Cobble Hill Association: 110 Amity Plan Unacceptable'
Time Equities’ proposal to build six new townhouses on the vacant land surrounding the landmark Lamm Institute building at 110 Amity Street is being opposed by an influential civic group. Last week the Cobble Hill Association voted to fight the developer’s plans because the new townhouses wouldn’t have the 35- to 50-foot rear yards usually…
Time Equities’ proposal to build six new townhouses on the vacant land surrounding the landmark Lamm Institute building at 110 Amity Street is being opposed by an influential civic group. Last week the Cobble Hill Association voted to fight the developer’s plans because the new townhouses wouldn’t have the 35- to 50-foot rear yards usually found behind the historic district’s 19th century townhouses, an absence that the group feels will negatively affect other houses on the block. The design would cause an unacceptable incursion into the light and air that surrounding properties receive, according to a statement released by the association. The group also argued that the creation of a mews would be inconsistent with the character of the Cobble Hill Historic District since the houses wouldn’t front the street. The CHA says it would be preferable for Time Equities to build one new building fronting Amity Street and one or two buildings fronting Henry Street, all of which would ideally align with neighboring brownstones and allow space for the rear yards typical of the neighborhood. The Cobble Hill Association’s verdict on the 100 Amity design will likely influence whether Community Board 6 decides to support the proposal, which is being considered by the LPC at a public hearing tomorrow.
Opposition to 110 Amity Plans Grows [Brownstoner] GMAP
CB6 Tries to Avoid Amity Street Horror [Brownstoner]
Local Residents Oppose New Development at 110 Amity [Bergen Carroll]
If I recall, don’t all four sides of the Lamm Building have the same highly decorative facade? Putting in townhouses the way the CHA recommends would completely conceal or at least look strange, I think.
I was over at the park Sunday to drop off my tree to be chipped. There was someone there with a petition to protest this, and I refused to sign it. She wasn’t happy and rolled out a series of objections starting with aesthetic (out of character!) to safety (firetrucks won’t be able to get in there!). I think some well-designed deviations from the grid in Cobble Hill would be welcome.
Perhaps someone from the CHA should take a stroll over to Warren Street to have a look at the Warren Street Mews before they sniff that this project is “inconsistent with the character of the Cobble Hill Historic District”.
I live nearby, I don’t love this project, but it could be substantially worse.
What’s the household income number where one ceases to be “real” or “everyday?” I guess the same one where you go from being “folk” to a what? Personage?
The CHA proposal would result in extremely expensive houses, available to only a few. While the original proposal’s houses probably wouldn’t count as “affordable,” they would likely be slightly more likely to be inhabited by real, everyday folks.
10:06 – I disagree with you for two reasons:
1) The open space you’re referring to is in people’s back yards and not visible from the street. So the lack of this open space will not be noticed ny 99.9% of people who walk by the site.
2) That’s not really how the mechanics of air pollution works. It’s not like the trees within 2 blocks “clean” the air from the BQE. Tree throughout the borough and indeed the city all come together to clean the entire city’s air. So while I am in favor of having more trees everywhere in the City, I don’t care so much whether they are here are if you plant some more tree in prospect park of fort green park…
I think that people are losing sight of the fact that there used to be buildings on all of that “vacant” land. Take a look at pics of the site circa 1940 or so. There were no townhouses so typical of the area – just big ol’ buildings. I really do not see what the outrage is about here, especially given how much the area needs housing, even for yuppies.
If the LPC hearing is public, does anyone know when and where it is?
I’d also REALLY like to see a more traditional layout here, and think they can easily fit three nice deep townhouses on Henry and a really nice wide and deep one on Amity.
There’s still PLENTY of money to be made with that plan, given what they paid for the place.
While I have to link to the CH Assoc (although I do live in Cobble Hill) I see they seem to wholeheartedly agree with my post from the previous thread.
……On first glance this doesn’t seem a bad idea but four out of the six proposed townhouses won’t have any street frontage and thus will be taking up land that is usually used as back yard space. Part of the beauty of Cobble Hill and the surrounding Brownstone areas is the wide expanse of (albeit fenced off ) green space which measure some 80 feet by the whole block width that is home to a wonderful variety of flora and fauna.
Surely this close to the BQE we shouldn’t be reducing green areas that help to consume all those carbon emissions.
Posted by: guest at January 2, 2008 1:13 PM……
I wonder if they read the comments on Brownstoner to get their ideas? 😉
Hi-rise is exactly what Cobble Hill or the rest of Bklyn needs to address housing needs as long as it offers affordability. Off with the nimbys and the old fogies, it’s doable. Where do you expect people to live – Iowa? Welcome to 2008!