580 Carroll Developer Trying to Supersize Norten Project
The neighbors aren’t going to like this one…The developer of the Enrique Norten-designed glassy condo that runs through the block from 580 Carroll Street to 25 Garfield Place in Park Slope is pleading economic hardship in a bid to squeeze in three townhouses on the Carroll Street side where the initial designs call for a…
The neighbors aren’t going to like this one…The developer of the Enrique Norten-designed glassy condo that runs through the block from 580 Carroll Street to 25 Garfield Place in Park Slope is pleading economic hardship in a bid to squeeze in three townhouses on the Carroll Street side where the initial designs call for a large garden. CB6’s Land Use Committee will be holding a hearing on the topic on May 28 at 6 p.m. at the Old First Church, 729 Carroll Street.
Land Use Committee Hearing About 580 Carroll [OTBKB]
Development Watch: 580 Carroll Street [Brownstoner]
Enrique Norten-Designed Project in Park Slope Revealed [Brownstoner] GMAP
Four Developments Coming to One Stretch of Carroll [Brownstoner] P*Shark DOB
Werbe,
With all due respect, I think you need to take a better look at the complaints on file at the DOB for this property.
Firstly, you list that there are 38 complaints against them. That is incorrect. They have 28, the other 10 complaints are for other properties. Of the 28, only 2 remain open, and those two were only recently made (most likely by you). The rest have been rescinded, found to be not objectionable by the inspector, or fully resolved.
Secondly, It is a construction site where a new building is being built. Of course there is noise. Of course there is ongoing work to be done with the sewers. Of course there will be annoyances to neighbors. That is the nature of development. I am an architect, so I know what occurs during construction. It’s not all pretty, but it is necessary if improvement to infrastructure, neighborhoods, and community can be made. What you consider annoyances may actually be beneficial to the neighborhood in the long run. In this case, I believe it is.
Regarding working after hours, you are absolutely right. If they don’t have a permit, then they are performing work illegally. But you should be aware that it is indeed possible to get weekend work permits.
Good luck dealing with the project. In the end, hopefully, you’ll have a beautiful new building sitting next to your property. Moreover, I wish all future inhabitants of this property the best of luck dealing with you. No offense, but you sound like the neighbor from hell.
This project may be over in a year. If those townhouses are permitted, probably not. It has been going on over three years already. As to stipulated hours- that is a laugh, they have violated so many stipulations already that to work when they don’t have clearance doesn’t phase them. They have 38 registered complaints against them – probably a fourth of the total really made. The job site has been shut down numerous times for their transgressions. Traffic too much on 4th ave- yes because of over-development.This project will improve the sidewalks you say yet for the last three years they have deteriorated from the construction activities as they have been undermined, cracked and pounded to become dangerous passages. The local schools are very overcrowded, more and more projects such as this makes it worse. Get out in the real world Mr.Dsign and see it for how it is.
Mr. 60 Designers – Please don’t blatantly reveal your class bias and ignorance while trying to deliver criticism.The sewers are inadequate now, let alone when these developments get occupied. When it rains hard in the summer the water backs up into the houses near 4th. Noise from dawn til dark is an exaggeration but not because I stated it. It is an exaggeration of what is permissible and sadly the truth, the work there starts at 7am and they quit around 8 six and sometimes seven days a week. I live next door to the site – my foundation is cracked, others likewise. There is a constant shower of dust, concrete debris, diesel fumes, screeching and hammering and the rumble of generators and compressors through out their 12-13 hour work days (and evenings). My 35 years as an architectural woodworker might give me some insight into how this project has been poorly organized and executed and how wrong you are
Werbe,
I live just three blocks from this site and I have to say that this is building a welcome addition to the block. I think your criticisms of the project are misguided. This project will not exacerbate overcrowding of schools in the neighborhood, the street is definitely not overcrowded here (in fact, this particular block is quite vacant), and sewer lines are in no way over burdened by this project.
What kind of damage do surrounding homes suffer? Noise? This project will be over in a year and the benefits to the neighborhood far exceed the noise generated during construction. Noise from Dawn till Dark is exaggerating work hours. There are stipulated hours for construction. Air Pollution? Sorry, but it sounds like you’re grasping for straws. Do you support any construction anywhere in the world or do dirt movers cause too much pollution for your tastes? Sorry, but pollution is minimal for a job this small. If you want to tackle pollution, you should address the number of cars and trucks in the city, especially along 4th avenue (1/2 a block from this site). And crumbling sidewalks? It looks to me like this proposal will enhance the sidewalks, not destroy them.
Sorry, but I think your post exposes a terrible ignorance about development and architecture.
It looks like a prison.
Whatever the merits of the design, or your personal preference. The upcoming hearing is specifically about 3 townhouses added to this site(whose design is unknown). It is an issue of over development, and thus overcrowded schools,streets, and sewer lines. It is also an issue of the surrounding homes suffering damage, constant noise (from dawn to dark), incredible air pollution, blocked streets, crumbling sidewalks. Please consider the hardship claimed by the developer with the understanding that he is also developing “The High Line Hotel”, a 60-unit on 27th street in Manhattan. His “hardship” plea is a blatant attempt to extract profit despite his inept development of this site. Please check out his company’s web site – http://www.blackhousedev.com where he highlights his “ethereal garden” concept. So ethereal if he has his way that no one will know it exists since it is the 3 townhouses he touts now.
Has anyone ever been to east Berlin? Or former Eastern bloc countries? This looks like futurist Soviet architecture (from 1965.)
Unlike most of you brownstoners, I have to admit that I really like this project. It is a beautiful modern building. Sorry, all this talk about the building being “out of context” is simply a way for opponents to assert personal preferences of style on a neighborhood. For a building to be contextual it need not replicate the style of the surrounding buildings, and it certainly does not need to be tradional. I think this scheme is quite nice and hope there is some show of support at the hearing.
I am not going to be able to go to the meeting as it is the night of the BBG family party…
Hope someone here can go and give a report.
I understand the idea of preserving the street wall as fsrg mentioned…
Is it a common practice to be able to claim hardship? I’ve not heard of that before. Is it commonly granted. Seems to me that the developer is basically threatening to leave the building unfinished if he can’t attract some more capital and the only way to do that is to sell 120% of what was originally proposed.
My feelings about this are:
1. the building is out of context with the block.
2. there are too many construction projects on that block (at least 4).
3. city should not be further increasing the density of the neighborhood in the face of so many likely vacancies in other 4th ave buildings.
4. city should not succumb to veiled threat of developer to walk away. If new plan would not have been approved on its own merits it should not be approved as a hardship case.