorings, and that some jackass bureaucrat would enforce it.

Posted by: solidago at August 20, 2009 12:41 PM

yes bkr. Sound idea imo, keeps cars off the street.

However, in spite of the high water table, the Novo managed to get their garage underground. Quite a mess it was, but they managed. Of course it must have cost them, and so the new guys didn't bother. The subway is not under the buildings, it is under 4th Ave.

And you can't put nice retail in anyway because the zoning specifies 'community service' uses only. To wit, the infusion center in the Novo.

Posted by: denton at August 20, 2009 12:45 PM

> So clearly the people buying the place didn't seem to mind as

Well, it was less fugly in the renderings:

- http://www.argyleparkslope.com/#/classic-and-modern/

Posted by: DitmasSnark at August 20, 2009 12:48 PM

Well if it had to do with high water tables and parking then I don't begrudge them putting the lot on 4th and the building enterance on 7th - entering on 7th is alot more attractive (and they do have to sell the units) BUT

you could at least make the garage entrance attractive (for a garage entrance) - ever hear of f'ing landscaping???? - with some nice doors, iron fencing, two trees, 16 bushes and a couple of perennials - it could look A WORLD better.

Posted by: fsrg at August 20, 2009 12:53 PM

Wow denton, is there really no commercial retail allowed on 4th avenue? Or only parts of 4th avenue? I'm too lazy to check the zoning maps, but that disgusts me.

Posted by: wellheythere at August 20, 2009 12:57 PM

no retail in the new developments. You can have retail in existing structures.

If it was me, I would have a grand entrance on 4th, and stick the garage on the side street.

Anyway maybe the condo board will d a lil' decorating at some point.

Posted by: denton at August 20, 2009 1:04 PM

Couple of trees and some cosmetic adjustment would make this

Posted by: crimsonson at August 20, 2009 1:10 PM

that is freaking crazy. "community service" uses but no retail? what is the justification for that? either way, it's still really hostile, and even as a garage they could have done better.

Posted by: i disagree at August 20, 2009 1:58 PM

I don't know for sure, but I bet the 'communiy service' was a sop to the activists to allow it to happen. Justa guess tho.

Posted by: denton at August 20, 2009 2:12 PM

you know, the landscaping can always come later. our condo had many trees planted, but no other landscaping. the owners did it later. looks great, and is no big deal.

Posted by: wine lover at August 20, 2009 2:14 PM

i guess i don't get what the "community service" designation even means. they're not nonprofit, these infusion centers and alcohol treatment outpatient places, are they? so why do "activists" like them better than ordinary retail? or maybe it's just that they're more embarrassed to say "no sick people" than they are to say "no yuppies buying coffee."

Posted by: i disagree at August 20, 2009 2:19 PM

sure, hospitals and such are set up as non-profits. Doesn't mean no one makes money but the company isn't supposed to.

Posted by: denton at August 20, 2009 2:57 PM

Onsite parking is required for 50% of the units? I don't get it. Shouldn't they be encouraging LESS reliance on cars? Isn't there a subway line on 4th avenue?

Posted by: pfa at August 20, 2009 4:12 PM

i think parking is crucial. many people have cars, and it's one of the attractions of living outside of manhattan - driving for errands on the weekends or going away to where-ever. especially if you want to do activities like the beach or skiing. i rarely drive during the week, but use the car for all sorts of stuff on the weekends. it's not outrageous by any means to have a car as a grown up. if you have kids, grocery shopping can fill up a trunk. and, park slope has limited street parking anyway.

Posted by: wine lover at August 20, 2009 6:41 PM

It's cute how the renderings show trees on 4th Ave.

The parking requirement is totally insane. Fortunately, it looks like the city will be reexamining it soon. (Too late for the building boom, unfortunately.)

denton is totally wrong about the zoning. Retail IS allowed. I've tried to correct denton several times on other threads on Brownstoner, but this misinformation keeps coming up... I'll try one more time. The zoning is R8A with a C2-4 overlay. The C2-4 overlay allows all sorts of retail. The thing about "community service" is completely wrong.

Posted by: zinka at August 21, 2009 12:32 AM

Denton doesn't even have the term right. What he thinks he means is "community facility," not "community service". But he's wrong, and I wish he'd stop saying this wrong thing over and over again.

RETAIL IS ALLOWED ON THIS PART OF 4TH AVE, IN BOTH OLD AND NEW BUILDINGS.

Posted by: zinka at August 21, 2009 12:33 AM

I thought the new zoning rules required that all new construction projects on 4th avenue plant trees in front of the building. Is that not true?

Posted by: gowanusgrrl at August 21, 2009 9:01 AM

Yes, tree planting is now a citywide requirement. There are exceptions for issues like subways, so they may have gotten one of those. It's also possible that they did plant trees, but they're cropped out of this photo.

Posted by: zinka at August 21, 2009 9:42 AM

Post a comment

Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.

Latest Restaurant Additions