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
Shahn Andersen (11:34 AM),
You have no idea what you are talking about. Crawl back under your rock. You and Mr. B are totally wrong. Mind your beez wax nosey neighbors.
Does the Landmarks Commission restrict the height of proposed buildings in historic districts?
The Commission does not regulate the height or floor area of buildings, the size of rear yards or open spaces, obstruction of sunlight or air, density of population, or the purposes for which buildings are used. These matters are under the jurisdiction of the Department of City Planning. For more information about these issues, contact City Planning at 22 Reade Street, New York, NY 10007; 212-720-3276.
usually i agree with mr. B, but in this case, i think the posting is over the line. the front facade looks perfectly fine. the rear facade looks reasonably respectful and appropriate to me. the railings not so offensive. the rear facades of the neighboring buildings are not especially aesthetically pleasing. they’re pretty utilitarian. in general, i am pro preservation but getting all our panties in a bundle over something this minor makes preservationists seem insane and does a disservice to the effort as a whole. i feel like LPC usually does a good job in preserving the intent and character of a neighbohood. but if they shoot this one down then jeez let’s abolish the LPC. come on give these owners a break.
I live almost directly opposite this brownstone on Adelphi (so I would see it every day from my back window), and frankly, I do not believe the plans I see are objectionable. As long as the front facade remains in characther with the block (which it does), then neither the extension (which is not visible from the front) nor the rear facade, as represented, should be of concern. Note that Adelphi Street is not landmarked and compared to the uglier buildings in the back (I say they are ugly, but I still like the human character and diversity they bring to the block), this proposed rear facade is actually an improvement.
I believe there needs to be a balance between landmark preservation and ownership rights. I respectfully disagree with brownstoner on this one, but as always welcome the discussion.
Looking at the picture and rendering, the proposed design would be my second favorite from this view. First would be the original looking building, then the proposed, then all thos crap additions with crap on the roof, then the new junk.
but I agree with Brownstoner that both sides should have their say in “court”. Just like I was vocal that I very much dislike the noise, etc from AC units on the roof when Brownstoner blogged about the AC unit he put on his roof. I can see one on my neighbors right now and .. ugh .. nice view for us neighbors.
“The LPC has no jurisdiction over what owners do to the back of their houses as long as they get a permit. This will definitely get approved. I’ve worked with the LPC before.
Mr. B, you’re totally wrong.
Posted by: guest at January 4, 2008 10:19 AM”
That is probably the least informed response I’ve read on this site. Have you ever gone before the LPC or had any experience with them other than what your “friends” have told you”? You obviously have not worked with the LPC or you would know this.
As long as they get a permit? You can’t get a permit UNTIL Landmarks has approved what you intend to do. Clueless.
So 11:10, people should only care about what their own homes look like and not what happens to the streetscapes that they walk down everyday? Just as owners have the right to “dream up whatever they want” for their homes, citizens have a right to express their opinions. They don’t necessarily have the power to stop something but they certainly can make their voices heard. Hopefully, on a cumulative level, the discussion and debate leads to a higher level of overall design.
Ok, yes, LPC has jurisdiction, and since June 2007 even if you are only doing work on a part of the building not seen by the public, the LPC requires COMPLETE review of ALL drawings, even those they have no purview over! So, they are gonna weigh in whether you think they should or not. As for whether this is ‘appropriate’- come on, the front is being RESTORED- let the owner do as he pleases with the back for f*cks sake!!! This is so TAME, and you cannot even see the rooftop addition from the street… Please, let’s not waste LPC time and resources on the barely visible REAR facades of residences being otherwise restored, when there are so many crappy projects getting the nod elsewhere.
And yes, I work as a preservation architect, and deal with LPC constantly, so yeah, i think I am qualified to weigh in…I would knock out the whole rear wall and put in a glass and steel moment frame, so I could be the envy of all my neighbors trapped in their brick facades with minimal fenestration!!!
Brownstoner is right to point out the potential inconsistency of LPC’s decisions. Those decisions can be very invasive and very costly to homeowners; their inconsistency is therefore (rightfully) infuriating. However, I’m not sure that the tone of this story — a kind of persecution-style diatribe against the owner — is fair. Owners have the right to dream up whatever they want for their homes. That’s our FREEDOM in this country (supposedly) — we respect private ownership, within boundaries of the code.
If you don’t like how the boundaries (codes) are being enforced, then have issues with the enforcement system. Stop personally attacking the owners.
And as far as inconsistency, in my own personal experience, I am glad that LPC has the willingness to interpret each situation individually. LPC let us change our back facade quite dramatically (very visible from street); we replaced four ugly, irregularily punched out windows with four new ones that matched the other facades’ windows. Maybe everyone in the neighborhood hates the change. So far we’ve only had positive responses but when people are deeply offended, they head for the safety of the internet to bitch. Frankly, I could give a f-k what Brownstoner or anyone else might think of how the result looks in my building. We think it’s beautiful, and I’m glad LPC was willing to go along with our vision.
Pesky neighbor,
Mind your beezwax. There’s nothing wrong with the extension. Like others have pointed out, it looks better than most of the other extensions on the block.
Where does it say in the LPC rules that 432 Clermont’s extension is not up to snuff?