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.
Those mullions, if they’ve been there for some time, look like any of the typical tasteful additions that many brownstones became victims of in the 1960s, 70s or 80s…take your pick of any decade!!!
Were the old mullions actually original to the building? Agreed black would be a better color and I happen to love mullion windows but maybe didn’t think they were original because the white threw me off. Which I guess is another point- doesn’t the LPC require the color be black?
Regarding the mullioned windows–they were like that before the fire in that building 5+ years ago, but painted black. These look like reasonable replacements, but don’t look so good white.
Well slopefarm & Schultz…in the real world if you’re the one that signed on the dotted line then its your responsibility. Torts & Contracts.
he’s the one getting lynched because it involves an architect and apparently there’s only one name anyone can come up with!!
I know that anything to do with DOB and Landmarks and for that matter most of the government isn’t the real world.
Thanks Schultz- it didn’t seem likely someone of his caliber and reputation would have designed that awful renovation. So what does happen when a LPC renovation changes hands midstream? Do the new owners refile (I guess they would if they wanted to change the original plans on file)? I’m guessing the present owner didn’t even bother to file new papers with the LPC or if they did, perhaps they simply dropped in Porter’s name since he was on the original filing. they don’t seem overly worried about legality.
what can the LPC do now that it issued a violation?
Before any of you go ahead and mindlessly trash Brent Porter, I know for a fact that he was the architect for a previous owner and that some architect acquaintances of mine worked on it after him and then someone else replaced them. While his name may be on the approved landmark plans, that in no way implicates him on what eventually happened! Talk about a high tech lynching!
BIS shows that plans for an Alt-2 were approved in 2002. Work permit wasn’t pulled until 2007. How much did the architect even know about the work done under the permit? I don’t know the answer, just posing the question. Wouldn’t be surprised if the work doesn’t conform to plans.
It was rumored that the last tenant of this store, a bodega, set it ablaze in retaliation for being evicted due to street pharmaceutical sales. What a mess.
daveinbedstuy, this fool should kiss more than my or anyone’s grits for pulling such a dirty trick – this building is a blight on the block, the street and the neighborhood.