« Subsidized Apartments on the Auction Block Looking for a Return on $275 Million in DoBro »

December 1, 2006

DOB (Finally) Pays Attention to The Washington

room
With the embarrassing photos of the make-shift plywood mezzanines at The Washington Condo posted on this blog and later picked up on by the mainstream media, the DOB kinda had to talk a little tough when Brooklyn Papers phoned them up to ask press them on their stance. “The mezzanines do not comply with the department’s requirements,” said Jennifer Givner, a Buildings spokeswoman. Thanks for doing a crackerjack job, there, Jen! It turns out that while reducing the ceiling height of the mezzanines from seven to five feet did (unbelievably!) cure the FAR issue, the use of plywood instead of steel and concrete could hold up the issuance of a final C of O. Scarano claims that the plan was to use concrete all along which, to be fair, may be theoretically possible. According to the article, only one of the mezzanine apartments has a buyer. We thought the building was sold out. What gives?
Scarano Told to Get Up to Code [Brooklyn Papers]




Posted by Brownstoner at 10:18 AM | Comments (28)
Categories: Development

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/73

Comments

“The work [on the mezzanines] wasn’t completed,” said Scarano. “Now there’s concrete.”

I've never seen concrete formed with plywood in the manner of the photo previously posted here. Who does he think he's kidding?

Posted by: Anonymous at December 1, 2006 10:09 AM

And if they do put in concrete, who the heck wants that silly crawl space, and what does the weight of all that concrete do to the building?

The plywood was a blatant attempt to place a temporary structure that would reduce the square footage, with a nudge and wink to potential buyers that they could just rip out the plywood and get a real room again.

Posted by: Anonymous at December 1, 2006 10:21 AM

yeah that's why no one buys scarano stuff

Posted by: Anonymous at December 1, 2006 10:34 AM

Maybe we can make Scarano and DOB accomplices live here?

Posted by: etmthree at December 1, 2006 10:45 AM

Wait, I have it...the plywood we all saw in the last pix were actually the "inside" of the forms. Bob was planning on pouring concrete "on top of the plywood," perhaps a little gray stucco and a black brick or two for accent.

That oughta appease the DOB, then the buyer could still take a sledgehammer to the mezzanine...or wait, should that be a back-hoe to the whole building?

Posted by: gottalovebob at December 1, 2006 10:45 AM

I hope this isn't the wrong place to post this, but we are just starting to look to buy a home (a townhouse) somewhere in "Bococa" (sounds very exotic and equatorial, doesn't it?) with the expectation that we will need to gut renovate. I would be interested in knowing what folks think the ballpark dollar figure for a total renovation would be for a four story townhouse? Thanks in advance.

Posted by: Howard G. at December 1, 2006 11:02 AM

The building itself looks great. Scarano is the savior of modern Brooklyn architecture. DOB issues notwithstanding.

Posted by: GrandPa at December 1, 2006 11:15 AM

with psf numbers rising in this neighborhood and neighboring clinton hill - see 500 grand ave sale, 320 washington graham condo sales, 735 dean firehouse condo sales - do you think the concrete/mezzanine debacle will hurt non-mezz unit appraisals at this building? appraisals in general take into consideration features of the building themselves, but don't touch much on the bad features or workmanship
issues from what i've seen. the appraisal form does not have sections for bad architect or concrete mezzanine units, etc, so i would think not?

Posted by: ltjbukem at December 1, 2006 11:28 AM

Isn't this building facing a nasty mechanic car shop across the street? Is tha lot going to be developed aswell?

Posted by: Dave at December 1, 2006 11:28 AM

who took the picture? the building actually looks very decent from this vantage point..

Posted by: Anonymous at December 1, 2006 11:29 AM

it's not a picture it's an architectual rendering

Posted by: Anonymous at December 1, 2006 11:43 AM

And what became of the previously reported mezzanine level bathrooms that are in this building that had also been boarded over with plywood? are they to be encased in steel and concrete as well?

Was that also part of "the plan" all along?

Mezz bathrooms not withstanding, non-mezz buyers ARE getting shafted by the DOB - I find it reprehensible that a government agency will not punish the sponsor but instead will put the screws to buyers, who must now follow through with their closings or lose their deposits.

To me, the issuance of a C of O seems to be an even bigger crime than the zoning violations created by the mezzanines.

Posted by: Anonymous at December 1, 2006 11:53 AM

where was the rendering from? it looks very sharp. from a website?

Posted by: Anonymous at December 1, 2006 11:58 AM

the buyers have to go to a good lawyer who will threaten to go or go to the Attorney General to get out of the deal. The DOB ruling will only help their case but will not get the buyers deposit back.

Posted by: Anonymous at December 1, 2006 12:31 PM

Where was the link to the original posting on this? I never saw the plywood pictures...

Posted by: cobblestoner at December 1, 2006 3:19 PM

Yes. Very rephrehensible behavior by the DoB. The nerve of them to enforce their regulations. When people who could have waited until the building got its CofO bought ahead of time. Well, now that someone somewhere has put some money into it, the DoB no longer has any jurisdiction. They should just rubber stamp it. Because who are they to get in the way of some profiteering? If they stop this, all that will happen is people will start thinking about building buildings to code. Oh, wait.

11:53, you're a certified idiot.

Posted by: Anonyous at December 1, 2006 4:25 PM

Honestly, the building looks to be an appropriate scale for the neighborhood. It's a shame that Scarano has to try these tricks just to get the building to an appropriate scale.

To me the real crimes are those new midblock buildings that tower over their 3 story wood frame neighbors.
But a six floor building on Washington? What's the big deal?

Posted by: P at December 1, 2006 4:59 PM

i don't think the picture is a rendering. it is too close to reality to be a rendering.

and the building is surrounded on three sides by auto body shops. irregardless of the mezz issue, some buyers have a solid investment. you have condos two or three blocks east that paid the same price for this building. so i view it as a solid buy.

this building used to sit on a garbage strewn lot. check out microsoft.live.com and you'll see.

Posted by: ltjbukem at December 1, 2006 5:37 PM

Yeah, it would be awfully strange to render the first floor stores with brown paper in the windows.

That said, the people walking down the street look awfully cartoonish- but it is Prospect Heights. :)

Posted by: P at December 1, 2006 5:58 PM

place is garbage i was inside it was done pretty shoddy

Posted by: Anonymous at December 1, 2006 6:01 PM

So, I guess the plywood boxes weren't the fix Mr. S was looking for the DOB to approve. I still cannot believe such a stunt was tried as a blatant disregard for DOB bylaws (if the mezzanines weren't that in the first place). Well, DOB has spoken (and I hope will enforce), that Mr. S MUST build up the illegal mezzanines using steel and concrete and bring his "mess-anines" up to code.

Too little, to late? perhaps not if they intend to us The Washington as an example, and have him do rounds to all the new building in in Greenpoint/Billyburgh, Ft. green, Clinton Hill, South Slope and Greenwood Hts.

Posted by: lostinbrooklyn at December 1, 2006 7:44 PM

Everyone is missing the real issue here, which is the problem with NYC Zoning Laws, which limits floor area. What diiference does it make when these mezzanines are built up limmiting the head room, the building is still the same size on the outside.

Zoning should not restrict what one can build in terms of floor area within the envelope as it does not have any effect in terms of scale or context to the neighborhood.

Who cares if you have a double height space or a mezzanine inside YOUR OWN apartment?? (as long as its to code)

The CITY needs to re-think its Zoning Policies, and the DOB has to interpret theses laws with common sense!

Posted by: ANON at December 4, 2006 5:01 PM

No. The CITY never thought of this degree of exploitation of the mezzanines. The CITY intended the mezzanines rule to be a gracious allowance to builders, not as a tunnel to drive a freeway through.

The people in need of a little common sense are the builders who use every little cranny to get an edge.

Posted by: Anonymous at December 4, 2006 8:02 PM

Agreed 8:02...but I also think you can boil it down to this: that for some inexplicable reason, big, bulky, nasty, aggressive penis-extension type structures are allowed to penetrate once-uniform and tranquil NYC nabes, without warning or protection.

Since when did 4 stories become equatable to 70 feet in height? THAT is what needs to be changed in the building code (duh!)

Posted by: Anonymous at December 4, 2006 8:36 PM

Sorry you still do not get it, the CITY created the laws. Regardless it is height which determines the size of the building, in which a lot of people are complaining about. Floor area is another issue, and there are many ways to get around the FAR., it has nothing to do with mezzanines. By the way DUH, height is regulated by Zoning (created by the CITY) not the Building Code.

Posted by: ANON at December 5, 2006 1:58 PM

Hey Anon 1:58, I don't care about the technicalities of the Zoning laws or which agency is responsible, or how easy it is to get around FAR issues. Talk about boring...

What I do care about (and what I do in fact get) is the reality that certain repeat offender architects/developers/investors exploit these loopholes TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS and NEIGHBORHOODS.

It's simple: If you want to build a 100 foot-high 5 storey condo somewhere, fine, do it on a street or avenue that ALREADY has similar building stock. But if you must plunk down your supersized corporate turds next to 3 storey rowhouses from 1900, just to MAXIMIZE your profit, you're pretty much a weenie, and you should be blocked from committing further damage to Brooklyn.

Posted by: Anonymous at December 5, 2006 5:08 PM

Again they are not loopholes. When you upgrade an existing R-2 to an R-7, or one block is R-2 and the next block is R-7, which happened to a neighborhood I used to live in, you are going to have an unproportianate scale. And I do agree is terrible, but if you owned the property you cannot tell me you are going to build the min. and not the max. especially with the cost of land in NY. My boss told me the zoning book used to be 30 pages long, and the city tapered from the tallest buildings in the center to the smallest along the coast, which maximizes views, air etc. Now Zoning is chapters upon chapters written in legal terms, and does not take into consideration scale. One clear example is Quality Housing vs. Conventional Zoning, if you understand the differnce between these 2 things,then you tell me whos at fault?

Posted by: ANON AGAIN at December 6, 2006 9:57 AM

Agree 9:57. To 5:08: You can not require from any private developer in a capitalist society to minimize the profit instead of maximizing it...it is the same as to expect from a cat to give up hunting mice. As for the loopholes to detriment of neighbors: don't you think it is City Laws’ fault, not developer’s that allow doing that?!! Don't you expect from your accountant each year to find more “loopholes” to get less, rather than more, tax return? And if your accountant is too conservative, because he may cares more about the National Revenue income than about his clients, you will probably go to look for another accountant, and this one will sit with no work!!!

Posted by: Anonymous at December 6, 2006 8:05 PM

Post a comment

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

Latest Restaurant Additions