Mr. S Thinks Big on Bergen

Mr. B/Gabby, that is just off 4th Ave, not 5th. And 11 stories is FAR too tall for the surrounding area.

There's no way they'll be able to get away with it, hopefully.

Posted by: guest at May 29, 2008 11:05 AM

A wee bit tall? Are you kidding - the tallest building around are 5 stories. This is a monster that should be fought.

Posted by: guest at May 29, 2008 11:09 AM

How exactly do you define too tall? Does it not conform to zoning regulations? If it conforms, then it's just a matter of aesthetics. If it does not conform and violates zoning and has been greenlighted, then there's definately a problem. A wee bit tall seems a wee bit arbitrary.

Posted by: guest at May 29, 2008 11:16 AM

It's only 5 stories.

With 6 mezzanine levels.

Posted by: guest at May 29, 2008 11:22 AM

It conforms by a loophole.

Buildings 100 feet from 4th Ave can be up to 100 feet tall. This building overlaps that 100 feet by 5 feet. That should be disallowed, as all the 100 foot buildings fact 4th Ave and side streets (which this faces) are zoned at 5 stories with 'attics'

Posted by: guest at May 29, 2008 11:28 AM

I can understand and agree about limited height of limited height/size of buildings on many blocks.
But I think it is going overboard and a bit too zealous that just because general area does not have much as far as tall buildings (if you consider 12 stories tall) that no building can rise to that height.
Meaning - this is not some great brownstone lined intact residential block.
And I doubt you are going to find anyone wanting willing and able to build a nice brownstone at this location.
These 'fringe' blocks are the best opportunity for denser development in our very central, well-serviced by public transport neighborhoods. If we want to preserve our great blocks with existing structures - we must grant greater density where it can fit. Otherwise - being quite selfish and NIMBYish - and from urban planning prospective - not utilizing our infrastructure very well. (a.k.a. not very green thinking either).

Posted by: guest at May 29, 2008 11:30 AM

wouldnt't the "sliver law" prevent this building from being 11 stories. It states that on lots less than 45' wide, the max height of the building is equal to the width of the street on which its sits. I think bergen is 60' or 75' wide at most..

Posted by: guest at May 29, 2008 11:48 AM

"Looks to be legal...Perhaps a call to CM deBlassio and Yassky's offices are in order, no?" Why, if it's legal?

Posted by: guest at May 29, 2008 11:55 AM

The proposed building will be a horrible eyesore. An 11-floor structure, especially one with Scarano attributes, will extend far above the current structures on 4th ave.

This is clearly an attempt by Scarano's developers to misuse the new 4th avenue zoning laws. Yassky, etc. must put a stop to these kind of developer shenanigans.

Locals in the area should get together to try and stop this project.

Posted by: guest at May 29, 2008 11:58 AM

Obviously the crappy garage is a better use for the property.

Posted by: guest at May 29, 2008 11:59 AM

I'm with 11:30 and 11:59. As long as the building is in line with the code, what's the problem? It's not like that block is full of masterpieces! There's a taxi stand right down the street.

Posted by: guest at May 29, 2008 12:26 PM

residential density is good for that area, will bring more demand for amenities and the like

Posted by: guest at May 29, 2008 12:30 PM

12:26 - that is a stongly residential block on the south side, with many community involved residents. There are some lovely homes and families on the blcok (mine is one of them), and an 11 story building on a small residential street should not be "in line with the code" - it is in line through a loophole only.

A 5-6 story building would be a fine and nice addition to the block, one in keeping with the others on the block (see the buildings in the middle of the street, 330 and 328, which are 5 stories and fit in with the existing townhouses).

Posted by: guest at May 29, 2008 12:32 PM

Hey 12:32, 12:26 here. In line is in line, loophole or not. Again, it's not like your block is filled with parks and playgrounds. I understand there's some residential character on the block, and I'm sure your families are quite lovely. But I think your block would be IMPROVED with this building. Like I said, there is a (not exactly nice-looking) taxi stand on the block and also an auto-shop/yard on the corner at 3rd Ave. We're not talking about a pristine street by any means.

Posted by: guest at May 29, 2008 12:45 PM

Funny you should say that, 12:45/12:26 - there is a plan in the works to turn one of the vacant lots into a park, and the auto-shop/yard is also being turned into a residential building, but one that is to-scale with the rest of the area.

It is not a pristine street, no, but that doesn't mean it should have a huge building on it. A gigantic building in construction for a number of years is not a good thing. Blocking out the light and views on half of Bergen street is not a good thing. A smaller building in keeping with the surrounding area is fine, and I would welcome it.

Posted by: guest at May 29, 2008 12:54 PM

"It is not a pristine street, no, but that doesn't mean it should have a huge building on it. A gigantic building in construction for a number of years is not a good thing."

We're talking about an 11-story building. Not exactly "gigantic." If goes well, it shouldn't take too long to build, either. Construction is something almost everyone has to deal with in one way or another in New York City. Again, I don't see a problem.

Posted by: guest at May 29, 2008 1:35 PM

so they're knocking down that awesome carriage house?

Posted by: guest at May 29, 2008 1:38 PM

11 stories is twice as big as anything else in the vicinity. That is gigantic in comparison.

Clearly you live nowhere near here if you don't see a problem.

Posted by: guest at May 29, 2008 1:42 PM

NIMBY

Posted by: guest at May 29, 2008 2:04 PM

you people are nuts! who cares - shit area. right near projects and gowanus... yuck.

thanks though for your crazy nimby"ism's" will help me as an owner I guess.

Posted by: guest at May 29, 2008 2:16 PM

According to the plans filed the building is entirely within the 100 foot limit to 4th Ave.
25' x 100' lot 73' from 4th Ave.

Posted by: guest at May 29, 2008 2:30 PM

2:16, how about some understanding for the people that actually live on or around the block. Nice attitude.

Posted by: guest at May 29, 2008 2:31 PM

I live on the block, and I can testify that in spite of the commercial use of some lots on the north side of street (i.e. the taxi garage), it is very much a family block. While most of the neighbors I've talked to are all in favor of development, which we agree will only improve the neighborhood as a whole, not a one likes the idea of a building almost twice the height of anything else on the street. In fact most were *shocked* to discover the scale of the project.

It may fall within the commercial overlay of 4th Ave, but I don't think that the INTENT of the zoning regs is to enable such a building on the interior of the block. The buildings facing 4th Ave are only 3 stories tall, the structure immediately adjoining the site is only a single story, and all the buildings across the street are no more than 3 stories. There are some taller buildings in the middle of the block, and towards 3rd Ave (4-6 stories), but that is it. 11 stories is quite tall by comparison, and I can assure you that the residents on the block don't like it one bit!

Posted by: guest at May 29, 2008 3:11 PM

What's up with that Scarano box on St Marks near 5th Ave? Seems to have stalled for months now.

Posted by: guest at May 29, 2008 3:39 PM

So what if every other building is 3 stories, who cares if it is 'contextual' - an 11 story building isnt really all that tall - and it will add more foot traffic to an otherwise not very inviting block - as well as 4th Ave.
How is it that Brooklyn Heights - which is mostly brownstones manages to be quite nice even though many many blocks have a few 12 story buildings (not to mention a few with taller buildings) right in the middle.

Posted by: guest at May 29, 2008 3:41 PM

The intent in upzoning 4th was to allow for huge builds on 4th ave (the Novo, etc.) that would necessarily go up to 100 feet in. The intent was not to allow for an oversized building facing one of the residential cross streets, which happens to be less than 100 feet in from 4th.

Posted by: guest at May 29, 2008 4:03 PM

The question is dose the sliver law apply in r8-a zoning district?

Posted by: guest at May 29, 2008 4:03 PM

This 11 story building will look like a finger sticking up, much like that place goig up on 4th and Carroll, which just looks ridiculous. 25 ft wide and 100 ft tall? Insane!

Posted by: guest at May 29, 2008 4:07 PM

WOW...4th avenue turns into a high-rise neighborhood.
22nd and 4th ave..another huge one. still a secret and hasn't been reported anywhere. I expect 10 floors as well.

Posted by: guest at May 29, 2008 4:49 PM

It never ceases to amaze me the sense of entitlement people have just because they have a "family"

So since your block is a "family block" that means you shouldn't have a tall building built on your block? So since my block doesn't have families, it should affect my quality of life?

Enjoy.

Posted by: guest at May 29, 2008 4:50 PM

4:03 - can you explain what the practical difference is - i.e. to residents on the street

Posted by: guest at May 29, 2008 4:50 PM

Also - 12 story buildings really can't honestly be called "huge" or "gigantic" - at least keep the hyperbole down - it will lend credibility to your cause.

Posted by: guest at May 29, 2008 4:53 PM

A building that is twice as tall as anything in the surrounding area is an eyesore. It block light and views which affects the value of surrounding homes, construction will linger for a long time which affects quality of life for anyone living nearby.

zinka, this is actually 2 blocks from the nearest subway entrance, and there is no problem with density in the area at present.

Posted by: guest at May 29, 2008 5:04 PM

NIMBYs did you just wake up after little rest on Memorial weekend? 10, 11, & 12 story buildings have been going up for last 4 to 5 years along 4th Ave. What about other 10 - 15 other ones that have already changed the neighborhood forever, u didnt care about it because its what, 2 - 5 blocks down from where you live now? all of sudden you "care" because your own backyard will be in shade? you get exactly what u need - annoyed family, that is not happy not because of the growing neighborhood, but due to the fact that they cant walk away from your idiotic complains.

Posted by: guest at May 29, 2008 6:04 PM

I AGREE 604 ITS THE FUTURE OF THE AREA 10 11 &12 STORIES ARE COMMON IN THE AREA NOW IT FITS WITH WHATS TO COME

Posted by: guest at May 29, 2008 6:28 PM

ACTION WHAT ABOUT 4TH AND 1ST

Posted by: guest at May 29, 2008 8:09 PM

in order to go 120 ft building in a r8a zone, that is 12 stories, the lot must be 45ft wide

Posted by: guest at May 30, 2008 12:25 AM

So what is the limit for a 25 ft lot?

Posted by: guest at May 30, 2008 8:58 AM

So I drive down the block last night. And a bit perplexed on why you wouldn't consider a new apt. building a big plus for the block.
And I am not putting down the block but it could use something. (I also live on a block that gets dismissed by the wannabe elites and pretend elites that comment on this site). Even if the new construction isn't the prettiest - it will in the end be big improvement.

Posted by: guest at May 30, 2008 9:31 AM

As someone who lives in the area, it's not that anyone is anti-development on this block. I think we'd all agree that a new construction would be an improvement. The issue is the scale of the new build, which is not in keeping at all with the surrounding buildings, or the goal of the upzoning. If constructed as planned, this structure would extend far above the 3-story brownstones that are currently on 4th avenue. Taking a lot that is ripe for the right kind of development, and building an out-of-scale condo, just isn't the best idea.

Posted by: guest at May 30, 2008 10:11 AM

A new apartment building, great. One that is "planned" for 100 feet, but Scarano is known to push limits and will likely build higher, is not so great, considering that the tallest buildings on the blcok are 60 feet. That is a big difference, and will alter the block dramatically.

Posted by: guest at May 30, 2008 10:14 AM

8:58 AM
this is 2 lots so 50ft wide, the vacant lot is part of the building

Posted by: guest at May 30, 2008 10:17 AM

they paid $1,250,000

Posted by: guest at May 30, 2008 10:37 AM

10:17, not according to the plan. The plan is for a 25' wide building.

Posted by: guest at May 30, 2008 10:38 AM

ACRIS shows the vacant lot at 343 Bergen as being owned by the same people who own the taxi garage & lot. If ownership has changed, it was too recent to show up in the database.

Posted by: guest at May 30, 2008 1:39 PM