CG Atrocity: There Goes the Neighborhood
Carroll Gardens better get off its ass and create some historic districts pronto. Here’s the poster child for the cause: The addition to this house at 3rd Place and Clinton Street, made all the worse by its corner location, has to be one of the greatest bastardizations of a beautiful old brownstone we’ve ever seen….
Carroll Gardens better get off its ass and create some historic districts pronto. Here’s the poster child for the cause: The addition to this house at 3rd Place and Clinton Street, made all the worse by its corner location, has to be one of the greatest bastardizations of a beautiful old brownstone we’ve ever seen. May their condos languish on the market indefinitely. Do you think it would be possible to organize a buying strike against this place? Picket the open houses? GMAP P*Shark
Here’s the rendering of the finished product:
I wish I knew how to interpret 2:13’s technical info. So is the zoning for this corner lot in keeping with the existing built character of the area? Or does it get you overscale development?
A 65 foot height limit sounds high for Carroll Gardens – most of the existing buildings top out at around 50 feet, don’t they? (Correct me if I’m wrong.) Also, 80% lot coverage sounds high – but then again it’s a corner lot.
??
Speaking from the point of view of someone who has taste, this has got to be the most HIDEOUS expansion of a building I have ever seen!!! OH MY GOD!!! It’s an insult. I could see a modern addition on the back of a building, but to completely ruin the streetscape in one fell swoop.
What were they thinking? Couldn’t they just buy a vacant lot? How completely sad.
you can also see the dept of buildings filings for the site here:
http://tinyurl.com/mtfc4
looks like there are 2 open violations for work w/o permit and a number of complaints about after-hours work, beams that appear to be slanting.
I work at City Planning. The building is in an R6 zone fronting on a wide st: maximum FAR 2.43, built FAR 1.25. I’m assuming this is being developed pursuant to Quality Housing regs, which allow for greater lot coverage (80%) but cap the height at 65 ft. The front yard probably satisfies the 20% requirement, or the existing garage meant that the pre-existing non-conforming lot coverage was grandfathered. Here’s a Pictometry photo of how the site used to look:
http://tinyurl.com/ptd4b
Yeah, behind the libes, lets ask everyone of the neighbors before we build. As a matter of fact, let’s vote on it. How long will that take, and more importantly who gives a f**k.
Kudos to the property owner and to the Architect for expressing themselves.
If you want more light upgrade your lighting or move to suburbia
I will miss the old lines of the building…I remeember walking by often and hoping they’d replace the cheesy brown siding on the bay window extension with brown clapboard.
I feel bad for the neighbors who have lost their light…that’s not fair to do.
you mistakenly think that your opinion is objective…
The finished rendering actually looks a lot like the Park Slope 6th Ave place you spoke well of this week, Brownstoner.
Nope, not the Architect.
No Architect in their right mind and with that ego would defend themselves or their work. It’s petty, unlike you who defend your subjective reasoning for disliking it