Ugly Cinderblock Extensions Make Bad Neighbors
A reader who has the misfortune to have had this ugly cinderblock extension and wall go up along one side of her garden wrote in for some advice last week. “The developer has left the extension unfinished on our side,” she writes, “Including a pole that was painted on every side expect ours.” Despite being…
A reader who has the misfortune to have had this ugly cinderblock extension and wall go up along one side of her garden wrote in for some advice last week. “The developer has left the extension unfinished on our side,” she writes, “Including a pole that was painted on every side expect ours.” Despite being a lawyer herself, the reader was not sure what obligation (if any) her neighbor had to either finish, or pay for finishing, the wall on her side. As it turns out, the developer did start finishing the wall yesterday, but the question is still an apt one. It’s possible that the “right” thing to do and the “legal” thing to do are not the same in this case. Anyone know for sure?
Plant vines on the wall – they will cover the unattractive cinder block. Engligh ivy will grow in some shade and it’s really bad for masonry – it’s “roots” will penetrate mortar and hasten the demise of the cinderblock. An attractive revenge. You may have to train the ivy at first in order to get it to climb.
4:13pm, I was PRAISING that post I quoted, not complaining about it. I don’t know why you missed that.
Crab Grass was correct:
“The key is to speak with your neighbor.
In order to have the wall finished you have to give the contractors permission to go on your side, Often this permission is denied, especially I may add, by citizens who work in the legal profession. If the guys cannot get to your side to parge and paint, you have to do it yourself.
Having a garden in the city is such a blessing, wall or no wall. ”
Go to the NYC Building Code for more information.
6:25: Or both. It is starting to sound to me like every damn person on Brownstoner should be living somewhere other than an urban rowhouse.
Or, maybe a person who wants to barbecue every night on his gigantic deck should be living somewhere other than an urban rowhouse?
put up a wood fence on your side then plant vines.
No one knows that someday a huge multi-story apartment building with many windows might be built in front of his garden. We should be able to have rights for our quality of living somehow, shouldn’t we?
5:05, so essentially, the difference is that your tastes are superior to your neighbor’s? That the thing you like is better than the thing that he likes? That, therefore, brownstones are “for you” (i.e., for people who value what you value) and not for him? I’m sorry, but I don’t see the ethical high ground there.
Not to mention that, if you value outdoor privacy so highly, maybe you’re the one who should be living somewhere other than in an urban rowhouse.
4:21…why is it more considerate? I purchased my home because, among other things, I liked the “luxury” of a backyard, having lived most of my life (a family of four) in a four-room apartment. This expansion trend is getting somewhat out of hand. It ruins what I treasure most: the ability to enjoy my private space without people looking down on me and without having to stare at multi-story brick walls that had never existed before. If people need such super-large homes, then please don’t buy a brownstone…it’s not for you. Just don’t take away what I love most about my home.