A Mini-Finger for 42 3rd Place
If you’re looking for a reason to extend the Carroll Gardens Historic District, look no further (though they’ll have to go further than what’s currently on the table to impact this block): Although this two-floor addition to the home at 42 3rd Place isn’t done yet (it was filed in May 2009) and will presumably…
If you’re looking for a reason to extend the Carroll Gardens Historic District, look no further (though they’ll have to go further than what’s currently on the table to impact this block): Although this two-floor addition to the home at 42 3rd Place isn’t done yet (it was filed in May 2009) and will presumably get a brownstone finish, it still looks like a mini-finger to us. For the owners, though, it’ll add a huge amount of space to what will be a two-family residence once it’s complete. GMAP DOB
I think a nice Mediterranean pink stucco would really set off the extension.
ugh…white vinyl windows
+
“The owners are Chinese and they have a Rent control tenant on the parlor floor.”
Using chinese contractors as well (as that big white panel states).
not much hope for this getting it’s contextual finish
I’m not sure why we should assume the owner will give this a brownstone finish. I’ve seen other extensions featuring a grey concrete slab wrapped around the top and back of old brick and brownstone buildings. Here’s hoping these folks give it a reasonably contextual finish, but I wouldn’t assume so.
If a 3-storey house is adjacent to a row of 4-storey houses, I believe LPC would probably look favorably on a contextual vertical extension. But if you need a specific instance, you’d probably have to query either LPC themselves or an architect who works with them often.
Certainly LPC-approved rooftop additions are being constructed within historic districts.
But, they tend to be positioned toward the back of the roof, so that they are not visible from the sidewalk.
Does anyone know of a case where LPC approved a rooftop addition that was visible from the sidewalk?
The owners are Chinese and they have a Rent control tenant on the parlor floor.
I should add that I agree with tybur6 about this specific block which I know pretty well. It’s already higgledy-piggledy and if LPC was considering extending the Carroll Gardens historic district they might well deem it too far gone. They are very big on designating blocks that are almost entirely intact; not so much on including blocks that have already been much changed.
Benson: We can disagree about whether it’s good thing for landmarking regulations to trump zoning, but it’s a fact. I heard it from the horse’s mouth when LPC came to give an informational presentation to residents before the Prospect Heights historic district was confirmed.
This doesn’t address zoning per se but it’s interesting in terms of LPC’s general approach (from nyc.gov/landmarks):
“By law, the Commission must review any proposals for alterations to landmark buildings and determine whether they have any effect on the significant features of a building or a historic district. Any effect must be harmonious or appropriate.”
(bottom TWO stories… sorry)