Scarano: Licensed to Ill?

More of the same. The "article" is really a bunch of sidebars.

Not to defend scarano, but Frank Lloyd Wright built really crappy building s too.

Posted by: guest at October 11, 2007 9:05 AM

Frank Lloyd Wright and Scarano ???!!! That is the most ridiculous comparison I have ever heard.

Posted by: guest at October 11, 2007 9:22 AM

What neighborhood is that building in? I don't know what the top is supposed to be finished in but I think that's pretty cool!

Posted by: guest at October 11, 2007 9:25 AM

"I am confident that the work we do is proper, accurate, complete, and meets all of the requirements of the zoning resolutions and build codes.”

That's the minimum work requirements of any architect! Not doing that means that he would not be doing his job. That's like a chef defending his work by saying "I am confident that our food is sufficiently cooked to kill all pathogens." That still doesn't make him a good chef. Just because his plans meet code doesn't make Scarano a good (or even decent) architect. Bad architecture can still meet code, Scarano's living proof.

Posted by: guest at October 11, 2007 9:31 AM

How about changing the name of this web site to ihatescarano.com? Given the obsession with this man, such a domain name would seem fitting.

Posted by: guest at October 11, 2007 9:35 AM

S. Johanna Robledo should have done a little more in depth research. 333 does not comply with zoning which is why there is still a swo on the property. The developer can either remove the top story or leave it up and call it decorative steel but unless the developer takes this to the BSA and they decide in his favor no one is going to be living on that top floor.

Posted by: guest at October 11, 2007 9:46 AM

Why doesn't it comply with zoning? If they went with height factor zoning instead of quality housing, you can go this high in R6.

Posted by: guest at October 11, 2007 9:56 AM

I believe they exceeded the FAR by counting the cellar as a basement.

Posted by: guest at October 11, 2007 10:03 AM

If he loses his license it should only be for knowingly false filing plans that he knew were not in compliance with existing zoning regulations. The look of his designs is irrelevant and the the quality of the construction and construction accidents are 100% not the architects responsibility.

I kind of think given your constant anti-Scarano rants, Brownstoner should actually acknowledge this obvious and easily confirmed point.

Posted by: guest at October 11, 2007 10:11 AM

They forgot to mention the disaster unfolding on Carroll between 4th and 5th.

Posted by: guest at October 11, 2007 10:21 AM

Highly amused by all these Scarano apologists. The guy's a douchebag, and you want to compare him to Frank Lloyd Wright?

You people are *high*.

My dealer must be the Scarano of drugs, because what I'm smoking is really sub-par compared to some of your stashes.

Posted by: guest at October 11, 2007 10:26 AM

10:26 - yes, many of us have defended RS on the issue of architect's control over what happens on the job sites. Yes, there is a certain "lie down with dogs" relationship between architect and developers who choose him (well put, 9:19). 10:11 hits the nail on the head, when he says that the real issue is whether or not false plans were filed.

And FLW did design a lot of crappy buildings. Just look at the engineering heroics that have been undertaken to keep Falling Water from, well, falling into the water. The Guggenheim, too, is a mess; his buildings are notorious for chronic roof leaks. The difference is that Wright designed crappy buildings from an engineering point of view (largely because he was pretty far out on the cutting edge). The problem with Scarano's projects is, I suspect, mainly in the execution, not the design details. And that goes back to the developers, and the contractors and subcontractors they hire.

None of that means that FLW and RS are on par as designers, but that's not what the original poster implied. And even Brownstoner has acknowledged some well-designed Scarano buildings (I think there are a good number of well-designed Scarano buildings, though many dogs as well. Overall, though, his firm is designing better looking buildings than the average architects active in Brooklyn. Damning with faint praise, maybe, but that's my opinion.)

To a large extent, RS is the poster boy for bad development. I think a lot of his zoning tricks are illegal, and for that he may lose his license. But a lot of what is being laid at his feet are failings of the City (DOB is a facilitator, not a regulator), the developers and the contractors.

Put it this way: Scarano did not drive the truck into 53 Java, but he did bend (or break) the zoning rules in designing 333 Carroll.

Posted by: guest at October 11, 2007 10:48 AM

At least 17 of Scarano’s 299 city projects were bigger than they could be by law, according to charges filed by the Department of Buildings.

http://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/29/16/29_16nets6.html

Posted by: guest at October 11, 2007 10:53 AM

RS has been breaking the zoning laws over and over again. 333 Carroll Street is a perfect example of how long it took the DOB to stop an illegal construction project. He must have a really good 'friend' woking there to have been able to do this for so long. Those who defend him either as 10:26 says 'are high' or are not around any of his wonderful law-breaking buildings. The loop holes he uses are wrong and it's about time he was prevented from working in this town. Please, don't defend this man. He is fully responsible for the illegal designs of all of his buildings.That's why he gets the gig.

Posted by: guest at October 11, 2007 11:19 AM

Hi, 10:48. 10:26 here.

It's sometimes just too hard to avoid the trollbait that is Scarano. My bad.

Agreed on a lot of your points. I actually can't stand FLW. The Guggenheim in particular is an architectural attention whore. It's almost like Wright couldn't live with the idea that the art would be the focus and not his building. Nothing like screwing people with a giant screw.

And certainly the architect isn't responsible for every action on the job site, but Scarano's casual dismissal of anything that happens on buildings he's associated with is suspect as hell. It's not like anyone's forcing him to only design buildings for shysters, tho his choices might be limited these days.

Still, I think the 'lying down with dogs' at this point has to be taken in the Biblical sense.

Posted by: guest at October 11, 2007 11:25 AM

Seriously, back up your claims as to how Carroll Street is illegal and quit your false comments. The building could be taller, LEGALLY! If it blocks your view, tough luck it's NYC.

Posted by: guest at October 11, 2007 11:29 AM

so 11:24, tell me why in multiple buildings that scarano has built, he was forced, after construction, to build plywood boxed floors into his "mezzanine" spaces in order to obtain a (temporary) C of O?

Posted by: guest at October 11, 2007 11:29 AM

If 333 Carroll St. is LEGAL then why is there still a SWO?

Posted by: guest at October 11, 2007 11:37 AM

The point most people are making isnt that RS is a wonderful architect who should be given a key to the city - rather if you want to have any credibility (r u listening B-stoner) you have to at least be truthful!

Knowingly filing plans that you know are a violation of FAR and other zoning and then self-certifying them is certainly legitimate grounds for a license revocation or suspension.
BUT
You sound like a bunch of cackling hens when you make ridiculous claims (like an architect is responsible or controls worksite safety for 1). This cackling undermines your credibility and in the long run undercuts your agenda. (which is presumably to rid Brooklyn of a corrupt architect)

Personally I believe the real agenda for many is simply anti-development - which is fine but again you destroy your persuasiveness (on anti-dev) when you try to achieve your results through less than straightforward methods.

It is amazing how hard it is for people to simply be honest about there agenda and it is amusing to see such people constantly lose because they lie, and exaggerate and spin thereby destroying what may be a legitimate position. Atlantic Yards, Brooklyn Bridge Park, Duffield St are just a few examples of this phenomenon.
Personally

Posted by: guest at October 11, 2007 11:50 AM

Well said johnife.
Polemicist, why not look up the DOB page on 333 Carroll. See how RS has counted the floors and do the math yourself. Either he can't add or he is breaking the rules and the law. As for your 'blocking the view' defense, if you had this next door to you and knew it was being built illegally would you complain? I may be wrong, but it seems the most agressive comments on this site usually come from non-owners. Oh and by the way, they are working on the site (illegally)today since 7am.

Posted by: guest at October 11, 2007 1:16 PM

Bob - Except RS isn't a developer OR an employee of a Developer

Posted by: guest at October 11, 2007 1:33 PM

and if the problem isnt zoning but safety then why not simply find out who the developer and builder are and yell and scream about them - what good does it due to blame someone who has no control over that aspect of a job?

Posted by: guest at October 11, 2007 1:53 PM

but the point is that only a shitty developer would consider using Scarano, so chances are if Scarano is the architect then the development is shitty

Posted by: guest at October 11, 2007 2:55 PM

Have to agree with the above posters that state that Scarano cannot be held COMPLETELY liable for the actions of the developer, contractors, and sub-contractors. For example, how could it possibly be his fault or responsibility that a worksite machine overturned? Come on!

That said, I've always understood that it IS the architect's responsibility to visit the jobsite continually to ensure that everything is being done according to plan. Well, just looking at the number of projects he has done over the last several years, it would seem to be near impossible for him to correctly supervise every jobsite.

Now, most importantly, it has been well established by now, especially through the use of his mezzanine spaces under 7 ft. in height, that Scarano knowingly exceeded (and thus violated) FAR limits by using this technique. This is clearly an illegal practice; it was designed to fool the DOB into signing off on these areas as storage, whilst realtors told prospective buyers they could "convert" these spaces to bedrooms after closing. (usually by removing plywood platforms.)

The designs or aesthetics of Robert Scarano are irrelevant to any pending discipline by the NYS BofE.

It's about lying on paper, and designed spaces meant to deceive.

Posted by: guest at October 11, 2007 5:34 PM

The good architectural practice implies that the architect shall frequently visit his job site to insure his project is executed in the best way – not to say about safety conditions. This seems to be the normal situation everywhere in US outside NY, because it is a general practice for architects to carry responsibility over the entire project including the construction – supported by much higher architectural fees per buildable square foot than it is usually in NY. Here if you work in the development market you may not be able to financially afford frequent site-safety supervisions – if you are not a celebrity architect who creates an Art, of course. For Scarano architecture is primarily Business, and I wouldn’t wonder if the Scarano’s contracts with his developers didn’t include any of the site supervisions.

Posted by: guest at October 11, 2007 6:48 PM

If it was so easy to define whether the architect broke the rules or not, the New York building laws would not be considered legendary for their complexity. You can not really trust your "common sense" or "gut feelings" just from seeing outside, its more complex than that. Scarano's buildings are "bulky" not because of the mezzanines: imagine if he didn't design these mezzanines at all, his buildings would have the same bulk and instead of mezzanines there would be void space inside, because this is what zoning allows, like it or not.

Posted by: guest at October 11, 2007 10:57 PM

live around the corner from the modern on n. 7th and it's only been a whole in the ground for forever. from what i've witnessed, really seems like the contractors are horrible. there are other RS bldgs in williamsburg that went up quickly and without problems, so i really have to believe that we are letting the contractors off too easy by not naming their names.

i live in a non RS condo bldg. where the final finishes had problems altho now seemed to be all solved, at no time did i consider pointing the finger at the architect. the sponsor, yes.

Posted by: guest at October 11, 2007 11:33 PM

10:48(am) here again - I think that 5:34 summarizes both sides on the issue very well. A lot of the "apologists" are really defending architects in general, not RS in particular. Because even if architects visited sites when they should, bad contractors are going to do stupid things like drill into subway tunnels or drive into buildings.

10:57 - you are right about the byzantine zoning laws and the even more byzantine interpretations from DOB. But no one would build the "void space" if it couldn't be sold - that's a waste of steel and sheetrock. The mezzanines are there because they can be sold as habitable space even though they don't count as floor area.

Posted by: guest at October 12, 2007 12:21 AM