Development Watch: 53 Java Street
Other than the way it seemlessly blends into the streetscape, this 8-unit, Scarano-designed project at 53 Java Street in Greenpoint that is looking just about done is notable for an accident that happened at the site in late 2007: While pouring concrete for the foundation in violation of a Stop Work Order at the time,…
Other than the way it seemlessly blends into the streetscape, this 8-unit, Scarano-designed project at 53 Java Street in Greenpoint that is looking just about done is notable for an accident that happened at the site in late 2007: While pouring concrete for the foundation in violation of a Stop Work Order at the time, this truck tipped over and landed on a piece of the neighboring building. Good times!
Greenpoint House Attacked by Truck [Gowanus Lounge] GMAP P*Shark DOB
Photo by New York Shitty
cmu,
you are a pompous douchebag.
please read my posts before going on unequivocal rants.
i said, quite clearly, that bulk is dictated by zoning, and aesthetics are not dictated by zoning.
I am completely RIGHT, in theory and practice.
where do you get off calling me morally bankrupt, you thoughtless, idiotic piece of s###?
my POSITION, if you had taken the time to read it, is that, unless its landmarked, the community DOES NOT have the right to legislate AESTHETICS (again, i clearly indicated that zoning (ie government) has authority over bulk.
Yeah yi, I suppose it’s because of architects like you that we even need Landmarks.
Silence as someone famously said, is an opinion; by yours, I took it to mean you approved, or at least did not disapprove.
btw, “Contextual zoning regulates the height and bulk of new buildings [etc]…to produce buildings that are consistent with existing neighborhood character.” Not quite what you say it is. It’s in the intent, not the letter.
Maly said everything else better than I could.
Young archi, you are completely in the wrong, both in theory and in practice. The zoning laws are the means by which the government (that is, us, the community represented by our representatives) regulates building size and height. You seem to assert that anyone can build whatever they have the means to build. It is completely mistaken in facts, and it is a philosophically bankrupt and immoral position. If freedom means that might makes right, then anyone could burn this building down. It would be the developer’s fault for not protecting it better, right?
You can see that freedom is codified by our laws. There is no such thing as individual freedom abstracted from our neighbors’ rights.
In this instance, a quick check reveals that the FAR allows 5,625 square feet on this parcel. Since the footprint of this building according to the DOB is 25×53, it should allow about 4 stories plus a small penthouse. The brick building on the left is 4 story high. The new one looks about a third taller, as if each level yielded 18ft ceiling. Does this seem familiar?
> “the community is ill-served by this piece of trash.”
Absolutely! It should be squat, dilapidated, clad in vinyl siding and festooned with rusty awnings!
cmu.
yes i am an architect.
i didn’t weigh in on my opinion of this building, so how can you qualify my ‘aesthetic sensibility’?
i am right in a BROAD sense that the community has no right determining the aesthetics of the building.
ever heard of the constitution?
what right do you have to dictate how these people develop their property?
this ‘hood is clearly not landmarked (see the ‘piece of trash’ siding buildings next to it).
of course i’ve heard of contextual zoning. as I said before: zoning doesn’t make you match your neighbor’s height (except sliver law, which this is not), it gives you a max height in feet.
obviously, some architects and developers produce ugly, non contextual buildings.
my point is that its not really up to you or I to design those buildings for them.
young archi: are you really an architect? With no aesthetic sensibilities? While in a narrow sense you may be right that the govt has no business in determining aesthetics, the community is ill-served by this piece of trash.
Ever heard of contextual zoning?
um, do you mean “seamlessly?” and was that meant sarcastically?
This building ruins the property values of all the neighbors. How are the neighbors’ interests represented, if not by the government? There is something wrong with the zoning laws, if you can infill mid-block something twice as large as all the other buildings. It’s got Scaraboo written all over it. I would be pretty curious to know if this building has mezzanines.
Maly,
Not really the governments place to legislate aesthetics, thank god.
Whether or not you like this building is inconsequential. If you wanted a say in how the property looks, you should have spent your own millions of dollars buying and developing it.
In my opinion, if the govn’t DID legislate aesthetics, then it would be really really bad, and really boring.
Zoning does not seek to address the ‘troll-esque’ properties of the building.
As to the ‘hulking’ aspect….Scarano was under a pretty intense microscope, so my guess is that his later buildings that finally made it out of audit are probably in full compliance with the zoning resolution…I could be wrong
zoning usually doesn’t say you can’t build higher than your neighbor but rather puts a max height limit in feet regardless of neighboring buildings…the sliver law is the exception to this and probably does not apply in this district…