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
I consider myself a fierce preservationist but, honestly, this design just doesn’t rattle my cage. Infact I’d argue it adds some energy to an otherwise drab streetscape. After all, these now mostly vinyl-clad 4-storey neighbors have long since been stripped of their defining 19th century vernacular features (cornices, wood clapboards, 4-over-4 windows, sometimes modest porches with a wee bit of gingerbread trim).
I actually think that the building will look good if well executed in the end. In fact, I’m really struggling to understand what people hate about it, other than the fact that it doesn’t look exactly like its neighbors. It’s very restrained for a non-contextual modern project and I’m betting will have beautiful light-filled spaces, unlike its neighbors.
As for the codes, people need to understand that they are nuanced and open to interpretation. I think Brownstoner needs to be careful about criminalizing architects, without doing the research to back it up.
The tone of this blog and most of its posters is so negative it’s depressing. Spring is here people! Time to cheer up!
young arch, thanks for the explanation. I’m still not buying it, but you are right, unless I pull the plans, no way of really telling.
But there is guilt by association in my book. Hopefully I will be incorrect about this building. Sadly, I’m normally right.
Thanks for the info.
Action: You’re confusing separate parts of the text and the building code.
You’re confusing bulkhead (another permitted obstruction: not habitable space) with a dormer (habitable space: permitted obstruction in certain districts under certain conditions).
You’re also confusing some of Scarano’s tricks:
The trick I beleive you’re referring too, if there is one, is that (perhaps: its impossible to tell), the attic is not included as floor area. Which is perfectly legal as long as it is used for its intended use (B-2: storage) and the ceiling height is less than 8′-0″. Is it/will it? How does anyone know from this rendering?
If it is in fact habitable, they should get a violation for occupancy contrary to C/O.
Long story short: this building is absolutely in compliance with all height regulations because of the DORMER provisions.
As far as FAR (did they/should they have included attic as Floor Area), you can’t tell from the filing. If you really want to find out, pull the microfilm from DOB. its public record.
My guess is that it is right, because the job isn’t professionally certified and the DOB generally catches Floor Area discrepancies like this.
“But to have little bits of “interest” thrown in here and there is not “out of context,” it is a *positive* thing!”
I actually agree with you on that one, though I do not like the building’s look, but the area is extremely mixed with new and old construction, frames and bricks, clapperboard and vinyl and yes stucco (yuck).
Diversity is key in certain neighborhoods, it’s just the legality I protest, but let the DOB decide…their never wrong, of course.
young archi, since you do this for a living…
“‘In addition, a dormer may be allowed as a
permitted obstruction WITHIN A REQUIRED SETBACK DISTANCE.”
Define dormer? My read, again of the text (and I do not profess to be a zoning expert, just a fairly good read, fully understanding the texts can be up to interpretation, good and bad), is that the permitted use is for auxiliary space, such as roof access, mechanicals, elevators, etc. (not in this case).
Seems this “legal” dormer is being used as living space (I can assume, since I have not seen the physical plans). Again my read here, that’s not a legal use of the permitted obstruction.
Correct or not?
This then would be an old game that Scarano taught these boys well, as most of his buildings used dormers as living space.
I’m not bashing those adjacent buildings… I think they are perfectly fine, but the fundamental reason the zoning rules exist with regard to street walls and “context” are for general aesthetic reasons. Basically, so you don’t have things that are soooo far out of whack it effects the quality of the neighborhood negatively.
The fact of the matter is that this building, I strongly believe, actually *adds* to the block. Yes, it stretches the definition of a dormer, but not illegally… but when the block is full of the buildings like the adjacent ones, house after house with nothing else, it begins to look like a Pennsylvania mill town, and not a modern city like Brooklyn.
You may not like the architecture, but it fulfills the R6B zoning requirements and it adds some texture to the street. Would I want the whole block or the whole neighborhood to look like this building? Absolutely not. But to have little bits of “interest” thrown in here and there is not “out of context,” it is a *positive* thing!
Action Jackson
You didn’t read the zoning text I copied carefully. i have pulled out the pertinent text, which EXPLICITYLY allows dormers to penetrate the MAX BUILDING HEIGHT within the required setback.
‘In addition, a dormer may be allowed as a
permitted obstruction WITHIN A REQUIRED SETBACK DISTANCE.’
I do this for a living. That dormer is perfectly legal.
I generally appreciate your posts, just not the ones where you act as though you are an authority on the Zoning Resolution. I don’t want to be too offensive, but you really don’t know what you’re talking about with the ZR, and its disingenuous to act as if you do.
“In addition, a dormer may be allowed as a
permitted obstruction within a required setback distance.”
young archi, Emphasis on required setback distance…if it was back the required 15 ft, then their would be no debate, other than it’s a fugly building.
And the buildings on either side are part of a affordable housing/Cinderella Project…so let’s bash those folks who would have been priced out of the neighborhood if more POS like this one had been built. Their siding a windows had to fit into the gamut of the budget for the rehabs, I assume.
PS. I am extremely good natured and laid back when folks aren’t breaking the law…my aesthetic opinions aside.