Squeezing Every Last Drop of FAR on 6th Street
A reader writes in to us lamenting the fact that this cute 2-family brownstone at 353 6th Street is in the process of being super-sized by a developer. Expanding in every direction–up, down and back–the owner, Shahin Assil, is turning this 2,100-square-foot 2-family into a 6-family building. According to Property Shark, Assil paid $880,000 for…
A reader writes in to us lamenting the fact that this cute 2-family brownstone at 353 6th Street is in the process of being super-sized by a developer. Expanding in every direction–up, down and back–the owner, Shahin Assil, is turning this 2,100-square-foot 2-family into a 6-family building. According to Property Shark, Assil paid $880,000 for the place last summer and he’s got another 1,800 square feet of buildable FAR as of right. And because he’s outside of the Historic District, it can be as ugly as he wants. Big bummer for the neighbors.
353 6th Street [Property Shark] GMAP
This may be legal, but it’s called “being a bad neighbor.” They are destroying the quality of life in adjoining backyards. Also, an absent landlord, which is what we’re dealing with in this instance, compared to most of the buildings here which are owner-occupied, invite trouble for the block. We are going to have a bunch of ne’er-do-wells hanging around on our formerly nice block.
Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should.
Looking at city website… 19′ wide building. 1st or garden floor will be 2 apts.
2nd/parlor will be 2 apts and 3 and new 4th will be one apt each. So apts on 1st 2 floors must be kinda small (maybe studio or small 1bdrooms).
You’d have to build a deep extension to go 65′, with maybe only a 5′ sideyard connected to the backyard. Couldn’t possibly be the full width–there’d be alot of airless space in the center even assuming that that space would be used for storage, vented kitchens and baths, and skylights on the upper floor. Still sounds like a pretty grim layout.
I’m scratching my head trying to figure out how you can legally cram 6 apts. on that small lot.
MHN – are you saying you could have put up 1625sqft’ per floor on 25′ ft lot (and I won’t ask how ‘typical’ a 25′ lot in south slope area is).
Thats 65′ deep. And if you had row of those….
where does light/air come from in middle of those apts?
My house is 48′ deep. Hard to imagine going much deeper without side windows. And how much backyard space is left after 65′ deep bldg? Seems overstating practicality of building that much per floor.
that r6 to r6b did not decrease FAR is not true. on my block everybody had r6 could build 2.43 and now only 2.0. tell them MHN, they sold out our FAR. as for 2.0 being high density for the US, this is not the rest of the US. this is nyc, brooklyn is ? the 4th largest city in the US. next you will be telling me that we have urban sprawl.
MHN I think you left out an important detail in your FAR calculations when talking about the South Slope. That is many of the new developments are being built on multiple or larger size lots. So if the lot is 60’x 100′ or 100′ x 100′ under the old 1961 R6 zoning you could build 9 or even 12 stories as of right. (community facility faculty housing bonus thrown into the mix)
As an owner of a three story house, if I had the money, I would add another story. In Park Slope, the way the streets are orientated, a three story addition bumped out into the back yard will cast shadows in the Spring and Summer for the house to the East. The house on the West will have a brick wall that will collect much of the suns heat in the Summer. I would prefer to be West of the addition. P.S. I have been living next to a construction site for two years now and have another two years to go. Two things that make it bearable. 1. If you believe its all for some greater good. 2. Responsible contractors who follow the rules.
In response to technical questions about rear yards and FAR for the property on 6th Street, it appears that it is located more than 100′ from Fifth Avenue, which means that it is not a corner lot. Non-corner lots in this zoning district have to provide at least a 30′ rear yard, regardless of FAR. The maximum height possible for this building is 50′, but only after a setback of 15′ in both front and rear of after rising 40′. This is something worth checking for any close neighbors concerned about impact to rear yards.
For the record, the change from R6 to R6B did not reduce the maximum FAR for most properties from 2.43 to 2.0. The max of 2.43 only applied in the rather rare circumstances of very large lots (like the 17-story building at 9th St and Fifth Ave) where the required open space could be provided. For most lots within R6 districts in Park Slope or South Park Slope, only around 1.85 FAR could have been achieved under the old R6 height factor regulations. Yes, the Quality Housing program allowed for 2.2 FAR on a narrow street, so there was arguably a reduction in permissible FAR from 2.2 to 2.0 by the rezoning. Still, 2.0 FAR would be considered rather high density in most parts of the US, and is on the low end of mid-density in NYC. Most of the existing lovely buildings in the center slope are around 2.0 FAR (including those that have been carved up into 4-6 units). The rezoning allows slight expansion and redevelopment of derelict properties.
MHN where were you on 11/17/2005 on south slope downsizing posts? everything i said you reiterated . the anti development folks aren’t against 12 story buildings . they just want all the ugly frames house to look the same in the south slope/greenwood. so they traded our FAR in for their percieved asthetic gain and our and their own financial loss. again i am not a developer and justed wanted to build a nice looking 4 story condo project. now my ugly frame house stands. on the plus side it only cost 1500 dollars to put new vinyl siding on the front. again this all could have been avoided if they closed the building loopholes and enforced building codes. thanks again MHN
Yes but 4th Ave was upzoned to allow for large apt buildings so I’m not sure that the net effect is really a loss – no matter what is amazing is that even after these zoning changes you still have people accusing someone of being un-neighborly simply for expanding their property to its (low) legal limit.