House of the Day: 109 Gates Avenue
What was the current owner of 109 Gates Avenue thinking when he shelled out $2 million for the five-story brick house in Clinton Hill last winter? The stop-start renovation had been on going since a group of investors had bought the place for $1.1 million back in early ’05. We’d been hoping that the reno…
What was the current owner of 109 Gates Avenue thinking when he shelled out $2 million for the five-story brick house in Clinton Hill last winter? The stop-start renovation had been on going since a group of investors had bought the place for $1.1 million back in early ’05. We’d been hoping that the reno was taking so long because of a painstaking restoration effort. Not so. The result is a cheap-looking Home Depot special on the upper three floors (in addition to the two unfinished bottom floors that are for rent, presumably for commercial purposes), a decision the owner must be regretting as the house sits on the market for the ridiculous asking price of $2,800,000. Especially in this market, if you build cheap, you’re gonna have to sell cheap. Time to wake up and smell the coffee.
109 Gates Avenue [Brooklyn Properties] GMAP P*Shark
Mural, And Then a Restaurant, at 109 Gates Avenue [Brownstoner]
Oh… wasn’t familiar with this building pre-rehab, and as such shot my mouth off about the mullions. Thanks, Shahn and 5:25. Mea culpa. Still, I wish they weren’t white.
Actually the LPC REQUIRED these “criss cross” windows. The original (to construction) were in terrible shape and needed to be replaced. I’d venture to guess that money ran out REAL fast after the windows were ordered and the kitchens took it hard.
Why, why, why did they not choose brown or black windows?
Choosing white has just got to be the most painful architectural/design/aesthetic mistake that people make on these historic structures, and yet so easy to avoid…
Why?
Like any city agency, the Landmarks Preservation Commission has teeth when it wants to. It is not, however, in the business of bankrupting homeowners for doing small things outside its jurisdiction.
They have DOB permits for their work on the building, which means either that they have explicit Landmarks permission or a Landmarks waiver for those windows. My guess is that those windows really did look like that on the tax photo, and that’s what LPC approved.
Guest 4:06 likes discipline!
i love it when you talk fines, rehab.
so sexy.
I don’t know how aggressive or effective LPC is on violations (does anybody else?), but a read of their website says that depending on the severity of the violation, they can slap you with some pretty juicy fines. This one would seem to qualify as a serious, Type A violation:
The Landmarks Protection Law defines two types of violations: type A and type B.
Type A violations include serious alterations to important architectural elements, such as cornices, stoops, windows, and storefronts; additionally, construction of rooftop or backyard additions may fit into this category. First-time type A violations are punishable by a fine of up to $5,000, if a second NOV is issued, there will be a fine of up to $250 per day, with a minimum fine of $5,000.
Type B violations include all other, less serious infractions, such as painting a facade a new color, replacing a single window, or installing a light, sign, flagpole or banner. First-time Type B violations are punishable by a fine of up to $500; if a second NOV is issued, there will be a fine of up to $50 per day, with a minimum fine of $500.
they’ve turned this beauty into sheetrock heaven…
This corner property would rock if it had 2 attached garages…
When they sell, will the city allow the deed to be recorded if there is an open LPC violation? The landmarks designation is recorded in the title chain, after all.