110 Amity Proposal Takes a Drubbing at LPC Hearing

What is the gmap address for 110 Enmity Street?

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 9:20 AM

Leon: The Professional. That's who needs to be hired to deal with the nimby problem. It's probably cheaper too.

...shakes head...

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 9:20 AM

Given the Warren Street Mews already in the historic district, I don't think that the TH entrances onto the mews should be objectionable in this district.

What is the rear yard doughnut in this context?

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 9:55 AM

The rear yard doughnut is the shared back yard space for the block. When you sit on your back deck, you see a kind of tunnel of green, which is very pleasant. Even smallish extensions can really ruin this view. There is a movement afoot to landmark the backs of homes to prevent incursions into the view. "Doughnut" seems an unfortunate term.

I'm not sure I agree with this at all, even though I have been a "victim" of my neighbor's construction, nor do I really see the point in this case. There is definite precedent for mews in Cobble Hill, and since the construction will be at the end of a the block, I don't think it will be that destructive to the "doughnut."

I agree with the complaint about the aesthetics of the proposed townhouses, though. They sure are ugly.

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 10:23 AM

9:55 here - Thanks for the doughnut explanation. I agree that given that it is the end of the block it does not seem to carry much water.

I also agree on the ugliness of the renderings of the townhouses. They are 75% of the way to being nice new houses, and then the last 25% really mess it up. Part of the problem is the halfhearted attempt to continue the inclusion of the white stone elements of the facade of the main building, without any of the mroe intracate details that soften the white and red checkerboard feel of the proposed THs. And don't get me started on the little balconies on the 2nd or 3d floor.

And finally -- why all the paved brick in the mews itself? This should be landscaped with a small brick pathway between trees and plantings. Isn't that how the Warren Street Mews are?

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 10:36 AM

I think the comparison to Warren Mews is misfounded and out of context. That was a development with a specific rationale for a mews - a group of townhouses that would be smaller than ordinary so they could be affordable to the working class. Plus it was aligned to some of the other midblock north-south streets, takes up the entire half of the block (thereby not detracting from someone else's backyard), and provides a common garden in front.

Here, the only reason for the mews is to cram in more luxury units for the developer to sell. The project is wedged into a regular block out of alignment to the rest of the lots on the block, and there is no compensating garden area (discounting the odd tree that will be planted in the mews accessway).

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 10:42 AM

The architects have chosen to give renderings which do not reflect the row of townhouses entering the communal backyards (or the doughnut) therefore it is hard to understand the true impact on this neighborhood design.

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 10:44 AM

This looks like the landmarks process going through its normal paces.
At the firt presentation the commissioners push back, ask for changes, demand improvements, listen to the neighbors vent. Then the architects, if they are any good, go back to their CADs and improve the design, come back maybe one or two more times until the commission approves the project. It is not a bad proceess. It helps improve the quality of new buildings and it preserves good old buildings. Very often the architect can make tightwad clients spend a litle more money on design because the commission mandates it. The commission can be the architect's best friend. Neighbors who want nothing built ever are always disappointed and can rail against the corrupt system....and the world spins on.

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 11:15 AM

My 2 cents. Research what a Mews is defined as. Look at what was proposed. Quickly, you will realize (as did LPC), you can call it whatever you want to, it just doesn't make it so.

LPC wants them to build with the buildings facing the street.

The comment about NIMBYs is without question made by someone with little or no intelligence. An empty barrel making a lot of noise...

If you would have attended the LPC meeting, maybe you would understand what is really going on.

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 12:52 PM

Also, LPC specifically commented on Verandah Place and Warren Place and were not convinced in the slightest that either of these are remotely similiar to what was presented.

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 12:54 PM

The Commission has to approve something on this site. It is a buildable lot. If they want the houses to face the street rather than a mewslike court, then the architects will need to adjust their plans. That's all.
The neighbors have to realize that new houses of some kind will go up there.

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 2:01 PM

No kidding 2:01. But it's a difference of 4 houses crammed into a lot that should really only hold 2 street-facing houses. Big difference.

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 2:29 PM

No 2:29, it's not the issue of 4 houses on a lot built for two, but SIX houses. The developer bought both the LAMM building AND the empty 100 foot lot next to it for the bargain basement price of $6.1 million... he'll still make a HEFTY profit if he only builds 3 street-facing townhouses on Amity and Henry, plus his 8 units in the LAMM building. And this "mews" business is a lot of spin. A 50-ft. townhouse is hardly a charming 2-story carriage house. the neighborhood is right to oppose it, it would have ruined a very charming street. It's nice to see LPC doing its job!

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 8:58 PM

8:58, finally a voice of reason!

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 9:12 PM

Time Equities and its partner Lucky Boy, do not want to present a project that does not have community support. We thought the mews approach did because it was supported verbally and in writing by a number of community residents and local architects based on meetings we held in November and December. The mews design was also recommended for approval by the Landmarks staff who reviewed the plan.

It may be that some community members who took issue with the mews did not attend these meetings. The benefit of the Landmark process is that it gives all stakeholders a chance to be heard. Several concerns that arose at the meetings led to changes.

We value feedback from the community and the commission and will continue to address concerns, such as those that arose in the early meetings which led to design revisions of the Henry Street façade of the new townhouse.

At this point, we will re-conceive the project in a traditional streetwall approach and try to present a plan that is responsive to the input received at the most recent Landmark hearing. As we did last time, we will reach out to the community and Landmark staff prior to presenting the final concept to the commission.

- Francis Greenburger, CEO and Chairman, Time Equities Inc.

Posted by: guest at January 17, 2008 6:30 PM

Although I don't agree with your "spin" as the plan was presented with little time for debate/discussion and the concerns of the community were not addressed prior to presenting it at LPC, I appreciate that you have taken the time to voice your opinion. I hope that the arrogance ends and Time Equities and Lucky Boy listens to the concerns that were thoughtfully raised at the LPC meeting by actual members of the community (also voiced at CB6 meetings). As LPC unanimously echoed the concerns of the true members of the community, CB6, and Cobble Hill Association, obviously there is substance to the community's concerns and issues.

I suggest having the architects actually get out of their cubbyholes and ivory towers and visit the neighborhood, walk around it, get a feel for it, and try to build something in character/context. I also suggest retaining architects that understand a historic neighborhood and want to seamlessly incorporate their design into the neighborhood instead of creating something that is for their own glory/name and designed based on an LSD flashback to the 60s that received, as you state, the architectural nod of like minded "colleagues" who would tear down the entire neighborhood to build an homage to Woody Allen's Sleeper and Stalin era Russia. Maybe if they had actually visited the mews in the neighborhood, they would have realized their "mews concept" was only that in name and not in reality.

There is a reason why people want to live in this community. It is beautiful, it is historic, it has a wonderful warm feel to it, and it is family friendly. The reason people will flock to your real estate offerings has less to do with what you build and more to do with the neighborhood that is cared for, cherished, and loved. Respect the neighborhood, as it is the reason why your offering will be so profitable (location, location, location).

The community wants and supports your development, but asks that you build responsibly, listen to the concerns of the neighborhood, and have your architects heed the voices of LPC.

Thank you.

Posted by: guest at January 19, 2008 2:19 PM