« A DIY Home with Charm and Challenges A Different Looking McCarren Park »

November 21, 2005

Squeezing Every Last Drop of FAR on 6th Street

permit
A reader writes in to us lamenting the fact that this cute 2-family brownstone at 353 6th Street is in the process of being super-sized by a developer. Expanding in every direction--up, down and back--the owner, Shahin Assil, is turning this 2,100-square-foot 2-family into a 6-family building. According to Property Shark, Assil paid $880,000 for the place last summer and he's got another 1,800 square feet of buildable FAR as of right. And because he's outside of the Historic District, it can be as ugly as he wants. Big bummer for the neighbors.
353 6th Street [Property Shark] GMAP




Posted by Brownstoner at 9:53 AM | Comments (37)
Categories: Development

Comments

Does this kind of expansion run into any light and air restrictions when they're building out in the back yard?

Posted by: Anonymous at November 21, 2005 11:22 AM

There is a restriction in the building code for the particular zoning and location of the lot. For example, at the corner, the building can occupy up to 80% of the lot, but in the middle of the block, the building can only extend to 60% and has to leave 40% as a backyard. So if the existing house is built up to 50 ft in length, the new owner can extend another 10 feet and build up as much as the old FAR allowed. Spaces taken up by mechanicals, lighted stairwells, can be deducted and added to allowable floor area.

Posted by: anonymous at November 21, 2005 11:39 AM

What is the objection to maximizing FAR? Do you think there are too many apartments in Brooklyn? Do you think the average apartment is too big?

We should be promoting the construction of more apartments and more 2 and 3 and 4 bedroom apartments. If you're concerned about how the exterior of the building looks then make some changes to the building/zoning code.

MHN

Posted by: mhn at November 21, 2005 11:53 AM

The potential objection in this case (not having seen the plans) would be that the consistency of the open back yards in the middle of the block would be broken by some hulking mass that would block neighbors' sunlight and most likely be an eyesore. It's probably possible do pull off something like this without destroying the quality (and value) of the neighboring buildings, but the sad fact is that most people maximizing these FARs don't give a rat's ass about the neighbors or the quality and value of the nabe in general, so they maximize their own self interest at the expense of their neighbors.

Posted by: Brownstoner at November 21, 2005 12:12 PM

FYI, I live down 6th Street from here and the brownstone was a bit of an eyesore to begin with. The facade was bare except for an ugly looking t-shape above the doorway, and the stoop had been cracked for a long time, with prodigious weeds growing out of it in the summmer. The interior was apparently pretty bad as well. That's not to say that what replaces or is built onto it won't be worse, but the "cute" description was a stretch.

Any thoughts on what kind of building the developer can do here, given that it doesn't look like he is knocking the house down? How many floors can one practically build on top of a brownstone like this, since he appparently can't duild back too far?

Posted by: Anonymous at November 21, 2005 12:24 PM

I'm redoing my place and I care. I have friends who are doing the same and they care. I know some small developers and they care.

Beautiful buildings are more valuable than ugly buildings. There are some people who make ugly renovations but often times that is due more to their lack of taste than lack of respect of their neighbors.

I have friends in center slope who added another floor. They did a remarkable job, spared no expense and were badmouthed because they inconvenienced their neighbors by adding another floor.

Too often I feel that the anti-development folks are animated by either "I got mine ... f**k everyone else" or they have a philosophical opposition to change of any sort.

Posted by: mhn at November 21, 2005 12:28 PM

An "open house pick"' from about a month ago is just a few houses up the block from this (363 6th I think? Betancourt has the listing). When I went to the open house, one of the best things about it was the garden and the neighboring gardens - if you ignored the fences, it almost looked like a backyard in the country.

Such a fantastic view only comes from a combined effort - I feel badly for this house's neighbors.

Posted by: petunia at November 21, 2005 12:36 PM

What are you saying MHN? We can't complain about a crap ugly development out of character with the neighborhood? All we can do try to get legislation changed? I beg to differ and you won't shut us up! Community opposition to greedy developers has made a difference in the past and is as American as apple pie. Just because you own a piece of land does not mean that you can do whatever you like with it, community be damned. There are other valid goals besides maximizing profit of property owners.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 21, 2005 12:39 PM

Anon 12:39

Of course we can -- and should -- complain about "crap ugly development," but we should also include facades into the building code.

I don't know where in my post you interpreted that I was trying to "shut people up" or that I felt that "because you own a piece of land does not mean that you can do whatever you like with it, community be damned."

I agree with zoning laws and would like to see that the law includes facades. I would like to see the look and feel of center slope expand into the south slope. There are beautiful expansions being done, some with a modern twist that blend in delightfully with the existing building. (On 6th Ave btwn 13 and 16th)

I want to see more housing, more development, more five story buildings, more apartments, more upper-middle class housing. It helps us all: provides more housing, provides for a larger tax-base, brings more shoppers (ie customers and jobs for local businesses). Brooklyn and NYC win. Lower and upper income people win. We need more housing in Brooklyn, not less.

Posted by: mhn at November 21, 2005 12:51 PM

before we get into another greedy-developer-selfish-NIMBY shoutdown, here's my question: if there are so many people out to make a killing in Brooklyn real estate, and this sort of thing is so easy to do, why isn't this happening all over the non-landmark portions of park Slope? It's not like there are a shortage of places to buy.

Posted by: linusvanpelt at November 21, 2005 12:56 PM

We have a ton of development in non-landmark portions of park slope. I live in the south slope, that's non-landmark. If anyplace needs to have ugly-ass buildings torn down and replaced with more aesthetic buildings that's the place.

Guess what? Anti-dev people don't want new construction there either.

Posted by: mhn at November 21, 2005 1:00 PM

I live in a non-landmark portion of Center slope. The nonlandmarked portion of Center Slope is considerable -- including most (all?) of the blocks between 5th and 6th Avenues, like where this house is. Yet even though real estate has been hot, it's a prime area of the Slope, and plenty of houses like this one have been sold in recent years, I don't know offhand of any other cases like this one, where someone is taking a two-family and maximizing the fAR to make it a six-family.

It's not an argumentative question. I would think that there would be even more money to be made doing this in the (substantial) nonlandmark portions of the center Slope than there is in South Slope. So why don't we see so much of it? It's not zoning. it's certainly not the goodness of developers' hearts. And I don't think it's community opposition, because i've been here quite a while and I don't know of many such attempts that people needed to oppose. So what is it? are most of the properties priced to high to make the numbers work?

Posted by: linusvanpelt at November 21, 2005 1:13 PM

linus,

It's a good question. Part of the problem is that anything over 4 floors really needs an elevator. An elevator takes a lot of square footage out of each floor and changes the scope of the project. You would have to place the elevator in the back of the building -- in effect ruining the first floor providing access to and from the street.

Quite a few people have added one or two floors to existing 2 and 3 story buildings. Going up to 50 foot may still not produce a good enough ROI when you factor in losing the first floor.

It's an excellent question though.

Posted by: mhn at November 21, 2005 1:47 PM

There may be several reasons why we haven't seen more of this kind of development: i) many brownstone purchasers are fulfilling a dream of owning an old house and don't want to mess with that vision, ii) until recently there have been cheaper more efficient ways to make money as a small property developer (eg. buying vacant sites and building from scratch), and -- the gloomy scenario -- iii) maybe we're witnessing the start of a new trend as more owner-occupiers are priced out the market. It's happening on my block of St Marks Ave, btwn Carlton and Vanderbilt. Personally I'd like to see better protection of light and air rights. If only 40% of my lot needs to be keep as backyard, in theory I could almost double the depth of my house (from 42ft to approx 78, if I did the math right -- our lots are 130ft in total). But however aesthetic the design, surely that would be a huge encroachment on the quality of life of my neighbors? I couldn't do it.

Posted by: Roz at November 21, 2005 1:49 PM

I live in the South Slope -- the anti-development people (to the extent I can speak for them) are not against new construction or "ugly-ass buildings" being replaced by prettier buildings -- what we don't like are 12-story apartment buildings going up in the middle of blocks of single-family houses.

As for neighbors badmouthing neighbors who renovate -- well, it sucks living next door to a construction site. The house next door to mine has been under renovation for at least 9 months now -- so 9 months of jackhammering, banging, piles of garbage and debris in the front and back yards, construction workers shouting in front of my house early on Saturday morning, etc. I accept that my neighbors have the right to renovate their house, but I also have the right to complain about it! And yes, I have called the DOB on them, when it turned out they were doing structural work without a permit.

Posted by: Rose at November 21, 2005 3:15 PM

yes, your neighbor has a right to renovate and you have a right to complain. This is a free country. You and your neighbor have a right to do a lot of things.

Having workers shouting in front of your house early on Saturday -- that's obnoxious, depending on what you consider early. But jackhammering and "banging"? How do you propose anyone do a renovation without "banging"?

When I renovated my house, it sometimes sucked for my neighbors. When they renovated, it sometimes sucked for me. When it sucked too bad, we'd mention the problem to them or they to us and it usually got solved somehow. Accomodating neighbors -- but also recognizing that you've got to put up with inconvenience and noise -- is part of what you sign up for when living in a dense urban neighborhood of rowhouses.

Posted by: linusvanpelt at November 21, 2005 3:54 PM

I agree linusvanpelt. Talking to a neighbor about the problem before calling DOB is probably the better course of action.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 21, 2005 4:05 PM

I think the scale is less important than ugly vs. attractive. Think of many of Park Slope's best and most beautiful apartment houses, e.g. 47 Plaza Street West; 9,27,35 Prospect Park West. They're mid-rise buildings that took the place of shorter single family homes. Unfortunately, in the 2000s vs. the 1920s, we're getting ugly, poorly constructed Fedders buildings that are billed as expensive "luxury" condos. Ugh.

Posted by: Anon at November 21, 2005 4:10 PM

BTW, obvs I dunno if there were extenuating circumstances. & I sympathize with living next to a renovation for 9 months. But some of them do take that long. (I mean, ironically, we're all reading a blog abt Bstoner's mega-reno.) and on the face of it some of Rose's complaints (noise, banging) sounded like par for the course unless there's more she's not telling.

Posted by: linusvanpelt at November 21, 2005 4:12 PM

Roz, you could build up and use the FAR that way w/o using the garden space. I know I'm in the minority but I think that 50-60 foot buildlings are still "human-scale."

Posted by: mhn at November 21, 2005 4:17 PM

Roz,

12 story buildings could be prevented by not allowing any variances regarding building height.If the anti-dev folks were only against the 12 story building on 22nd Street then they wouldn't have lowered the FAR.

The fact that they lowered the FAR to 2.0 shows there is more to this than simply building height.

A typical 25x100 lot can put 1625 per floor. A modest 45 foot high, 5 floor building has 8125 square feet. With the FAR reduced to 2.0 one can only put up 5000 square feet which amounts to a little over 3 floors worth of apartments.

As I said earlier, if the anti-devs where only against the 12 story buildings (I'm against 12 story buildings there myself) then they wouldn't have lowered the FAR.

Posted by: mhn at November 21, 2005 4:25 PM

I don't want to build up or out. I was really just using my own situation to illustrate this undesirable trend. Not that I'm against individual owner-occupiers building sensitive, scale-appropriate extensions. And up, within limits, is usually better than out. Just that there should be strong zoning to protect the existing quality of life. Some posters seem to be arguing that because there's a housing shortage, rowhouse blocks are fair game. Sure, the density is low but that doesn't change the fact that it's a great formula for urban living -- and often historically and architecturally distinctive to boot. Why tamper with it just because it's not everyone's reality?

Posted by: Roz at November 21, 2005 5:27 PM

Roz,

Yeah, I'm one of those posters. I don't think that the city should exercise eminent domain and build 50 - 60 foot buildings everywhere there's a 30 foot building. I do think that we should not enshrine these low density neighborhoods into law, preventing it from becoming a denser neighborhood.

Using the south slope as an example, I don't think that the density is unpleasant. In fact I think it's close to ideal. I'm philosophically and esthetically in favor of medium density neighborhoods. I know that others prefer low density, and I respect that, but I would like to encourage more medium density neighborhoods.

We need more Americans living in cities instead of suburbia -- city dwellers use less energy and produce less pollution per capita than suburban and rural folks. We need more housing in NYC. A prime area for this is the south slope.

Aesthetically, I prefer center slope to south slope.

Posted by: mhn at November 21, 2005 5:53 PM

Are people really complaining about an owner expanding his proprty to within zoning, in an area that was downzoned only 2+ years ago. Thia isnt an historical area and its not likely he can build above 4 stories.

Come on Brownstoner, this is a non-story and the complaining is beyond ridiculous -

Posted by: David at November 21, 2005 6:01 PM

mhn, I agree that the current density of the South Slope is about right. I would say that right now we have medium density. I don't want to live in a high-density neighborhood, and I don't think the only choices should be unlimited-growth high-density urban neighborhoods, or suburbia.

As for my neighbors and their 9-months-and-counting renovation, which looks to be about half-completed -- I'm not disputing that they have the right to renovate, and I know very well that renovation is noisy. I'm just saying it sucks and that if you're doing a big renovation, you can't expect your neighbors to love you for it. And I called DOB because they were doing structural work without a permit, which was potentially damaging to my own house (attached to theirs). Oh, and cracks were appearing in my walls. And I spoke to their architect before I filed a complaint, and he lied to me -- denied they were digging out the basement and claimed the two dumpsters full of dirt that had been removed was just dirt that had washed in during a rainstorm. So I don't feel bad about filing a complaint.

Posted by: Rose at November 21, 2005 6:18 PM

David,

Yes, South Slope was just down zoned from 2.43 to 2. As a property owner I have lost over 2000 square foot and Brooklyn has lost 2 nice size 3 bedroom apartments. This is not a non-issue to me and other property owners. It shouldn't be a non-issue to anyone who lives in NYC.

Posted by: mhn at November 21, 2005 6:29 PM

Yes but 4th Ave was upzoned to allow for large apt buildings so I'm not sure that the net effect is really a loss - no matter what is amazing is that even after these zoning changes you still have people accusing someone of being un-neighborly simply for expanding their property to its (low) legal limit.

Posted by: David at November 21, 2005 6:42 PM

MHN where were you on 11/17/2005 on south slope downsizing posts? everything i said you reiterated . the anti development folks aren't against 12 story buildings . they just want all the ugly frames house to look the same in the south slope/greenwood. so they traded our FAR in for their percieved asthetic gain and our and their own financial loss. again i am not a developer and justed wanted to build a nice looking 4 story condo project. now my ugly frame house stands. on the plus side it only cost 1500 dollars to put new vinyl siding on the front. again this all could have been avoided if they closed the building loopholes and enforced building codes. thanks again MHN

Posted by: Anonymous at November 21, 2005 8:25 PM

In response to technical questions about rear yards and FAR for the property on 6th Street, it appears that it is located more than 100' from Fifth Avenue, which means that it is not a corner lot. Non-corner lots in this zoning district have to provide at least a 30' rear yard, regardless of FAR. The maximum height possible for this building is 50', but only after a setback of 15' in both front and rear of after rising 40'. This is something worth checking for any close neighbors concerned about impact to rear yards.

For the record, the change from R6 to R6B did not reduce the maximum FAR for most properties from 2.43 to 2.0. The max of 2.43 only applied in the rather rare circumstances of very large lots (like the 17-story building at 9th St and Fifth Ave) where the required open space could be provided. For most lots within R6 districts in Park Slope or South Park Slope, only around 1.85 FAR could have been achieved under the old R6 height factor regulations. Yes, the Quality Housing program allowed for 2.2 FAR on a narrow street, so there was arguably a reduction in permissible FAR from 2.2 to 2.0 by the rezoning. Still, 2.0 FAR would be considered rather high density in most parts of the US, and is on the low end of mid-density in NYC. Most of the existing lovely buildings in the center slope are around 2.0 FAR (including those that have been carved up into 4-6 units). The rezoning allows slight expansion and redevelopment of derelict properties.

Posted by: onceupon at November 21, 2005 10:17 PM

MHN I think you left out an important detail in your FAR calculations when talking about the South Slope. That is many of the new developments are being built on multiple or larger size lots. So if the lot is 60'x 100' or 100' x 100' under the old 1961 R6 zoning you could build 9 or even 12 stories as of right. (community facility faculty housing bonus thrown into the mix)
As an owner of a three story house, if I had the money, I would add another story. In Park Slope, the way the streets are orientated, a three story addition bumped out into the back yard will cast shadows in the Spring and Summer for the house to the East. The house on the West will have a brick wall that will collect much of the suns heat in the Summer. I would prefer to be West of the addition. P.S. I have been living next to a construction site for two years now and have another two years to go. Two things that make it bearable. 1. If you believe its all for some greater good. 2. Responsible contractors who follow the rules.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 21, 2005 10:47 PM

onceupon 10:17

I've been talking to architects for a few years now (5 or 6 to be more precise) about building on my lot in the south slope. My understanding was that the max height was 55'. Now, as I understand it the max height dropped to 50'. OK, not so bad. But the drop in FAR is what's a killer. All the architects I spoke to said that the available FAR was 2.43. Now, the available FAR is 2.0

Personnally I don't understand why we should use FAR in these areas. Let's be simple and set a volume (height:50', set back 5' from the front of the lot, or matching neighbors, and set back 30' from the rear of the lot.) The remain volume should be yours to play with.

I think the zoning should have been changed to prohibit anything above 55 feet and left everything else alone. I say this not only in that I have lost 2000 square foot but because I think that we desperately need more building here in NY.

The west village is beautiful with its 50-60 foot buildings -- of course the non-grid streets help :-) and center slope with its 50 foot buildings is also beautiful.

We shot ourselves in the foot with the downzoning. IMHO we should have prevented buildings above 55' and got rid of the FAR.

Posted by: mhn at November 22, 2005 12:34 AM

that r6 to r6b did not decrease FAR is not true. on my block everybody had r6 could build 2.43 and now only 2.0. tell them MHN, they sold out our FAR. as for 2.0 being high density for the US, this is not the rest of the US. this is nyc, brooklyn is ? the 4th largest city in the US. next you will be telling me that we have urban sprawl.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 22, 2005 12:38 AM

MHN - are you saying you could have put up 1625sqft' per floor on 25' ft lot (and I won't ask how 'typical' a 25' lot in south slope area is).
Thats 65' deep. And if you had row of those....
where does light/air come from in middle of those apts?
My house is 48' deep. Hard to imagine going much deeper without side windows. And how much backyard space is left after 65' deep bldg? Seems overstating practicality of building that much per floor.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 22, 2005 10:40 AM

You'd have to build a deep extension to go 65', with maybe only a 5' sideyard connected to the backyard. Couldn't possibly be the full width--there'd be alot of airless space in the center even assuming that that space would be used for storage, vented kitchens and baths, and skylights on the upper floor. Still sounds like a pretty grim layout.

I'm scratching my head trying to figure out how you can legally cram 6 apts. on that small lot.

Posted by: carolyn at November 22, 2005 1:01 PM

Looking at city website... 19' wide building. 1st or garden floor will be 2 apts.
2nd/parlor will be 2 apts and 3 and new 4th will be one apt each. So apts on 1st 2 floors must be kinda small (maybe studio or small 1bdrooms).

Posted by: Anonymous at November 22, 2005 3:21 PM

This may be legal, but it's called "being a bad neighbor." They are destroying the quality of life in adjoining backyards. Also, an absent landlord, which is what we're dealing with in this instance, compared to most of the buildings here which are owner-occupied, invite trouble for the block. We are going to have a bunch of ne'er-do-wells hanging around on our formerly nice block.

Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

Posted by: JPO at March 28, 2006 3:29 PM

clomid side effects http://www.noonhost.com/clomidsideeffec/clomid side effects http://www.gogetforum.com/clomid/clomid.html

Posted by: buy clomid at June 29, 2006 10:55 PM

Post a comment

Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.

Latest Restaurant Additions