Facade Torn Off Washington Ave. House
Another strong argument for more aggressively expanding historic districts…Yesterday, the entire roof and facade was ripped off the former fishscale-shingled house at 221 Washington Avenue in Clinton Hill. This was originally part of a trio of similar houses, though only one (the one with the blue trim) is still in its original form. As you…
Another strong argument for more aggressively expanding historic districts…Yesterday, the entire roof and facade was ripped off the former fishscale-shingled house at 221 Washington Avenue in Clinton Hill. This was originally part of a trio of similar houses, though only one (the one with the blue trim) is still in its original form. As you can see from this map, the house in question lies falls three lots outside of the border of the Clinton Hill Historic District. According to DOB filings, the owner, who paid $530,000 for the house last year, is converting this into a three-family dwelling. It’s scary to imagine how the new version will probably look compared to what was there before. GMAP
That is an entirely new building being constructed on the lot of the former house.
New building. This way, they’d have to build under current code, since it’s substantially new.
This place was a wreck, and has been vacant for at least the past three years. Don’t think there were any details at all. However, other than lacking the cornice, the shingled facade didn’t look bad. But it probably was.
Agree with Maly: Under whose definition could this possibly be considered “not a substantial alteration”? The whole house is gone!
Maly – under what ‘Job Type’ do you suggest this should have been filed?
I hope this doesn’t come out like that house in Prospect Heights, that was also “not a substantial alteration” and came out an entirely new and fugly building without a hint of its former facade. I can see an entirely new roof, but find it odd that an entire facade needs to be torn off. Doesn’t bode well. I sincerely hope the owner pleasantly surprises us, in which case we should bestow some kind of Brownstoner award.
Filed as an Alt.1 because it is “not a substantial alteration.” Oh really! Is that plumbing work I see?
brownstone, I agree, but $530K is what people paid to live in one/two bedrooms in the hood, not a whole house. I guess there wasn’t much to love for someone with some cash in pockets to save facade.
DeLepp, that’s probably true about the interior but tearing off a historic facade is nothing short of barbaric!
The old house was practically falling down so…there was also MAJOR structural problems. We looked at it years ago. And not sure how quick the work is going, it’s been on-going for quite some time. Between this house and the one next door-tearing out the garden that was supposed to be so lovely (wasn’t it on a garden house tour) it’s been a construction zone around the area.
Above posted in error, not finished.