NEW YORK | The Brooklyner | 514 FT / 157M | 51 FLOORS - Page 7

Lecom · #**121** Posted **Nov 17, 2009, 10:15 AM**

The description is a classic case of architect bullshit, using fancy words to cover up a failed project.

HomeInMyShoes · #**122** Posted **Nov 17, 2009, 11:06 AM**

Maybe someone should teach the architect about perception. All brick would be a wall. From a little bit of a distance as the pattern gets smaller, and this thing is certainly visible, the interwoven pattern resembles, what? BRICK.

I agree with Lecom. Artistic rationalization at its worst.

NYguy · #**123** Posted **Nov 30, 2009, 8:36 PM**

Brooklyn needs a definitive skyline changer...this one is just wrong.

Kylos85

NYguy · #**124** Posted **Dec 4, 2009, 7:21 AM**

mkapadia

shakman · #**125** Posted **Dec 4, 2009, 8:21 PM**

IMO the facade is beyond hideous. How can an architect get away with such

?

ht-freak · #**126** Posted **Dec 4, 2009, 8:22 PM**

They're giving this eyesore the title of "Brooklyn's tallest" based on its ugly superstructure? Pathetic.

NYguy · #**127** Posted **Dec 4, 2009, 11:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ht-freak

They're giving this eyesore the title of "Brooklyn's tallest" based on its ugly superstructure? Pathetic.

They're not "giving" it the title, it claimed it by virtue of being...

Dac150 · #**128** Posted **Dec 4, 2009, 11:46 PM**

Not really too unhappy considering it’s inevitable that something will surpass it down the line; the question is how far? Ugly building, plain and simple.

ht-freak · #**129** Posted **Dec 5, 2009, 1:18 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

They're not "giving" it the title, it claimed it by virtue of being...

You miss the point. That two feet, is two feet of ugly concrete and vents. The obsession of superceding the Williamsburgh has precluded taste and style.

RoldanTTLB · #**130** Posted **Dec 5, 2009, 4:18 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ht-freak

You miss the point. That two feet, is two feet of ugly concrete and vents. The obsession of superceding the Williamsburgh has precluded taste and style.

That's not how these buildings are measured, though. I suspect that the top occupied floor of the building is 2 feet taller than the top occupied floor of WSB. Both buildings have some "roof cruft" if you will. This building's still pretty sad. No worries, though, it'll be surpassed by that new Avalon soon enough, and I'm SURE that'll be an architectural wonder.

ht-freak · #**131** Posted **Dec 6, 2009, 6:58 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RoldanTTLB

That's not how these buildings are measured, though. I suspect that the top occupied floor of the building is 2 feet taller than the top occupied floor of WSB. Both buildings have some "roof cruft" if you will. This building's still pretty sad. No worries, though, it'll be surpassed by that new Avalon soon enough, and I'm SURE that'll be an architectural wonder.

It depends on who is measuring. There are different criteria for determining a building's height. Roof, spire, superstructure. Just do a search on skyscraperpage diagrams and there are several ways to choose how your diagram will sort the results. Actually, there is still debate on these criteria. I'm sure WSB is measured to the top of the dome.

uaarkson · #**132** Posted **Dec 6, 2009, 5:14 PM**

At the very least this building is large and fills in the Brooklyn skyline nicely.

eburress · #**133** Posted **Dec 6, 2009, 6:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lecom

The description is a classic case of architect bullshit, using fancy words to cover up a failed project.

I couldn't agree more. This building is a big, ugly turd.

Wheelingman04 · #**134** Posted **Dec 7, 2009, 2:46 PM**

They should have never even approved that piece of crap.

Next time Im in Brooklyn I have to look at that.

Scruffy · #**135** Posted **Dec 7, 2009, 11:40 PM**

Well City Pointe a few blocks away will surpass it. It it ever gets built. They tore down the Albee Sq Mall and left a 2 city block hole in the ground. Its supposed to be 600ft ish. Thor isn't the most reputable company anyways

Kippis · #**136** Posted **Dec 8, 2009, 2:34 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lecom

The description is a classic case of architect bullshit, using fancy words to cover up a failed project.

Which is the exact same tactic I used to use when explaining a project of mine (which I knew deep down sucked) to a panel of critics.

Sure, the building isn't the most flattering thing in the world to look at, but the fact of the matter is, it isn't simply going to disappear because it's a complete failure of a project...you just have to learn to take these things in stride sometimes.

Besides, it's not like New York is the only city in this country that has a complete dud of a building going up *coughcoughElysianChicagocoughcough*

NYguy · #**137** Posted **Dec 29, 2009, 2:28 AM**

http://www.brownstoner.com/brownston...h_to_liv_1.php

Brooklyner 20% Rented, Move-Ins Underway

December 28, 2009

The Brooklyner, aka 111 Lawrence Street, aka the new tallest building in the borough, hit the market last month and about 20 percent of the 490 units are rented already, according to a rep for the building. What's more, the first tenants began moving in last week. As for how much it costs: Brooklyner's site has the cheapest unit, a 402-square-foot studio, going for $1,450, and the priciest line of units, 976-square-foot two-bedrooms, starting at $2,995. (It doesn't look like these rates include concessions, such as one or two months of free rent, but we're not 100% on that.) Of course, the Brooklyner has plenty of competition right now, with Avalon Fort Greene, 80 Dekalb and Brooklyn Gold all renting brand-new Downtown apartments too.

Zerton · #**138** Posted **Dec 29, 2009, 9:43 PM**

This building is horrible. How could a firm mess something up that bad?

ht-freak · #**139** Posted **Jan 19, 2010, 11:47 PM**

Being on the west coast, I can't personally verify this, but is the disparity in height between the WSB and the Brooklyner really this much? Or is this due to the perspective and distance of the photo?

RoldanTTLB · #**140** Posted **Jan 20, 2010, 2:15 AM**

So height-wise, there are a few factors in play here. Part of it is perspective. WSB is much further away. Beyond that, This building is only 2 feet taller than the official height of WSB. It's likely that the height difference is exaggerated by the flat roof of the Brooklyner, while WSB has a bit of a spire on the roof.