Brooklyn Inside & Out

First, to reiterate and strengthen my sister Katie Merz’s point: the “existing chimney” shown in the architectural rendering does not exist in reality and was not part of the original design. Second, if you look to the right on the roof in the “existing” drawing, you’ll see another shaded “mass”—also non-existent. These fabrications are plainly intended to mislead Landmarks into believing there were prior breaks in the original symmetry and intent of the structure, thereby implying that the proposed addition merely “continues” what is already there. It does not. These elements are fictional. Why invent them? Because once an addition is placed on the roof, the actual chimney—which in the Merz design sits at the center of the roof and is the same height as the parapet—will, by NYC code (Title 27, Subchapter 15), be required to extend at least three feet above the new roofline. In other words, their unlawful “birthday-cake” addition forces the chimney to sprout an additional three-foot extension, turning it into a literal candle on top of their construction. So they have drawn a fake chimney to distract from this violation and its aesthetic absurdity. Likewise, the shaded mass on the right side is an invention—an attempt to fabricate a visual “continuity” to justify whatever mechanicals or bulk they hope to slip in. It has no basis in the built reality. My parents designed these houses—48, 44, and 40—on three vacant lots before the Landmarks Law even existed. They could have built higher, bulkier, more aggressively modern structures. They did not. They chose restraint: harmony, balance, proportion, and a sensitive dialogue with the surrounding historic fabric. Every plane, setback, roofline, and geometric mass was intentional. The integrity of the design is the composition itself. I came home from the hospital two weeks after these houses were built. Throughout my entire life—at ages 6, 13, 19, and as an adult with my own children—students from Columbia, Pratt, Yale, NYU Urban Design, and beyond came to study these homes as exemplary modernist infill. Up to my father’s death at 92, he could be found on the stoop or walking a group through the design, explaining the vision he and my mother achieved: a holistic, sensitive modernism that integrates with, rather than bulldozes over, its historic neighbors. Whether one likes the houses or not is irrelevant. They do not overwhelm; they compose a deliberate symmetry, this house in question (48) on its own and down through 44 and 40—the bookend of a deliberately unified trio set amid two older houses. The integrity of the whole role and composition and their intent to both set a precedent of excellent "infill" architecture is at stake. And let me be absolutely clear: this is not a “modern” house in the sense of contemporary stylistic trends. It is a modernist house—of a specific period, at the height of modernist architectural expression. It deserves the protection afforded to any significant work of its era. Finally, this is not merely a question of taste or preference. There is precedent. In 1978, the owners of 44 Willow Place—another of the trio my parents designed—attempted to build a roof addition. Otis Pratt Pearsall himself—the man who wrote the NYC Landmarks Law and who stopped Robert Moses’s BQE plan from destroying Brooklyn Heights—wrote a three-page letter forcefully declaring that any alteration to the façade, roofline, or visible massing of these houses would be a direct violation of what Landmarks exists to protect. He went on at length praising the architectural importance and integrity of these structures. Landmarks summarily rejected the proposal, and the owner of 44 refused to speak to my parents for the rest of his life. I am not an antagonist of wealth or yoga rooms on roofs. But in a 3,200-square-foot house with one of the largest backyards in Brooklyn Heights and a two-car garage, this proposal is nothing short of an outrageous assault on a nationally recognized AIA-honored design. For what, exactly? To satisfy the whims of a pair of $13-million buyers who simply want more? Years of students learning here, years of careful Landmarks protection, decades of architectural integrity—all cast aside for what? A preference? A want? A fleeting indulgence dressed up as necessity? This should not, and must not, be allowed to happen.

The incorrect chimney that Katie Merz points out is problematic. It is easy to confirm that it doesn't exist- just check the house out on Google Earth. Whether this error is due to sloppiness or to deceive Landmarks into thinking there is a precedent for protrusions on the roof cannot be determined, but it doesn't speak well for the competence or intensions of the architects.

I would like to make a correction to the architects " existing building " drawing. There is no chimney or protrusion that extends above the parapet. There has never been a chimney that extends past the site-line of the cube. That rendering is not true to reality. My parents would NEVER have made a small chimney extend past the line of the roof. And to repeat - that depiction of the existing structure is not correct.

Thank You Marty !