Development Watch: Degraw-ful?
For a small street in the Columbia Waterfront District, Degraw sure has a lot of construction going on, most of it not pretty. Clockwise from upper left, you’re looking at 140, 130 and 129 Degraw. Number 140 is probably the most “interesting” of the three, but we’d be curious to know whether this was necessary…
For a small street in the Columbia Waterfront District, Degraw sure has a lot of construction going on, most of it not pretty. Clockwise from upper left, you’re looking at 140, 130 and 129 Degraw. Number 140 is probably the most “interesting” of the three, but we’d be curious to know whether this was necessary surgery mere architectural whim; Number 130 looks better in this photo than we remember it feeling in person, but at least there are big windows and relatively high ceilings. The real head scratcher is Number 129, which looks like some strange attempt to create private mews, but Warren Place it is not. GMAP
A lot of bold statements posted by anonymous readers. Don’t hide. If you mention names, provide your name. Otherwise, sit down and shut it.
I’m sorry but you are misinformed 130 Degraw is not Scarano’s It’s privately owned ,
Buy the same person for aprox 13 yr’s, and yes it was a lot for 30 yrs . Before the present owner
cleaned it, it was a garbage dump. I asked the contractor the building will have a cornice and have
Some Brown stone finish on the bottom level. It should look nice when it’s done? 129 is not bad looking
But what the hell is 140 suppose to be ?
130 was a empty since the mid 70’s was
filled with garbage and rats I think
it looks nice fits the look of the
neighborhood not like 129 & 140
Jon,
Still pandering to the masses.
I see going on vacation did not stop the crazy people from coming out from under their rocks.
What do these A——s actually like besides reading their owm words on the LITTLE screen?
By the way, my name is Nataliya not Natasha. Personally I like 129 Degraw. It is much better then 130.
140 looks goof
yeah 140 is nd arch&design led by natasha donskoy (who worked with scarano previously)
Larry the live-in sales agent, is that you?
No charges? No lawyers?
Not true.
42 Tiffany had to hire lawyers to get the sponsor to listen.
No charges? Um..perhaps you are unaware of all the assessments for construction fixes that 42 Tiffany owners have had to pay for out of pocket?
But don’t listen to me…or Anonymous 2:29…all this is a matter of record.
Easily confirmed by checking condo board meeting minutes, condo association accountiing books and building management agent records.
In light of actual records to the contrary, Anonymous 2:29, it appears that claims of misinformation should be directed toward you.