326state_0607.jpg
In case you’ve been wondering why Robert Scarano rubs people the wrong way, this eyesore at 326 State Street in Boerum Hill should speak for itself. When we posted about this place back in January, we wondered how he was able to get 8,833 square feet of space approved. The answer seems to be that this is gross square footage and not actual square footage that DOB cares about. Size aside, however, the fact remains that this building is just a giant “F— You” to the community. In making zero attempt to respect its surroundings, it is a poster child for the need to strengthen and expand landmark boundaries. The poor neighbors.
326 State Street: When Too Much FAR Is a Bad Thing [Brownstoner] GMAP P*Shark DOB


What's Your Take? Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

  1. Not a Scarano fan but there is nothing wrong w/ this building. This wouldnt look out of place in Dwell or similar publication.

    New buildings that try to look old almost always look tacky imo.

  2. The downzoners hate modernity and density. What they will get if they have their way is more Fedders building the butt of so much derision on this blog. Just how loyal to the 19th Century asthetic do you have to be? My favorite buildings are “the Towers” on Hicks and in BH, is anyone building them today? And, if so, wouldn’t they be “out of scale”.

  3. “personally, almost always prefer the modern in general, and sure I’m not alone”.
    Then what the heck are you doing read/posting on a blog about historic buildings in Brooklyn?

  4. “sorry, but brownstones are really not that “historic.” 100 ish years old is not like forever. also, brownstones rarely offer a open light living space, and frankly are pretty ugly from the outside.”

    Then why are you posting on a site called “Brownstoner”?!! Bawk! Bawwwwk! BAWWWWK!

    Just figured I’d save someone else the trouble.

  5. sorry, but brownstones are really not that “historic.” 100 ish years old is not like forever.

    also, brownstones rarely offer a open light living space, and frankly are pretty ugly from the outside. vertical living is also not that much fun. running up and down a bunch of stairs when you have little ones is not great. if you have tons of money, then sure, you can gut and change your brownstone, but most don’t offer even central air which is pretty easy to get in new construction. i grew up in the ’60’s and ’70’s and shit, we had central air then. no way would i ever consider living anywhere that didn’t have central air.

    personally, almost always prefer the modern in general, and sure i’m not alone.

    re quality: it is correct to blame the developer, not the architect.

  6. 12:32 — These are not apartments designed for families, and it’s a misrepresentation to describe them as such. If you want to claim that people will take whatever space they can and cram their families into it, that’s a different argument (wrong, IMO, but different). If we want new construction to provide 8 units for small families then we need to rethink present zoning laws (something that’s already been accomplished in the upzoning of large parts of Schermerhorn and Livingston in this immediate area).

    But condoning this method of arbitraging the difference between C of O requirements and zoning laws re square footage (and salso misrepresenting compliance with zoning laws, thus losing self-certification privileges) is not the way to do it.

  7. I don’t love the building, but it’s not too bad. I’ve seen much worse Scarano stuff on this site. A lot better than Boymelgreen’s buildings on Fourth Avenue, or the bunkers with the tiny windows and Fedders air conditioners. I like the wall of windows. I don’t get the vitriol either.

  8. Sorry, but Scarano buildings are some of the more attractive new buildings being built in Brooklyn. That might not be saying much but most new stuff being built around the borough (and even most of the renovations) is worse in terms of design and materials, and not just the Fedders things.

1 2 3 4 5