Opposition to 110 Amity Plans Grows

I'm local,and I'm not 'vehement'.

BHS/CH needs units -- this is a good way of providing them.

All this NIMBY zoning crap is just a form of environmental racisim.

Posted by: guest at January 2, 2008 12:28 PM

I'm sort of local, Boerum Hill. I figure that's local enough.

These crybabies are nuts. The bulkhead is a non-starter and really doesn't interfere with anything or disrupt anything. Also, I think the townhouses are a good solution, albeit, one for folks who have a lot more bread in their pockets than I do.

I think the NIMBYs on this project are nuts. After all, these folks have an ugly hospital (LICH) in their back yards..

Posted by: guest at January 2, 2008 12:38 PM

of course these project is needed. i'd look at it if i was in a position to move. i may look at it anyway. i love cobble hill.

Posted by: guest at January 2, 2008 12:47 PM

This looks like a great solution for this space...It's not clear how any daylight will get into those townhouses, though.

Posted by: guest at January 2, 2008 12:58 PM

I live right around the corner from here. This actually is not horrible, the bulkhead on the main building is pretty unobtrusive. The Mews looks like a pretty creative design to make better use of what has been a vacant lot. Also curious how these folks with the blast email know the community is "vehemently opposed" to this, as I doubt many people other than readers of real estate blogs and professional community meeting attendees are aware of the plans.

Posted by: guest at January 2, 2008 1:06 PM

On first glance this doesn't seem a bad idea but four out of the six proposed townhouses won't have any street frontage and thus will be taking up land that is usually used as back yard space. Part of the beauty of Cobble Hill and the surrounding Brownstone areas is the wide expanse of (albeit fenced off ) green space which measure some 80 feet by the whole block width that is home to a wonderful variety of flora and fauna.

Surely this close to the BQE we shouldn't be reducing green areas that help to consume all those carbon emissions.

Posted by: guest at January 2, 2008 1:13 PM

I think the overall plan works well in the context of Verandah Pl. However, the design of the new additions looks very sterile.

Posted by: guest at January 2, 2008 1:38 PM

Just wondering if this building is landmarked? I know some of the LICH buildings are exempt. If it is landmarked how can a developer add a floor?
I own a Cobble Hill townhouse and had to jump through hoops to do any exterior changes as minimal as door and brownstone color. The idea of a floor addition is unrealistic given the 50 foot limit.

Anybody know any details on 110 Amity?

Posted by: guest at January 2, 2008 1:51 PM

Agree. I don't see how this is worth getting worked up over.

Posted by: guest at January 2, 2008 2:26 PM

It looks really good. What on earth is the problem? As for this development not having yards, what does that have to do with your own yard if you have one? I don't get it. Perhaps Carroll Gardens has now replaced Park Slope as most annoying neighborhood.

Posted by: guest at January 2, 2008 2:46 PM

I live two blocks away and I'm not opposed at all, let alone "vehemently." In fact, except for the extra height, which would be a terrible precedent, the plan looks like a great improvement over the crappy trailers and fence that have been there. In fact, the whole thing is just like that little lane of houses next to the old-schoolhouse condos on Warren St., which haven't been a problem. The only ones this isn't good for are the two or three Congress St. houses that will have the new mews houses backing up to their property line. Is that enough reason to try to block a proposal that's perfectly legal?

Posted by: guest at January 2, 2008 2:49 PM

agreed. I'm in my home a hundred or so feet away, and cannot see what the fuss is about --unless of course it's manufactured fuss, as part of a standard shakedown. not beautiful, and maybe the height issue bears consideration, but some tweaks here and there, seems like a net benefit to Henry Street.

Posted by: guest at January 2, 2008 3:43 PM

i like the plan, but i hope they make the new townhouses a bit more inspired design wise. right not they look too new and out of place. they can be simple federal style brick houses but they should do a better job of matching the existing housing stock of the neighborhood. but it does seem as if 3 of the houses will only have 1 wall of windows. not sure how deep they are, but those windows face north and once you get 25' from a window it starts to get pretty damn dark! the existing building is only 3 stories and therefore should have room for another floor without exceeding 50'. two trees just lost a battle to go over 50' on atlantic, so i doubt there is any chance they'd get an exemption on much narrower henry and amity. but all in all i think it'll be a nice addition to a neighborhood that has a minimal housing stock.

Posted by: guest at January 2, 2008 3:52 PM

Re windows: I'm stretching here (and it's not actually the neighborhood's problem), but it looks as if the house that borders Henry St. will have windows on its front and also on the Henry St. side (but not on its back, which abuts its Henry St. neighbor) and that the other houses will have windows on their fronts and then, like most other brownstones, on their back walls, overlooking the Congress St. gardens. Does that seem right?

Posted by: guest at January 2, 2008 4:21 PM

If you take the GMAP link above and then click on Satellite view and zoom in you can see the overhead area fairly well. My guess would be that only three houses won't have rear windows and one of those will have side windows onto Henry Street.

Posted by: guest at January 2, 2008 5:05 PM

This looks like a lovely plan. It's very private and there's nothing wrong with that. If anyone expects the lot to remain open, their living in a fantasy world. The bulkhead is not that obvious and the plan only calls for 6 townhouses. Perhaps a 20 unit condo building would be more pleasing to all you NIMBYs.

Posted by: guest at January 2, 2008 7:05 PM

Some of those units might only have windows in the front. Hopefully it's an open floor plan that allows light to pass through.

Posted by: guest at January 2, 2008 7:07 PM

Post 7:05, who are the NIMBYs you are speaking to? None of the people who have posted from Cobble Hill have made any negative comments. In fact, most seem quite happy and supportive.
Save your vitriol, will you?

Posted by: guest at January 2, 2008 7:24 PM

The plan is horrible and the proposed buildings lack any character. It simply does not fit in with the character of the neighborhood, a landmarked neighborhood. The buildings are hardly "mews", as they are 5 stories tall and encroach on the light and air of the properties on Congress Street. The "townhouses" are hardly like the carriage houses on Verandah Place.

With maybe one or two exceptions, the only positive comments I have heard about this horrible project were posted on this website.

Maybe that is because the people who actually care about the neighborhood are busy addressing the real issues and not posting nonsense.

Posted by: guest at January 3, 2008 10:10 PM

Well there's your NIMBY 7:24!

Posted by: guest at January 7, 2008 6:36 PM

6:36, You're a moron and probably related to the developer.

Posted by: guest at January 7, 2008 11:44 PM