Wednesday, May 14, 2008

NY Mag tours Frank Lloyd Crap house

You may remember this house from the visit to Broadway-Flushing presented here. Well, New York Magazine got inside...

THE RESIDENCE: North Flushing, Queens, three-bedroom, two-bath house.
MISSION STATEMENT: “We got stopped so many times once we started construction, we decided to build what we wanted to build.”


Modernism Rocks the Neighborhood

68 comments:

Jason in Kew Gardens said...

This house would like nicer in the woods... on a mountain... where no one could ever find it.

Anonymous said...

Wow, when you read the story, you clearly see that the homeowner's association did nothing but hurt themselves. Another example of a civic group run amok.
The interior is beautiful.

Anonymous said...

This isn't the first modern house to be built in Broadway/Flushing,
but it certainly boasts one of the ugliest ill clad exteriors!
The materials that were selected are way out of context with its contemporary lines.

This is obviously the work of a second string architect who could benefit greatly from a refresher course in design and siting.

Take a look north of Crocheron Ave. on the east side of 165th Street
at the second house in, for example.

Constructed in the later 1950s or 1960s(?),
this striking contemporary home,
with its sweeping facade
(although very different from the rest)is appropriately sited to architecturally compliment the surrounding homes.
The vertical wood siding blends harmoniously with its design.

The difference is this one has a peaked roof required under the Rickert/Finley deed restrictions which are binding in the area and enforceable in court.

Flat roofs are strictly forbidden !

Mr. Hsu might soon be learning
a lesson about the errors of his ways regarding this!

And his childish comments bashing elderly neighbors are totally inaccurate, inappropriate and downright bigoted indicative of an ill bred under-educated bumpkin!

New York Magazine must have been well paid by this "developer" to print such a "puff piece"
(or else he had a friend in the editor).

Anonymous said...

Poster #2....
nobody is objecting to the interior.

Frankly I like it and I'm way under
70 years of age!

You're totally misinformed
and perhaps posting for Mr. Hsu!

Anonymous said...

i actually think it is pretty damn cool

wish i could afford to do that

stop the hating

Anonymous said...

I can't wait to see this guy get sued for that flat roof. What a pompous ass.

Anonymous said...

I guess just because someone has money doesn't mean they have taste.
A modern house is always great idea.
An ugly house isn't.

Anonymous said...

I guess now we're all waiting
for Mr. Hsu (or his posters)
to pull the tired old
"you're all anti Asian"
card from the deck,
if he hasn't done it already,
in defense of committing his egregious covenant violations!

This is an ethnically diverse community in which its residents
desire nothing more than to be good neighbors to each other.

So save any unfounded accusations
of racial bias for the comic strips.

Anonymous said...

We only hate ugly illegally
constructed buildings ....
certainly not people!

Anonymous said...

Does the owner plan to install
a helicopter landing pad on the bunker's flat roof?

He'll need a permit from the FAA
for that (ha, ha)!

Anonymous said...

I believe that BFHA undertook every opportunity to politely inform the owner that flat roofs are forbidden under the Rickert/Finley covenants.

Your own imagination is, perhaps, running a trifle amok!

Anonymous said...

I see lots of jealousy and hating on this post, and lots of nonsense talk. If this violated restrictive covenants, has anyone sued the owner? He was going to build an exterior with different features to be more similar with neighboring houses until some whiners and complainers started giving him problems. I don't blame him one bit for changing plans and doing what he wanted to do with his own property after that.

Queens Crapper said...

"The Department of Buildings audited his plans twice, delaying construction eight months."

They wouldn't have done that unless they found serious problems with what he was originally building. He sounds like Tommy Huang.

Anonymous said...

wah....wah......his house is not like mine......his house is ugly......

As long as a house is built to code who is anyone to say that you can't build to your liking. If you make enough money to spice up your design then good for you.

If you are in a gated community or something similar then it is a different story but come on.....there has to be something better to complain about on this board

Anonymous said...

There is a restrictive covenant which dictates the style of house. If he didn't like it, then he should have bought somewhere else.

Anonymous said...

More of the achitect's work:

http://gp-arch.com/index.php


A classic example as to how the preservation community has lost influence on the media in NY. The piece was effectively a love song to this crap, so say nothing about painting a picture of community preservationists as narrow minded and elderly.

I love it when (and its mostly Asians and Greeks that say this) I hear people say "who wants old out of date stuff? People like modern and new."

All I need to do is go to their home countries to see what their taste has in store for the rest of us.

A public education program is needed or you will be seeing junk like this in Brooklyn Heights in another decade.

Remember, Queens is the prooving ground for developers.

Ant said...

Blogger Queens Crapper said...

"The Department of Buildings audited his plans twice, delaying construction eight months."

They wouldn't have done that unless they found serious problems with what he was originally building. He sounds like Tommy Huang.

____

That doesn't have to be the case, auditors can't/won't agree on what to do if they think they have found an issue.

There is no accountability at the DOB and the auditors certainly wouldn't want to do anything to change that.

In any case, the pool off the basement, genius!

I think he picked the red just to stand out and annoy his neighbors (totally his right). From the looks of that stark interior, I don't think this family would even consider buying red apples. I bet they can't wait for the kid to get old enough and paint over those silly circles.

Anonymous said...

To the owner:
Congratulations on being the owner of the most tasteless home in Flushing.
I cringe thinking of what the rest of your homes look like.

Anonymous said...

Hey what does the backyard look like? Is there even one blade of grass in this minimalist vision?

Queen$ developer said...

Hey I know when people buy a home they buy into the neighborhood, but I don't care. I plan to be the one who drives them from the neighborhood. As long as I can make money on my property, I will pave over the front yard and park cars on it, build an ugly brick box, cram as many illegal apartments into it as possible, ignore zoning regulations and restrictive covenants. This is Queens, not Long Island. And don't forget it.

Mayor Mike said...

Yes, thank you! At least someone understands my 2030 plan for Queens.

Anonymous said...

Modern architecture can be elegant and beautiful when some thought and imagination are used. A modern house can still fit in a neighborhood of older homes and not look out of place when the architect has vision. Frank Lloyd Wright built beautiful modern homes that were inspired by their natural surroudings.

Unfortunately, these inept architects were apparently inspired by a cardboard box with some holes cut in it and spraypainted red. Nice job guys. This is ghetto architecture.

Anonymous said...

Why does that window jut out the side of the building? Did they not measure properly?

Anonymous said...

Is that grass coming through those pavers?

Anonymous said...

Important and TRUE quote from the article:

“Everyone is entitled to build what they want to build as long as it is within the New York City building code.”

Horray for this owner for striking a victory for landowners around this city!!!! You sir are a giant among men and deserve congratulations.

Anonymous said...

You, sir/madam, are an idiot.

Anonymous said...

Kudos to the owner for managing to alienate all of his neighbors.

Well done.

Great place to raise those cute little kids.

Anonymous said...

"Kudos to the owner for managing to alienate all of his neighbors."

They started. They should have minded their own business. Read the article. It was only after they started picketing his construction site that he decided to make it less contextual. No one to blame but themselves.

Anonymous said...

LESS CONTEXTUAL=DISGUSTING

Anonymous said...

Important and TRUE quote from the article:

“Everyone is entitled to build what they want to build as long as it is within the New York City building code.”

Horray for this owner for striking a victory for landowners around this city!!!! You sir are a giant among men and deserve congratulations.


Perhaps you missed the points made about a restrictive covenant limiting development of the property. If he didn't want to abide by the covenant, then he should have bought a house in a neighborhood that doesn't have one.

Anonymous said...

I, um, uh, don't have a problem with this house, at least the exterior. I sorta like it.

www.forgotten-ny.com

astoria_rocks said...

It's unfortunate that all you idiots have no taste whatsoever when it comes to architecture and design. Maybe if more houses looked like this one, Queens wouldn't have such a bad reputation as being the ugliest borough! And if it really "illegal" to have a flat roof, then how did the DOB allow it? Grow up you wankers!

Anonymous said...

Queens is not the ugliest borough. That honor goes to the Bronx.

Anonymous said...

"And if it really "illegal" to have a flat roof, then how did the DOB allow it?"

The DOB does not enforce restrictive covenants. That was a bill that Tony Avella tried to get passed. Right now this is headed to court.

OPP said...

This is not the type of house that I would build. But this is the United States, not the former Soviet Union. This country was built on the ideas of people who dared to be different. It's a shame that the so called "community" (usually comprised of a few retirees with too much time on their hands) feel that they have a right to tell someone what they should do with their property (maybe they miss their old eastern bloc homelands) and that others have to conform to its idea of beauty.

Restrictive covenants are private agreements enforced in courts by private individuals. They are not recognized by the City and hence, DOB does not enforce them. If you commies feel so strongly about these private covenants, why don't you sue the owner. In fact, I double dog dare you.

You're all talk and no action.

Anonymous said...

"OPP"

I believe the civic is suing......

The civic over there is very well organized and on top of zoning/legal protocol.
They have achieved State and Federal historic status and are on the slate for NYC Landmarking.

You can't blame, what is in this case, a very large majority of homeowners in a finite area for wanting to maintain an aesthetic order and way of life in their neighborhood. The homes there are very well built and are actually from a planned community, so they relate to one another and the terrain (it's a little hilly) as a larger entity.

History is widely under-appreciated, but it's something we need to preserve when a place or object warrants it's preservation.
I'd like my son and other future generations to have some special neighborhoods remaining that they can stand in and behold, learn something from, actually experience another era and not just have to see in old pictures.
B'way-Flushing is one of those neighborhoods.
I dare say none of you have ever even been there,
just more content to blog-on here with yer naive, ego-driven blather about freedom.

Moshe said...

I've lived in Flushing (Queensboro Hill) for fifty years and have long loved the Broadway-Flushing neighborhood. I would walk around down there just to admire the houses.

I've also long been concerned about beautiful, classic, one-of-kind homes being torn down and replaced with generic two-family or three-family dwellings in such neighborhoods.

I don't know what the house Mr. Hsu tore down looked like. I might well have wanted it preserved. BUT, once it was gone, I'm grateful that he built a handsome modern structure, one that is in its own way as distinctive and appropriate to its time as its neighbors were to theirs. Considering some of the truly monstrous structures that tear-downs in my own area have produced, I think Mr. Hsu's neighbors have a lot to be thankful for.

I hope eventually everyone concerned will calm down and let "the shock of the new" wear off. There are more important things to worry about than whether a roof is flat or peaked!

Anonymous said...

Moshe, I understand the sentiment you expressed, the problem is where do you draw the line? If you are letting the peaked roof issue slide today, then tomorrow you may end up with something much more hideous down the street, and that will continue until the entire nabe has been replaced.

Anonymous said...

FYI:

The former owner of the home
that Mr. Hsu tore down was George Frangoulis who had worked for
the Community Assistance Unit (CAU)
under Giuliani.

Mr. Frangoulis later went to work for that notorious convicted criminal Tommy Huang!

H-m-m-m-m !

One of Huang's companies was the "Farrington & Northern Development Corp." (project name for the historic RKO Keith's site).

Doesn't Mr. Hsu's company also include "Farrington" in its name?

A double h-m-m-m to ponder!

Is there any connection to the two Mr."H"s ?

Anonymous said...

"Moshe", my bet is, you're a phony!

You could have walked much closer to Kissena Park and viewed the gracious homes on its north side.

Why would you "walk" way over two miles to Broadway/Flushing?

Oh, don't tell me, you were a walking marathon contestant in your younger days (ha, ha)!

Another Hsu created individual
posting here, no doubt, in a feeble attempt to justify his
numerous DOB stop work orders
and violation of deed restrictions
(which run with the land in perpetuity)!

Maybe it's even George Frangoulis himself!

Anonymous said...

Hsu doesn't seem to have any interest in being anyone's good neighbor.

Just another arrogant, low class
wanna-bee who thinks that money can buy his family some class!

It never has. It never will!

Anonymous said...

Just like Tommy Huang attempted to buy some "KLASS"...ha, ha, ha!

He didn't purchase his property in Douglas Manor proper, but he built on its edge in the filled in "wetlands".

He's still known as"the swamp thing" (after a 1950s classic monster film)!

How appropriate for such a murky "giant"...of "The Seven Giants"
perhaps (???) !

Anonymous said...

The court will decide
once the lawsuit progresses.

Note:
There was a house...illegally built (north of Parsons Blvd.)...
that had TO BE TORN DOWN!

BFHA's record for winning
court cases is well documented
(unless somebody buys off some judge)!

Anonymous said...

Astoria Rocks:

It's unfortunate that all you idiots have no taste whatsoever when it comes to architecture and design. Maybe if more houses looked like this one, Queens wouldn't have such a bad reputation as being the ugliest borough! And if it really "illegal" to have a flat roof, then how did the DOB allow it? Grow up you wankers!

--------------

The pot calling the kettle black.

The tearing down of Old Astoria, the hotelization of Dutch Kills, the infilling that is starting to destory the fabric of central Astoria, and the slipping Steinway Street makes your community the laughing stock of NYC.

Go back to astorians.com where they get excited at the latest Bangladeshi or Mexican eatery. Why don't you organize a gastromic tour of Elmhurst and Corona while you are at it?

legal eagle said...

Mr. Hsu can call in some "chits" and generate as many media
"puff pieces" extolling the "splendor" of his "emperor class" palace/fortress.

But it all gets down to CASE LAW !

A judge will render his decision
based, to a large degree,
mainly upon that!

So far the score has been
4 out of 4 (I believe)
in favor of Broadway/Flushing!

Now, will both sides shake hands and come out fighting!

Are there any bets to be placed?

zorro said...

MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT!

THIS IS NOT A ROLLOVER COMMUNITY !

Some areas
might be ripe for the taking.

THIS ONE IS NOT !!!

Anonymous said...

"Calm down"?

Who's really excited?

Just some views
are being expressed and exchanged.

We are taught
that control and calmness
are the primary virtues
that are required for the effective practice of good martial arts
(or"legal arts"for that matter)!

But this is a forum, not an arena.

Anonymous said...

It'll all get down to who's lawyer can beat up who's lawyer!

Gentlemen, please be patient.

Anonymous said...

Nevertheless, I'm putting in a call
to "The Gray Panthers" for New York Magazine's insulting and biased comments regarding senior citizens in their article and let's see where the shit falls!

It could just affect their circulation a little.

Did I leave out contacting "AARP"?

Sorry about that...
I'm too young for senility
at age 40.

I thought that the Chinese are supposed to revere and respect their elders!

KG2V said...

Interesting - I grew up just outside the Crocheron area - neve knew they had CC&Rs over there, even when I looked at houses there. Depending on what's in the CC&R, it would have shot down me buying a house, even if I agreed with them (I don't like CC&Rs)(I've seen CC&Rs the specified what colors your front door could be, and even what color your garbage cans can be)

BTW They MAY have problems enforcing the CC&R, _IF_ they have let other people slide on the CC&R

John Adams said...

The idea that men possessed the right to acquire and enjoy property separate and apart from the prerogative of government was one of the "unalienable rights" grounded in "the laws of Nature and Nature's God" at the heart of the American Revolution. In the founders' view, property rights did not emanate from government. Rather, they emanated from the nature of man, and it was the function of government to protect the rights conferred on man by nature.


Again I reapeat: Mr. Hsu. you are a giant among men and deserve congratulations. A blow has been struck against all those who chose to interfere with private citizens use of their private property.

Anonymous said...

For 15 years I lived 3 blocks from this house on one of the prettiest blocks in North Flushing in a classic old colonial. I left two years ago, but as a long time resident I can say that I think this house is just fine for the neighborhood--and rather, much nicer than the few McMansions with columns that managed to get built. No one made a stink over those and they are much more tasteless, in my opinion. There were several of those on my old block, 158 st. And let's not forget the pink house on 32 and 159. Come on guys. This resident is fine. And for the record, there is another modern flatroof around there that's sort of mid centrury modern, i can't remember the street but it's on the way to the Boadway stop, up on a hill.

Anonymous said...

Whoever thinks this house is tasteful needs their head examined!

Anonymous said...

"The idea that men possessed the right to acquire and enjoy property separate and apart from the prerogative of government was one of the "unalienable rights" grounded in "the laws of Nature and Nature's God" at the heart of the American Revolution. In the founders' view, property rights did not emanate from government."

This has nothing to do with unalienable rights and freedom from government interference. This is a property located in a neighborhood that has strict deed restrictions which will be upheld in a court of law.

NYT, 2/16/06: "The answer is rooted in the neighborhood's history, dating to 1906, when the Rickert-Finley company bought three farms there. As the company built homes, it set in place deed restrictions that mandated features like large yards and no front-yard fences. Through the years, Ms. Ferrigno and her cohorts have enforced those restrictions in court."

The homeowners association has never lost in court. Now go stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Hsu appears to be
manufacturing pro posters on an assembly line basis.

We have no real way of knowing
if any of you commenting on this site are real or bogus.

Whether or not Mr. Hsu's
building must be altered to include the required peaked roof,
completely torn down or left as is will be determined in a court of law.

All comments, gossip, PR articles, such as the one that appeared in New York Magazine
(which has a rather scant circulation)
will not affect the final outcome.

But past experience tells me that Mr. Hsu is trying awfully hard to try his case in the court of
public opinion.

Maybe he's not so certain
that a real honest judge will rule in his favor!

Anonymous said...

So what is this ignoramus going to do, take the full color New York Magazine spread to court and present it as evidence in a quirky attempt to convince the judge that he's not violating the deed restrictions?

The interior design of Mr. Hsu's home isn't the issue here.

It's the forbidden flat roofed exterior!

End of story!

Anonymous said...

Wow! I've never seen so many comments on a single story.

legal eagle said...

That's because this
flat roofed abortion is peaking
everyones' interest!

ANY attempt to break
legal covenants governing architectural requirements,
WON'T be taken lightly!

Anonymous said...

How is this guy ever going to try to sell this piece of crap if he wants to?

Anonymous said...

He'll try and pass it off
to a Tommy Huang type
with a chronic clinical emperor complex!

Du Wrong Real Estate Co. said...

When it comes to purchasing
real estate (especially),
a sucker is born every minute!

Anonymous said...

Speaking of "Du-Wrong",
a "Du-Rite" real estate agent
was making their rounds
in Broadway yesterday
putting up doorknob-hangers that read something like,
"If you're interested in selling your house..."!

Business must be sliding these days
for the Gianelli family!

I handed them back their ad
with a scowl.

This is the kind of guy
who jumps out of his Mercedes
when he sees an old lady
tending her front garden....
"Do you want to sell your home"?

Employing high pressure tactics
on the elderly is despicable!

Anonymous said...

The builder of this eye sore
is a block buster...pure and simple.

Just like those pushy real estate predators who make their living by
destroying sound neighborhoods!

He doesn't want to live in harmony among his (formerly) cordial neighbors but stick it in their eye
and lord it over them.

Anonymous said...

SUE HSU !!!
That's the ticket!

Anonymous said...

"SUE HSU!!"

Classic.

Anonymous said...

S-h-h-h! Quiet!
Please,let's not upset Mr. Hsu!

He might introduce
all of these comments
as evidence in court and try to
imply that we're all a bunch of "racists" because we're suing him
for his violation of the covenants which restrict flat roofed homes being built in our area.

Oops...
Maybe he's already contacted
the Human Rights Commission.

Nah, not to worry....
they've probably already dismissed his wildly unfounded accusations
of racial bigotry.

So now he's stuck in court!

Moshe said...

Back on May 15th, Anonymous accused me of being a hoax. He said:

"Moshe", my bet is, you're a phony!

So let me assure you that I am a completely real person, still living on Booth Memorial Avenue between 142nd and 146th Streets, as I have since 1957, when it was still called North Hempstead Turnpike.

Anonymous based his accusation on the following analysis:

You could have walked much closer to
Kissena Park and viewed the gracious
homes on its north side.

Why would you "walk" way over two miles
to Broadway/Flushing?

Oh, don't tell me, you were a walking
marathon contestant in your younger days
(ha, ha)!


These are interesting deductions, but have nothing to do with me. I usually rode my bike to the area, chained it to a lamppost and then walked around. My sisters, who are more religious than me, would often walk much farther than two miles to pass the time on a pleasant Sabbath afternoon. Perhaps Anonymous is one of those Queens residents who can't live without a car, but many of us enjoy walking.

He goes on to say:

Another Hsu created individual posting here, no doubt,

So let me assure him that I have never Mr. Hsu nor do I know any more about him than is reported in this blog or other such media. Although I think his modern house is OK, I have no knowledge of his other activities or interest in advocating for them.

If I may say so, I do find it strange to be accused of being a hoax by someone who posts under the informative cognomen of "Anonymous."

It's a shame really, since in a later post on the same day, Anonymous says:

For 15 years I lived 3 blocks from this house on one of the prettiest blocks in North
Flushing in a classic old colonial. I left two
years ago, but as a long time resident I can
say that I think this house is just fine for the
neighborhood--and rather, much nicer than
the few McMansions with columns that
managed to get built. No one made a stink
over those and they are much more
tasteless, in my opinion.


Assuming that's the same "Anonymous" talking, it seems we are essentially in agreement. So Anonymous, you can believe that there's another real person here agreeing with you, or you can believe it's just a Hsu-created straw man saying so for his own nefarious reasons.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for sharing this link, but unfortunately it seems to be offline... Does anybody have a mirror or another source? Please answer to my post if you do!

I would appreciate if a staff member here at queenscrap.blogspot.com could post it.

Thanks,
Charlie