Another Trick in the Wall
When he posted this picture from Bedford and North 4th Street in the Brooklyn Record photo pool on Flickr, A Test of Will asked, “Why do they bother preserving those flimsy skinny walls instead of just flattening the whole thing?” We recall a recent comment (in reference to some South Slope development, we believe) to…
When he posted this picture from Bedford and North 4th Street in the Brooklyn Record photo pool on Flickr, A Test of Will asked, “Why do they bother preserving those flimsy skinny walls instead of just flattening the whole thing?” We recall a recent comment (in reference to some South Slope development, we believe) to the effect that it’s much easier for a developer to leave up a single wall like this and get a permit to modify the existing structure than it is to get a new construction permit. Then he just tears down the old wall when he’s done. We got that right? (And, by the way, there is now a Brownstoner photo pool as well.)
Lending Support [Test of Will on Flickr] GMAP
the answer might be more practical than that – the skinny wall represents the existing party wall originally constructed to support two adjoinging buildings. even when one is knocked down, the party wall must still remain as it’s what holds up the adjacent standing building.
Alterations require less permits than new construction – thus, less money is spent on permits which can add up to thousands.
That is what happened at Fulton and Classon (two story building on part of site, now 10 stories(?)).
nothing really new about this one wall thing . People have been doing this for yrs .
Yup. It still counts as an alteration if a substantial part of the foundation and some of the building is still standing, which makes it much easier to get through the DOB.