Back in December 2012, the Brooklyn Bridge Park issued a request for proposals to develop the 1 John Street building, the section of John Street between Adams and Pearl Street of the park for residential development. Con Edison sold the 3.4 acres between John Street and the East River that it has owend for half a century in January 2013. Con Edison says its total investment in the property over the years is about $600,000, but the Brooklyn Bridge Park Development Corporation has agreed to pay $9.2 million for it. Revenue from a 96-year lease on the land under the building would help pay for the purchase.
Curbed reported that there are 11 condo designs that were presented with “the stated goals of the project to “enliven the northern entrance of the park,” build “high-quality, visually appealing residential development,” and “seamlessly integrate the park and the surrounding community.” The site allows for a maximum height of 130 feet, up to 130 residential units (101,000 sq ft of residential space), ground floor retail, and up to 110 parking spaces. The winning respondents will be selected this summer. (Side note: One of the bidders plans to use crowdfunding to get the community involved in investing up to $1 million in the retail component of the development.)
Which one should the park choose?
For full RFP presentation, go to Project Approvals and Presentations, BrooklynBridgePark.org
They all look pretty awful…since when did flood damage protection mean the building should be a giant, 1990’s-eque, glass block that looks like it’s uncomfortably floating above the street?
Do people think it gives the illusion of an elevated building protected from the water? It still has program on the ground floor; lobby, retail, etc.
Here is what I don’t understand: If people think the neighborhood is beautiful, why then when they design new buildings for it do they look nothing like the neighborhood they consider beautiful? I don’t mean to imply buildings should pretend to be old…but there is a middle ground. 205 Water St does a good job of this…no one would mistake the building for an 1800’s factory, but it blends in seamlessly with the street.
They all look pretty awful…since when did flood damage protection mean the building should be a giant, 1990’s-eque, glass block that looks like it’s uncomfortably floating above the street?
Do people think it gives the illusion of an elevated building protected from the water? It still has program on the ground floor; lobby, retail, etc.
Here is what I don’t understand: If people think the neighborhood is beautiful, why then when they design new buildings for it do they look nothing like the neighborhood they consider beautiful? I don’t mean to imply buildings should pretend to be old…but there is a middle ground. 205 Water St does a good job of this…no one would mistake the building for an 1800’s factory, but it blends in seamlessly with the street.
Pingback: How Do Ya Like That: Proposed Look Of Brooklyn Bridge Park Condos | Brooklyn Heights Blog
Pingback: How Do Ya Like That: Proposed Look Of Brooklyn Bridge Park Condos | Brooklyn Heights Blog
I like 7
I like 7
Couldn’t have said it better MJ. None of the new projects in this area even make an attempt at fitting the very aesthetic that everyone claims to love about the nabe unless they are an existing structure. 205 Water seems to be the anomaly.
Couldn’t have said it better MJ. None of the new projects in this area even make an attempt at fitting the very aesthetic that everyone claims to love about the nabe unless they are an existing structure. 205 Water seems to be the anomaly.
Why does every building need to look like a glassy office building?
Why does every building need to look like a glassy office building?
The buildings are boxes because the site is a box, therefore choose the one that fits the surroundings best. I think Team 1 nails it with a design that compliments the Manhattan Bridge.
The buildings are boxes because the site is a box, therefore choose the one that fits the surroundings best. I think Team 1 nails it with a design that compliments the Manhattan Bridge.
Dear John,
A) No one used the word box…
B) Most every site in the city/world are “boxes”
C) Don’t be fooled by pretty renderings, look at the site plans: http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2013/05/30/which_of_these_11_condos_should_grace_the_bk_waterfront.php
Team 1’s plan is anything but a box…not responding at all to the needs of the site on the street level. There are all sorts of random curves and angles that don’t respond to any input from the surrounding area.
Dear John,
A) No one used the word box…
B) Most every site in the city/world are “boxes”
C) Don’t be fooled by pretty renderings, look at the site plans: http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2013/05/30/which_of_these_11_condos_should_grace_the_bk_waterfront.php
Team 1’s plan is anything but a box…not responding at all to the needs of the site on the street level. There are all sorts of random curves and angles that don’t respond to any input from the surrounding area.
I think the location is great because residents can at least enjoy the fresh air and sceneries. They can also do exercises like jogging or strolling around the great spot. The designs of the building must be changed though because it doesn’t fit the place. It is just too executive-looking for a residential building.
I think the location is great because residents can at least enjoy the fresh air and sceneries. They can also do exercises like jogging or strolling around the great spot. The designs of the building must be changed though because it doesn’t fit the place. It is just too executive-looking for a residential building.
Deborah, are you an attractive German? Exercise YES!
Deborah, are you an attractive German? Exercise YES!
Pingback: Highly-Specific View Blockage Starts Condo War in Redondo – Neighbor Beefs – Curbed LA | Condos Ion
Pingback: Highly-Specific View Blockage Starts Condo War in Redondo – Neighbor Beefs – Curbed LA | Condos Ion
none of the above
none of the above