Crack Is Wack

"Shoring has been put up, presumably after the fact, to prevent further damage but it looks to me like that corner is about to take a swim in the mud pit next door," writes Tyler King over on the Miller Cicero blog about a building in Williamsburg who's only crime was being adjacent to a big development site where adequate safety precautions were not taken upfront. More details on the link.
24 Comments
By Action Jackson on March 12, 2010 11:04 AM
By dirty_hipster on March 12, 2010 11:05 AM
wow - that is whack indeed.
By daveinbedstuy on March 12, 2010 11:06 AM
My thoughts too, AJ.
By WBer on March 12, 2010 11:10 AM
Full vacate - http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/PropertyProfileOverviewServlet?boro=3&block=2444&lot=18
Looks like they completely undermined the foundation.
By bjw2103 on March 12, 2010 11:10 AM
Do we know if there were cracks before any work began? Seems like a case of jumping to conclusions without all the facts to me. Though I definitely agree with the recommendation to fully account for neighboring structures when beginning a project - there needs to be more accountability there.
By Heather on March 12, 2010 11:10 AM
That's only about the... twentieth time that has happened in the Burg?
By newsouthsloper on March 12, 2010 11:11 AM
Didnt read the link, but I can only assume a major lawsuit is in the works...
By dirty_hipster on March 12, 2010 11:12 AM
I assume it will be very difficult for the owner of that property to prove the developer of the adjacent property liable for the damage, no?
By grand army on March 12, 2010 11:14 AM
Horrible. And however well prepared a property owner might be (updated insurance policy, letters ahead of time to developer/contractor) these situations always end up penalizing the neighbor who happened to be in the "wrong place at the wrong time". Lawsuits cost time and money. Insurers try to avoid their responsibilities. No fair!
By antidope on March 12, 2010 11:16 AM
this is a case of developer eminent domain; skip the legal process, ruin the neighbor and then take the ppty.
brilliant.
By Heather on March 12, 2010 11:31 AM
Bob Guskind's last article was on this very subject. The woman he interviewed, Phyllis, is on Bedford Avenue every day. She can tell you a great deal about how often this has happened. Her own house, (one of the few large brick federal-style houses on Havemeyer street), was completely destroyed by her neighbor's construction. True, the land is now worth more than these houses, but the entire fabric of the neighborhood is unraveled with their absence.
By Action Jackson on March 12, 2010 11:44 AM
"That's only about the... twentieth time that has happened in the Burg?"
Add a zero to that number and you'd be more correct. Add two zeros and you'll be good for the Boro, perhaps a bit low.
By WBer on March 12, 2010 11:48 AM
True, we don't know whether there were problems here before work began, etc.
However, proving negligence should not be that hard. The development site has dug a huge hole next to this building, which probably has a foundation that goes down about 10' or so below grade (a few foot below cellar level). The development site is responsible for underpinning if they dig below the foundation of a neighboring building. The extent and quality of the underpinning is pretty easy to judge.
BTW - the vacate order goes back to last July. This type of stuff is very common in Williamsburg and just about everywhere else that has boomed over the past few years. Like Williamsburg, place like Greenwood Heights, the South Slope, etc., etc. include a lot of old housing stock that is easily compromised by careless or negligent work going on next door.
In this case, a few families (I assume) have been forced out of their home for more than half a year, and the owner isn't earning any rent. Even if the developer next door (or his contractors) are found liable, it will take many months or years to resolve. The building Heather mentioned has been vacated for YEARS.
By Heather on March 12, 2010 11:53 AM
Yeah, in that case I think the guy next door went broke.
By bfarwell on March 12, 2010 12:34 PM
Does anyone else see those little white tabs running across the cracks near the top of the window? If those are those little crack-measuring scales, perhaps this owner was lucky and did some documentation of existing conditions before this shit went down.
Is there insurance one can buy against stuff like this, or is it ostensibly covered by regular homeowner's?
By pacificist on March 12, 2010 1:17 PM
"crack-measuring scales" bfarwell? i thought they were band-aids. ;)
By denton on March 12, 2010 1:23 PM
"I assume it will be very difficult for the owner of that property to prove the developer of the adjacent property liable for the damage, no?"
DH, there's a very simple way for both parties to protect themselves with a lil' foresight. Developers usually do it but then they lose it in a case like this... it's called a 'condition survey'. Basically, you photograph and or videotape every square inch of the building, inside and out, before work commences.
If the homeowner squawks about something that the developer maybe did or didn't, and is trying to take advantage of the developer, then the developer can produce the survey as evidence.
If the homeowner did the same, he could produce his survey to show that before work began the property was undamaged.
I've done these for both sides of the fence.
By daveinbedstuy on March 12, 2010 1:44 PM
There's white "tape" of some sort at the top of the mac Donough street properties. I assume it's there to measure any kind of separation or settling.
By Brownstones Half Off on March 12, 2010 2:02 PM
UNDERPINNING???????????????????????????????????
***Bid half off peak comps***
By denton on March 12, 2010 2:38 PM
yeah dibs, they're called crack meters. They show if a crack is opening more than it was when installed. They're pretty cheap, actually, engineering firms buy them by the box.
By daveinbedstuy on March 12, 2010 2:52 PM
"yeah dibs, they're called crack meters."
Where can I get a box, denton? I'd like to meter a few cracks.
You have to come out to a bar called Veracruzana on 46th St between 5th & 6th (Little Brazil). The bartender chicas are all very hot and there's one that sticks the "church key" down the back of her pants.
By WBer on March 12, 2010 3:03 PM
Crack monitors were probably installed after the fact in order to make sure that shoring was doing its job.
By IMBY on March 12, 2010 10:52 PM
There currently is a stop work order on the developer.
http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/PropertyProfileOverviewServlet?bin=3855756&requestid=2
Architect: NATALIYA DONSKOY
Business Name: ND ARCHITECTURE & DESIGN
Business Phone: 718-701-2638
Business Address: 66 KNICKERBOCKER AVENUE Brooklyn NY 11237
ECB violations:
Specific Violation Condition(s) and Remedy:
FAILURE TO SAFEGUARD ALL PERSON AND PROPERTY AFFECTED BY CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS. NOTED: AT TIME OF INSPECTION JOB SITE CLOSED. OBSERVED BARRICADES FOR TEMP PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY IN DISARRAY AND NO REFLECTIVE
Specific Violation Condition(s) and Remedy:
27-1031(A)(B). FAILURE TO ADEQUATELY SUPPORT ADJOINING GROUND AND STRUCTURES AFFECTED BY EXCAVATION OPERATIONS 310067192 UNDERPINNING. NOTED CONCRETE UNDERPINNING 1)NOT AS PER PLAN BULGERING AT EXP 2 152 SO 4 ST
Specific Violation Condition(s) and Remedy:
PUBLIC NUISANCE/DAMPER PLACE.CONSTRUCTION FENCE #310067192 ERECTED ATFRONT OF CONSTRUCTION SITE W/BARBED WIRE INSTALLED ON IT SIZE APPROX 150 LINEAR FEET.BARBED WIRE,DEFECTIVE ( )AT SEVERAL PLACES
Specific Violation Condition(s) and Remedy:
27-1009A. FAILURE TO SAFEGUARD PUBLIC AND PROPERTY AFFECTED BY CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS. NOTED ALT2#310067192 1)AT FRONT GATE EXP 1 AT SO 4 STREET GATES SWING TO PUBLIC WALKWAY. 2)AT INTERIOR EXP 4 REAR OF 357 B
Specific Violation Condition(s) and Remedy:
FAILURE TO FILE 10F TR-1 PRIOR TO START OF CONTROLLED WORK. (CONCRETEUNDERPINNING). NOTED PROCESS OF UNDERPINNING TO 152 SO 4 ST FOOTING/FOUNDATION AT 152 EXP 3. REMEDY: STOP WORK FILE TR-1 FORTHWITH.
Specific Violation Condition(s) and Remedy:
FAILURE TO MAIN ADEQUATE HOUSEKEEPING PER SECTION REQUIREMENTS.CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL AND DEBRIS NOT PROPERLY STORED OR REMOVED FROM SITE.NOTED:EXCESSIVE AMOUNTS OF DEBRIS THROUGHOUT ENTIRE SITE.CONSISTING OF RA
Specific Violation Condition(s) and Remedy:
B206,BC3304.8 MISSCELL VIOLATIONS,EXCAVATION UNIT ADEQUATELY DRAINED OF RAIN WATER AND OR SUBSURFACE WATER.NOTED:CONT/OWNER FAILED TO ADEQUATELY DRAIN SITE OF ANY RAIN OR SUBFACE WATER.SUBSURFACE WATER EXISTING
Specific Violation Condition(s) and Remedy:
JOB SITE FENCE AT THIS CONSTRUCTION SITE HAS BEEN CROWNED W/RAZOR WIREWHICH WAS OBSERVED TO BE HANGING OVER THE TEMPORARY SIDEWALK ON SOUTH4TH ST AT APPROX 7' IN PLACES. REMEDY:REMOVE RAZOR WIRE FROM THE FENCE
Specific Violation Condition(s) and Remedy:
FAILURE TO PROVIDE/POST DOT PERMIT FOR SIDEWALK/STREET CLOSING. NOTED:AT TIME OF INSPECTION JOBSITE FENCE ERECTED ALONG THE CURB OCCUPYING THE SIDEWALK, TEMP PEDESTRIAN WALK IN USE IN STREET NO DOT PERMITS POST
Specific Violation Condition(s) and Remedy:
FAILURE TO SAFEGUARD ALL PERSONS AND PROPERTY AFFECTED BY CONSTRUCTIONOPERATIONS. EMERGENCY REPAIR WORK IN PROGRESS W/LOADING 30' STEEL I BEAMS ON TO SITE W/NO FLAG PERSONS AT SIDEWALK/WALKWAY LEVEL INSTRUCTING
Specific Violation Condition(s) and Remedy:
FAILURE TO SAFEGUARD ALL PERSONS AND PROPERTY AFFECTED BY EXCAVATION CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS NOTED EXCAVATION AND SHORING DONE AT NORTH SIDE OF SITE WITH 20LX1 1/2W CRACK AND LARGE HOLE 4LX12WX12DEEP IN PATH
Specific Violation Condition(s) and Remedy:
FAILURE TO PROVIDE APPROVED PLANS AT TIME OF INSPECTION. SITE PARTIALLY EXCAVATED APPROX 16' BELOW GRADE. FORM WORK PLACED IN CENTER OF EXCAVATED GRADE W/OUT FOUNDATION PLANS ON LOCATION. ALT 3, 310067183.
Seems from the violations it would appear to be a less than stellar crew at work. The way this kind of disaster goes down is that DOB issues a vacate order and a violation for failure to maintain building to the damaged property/owner placing the immediate safety issues/responsibility for repairs in their hands. In this case the scaffold sidewalkshed company the damaged property owner hired got additional multiple violations.
The developer gets his stop work order violation. Someone also has to pay for the installation of the steel rakers, those inclined struts used to stabilize the damaged buildings. May or may not be the developer who ends up paying. Once the building is considered secure the DOB installs plastic crack monitors that will indicate whether the building is still shifting. It is my experience that they will check on these monitors for awhile and then forget about it.
For you South Slopers familiar with the vacate order of 1504 8th Avenue (still vacant) and the damage to multiple adjoining properties (still cracking) along 16th Street, I thought you should know that the civil lawsuit is still ongoing, now in it's 4th year. Justice is extremely slow in Brooklyn.
Did you know that a developer/contractor can take out insurance in order to get his permits and then let the policy expire immediately? The DOB (unlike the DOT) does not keep track of coverage until the permits expire. Then all the contractor needs to do is renew the policy, get their permits renewed, and let it expire again. They can save $$$$ as long as no one makes a claim.
By daveinbedstuy on March 13, 2010 9:36 AM
IMBY...sounds like the ultimate level of inefficiency and incompetence WRT the way the DOB actually works. Many people are to blame here. The homeowner might get a faster settlement if he sues the DOB.
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.

Has DOB issued a vacate order?