Penthouse Bedrooms or Bulkheads at Cobble Hill Mews?

Highlighting a fight that's been going on for the past year between some Cobble Hill residents and the developer Two Trees, The Times examines the issue of what to call the structures on the roof of 200 Atlantic Avenue and whether they should count in the height calculations for the recently-built rental building. On the one side, the Cobble Hill Association and others claim that the shed-like structures are actually big enough to fit a bed and are being marketed as such. Bully, says Two Trees, they're just stair bulkheads for roof access. The CHA, which wants the structures dismantled, has taken the fight to the Department of Buildings, which in turn told Two Trees it planned to revoke its permit, despite the fact that the building was already occupied. (Back in November, we reported that 19 of the 32 units had already been rented at prices ranging from $2,500 to $3,500 per month.) Two Trees has since presented its own argument in writing to DOB, which is in the process of reviewing both sides of the issue.
On the Rooftop, Mystery Huts [NY Times] GMAP
Checking in on 200 Atlantic Avenue [Brownstoner]
10 Feet for Trader Joe's Building Preservation? [Brownstoner]

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/7817

Comments

Why should this matter? I walk by there and I can't see anything on the roof. The Cobble Hill Association needs a reality check.

Posted by: sam at January 5, 2009 11:49 AM

Seeeeeriously. I live on an upper floor of a building right down the block and can't see what they're talking about from my apartment. Totally invisible from the street. What's the point? Surely there's a better use of their time.

Posted by: lucille at January 5, 2009 12:11 PM

Actually, to take it further, I think the building is quite palatable for new construction, it cleaned up a sort of neglected, run-down spot on the block, and the efforts of both that building and Trader Joe's to plant flowers and trees on the sidewalk are very welcome. So really, let's take this elsewhere, CHA.

Posted by: lucille at January 5, 2009 12:16 PM

I'll go one step further: they should've gotten the right to build 10 feet higher like they were originally asking for. Come on people - this is atlantic ave, not some quaint side street....

Posted by: Make My Heights the P Heights at January 5, 2009 12:25 PM

This project shows the worst face of the community groups involved. Both the CHA and the BHA cannot say one good thing about this very superior design nor about the opening of the Trader Joe's next door, which was part of the redevelopment and which is a real plus for both neighborhoods. The dumbness and pettiness of these groups is astounding I must say.

Posted by: sam at January 5, 2009 1:46 PM

I just walked by here the other day and have absolutely no idea what the problem is.

The roof-line lines up perfectly with the building next door, it looks nice enough and blends better than most new construction I've seen around.

I think it's absurd to make a big deal out of this one.

Posted by: 11217 at January 5, 2009 2:00 PM

Huh. I'm pretty surprised by the short-sightedness of the comments above. I'm not a member of the CHA, but I am a neighboring property owner. The fight isn't about how the structures look. It's about keeping the developers honest. After losing the fight over whether the building was to be 50 or 60 feet, Two Trees blatantly lied to the DOB and the community in order to get around the height restrictions and publicly stated (repeatedly) that there were no habitable spaces on the roof. And it may be Atlantic Avenue, but that side of the street is still in the protected historic district. If community groups like CHA don't continue to act as watchdogs for the DOB, the whole process becomes meaningless, and the developers will be able to do whatever they want. Oh, and by the way, I love the Trader Joe's.

Posted by: CeLe at January 5, 2009 2:24 PM

bulkheads are exempt from height limits. Just let it go and say: thank you, we love the new building and the new market!

..remember the landmarks commission actually agreed to suspend the height limit to allow an extra story here. It was the politicians who quashed the extra floor. I hear the landmarks commission was none too pleased about that second guessing. Way to piss everyone off cobble hill!

Posted by: sam at January 5, 2009 2:50 PM

you don't want a C of O -what makes you think that?
You just need a write-off on the porch. that at least is doable, obtaining a C of O, could be quite a fraught trip. Most one and two-family homes do not have official c of o's. .

Posted by: sam at January 5, 2009 4:25 PM

sorry, that last posting was meant for the C of O thread.
G'night!

Posted by: sam at January 5, 2009 4:55 PM

Yes, the point isn't this particular building, it is protecting the entire historic district.

That said, Walentas is a shameless liar. The best was when he declared that without the 10 foot allowance it simply wouldn't be worth undertaking the project. Amazing. He wants us to believe that he cuts his margins so close that 10 feet is the difference between profitable and unprofitable. What a super guy. Working tirelessly for us with so little upside!

Developers like Walentas and Ratner are businessmen and will say/do anything they can to get what they want. Fine. But don't ask us to pretend they are anything but.

Posted by: statestreeter at January 5, 2009 8:51 PM

it's an improvement and a decent building. snore...

Posted by: wine lover at January 5, 2009 9:03 PM

Ok so lets really have a discussion here. First over building is over building. Just because some of Walentass's shills say they can't see if from the street that doesn't make it ok. Second if you think this brick box gives any character to Atlantic Avenue or the adjacent building you had better go to the nearest eye doctor you can find after you pick up your weekly bribe in Dumbo. Third where is our high and mighty ruler Jon to weigh in on this important subject or do I detect a streak of yellow that stops him from pissing off one of his advertisers? I am sure it would have been much easier for him to chim in if the job had been designed by Scarano.

Bottom line is the building sucks, he is a crook, this string is full of paid shills and the CHA and BHA didn't finish with this swine at the DOB yet.

Posted by: number 1 at January 5, 2009 11:43 PM

Go #1!!! Tell it like it is.

Posted by: statestreeter at January 6, 2009 7:55 PM

« The Last Old-School Street Sign in Brooklyn? Development Delays in Boerum Hill North »

January 5, 2009

Penthouse Bedrooms or Bulkheads at Cobble Hill Mews?

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions