Union Street Makeover
I decided to play Brownstoner this weekend and snap some photos of new/updated neighborhood dwellings. The renovation below has intrigued me for some time. It's on Union Street, between Clinton and Henry. Keep in mind, there's about four or five of these low-rise row homes (product of the 50s?) on the block, which by anyone's definitions are not pretty. Someone's taken the one on the left up a notch. And--go ahead, call me tacky--I think it's a big improvement.
12 Comments
Leave a comment
Tacky! ok, I had to do it!
We ogled this renovation when we passed it on the way over to Cheever last Monday. I think its quite nice - especially with not one but two roof decks (three if you count the little balcony off the 2nd floor)!
I think it's a great improvement! I would have done the slanty rails differently and gotten a front door that matched the color and character of the stone better (and i guess the white around the door frame is just still unfinished?), but hey, I'm not the one paying for it :)
Although, if that front door matches the other buildings, then I take it back.
I live on that block. That new building is an abomination. What the side-by-side photo doesn't show is that aside from 3 brick buildings in a row -- which, yes, are bad enough -- the rest of the block consists of brownstones. The new one is totally out of character and even scale. It's bigger and uglier than it looks in the photo. Not just tacky, but SUPER TACKY! This is what the landmark district laws protect against. Too bad those laws don't cover Carroll Gardens.
I live on that block as well and I agree with Stephen. It is incredibly tacky and does not blend in at all with the character of the street.
Well, I agree that it would be nice if they could've knocked down the ugly squat brick thing from the 60's and built an 1870's style brownstone, but how many people have done something like that? I've only seen one modern interpretation of a brownstone in Boerum Hill that was done in good taste. I think for what they did, it's an improvement.
Someone should start a Brownstone abominations blog to rip on all the beautiful building that are clad with fake stone... or these ugly Queens looking building scattered throughout the hood. It might get a little boring after a while, just a constant repeat of all the same complaints.
Yes, my comment was that it was a great improvement from the squat little brick things with driveways. I figured it went without saying that it didn't compare to what should have been there in the first place. Was is just essentially a renovation of another squat brick building? What does zoning say about setbacks for these things? Would they have had to get a variance just to build back a normal brownstone shaped structure on this site? Although I would assume if so, any person in their right mind would have approved it. I have been joking that we should claim eminent domain on all driveways so that we all have more street parking anyway ;)
And.. it's better than 12 stories of vinyl siding, like WB or Green Point. Right Elizabeth?
Wow! This is like the "real brooklyn" snobs who complain about dunkin donuts opening in the neighborhood because it conflicts with their idyllic view of what brooklyn "should" be. These "squat" buildings went up in the 1980s in spots where the original buildings had decayed to the ground, and during a time when it wasn't financially viable to reconstruct what fits your beauty vision. Which is a myth in any event--surely you've noticed how many "brownstones" on Union were brick facade just 5 years ago?
Snob? pshaw!