« Eugene Reverses Position on Ocean on the Park! Today on the Forum »

April 14, 2009

Development Watch: 322 Bond Street

322-Bond-Street-Brooklyn-0409.jpg
From the street, one would be forgiven for thinking that the three-story brick building at 322 Bond Street between Union and President in Gowanus was roughly doubling in size. Thanks to an apparently Scarano-esque treatment of the building code, what you're actually seeing is a one-story addition plus attic. Hmmmmm...
GMAP P*Shark DOB




Posted by Brownstoner at 2:28 PM | Comments (7)
Categories: Development, Gowanus

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/9259

Comments

It's a R6 neighborhood... am I missing something?

What's with the negative tone?

Posted by: tybur6 at April 14, 2009 2:53 PM

R6 makes everything all good!

Posted by: Xander Crews at April 14, 2009 3:04 PM

tybur6, absolutely. We need good ol' young archi's 2 cents here on the use of the "attic" which is clearly defined in the schedule A and "living space."

YA, can we get a ruling or definition here?

Posted by: Action Jackson at April 14, 2009 4:14 PM

I'll say this:

In brooklyn a couple of years ago, you couldn't get an attic approved if you were Magdi Massad's sister.

They've apparently changed course in Brooklyn.

Here's the rule:

If its less than 8'-0" structural headroom its an attic. Exempt from floor area but not habitable.

Will they try to pawn if off as habitable space? I guess they can try, but

a) less than 8'-0" structural headroom works out to, AT BEST, 7'10", and much more likely something btwn 7'-0" and 7'-6".

and

b) you certainly can't sell the attic as livable space unless you enjoy being sued all to hell.

This a different situation then the last discussion we had Action, where the issue at hand was whether the dormer (height) was legal...

At any rate, nothing looks to be designed illegally. Will they use it illegally? Maybe...but its going to take a long time to pay off the extra construction cost incurred by building the attic with the rents from a space with sub 8'-0" ceilings...

Its certainly not beyond the realm of possibility that the owner intends to use the attic for permitted uses...

Posted by: young archi at April 14, 2009 9:02 PM

Action Jackson,

Why not change your career from sanitary sewer inspector and raise yourself up to junior plan examiner job. I heard that the unlicensed prince at the head of the DOB needs good rats, oh I mean whistle blowers, like you on the payroll.

How about it? Real work maybe for a few months instead of king blog f'up?

What is wrong with building on the roof? Should they never touch the building for the rest of your life maybe?

And Jon enough with the Scarano comments already it's played out like your blog!

Posted by: number 1 at April 15, 2009 12:30 AM

"In brooklyn a couple of years ago, you couldn't get an attic approved if you were Magdi Massad's sister.

They've apparently changed course in Brooklyn."

YA, You said it right on...

That aside, thanks for the explanation and education.

And to "number 1," perhaps you ought to think twice before letting "number 2" out of your mouth. No need to answer your flaming.

Posted by: Action Jackson at April 15, 2009 10:18 AM

The only thing wrong with this job is that they did not put on an extra story by making the fisrt floor parking. OH OH better go to Scarano..

Jackson the only other bad thing was that your families house wasn't the owners of the little two story frame they dropped a girder on during construction.

Jackson = Inaction

Posted by: number 1 at April 15, 2009 11:10 PM

Post a comment

Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.

Latest Restaurant Additions