348 Clermont's Architectural Archaeology
[nggallery id=”41886″ template=galleryview] With most of the facade removed and much of the exposed side wall demolished, 348 Clermont Avenue provides an interesting and entertaining (if you can forget for a second the tragedy of the situation) look at some of the old architectural elements. Most notably, the outline of the stairs on the southern…
[nggallery id=”41886″ template=galleryview]
With most of the facade removed and much of the exposed side wall demolished, 348 Clermont Avenue provides an interesting and entertaining (if you can forget for a second the tragedy of the situation) look at some of the old architectural elements. Most notably, the outline of the stairs on the southern wall and a lone fireplace holding on for dear life. Also, if you’re the salvaging type, there are a handful of joists just lying in the street out in front.
348 Clermont Demo Well Underway [Brownstoner]
348 Clermont Avenue Getting Demolished [Brownstoner]
Marble white, it is a kind of creme, hint of yellow but very delicate and coolish, slightly toward green. I have antique yellow in much of the house which is really creme, but marble white is much cooler and more subtle.
Oh, and since I’ve been using stories about this building’s demise as a jump off point to talk about the new building going up on Cumberland (in the exact corresponding lot):
The new Cumberland building has yet more problems on top of what I’ve mentioned previously. If you’ll note in the photograph above the very massive outer wall on the building being demolished and compare it with the thin single layer cinderblock on the Cumberland building, where, I’ll point out, because of lack of properly sized blocks, they’ve “glued in” chards and poorly chopped blocks to finish the outer wall.
I guess they want to raise a four-story single layer cinderblock wall with a little internal reinforcement but that needs to carry the weight of all of the joists spanning the width of the building, the flooring decks and eventual wood flooring, tile, etc., the weight of a staircase, the roof and also, partially the brick facing that will hide it. AND they have window openings set into it so it’s even less solid. Hhhh…
I’m so glad we don’t have an “end house”. A girlfriend and her husband had a hell of time renovating because it turned out their end-of-the-block facade facing the side street had to be rebuilt both inside and out. I can only imagine how the flimsy looking cinderblock walls will hold up over time.
If that weren’t enough, I understand you’re supposed to leave a gap between buildings now to meet building code. This new building sits right up against the existing party wall in certain places. Granted, the new cinderblock wall on the rowhouse side sits (just) slightly away from the party wall at the front facade but is in FULL CONTACT with the party wall as it goes back along the lot line.
Understand the existing party wall has two chimney breasts that look a bit like buttressing left in place when the church demolished the original townhouse that sat on the lot. A retired judge lived there then and was pretty much homebound. He had to move. Anyway, I always figured they left the chimney breasts to give the outer wall a little more strength.
But with the building code the way it is, can a new building be built right up against these types of structures?
The cheapness of that new building in order to maximize interior space and save money on materials is a bit scary.
The condo built on Cumberland on the other side of Lafayette did a much better job–granted more expensive–and used a steel frame with metal decking. The masonry elements on that successful building (which, along with some of its residents) has been featured by the New York Times, do not support the weight of the entire building and are much more sound.
I wonder if part of the cheapness is due to the inflated price of the lot. The church, I heard, sold it for $200,000 and the buyer sold it for twice that some point not long after. Then the next buyer, I heard, tried to sell it for 800,000 which was a little ludicrous. If the current developer had paid only the original $200,000 the church sold it just a handful of years ago, he would have had a lot more to spend on the actual construction.
Hhh…please, someone who knows something about something, swing and have a look a the building while it’s being built. See if it meets code and will be safe. I don’t want to think the outer wall could collapse into my neighbors’ yards!
Still, I wonder if they really needed to demolish the building. Would it have cost more than $500,000 to shore up and completely redo inside?
I feel bad for the people who live up against this! My heart really does go out to them.
The tenacity of the fireplace shows they weren’t fooling around when they built. Not even gravity can displace it!
Sad, though. Brownstones are a finite resource.
Tragic, but very interesting.