Fire on 23rd Street
[nggallery id=”42706″ template=galleryview] At around 2:30 pm on Wednesday a raging fire broke out in the abandoned building on the corner of 23rd St and 5th Avenue in Greenwood Heights. After about twenty minutes of spewing out giant flames from its top the fire was extinguished. About four firemen had to use a chainsaw and…
[nggallery id=”42706″ template=galleryview]
At around 2:30 pm on Wednesday a raging fire broke out in the abandoned building on the corner of 23rd St and 5th Avenue in Greenwood Heights. After about twenty minutes of spewing out giant flames from its top the fire was extinguished. About four firemen had to use a chainsaw and axe to bust down the boarded doors before being able to get into the building. The whole area was surrounded with police, firemen and onlookers. GMAP
Ok…I’ve got no idea what R6B is!
But I do understand your 12:42..I just disagree that stucco/metal/glass boxes don’t fit. I like to see the marked difference along the blocks, whether that be in height, materials, or occupancy.
And “d) respectful to the architectural nature of a community” was meant more to have some conscious when designing new development, not just biggest FAR for your buck.
While GWH (and South Slope and Sunset Park for that matter) have mixed housing stock, it is mostly low scale frame homes (vinyl or not), brick townhouses and brick/brownstone multi-families. There is a loose consistency there. Throwing up a stucco/metal/glass box not only does not fit in, but it become non-contextual by design and footprint to the surrounding structures.
Make sense?
Snappy,
Most of the side streets have a R6B zoning designation, so yes, both height and bulk.
AJ, so you mean height restrictions?
And I’ll add, being an owner of a vinyl sided frame in the near by neighborhood (and with friends w/ homes of very mixed stock), I do not plan to “restore my house to a bygone era.” Most likely (when that bag of $$ drops on my head) an modern interpretations of standing-seam materials they use on barns in PA. What I won’t do is add two-three floors to my home when I do so (even though I legally can). So, there’s contextual for you.
AJ…you lost me for a second there. Isn’t “respectful to the architectural nature of a community” just another way of saying they should mimic what’s already there?
Um, benson:
I have never said either about new development:
“a) stopped or b) mimic these buildings of a by-gone era.”
I have advocated for:
a) legal (following the building code and ZR)
b) responsible (to the neighbors/community)
c) contextual (zoning, mostly)
d) respectful to the architectural nature of a community
When I see a) to d) being done consistently, then I’ll stop my complaining.
And in the neighborhood in question, a) to c) have rarely been done to date and d) means attempting to design anything but Fedders shitboxes (albeit I will not give any concessions to the Scarano nightmares in the neighborhood).
Questions?
Benson, break out the champagne and polpette! We agree 🙂
AJ;
How about the FACTS reported in the story, rather than your specualtion? THAT’s what I need. According to the FACTS of the story, only this one building burned.
BTW: my daughter lives up the block from this building.
Snappy,
I am not decying the vinyl-sided homes (remember, I’m the guy around here who gets upset when folks try to put down modest homes). What I do decry are those, like Action Jackson, who insist that all development be either: a) stopped or b) mimic these buildings of a by-gone era. Let the city develop in an organic manner, according to what the market of TODAY demands.