Scarano: Licensed to Ill?
New York has a piece this week about how Robert Scarano may get his architecture license revoked. That’s not really news, but it gives the mag an excuse to rate Scarano’s buildings according to a “Shoddy Meter” (53 Java, where a truck recently overturned and damaged a neighboring building, gets top shoddy honors, beating out…
New York has a piece this week about how Robert Scarano may get his architecture license revoked. That’s not really news, but it gives the mag an excuse to rate Scarano’s buildings according to a “Shoddy Meter” (53 Java, where a truck recently overturned and damaged a neighboring building, gets top shoddy honors, beating out 333 Carroll Street, above). In the most interesting bit of the article, Scarano defends himself by saying his work as an architect doesn’t have bearing on all aspects of individual construction jobs. To say that the architect has some all-encompassing role in the overall construction activity is not the way that this process happens, he says. I am confident that the work we do is proper, accurate, complete, and meets all of the requirements of the zoning resolutions and build codes. (Numerous architects have made the same point in this forum.) And so it remains to be seen whether the state’s education department agrees with him.
De Blasio Continues To Go After Scarano [Brownstoner]
He Built This Borough (Badly) [NY Magazine]
If he loses his license it should only be for knowingly false filing plans that he knew were not in compliance with existing zoning regulations. The look of his designs is irrelevant and the the quality of the construction and construction accidents are 100% not the architects responsibility.
I kind of think given your constant anti-Scarano rants, Brownstoner should actually acknowledge this obvious and easily confirmed point.
I believe they exceeded the FAR by counting the cellar as a basement.
Why doesn’t it comply with zoning? If they went with height factor zoning instead of quality housing, you can go this high in R6.
S. Johanna Robledo should have done a little more in depth research. 333 does not comply with zoning which is why there is still a swo on the property. The developer can either remove the top story or leave it up and call it decorative steel but unless the developer takes this to the BSA and they decide in his favor no one is going to be living on that top floor.
How about changing the name of this web site to ihatescarano.com? Given the obsession with this man, such a domain name would seem fitting.
“I am confident that the work we do is proper, accurate, complete, and meets all of the requirements of the zoning resolutions and build codes.â€
That’s the minimum work requirements of any architect! Not doing that means that he would not be doing his job. That’s like a chef defending his work by saying “I am confident that our food is sufficiently cooked to kill all pathogens.” That still doesn’t make him a good chef. Just because his plans meet code doesn’t make Scarano a good (or even decent) architect. Bad architecture can still meet code, Scarano’s living proof.
What neighborhood is that building in? I don’t know what the top is supposed to be finished in but I think that’s pretty cool!
Frank Lloyd Wright and Scarano ???!!! That is the most ridiculous comparison I have ever heard.
Could someone please explain the relationship between the architect and the developer once the project is under construction?
I can’t say I care for most of (if not all) Mr. Scarano’s buildings, but lets be fair it may not be his fault. Maybe he IS the go to guy for cheap developers who play fast and loose with zoning. But does that mean he has anything to do with the unsafe conditions or shoddy work?
While there is a “lie down with dogs” argument to be made there, it may not be as clear cut.
I hope someone on the board (other than Mr. Scarano himself) might shed some light on the situation.