Showing posts with label building. Show all posts
Showing posts with label building. Show all posts

Tuesday, January 31, 2012

IMG_7114
IMG_8126
IMG_8127
IMG_8128
IMG_1825
Historic District Council (HDC), the Citywide Advocate for New York's Historic Neighborhoods, is currently circulating a petition to be sent to the NYC Council's Landmarks Subcommittee in regards to the landmark Coignet Building on the intersection of Third Street and Third Avenue in Gowanus.
HDC is asking the Landmark's Subcommittee to not grant Whole Foods Market, the owner, a special dispensation from the New York City Landmarks Law that governs the historic building.
Whole Foods wants to annex part of the Coignet building site to make the design of their proposed food market fit on the adjacent site "without any consideration given to how that new structure will impose itself on the designated landmark building." If granted, there will only be a five-foot “buffer zone” between the Coignet building and the new WF bi-box retail store.
On January 24th, the Landmarks Preservation Commission voted unanimously to reduce the size of the lot.
The Council's Landmarks Sub Committee (chaired by Councilmember Brad Lander)  will vote on this matter soon, before it is taken up by the entire Council.
HDC's petition reads:
"The Coignet building must be given the proper protection it currently has under the Landmarks Law. Whole Foods should comply with this law just as any owner of a landmark is required to. Whole Foods must make a proper Landmarks Public Hearing that shows just how their proposed development will relate to the Coignet Building."
If Whole Foods is allowed to alter the landmark site in order to avoid the normal Landmarks Preservation Commission review process, this will opens the way for all who want to build upon a landmarked site and avoid any LPC oversight. Maybe St Bart's Church can request a "Whole Foods" ruling and start building that glass tower they wanted to cantilever on their landmark church site 30 years ago.
We ask that City Council not damage Landmark Law by allowing any developer to manipulate and thus avoid the law in this manner
."
On January 24th, the Landmarks Preservation Commission voted unanimously to reduce the size of the lot.
The Council's Landmarks Sub Committee will vote on this this week, before the matter will be taken upthe flu Council.
To sign HDC's petition, click here
.

Historic Etching of Conglon building
A brief history of the Coignet building from HDC:
"The New York and Long Island Stone Company Coignet Building was constructed as a show case for what the manufacturer’s product could do, create a strong, elegant, detailed building at a cost less than real stone. It is easy to forget that this is the earliest known concrete building in New York City, and one of the earliest in the country, due to the fact it has been primarily covered over with faux brick. Areas of the west and south façades though are uncovered and the building’s reason for being, concrete, is visible. While these two walls are certainly secondary to the main façades on Third Avenue and Third Street, they are not plain and instead some of the same detailing including arched windows, quoins and stringcourse are carried over. The west façade also includes a bay identical in design to the bays on the primary façades. It is troublesome that after years of planning by Whole Foods, the company is only now dealing with the fact that it owns a designated site and is asking the landmark to bear the brunt of the project. As shown in renderings, plans and elevations presented to the Brooklyn Community Board 6 Land Use Committee in August, the Coignet Building would be engulfed by new structures, while the other half of the block would be a parking lot. Obviously there are other arrangements on this block that would be more appropriate for the landmark. Although buildings were once unfortunately built up against the Coignet Building, probably in the mid-20th century, as their ghosts on the side walls show, they were shorter. Other factory buildings on the block were described by Brooklyn Daily Eagle in June 1872 as 32 feet tall – about 20 feet shorter than the planned Whole Foods buildings. The Coignet Building was always allowed to retain its prominence on the block. HDC urges you to keep the boundaries as they are so that any alterations to the sight are overseen by LPC and sensitively help preserve one of the few landmarks in Gowanus."

IMG_5900
IMG_5172
IMG_5164
IMG_5839
Construction of the 7 story, 32 unit condominium building at 340 Court Street has been progressing swiftly in the last few months. The steel frame has been completed and a new phase of construction is about to begin.  In addition, excavation of the town homes on Sackett Street will commence soon.
Below is a community update on the 340 Court Street construction site from Joel Breitkopf of development firm Alchemy Properties Inc.   According to Breitkopf:
"We are placing concrete floors 7 and 8 and stairwells of condo building. There will be a pedestrian walkway change on Court and Union streets as we will be placing concrete and back filling for temporary sidewalk and hoist on Court and Union Streets. We will be commencing the hoist installation along Court Street. Finally, excavation will start for the Sackett Street Townhomes. Trucking and soil removal via the Sackett and Union Street gates."

Thursday, October 27, 2011

IMG_1247
IMG_1457
IMG_1458
441 Carroll Street back in May 2011
and the new building, November 2011
IMG_4230
IMG_4226
IMG_4229
IMG_4235
The view of the new building from Nevins Street
IMG_4237
The house at number 441 Carroll Street, between Nevins and Third Avenue in Gowanus, was never the prettiest on the block by any stretch of the imagination.  Actually, the two-story, aluminum-clad building was so crooked, its porch leaning so precariously, that one had to wonder how it held together.  And yet, it had a certain charm all its own.
In May of this year, a permit was filed with NYC Department of Buildings for "proposed horizontal enlargement at rear and front of 1st floor," but instead of enlarging the house, it was entirely demolished.  The D.o.B. eventually caught on and gave the site a violation for "work without permit. Work performed significantly exceeds scope permitted." To date there are two unresolved ECB violations  on file.  A new permit which encompasses the true extend of the work is being reviewed by the agency right now.
Take a look at the large gable on the lot line, facing Nevins Street and the Gowanus.  
What do you think?

Friday, May 13, 2011

031
200 Smith Street in Fall of 2010
IMG_1275

IMG_1282

IMG_1303

IMG_1304

Back in December 2010, permits for a horizontal enlargement at the 3rd floor were issued by the NYC Department of Buildings at 200 Smith Street, a non-descript old house that had endured its fair share of remuddling over the last few decades. However, instead of building an addition, the entire house was taken down in a matter of days. The debris was carted away in dumpsters at night and by the time the D.o.B responded to several 311 calls, the lot was vacant. D.o.B. immediately issued a Stop Work Order. That, however, was fully rescinded on April 18th, though there are several Environmental Control Board (ECB) violation still open on this property, including one for the demo.

Since the demolition, local residents have had to deal with a rather nasty problems: rats. And lots of them. Since the empty lot sits right over the F/G subway line, the critters have crawled out of the subway tunnel en masse. It sure doesn't help that the building site has not fully been cleaned. Tons of debris was left behind.
Even more disturbing is the giant hole in the former building's foundation. One can look right into its basement. No wonder rats have taken over.
One area resident wrote into Pardon Me to tell me that the rodents "come out mostly on garbage nights and quickly scurry back under the scaffolding whenever someone walks by. But they are always there, and in numbers. The other night one ran over my girlfriends foot!" That is truly disgusting.

One wonders a) why the owner of the site has not had to secure it fully, and b) why he has not had to bait properly. Apparently, the city has not yet responded to several 311 calls made by nearby residents.

Related posts:

°°°°°°°°°