• Development
• Food and Drink
• Forest Hills
• Retail

• Log in
• Register
• RSS for this post's comments

Comments

• Steve has come back yeayyyyyyyyyyyyyy!!!

  Posted by ANON
  on December 21st, 2007 at 12:49 am

• We need a good diner in town.

  Posted by Anonymous
  on December 21st, 2007 at 1:18 am

• The disgusting stench along restaurant row; broken and greasy sidewalks; poor lighting; neglected trees; lack of greenery; exhaust fumes from cars; poorly managed restaurants with lackluster menus and sub-par service make 70th Rd in Forest Hills a vey poor excuse for a`Restaurant Row’. The area is a dump! Restaurant goers demand a major change; either up your standards or suffer the same fate as your fellow restaurant owners!

  Posted by anonymous
  on December 21st, 2007 at 1:46 am

• While I kinda-sorta liked UJ’s and Rogue (even though they had their faults), the strip was rat-infested, to be honest. Not uncommon to see rats scurry in and out of the Rogue cellar sidewalk door and into cracks in the kids’ clothing store wall. I’ll never go back to Uno’s since a large roach crawled over my mother’s hand right before we paid the check about 3 years ago - and it was her BIRTHDAY!

  Posted by mickiet
  on December 21st, 2007 at 2:37 am

• Perhaps the “No Food” sign applies in the short term. They are planning to begin construction in the spring, so would think all of the businesses will be closed then. Can’t imagine who’d want to rent the space for a few months though.

  Posted by Anonymous
  on December 21st, 2007 at 9:35 am

• A big problem with developments such as this one is that it is neither contextual or appropriate for the space. These “malls” tend to create uninteresting street walls that do not fit with the local architecture. It doesn’t cost much more to design a building that fits in with the local area, i.e. Tudors, than it does to create a one size fits all glass ugliness in that awful Florida colored concrete. This is just a lack of imagination and is also cheaper as they put the same building everywhere.

  It really is a shame that there is no encouragement to building contextually, especially in an area such as FH which has a wonderful history and architectural style that keeps going by the wayside.

  Posted by KGResident
  on December 21st, 2007 at 11:53 am

• New Construction is coming so no more rats as they will be cleared out.

  Posted by Rat Problem
  on December 21st, 2007 at 1:21 pm

• what is Forum West?

  Posted by yellowstone
  on December 21st, 2007 at 10:43 pm

• Yes how sad it is indeed that the Landmarks Preservation Commission can’t address the problem of rapacious developers who put in buildings that are at odds with the character and historical style of the neighborhood. As an architect I have had to work with them on many occasions and they are quite rigorous in their standards and truly believe in protecting our built cultural heritage. The outer boroughs don’t have the same protection as Manhattan receives. Sunnyside has just received landmark status for parts of the neighborhood. We in F.H. need to apply to the Landmarks Commission to protect the unique character of our home.

  Posted by Landmark Proponent
  on December 22nd, 2007 at 10:08 am

• I don’t understand your architectural complaints. The rendering I saw shows a much nicer building than the boring, one-level boxes that are on the corner now.

  Posted by Peter
  on December 22nd, 2007 at 10:28 am

• Sign in the window in the Rouge space also says “MONTH TO MONTH ONLY” so I’m thinking they’re looking for a short-term low-mess tenant to bring in a little rent $ before the construction starts. I’d be all over a Halloween Adventure but the timing isn’t quite right…

  Posted by psedie
  on December 22nd, 2007 at 11:28 pm

• “NO FOOD” refers to the month-to-month tenant sign. Not the future tenants that the new building will have.
  This area is looking more like a mall every day.

  Posted by Anthony
  on December 23rd, 2007 at 10:56 am

• Unfortunately Landmark Proponent, it appears at least from this blog, that many newer residents to FH find no character in FH and would like to see much of it replaced by New High Rises such as the Windsor. Apparently it is their belief that these types of development will bring in a “higher end” resident. What they just don’t get is that these developments tend to have a reverse effect. They create a more transitory place, one in which only investors can afford to buy and therefore rent them out. Additionally, they take away any sense of place or community. It is truly sad that many folks just don’t get it. Maintaining character and contextual awareness is not antidevelopment, it is controlled and sustainable development. Note the crisis in the housing market, that despite what people want to delude themselves to, is effecting neighborhoods such as Forest Hills, which is down approximately 9%.

  Posted by KGResident
  on December 24th, 2007 at 11:30 am

• What complaint do you have about the Windsor? It didn’t replace any significant building and it is bringing some excitement and life to the area. Why are you complaining about the Staubach development when the current structures on this site are boring and ugly. If anything, the Staubauch building looks more in line with the rest of Austin Street than what is currently there.

  Posted by Peter
  on December 24th, 2007 at 12:07 pm

• Sorry, the Windsor is one of the ugliest apartment buildings to go up in a very long time. It looks like a dormitory. The Staubach proposal is a generic glass streetwall that will add nothing to the neighborhood architecturally. it will also age poorly judging by the way other similar structures age. But hell, if thats what you want, so be it.

  Posted by KGResident
  on December 24th, 2007 at 12:51 pm

• OTOH, the Windsor fits in nicely with the other ugly buildings here, like the Cord Meyer building.

  Posted by mickiet
  on December 24th, 2007 at 1:31 pm

• No big surprise they were both Cord Meyer projects. UGLY!

  Posted by KGResident
  on December 24th, 2007 at 2:02 pm

• The Windsor was designed by Ismael Leyva, who worked on the Time Warner Center, among other things, and he has been very highly regarded by architecture critics. But I guess you all know more about architecture than he does . . .

  Posted by Peter
  on December 24th, 2007 at 2:44 pm

• I don’t mind the look of the Windsor, but you can’t say it’s brought life to the area. That block is still dead and the Windsor commercial space has been a big disappointment at this point.

  Posted by Uther
  on December 24th, 2007 at 3:05 pm

• Does anyone else notice that the Windsor still looks not fully occupied? No lights on in the evenings in at least 1/3 of the windows.

  Posted by mickiet
  on December 24th, 2007 at 4:06 pm

• “The Windsor was designed by Ismael Leyva, who worked on the Time Warner Center, among other things, and he has been very highly regarded by architecture critics. But I guess you all know more about architecture than he does . . .”

  Posted by Peter
  on December 24th, 2007 at 2:44 pm

  I may not “know more about architecture than he does” but I know ugly when I see it.

  Posted by FHdweller
  on December 25th, 2007 at 10:26 am

• Just because something is designed by a “renowned” architect it doesn’t mean that it is attractive or has a sense of place within the community it is placed. As FHDweller said I know ugly when I see it. Not being an architect doesn’t mean I cannot place an aesthetic opinion.

  Oh by the way, lots of friends are architects, and agree that it is ugly. And oh by the way, TimeWarner, not a good looking building, most folks agree with that. So …

  Posted by kgresident
  on December 26th, 2007 at 8:23 am

• Everyone I know thinks it looks nicer than any other high-rise in FH. Sounds like you are a NIMBY that just doesn’t like change so you have a biased view that it is “ugly.” Name me two high-rises in the area that you think look better.

  Posted by Peter
  on December 26th, 2007 at 8:42 am

• Frankly, I think that the Hirises that have gone up in the past 10 years are just ugly boxes that have absolutely no architectural interest. I’m not a NIMBY at all. I have no issue with change, but do it right. There are those that came to these neighborhoods for its character. If you don’t like the character of FH and its surrounding environs, why not do what others are always saying, move. Go some place like LIC which is all new and filled with glass box hirises on every corner. Why would you move to an area known for prewar brick if you don’t like or appreciate that style of architecture? That I don’t get.

  If the Gerard is your style of architecture, which is fine, then live somewhere where that style is the norm. The Windsor with it’s bland tan stone and brown windows is just plain ugly. Perhaps the world famous architect was having a bad design day, who knows.

  Posted by KGResident
  on December 26th, 2007 at 11:55 am

• I checked out Ismael Leyva’s website to see what else he’s designed. While there are a few attractive buildings, for the most part, the other buildings he’s designed are almost identical to the Windsor. Must be a template he’s using for those. IMO, there is no architectural interest in these box buildings.

  As for Time Warner (which I can appreciate), he did not design the building itself. He designed the apartments.

  Unfortunately, the Staubach development seems to be replacing one ugly structure with another one. I don’t know that one is worse than the other, though.

  Posted by FoHiI
  on December 26th, 2007 at 2:26 pm

• The couple of you criticizing the Windsor still have yet to name even one highrise in Forest Hills that you think looks good. Face it, you are biased against big developments or change. The Windsor is a good looking building and the area is benefiting from having its first upscale new development in decades.

  Posted by Peter
  on December 27th, 2007 at 9:00 am

• I did respond. I stated that the hirises that have gone up in the last ten years are cheap looking and have little or no architectural interest. Sorry I don’t like what the builders are building. Oh, and how is the neighborhood benefiting? Many apartments are dark and even worse, many have been purchased by corporate concerns and diplomates to be used as crash pads. That benefits the community?

  Windsor is ugly. Plain and simple. Sorry.

  Posted by KGResident
  on December 27th, 2007 at 9:53 am

• Ok, can you name a highrise anywhere in Queens that you like?

  Posted by Peter
  on December 27th, 2007 at 11:52 am

• Hmmm, good question. Actually I can’t, not because there are none that I might like, but because the only hirises that I am familiar with are those locally. There are some interesting projects in LIC, but they seem to be lackluster glass boxes. Unfortunately, our area does not attract I.M. Pei and Stern to design here, they are busy in the West Village, or Brooklyn (where they have caused controversy). What we get here are the “architects” that do buildings such as the horrible white building on Austin and 74th. Or the monstrosity that went up on Metropolitan and 116th Street (Park Lane Condos). In fact, the “architect” that built the Austin street abortion was trying to building a sliver building next to my building. Not only was he shut down, he was indicted for attempting to bribe a DOB official (that in and of itself is a miracle, an honest DOB official!). Square boxes extract the most out of a limited space. Adding any ornamentation or sacrificing some saleable square footage for style is not something that is generally done in the outerboros. It is truly a shame.

  Posted by KGResident
  on December 27th, 2007 at 12:18 pm

• Ok, how about in Brooklyn then? Please, just name one, just one . . .

  Posted by Peter
  on December 27th, 2007 at 12:35 pm

• The Oro isn’t bad, out of scale with the area, but not ugly.

  Posted by KGResident
  on December 27th, 2007 at 12:42 pm

• Of course the Oro looks good. It is right next to public housing!

  I wouldn’t necessarily consider it out of scale. The nearby areas were rezoned to foster this type of development.

  Posted by West
  on December 27th, 2007 at 12:58 pm

• Crazy huh! Look at what is happening in the Bowery. Luxury housing next to a men’s shelter.

  I didn’t know the Oro was next to public housing. I wonder if the government is going to try and drive those folks out and convert it. That has happened in the past. Care about the poor! Not in this city!

  Posted by KGResident
  on December 27th, 2007 at 1:02 pm

• The idea has crossed their minds.

  http://curbed.com/archives/200.....condos.php

  In the article, “…..near Dumbo” likely refers to the Oro’s lower lying (and purported lower income) neighbors.

  Posted by West
  on December 27th, 2007 at 1:25 pm

• It’s all reprehensible. This city has sold out to developers. It’s like when they “gentrified” the meatpacking district a couple of years ago. Folks thought that because they spent 3 million on an apartment, they had the right to complain about the trucks moving around at 3 am. IT’S A MEAT MARKET! THEY BUTCHER, ETC. Why should an industry be pushed out because someone is stupid enough to pay stupid high prices. They came to the nuisance so to speak, deal with it. Most of the NYCHA projects at this point in time are pretty well maintained and over all safe. Just because they are in Manhattan the developers want them. Hell move the tenants around to where ever the City believes will be appropriate. The hell that the kids are in school, have a social network, etc. Often there are generations that watch one another’s kids, etc.

  Sorry, I get a bit crazed when it comes to what is happening to this town. Whatever happened to Mitchell-Lama which was for the middle class? Yeesh.

  Posted by KGResident
  on December 27th, 2007 at 3:06 pm

• Public housing and rent subsidies and controls just do not work. We live in a free democracy, not a socialist state, and public control of real estate is detrimental. If you think the city is not better off with the meatpacking district the way it is now compared to 15 years ago, there is no use talking to you.

  Posted by Peter
  on December 27th, 2007 at 5:50 pm

• The Meatpacking District

  I wouldn’t go as far as to say the city is better off. But if you say it is now one of the more popular destinations to eat, drink, dance, shop, and call a 3 million dollar loft home, then yes.

  And how did that happen?

  If I recall, the area resisted the impulse to build oh-so-typical highrises over the existing structures. Although a highrise hotel or two may have spilled over from Chelsea, I believe it was later designated a historic district. I still see the old buildings with the loading bays, and metal awnings over the cobblestone street. Some of the meat companies remain, and businesses and residents old and new wanted the neighborhood to stay the same.

  Hmmm. It doesn’t make sense. The area is outdated, yet it is thriving, and arguably one of the hottest spots at the moment. But don’t you need megabuck development and brand name businesses to show that an area has really made it to the big time?

  Posted by West
  on December 28th, 2007 at 12:21 am

Post a Comment