From the NY Times:In parts of Laurelton, Queens, you can look down seemingly endless streets lined with Tudor homes, each a collection of squat rectangles with roofs so pointed as to have come from a child’s drawing. Whether separated by sideyards or joined as row houses spanning the length of entire blocks, they create a repetitive, geometrical effect.
Elsewhere in the city, such oneness of design can suggest impersonality. Here it is stately and pleasant, the pride of a community that has devoted much time and effort to protecting the homes that are its foundation.
The rest of the article doesn't paint so rosy a picture, however.
3 comments:
That is a beautiful picture of well designed homes.
What the hell is wrong with architects? They are churning out horrible buildlings.
A bit like mondern classical music. Self indulgent garbage.
The bigger question: where are the preservationists? Why can't they get after the AIA to stop designing this crap?
The bigger question: where are the preservationists? Why can't they get after the AIA to stop designing this crap?
"If it doesn't happen in Brooklyn Heights its not a problem"
Doesn't it bother anyone that for every 1 article the New York Times writes about Queens in the real estate section (the hunt, habitats, etc) it publishes 15- 20 articles about Brooklyn? The New York Times promotes Brooklyn - which increases their sales and their profile - at a much greater rate than it promotes Queens. This has been true for many years and it has absolutely contributed to the growth of Brooklyn. Personally, I don't think people who live in Queens should stop buying the New York Times until the New York Times starts supporting Queens more. You can confirm this on their web site - under the real estate section.
Post a Comment