432 Clermont Avenue: Totally Inappropriate

its not that bad, really.

Posted by: guest at January 4, 2008 9:45 AM

Brownstoner, you've outdone yourself this time! Deeming this very very very conservative REAR elevation as totally inappropriate is over the line! I cannot believe you have a problem with this, especially given the mish-mosh rear elevations seen in the photo! What's wrong with the railing, anyway? Oh no! Horizontal steel instead of circa 1870 wrought iron that would never have been on the back of the house anyway! RIDICULOUS POST!

Posted by: guest at January 4, 2008 9:47 AM

Don't get it- as you've posted the evidence
(and maybe there's some picture missing), it would indicate that the front facade will retain a full brownstone appearance. The back will be opened with some windows and will have some sort of roof bulkhead and there will be balconies, which seem like they would be very nice for the occupants.

Can you do a better job of trying to articulate what you think the problem is?

Posted by: guest at January 4, 2008 9:51 AM

same here, don't get the 'inappropriate' rant at all. the front facade looks very much intact, possibly even nicer as it appears that the window lintels will be restored. in fact, the front looks very Early Greek Revival and quite nice.

as for the rear, I'm also of the camp that LPC won't place too much stock. the 3 window pattern doesn't have to match what's in the front, and depending on what the rooms are designed for, they could work out, especially as bedrooms with balconies. the addition could stick out more or less compared to other neighboring additions depending on FAR...as long as the house is in compliance with the 30ft setback rule per DOB, LPC won't sweat over this. the bulkhead probably won't be visible from the street since the project architect will already have taken sight line calculations to calibrate the height.

and lastly, as for railings, I wouldn't worry about how they look now on plans. in my experience, for the sake of expediency, architects will slap on the plainest looking rails to get the project started and over time will work out the details of what they should look like through shop drawings.

ironically, in the same photo posted, I take greater offense to the building nearby on the right with the slight bow front white facade and black metal windows. now that's what I call fugly.

Posted by: guest at January 4, 2008 10:15 AM

The LPC has no jurisdiction over what owners do to the back of their houses as long as they get a permit. This will definitely get approved. I've worked with the LPC before.

Mr. B, you're totally wrong.

Posted by: guest at January 4, 2008 10:19 AM

How is the back of the building visible from the street? Isn't there another building behind it?

Posted by: guest at January 4, 2008 10:20 AM

Oh, sorry, my bad just saw the picture of the rear...that's pretty visible.

Posted by: guest at January 4, 2008 10:21 AM

If they have the FAR and bulk they should be allowed to extend the building like the neighbors have done. Balconies should not be allowed as they are totally out of character. They should put in a public roof deck if they want outdoor space.

Posted by: guest at January 4, 2008 10:22 AM

Landmarks doesn't care about the three window patter on the back, Is the back open to the street in front of the bulding? Landmarks is usually isn't concerned unless you can see it from the front of the building or somewhere on the street/block facing the front of the building. Look at the other houses in that row. There's lot of broken three window patterns.

Posted by: guest at January 4, 2008 10:23 AM

To articulate what the problem for 9:51:

This is a large, non-contextual addition and redo of a rear facade in a landmarked district. Few people seem to realize that even if a rear facade is even NOT visible from a street, it is still subject to landmark rules in landmark preservation districts.

A FG house that has been featured on Brownstoner had a very shallow addition added to the parlor and part of the ground floor. The ground floor already had a small "mudroom" extension built in cinderblocks...maybe from the 1950's (probably replaced something much older.

Sometime after this house was built, a bay window was added to the parlor floor, say in the 1890's or the turn-of-the-last-century. It was done in decorative pressed metal in a palsy beaux arts style and had a column holding it up.

To remove it and put on the 6-7 foot deep extension, the owner had to jump through all the many hoops and spend beaucoup bucks in the process. The extension as proposed and built was much more appropriate than what is being proposed by the junkie condo-looking job the Clermont house is being subjected to. The extension at the other house, was attractive, didn't extend past the neighboring extension (in fact was more shallow against the building), AND was really not visible from any street being deep on a long block of FG.

This said, as evidenced on the drawings of the change to the floor heights and back of the building, what further wreckitude are the owners going to unleash on this Clermont house? I'm sure, even "neglected" it is fully refurbishable...unless the roof blew off a year ago...I'm sure it'll be fine...

No, the owners look like they want to MAXIMIZE whatever dough they can get on this house.

Posted by: guest at January 4, 2008 10:28 AM

To respond to 10:15 and 10:16, the non-contextual buildings in the right and the lower left of the rear face photo are outside the historic district, and therefore needed no LPC approval.

Given that the "window line" already appear to be broken up by the various extensions in the buildings just north of this one, I don't think that the complaint that this proposal uses one regular and one picture wndow for the rear front carreis much weight.

OTOH, I do agree that the floating balconies above the parlor floor -- and especially the proposed railings -- are seriously out of context. Eliminate those two and require more traditional closely spaced iron bars and this looks contextual to me.

Posted by: guest at January 4, 2008 10:35 AM

I think it looks okay. I bet you'd like it if it were a more modern approach, but this is fine.

Posted by: guest at January 4, 2008 10:35 AM

Yo, Mr. BS:

*GASP* the horror!

You mean it's not consistent with, say, the rear facade 2 houses to the left in your picture (with the huge, non-contextual 2 story addition hanging off, which also breaks the "consistent pattern" of 3 windows across), or are you speaking of the large building 2 doors to the right, with the awning (and the "aesthetically incompatible" bay windows, and grey/white/brick coloration)? The only reason the rear facade is visible from the street is because of the huge gaping hole on Fulton left by the backyard of the giant apartment building.

Would you prefer a much "aesthetically compatible" cinderblock extension like the houses to the left have glommed onto their rear?

Or maybe, if you want something really historically accurate all the houses should just hang laundry lines across their yards. THAT would be pretty, right?

It's better than leaving it vacant and in disrepair with that rolldown gate on the front door... now THAT's nice, right?

It's pretty obvious this is all about some holier-than-thou "conservationist", architectural fascism that persists on this blog.

Posted by: guest at January 4, 2008 10:37 AM

Thanks 10:28,always used the word "beaucoup" in sentences but never knew how to spell it. Such useful information on this site.

Posted by: guest at January 4, 2008 10:46 AM

Do tell us what the house you grew up in looks like, do tell us what your current house looks like, do tell us kind of car you drive, do tell us what labels you wear, the brand of shoes, the grocery store you shop at! You are getting way out of touch with your target audience!

Here's an idea, if it's a slow news day, post fewer articles instead of nip-picking other peoples property.

Posted by: guest at January 4, 2008 10:48 AM

10:28, where did you find the word wreakitude. Sounds like something out of the Rev. Jessie Jacksons book of rhymes. Or was that Don Kings?

Posted by: guest at January 4, 2008 10:50 AM

Mr. Joist:
The buildings on Carlton/Fulton are NOT in the FG Landmark District. This may clear up this misunderstanding.

10:19 who wrote: "The LPC has no jurisdiction over what owners do to the back of their houses as long as they get a permit. This will definitely get approved. I've worked with the LPC before. Mr. B, you're totally wrong."

PLEASE DO YOUR HOMEWORK, you 10:19 and "Fjorder"...Listen, the back of our house doesn't really show from any street and Landmarks wanted to see the same window configurations on the drawings of the back facade before we could get the DOB permits.

LISTEN EVERYONE HERE: LANDMARKS does INDEED have jurisdication on rear facades (AND ROOFS, YES, ROOFS) in landmarked districts. End of story. Now, the visibility from adjoining streets can play a large role in getting something pushed through and approved. It is NOT, again NOT, just a story about front facades. Speaking of which, 10:15, the facade is NOT Greek Revival. Do YOUR homework too. It doesn't even look like neo-greque. It is Italiante...Hhhh...

Thanks Bob. These kids posting here are ignorant enough that they could end up getting themselves into a heap of trouble when they try to do a reno in a landmarked district.

Posted by: guest at January 4, 2008 10:59 AM

Pesky neighbor,

Mind your beezwax. There's nothing wrong with the extension. Like others have pointed out, it looks better than most of the other extensions on the block.

Where does it say in the LPC rules that 432 Clermont's extension is not up to snuff?

Posted by: guest at January 4, 2008 11:05 AM

Brownstoner is right to point out the potential inconsistency of LPC's decisions. Those decisions can be very invasive and very costly to homeowners; their inconsistency is therefore (rightfully) infuriating. However, I'm not sure that the tone of this story -- a kind of persecution-style diatribe against the owner -- is fair. Owners have the right to dream up whatever they want for their homes. That's our FREEDOM in this country (supposedly) -- we respect private ownership, within boundaries of the code.

If you don't like how the boundaries (codes) are being enforced, then have issues with the enforcement system. Stop personally attacking the owners.

And as far as inconsistency, in my own personal experience, I am glad that LPC has the willingness to interpret each situation individually. LPC let us change our back facade quite dramatically (very visible from street); we replaced four ugly, irregularily punched out windows with four new ones that matched the other facades' windows. Maybe everyone in the neighborhood hates the change. So far we've only had positive responses but when people are deeply offended, they head for the safety of the internet to bitch. Frankly, I could give a f-k what Brownstoner or anyone else might think of how the result looks in my building. We think it's beautiful, and I'm glad LPC was willing to go along with our vision.

Posted by: guest at January 4, 2008 11:10 AM

Ok, yes, LPC has jurisdiction, and since June 2007 even if you are only doing work on a part of the building not seen by the public, the LPC requires COMPLETE review of ALL drawings, even those they have no purview over! So, they are gonna weigh in whether you think they should or not. As for whether this is 'appropriate'- come on, the front is being RESTORED- let the owner do as he pleases with the back for f*cks sake!!! This is so TAME, and you cannot even see the rooftop addition from the street... Please, let's not waste LPC time and resources on the barely visible REAR facades of residences being otherwise restored, when there are so many crappy projects getting the nod elsewhere.

And yes, I work as a preservation architect, and deal with LPC constantly, so yeah, i think I am qualified to weigh in...I would knock out the whole rear wall and put in a glass and steel moment frame, so I could be the envy of all my neighbors trapped in their brick facades with minimal fenestration!!!

Posted by: guest at January 4, 2008 11:15 AM

Looking at the picture and rendering, the proposed design would be my second favorite from this view. First would be the original looking building, then the proposed, then all thos crap additions with crap on the roof, then the new junk.

but I agree with Brownstoner that both sides should have their say in "court". Just like I was vocal that I very much dislike the noise, etc from AC units on the roof when Brownstoner blogged about the AC unit he put on his roof. I can see one on my neighbors right now and .. ugh .. nice view for us neighbors.

Posted by: guest at January 4, 2008 11:39 AM

usually i agree with mr. B, but in this case, i think the posting is over the line. the front facade looks perfectly fine. the rear facade looks reasonably respectful and appropriate to me. the railings not so offensive. the rear facades of the neighboring buildings are not especially aesthetically pleasing. they're pretty utilitarian. in general, i am pro preservation but getting all our panties in a bundle over something this minor makes preservationists seem insane and does a disservice to the effort as a whole. i feel like LPC usually does a good job in preserving the intent and character of a neighbohood. but if they shoot this one down then jeez let's abolish the LPC. come on give these owners a break.

Posted by: guest at January 4, 2008 11:54 AM

Shahn Andersen (11:34 AM),

You have no idea what you are talking about. Crawl back under your rock. You and Mr. B are totally wrong. Mind your beez wax nosey neighbors.

Does the Landmarks Commission restrict the height of proposed buildings in historic districts?
The Commission does not regulate the height or floor area of buildings, the size of rear yards or open spaces, obstruction of sunlight or air, density of population, or the purposes for which buildings are used. These matters are under the jurisdiction of the Department of City Planning. For more information about these issues, contact City Planning at 22 Reade Street, New York, NY 10007; 212-720-3276.

Posted by: guest at January 4, 2008 11:56 AM

Shahn Andersen (11:34 AM),

You have no idea what you are talking about. Crawl back under your rock. You and Mr. B are totally wrong. Mind your beez wax nosey neighbors.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/lpc/html/faqs/faq_permit.shtml
Does the Landmarks Commission restrict the height of proposed buildings in historic districts?
The Commission does not regulate the height or floor area of buildings, the size of rear yards or open spaces, obstruction of sunlight or air, density of population, or the purposes for which buildings are used. These matters are under the jurisdiction of the Department of City Planning. For more information about these issues, contact City Planning at 22 Reade Street, New York, NY 10007; 212-720-3276.

Posted by: guest at January 4, 2008 11:56 AM

I live directly across the street from this building, which has been threatening to fall down for years now and has been a danger to the adjoining buildings as well as to the neighborhood. I am thrilled that the owners are actually addressing the issue of restoring this building. I'll let you guys duke it out over the LPC compliant backyard.

Posted by: guest at January 4, 2008 12:23 PM

shahn andersen is right u monkey
u need lpc to approve the rear and if visible from street they may have issue

ive reno-ed 2 houses in fg - one with major back of house stuff and needed them

Posted by: guest at January 4, 2008 12:26 PM

If you live in a Landmark district.....Landmarks owns you. You need to get approval for every little thing you do, including interior work. YES, interior work. (they don't care much about what you do on the inside) but they still need to approve it and issue a permit, after you get a Permit from Landmarks, you then file with the NYC department of buildings.

Landmarks cares very much about the rear of homes. They want to make sure you are not affecting historic brick patterns. And if it's visible from ANY street, the facade needs to be in keepting with the character of the time period the building was built.

Once you file the drawings with Landmarks. You are assigned a 'Preservationist'. They will work with you in determining what is acceptable and what will and will not be approved. If you are changing a facade or adding a bulkhead/more square footage to you building. They will ask you to build a temp. sturcture the size of your proposed addtion and will come down and meet with you to see if it is visible from athe street.

They take their sweet time though in getting things done, expect to wait monthes.

And god forbid you do anything different than what they approve!!!

Posted by: guest at January 4, 2008 12:26 PM

Land of the free my ass

Posted by: guest at January 4, 2008 12:44 PM

The mob rules residents of here want little, mindless, drones - just like they are.

Posted by: guest at January 4, 2008 12:45 PM

As an ardent preservationist, I'm surprised to find myself less than horrified by this rear facade. Clearly the house is so deteriorated it requires a complete gut renovation. On that basis, I feel some flexibility should be allowed (ie. why not let the owners completely reconfigure the interior and thus create a radically diferent rear). Frankly, the back view of most brownstone blocks presents a complete abortion of ugly rear extensions, badly rendered walls covered in peeling paint and concrete, cheap windows, dangling cables a-go-go, trash-strewn back yards, illegal decks (4 houses away from us is something that looks like a cross between a giant hen coop and a helicopter landing pad) and other aesthetic affronts. This rear facade doesn't fall into that category. Also, it appears from the photo that just one house away is some completely new construction so clearly there's precedent. In the end, though, this is what LPC is there to decide. Personally, I would encourage them to be lenient in this instance.

Posted by: guest at January 4, 2008 12:52 PM

As an ownewr of house that has been out put on this site, I must say the BS has way too much time on his hands. What owners decide to do with their property is their business. If LPC approves , then it is none of our business what it looks like. Just because their are people who are willing to fight to get the their ideas approved, who are you to say anything about them. You should be addressing why LPC makes the rulings it does, and not making the owners out to be criminals because they a sense os style that you don't.

GET A LIFE

Posted by: guest at January 4, 2008 1:10 PM

Well said, 1:10.

The backs of of most Brooklyn brownstones are hideous. Modernizing the back of brownstones can strengthen the structure if that's needed, it lets in more light by making back windows larger. Everybody does it in Manhattan, and the result is when you look across at all the backyards in say the West Village it's gorgeous. Much much prettier than the backyards in Brooklyn. Even many of the nicest stretches of houses in Park Slope have failed to do good garden design and back-facade design. Brooklyn is still behind on this type of renovation. It might be a new concept to Brownstoner, but it's certainly not a new concept to NYC houses. Please. Get with it.

Posted by: guest at January 4, 2008 1:59 PM

Shahn Andersen (11:34 AM)and guest 12:26 PM are both wrong. Guest 12:26 PM is an idiot.

Posted by: guest at January 4, 2008 2:00 PM

Mr. B, 11:10 here. Of course people have a right to voice their opinion. As I've posted on your forum many times before, the public feels a special sense of attachment and concern for buildings in areas that are historic -- and not only is it natural but I would say it's really healthy when entire communities get together to fight for retaining a legacy of architecture that took years, sometimes centuries, to create, and can be destroyed in one instance.

But my point is not about what neighbors think (again, I could give a f-k, especially when my neighbors don't know the difference between primer and paint), but how individuals can be villified and ridiculed by the press (you) for doing nothing wrong. I can very easily express my outrage to LPC that they, who are PAID BY ME AS A TAXPAYER, are not doing their job to protect something I consider worth protecting. And I have been engaged in battles to save buildings using these very means.

I never would consider crossing the line and parading my spite via an attack on an owner.

Posted by: guest at January 4, 2008 2:18 PM

Uh . . . can you be more specific about the whole "idiot" critique towards 12:26pm? What they say sounds pretty much on the money.

Posted by: guest at January 4, 2008 2:23 PM

What a thread - are they more foul mouthed people on here trolls, just trying to stir things up? ("X is an idiot, Y is an idiot, you are an idiot")
I think the point of the post was that the rear addition isn't going to get approved by landmarks (seems like this is true) and that it shouldn't (a point for debate). I agree that it's pretty ugly. I personally don't understand the fetish for crappy balconies and ugly sliding doors (I live in a floor-through 4th floor apartment with 3 double hung windows in the back and I like 'em better than a glass sliding door).

Have a great weekend everyone !
xx oo

Posted by: guest at January 4, 2008 5:06 PM

11:10AM: Yes, you changed your rear facade taking out the odd windows and putting in ones you point out MATCH the others...this is what LPC wants. You done good.

11:15 AM Yes, you sound like another jerk-architect (so we believe you practice architecture...)...Now, putting in some metal and glass wall would be stupid and trendy and lead to a COLD interior that would needs tons more heating in winter and would heat the heck out of the interior in summer...even YOU must know THAT...no?

Look, like it or not AGAIN, LPC gets to review all the drawings...maybe with some modification, this drek will pass...maybe not even.

It looks like SUCH the condo conversion...SNEE'ORE!

Posted by: guest at January 4, 2008 7:31 PM

Yes, thank you Shahn Andersen for putting some reality into this. I tried to make it clear but the supposed architect (11:15 etc.) who I believe you also commented back to is very ignorant. If anyone has gone through the process, they would NOT be so flip.

And to the person who mentioned that everyone in Manhattan is doing it...and that the West Village is so pretty in the backyard views because of people changing rear facades...GET A MAJOR GRIP. What planet are you living on? Look, sure...all sorts of rear facade changes can be found in NYC...but MUCH less likely in landmarked neighborhoods, esp. the Village. THE END.

And frankly, to the person living in the house that looks out on the back of this one...Do you realize how annoying and invasive it'll be when, with all those balconies, it's going to be with people hanging out, drinking, talking on cell phones...on quiet, sunny afternoons, on nights when they're having parties... We know from experience...neighbors put in a deck that is, frankly, invasive (and may not have been permitted: no metal pan, just wood slats exposed from below). Noise level went right up...jerky young people blab into their cell phones standing outside on party nights (and into the wee hours) or just sit around chewing the fat and blustering away in loud voices unaware they are not ensconced on some huge lawn in the burbs…and this happens well into the night.

To the owner: you're doing a condo conversion, no? Maybe the person who posted addressing himself to Brownstoner was not really the owner...but in that little blurb he suggested that we should not have an opinion if LPC approves something...well, in this case has LPC even approved it? And...uh yeah...people can have input and an opinion—it might just be your neighbor who is heavily impacted by the decisions you make. The proposed changes have to go through the community board process--so, VOILA, there is a direct process set up for community input. And, in my opinion, that is an ugly rear façade, a three story extension (very few if any in FG) extremely visible from Fulton.

You're going to have one heck of time getting the LPC to approve it. Can't you please make it more attractive...it looks, in the drawings, appropriate for a NON-landmarked nabe. Plus the extension will impinge the neighbors and any sense of privacy they now have as well block other people's light. Why do you (even) need an extension?...sounds really like a condo conversion...don't cry over this if you're looking to cash in. You may not have your entire way but you have to make some tradeoffs, hello.

Oh, and by the way, these yards are not that deep...what is the FAR for a house like this? We’re talking a 3 story extension farther out than the other neighboring extensions.

Posted by: guest at January 4, 2008 9:11 PM

^---- STFU you old hag. No-one is impressed with your six paragraphs worth of dribble.

Posted by: guest at January 4, 2008 11:01 PM

9:11 said:

"And to the person who mentioned that everyone in Manhattan is doing it...and that the West Village is so pretty in the backyard views because of people changing rear facades...GET A MAJOR GRIP. What planet are you living on? Look, sure...all sorts of rear facade changes can be found in NYC...but MUCH less likely in landmarked neighborhoods, esp. the Village. THE END."

Excuse me?? So you can read my mind? Screw you, you pompous jerk. Don't simply assume I am lying. Now we know what kinds of horrid personalities the preservationists have in Brooklyn.

My friend owns a house on the best block, yes a landmarked block, in the West Village and I have been in their backyard and see her back facade (totally changed to all glass) and her neighbors back-facades and they are all modernized and altered. At the very least the windows have been enlarged even if the whole back-facade wasn't altered. And it looks fantastic. I've also been in $10 million houses on the Upper East Side and they all re-do the back-facades to the houses. It's normal. The backyards even in prime Park Slope look like total crap. I'd use a harsher word, actually.

It's terrible to pay $3 million for a house there and end up with such an awful view from your backyard. Trust me, the more people come from Manhattan, and the more the prices rise in Brooklyn, the more demand to change the backs of the houses there will be. The preservationist control-freaks best get used to it.

Posted by: guest at January 5, 2008 11:19 AM

West Village carriage house on landmarked block. Note the all-glass back facade:

http://realestate.nytimes.com/sales/detail/342-10041a

Posted by: guest at January 5, 2008 11:27 AM

West Village carriage house - TWENTY MILLION DOLLARS?????!!!!!

Posted by: guest at January 5, 2008 1:02 PM

^^ it's an ugly, spare art gallery space, and it will never sell anywhere near that price, no matter what fancy computer systems it has.

Posted by: guest at January 5, 2008 2:40 PM

I think it was just posted to show the all-glass rear facade. Not because anyone was saying people should buy it!

But even if overpriced, it does really show why Manhattan people look at even the highest priced Brooklyn brownstones as bargains. Now that they are starting to become willing to have a Brooklyn address.

Posted by: guest at January 6, 2008 1:31 PM

Maybe... but the buyer for a $20 million dollar Village townhouse is gettting it as a trophy property--it's a status symbol. For THESE particular buyers, a Brooklyn brownstone is not the same.

Posted by: guest at January 6, 2008 3:43 PM