OK then. This 12-story, 38-unit residence has been OK'd by the city to rise at 100 Norfolk Street, in space that was once used as the refrigeration facility for Ratner's.
The building will include a 5,000-square foot rooftop and a 2,000-square-foot roof deck, according to ArchDaily, which first reported on this yesterday.
Per ArchDaily:
Highly visible from Delancey Street and in close proximity to Williamsburg Bridge, 100 Norfolk will become an iconic addition to Lower East Side skyline, signifying the passage between Manhattan and Brooklyn.
Do you think that this is an iconic addition to the LES skyline?
Check out The Lo-Down and BoweryBoogie for more. And here's more from Crain's on the deal from last spring.
21 comments:
Is that the blue buildings little sis?
Thaat is uninhabitable.
it is more likely a 'space funnel', used by NASA to take sludge out of the sky.
Is it encroaching on the air rights of the adjacent building?
Also, this type of architecture is for gawking and not for appreciating.
In that zone, the developer could build yet more luxury units if he included 20% "affordable" housing but I see no mention of affordable housing. Did they not opt for the additional bulk? It would say a lot about the inclusionary zoning model if they did or didn't.
The developer bought up the air rights from 134, 136 and 138 Delancey Street.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/photobooth/2013/01/sebastian-listes-photographs-of-caracas.html#slide_ss_0=1
This is what happened in Venezuela to heir glass high rises.
kill me.
Is this architecture? A mockery of architecture?
That's proof positive that inclusionary zoning is a scam, Grieve. The zone limited the bulk, but it allowed 120' in case the developer wanted to offer the affordable units. But the added height also allowed him to buy nearby air rights instead of taking the affordable option. The purpose of Inclusionary zoning is just to make the city look like it's giving developers an incentive to build affordable housing. But really it's just a way of fooling the public to accept a zoning that adds luxury density, plain and simple. It should be a crime. Too bad it's legal. Thank Bloomberg.
Simply hideous. This will be an iconic addition to nothing.
I like it, I think it's interesting to see the old juxtaposed with the new. I understand the general theme of this blog is anti development but let's face it, if the building it is replacing was something special, it wouldn't be replaced.
I take no issue with modern architecture, and I find the juxtaposition of interesting new work with older styles lovely when done properly. This is not that, however, this is just an ugly, misguided effort.
Also, whoever designed the "blue" building should be strung up from a lamp post.
It will look fantastic at night when people hang blinds, shades and sheets in the windows like the monstrosity on 3rd Ave. That's the problem with all glass buildings like this, they only look as good as the people who "decorate" them.
the purpose of architecture is to blight the landscape
I love the building. New, modern and a lot better than run down parking lots across the way. Just wait until the SPURA behemoth goes up across Delancey then everyone can see how the contextual zoning gets thrown out the window once the city officials have to adhere to it.
The proposed building on Norfolk will be a welcome addition to the neighborhood.
I love the way this building reaches over the ones below it as if an effort to get closer to the traffic noise and big trucks racing off the bridge down Delancey St. yuck!
this is an abomination and an insult to the very word "architecture."
rob has it right on the money.
"inclusionary zoning" is nothing but a hoax, the stipulates are not even remotely enforced or monitored, it's a sham and a joke.
"inclusionary zoning" is ANYTHING BUT and will surely be the death of us (and certainly, of our "skyline") until we levy the new administration to repeal this outright assault on manhattan.
developers take ALL, we are left NONE.
also, 6:39 needs to wake up and smell the coffee
@Anon. 6:39 - 35 Cooper Square was "something special", a little early 19th century gem that had strong family ties to Peter Stuyvesant. It was small but swell. 316 East 3rd St. was "something special", a rare Italianate survivor of warm red brick, ivy covering, and a friendly, small scale. Both of them, and the history they represented, are gone now, one already being replaced by an ugly modern excrescence, the other destined to be as well. In the New York City of today, it is indeed very easy for "something special" to be replaced by something bland, utilitarian, and about as interesting as the bottom of a boot; your lack of understanding of that reality suggests either a limited experience of New York living, or a connection to the real estate/construction industry.
Excrescence is an awesome word. I have to find ways to work it into everyday conversation.
Gojira- anon 6:39 here. Are you really going to bat for 100 Norfolk Street? Really? Maybe you should street view before you bear your cross. I mean all of you people, seriously.
We're not talking 35 Cooper Square, we're not talking displaced working class families. We're talking a completely uninspired addition to a commercial property on Delancey.
Cry a river for the people who were displaced when this addition was put up a hundred years ago. By decrying this project you're only championing the evil developers of days gone by.
Who am I? Lived in a sh*tty East Village tenement for a dozen years, displaced by rent increases, not crying about it. New York wouldn't be New York if it wasn't constantly reinventing itself.
If perfection was stagnation heaven would be a swamp. Maybe you want to live in a swamp? Why are you living in New York?
the building looms over its neighbor ready to pounce and eat it up.
god awful.
Post a Comment