Development Watch: 268 Cumberland Street

This new building is lacking a certain grace.

Posted by: guest at November 16, 2007 2:04 PM

"lacking a certain grace" how can you tell anything from this picture? is there a render available?

Posted by: guest at November 16, 2007 8:13 PM

"lacking a certain grace" how can you tell anything from this picture? is there a render available?

Posted by: guest at November 16, 2007 8:13 PM

FortGreener/TheGrammarLady here,

I know this place pretty well.

Originally, the present (or previous) developer put a steel stud structure on the roof of the townhouse to the right of the chapel (hidden by the tree in the photo). It was a hot MESS! The structure outlined what they would have loved the added 5th story to look like. If you think Broken Angel doesn’t have a sister in FG…well…

Anyway, it was ridiculous and they were either made or decided to take the mess down after ages. Eventually, they built a brick wall up from the existing wall and though some of us held our breathe (new brick often looks ghastly) it turned out pretty well…not an eyesore like the two-story “carriage house” that was built on a vacant lot that once had a carriage house. That thing was supposed to be ‘historical”. It looks like it was built in some part of Queens with an almost entirely paved front and fugly brick! Rather tasteless.

Anyway, back to the “Sanctuary” (lousy name). The mansard fifth floor doesn’t jump out at you but they did a not so hot job on the mansard front and the windows. Looks like it belongs on a house on “Main Street” in one of those fake old-fashioned-looking town-home developments.

Now…my HUGE peeve is this: the structure now going up is on land that used to be a community garden!…not just some old community garden on some old vacant lot, BUT a community garden that was designated as PARKS! It used to have the Parks Dept. big plastic sign up in yellow and green with the incised maple leaf logo. Parks land is supposed to stay Parks. It rarely gets removed from Parks without a battle or some huge project going on like the new Yankee Shadium.

Now, Screwliani sold off lots of HPD sites, but Parks sites were supposed to be left alone. In fact, HPD sites got taken over by Parks and were thus protected from being sold off. Anyway, maybe this lot wasn’t swept up in that mess with Rule-liani since that moment in the 90s probably predates whatever happened to this lot…not sure.

Hhhh…the lot used to have very large, mature Kwanzan cherry trees (like the ones in Washington, D.C.). I believe one of the three is left in the back of the lot.

The structure going up looks like it will be a glass-fronted moderneserie. Kind of surprising considering it is imbedded in a LHD.

Oddly, there is a gap between it and the former-chapel’s wall. Also, the new structure is right in the faces of the former-chapel’s dormer windows. Those dormers are new BTW. The developer stuck those in. Looks almost like the new cinderblock wonder is not part of the same project.

Speaking of “chapel”, I’m praying they are stopping at floor three now…but they’ll probably add more levels before all’s said and done.

Feh…

Posted by: guest at November 16, 2007 9:11 PM

Oh, by the way, houses that face in this orientation in FG tend to get very hot in summer with the sun pouring in both in the AM and then fairly early in the day on the backyard side since the back is oriented toward the southwest...VERY hot! Then, in winter, there's not a lot of sun that comes in.

FG/TGL

Posted by: guest at November 16, 2007 9:14 PM

Isn't this a separate developer? Sorry if I'm a late-comer to the discussion. Isn't this a totally different development from the 'Sanctuary' next door?

I miss that community garden...

Posted by: guest at November 16, 2007 10:07 PM

FG: that big steel thing on 264 was a mock up for landmarks to get the addition approved (obviously it worked - the oversized metal structure you saw was exactly the same size as the addition they built). And the dormers on the church were always there.

As for 268 (which IS a different developer than the sanctuary), clearly none of you have seen a rendering or plan. The box tells you nothing, it could be a brownstone under construction. But its not - it will be modern, but not glass fronted. There is no gap, but there is a narrow reveal between new and old (there is a gap on the other side, as that neighbor has an alley). All of this was public record at LPC and the community board.

Posted by: guest at November 16, 2007 11:42 PM

Well...there is a gap between the chapel and the new building, a small one, but visible...not a reveal...just something that looks like it needs filling. Is it that it was better structurally for the new building not to have its party wall linked to the chapel...I take it, will be topped off and the front will be sealed off with whatever facing goes up, no?

Now...how did they get ahold of what was Parks land...and how were they able to have something mod approved? And, BTW 11:42, a child could tell from the current front that they're not going to put a "brownstone" front on the structure. It says "mod" at first glance.

Also, it seemed the metal structure on the townhouse was just an attempt to slap up a fifth floor cheaply and it seemed to many people I spoke with, the contractor was told to remove it. Why would the owners have to waste time and money putting up a steel stud structure, as you say, to show the proposed outline for Landmarks to approve the fifth floor addition when drawings, photos and computer rendering is all they require. What Building Dept. staffer would, in his right mind, permit a structure to be built so the owners could get Landmarks approval in order to get yet another DOB permit. Seems kind of absurd. I don't buy your story 11:42. Sounds like your an apologist for the owners/contractor who were up to some slapdabbery.

Sorry. Unless you can really support this theory, it doesn't hold water.

Best regards,
SonAltesse, LaGrandeDamedelaGrammaire (AKA FortGreener)

Posted by: guest at November 18, 2007 3:12 PM

I love it I love I love it.

Go away useless bloggers.

Posted by: guest at November 18, 2007 8:11 PM

I love it I love I love it.

Go away useless bloggers.

Posted by: guest at November 18, 2007 8:19 PM

3:12 Landmarks does in fact REQUIRE mock-ups for future additions as a way to evaluate visibility. If you go thru the DOB records there is a filing to erect a temporary structure for landmarks purpose. Next time please do not sond so self righteous if you dont know what you are arguing about - Its ludricrous.

Posted by: guest at November 18, 2007 8:54 PM

Thank you 8:54! You sure showed her!

Posted by: guest at November 19, 2007 12:07 AM

11:42 here. 8:54 is correct, and whoever told you that they "slapped" something up to get away with it, or that the contractor was "told to remove it" just plain doesn't know what they are talking about. As 8:54 said, LPC requires mock ups for any rooftop addition - because drawings and renderings don't always tell the whole story. In the case of this project, I *know* that the structure you are talking about was a mock up, and I *know* that it was removed once LPC approved the work.

As for the gap, the chapel is wood-frame construction (only the front is masonry), there is no party wall to attach to.

And modern or historicist, any building constructed today is going to be structurally made of CMU (as here) or steel frame. From there, you can clad it anything. From the picture above, you can make no assumptions about what the cladding will be, or even how large the window openings will be. Besides, LPC approves modern buildings all the time - it doesn't have to look old, it has to be appropriate.

Sorry, but its your theories that don't hold water.

Posted by: guest at November 20, 2007 11:27 PM

The brokers on this property are useless. Good luck trying to get an appointment or answers to your questions.

Posted by: guest at May 30, 2008 3:56 PM