348 Clermont Avenue Getting Demolished
File this one under “Gigantic Bummer.” Following a November 2009 determination by the Department of Buildings that 348 Clermont Avenue was unsafe and needed to be torn down, HPD contractors arrived yesterday to begin demolition of the long-neglected brownstone. (You can see some interior photos in this old post.) The building, which is within the…
File this one under “Gigantic Bummer.” Following a November 2009 determination by the Department of Buildings that 348 Clermont Avenue was unsafe and needed to be torn down, HPD contractors arrived yesterday to begin demolition of the long-neglected brownstone. (You can see some interior photos in this old post.) The building, which is within the Fort Greene Historic District, only abuts one other house, also a brownstone, which will be protected as part of the demolition. The silver lining, if you can call it that, is that the Landmarks Preservation Commission is suing the owner for the full market value of the property in an effort to prevent him from profiting from the neglect and as a deterrent to other homeowners who might consider a similar course of inaction. Let’s hope they make an example of him. And before anyone starts crying us a river, this isn’t even a case of some old-timer who couldn’t afford to fix up his house: This place has changed hands (at least) four times since 2006 for prices ranging from $499,000 to $1,500,000. Smell a rat? Check out the transaction history on the jump.
House of the Day: 348 Clermont Avenue Shell [Brownstoner] GMAP
thwackamole- Denser assuming that this was a one-family house. Which it hadn’t been recently. So no.
I think we can also safely assume that _any habitable building_ has greater density than an uninhabitable shell. And finally, last time I checked, even we poor people liked a good-looking neighborhood more than a bunch of fedders’ specials.
Now if you were running around saying property is theft, seize all land for the masses, fine. But landmarking areas is as much an attempt to prevent shitty development which provides substandard development to new tenants and hurts the equity of existing old-school landowners as it is a harbringer of lattes and designer knitting botiques.
There are instances of landmarks being really annoying. This isn’t one of them. But thanks for playing.
They put up a scaffolding at 409 Classon at the same time. I live next door in this: http://bstoner.wpengine.com/brownstoner/archives/2007/11/house_of_the_da_412.php house.
BG, the building is “truly going to collapse.” There has been a sizable hole in the roof for some time and many of the structural elements have been removed, from an attempt at renovation I would guess.
The only reason this building hasn’t been torn down already, months after HPD ordered it demolished, is because the agency is working to protect 350 Clermont, which will not have buildings on either side of it.
Needed: a guerilla investigative micro-journalism site (skip the dead trees) that would hunt down the rogue owner and “out” him/her with his/her home address if it can be obtained through public records…do the whole “videocam interview ambush” on his doorstep…etc. In a perfect world this would fall to the local newspapers or TV stations, but they’re all hopeless now. We have lived for over a decade with a similar rogue shell owner on our block, and it’s a misery (wasted building, quality of life horror) waiting to become a tragedy (squatters, fire). And nobody has seemed able to do squat-all through any city agency, because the greedy manipulative loon who owns it has refused to sell it to a succession of eager would-be buyers. (And presumably she just tears up any fines she receives for all its violations.) Incredible, in the most over-regulated city in America, how much you can seemingly get away with.
This is horrible. Why can’t the City take control and make sure the building is shored, whatever is needed, and is stable? Why destroy it unless it is truly going to collapse?
Instead of ripping down the building and THEN making a move against the owner, how about making a movement against the owner and manage, through that process, to THEN take the building and NOT destroy it?
Such a lousy situation for the neighbors. And such a loss to our neighborhood. Hhhh!!!!
Much pissed!
The name of the site is “brownstoner” not “projectdweller.”
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at March 9, 2010 10:39 AM
hehehe
Back when the city was tearing down many, many more buildings, it did salvage material prior to demolition, which was then sold to city residents (with proof of residency) out of a warehouse in Williamsburg. That program was abandoned some time ago.
Commodore, I have been walking past this sad wreck for over 5 years and it is a sickening sight. Regarding salvageable innards, there is nothing, nada, there really can’t be considering that the roof is an open gaping hole into the building and it has been precipitating into it for years. The DOB ordered some kind of structural work to keep it from falling down. I can’t tell you how many times I thought about the waste of this building and felt sorry for the attached building. I am glad the LPC is suing them. There is a building down the street, closer to Fulton which is on its way to being a similiar case. I hope the owners of that one (warring siblings) sit up and take notice. MM is right — the neighborhood and the adjoining buildings are the real losers here.
Without landmarking, suburban sprawl would be even worse than it is. This heinous, land-swallowing, freeway-inducing monster is one of America’s worst sicknesses. Urban infrastructure regulation is the key to keeping the density of urban living livable, and everyone, everywhere benefits. NYC’s LPC should move faster and be better funded and better enforced.