The Cold Shoulder of the Greene House Facade
While the height and materials of the Greene House condos are what attracted the most grumbling when the development opened in late 2004, it struck us the other day that the way in which the base of the building fails to engage with the streetscape is arguably a greater shortcoming. Was this a result of…
While the height and materials of the Greene House condos are what attracted the most grumbling when the development opened in late 2004, it struck us the other day that the way in which the base of the building fails to engage with the streetscape is arguably a greater shortcoming. Was this a result of zoning that prevented storefronts on this block or just plain-old bad design? Update: We should also mention that the streetscape on this block has greatly benefited from the garden on the corner that the Greene House Condo owners built with their own two hands. There’s a photo of it with no furniture in January in this thread and a fresh one with furniture on the jump.
WOW nothing seems good enough for the readers of brownstoner. Maybe the name of the site should be changed to Property Grumps! The people who actually own these brownstones obviously couldn’t bothered
I’d be more impressed by the garden if there hadn’t been a larger community garden (one with people in it…) on that very corner before the behemouth went up.
Its ‘motif’ leaves a lot to be desired. If I lived in that building I’d certainly not want to spend a lot of time in it. Its dimensions give it more the feel of a cage than a park. It probably would have been better off as a a plant garden or, maybe, a kids playground with building-only access.
The streetscape isn’t something to write home about but there’s worse out there. I would have done something more imaginative with the windows, instead of those tiny faux-cinderblock windows.
Speaking as someone who lost light and privacy because of this building (not to mention half the backyard at one point during construction – fun), I think it doesn’t help the community much but it definitely could have been worse.
Clearly it wasn’t their priority to enhance the neighborhood by providing a sub-2mill purchase option – 2k/month 2-bedroom rentals would have been better – but property rights shouldn’t be regulated into uselessness.
That said, those valuable terraces are just awesome for the wind (or some of those classy owners) to knock things off them into my backyard from dangerous heights.
I’m all in favor of strong housing property rights, but it’s important to remember you don’t live in a vacuum and they don’t give you the high ground (moral or otherwise) to ignore the consequences of your choices.
I agree that it’s rather nice looking. And the garden is pleasant. So what if it’s private. Don’t Brownstone owners have private yards? A certain amount of new construction is unavoidable almost anywhere. It’s good that there are regulations about what can be built.
the market rules
you want a $2MM dollar brownstone, it’s a free country, go out and earn the money so you can afford it
this isn’t a communist country last i checked
Without condominiums like GH, more people would be priced out of Fort Greene. It’s the brownstone owners who are greedy. They want the ‘hood all to themselves, or to those able to pay the $2 million entry fee to join their exclusive brownstoney club.
This building as with other new developments in the Fort Greene and Clinton Hill communities is not a welcome addition. It does not fit into the contextual feel of the neighborhood and many community residents have commented on its ugliness. I feel sorry for the homeowners who lost their yard privacy when this montrosity was built. Typical example of the greed that has enveloped the community.
I like weed…if you know what I mean. 4:20
All but one of the units is occupied. The only unit from the original offering plan that hasn’t sold is a 2BR/2BA on the 3rd floor with a large “roof” terrace.