"Hey Queens Crap, I thought I'd send you guys some pictures of some oversized homes that are filling up Queens. These two are located in Kew Gardens. Talk about no style. Oh my." - Chris
30 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Why are these "oversize"? Why aren't the other homes undersize?
And if these are "no style", then what on earth are the crappy suburban ranches to the right? Masterworks of architecture?
What makes them oversized is that they are newer buildings that do not fit in contextually, which is something city planning supposedly tries to achieve with its zoning. Looks like they failed here.
During the 1920s real estate boom in NYC when large scale projects replaced smaller scale buildings it was done with S-T-Y-L-E, attention to detail and executed with an educated awareness of implementing finer proportions in construction.
These Mc Monsters look like boxy bunkers... a former goat herder's attempt at putting on the Ritz.
They are as tasteless as the "architects" that build them and reflect the real low class status of its occupants.
You might to transplant a hillbilly to a big city but you'll never succeed in taking the country bumpkin out of him!
In the first picture, it looks as though the owner is trying to have his house look more like a castle than a house.
In the second, that house is typical of the latest homes going up all over the place. A box with windows is not a house. It's just a box with windows. It makes the small ranches look like architectual masterpieces.
You're entitled to your opinion of the blog, but I feature at least one overdeveloped Queens property every day. You need to be in tune with what is going on in the rest of the city in order to understand what is going on here. Kind of like studying world history to better understand US history.
While it's perfectly OK to suggest that QC should concentrate more on some things than others; it's also useful to remember that whoever runs this blog puts a lot of thought and effort into. I, for one, could not do it nearly as well.
Wha? Are the schools also supposed to be the enforcement officers?
Many of the city planning issues that we are fighting were pretty much battles won (and solved) several generations ago.
Instead of enforcement, the preservation community remains silent (or at best ineffective) on these issues.
Schools, which should be a repository for all that has gone before us on poor planning, has turned their back on this and instead concentrates one tiresome prodevelopment essay after another.
Fine if you are a developer or a poltican trying to satisfy a campaign donation from a developer, bullshit if you are the rest of us trying to cope with problems that were solved 100 years ago.
Why don't you compose yourself and follow this blog before you make a fool out of yourself anymore.
I think you are too harsh. The very fact that is person is here is something to be welcomed.
We do not ban people or humilate them like astorians.com.
Unlike that site, we encourage people to get real, no matter how much we disagree with them (unless of course they are a hack posting the party line, and those knaves are smelled out pretty damn fast.)
I'm tellin' ya... the "architects" building this kind of mega shit are just a bunch of "size queens" making up for the inadequate length of their own tiny weenies!
MM: Schools, which should be a repository for all that has gone before us on poor planning, has [sic] turned their back on this and instead concentrates [sic] one tiresome prodevelopment essay after another.
Patently false. Maybe you should sit in on a class or two, so you'll at least know what you're talking about.
Patently false. Maybe you should sit in on a class or two, so you'll at least know what you're talking about. ---------
(yawn)
Architecture, construction and fabrication are second nature to my family: not only do I have several uncles, cousins and at least a nephew or so either employed or owning concerns in these fields, but I can show you simliar activies going back generations.
I have at least one major client that is an architectural firm.
So yes, I know a few intimate details here.
The schools fail us pure and simple.
They produce study after study telling us how to live with development. They act as infrastructure costs, a function of the public purse, are insignificant.
Or, commissioned by developers, are cold hearted apoligists for studies that all but ignores the historic and social fabric of those communities that are caught in crosshairs of their tender mercies.
But what is simply excusible is that most of those ills that are detailed with loving attention on this blog are issues whose battles were fought and won a hundred years ago.
And we see nothing, I repeat nothing, from these schools in a leadership role decrying these ills.
Anon: What do you mean "patently false"? Have you ever read a Hunter or Columbia study?
Yes, I have. And you obviously have not. And by "patently false," I mean that it's patently false that the Hunter and Pratt programs (you're introducing Columbia here out of nowhere, but I think they more or less fit in the same boat) spew out "tiresome prodevelopment essays."
M&M: I have at least one major client that is an architectural firm. So yes, I know a few intimate details here.
Congratulations. So you're part of the development machine. That DOES NOT make you an expert on the Pratt and Hunter programs, and how they train their students.
M&M: The schools fail us pure and simple. They produce study after study telling us how to live with development... blah blah... Or, commissioned by developers, are cold hearted apoligists... blah blah... And we see nothing, I repeat nothing, from these schools in a leadership role decrying these ills.
Again, you simply don't know what you're talking about. I attended Hunter's planning program and I can tell you for a fact the faculty is not at all "prodevelopment" in the sense that you mean, that they are very concerned with economic and environmental justice, and support community-based planning efforts. In studios, we often partnered with non-profit groups to help them make modest, contextual (and I mean this in the true sense of bulk, streetwall and design) improvements to their properties. These studies are NEVER commissioned by developers.
Pratt and Columbia, for their part, often assist communities in drawing up 197-a plans. And if you can't support that effort of communities to have a say in the process, then I guess I'd like to hear your better idea.
Or are you just another QC naysayer? That seems to happen a lot here. People make these loud, unequivocal pronouncements, but can never back them up with hard facts. "More guns means less violence!" "Planning schools are killing our city!" "Dogs want to eat our children!"
If the planning schools are so bad, and produce nothing but "prodevelopment studies," then why don't you enlighten us by posting a link to one of these heinous documents?
I'm not disparaging your chosen profession as a servant of real estate interests, or your experience. But I question your judgment. It's clear that you're gullible, and that you haven't actually read a single one of these "studies" that you refer to without making actual reference.
. It's clear that you're gullible, and that you haven't actually read a single one of these "studies" that you refer to without making actual reference. -----
Well actually I did.
Old Astoria Village, perhaps the most important community in NYC that enjoys no protection somehow became Two Coves because Goodwill Industries paid for the study by Pratt.
Dozens of 150 and 250 year old buildings in the area, and not a single hint of the historic fabric of the community.
Lots of Goodwill oriented welfare state programs, though.
Each year two or three historic buildings get torn down. Piece by piece the fabric of the community is removed from the board.
Astoria does have a Two Coves Garden though. All the yuppies are excited about it. They have a real connection to the community.
Thank you Pratt. Hope you got lots of money for your little exercise.
M&M: I don't know anything about the Pratt study you cite, so I'll just take your word for it to avoid further conflict there. But that's one study.
I want you (all) to understand something. While these schools are all different, and each has its own unique departmental philosophy, as a rule the students are studying planning because they truly *care* about this city and good, responsible planning. As do the faculty. Honestly, none of my peers wants to see the city raped by opportunistic developers, and they all know you should really have infrastructure in place before a mega-condo gets plopped down where none was before.
And with, what?... Pratt, Hunter, Columbia and maybe NYU in the mix... well, there's only so much that each class can accomplish each year. Sometimes the students select the studio topic, and sometimes the faculty do. Topics can range from a rezoning study, to helping one non-profit with a small piece of land, to looking at food security for the region.
So before you go ranting that Hunter and Pratt, Hunter and Pratt, Hunter and Pratt have failed you because they didn't stop some McMansion from getting built in Kew Gardens, try to remember that these are well-meaning students - who are still learning - and they can't be watching *everything*.
And really... it's not the students' fault that crap gets built. It's developers, and landlords, and banks, and maybe the city for turning the other way and maybe the neighbors for not objecting loudly enough.
If you think there's a topic that's worthy of a studio class, rather than badmouthing the schools here, why don't you suggest it directly to the schools' departments?
How about Sunnyside Gardens, where the Hunter professor said landmarking was racist?
Wasn't aware of a "study" conducted by Hunter, if that's your point... but yes, she was speaking out against the landmarking. Her argument is documented in the NPR audio archives, if you care to go to the source, and it had something to do with the historical significance of the Gardens being the original social goals of the neighborhood, NOT the unremarkable skins of the buildings. And the pro-landmark coalition only cared about skins (and, incidentally, skin color).
"Hey Queens Crap, I thought I'd send you guys some pictures of some oversized homes that are filling up Queens.
These two are located in Kew Gardens. Talk about no style. Oh my." - Chris
30 comments:
Why are these "oversize"? Why aren't the other homes undersize?
And if these are "no style", then what on earth are the crappy suburban ranches to the right? Masterworks of architecture?
What makes them oversized is that they are newer buildings that do not fit in contextually, which is something city planning supposedly tries to achieve with its zoning. Looks like they failed here.
I've been all over Kew Gardens but do not recognize these locales at all. What are the streets?
Park Drive East.
During the 1920s real estate boom
in NYC when large scale projects
replaced smaller scale buildings it was done with S-T-Y-L-E, attention to detail and executed with an educated awareness of implementing finer proportions in construction.
These Mc Monsters
look like boxy bunkers...
a former goat herder's attempt at putting on the Ritz.
They are as tasteless as the "architects" that build them and reflect the real low class status of its occupants.
You might to transplant a hillbilly to a big city but you'll never succeed in taking the country bumpkin out of him!
In the first picture, it looks as though the owner is trying to have his house look more like a castle than a house.
In the second, that house is typical of the latest homes going up all over the place. A box with windows is not a house. It's just a box with windows. It makes the small ranches look like architectual masterpieces.
this is what i used to like about queenscrap....not enough of it, too much about other topics and other boroughs
You're entitled to your opinion of the blog, but I feature at least one overdeveloped Queens property every day. You need to be in tune with what is going on in the rest of the city in order to understand what is going on here. Kind of like studying world history to better understand US history.
Park Drive East is in Kew Gardens Hills, not Kew Gardens. Please update the title.
They certainly look like crap, but can't we get some closer pictures?
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=kew+gardens,ny&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=43.172547,93.164063&ie=UTF8&ll=40.722742,-73.826612&spn=0.002533,0.005686&z=18&iwloc=addr&layer=c&cbll=40.722643,-73.826578&panoid=nW_yFfCGHZwicOWPw1n72g&cbp=12,53.43462975414951,,0,-7.9009471171094
Funny how the preservation community all but ignores this.
Hello Hunter? Hello Pratt?
Hello Hunter? Hello Pratt?
Wha? Are the schools also supposed to be the enforcement officers?
What about *your* responsibility as a resident of the neighborhood? You could join your CB, or complain to the CB liaison at DCP.
While it's perfectly OK to suggest that QC should concentrate more on some things than others; it's also useful to remember that whoever runs this blog puts a lot of thought and effort into. I, for one, could not do it nearly as well.
What about *your* responsibility as a resident of the neighborhood? You could join your CB, or complain to the CB liaison at DCP.
---------
yes and Santa and the Tooth Fairy, too.
My dear friend, you must live in Astoria or some other backwater where the locals are kept out of the loop and ignorant.
Why don't you compose yourself and follow this blog before you make a fool out of yourself anymore.
You could join your CB, or complain to the CB liaison at DCP.
HAHAHAHAHAHEHEHEHEHEHOHOHOHOHO
Wha? Are the schools also supposed to be the enforcement officers?
Many of the city planning issues that we are fighting were pretty much battles won (and solved) several generations ago.
Instead of enforcement, the preservation community remains silent (or at best ineffective) on these issues.
Schools, which should be a repository for all that has gone before us on poor planning, has turned their back on this and instead concentrates one tiresome prodevelopment essay after another.
Fine if you are a developer or a poltican trying to satisfy a campaign donation from a developer, bullshit if you are the rest of us trying to cope with problems that were solved 100 years ago.
Why don't you compose yourself and follow this blog before you make a fool out of yourself anymore.
I think you are too harsh. The very fact that is person is here is something to be welcomed.
We do not ban people or humilate them like astorians.com.
Unlike that site, we encourage people to get real, no matter how much we disagree with them (unless of course they are a hack posting the party line, and those knaves are smelled out pretty damn fast.)
I'm tellin' ya...
the "architects" building this kind of mega shit are just a bunch of "size queens" making up for the inadequate length of their own tiny
weenies!
Ms. thing, that's probably one of the funniest things I've ever here and I'll bet it's so true.
Anybody got a ruler?
Let's ask these "architects" to line up, unzip and see how they measure up "Ms. Thing"!
MM: Schools, which should be a repository for all that has gone before us on poor planning, has [sic] turned their back on this and instead concentrates [sic] one tiresome prodevelopment essay after another.
Patently false.
Maybe you should sit in on a class or two, so you'll at least know what you're talking about.
What do you mean "patently false"? Have you ever read a Hunter or Columbia study?
Patently false.
Maybe you should sit in on a class or two, so you'll at least know what you're talking about.
---------
(yawn)
Architecture, construction and fabrication are second nature to my family: not only do I have several uncles, cousins and at least a nephew or so either employed or owning concerns in these fields, but I can show you simliar activies going back generations.
I have at least one major client that is an architectural firm.
So yes, I know a few intimate details here.
The schools fail us pure and simple.
They produce study after study telling us how to live with development. They act as infrastructure costs, a function of the public purse, are insignificant.
Or, commissioned by developers, are cold hearted apoligists for studies that all but ignores the historic and social fabric of those communities that are caught in crosshairs of their tender mercies.
But what is simply excusible is that most of those ills that are detailed with loving attention on this blog are issues whose battles were fought and won a hundred years ago.
And we see nothing, I repeat nothing, from these schools in a leadership role decrying these ills.
Anon: What do you mean "patently false"? Have you ever read a Hunter or Columbia study?
Yes, I have. And you obviously have not.
And by "patently false," I mean that it's patently false that the Hunter and Pratt programs (you're introducing Columbia here out of nowhere, but I think they more or less fit in the same boat) spew out "tiresome prodevelopment essays."
M&M: I have at least one major client that is an architectural firm.
So yes, I know a few intimate details here.
Congratulations. So you're part of the development machine. That DOES NOT make you an expert on the Pratt and Hunter programs, and how they train their students.
M&M: The schools fail us pure and simple.
They produce study after study telling us how to live with development... blah blah... Or, commissioned by developers, are cold hearted apoligists... blah blah... And we see nothing, I repeat nothing, from these schools in a leadership role decrying these ills.
Again, you simply don't know what you're talking about. I attended Hunter's planning program and I can tell you for a fact the faculty is not at all "prodevelopment" in the sense that you mean, that they are very concerned with economic and environmental justice, and support community-based planning efforts. In studios, we often partnered with non-profit groups to help them make modest, contextual (and I mean this in the true sense of bulk, streetwall and design) improvements to their properties. These studies are NEVER commissioned by developers.
Pratt and Columbia, for their part, often assist communities in drawing up 197-a plans. And if you can't support that effort of communities to have a say in the process, then I guess I'd like to hear your better idea.
Or are you just another QC naysayer?
That seems to happen a lot here. People make these loud, unequivocal pronouncements, but can never back them up with hard facts.
"More guns means less violence!"
"Planning schools are killing our city!"
"Dogs want to eat our children!"
If the planning schools are so bad, and produce nothing but "prodevelopment studies," then why don't you enlighten us by posting a link to one of these heinous documents?
I'm not disparaging your chosen profession as a servant of real estate interests, or your experience. But I question your judgment. It's clear that you're gullible, and that you haven't actually read a single one of these "studies" that you refer to without making actual reference.
. It's clear that you're gullible, and that you haven't actually read a single one of these "studies" that you refer to without making actual reference.
-----
Well actually I did.
Old Astoria Village, perhaps the most important community in NYC that enjoys no protection somehow became Two Coves because Goodwill Industries paid for the study by Pratt.
Dozens of 150 and 250 year old buildings in the area, and not a single hint of the historic fabric of the community.
Lots of Goodwill oriented welfare state programs, though.
Each year two or three historic buildings get torn down. Piece by piece the fabric of the community is removed from the board.
Astoria does have a Two Coves Garden though. All the yuppies are excited about it. They have a real connection to the community.
Thank you Pratt. Hope you got lots of money for your little exercise.
A poster child for everything I said.
Thank God I don't live in Astoria.
How about Sunnyside Gardens, where the Hunter professor said landmarking was racist?
Well our fiend, Mr. Anon, is quiet. It seems MM has some sharp points.
But let us reverse the question: can you give studies that address these issues?
http://queenscrap.blogspot.com/2009/01/developer-blight-becoming-more-common.html
http://queenscrap.blogspot.com/2009/01/fresh-meadows-is-full-of-crap.html
http://queenscrap.blogspot.com/2009/01/lowdown-on-laurelton-crap.html
I like the Hunter study for Dutch Kills that promoted MORE PEOPLE, SPECIFICIALLY MORE IMMIGRANT PEOPLE.
Looked like it was written by a tweeder.
No hint of the threat from hotels that destroyed that community.
I bet the politicans paid for that one!
This failure of these schools seems an interesting topic to be looked at by Crappy further.
M&M: I don't know anything about the Pratt study you cite, so I'll just take your word for it to avoid further conflict there. But that's one study.
I want you (all) to understand something. While these schools are all different, and each has its own unique departmental philosophy, as a rule the students are studying planning because they truly *care* about this city and good, responsible planning. As do the faculty. Honestly, none of my peers wants to see the city raped by opportunistic developers, and they all know you should really have infrastructure in place before a mega-condo gets plopped down where none was before.
And with, what?... Pratt, Hunter, Columbia and maybe NYU in the mix... well, there's only so much that each class can accomplish each year. Sometimes the students select the studio topic, and sometimes the faculty do. Topics can range from a rezoning study, to helping one non-profit with a small piece of land, to looking at food security for the region.
So before you go ranting that Hunter and Pratt, Hunter and Pratt, Hunter and Pratt have failed you because they didn't stop some McMansion from getting built in Kew Gardens, try to remember that these are well-meaning students - who are still learning - and they can't be watching *everything*.
And really... it's not the students' fault that crap gets built. It's developers, and landlords, and banks, and maybe the city for turning the other way and maybe the neighbors for not objecting loudly enough.
If you think there's a topic that's worthy of a studio class, rather than badmouthing the schools here, why don't you suggest it directly to the schools' departments?
How about Sunnyside Gardens, where the Hunter professor said landmarking was racist?
Wasn't aware of a "study" conducted by Hunter, if that's your point... but yes, she was speaking out against the landmarking. Her argument is documented in the NPR audio archives, if you care to go to the source, and it had something to do with the historical significance of the Gardens being the original social goals of the neighborhood, NOT the unremarkable skins of the buildings. And the pro-landmark coalition only cared about skins (and, incidentally, skin color).
Post a Comment