Breaking the Rules in Greenwood Heights?
A concerned reader forwarded us this rendering of a new building currently going up at 668 6th Avenue in Greenwood Heights. What’s the problem, you ask? According to R6B zoning, which this falls under, the height of the facade wall is limited to 40 feet. In this drawing (and in the building permit) it’s 50…
A concerned reader forwarded us this rendering of a new building currently going up at 668 6th Avenue in Greenwood Heights. What’s the problem, you ask? According to R6B zoning, which this falls under, the height of the facade wall is limited to 40 feet. In this drawing (and in the building permit) it’s 50 feet. Whoops. Then again, it shouldn’t be that surprise that the envelope is getting pushed: The architect is a graduate of the Scarano School of Architecture, having earned is stripes at the original 614 7th Avenue. GMAP P*Shark DOB
Action,
If you want architects to hear your point of view, attending an AIA meeting is a great way to go.
When I used to work in Brooklyn, Scarano would attend regularly, though I never actually had a conversation with him.
Most of us do the job because we think we can positively impact the built environment….
young archi, we have a lot in common…
“Go to architecture school for 5 years, get criticized constantly by professors, don’t sleep for more than 3 hours a night during the school year for 5 years straight, graduate, spend 3+ years getting paid peanuts while working all kinds of ungodly hours, then take 7 different exams to get your license, learn the zoning resolution in practice, learn the NYC building code in practice, learn ADA in practice, learn IBC in practice, balance your business and artistic pursuits with your client’s need to make a profit”
Sounds like art school to me and then becoming a designer in the dog-eat-dog world of NYC.
Unfortunately there’s little “code” in design (UNFORTUNATELY!).
I feel your pain, brought on by others before you. Perhaps I outta start going after the AIA…Hmmm.
Action,
I never said it was pretty.
I’m merely responding to the fact that several people on this post (yourself included) claimed that the building was clearly against the zoning resolution.
My only point is this: Please don’t go around saying Architects are breaking the law when they aren’t?
If you had only said: I think this building is fugly, I wouldn’t have responded.
Instead, you (and others) said this guy is basically breaking the law. And you said it as if you knew what you were talking about, which makes it seem like its definitely true.
You know what?
Go to architecture school for 5 years, get criticized constantly by professors, don’t sleep for more than 3 hours a night during the school year for 5 years straight, graduate, spend 3+ years getting paid peanuts while working all kinds of ungodly hours, then take 7 different exams to get your license, learn the zoning resolution in practice, learn the NYC building code in practice, learn ADA in practice, learn IBC in practice, balance your business and artistic pursuits with your client’s need to make a profit, the good of public safety, the context of the streetscape, the fit within the neighborhood, balance material cost vs aesthetic intent, try to respect the past while proposing new ideas, balance your engineer’s functional demands vs DOB code and Landmarks aesthetic demands, detail a building to maximize energy savings to reduce carbon footprint, deal with an ornery contractor on site who won’t build to your drawings, do it all for a budget and make less money than all other professionals (engineers, lawyers, doctors) and then criticize this guy.
But PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE don’t make unsubstantiated claims of breaking the law.
Oh, by the way, i agree there are some ugly new buildings in that neighborhood.
young archi, while I appreciate your last comments to my posts…
“Call the commissioner of the DOB if you don’t believe me…”
Phone has been ringing off the hook since Comm. Mossad left and Comm. Lee came in…no one is answering.
And you have to realize, as wpg aptly put, folks in this area have been in a war zone since 2004. Sorry to say architects (less than developers) have earned their fair share of umbrage from the locals. Hopefully that will change with time, regardless of when aesthetic opinions differ.
It may be legal in your book, but it’s a fugly addition to the neighborhood in mine.
To each their own. Have a good one.
Great posts young archi. Clear and concise. I agree with you that brownstoner poisons the well with the “breaking the rules” title and listing the architect’s Scarano experience. For example, if I once worked at AIG/Goldman etc, am I a crook?
However, having read over Action Jackson’s posts over the years I can definitely sympathize. That little stretch of South Slope has taken a contextual and aesthetic beating! While s/he may not be an architect, it is commendable to even crack the zoning resolution let alone quote from it (even though incorrectly in this case).
1842:
Its not a ‘justification’.
It is as of right.
It is, in fact, EXACTLY what the zoning resolution considers to be a dormer.
Zoning resolution does not grant height permitted obstructions predicated on styles of architecture. That is to say: the zoning resolution defines bulk and envelope, and does not give preference to mansard roof over flat roof.
You don’t like the aesthetic? fine.
It doesn’t’ change the fact that the architect is following the zoning resolution to a ‘T’, and shouldn’t be accused of ‘pushing it.’
It is NOT a precedent! Hundreds upon hundreds of modern buildings use the dormer provisions, as it is AS OF RIGHT.
Contextual Zoning = context of scale, not context of style.
Its really frustrating to watch people accuse architects of misconduct, or as the post claims: ‘breaking the rules’.
This is exactly what the rules allow!!!!! Call the commissioner of the DOB if you don’t believe me…
While I think the street is unattractive to begin with, using the dormer provisions to justify the manner in which the street wall facing fifth floor is constructed is pushing it. That is not a dormer (i.e. it does not protrude from a roof or rise up at angle akin to a mansard roof). Yes it appears to be less than 60% of the streetwall space, but it is not at all in the spirit of the contextual zoning regulations. Pretty lame, regardless of what you think of the actual appearance of the building, because it sets a precedent that others will try to use as justification for doing something similar on a block where it would have a real detrimental effect.
I can’t believe anyone would even complain about this new building. It looks good, its not a fedders, and it will replace a trash-filled empty lot sandwiched between two low-income cinderella buildings that look like crap anyway, even though they were gutted only four years ago. (why did they install cheap crappy vinyl siding on those?)
anyway, this is good development, even if it “pushes” code it’s not like the building is threatening or abusive in any way.
pick your battles – like maybe the nine storey illegally built “community facility” on 22nd st- THAT is something to get pissed off at, not this.
plus, lots of these houses on 6th ave have the original brick or clapboard siding, plus the original cornices, hidden underneath these ghastly vinyl siding jobs from the 70’s and 80’s. maybe the owners will start to see the value in removing that stuff and repointing/repainting.
Action,
Perhaps lost in my babbling is this:
The height is legal. There are no 2 ways about this.
Its not a trick.
The potentially nefarious aspect of this building doesn’t impact the envelope at all. Its the equivalent of having a living room in a cellar. Its not legal (usually), but it doesn’t have an impact on the street front or context, so is therefore outside of the realm of the discussion.
Is it legal for them to extend the building higher than the neighbor for a portion of the street width?
Absolutely Yes.