Open Thread: Compare & Contrast 75 Clinton & 101 Clinton

In the BHB post a week ago about the new 80-unit building at 75 Clinton Street & Montague (on right) going rental, a healthy debate blossomed here between the architectural charms of its facade versus the new 40-unit residential building one block down at 101 Clinton Street & Joralemon (left). You guys took each building to task, with typical opinionated passion.

So let’s put up your dukes, BHB followers. We invite a full-on discussion about the merits—or not—of each property. The Corcoran link for 75 Clinton is here. 101 Clinton doesn’t appear to have a dedicated site yet, since it’s still under construction. You are welcome to add whatever you’ve seen, heard or linked to.

Please keep it clean, friends.

Share this Story:
  • resident

    I think the only positive thing I can say about either building’s exterior is that 75 Clinton is actually better than it was. That’s not saying much, but it’s something…

  • Tom S

    What resident said. At least it’s less ugly than it was before.

  • GHB

    75 is blah. 101 is seriously fugly. There is a difference.

  • Anon

    Does anyone know what’s going in on the ground floor of 101? They were supposed to expand the deli, but now I seriously doubt that’s happening.

  • Paul Goldberger

    In a neighborhood used to looking back, each building is imbued with a modernist version. Like Wright’s Fallingwater or Gehry’s Guggenheim Bilbao, these Clinton Street renovations are a triumph of forward thinking. One cannot look at either 75 or 101 and not be filled with a sense of architectural possibility.

  • chris

    My impression is that 101 is knocking all the retail into one unit. Maybe for a mini grocery?

  • David on Middagh

    These buildings don’t even receive first class sarcasm!

  • wonderman

    @ Paul Goldberger, I expect these 2 buildings to be included in the future architectural walking tours of BH.

  • AEB

    They’re both finished with bricks. The one on the right is, however, taller.

  • carol

    I saw a drawing posted at 101 before they shrouded the ground floor. It showed a number of retail storefronts , however I suspect they will rent what the market bears – single storefronts, doubles or whatever a potential retail operation wants and can afford.

  • Clintonious Wow

    They’re both ugly and easy to confuse with one another. I really liked the Clinton Food Market; it was an essential part of my trek to work and my stagger back from bars. Any idea what the rents will be in 101? I’m hoping the new inventory will push down other Clinton St. rents.

  • Jorale-man

    Interesting that they’ve gone rental. I wonder what effect that downgrade will have on nearby property values (speaking in pure self-interest)?

    They’re both improvements but they were so awful to begin with, that’s not saying a whole lot. I’ve never seen a “striped” building like 101 before. The fake-copper roof is an interesting touch too.

  • Henry

    Why have balconies that are totally useless for human space. Does anyone really imagine sitting on one of them enjoying a morning coffee or an evening cocktail.

    kay, I grant they are good for bike storage.

  • bornhere

    Lintels. I love lintels. Faux or real. At least 101 looks somewhat brickish; the facade of 75 is flat, a pitiful color, and full of “I hope that crap doesn’t fall of that ‘balcony’ ” drama. Add some trees to Joralemon and Clinton and 101 might be fine. (Does anyone remember the fish store [as in neon tetras and angelfish] that was in the former deli space?)

  • Claude Scales

    I like 75 Clinton. I think it would be better without the balconies, which I’m sure the developer insisted on as an incentive to buy or, as it turns out, lease. I especially like the subtle texturing of the walls.

    101 Clinton looks cheap. The design is hackneyed. I heard a rumor that at least part of the first floor retail space was under contract to be Santorum’s HQ for the New York primary election. Now it looks unlikely that his campaign will last past Nevada.

  • Snipsy Prissmore

    101 Clinton didn’t “go rental,” it was always supposed to be rental.

  • Tim N.

    Debate the “merits”? Really?

  • chris

    I am amazed at Paul Goldberger: 75 Clinton and Gehry? I used to trust Paul.

  • David on Middagh

    I wonder if those balconies alleviate the wind-tunnel effect?

  • Knight

    They probably just make it whistle, David!

  • Ex-Heightster

    Both buildings like like junk, but at least 101 Clinton disguises some of its bulk with that red/gray color scheme.

  • Ex-Heightster

    Also noticed after clicking to enlarge the photo, 101 Clinton at least has some minor architectural details, while 75 Clinton looks sterile.

  • MattyBo

    Goldberger, really? Granted these were the two ugliest buildings in the Heights so it’s good to seem them at the very least significantly changed. 75 is at least cleaner, if completely banal. 101 however is uglier than it was before, if less crummy. The half-assed mansard roof and silly red and white surface decoration don’t look forward at all, but seem instead of of the Long John Silvers school of corny pastiche.