The boarded up building at 2066 Fifth Avenue had a lot of construction happening on site this past year but it was soon revealed that a new building would replace the older one. A couple of Bespoke readers have recently taken photos of this corner by West 127th Street this past weekend and the facade has now finally been revealed. Check out the photo after the jump.
It would have been nice to have the older building restored but the final design of the new arrival does an okay job at trying to be modern and contextual. Large casement windows make the standard balcony layout a little more interesting than usual and the brickwork has some pattern work to it which is quite interesting. One would have to guess that this would be a new condo development but we have not found out much about how this building will be marketed in the future. Any tips?
omg
ReplyDelete"An okay job"? I shudder to think what atrocity would have been required to call the conversion a failure!
ReplyDeleteJeezus
ReplyDeleteI think it's a nice building. Contextual, but modern.
ReplyDeleteNew doesn't necessarily equal bad.
I think it would be OK if they had been working with a vacant lot. But tearing down that existing facade for this is unconscionable. Why couldn't they have just retained the existing and added a few floors?
ReplyDeleteOMG - hideous!
ReplyDeletethat is a bit shocking.
ReplyDeleteThe area needs to be landmarked to prevent this sort of thing from happening.
ReplyDeleteI wrote a letter to the NYC Landmark Preservation with the attempt to save 2066's facade before they remove it. They wrote me back stating that 2066 was not protected and neither is the entire block, very scary thought!!
DeleteThis should be made an example of in Architectural school as what not to do.
ReplyDeleteD, agreed, Harlem is a treasure trove of architecture and one of the great features of Harlem are the unbroken blocks of period buildings that one development like this can permanently destroy. Landmarking could have prevented this tragedy.
ReplyDeleteI live very nearby and agree with Christopher. In reality, the building looks very nice, and keeping the stoop makes it look much more contextual than it might have. Also, the brick is a nice match.
ReplyDeleteLiked the old look, but it's all about the windows. Nice huge windows now and that's the trend with new or converted buildings. So unless there was a block because of landmark status, it wouldn't make any financial sense for a developer to keep the same, smaller, early 20th Century windows.
ReplyDeleteOh my god, a horror.
ReplyDeleteI walked by this evening on the way home from work and I have to say it's pretty awful, especially those balconies that hang there like a ragged cuticle. It's too bad.
ReplyDeleteLike Chris, I believe that new does not necessarily equal bad. It's hard to imagine that most of the posters on this thread would find any contemporary design acceptable. I expect those huge windows, which seem to indicate two-story rooms, will be a huge selling point. i'm a fan of blending old and new in Harlem. Row upon row of brownstones can become like looking at an ancient subdivision.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, I know this wasn't a brownstone.
ReplyDeleteI would have preferred an updated carbon copy of the old, but that probably was impossible and didn't make sense for a developer. It's not like there aren't other "eyesores" on the block. Check out the few larger, 1940's buildings on the east side of Fifth between 125th and 128th. Kinda hideous in their own right.
ReplyDeleteAs an example of what can be achieved with modern materials and a skilled architect, see The Morningside Park Condominiums.
ReplyDeletehttp://harlembespoke.blogspot.com/2010/05/architecture-contextual-on-morningside.html
The Morningside Park Condominiums also allows for well lit apartments with most of its façade being windows.
Actually, I love modern design, good modern design. But this just looks cheap to my eye. Walked by again this morning--it's just a head-scratcher. Megan
ReplyDeleteto maximize the FAR , just add on top and KEEP the hold facade.
ReplyDeleteLets demand that more of Harlem be landmarked.!
organize people!
When I scrolled down and saw the "after" picture, I shrieked. This is an abomination. Pity the poor owners who live next door. In any other neighborhood, this would kill the property values. But we know there's nothing that can put a stake in the heart of NYC real estate!
ReplyDeleteMy 2 cents: I often love the juxtaposition of more stark modern with traditional architecture (example: Windows on 123 http://harlembespoke.blogspot.com/2011/07/dwell-windows-on-123-lofts-debut.html), however in this case it is all wrong. The "modern" is not truly modern here. It is attempting to be contextual while also being "modern", but ends up failing in both regards. That is why I typically loathe the idea of "contextual" architecture because it ends up being the lowest common demoninator and no one is pleased(slap some brick on it and keep it the same height and call it contextual - blah).
ReplyDeleteGood modern architecture can and should co-exist peacefully with traditional architecture, however this is not good modern architecture.
To each his own. Obviously, at least one professional architect, and probably more. agree with those who like this building, and as a near- neighbor, I welcome it to our neighborhood where Beaux Arts, Gothic and circa -2012 modern co-exist.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the Morningside Park Condominium is lovely. It blends. I also believe architecture can startle, stand out and provoke thought, controversy and conversation, as 2066 is clearly doing.
ReplyDeleteModern architecture can startle, like the Louvre Pyramid for example. 2066 Fifth is not great architecture, it rises to the level of a cheap Ikea desk and I expect it to age similarly, all that is missing are the fedders units.
ReplyDeleteThere is a general rule in life, if you are going to replace something, replace it with something better, not worse. The previous building façade was fabulous, it’s new replacement is anything but.
ReplyDeleteI certainly agree that 2066 is not great architecture or fabulous. I also clearly remember that when the Louvre Pyramid was built, it was called an abomination and an eyesore by many. Enough from me, the non-architect, on this subject.
ReplyDeleteI see a lot of comments like they should have saved what was there, how do we know they did not try? Maybe the facade could not be saved. Either way give this building 8 years and it will be considered a wonderful addition to the block that is simply how life goes.
ReplyDeleteI live in a building that people said was the ugliest thing ever built and now all I hear people say is we love that building, it's so different etc.
I absolutely LOVE this!
ReplyDeletefugly
ReplyDelete