Development Watch: 174 Vanderbilt Plodding Along
We got an email asking us what was up with the large lot being developed on Vanderbilt between Willoughby and Myrtle. As we reported last summer, we’re looking at two buildings, one at 174 Vanderbilt and one at 181 Clermont, that will share an interior courtyard with a large circular fountain. All in all, 73…
We got an email asking us what was up with the large lot being developed on Vanderbilt between Willoughby and Myrtle. As we reported last summer, we’re looking at two buildings, one at 174 Vanderbilt and one at 181 Clermont, that will share an interior courtyard with a large circular fountain. All in all, 73 units and 38 parking spaces. Work has barely begun, but the renderings look pretty high-end. And given the massing of the building on the Myrtle side of this project, it shouldn’t look out of scale either. No complaints from us on this one. So far.
On The Boards: 174 Vanderbilt [Meltzer Mandl]
August ’06 Press Release [The Real Estate]
Meltzer/Mandl Release Deets on 174 Vanderbilt [Brownstoner]
Chugging Along at 174 Vanderbilt [Brownstoner]
Bulldozers Gone at 174 Vanderbilt [Brownstoner]
I live next door, with a bird’s eye view of the construction. It’s been plodding along for nearly a year now, and they’ve barely started. For the first 6 months, there were literally 4-5 guys playing around with concrete. It seems fairly dubious. Now that I know it’s going to be some glass monstrosity, I’m a little sad. There goes my nice view.
Here’s a complaint: This development is NOISY as can be. I live in a giant rent stabilized and equally big building across the street, and vermin are going crazy. My only other problem– nothing even a wink within my price range. Goodbye, hot, up and coming neighborhood…our affair of 7 years has to end. I’m moving to Sunset Park. Where I can afford to buy.
Francis, you just demonstrated everything that is wrong with this website, and curbed, and all those other blogs. You are talking trash about the quality of a building that has not even been built yet. It just shows that most people on here are shit-talkers who more than likely wouldn’t know good construction if it bit them in the ass. You just like to bitch about anything and everything.
no, it was just a stab at the city agencies.
Although, as of now J-2 (residential class (see BC§27-237) are exempt for the new local law 86/2005, where all new projects must meet LEED standards, they most likely will not be in the near future. By requiring Parking they are defeating the purpose of promoting a healthier environment.
Yea, I know its a stretch, but will most likely be reality someday soon
But Francis, the developer has barely *started* construction–so how can you judge the quality? granted, it *usually* sucks. But, then, new buildings are also usually ugly. This one, at least based on the rendering, looks cool to me–and is appropriately scaled to its neighbors, thus showing the appropriate respect to the existing buildings. It’s much better looking than the Drivit-spattered Armory. And there aren’t any of those damned air conditioners poking out, either….
2:55, how is the parking requirement (see ZR 25-20) a contradiction between DCP and DOB? Are you implying that DOB is opposed to accessary parking?
SPer
Good point.
Yes, usually the parking requirements are 50% of the dwelling units.
This is a new one to add to the list of contradictions between City Planning and DOB.
No complaints here?!? Wait to you see the construction quality. Same crappy glass facades going everwhere else. People move in and realize they don’t want everyone looking into their fishbowl apt and hang supersize curtains everywhere or even tape newspaper up (which i’ve seen!).
Are parking spaces required by law? If so, this needs to be changed. It’s time to eliminate all incentives for car travel.