New Row of Townhouses at 233 Carlton
Just over the fence from 237 Carlton is the huge empty lot at Number 233 that backs up onto the church property at 232 Adelphi. One of the group that’s developing the combined site was holding court in the basement of 237 Carlton, with plans and model on display (presumably the same ones discussed here)….
Just over the fence from 237 Carlton is the huge empty lot at Number 233 that backs up onto the church property at 232 Adelphi. One of the group that’s developing the combined site was holding court in the basement of 237 Carlton, with plans and model on display (presumably the same ones discussed here). We’re pretty sure that the 233 and 237 are part of the same lot, and if you look at the model it appears that they are planning to build behind and above the side extension of Number 237. The general plan is to build contextual townhouses and the drawings look fairly encouraging, however, the devil is really in the details for this kind of thing; our suggestion that they use old salvaged brick for the facade seemed to fall on deaf ears and was countered with something about a “modern interpretation” of the other townhouses on the block. We’ll see. While the developers have had a lot of back-and-forth with Landmarks, nothing has been approved yet. GMAP
28th Annual House Tour [Fort Greene Association]
Get Psyched for the FG House Tour [Brownstoner]
The Word on the FG House Tour [Brownstoner]
No, Scarano is not blocked from the site. That doesn’t however mean that this was the real slim shady.
Troll Troll Troll. We all know that the REAL Scarano has been blocked from this site.
SHAHN,
WAS LANDMARKS THAT BAD TO YOU? tHEY APPROVED MANY JOBS FOR ME.
SCARANO
yes, the developer owns and lives in the 237 Carlton property.
I got the sense that the people who own 237 Carlton were somehow connected to this project. It would seem to me that you would have to merge the (tax parcels) properties to get the sort of building they are suggesting. Quite frankly didn’t look too bad to me. I would love to have a similar development over in my part of the hood rather than the (already decried on this site) tower at Fulton and Classon or the vacant lots on Putnam.
Is there really such a thing as “back-and-forth” with Landmarks? In my experience, it’s much more of “go back to the drawing table and change it or you will never be moving forth”.
If you look at both the drawing and the scale model in brownstoner’s photo, you’ll notice something interesting. The planned townhouse immediately to the left of 237 Carlton (the one that is significantly set back from the sidewalk), is actually attached across the back of the side wing of 237 Carlton. The architect confirmed this during the house tour. Granted, the side wing has no windows in the rear. But it still means the owners of 237 will have a very, very close new neighbor. They must have sold part of their backyard to the developer to allow for this. Hope they got enough to feel good about it. Can’t say it would have been my choice.
Maybe we can all pitch in and help the developer find cheap sources for used bricks. I’m sure your suggestion fell on deaf ears because of the cost of old brick. Donations anyone?
Old brick is the best, even if it’s been painting. If they built the facade with a combination of old painted and unpainted bricks it would look awesome. I’ve uncovered brick walls like that in old buildings before and it looks really cool.
I’m pretty sure used brick was used to construct many of the brick townhouses and apartment buildings built in New York a hundred years ago — though they clearly used “new brick” for the facades at the time.