432 Clermont Avenue: Totally Inappropriate
After letting the house at 432 Clermont Avenue fall into complete disrepair over the past decade, the family that owns the four-story brick now wants the Landmarks Preservation Commission to approve its plans for a rear facade and two-story addition that are not only aesthetically incompatible with the historic row of buildings but also fully…
After letting the house at 432 Clermont Avenue fall into complete disrepair over the past decade, the family that owns the four-story brick now wants the Landmarks Preservation Commission to approve its plans for a rear facade and two-story addition that are not only aesthetically incompatible with the historic row of buildings but also fully visible from the street—a big no-no in landmarked districts. (What architect in his right mind would propose those railings?) Presenting to the Community Board 2 Land Use Committee shortly before Christmas, the owner’s architect claimed that LPC has expressed a positive opinion of the project—something that we found hard to believe. A quick check with LPC revealed that the plans have not been presented to the commission yet. Hopefully, this’ll get bounced back for a serious makeover.
Another Head-Scratcher: 432 Clermont Avenue [Brownstoner] GMAP P*Shark
11:10AM: Yes, you changed your rear facade taking out the odd windows and putting in ones you point out MATCH the others…this is what LPC wants. You done good.
11:15 AM Yes, you sound like another jerk-architect (so we believe you practice architecture…)…Now, putting in some metal and glass wall would be stupid and trendy and lead to a COLD interior that would needs tons more heating in winter and would heat the heck out of the interior in summer…even YOU must know THAT…no?
Look, like it or not AGAIN, LPC gets to review all the drawings…maybe with some modification, this drek will pass…maybe not even.
It looks like SUCH the condo conversion…SNEE’ORE!
What a thread – are they more foul mouthed people on here trolls, just trying to stir things up? (“X is an idiot, Y is an idiot, you are an idiot”)
I think the point of the post was that the rear addition isn’t going to get approved by landmarks (seems like this is true) and that it shouldn’t (a point for debate). I agree that it’s pretty ugly. I personally don’t understand the fetish for crappy balconies and ugly sliding doors (I live in a floor-through 4th floor apartment with 3 double hung windows in the back and I like ’em better than a glass sliding door).
Have a great weekend everyone !
xx oo
Thank heaven there’s someone like Shahn to return this thread to the facts. If I had a dollar for every time time bullshit attempts to baffle brains on this forum I’d be able to afford that carriage house.
What some of us are arguing here is not opinion, but the facts of what the LPC does and does not allow. They will not allow an extension to be approved at staff level if it can be seen from any public street, regardless of the fact that it’s in the backyard. That’s why the owners of 432 Clermont have had to present to the community and to the full LPC board. This is section 2-16C of the LPC rules.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/lpc/downloads/pdf/pubs/rules.pdf
Getting this sort of thing approved by the commission is very, very difficult. Once it can be seen from the street, they judge very harshly. I had to present to the board on a project five or six times over the course of a year before I got it approved, and it was for an addition that was wholly in the backyard and only partially visable from the street.
Uh . . . can you be more specific about the whole “idiot” critique towards 12:26pm? What they say sounds pretty much on the money.
Mr. B, 11:10 here. Of course people have a right to voice their opinion. As I’ve posted on your forum many times before, the public feels a special sense of attachment and concern for buildings in areas that are historic — and not only is it natural but I would say it’s really healthy when entire communities get together to fight for retaining a legacy of architecture that took years, sometimes centuries, to create, and can be destroyed in one instance.
But my point is not about what neighbors think (again, I could give a f-k, especially when my neighbors don’t know the difference between primer and paint), but how individuals can be villified and ridiculed by the press (you) for doing nothing wrong. I can very easily express my outrage to LPC that they, who are PAID BY ME AS A TAXPAYER, are not doing their job to protect something I consider worth protecting. And I have been engaged in battles to save buildings using these very means.
I never would consider crossing the line and parading my spite via an attack on an owner.
Shahn Andersen (11:34 AM)and guest 12:26 PM are both wrong. Guest 12:26 PM is an idiot.
Well said, 1:10.
The backs of of most Brooklyn brownstones are hideous. Modernizing the back of brownstones can strengthen the structure if that’s needed, it lets in more light by making back windows larger. Everybody does it in Manhattan, and the result is when you look across at all the backyards in say the West Village it’s gorgeous. Much much prettier than the backyards in Brooklyn. Even many of the nicest stretches of houses in Park Slope have failed to do good garden design and back-facade design. Brooklyn is still behind on this type of renovation. It might be a new concept to Brownstoner, but it’s certainly not a new concept to NYC houses. Please. Get with it.
guest at January 4, 2008 10:37 AM wrote:
Or maybe, if you want something really historically accurate all the houses should just hang laundry lines across their yards. THAT would be pretty, right?
Well, it actually might be if there were a few camisoles and bras on the line! Seriously though, if folks forsook the convenience of shoving their wet clothes in a dryer and took advantage of the free drying power of the sun, saving personal money, lessening emissions, and taking just a little out of the coffers of energy conglomerates and oil-rich but democratically-poor nations, wouldn’t that be a good thing? I sure as hell would applaud the flapping underwear, and its owner.