« Listings Up For 93 Nevins Street Greenlight Bookstore Renovation Blog: Week 9 »
September 25, 2009
Horror Show Friday: 1715 11th Avenue
Here's what the tipster who sent in this photo of 1715 11th Avenue had to say: "one way to ruin a cute row of circa 1940's Tudor style single family homes? Throw an illegal extension on the roof of one of them and create a stalled work site." According to this tipster, despite a Stop Work Order still being in place, there was activity on the site last week. Classy. GMAP
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/11560
Comments
If they built like a huge turret, that would have been better.
Posted by: tybur6 at September 25, 2009 11:17 AM
no way!!!! total disagreeance. they look like little cute dutch homes.
*rob*
Posted by: Butterfly at September 25, 2009 11:18 AM
Glad to see Horror Show friday back. We missed you.
*Elitist*
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at September 25, 2009 11:18 AM
no way!!!! total disagreeance. they look like little cute dutch homes.
oops, nevermind, i did not see the yellow tumor on top. :-/
*rob*
Posted by: Butterfly at September 25, 2009 11:19 AM
Its pretty amazing that somebody thinks they can do something as obviously wrong and visible as this and get away with it.
Posted by: wasder at September 25, 2009 11:19 AM
Maybe they were going to cover it in mirrors, so it was invisible. Sort of like Wonder Woman's airplane.
Posted by: tybur6 at September 25, 2009 11:24 AM
That's no worse than an extenstion you'd see on a cape code in Massapequa.
Posted by: dirty_hipster at September 25, 2009 11:25 AM
-e
Posted by: dirty_hipster at September 25, 2009 11:25 AM
Wow....someone on my block tried to do the same thing and we reported them to the DOB and put a stop to it. That look horrible and typically they folks do this with out the proper permits.
Posted by: A CrownHeightsLady at September 25, 2009 11:27 AM
Rob, what has happened to your 'MYOB mindset'?
I'm semi-kidding, but honestly, look at this. It is indeed a yellow tumor that likely brings down property values and certainly takes the tone of this historic street from 'cute little dutch homes' to carnie Coney Island-ish.
There really are important and protective reasons for the kinds of laws and 'busy-bodying' behavior you protest.
And for what its worth, check out all of the driveways. Not exactly charming is it?
Posted by: Nokilissa at September 25, 2009 11:29 AM
I looked at the pictures again and just had to highlight the garages and driveways. Imagine this on landmarked Prospect Heights and Park Slope streets? Infinite Jester needs to take a hard long look at these pictures.
Posted by: Nokilissa at September 25, 2009 11:31 AM
And I thought things like this only happened in South Brooklyn.
Posted by: Re Writer at September 25, 2009 11:31 AM
If they had gotten the fake brick up faster no one would have ever noticed it. :)
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at September 25, 2009 11:32 AM
How blatantly out of context. Not only disturbing the architectural character of the row of houses (whether you like faux Tudor, Dutch, Euro...whatever), but also not taking the style of the building into affect before throwing the shit box extension on top.
There ARE ways to design the extension of livable space without just tossing some metal studs, plywood and yellow board on the roof...and I'd bet, puke, eventually stucco.
Dormers may have been AOK, or why not bump up the roof line, keeping the slate-style roofing?
Shameful.
Posted by: Action Jackson at September 25, 2009 11:36 AM
If you stop your fixation of the yellow color you would actually realize that is just a protective cover often used in construction before the outer wall is installed.
Posted by: crimsonson at September 25, 2009 11:36 AM
DOB revoking *approved permits* for 2nd floor addition... Architect has self-certified this job...
C of O change in works...
I don't see anything about zoning violations.
Sounds a lot like the garage/curbcut post earlier in the day.
Posted by: IMBY at September 25, 2009 11:36 AM
The yellow board is insulation.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at September 25, 2009 11:39 AM
"If you stop your fixation of the yellow color you would actually realize that is just a protective cover often used in construction before the outer wall is installed."
To be covered with what? Vinyl siding? Stucco? Certainly not brick...could not handle the load to roof below.
And even if it could be brick, the dimensions compared to the house are out-of-whack.
Driveways aside, remember when this was built and it's context, this is ruining the "style" of the block of distinct row houses (again, whether you like their motif or not).
Posted by: Action Jackson at September 25, 2009 11:39 AM
Reminds me of the tumor brownstone in Carroll Gardens
Posted by: GHB at September 25, 2009 11:42 AM
quote:
Rob, what has happened to your 'MYOB mindset'?
people can change..
hahah
i dont have problems with curbcuts. but this thing is ugly.
*rob*
Posted by: Butterfly at September 25, 2009 11:43 AM
"I don't see anything about zoning violations."
IMBY, doubtful, since it is R5B and they look like they are under the 35 ft cap.
Just a contextual issue I have the beef with.
Posted by: Action Jackson at September 25, 2009 11:44 AM
Some people on this site need to get a life. Busybodys, indeed.
Also, the correct name for these homes is "Trump bungalow". These homes were built by Donald Trump's father, Fred, in the period after WWII. He built them by the thousands in many of the southern parts of the borough, that detested area that snobs like Nokilissa like to look down their nose at.
One of my uncles lived in such a home. For those who care (and there are few on this site), they were comfortable homes for working stiffs: nice layout, a drive-in garage for one car, and a walk-in rental apartment on the first floor, to make them comfortable.
Posted by: benson at September 25, 2009 11:51 AM
yeah, looks funny yellow but that isn't the finish material.
Don't know the regs/zoning/permit issue there... yes the row is cute but could be done well if has setback. Not hating it.
Posted by: Petebklyn at September 25, 2009 11:51 AM
bensen, thanks for bringing some actual usable info to the post. So much of the housing stock in WT and GWH was guilt for such the purpose...too bad we no longer have a working waterfront :(
Posted by: Action Jackson at September 25, 2009 11:53 AM
Correction to my last sentence above:
"to make them affordable".
Posted by: benson at September 25, 2009 11:54 AM
interesting stuff, benson. Thanks.
And the garages and curb cuts are in context so they aren't travesties the way curb cuts in Victorian row houses are. So the archtect self-certified? I think that's a practice we need to stop.
Posted by: bxgrl at September 25, 2009 11:59 AM
The big problem in this sort of situation is a side effect of the stop work order. What exactly happens going forward?
Sometimes...absolutely nothing. So the neighborhood is stuck with the eyesore for an indefinite period. The owner just refuses to finish it or tear it down. This happened in Bay Ridge, where a jerk just left his incomplete construction around for years.
Posted by: northridger at September 25, 2009 12:04 PM
By the way, one more question for everyone here: how do you know that this is "illegal" or "wrong"? I highly doubt it. Such extensions are put up on these types of homes all the time.
If the neighbor is convinced that this is illegal, why don't they just report it to the DOB, and be done with it?
Posted by: benson at September 25, 2009 12:04 PM
Noki, it's the lack of trees in those pictures that makes the difference. I have seen driveways in Park Slope, they can be tastefully done and preserve the canopy of greenery that I (personally) feel is one of the best parts of the nabe.
Posted by: infinitejester at September 25, 2009 12:06 PM
"If the neighbor is convinced that this is illegal, why don't they just report it to the DOB, and be done with it?"
Um, they did...and the SWO has been in effect since March and the plans were revoked. I assume they could refile...or will.
What exactly happens going fwd? Hopefully they did minimal damage to the roof line and can tear this POS off the roof. But who knows.
Posted by: Action Jackson at September 25, 2009 12:07 PM
AJ;
Because a SWO has been issued doesn't mean that this type of extension is illegal. The SWO could have been issued for alot of reasons: no work permit,bad practices,etc.
I am certain, however, that this type of extension is within the zoning laws, and not inherently illegal.
Posted by: benson at September 25, 2009 12:10 PM
bensen, agreed...it prob has more to so with the self cert having been audited and need for "fix or refile" but since March?
I'm skeptical. As I said above, from the appearance of the photos, it looks like it's in R5B.
Posted by: Action Jackson at September 25, 2009 12:13 PM
Sorry, benSON.
Posted by: Action Jackson at September 25, 2009 12:14 PM
Blocks like this get landmarked all the time in other cities, as well as here. No one is saying there is anything wrong with the existent houses themselves. In fact, Benson, knowing that they are "Trump houses" could conceivably add to their value as fine examples of post war middle class city housing. Landmarking is not exclusively for 19th century or earlier homes.
I like the symmetry of the peaked roofs extending down the block. An intact row of any kind of housing is great. That's why the extension is so out of place and inappropriate. It totally ruins the streetscape, and I would imagine the neighbors are none too thrilled.
Posted by: Montrose Morris at September 25, 2009 12:19 PM
Thanks Benson- I knew this was a little Fred Trump Tudor . As you said the best feature was the walk in apt. located behind the owners garage space, which could be rented out to assist the owner with his note. As for the driveways, they are original to the homes and a fairly common post war builder's feature. I do not care for building these homes up as evidenced here, however, my guess is what they are doing is within the law.
Posted by: Crescent Hill at September 25, 2009 12:20 PM
FWIW that extension has been in the works for more than a year.
Posted by: DitmasSnark at September 25, 2009 12:27 PM
Montrose;
You would have a tough time landmarking these homes. The reason? They are not particularly well built, and I doubt that they will hold up another 50 years without a major upgrade.
Many of the homes built right after WWII are not of the greatest quality. For one, the economy was still transforming from war-time to peacetime, and the variety of materials was limited. Builders often had to make do with whatever was available. Secondly, the emphasis at the time was speed: there was a severe housing shortage after WWII due to returning veterans. As their "bungalow" description implies, these homes were viewed as the urban equivalent of a Cape Cod: an inexpensive starter home. They only have 2 bedrooms in the owner's apartment.
To see the practical effect of this situation, note that the stoops of the two homes shown in the picture do not match. That is because the original stoop did not hold up well. Indeed, my uncle had to replace his, as well as the porch. These homes can be a money sink, if you are not careful.
Posted by: benson at September 25, 2009 12:32 PM
ok look
am sooo not a design/construction person at all
but what does everyone suggest to a family who owns a modest house do if they can only afford to extend their current house and not packup and try to move into a bigger house????????????????????
Posted by: gemini10 at September 25, 2009 12:37 PM
One more thing!
Note that none of the windows match too. The reason is that these homes were built with painted steel casement windows, which, IMHO, were the worst ever devised in the history of man. Drafty, hard to maintain and hard to close after a while due to paint build-up. Inevitably, they were all replaced.
Posted by: benson at September 25, 2009 12:37 PM
Duly noted, Benson, and thanks for the info. Too bad they aren't well made, but your explanation makes perfect sense, given the history. Have to say Mr. Trump had more taste than Mr. Levitt.
Posted by: Montrose Morris at September 25, 2009 12:39 PM
so what price do these sell for now at least around WT/McDonald Avenue?
Surprised you say not well built. But shouldn't be I guess.
Kinda mass produced.
I like the look. And think 2nd story addition could be added without being ugly. I have seen blocks with mix of this bungalow and 2 story design which seem orig.
Posted by: Petebklyn at September 25, 2009 12:43 PM
Duly noted, Benson, and thanks for the history. Given the state of housing at the end of WW2 that makes perfect sense, too bad, though.
Gotta say, Mr. Trump had way more taste than Mr. Levitt for similar housing.
Posted by: Montrose Morris at September 25, 2009 12:44 PM
FWIW the mismatched windows, not the curb cut bother me. The extension illegal or not is just fugly. If I were a neighbor I'd be ticked that it was breaking up the aesthetic of the block but if it's legal there's not much you can do but stare and cringe.
Posted by: TownhouseLady at September 25, 2009 12:44 PM
Meant to say neither the mismatched windows nor the curb cuts bother me.
Posted by: TownhouseLady at September 25, 2009 12:44 PM
Sorry about the double post. Too impatient today, and the post took so long to go up, I thought I had not actually sent it.
Posted by: Montrose Morris at September 25, 2009 12:45 PM
I mean seriously!
it's like I love fashion and like to look nice
but that's like someone on the street saying "can you beleive she's wearing that outfit with a purse from H&M"?
how dreadful???
I mean so what it's landmarked! whoppeeeee - there are soooo many families who have lived in Landmarked buildings for years who can't afford to keep up with the new standards imposed by the LPC and their new rich neighbors who just moved in.
Posted by: gemini10 at September 25, 2009 12:50 PM
"I mean so what it's landmarked!"
It's not.
Posted by: Action Jackson at September 25, 2009 12:56 PM
From the pics these homes have zero connection to anything that might be described as "Tudor".
Posted by: dittoburg at September 25, 2009 12:58 PM
quote:
am sooo not a design/construction person at all
but what does everyone suggest to a family who owns a modest house do if they can only afford to extend their current house and not packup and try to move into a bigger house????????????????????"
tubal ligation and a vastectomy
*rob*
Posted by: Butterfly at September 25, 2009 1:04 PM
What would we all call brick and slate roofs? Just curious?
Neo-medieval?
Green-Wood is near by, who's out-buildings are a mix of brick, brownstone and slate roofs.
perhaps "Green-Wood Revival?"
Posted by: Action Jackson at September 25, 2009 1:06 PM
gemini- that's the usual misinformation you're promoting. For the record- the landmarking efforts in CHN, Prospect heights, PLG, Bed-Stuy were begun by long time residents of the neighborhoods, the majority of whom are African American. They wanted landmarking to protect their neighborhood and property values. The two founders of CHNA are African-American women who grew up in Crown Heights North, and a number of people on its board also did. I object to the assumption landmarking is only sought after by rich gentrifyiers who want to "upscale" their neighborhoods, when in fact, everyone wants to improve their neighborhood.
Posted by: bxgrl at September 25, 2009 1:07 PM
"tubal ligation and a vastectomy"
LOL! Right from a baller, not a breeder.
Agreed! (and here we go derailing the thread)
Posted by: Action Jackson at September 25, 2009 1:07 PM
the taste police strike again ;)
I go past that site all the time - it's a charming row of houses, and one way out of context extension - based on its size and shape relative to the house and the row of houses. Of course that doesn't mean it's illegal, or the plans would never have been approved in the first place.
the swo could be for any number of reasons, none of which have to do with design, shocking as that may seem.
there are a number of complaints which seem to have been resolved, all seeming to come from one neighbor, who may be right or may just be a crank. we'll never know.
despite the name of the site, the brownstone-centric nature of the posts sometimes miss something imho. there is unquantified value and quality of life in many areas with houses that are not landmarked, not historic, and not even that nice looking. in some cases the lay of the land exceeds the quality of the housing stock, but for a person living in those areas the quality of life is just fine.
the yellow stuff isn't a design choice; it's insulation....
Posted by: raphael9 at September 25, 2009 1:10 PM
From the pics these homes have zero connection to anything that might be described as "Tudor".
Posted by: dittoburg at September 25, 2009 12:58 PM
Ditto- I believe these were called/sold as "Tudor Style" , the pics show examples that are lacking the original finishings/ peaked wood applications that lended themselves to this style. As benson mentioned, they also had casements, these windows sometimes included stained glass finishings in an attempt to add some element of character. They did not originally have any awning structures or ornamental iron work,in fact the original handrails on most were simple iron pipe style fittings. Original doors were wood with stained glass port hole. These were simple post war homes never designed to impress.
Posted by: Crescent Hill at September 25, 2009 1:17 PM
"These were simple post war homes never designed to impress."
And yet, they are very charming. Today a home that is not designed to impress, certainly doesn't.
Posted by: bxgrl at September 25, 2009 1:24 PM
Rob - hahaha-totally! that's my "Dwight" line - do you know who I am talking about?
PS - I have no idea if these houses are landmarked etc - i gues my point was what is a growing family who has owned this house for 5,10,20 years supposed to do when they can't obviously afford to sell and buy a bigger home in the area?
Can someone answer that?
Landmarking is great as I think it brings people together in a community - nothing to knock there at all
I just think some folks go NUTSO about things
Posted by: gemini10 at September 25, 2009 1:24 PM
There are ways to do tasteful additions, even on a (once) nice row of houses like this. This is not one of them. Given the size and spacing of what look like they're going to be windows on the "lean to", the addition looks like it's going to be modern and not at all in keeping with the house and block. Sometimes I just can't imagine what people (owners, architect, you name it) are thinking.
Posted by: CarrollGardened at September 25, 2009 1:35 PM
There are two more of these going on in the neighborhood on Prospect avenue--one between 10th and 11th, and another (IIRC) between 10th and Prospect Park West. I can send in photos if people are interested...
Posted by: jch3nyc at September 25, 2009 2:28 PM
Ooooh! Do send to Mr. B.
Posted by: Action Jackson at September 25, 2009 2:48 PM
Who knows maybe they will add a gable and face it with brick. If you want people to build lovely buildings/additions then the city should offer optional bonuses and create ANOTHER agency to approve the work.
The yellow stuff is Densglas, an exterior, waterproof gypsum board that can be covered with anything. http://www.gp.com/build/product.aspx?pid=4674
Posted by: edifice rex at September 25, 2009 4:18 PM
Whatever you cover it with, the addition still breaks a roofline and creates a large, out-of-proporion hulk on top of what is, if you've evr walked by it, a nice block. Is it surprising that Trump houses or "working-class" housing can be successful and charming? I don't think this is a family that outgrew their space, either. The fact that the neighbors are filing so many complaints tells you that messing up a block affects too many people for way too long to be cavalier about it.
Posted by: lf2009 at September 25, 2009 4:49 PM
I've walked by that house a few times and it appears that nobody is living in it. I wonder if the owner (new owner?) was scheming to "improve" it with an awesomely cool addition and then flip. It's gotta be costing money to have the property just sit idle...
Posted by: pfa at September 25, 2009 9:02 PM
FYI, these aren't post-WWII, so the "returning vets" speech is bunk, and so is the bit about quality. They're brick, after all. I live in one of these nearby. Mine is 1939; these are 1940. Those later (or earlier) have a different look.
Posted by: Will at September 25, 2009 9:27 PM
Will;
If you believe that a house being brick automatically means that it is of quality construction, then I have a bridge to sell you. Please explain why all of the stoops in this row had to be redone.
I stand by by my statements. You may recall that the 1930's was the Great Depression, when housing construction came to a standstill. Similiarly, I don't think much housing was built during the early 1940's, when WWI was underway.
Posted by: benson at September 26, 2009 2:25 AM
WW wha?
Posted by: Joe from Brooklyn at September 26, 2009 11:46 AM
I know the nicer Tudor-style houses in places like Marine Park are 3 layers of brick thick. Heavy-duty contstruction, more durable than brownstone at that thickness.
Posted by: Joe from Brooklyn at September 26, 2009 11:52 AM
These houses I'm not sure about though. They look like the cheaper ones you see in the East 20's Ave U area and in Queens.
Posted by: Joe from Brooklyn at September 26, 2009 11:54 AM
Benson, as ever, such a pleasure. I said nothing remotely 'down my nose' about these homes, and in fact was making a point that protecting them should be considered important. Your characterization (cast off several times now) of me as a 'snob' is unfair. Also wrong.
Posted by: Nokilissa at September 26, 2009 5:56 PM
Noki;
Does the word "Bensonhurst" strike a bell?? Remember you used it to characterize what you don't want PH to become.
Maybe I grew up in a different world, but when I want to make a point, or promote something, I don't need to put someone or something down to do so.
Posted by: benson at September 26, 2009 7:03 PM
Joe;
WWII, I should have written!
My uncle to whom I refer above lived in one of the Trump Bungalows near Ave U and East 27th. As you state above, the homes in this vicinity were definitely on the cheaper side (from a construction POV), though they were a pleasant place to live. Perhaps I am unfairly extrapolating from my uncle's home to all of these types. Given that they were all built by the same organization (Trump), doesn't seem unreasonable though.
Posted by: benson at September 26, 2009 7:09 PM
Benson, you are projecting all over the friggin' place.
My GRANDFATHER grew up in Bensonhurst. I know it for that reason. I am not the snob you believe me to be, but hey, whatever. My point was that Bensonhurst ain't a bastion of aesthetics worthy of preservation in the sense we were speaking of. That is all. Get yourself another 'snob' for flogging purposes. It isn't me.
Posted by: Nokilissa at September 27, 2009 1:22 AM
Latest Restaurant Additions
-
Le Barricou
added November 20, 2009 12:00 PM in Williamsburg -
Der Schwarze Kölner
added November 19, 2009 12:00 PM in Fort Greene -
Oak Wine Bar & Café
added November 18, 2009 12:00 PM in Williamsburg -
Mr. Wonton
added November 17, 2009 12:00 PM in Park Slope -
Casa Rosa
added November 16, 2009 12:00 PM in Carroll Gardens -
Cousin John's Café & Bakery
added November 13, 2009 12:00 PM in Park Slope -
Elote
added November 12, 2009 12:00 PM in Williamsburg -
Miracle Grill
added November 11, 2009 12:00 PM in Park Slope -
Phoebe's Cafe
added November 10, 2009 12:00 PM in Williamsburg -
Ruthie's
added November 9, 2009 12:00 PM in Clinton Hill, Downtown Brooklyn
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.