CG's Generous FAR Loophole Yielding More Additions
Everyone remembers the Third Place Atrocity that we devoted so much ink to last year, right? Well, the gent who developed that bastardization is up to his old tricks just down the block. Austin Nagel has had plans to do a “horizontal and vertical enlargement” of his four-story brick townhouse at 120 Third Place (at…
Everyone remembers the Third Place Atrocity that we devoted so much ink to last year, right? Well, the gent who developed that bastardization is up to his old tricks just down the block. Austin Nagel has had plans to do a “horizontal and vertical enlargement” of his four-story brick townhouse at 120 Third Place (at left) since last summer so we can only guess he’s been waiting for the proceeds of Number 45 to get moving; it’s a safe guess that the expansion will look something like the one that’s underway two houses over at 116 Third Place )at right). What’s prompting all this action? As a commenter rightly pointed out in last Tuesday’s thread about 360 Smith, an archaic twist in the neighborhood’s zoning that lumps the unusually large front yards into the calculation of street width means that builders can get more juice out of these lots than in other brownstone nabes. GMAP P*Shark DOB
Oh yeah and J we can agree to disagree. I think most home owners in this neighborhood do not have enough money that they can afford to give up this much value. So we agree most homeowners are not real flush with cash but we disagree that therefor we should throw away the value of our property because of development paranoia.
It works this way with my property plan, the rent I plan to charge for my 1000 square foot addition will actually be less than what I charge our present tenants (great couple helping me pay my mortgage). They have 600 squre feet and pay 1700 a month x 12 = $20,400 per year/600 squre feet = $34 dollars per square foot per year. At $200 per square foot construction cost that would pay for itself in 5.8 years. I plan on stretching that out a little and renting is for less, about $2500 x 12 = 30,000/1000 = $30 per squre foot. That way it will take me six years and eight months to pay it off. Still a tremendous bargain (throw in a little rent inflation assumption and it gets better).
So my point is that neither I nor my less flush neighbors can afford the downzoning. Those who are advocating it are simply not bothered by this sort of economic reasoning or they have so much money they can afford their mortgages, maybe don’t have mortages or they just want to keep new people (young diverse renters going to the bars on Smith Street).
And another issue of personal economy, we have children. They love the neighborhood and want to stay, they can’t afford rent here. We can pay off the cost of our addition in 10 or 12 years and let our daughter rent it at a bargain rate.
Downzoning will drive your kids out of the neighborhood as rental supply is restricted and rents inflate accordingly. Our parents and their grandchildren will be separated as the kids go seek affordable rents somewhere else (Brownsville, East New York, Jersey City?).
Back to my original point on Eminent Domain, please abuse me.
“And changing FAR is some ways is worse economic threat to owners than the ’eminent domain’ thing. As in eminent domain you are paid fair value.”
No shit. The math works out this way. Property value is about $700 per square foot. Construction costs $150 to $200 depending on how complex a job you try and what materials you choose. Thats $700 in equity for an investment of $200 for a total after cost of $500 per square foot.
Anyway, my building now is 2000 square feet. Full build out under R6 would be around 4000. 2000×500=$1,000,000 potential value. Downzoning will take that value you for me and not give anything in return except fewer future neighbors. Please some one give me “Eminent Domain Abuse”, please abuse me.
Chill says “My beef is with developers (like this one) who build hideous carbuncles, as David so aptly described them, above.” Downzoning does not insure that hideous carbunkles will not be built. When demand for housing is so great and the difference between property value and construction cost is so great (700-200=500) buildings are going to be built, variances are going to be sought and granted. The difference is in frictional costs, instead of putting 200 per square foot into the building the building the owner will put 150 into the actual building (read hideous carbunkle built with shoddy materials and itinerant labor) and $50 per square foot into lawyers to fight the DoB.
Everybody has their favorite buildings. But owners (developers of owner occupiers) don’t seek to build a shit building, better buildings bring higher rents and higher values.
Another thing downzoning will do is give developers, who have access to the regulators and the legal and engineering expertise to fight for variances , a comparitive advantage over owner occupants. One of the things that has always made Carroll Gardens a great neighborhood, even in the bad old days, is the high percentage of owner occupants. Three family owner occupieds have built in economic diversity and owners on the stoop keeping their eye on the block. Downzoning will unfairly disadvantage owner occupants.
With the price of property so high new buyers are tending increasingly to chop their properties up and sell them off as coops. No beef with that, its their property after all, but it does radically cut the number of apartments available for rent. Less supply equals higher rents.
Now Chillll your assumption that I bought my property because of the unused FAR is incorrect, although with my strong positions on the matter how would you know it. However, the price I paid included that unused FAR. To take that FAR away without compensation will decrease the value of my property, I really can’t afford that, since, like most of you I have almost my entire savings wrapped up in this house.
Also, as the downzoning is being proposed over here there will ultimately be more surface space allowed to build out in partial exchange for height restrictions. That will force the future development out horizontally in stead of vertically. That will be much worse for those who crave wide open spaces and sunlight (maybe they miss Wyoming or Arizona). Under the present zoning I want to add about half of what a full build out would be (approx 1000 square feet) above my building. Change the zoning, I’m still adding the 1000 square feet (after all its worth $500,000 of value to me) but I’m adding it in my back yard on the first and second floor. My neighbors are going to be facing walls extended into my back yard and their sun will be cut off. That is not my desire but the downzoners will be forcing me into it. Thats what they call is Spanish “La cura resulta mas mala que la enfermedad”. There is a lot of that going around in land use planning these days.
The building at 44 1st Place is for sale, asking $4.2M. When I asked the broker why so much, she said it was because you could add two floors. This building is three lots west of Clinton.
No argument from me on your points, Nicolo, and I wasn’t calling for landmarking this block (I guess I gave that impression with my wish for oversight). My beef is with developers (like this one) who build hideous carbuncles, as David so aptly described them, above. I would just hope that people who buy buildings in large part *because* of their potential enlargement, like yourself, also bought them with the intention of enlarging them attractively. That Third Place Atrocity makes *everybody’s* eyeballs bleed, it’s so bad.
anon 3:34,
CG front gardens are not part of the lots, so do not reduce lot size.
the FAR argument is not so straightforward as to say, reduced FAR equals lower property value. Most anybody in a 3 to 4 story rowhouse may be able to build incrementally more, at a high cost of construction. Doing so would certainly increase their property value – enough to offset the cost of construction? Who knows.
I live on a pretty CG block. I have additional FAR available, but no intention of building it out. Part of the value of my house lies in the fact that it’s on a pretty street, in which all the houses are of similar scale. If all of my neighbors began building hideous carbuncles on top of their houses, I doubt that might property value would be enhanced.
Machhievelli, I don’t think homeowners will lose any money from downzoning,unless they were planning some major renovations. MOst homeowners in this nabe do not have that much money.
Nicolo has a point and certainly issue that has been raised by the right-wing nutsies (like E… and Ice…) and hate to see they have somewhat of a point.
And changing FAR is some ways is worse economic threat to owners than the ’eminent domain’ thing. As in eminent domain you are paid fair value.
Change in FAR and you get nada except reduced value of your prop.
But in this case – I don’t think it is the FAR asking to be changed — it is the height limit based on street width – and how is street width to be measured. Unless your lot size which your FAR is calculated is reduced because of the ‘front garden’ issue —
Is it? I’m not sure.
Even with landmarking – you can increase the size – just gotta make it look the right way.
PS – and I wasn’t meaning to diss people on 3rd Pl. My block is no prize for sure and has been trashed on this site plenty of times.
Nicolo has a point and certainly issue that has been raised by the right-wing nutsies (like E… and Ice…) and hate to see they have somewhat of a point.
And changing FAR is some ways is worse economic threat to owners than the ’eminent domain’ thing. As in eminent domain you are paid fair value.
Change in FAR and you get nada except reduced value of your prop.
But in this case – I don’t think it is the FAR asking to be changed — it is the height limit based on street width – and how is street width to be measured. Unless your lot size which your FAR is calculated is reduced because of the ‘front garden’ issue —
Is it? I’m not sure.
Even with landmarking – you can increase the size – just gotta make it look the right way.
PS – and I wasn’t meaning to diss people on 3rd Pl. My block is no price for sure and has been trashed on this site plenty of times.
Be that as it may chillll but “landmarking” that block or most of the blocks in Carroll Gardens will mean landmarking a lot of bad taste and shoddy reconstruction that has been done over the years. My block has three, four and five story buildings built and rebuilt many times over the last one hundred years including a decade old Fedders building. Mine is a three. I’m one of the lowest buildings on the block. If I grab my FAR before the downzoners take away my right to do so I will be one of the highest. I’m not going to hurt anyone. But if they get their way I will lose nearly a million dollars of potential value that I paid for in the price of my house. Changing the zoning chages the values. When Carroll Gardens homeowners get over their unrealistic fears and learn the property value they will lose with the downzoning and the renters realize what downzoning will do to their rents, perhaps reason will prevail.