« TONY on Where to Buy with Kids Bespoke Bicycles Now Open on Lafayette »

May 1, 2009

It Came From 4th Ave!

4th%20ave%20babe.jpg
Pictures can't really do justice to the latest addition to 4th Avenue's much-vaunted streetscape and retail scene. Cinder block-o-licious! GMAP

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/9519

Comments

Those used to be two (very ugly) parking spots. I wonder what happened.

Posted by: zinka at May 1, 2009 10:02 AM

Wasn't that a car port last week?

Posted by: Park Place at May 1, 2009 10:03 AM

ALOL x 500000000000000000000

i pass by that everyday twice a day. it was a 2 car garage at first then they paved it in! wtf? is it all solid inside of there? i actually asked someone just last week what the deal was with that but he ignored me and kept on walking.

*rob*

Posted by: PitbullNYC at May 1, 2009 10:03 AM

Gabby...did you check DOB website for violations???

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at May 1, 2009 10:05 AM

aren't these the rentals that are like $4000 for a 2 BR or something nuts like that?

Posted by: gemini10 at May 1, 2009 10:05 AM

Maybe someone has been walled up inside just like in the Cask of Amontillado. Hopefully a broker.

Only, since this is 4th avenue, it's probably a Keg of Cheap Lager.

Posted by: northsloperenter at May 1, 2009 10:07 AM

I don't think balconies are allowed on the 2nd floor.

Posted by: ITM at May 1, 2009 10:08 AM

rob...is that the building next to Caddyshack???

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at May 1, 2009 10:08 AM

yes

Posted by: Santa at May 1, 2009 10:11 AM

Wow, and here I foolishly thought that building couldn't get any more ridiculous.

Posted by: SnarkSlope at May 1, 2009 10:11 AM

quote:
rob...is that the building next to Caddyshack???

yep

and it's not cattyshack anymore it's called some other name and dont let it fool you the people there are JUST AS NASTY as ever it's called some # bar. it's still a lesbian bar, but they have been advertising everywhere that it's a gay bar that "allows boys" barf. no way. they kicked me and my friend out the first time we went there. grrrrr (maybe ill go back tonight with some super hero figures) ahhahah

*rob*

Posted by: PitbullNYC at May 1, 2009 10:14 AM

Perhaps it's the tomb of Jimmy Hoffa. Someone call Geraldo!

Posted by: Beau Guest at May 1, 2009 10:15 AM

Pink Floyd would be proud.

Posted by: Biff Champion at May 1, 2009 10:16 AM

Wow. Just wow. The parking spots were incredibly ugly, but at least I could shave 3 seconds off my commute by cutting through them. This is remarkable.

I'm working up a new theory of 4th Avenue: only the stupidest, most aesthetically clueless, and most delusionally greedy developers could possibly have been foolish enough to think it was on the verge of turning into a thriving residential boulevard. So the residences we see are really natural selection at work.

Posted by: toadie at May 1, 2009 10:26 AM

i know ill get tomatoes thrown at me, but i prefer 4th avenue to 5th. when i get out of the subway i like to walk to 1st street from the union stop and cut across the mcdonalds. 4th avenue just seems more "city" to me than 5th avenue does.

in regards to the condos on 4th, i dont know. they are pretty fugly and i never see anyone go in and out of them for the most part.

also i cant tell you how many times tho ive almost gotten run over crossing 4th ave. it's like a real life game of Frogger!!! i kinda love it!

*rob*

Posted by: PitbullNYC at May 1, 2009 10:31 AM

Um, zoning issue? Didn't the developer have to put in the parking due to the number of units, thus now the building is in violation of the R8A ZR?

Posted by: Action Jackson at May 1, 2009 10:34 AM

Retail store: They're going to sell cinder blocks.

Posted by: bayridgegirl at May 1, 2009 10:34 AM

When I was getting coffee across the street from this place, I chatted with one of the workers who were putting up the wall. He said that the wall was required because the (former) parking garage violated some type of code.

What Mr. B's post does not inform folks about is that the cinder block is the interior wall. Obviously some type of facing will be put over it.

Posted by: benson at May 1, 2009 10:38 AM

before it was cinderblocked up the entire inside was tagged to hell.

*rob*

Posted by: PitbullNYC at May 1, 2009 10:39 AM

There's no parking requirement for an 8-unit building. The base requirement is 40% but it's waived if fewer than 15 spots are required.

The parking requirement is also waived if the lot is less than 10,000 square feet. This one is 2000 square feet.

So it's double-waived.
http://www.tenant.net/Other_Laws/zoning/zonch07.html

Posted by: zinka at May 1, 2009 10:40 AM

benson: Kindly stop ruining our fun. Much more pleasing to believe the street front will be cinderblocks for the rest of time. Comports better with our already established beliefs.

Thankfully a month from now no one will remember your comment, but will remember the photo and original post, will make references in future threads to the "cinderblock building" on 4th Avenue, etc.

Posted by: basementalist at May 1, 2009 10:45 AM

"i know ill get tomatoes thrown at me, but i prefer 4th avenue to 5th. when i get out of the subway i like to walk to 1st street from the union stop and cut across the mcdonalds. 4th avenue just seems more "city" to me than 5th avenue does.

also i cant tell you how many times tho ive almost gotten run over crossing 4th ave. it's like a real life game of Frogger!!! i kinda love it!"

Sounds like you miss Manhattan.

Posted by: northsloperenter at May 1, 2009 10:47 AM

Basementalist;

Understood! Will keep in mind for the future.

You know,when I passed it a few days ago,I actually said to myself: "I wonder if the developer took this step to make Mr. B go apoplectic". I knew it would be a matter of days before this would show up.

Posted by: benson at May 1, 2009 10:50 AM

It looks like a high rise stack of studio apts. Ridiculous.

Posted by: mopar at May 1, 2009 10:51 AM

I am starting to seriously consider moving back to Manhattan. Value is appearing on Manhattan more quickly than in Park Slope. As I often say, I try to let the market do my work for me. If prices drop to a level I am comfortable with in Manhattan before they do in Park Slope, back across the river I go.

Posted by: lechacal at May 1, 2009 10:53 AM

They could paint the cinder blocks red; it'd be "bordello-esque". Throw some tacky pillows on it. Voila!

Posted by: Prodigal_Son at May 1, 2009 10:54 AM

> "i know ill get tomatoes thrown at me, but i prefer 4th avenue to 5th."

Organic, locally grown tomatoes, of course.

Posted by: SnarkSlope at May 1, 2009 10:55 AM

quote:

Sounds like you miss Manhattan.

sounds like i do :( but if the only places i can afford are in harlem and washington heights, ill take brooklyn as a consolation prize. tho i think i pay more in brooklyn now than what i could pay in lower manhattan which is absurd. but i like commuting and i like less people around. i hate the damn chirpy birds tho.

*rob*

Posted by: PitbullNYC at May 1, 2009 10:56 AM

Does that mean you'll no longer be posting on brownstoner, lechacal???

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at May 1, 2009 10:56 AM

"also i cant tell you how many times tho ive almost gotten run over crossing 4th ave."

Probably by me...watch out for the speeding Caddy!

What happened to plans of changing 4th Ave traffic. There was a thread some time ago about it. Photos with two lanes for cars and greenery with people lounging around in the middle.

Posted by: bayridgegirl at May 1, 2009 11:00 AM

Wow, just wow. I want to see this on Coney Island development - all cinder block, all the time. Wow.

Posted by: bupe at May 1, 2009 11:01 AM

"Organic, locally grown tomatoes, of course."

....and purchased at your local greenmarket, of course.

Posted by: benson at May 1, 2009 11:01 AM

"Does that mean you'll no longer be posting on brownstoner, lechacal???"

I only follow brownstoner because I am taking a very serious look at brooklyn real estate. If I move to Manhattan I can't imagine I would keep reading and posting (other than the occasional look back of course). I do have other interests after all.

Posted by: lechacal at May 1, 2009 11:04 AM

more likely purchased at Park Slope Co-op.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at May 1, 2009 11:06 AM

quote:

greenery with people lounging around in the middle.

barf! if they do that to 4th avenue i will seriously move to detroit.

*rob*

Posted by: PitbullNYC at May 1, 2009 11:11 AM

I actually like this building because it so reminds me of Los Angeles dingbat architecture - the ubiquitous, downmarket, two- or three-story apartment houses with overhangs sheltering street-front parking. There's a good picture here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dingbat_(building)- actually has the same color scheme as the 4th Ave. building.

Posted by: bookistan at May 1, 2009 11:19 AM

Rob,

Move to Detroit. You can buy a house for $1,000. Yep, thats right, $1,000.

Then try to find a job...

Posted by: Prodigal_Son at May 1, 2009 11:21 AM

Thanks MARTY, This is the new Park Ave. Blow it out your ass. How does it feel to have shit shoved down your throat? Please drop the bomb on 4th Ave.

Posted by: billyboomer at May 1, 2009 11:22 AM

I love modern architecture, don't you? It's all urban renewal all the time for me. Maybe we'll be lucky and they will make this the model for model housing. Park Avenue is put to shame.

Posted by: LM at May 1, 2009 11:28 AM

prodigal i was just kidding about moving to detroit. it's like from the what white people like to say blog that says they all threaten to move to canada when politics arent in their favor. i wouldnt leave nyc because nyc is the easiest place for me to live.

*rob*

Posted by: PitbullNYC at May 1, 2009 11:29 AM

oh yeah and i also dont even have the 100 dollars 10 percent down payment that id need for a 1000 dollar detroit house.

*rob*

Posted by: PitbullNYC at May 1, 2009 11:29 AM

Thanks Zinka!

Posted by: Action Jackson at May 1, 2009 11:36 AM

The box they are building (and obviously will be covered) is a mystery to me - I dont see why they just didnt run water and electric to it and rent it out as a small coffee/espresso bar - with the subway there it would do amazing in the morning.

That being said, I dont know what you people want in terms of architechture - the building is maybe 20ft wide - given the dimensions I think the building is attractive (not gorgeous obviously but an attractive mid-rise apt.

Yes it stands out a bit too much given its low neighbor but once a building goes up next to it, it will look rather nice IMHO.

Posted by: fsrg at May 1, 2009 11:42 AM

i think we can point to 4th ave's rezoning as a failure at this point.

There should have been a requirement for a retail component on the ground floor. they were aiming for UES's park ave. but UWS Broadway seems like it would have worked out a bit better.

Posted by: slick at May 1, 2009 11:45 AM

'FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, MONTRESOR!'

Posted by: Brenda from Flatbush at May 1, 2009 11:48 AM

slick - I wouldnt agree - a disappointment yes, but a failure??? Thousands of residents are moving to a once desolate and horrible street. Retail will inevitably follow (and then future buildings will include it).

Will it take longer then hoped - yup; will the buildings all be architectural masterpieces - obviously not;

it may take too cycles but the 4th Ave rezoniong undoubtedly extends Park Slope 1 Ave further, has improved the Ave for a more pedestrian future and added housing and while protecting the already developed parts of the neighborhood from out of context buildings...a failure - I think not

Posted by: fsrg at May 1, 2009 11:53 AM

retail under buildings is gross cuz it attracts vermin like cockroaches and rats. maybe some condo owners dont like that? and there are already 5000 lame coffee shops in the area with internet access for out of work writers to sit at all day and type out their next greatest american novel.

*rob*

Posted by: PitbullNYC at May 1, 2009 12:02 PM

"I am starting to seriously consider moving back to Manhattan. Value is appearing on Manhattan more quickly than in Park Slope. As I often say, I try to let the market do my work for me. If prices drop to a level I am comfortable with in Manhattan before they do in Park Slope, back across the river I go."

My feelings exactly.

(And, yes, I'll stop posting here if I move across the river unless/until I'm actively considering moving back -- which I will when it becomes time to buy in 2011 or whenever.)

My lease is up in the fall. If I were moving right now, I would say I could get more for my rental money in Manhattan than Brooklyn (assuming a 1 year lease with the "1 month free" promotions that so many Manhattan buildings are giving).

I'll see what the market is like when my lease is up (and whether or not I can find daycare in Manhattan).

Posted by: northsloperenter at May 1, 2009 12:02 PM

fsrq: I disagree that Park Slope extends to 4th Ave. I think of 4th Ave (at least in this area) as Gowanus, or at best an unnamed border area (sort of like Flatbush, which isn't PS and isn't PH - it's just Flatbush).

Of course many realtors have a map on their wall that shows Park Slope extending to twenty something street and 3rd Ave, but that doesn't make it so.

Posted by: lechacal at May 1, 2009 12:02 PM

Agreed.

Disappointing? Perhaps a bit.

Failure? Hardly.

Hundreds of units of new housing have been provided. New restaurants and bars have opened.

Sheesh, give it some time. Considering where 4th Avenues started in this process, I think it's come a long way.

That said, the building above is still tragic and absurd.

Posted by: SnarkSlope at May 1, 2009 12:03 PM

Tomatoes are locked and loaded.

Posted by: SnarkSlope at May 1, 2009 12:06 PM

"'FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, MONTRESOR!'"

"Maybe someone has been walled up inside just like in the Cask of Amontillado."

It's nice to see SOMEOME is keeping up on Poe, the first American to make his living primarily through writing. Nice references you guys.

Posted by: East New York at May 1, 2009 12:11 PM

Lechacal;

Whether or not 4th Ave is in Park Slope proper, FSRQ's larger point remains. The rezoning has extended redevelopment to 4th Ave. It continues a process that has been going on for some 30 years. I am old enough to remember when folks considered the edge of respectable Park Slope to be 6th Ave and the upper stretches of 5th Ave had a "Berlin after the war" appearance.

Definitions of where neighborhoods begin and end change with time. If you ask my father, who is 85, he doesn't know what the heck Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens, Gowanus and Boerum Hill are. He still refers to all these areas as that which he knew when he was growing up: South Brooklyn.

Posted by: benson at May 1, 2009 12:28 PM

I believe you're not allowed to have a curb cut w/in 60' of a corner. So if the filing was self-certified, they didn't know this or ignored it, and it was caught by DOB.

If they'd maxed out the FAR, which is likely, they're probably now over, because that enclosed space should now be counted as floor area, even if it's not accessible.

Posted by: jcarch at May 1, 2009 12:29 PM

I saw this building go up and kept wondering what on earth are they thinking? It's really a monstrosity. As for 4th Ave, I find it a bit scary. A friend got hit by a bus once, and I'm always very cautious when I cross it with my kids. I could not imagine living right on that huge avenue. Some of the blocks betwen 4/5 though seem OK to me - it's really block by block. I certainly have friends who've found homes on those blocks and like being so close to 5th.

Posted by: Miss Muffett at May 1, 2009 12:39 PM

"I am old enough to remember when folks considered the edge of respectable Park Slope to be 6th Ave and the upper stretches of 5th Ave had a "Berlin after the war" appearance."

Me, too. Some folks here would be quite surprised to know what most New Yorkers though of "Park Slope" at that time.

Posted by: East New York at May 1, 2009 12:58 PM

Is this representative of most Park Slope development??? I'll take Stuyvesant Heights over that view anyday. :)

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at May 1, 2009 1:06 PM

@Miss Muffett: Yeah, I enjoy living between 4th and 5th a lot; but would not want to live on 4th Avenue itself.

As for the boundaries, I moved here in 1991, and back then would usually hear the boundaries of PS as being park to 4th Ave, Flatbush to 15th. But depends who you talk to, I guess.

Posted by: basementalist at May 1, 2009 1:30 PM

1. It maybe that the garage didn't have enuf fire stop btw the ceiling and the apts.

2. Sure the place is ugly, nevertheless I could see it being an interesting place to live. Probably one apt per floor,. a bit of outdoor space, and nice light and views from the upper floors.

3. I keep saying this, but there is no retail in the new 4th Ave condos because the the zoning specifically dis-allows it. The zoning only allows 'community service'. i.e., medical offices, non-profits and such.

Posted by: denton at May 1, 2009 1:55 PM

"Tomatoes are locked and loaded."

Double Entendre du jour

Posted by: Biff Champion at May 1, 2009 1:58 PM

During the big LA earthquake in the early/mid-1990s a lot of those buildings with the ground floor parking just collapsed on top of the cars.

Posted by: commenter3 at May 1, 2009 2:04 PM

The rental apartments themselves are actually quite nice in this building and loaded with bells and whistles -- only one apartment per floor, so keyed elevator opens into your apartment, really nice kitchen and bathroom finishes, washer dyer in each unit, through the wall PTAC a/c units, etc. Rents now down to $3300 or so. Apartments are rent-stabilized (developer traded this for tax breaks). Zoned PS 321. The big plus, of course, is that you don't have to look at this ugly as sin building from your windows, unlike all of the unfortunate people in the buildings around you!

Oh, and I really, really hope rental prices keep going down in Manhattan so all of you who'd really prefer to live there can do so, and leave Brooklyn to those of us who wouldn't live anywhere else!

Posted by: babs at May 1, 2009 2:34 PM

denton I beleive that is not the case (or has been changed). some newer 4th Ave buildings DO appear to provision for retail.

Posted by: fsrg at May 1, 2009 2:45 PM

babs -- how can $3300 apts. be rent stabilized? Don't they destabilize at $2000?

BTW, one of the reasons I haven't really been all that impressed with Brooklyn is so many people in this borough seem to have the annoying combination of thin skins and a permanent chip on their shoulder.

Posted by: northsloperenter at May 1, 2009 2:53 PM

there are apts that go for 15 K a month that are rent stabalized. there is no cap on that. but an apartment can become unstabalized once it hits 2000.

*rob*

Posted by: PitbullNYC at May 1, 2009 3:23 PM

rob -- I don't get it.

If they become unstabilized at 2000, they cannot reach 15,000 while stabilized.

Posted by: northsloperenter at May 1, 2009 3:36 PM

Rob's right - they become unstabilzed at 2k per month AND 150k per year salary.

bianca jagger was just evicted from a rent stabilized apt on park ave that was more then 2000 a month

Posted by: dirty_hipster at May 1, 2009 3:48 PM

but if an apartment hits 2k a month and is vacant - it's destablized.

Posted by: dirty_hipster at May 1, 2009 3:49 PM

oh - and as babs said the developer can choose to stabilze for incentives (just saw that)

Posted by: dirty_hipster at May 1, 2009 3:55 PM

dirthip, you've left me more confused. Rob never mentioned 150k salary, and since new apts. are, by definition, vacant, how can a $3300/mo one be stabilized.

And isn't it $2k/mo OR 150k/year sal over 3 years?

Posted by: northsloperenter at May 1, 2009 4:10 PM

a stabalized apartment means that it's an apartment that is regulated by the rent stabalization board of nyc which means it can only go up a certain percentage each year.

an apartment can cost any amount and still be stabalized.

however, if a landlord wants to OPT out of the stabalization of an apartment, he can get it unstabalized once it hits 2000 dollars and / or the tenant makes a certain amount of money in income, and or he does a certain amount of renovation (i think 40K to an apt)? not sure about that last part tho.

im not sure what the benefit is tho for a landlord to keep it stabalized but im sure there must be some reason.

*rob*

Posted by: PitbullNYC at May 1, 2009 4:30 PM

Sorry - I didn't read the whole thread.

The developer can agree to stabilize the units for incentives (tax breaks etc)

The city stabilization laws I believe that BOTH things need to happen

a) rent reaches 2k
b) household salary 150k (over a certain amount of time)

my old manhattan apt started out at 1,800 - stabilized, and when it went to 2,000 it was still stabilized because i didn't make 150k

Posted by: dirty_hipster at May 1, 2009 4:31 PM

Was the car parking there illegal (not allowed)? I noticed a few weeks ago that they had a two-car carport, but no curb cut. Personally, losing the carport is a plus.

Posted by: WBer at May 1, 2009 5:52 PM

denton, you're quite wrong about the zoning. The zoning is R8A with a C2-4 overlay. C2-4 permits retail.

Posted by: zinka at May 1, 2009 6:16 PM

A few times when I walked past, there were five or six apparently homeless guys camped out in the space. On a day that it was raining, it was SRO. I'm wondering if the building just got tired of chasing people off and decided to seal the space up instead.

Posted by: Bond at May 1, 2009 10:03 PM

Whenever I walked by that building I wondered if that lone corner could support the entire structure. I feel safer seeing the cinder blocks.

Posted by: boroughbred at May 2, 2009 11:09 PM

You shouldn't; cinderblocks aren't structural.

Posted by: zinka at May 3, 2009 12:02 PM

The windows are strange because they open out from the far right hand and far left hand side instead of opening from the middle out.......did i explain that right????

Posted by: nightcruzer at June 22, 2009 4:11 PM

another freakin ugly building by Gregory Rigas, the owner.

he should be beaten

Posted by: STARGAZER at November 18, 2009 2:04 PM

« TONY on Where to Buy with Kids Bespoke Bicycles Now Open on Lafayette »

May 1, 2009

It Came From 4th Ave!

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions