109 Gates Avenue Revealed: Man, That's Ugly
You couldn’t have screwed this one up worse if you’d tried. As we discussed last Fall, the current owner of 109 Gates Avenue paid $2 million for the five-story house about a year and a half ago, and then proceeded to do about the most Home Depot-esque renovation imaginable. He then slapped a wacky $2,800,000…
You couldn’t have screwed this one up worse if you’d tried. As we discussed last Fall, the current owner of 109 Gates Avenue paid $2 million for the five-story house about a year and a half ago, and then proceeded to do about the most Home Depot-esque renovation imaginable. He then slapped a wacky $2,800,000 price tag on it and let it sit with a big plywood fence around it for many months. That fence just came down yesterday and, Oh Lordy, the result was a schocker. Although the owner did file plans with Landmarks, a neighbor told us, evidently he didn’t stick to them. He’s now dropped the price by a million bucks to $1,800,000. Given the interior finishes and the landmarks headaches that lie ahead, we’re not so sure that’ll get the job done. One thing’s for sure, though, once that storefront gets fixed it should make a nice home for a new restaurant. Vini & Olii could use the company, and it would make this neck of the woods safer by providing some more foot traffic and light. Update: LPC informs us that a violation has already been issued.
Another Update: We got our hands on the permit granted by LPC way back in 2003. Click through for the full text, but here’s a taste: “The design of the proposed storefront and the second floor bay, based on the 1908 drawing, will help to unify the first and second floors of the building, and return the facades closer to their historic appearance; that recreating the Gates Avenue and St. James Place entrances to the store will also bring the building closer to its 1908 appearance.”
109 Gates Avenue [Brooklyn Properties] GMAP P*Shark
House of the Day: 109 Gates Avenue [Brownstoner]
Mural, And Then a Restaurant, at 109 Gates Avenue [Brownstoner]
May 27, 2003, following the Public Hearing May 27, 2003, voted to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed work at the subject premises, as put forth in your application completed on May 1, 2003.
The proposed work consists of removing the stoop, altering the corner storefront and adding new light fixtures, and installing a new window on the fifth floor on the secondary north facade, all as shown in a block plan, partial floor plans, replicas of Department of Building filing drawings from a 1908 renovation of the building; existing and proposed elevation drawings, photographs of the existing conditions and tax photographs showing the street facade, all prepared by Brent M. Porter, Architect, and in photographs from Commission files, all presented at the Public Hearing and the Public Meeting.
In reviewing this proposal, the Commission notes that the Clinton Hill Historic District Designation Report describes 109 Gates Avenue as one of a row of five Italianate style rowhouses built in the 1860s. The Commission also notes that the building was altered several times prior to designation; that the parlor floor entrance and two story corner storefront are part of the work shown in the 1908 drawing; that the building was damaged by a fire in 2000; that portions of the studio window and storefront were removed after the fire; that several parts of the stoop were replaced prior to designation; and that the historic material still in place at the stoop is in a deteriorated condition.
With regard to this proposal, the Commission found that the removal of the modern portions of the storefront, including the rolldown security gates and housing, the metal panning at the signband, the aluminum door to the retail space, and the corner entrance, has eliminated features that detracted from the special architectural and historic character of the building; that the design of the proposed storefront and the second floor bay, based on the 1908 drawing, will help to unify the first and second floors of the building, and return the facades closer to their historic appearance; that recreating the Gates Avenue and St. James Place entrances to the store will also bring the building closer to its 1908 appearance; that the configuration, material, and finish of the proposed studio window will return this feature closer to its original appearance and will be in keeping with the special architectural and historic character of the building; that removing the cast iron stoop will not eliminate significant historic material in view of its deteriorated state and previous loss of most original material; and that for these reasons the proposed alterations are in keeping with the building, the street, and the Clinton Hill Historic District.
I was in Brooklyn this summer and admired many of the Brownstones and some of the remaining Victorian storefronts. Very cool stuff. This incompetent reno, however, is total rubbish. We saw too much of this kind of destruction in Toronto and in many cases you can barely make out an old Victorian or, even Georgian, structure behind some inept and ugly addition. Just dumb.
I can attest to the fact that Mr Porter was very aware of and distressed by the fact that the storefront was completed in a fashion not in accordance with his original plans. I know this because he is my neighbor and is prone to airing his grievances quite loudly and publicly to anyone within earshot. One morning I heard him wailing as if he’d been gutshot. “You HAVE to call Landmarks and tell them that the storefront isn’t being completed properly- it’s supposed to be wooden and they’re doing this horrible brickwork….PLEASE call them and tell them”.
Why he believed I would have any pull with the LPC remains a mystery to me…
As I’m sure Shahn’s aware, high tech lynching is a reference to Clarence Thomas’s claims re: the coke bottle and Anita Hill. Controversial when initially spoken, of course. I think it’s an interesting turn of phrase for this attribution of bad architectural taste to Brent Porter – whom you can be sure had nothing to do with this eyesore – not meant to have any racial under or overtones.
Biff- what can we say? I mean, besides, “how could you?”
gatesave, Schultz was merely commenting about people saying things like
“I wonder if his students have seen this disgrace.
If any of you are on here please bring this to the attention of the rest of the class.”
Sorry, dave. That was wrong to say without knowing all the facts. I can’t see that “in the real world if you’re the one that signed on the dotted line then its your responsibility.” means it’s on Porter’s head, especially since the building changed hands and also architects. He was responsible for the original plans, not the project completion and then those plans were superseded and not followed in any case.
Things posted on the internet have a way of taking on an ugly life of their own even from a blog like brownstoner. Anyone who got that Obama is a Muslim email 800 times knows what I mean. Having that architectural mutation associated with his work could seriously impact Porter’s credibility, and for no reason.
I believe Schultz was referring to the various attacks on Brent Porter as a “high tech lynching”, Gatesave. If you look up the actual definition of the term “lynching” and not just the most common usage, you will find that it was an appropriate and interesting use of the term.
Schultz, you should be more responsible when throwing the term lynching around. I really dont think people commenting about how ugly a building is qualifies….
tinarina, Dave and bxgrl, I appreciate the insight. Dare I say, thanks a mullion?
Actually, I think the original mullions were quite old and looked rather charming, particularly in the bay windows.
When they put the new windows in, I kept waiting for a paint job, as I can’t imagine white is acceptable to LPC, but it never happened.
Dave, Maybe it’s hindsight but I don’t think I’ve used the word tasteful in the same sentence as “1960’s, 70s or 80s in a long time.