The firm that prepared the EIS was specifically chosen because of its record of holding to the letter of the law and getting EIS' approved. But for the AY EIS, the letter of the law is the City's Environmental Quality Review guidelines. These are written as guidelines and there is latitude for interpretation. As an interested citizen, I did take a look at both the EIS and the CEQR guidelines. I think that the way ESDC and its consultants interpreted the CEQR guidelines was deliberately slanted towards findings of low environmental impact.

Sparafucile, I also think that the process followed on the project - deliberately skirting and avoiding city reviews that are mandatory for other large development, the use of eminent domain, sweetheart deal, payoffs to community groups, etc. - has ultimately been detrimental to the project's success. People are infuriated by what are perceived to be backroom deals. I also think that while density is good, the project as planned and designed was too dense, and too much of an enclave, with little connection to the surrounding communities.

I agree it is unfortunate that development projects are litigated so often, but in this case, where the public process was so transparently abused by ESDC and the developer, I think extended litigation was inevitable. FCRC is a proven, savvy developer, but AY was walking around with a big "Sue Me" sticker on its back from the get go.

Posted by: architect66 at November 19, 2009 11:31 AM in response to Brooklyn Speaks to File Its First AY Lawsuit

welcome to Brooklyn.

Posted by: architect66 at November 16, 2009 3:08 PM in response to Development Watch: S#!tbox on Underhill

Are you saying that people from Houston and Jacksonville have no taste? It looks like this building is in Brooklyn to me.

Posted by: architect66 at November 13, 2009 11:13 AM in response to 574 4th Avenue: The Full Monty

Who buys a property like this to rent out?

Posted by: architect66 at November 13, 2009 9:59 AM in response to Big Turnout for 437 Waverly Auction

DIBS - it's 14' + a few inches wide. Every so often my wife and I fantasize about ditching our tenants and finding a 1 family situation - we looked at this one, and ultimately decided that it was too narrow.

Posted by: architect66 at November 10, 2009 11:05 AM in response to Waverly Shell Coming Up for Auction

benson - stepping out of character for a minute and into my real world persona: having worked on infrastructure projects across the US, I can tell you that the major cost drivers we face in NYC are time and logistics. Due to the density of our city and the age and lack of redundancy of our existing infrastructure, things just take a lot longer here, and that adds up to $$. Labor costs are maybe 10-15% higher for union labor in the city.

Posted by: architect66 at November 6, 2009 9:57 AM in response to New Kosciuszko Bridge Won't Come Cheap

Hmm. A billion for a bridge, or a billion for a stadium? Sounds like a no-brainer to me, right?

Posted by: architect66 at November 6, 2009 9:42 AM in response to New Kosciuszko Bridge Won't Come Cheap

I've seen a lot worse, but this strikes me as being pretty bland.

Posted by: architect66 at November 3, 2009 4:23 PM in response to Development Watch: 527 Lincoln Place

Oh - thanks WBer - I was always curious about that dynamic. Opens up questions about housing typology - I think the point of the large scale development isn't to take advantage of existing demand in the neighborhood, but to entice people to come, for whatever reason (waterfront amenities, skyline views, etc.)

Posted by: architect66 at November 3, 2009 10:37 AM in response to Pelli Tower Proposed for Greenpoint Waterfront

Funny how nobody actually cares about the architecture - it's all in the entourage. My personal fave is the suburban style lawn in the middle of the street. If you erased those funny blue things sticking up in the middle, it could be a nice development.

Anyhow, I guess this is what happens when you squash down the zoning further away from the waterfront. In Greenpoint, you do have the contextual zoning inland. I understand (though I am not local to the area) that there was a kind of compromise struck - the "community" wanted to preserve low scale (40 foot high streetwall) development in the areas that were already built up, so they got their R6B, and in return, more density was permitted along the waterfront. Fun times.

Posted by: architect66 at November 3, 2009 10:15 AM in response to Pelli Tower Proposed for Greenpoint Waterfront

Just a personal preference, but I love the sensation of turning on a light at its source. Lots of lamps for me. The best use of recessed lighting is to light a feature on a wall - a piece of art for example. Not so great for general lighting. I also would second the sentiment that Bobjohn is a wise man indeed, even though ceiling fans are better for managing comfort than they are at providing light.

Posted by: architect66 at October 29, 2009 11:59 AM in response to Thoughts on Recessed Lighting

great pic.

Posted by: architect66 at October 22, 2009 9:42 AM in response to Thursday Links

JimHill we are not pissing. As a professional, and as one who has been pursuing this for a while, I feel it is important to convey accurate information about building code requirements and enforcement to the 10 readers who will venture down to this point in the thread. So thanks for elaborating on the NYS/NYC code issue.

I should note that there are several examples of NYC approved pre-fab construction. There is a major manufacturer of pre-fab residential construction in the Brooklyn Navy Yard, and they have fabricated projects in NYC. The problem is that they have a minimum manufacturing run of 20,000 SF.

Even though NYS code may govern manufactured homes, there is still a gauntlet of city approvals required, including some that go through DOB (foundation, for instance.) Your state code citation notwithstanding, there are still some real bureaucratic obstacles to getting small prefab projects through the DOB, and anyone who wants to pursue such a project should go into it with their eyes open.

Posted by: architect66 at October 19, 2009 5:54 PM in response to To Build, or Not

Gotta say - babs has a point. Nobody could do a Peter Cooper Village / Stuy Town scale development today by themselves, but we could easily have a Battery Park City or Riverside South style development with numerous developers following a master plan.

Posted by: architect66 at October 19, 2009 2:47 PM in response to One More Atlantic Yards Lawsuit

JimHill - We are on the same side of this, but in the interest of not misleading readers of this blog, NYS Code does not ever supersede the NYC Building Code. See NYS Code Chapter 1, Section 102.2 and NYC Code 101.2. All construction in NYC including 1 and 2 family dwellings is subject to the NYC Building Code, and is subject to review by the NYC Department of Buildings. Sometimes, where NYC code is not specific, NYS building code applies in addition to NYC code. However, requirements of NYC code are never replaced by more lenient requirements of NYS codes.

It would be wonderful if prefab home manufacturers could develop a NYC code compliant solution. I've offered to help a few to do it over the years. I don't think it would be so hard, and lord knows I have no shortage of interested clients. Certainly it would only improve the landscape and housing stock in Brooklyn.

Posted by: architect66 at October 19, 2009 1:33 PM in response to To Build, or Not

SD - I think that the main advantage to building ground up is that you will have some control over the kinds of spaces available. Brownstone and traditional house layouts can be limiting, especially for space that have detailed or specific programmatic and lighting requirements like art studios. Depending on where you build, you can also have a building that matches with your aesthetic sensibilities (you are pretty much SOL on that account if you want to build in a landmark district.)

Building ground up will take longer, and yes, there will be additional approvals required. However, I am working on a "no frills" project right now (ground floor commercial space with 1 apartment above.) The owner has a very tiny construction budget, and we are challenged to make things as simple as we can, but it looks like it will come in on budget. The kind of thing you are talking about doing can be done.

Also - don't waste your time with the prefab kits unless you are looking to build outside NYC. They do not meet NYC code requirements without substantial (and expensive) modifications.

Posted by: architect66 at October 19, 2009 9:59 AM in response to To Build, or Not

Maybe it wasn't such a great suggestion?

Posted by: architect66 at October 9, 2009 11:01 AM in response to Atlantic Yards: Shaya Gets the Boot

In Brooklyn, you can take care of just about all of your hot water needs from spring through fall with a properly sized evacuated tube solar hot water system and a well-insulated tank. During the winter time, you will likely need a boost. If you factor in the available tax credits and state sponsored incentives, "payback" should be about 7 - 10 years.

Payback on a boiler system is much harder to gauge. It depends on the answer to a number of questions such as: Is your building well-insulated? What kind of windows do you have? How well does the boiler you are replacing perform? How big is your home?

If you think about it, the whole concept of "payback" is framed in such a way to discourage people from buying into innovative technologies and systems. Even something as basic as a more efficient boiler that will save hundreds of dollars a heating season is asked to "pay for itself" in a way that conventional or luxury products and systems are not. Isn't that silly?

Posted by: architect66 at October 1, 2009 4:02 PM in response to Solar Hot Water, High-Efficiency

$150 a foot, a skillful carpenter, and a lot of compromise over the course of a year to get in. A lifetime of labor after that to make it a "publishable showpiece." Or $350 a foot to do that now.

Posted by: architect66 at September 29, 2009 2:15 PM in response to House of the Day: 329 Adelphi Street Reduced

As a daily bike commuter over the Brooklyn Bridge, I would gladly trade the worry and fear of collision with a pedestrian for a dedicated lane on the traffic deck of the bridge. Pedestrian congestion on the bridge is exacerbated by the sheer variety of pedestrians - you have your slow moving tourists who gobble up real estate in packs, your nutball photographers taking every cliched shot, your walking commuters, and even the occasional idiot jogger (don't they know that they're going to get stuck behind a slow moving tourist?) There is inevitable spillover into the bike lane, and anyone riding their bike over the bridge has to understand that there will be a few close calls.

On the other hand, as anyone who has ridden a bike through the city streets knows, it can be very dangerous to share the road with aggressive New York drivers. I think that we got our reputation as insane people because it takes a special breed to tangle with the traffic on NY streets.

Posted by: architect66 at September 29, 2009 12:07 PM in response to Bikes and Bodies on the Brooklyn Bridge

Without commenting on the qualities that make one a good neighbor or good citizen or good blogger or whatever - every time the DOB approves something that is clearly illegal (and yes, it is clearly illegal and has been for years to put a curb cut in this location,) it makes business much more difficult for us architects with a sense of ethics and professionalism (the majority, I think.)

If the owner had come to me and said "I want to put a curb cut in here" - I would have had to tell her that she would need to go through the board of standards and appeals and a public hearing with the community board in order to put one in. Those are the rules, plain and simple. Of course, if someone else told her sure, no problem, we can just put in the curb cut as-of-right, she would likely hire that architect instead of me.

It happened all the time with Scarano, whose unique and inventive and ultimately illegal readings of the zoning rules were the foundation for a thriving business. If I were a developer, of course I would hire the architect who promises the most floor area!

In any case, all we can ask of the DOB is to fairly and consistently enforce building code and zoning laws, and when they do not, call it to their attention.

Posted by: architect66 at September 23, 2009 3:28 PM in response to A Curb Cut on Landmarked St. Marks Avenue? Really?

Curb cuts are not legal in the R6B zoning district for lots under 40' wide. This has been the case since contextual zoning rules were adopted in the late 1980's. The permit should not have been issued without going through the Board of Standards and Appeals. Seems like a simple matter of complying with the law.

Posted by: architect66 at September 23, 2009 10:53 AM in response to A Curb Cut on Landmarked St. Marks Avenue? Really?

PHR - Unless the neighbor went to the Board of Standards and Appeals, it is likely that their plan is illegal. I am assuming that when you say 1860's brownstone, you mean that the property is a rowhouse, on a lot less than 40 feet wide, on one of the landmarked PH blocks.

Dating back to the implementation of the contextual zoning of the 1980's, well before the district was landmarked, new curb cuts were prohibited in such areas and on such blocks. I would question whether the work was actually approved by the DOB.

Anyhow - your best bet is to go through landmarks as vinca suggests. This is not an issue of a storm window being painted the wrong color or a light fixture not being quite right.

Posted by: architect66 at September 23, 2009 10:16 AM in response to DOB v. Landmarks

fsrq - so glad you don't get to make the rules. We can all demonize whomsoever we please, whether it is rapacious developers or knee-jerk preservationists. Isn't it more fun that way?

Posted by: architect66 at September 15, 2009 4:15 PM in response to Atlantic Yards Arena: Subject to Change

bxgirl - I don't believe I have ever commented on the aesthetics of either the Gehry images or the SHoP images. The thing for me about AY is that some people want an arena there so badly that they are willing to sacrifice just about anything to get it. I think that the General Project Plan is unwise, and does not give enough back to the public, and that the costs of the project as planned will outweigh the public benefits, especially when one considers the potential for the site. But obviously not everyone agrees.

Since you asked about a design aesthetic, I like buildings that serve their purpose well, and express that service through their structure. In the case of the arena, I think both the SHoP proposal and the Gehry proposal serve their master well in that they both aspire to be notable works of civic architecture - you only need to look at the Ellerbe Becket response to see how a mediocre building would utterly fail at that location. But on the other hand, both projects are like beautifully designed and crafted dresses - they can be gorgeous as ideas, but they cannot succeed unless they fit the model perfectly.

In this case, the stadium (both the Gehry and the SHoP version) is forced to stand pretty much alone due to the planning priorities of the developer. That may be OK in the suburbs, but it is not the cure for what ails our Brooklyn.

Posted by: architect66 at September 15, 2009 11:51 AM in response to Atlantic Yards Arena: Subject to Change

havelc - maybe people are inclined to throw darts at the architecture because Ratner cynically used star architects to sell a deeply flawed project to the public while circumventing the public process that all other developers must endure. The other thing is that AY has always been about the arena - I don't think it takes a sophisticated observer to see that buildings and projects like this one will always be lightning rods. Personally, I see amusement and curiosity in the comments, and doubt that the architects would be offended by them.

I have to say that the recent parade of revised renderings suggests desperation on the part of the developer. The GPP right now - sucks. Maybe we can all hope that we'll eventually get something that doesn't suck someday.

Posted by: architect66 at September 15, 2009 10:01 AM in response to Atlantic Yards Arena: Subject to Change

I don't think anyone at SHoP contemplated this work in black and white way. Even a firm like SHoP is impacted by this economy - in fact, since a substantial part of their practice is for private sector clients, I'd bet that they have been more impacted than most. If I had to speculate, (and I can't resist, so I must,) I'd say that SHoP's decision may have included factors such as staff retention, opportunity for design research, the opportunity to learn a new building type, and exposure to a much broader (and richer) client base, and perhaps most importantly, the opportunity to one-up Frank Gehry.

The other thing that I'm sure SHoP considered was that despite the Ratner Atrocities in downtown Brooklyn, the NY Times building is a good building - one of the best new tall buildings in the City this decade, I'd say.

So all that said, Right on ENY on "ethics." I think that the now non-existent Ratner plan for Atlantic Yards is doo-doo, and an abuse of the public trust. Hopefully it will be changed for the better, and maybe SHoP will get to build their arena somewhere else.

Posted by: architect66 at September 14, 2009 5:03 PM in response to Closing Bell: DDDB's Letter to SHoP

Yes, just think if the MTA had accepted a higher bid for the development rights! There could have been trains and trains and trains!

Posted by: architect66 at September 11, 2009 10:44 AM in response to IBO Reports Net Loss from Atlantic Yards Arena

The traffic will suck regardless of how car owners behave. It already does. And it will chew up more of our streets. It will come up Flatbush, up Atlantic, across Washington and Vanderbilt Avenues, and will spill over onto parallel streets too.

We had all better hope that people start driving zero emission vehicles, or our beautiful downtown Brooklyn air will get even worse. (We are already ranked among the worst in the nation - see http://greenbrooklyn.com/air-up-there-american-lung-association-gives-kings-county-d-grade/2008/05/01/)

Posted by: architect66 at September 10, 2009 6:12 PM in response to Ourousoff Weighs In On Barclay's Center Design

Providing free off site parking and transportation - say in Jamaica, which is a 10 minute shot on the LIRR - would be a simple way to reduce congestion. But even though it is about as convenient to Mass Transit as can be, it will be a traffic nightmare. Get ready for tons of new parking facilities downtown and in the non-landmarked parts of Prospect Heights - oh, wait - they'll just park on the rest of the development site for the next several years. I guess that will be fun.

I've always thought that the worst thing about AY (other than the rapacious abuse of public funds and processes and the willfully pollyanna-ish financing scheme (sure we'll build Gehry apartment buildings for $300 a foot!)) was the master plan and proposed density. Ouroussoff still defends it in print, but really, it was destined to be an enclave and a wedge between FG and PH. (We are really missing that Carlton Avenue Bridge right about now.)

I like SHoP - they are a firm at the top of their game, local, and a savvy choice for Ratner for the project, but I'm not sure that this is an improvement over the Gehry design for the Arena. However, if it presages a more modest development with active recreational areas that is better connected to FG and PH, then it is a good thing.

Posted by: architect66 at September 10, 2009 12:59 PM in response to Ourousoff Weighs In On Barclay's Center Design

Landmarks review and approval is always dodgy. There are no hard and fast rules and therefore no certainty. Since every building is unique, every application is subject to a unique judgment. When you talk to Landmarks, they pride themselves on their "flexibility" when it comes to reviewing applications. Substitute "whimsy" for flexibility and you get a good idea about what the process feels like. I'm not at all surprised that they have been beating you up over a light fixture.

The Landmarks staff who review submissions are required to have Masters or PhD's in Historic Preservation. Aside from that, very little experience is required. You may luck out and have your application reviewed by an experienced preservationist with a subtle understanding of context who is capable of giving you sound advice about the details and requirements for approval. On the other hand, you may have your application reviewed by someone very junior - fresh out of school with absolutely no understanding of what you are facing as a homeowner, and quite likely with a personal agenda or ideology or worse, someone who is a frustrated designer. Good luck if you get the latter. Sad to say, but these people do exist.

That said it is always a good idea to submit your project to landmarks as early as you possibly can.

Oh - and the DOB is worse, if only because it takes 2-3 weeks to get a 20 minute appointment with a plan examiner, and longer if you need to talk to someone higher up. It was probably not the smartest move for your architect to self-certify. I've heard that almost all of the self-certs in Brooklyn are being audited these days, thanks to the Scarano monkey-business.

Hang in there. I'm sorry that your architect isn't giving you as much attention as you deserve - really - you shouldn't have to go to Brownstoner for this, but it sometimes takes an outrageously long time to get an approval for work here in the city.

Posted by: architect66 at July 7, 2009 6:52 PM in response to Approvals Sob Story - Normal?

Who wants to send their kid to a school where the infighting is so vicious and pronounced? Good test scores are an important consideration, but so is a stable learning environment. Discipline is a tried and true way to provide that kind of environment, but it appears that the principal was a bad tempered individual, or to be kinder, maybe the kind of person who likes to rock the boat and shake the trees. Good riddance to that. I hope the next principal is up to the task, and has better luck. He or She will need it.

Posted by: architect66 at June 29, 2009 5:04 PM in response to Race, Class and P.S. 20's Controversial Principal

Don't forget, it snows here in the city, and you should plan to be able to shovel out your driveway when the time comes. If your pavers are large, heavy, and cover everything, you should be alright, but it can be rather painful trying to move snow off of loose gravel.

Posted by: architect66 at June 10, 2009 3:49 PM in response to Set pavers in concrete or gravel

Well, obviously this was going to happen, with or without the support of people in the neighborhood. Did anyone really believe that the people who brought you the Atlantic Terminal, Atlantic Center, and Metrotech would do any different?

Anyway, it is pretty common knowledge that the fate of sports arenas is to be demolished. Maybe we can hope for a park there in another 40 years, or another shopping mall, or maybe some housing.

http://www.arcaro.org/tension/album/usair.htm
http://www.forgotten-ny.com/STREET%20SCENES/Dodgers/dodgers.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7xjSdABoi4&feature=related

Or maybe we can get something better and more useful sooner...

Posted by: architect66 at June 9, 2009 11:39 AM in response to Ouroussoff, Tell Us How You Really Feel

Well - I could be confused about the building location. Block and lot don't exactly match, but following the link given by Mr. B to the DOB, etc, shows that there is a recent New Building application on the lot...and it says...well anyway.

Soil borings are usually done prior to filing with the DOB, since a soil analysis is required for approval, so there could still be something cooking

So keep the dream alive.

Posted by: architect66 at April 29, 2009 10:42 AM in response to Prepping for Something Big at City Tech

It will be a 20 story building, 195 ft tall according to DOB records. http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/JB2ScheduleAServlet?requestid=10&passjobnumber=301037090&passdocnumber=11&allbin=3000244

It appears to be a dorm with some accessory offices and lounges.

Posted by: architect66 at April 29, 2009 10:23 AM in response to Prepping for Something Big at City Tech

The most effective way to reduce the summer heat gain is to shade the glass from the exterior. It might be practical and fun to build a temporary exterior shade that can be removed during colder months, if you don't mind climbing up there. Picture a sort of south-facing sail that arches over the skylight.

Films will help some, but will not entirely solve your problem.

Posted by: architect66 at April 28, 2009 6:30 PM in response to Skylight Heat Mitigation?

Feel free to call on us - Cycle Architecture
(www.cycle-a.com)

Posted by: architect66 at April 24, 2009 5:38 PM in response to architect for new construction

Let me be gentle about this. I get calls from the contractors who promise $150/ft - but when the time comes to bid for the work, they come in much higher. I have to conclude that they are closer to telling the truth the second time they are asked.

For all of its potential - and I agree with JimHill about this - there are only a few successfully built custom prefab projects in NYC that I know of - there's the switch building on Norfolk St., and there is a Lot Ek project that has a "quasi" prefab piece. I am sure that both of those projects were nowhere near $150/ft.

For mass-prefab, there is the company in the Navy Yard. They specialize in low-income housing, and have a minimum 20,000 sf production run. Anyhow - it sure would be good if someone stuck their neck out and blazed the trail.

Posted by: architect66 at April 22, 2009 4:11 PM in response to The Cost of New Construction?

BH - If it does actually cost less to do as you say, and build new on vacant land, wouldn't the shell cost less than the vacant land? I suppose the equation would depend a lot on the particular problems inherent in the building. If the existing building is truly distressed and the work required is extensive, you might have a point. Still want to see the $150/ft new construction...

Posted by: architect66 at April 22, 2009 11:31 AM in response to The Cost of New Construction?

I want to see the $150/sf new construction!

Posted by: architect66 at April 22, 2009 10:40 AM in response to The Cost of New Construction?

I don't agree with Boerum Hill. For residential construction, new is substantially more expensive than renovation. There are major expenses associated with new construction that you don't have with renovation - things like foundation work, underpinning, new utility services, major structural work, building enclosure (walls, roofs, windows, insulation, waterproofing, etc.). There are also higher engineering and inspection costs associated with new building.

That said, if you are building new, you have flexibility and freedom that you might not have with a renovation, especially in integrating mechanical systems. In theory, you should also have an easier time with finishes, since in new construction the walls are expected to be straight and plumb, and the floors are supposed to be level.

Swade, I think that you would save both time and money renovating the crappy house, but you might have to compromise on the design and functionality you envision. I'll go out on a limb and say that a "typical" renovation will cost you maybe on the order of magnitude of 1/2 to 2/3 what a similar new building would cost.

Posted by: architect66 at April 22, 2009 9:46 AM in response to The Cost of New Construction?

So the radiators being equal, I guess it is really important to consider the boiler performance and controls. Based on my knowledge (which is pretty basic) a system that fires on and off more frequently is one that uses more fuel than one that fires less frequently.

Posted by: architect66 at April 15, 2009 9:39 AM in response to Aluminum baseboard vs. cast iron

yes, master plvmber - that is true, and I've enjoyed your posts on energy efficient boilers - but won't a cast iron radiator hold heat much longer than an aluminum radiator? Aluminum heats up and cools down much faster. Cast iron is a much better heat sink than aluminum and stays warmer longer. Wouldn't savings result when the boiler is called upon less frequently? Wouldn't a more compact cast iron radiator do the same work as longer and bulkier aluminum radiators?

Posted by: architect66 at April 14, 2009 6:48 PM in response to Aluminum baseboard vs. cast iron

Zoned A/C will save you operating $$. These units are a good fit with small buildings such as brownstones because they are easier to integrate into the building and will allow you design flexibility. You will definitely save on ductwork, but as an overall installation, when you include refrigerant piping and condensate drain hookups, the cost is comparable to conventional A/C.

If you are totally gutting, you can insulate front, back, roof, and cellar, and replace the windows. Then you could even install a heat pump with the same air handling system. They are made by the same manufacutrers (Mitsubishi, Daikin, LG, etc.,) and you could save beaucoups.

Posted by: architect66 at April 14, 2009 10:15 AM in response to Ductless A/C Systems vs. Central

Misty - since you will be filing for a new C of O, the existing conditions shouldn't handicap you at the Dept of Buildings. There is another issue with the taxes - actually in your favor - 1 and 2 family buildings are taxed at a lower rate than 4 families. I do suggest that you talk to your favorite design professionals and your lawyer before you make a commitment.

Posted by: architect66 at April 10, 2009 10:29 AM in response to C of O Question

Depending on what you need done, it could be more or less than 10%. You may also need to factor in some engineering costs, in particular if you are going to be doing an addition or adding new central A/C.

I think RG was lucky indeed to have a good contractor. The things that cost the most time and money in these kinds of projects are mistakes.

Posted by: architect66 at April 6, 2009 3:36 PM in response to Architect's fee?

Looks to me like they are going through landmarks first before going full-on with the plans. Nothing filed at the DOB yet...

Posted by: architect66 at April 6, 2009 12:52 PM in response to St. Joseph's Planning Gymnasium for Clinton Avenue

Try contacting Al Frishman [amfrish@aeonsolar.com]

Posted by: architect66 at April 2, 2009 6:38 PM in response to flat roof for solar panels

Parkslopemom - If you have a sunny spot, a solar array can achieve simple payback in about 8-12 years in Brooklyn, provided that electricity costs don't go down and you take advantage of the NYSERDA benefits. Other factors include the solar technology you use, and whether you are paying out of pocket or financing the installation.

Posted by: architect66 at April 2, 2009 9:35 AM in response to flat roof for solar panels