Be careful of this . . .

[quoting Benjamin Hemric's Jan. 17th post] ” . . . newer ones (from the late 1950s, early 1960s), along Hillside Ave., on the other hand, are not as nice. (And in Manhattan, even the “affordable housing” of the late 19th Century, bare-bones old-law tenements (with toilets in the hall!) that replaced the more affluent housing of previous residents, have many touches of grace and beauty.)”

There is a well documented 40 year “hole” in appreciation of architectural style.

Benjamin writes:

1) There are some buildings that never were, and never will be, thought of as beautiful or neighborly / urbane (i.e., “schlock” architecture), and I think these are really the kind of buildings that Kevin and others are talking about in Queens.

2) With these buildings, it’s not about “style,” it’s about “care,” “neighborly-ness / urbanity” and “affordability.” (However, it does also seem to be true that some architectural ideologies probably lend themselves less to an affordable, neighborly / urbane type of architecture than others, especially on a large scale [i.e., for use in many buildings throughout a district, be it predominantly high-rise or low-rise].)

Please add Astoria to your growing list. In the not so distant past, (though it was before Streetsblog) front yards had grape arbors, rose bushes and little stone gardens and fountains. Now they’re paved for illegal parking. Community Board 1 was yelling about this back in the ’80′s.

In the opinion of many urban designers, the most important architectural factor that supports a pedestrian-friendly street is not the style, but rather the form of the building. That is, the way the building is sited on its lot, the way it meets the sidewalk, its frequency of doorways and windows, and its general shape and mass.

http://www.ellisparkerbutler.info/epb/biblio.asp?id=5248

There is a well documented 40 year “hole” in appreciation of architectural style.

I grew up in the Jamaica Hills section of Queens (the area, essentially between Parsons Blvd., to the west, and 168th St., to the east, and between Hillside Ave., on the south, and Grand Central Parkway, on the north), a few neighborhoods to the south of Flushing, and the replacement of large, beautiful homes (especially those located on generous plots) with undistinguished apartment houses and homely two-family houses started there at least as early as the late-1950s! So initially, my thinking was very much along the lines of Kevin and others who oppose densification.

But in thinking about this problem, I also believe it’s important to think about the larger process at work here and WHY, in economic terms, this is happening. Here’s a tentative attempt at such an explanation:

The people who are willing to buy (and modernize) such older houses are, essentially, being outbid by those who are happy enough with smaller, more modern residences even if they are aesthetic eyesores. (In other words, given their budgets, the housing itself is more important to the new residents than the aesthetics.)

Also, city neighborhoods (at least in America) have always changed, gotten denser, over time. It is part of growing and developing. The difference between such development in the past and such development today, so it seems to me, is that in the past the new growth was, as a rule, as aesthetically pleasing as the buildings it which it replaced.

For instance in Jamaica Hills, the early apartment houses built in the 1940s and early -1950s that replaced single-family homes, one of which was built by Donald Trump’s father, I believe, were actually rather nice. I always thought they added a touch of glamour to the neighborhood. The newer ones (from the late 1950s, early 1960s), along Hillside Ave., on the other hand, are not as nice. (And in Manhattan, even the “affordable housing” of the late 19th Century, bare-bones old-law tenements (with toilets in the hall!) that replaced the more affluent housing of previous residents, have many touches of grace and beauty.)

In terms of a practical solution (how can one encourage more urbane architectural design), however, I’m not sure what can be done. But, while this may not solve the problem, one thing that I think should be done, at the very least, is to point out that there are indeed attractive apartment houses and “row-houses” in Queens (some of which are even featured on Kevin’s “Forgotten New York” website). So, I think this will, at least, help point the discussion in the right direction.

A much more fruitful opportunity to foster enlightened residential design is provided by large public developments. Take a look at the interesting new development in the Bronx the City is announcing in post immediately above.

Someguy-
I think it’s a bit more complicated than you suggest. Are we legislating ornament? What about Modernism? Can a building code distinguish between an elegant but spare contemporary design and the p.o.c. shown at the top of the page?

I agree that we can legislate many of the worst offenses (parking and bulk, for instance) but much of the rest is either highly subjective or would demand a degree of governmental control I would not expect New Yorkers to submit to.

Which leads to my favorite doomed crusade- against the proliferation of curbcuts and driveways in neighborhoods with a formerly continuous sidewalk.

Point taken on the vehicle. It’s a gas guzzler and takes up a lot of room.

In my opinion, we apparently need to save Flushing, and other NYC neighborhoods… from their homeowners.

http://www.forgotten-ny.com

Chapter “Evolution of a plot”, 155th Street north of Beech. Labeling every “a bit larger than a small sedan” car a SUV does not make you look credible. That car is called a “mini van”, it is designed to carry more than five people around and does not look like a station wagon on steroids. It is a most reasonable vehicle for people with big families.

Chapter “Stump Me”. If you look very closely you may notice that those two trees are almost throughly rotted. Neither of the stumps have only about two inches of healthy wood in them. Leaving them standing would be very dangerous since they would collapse and possibly injure people in the next storm.

However, the solution we have found so far has perhaps been worse than the ill it is meant to cure. The response to this crap has been blanket downzonings in many neighborhoods, which serve to halt all development, regardless of its form and merit. The downzone is the fundamental enemy of density. It strikes a blow at what it means to be urban. By driving up housing costs (and raising property values for the existing residents who vote it in), a Queens downzone encourages development to sprawl into Nassau County.

There are better solutions to crappy architecture than halting all development, raising housing costs and encouraging sprawl.

Downzonings ought to be restrained, and accompanied by an equal and opposite reaction so as to not reduce the overall number of dwellings that can be built in the borough. Restrained downzonings to preserve the nice Victorians only if accompanied by selective upzoning around transit hubs, so that you have a chance to build architecturally meritorious apartment buildings around transit.

http://www.forgotten-ny.com

http://queenscrap.blogspot.com/