Rendering of Oliver House
June 3, 2008
May 5th 2008
April 18, 2008
Here is another photo in a series of aerial views of Bill Stein's "Oliver House" at 131 Second Place a.k.a. 360 Smith Street.
One has to wonder what is going through the developer's mind as the Carroll Gardens' community came out in significant numbers to testify in favor of the Wide Street Text Amendment before the City Planning Commission on Wednesday. This amendment is intended to correct a mistake in the definition of Carroll Gardens' signature garden blocks as wide streets. Wide streets are allowed larger buildings and developers have taken advantage of this loophole. If the Wide Street Text Amendment passes before the foundation of "Oliver House" is completed, the developer may have to rethink the project.
A lawyer representing Bill Stein in front of the City Planning Commission argued that Stein has gone out of his way to address the concerns of the neighborhood by parting ways with his original (and highly controversial) architect, Robert Scarano, and by changing some of the building's design elements. All this apparently cost him construction time. His lawyer suggested that because of his" good faith effort," Stein should get an exemption from the amendment if it passes before he is far enough along. How that is possible without giving all other projects currently under construction on the Place blocks the same consideration is unclear.
Not everyone is impressed with Mr. Stein's efforts to make his 7 story, 70 foot development more contextual to this brownstone neighborhood. However, he seems to have one resident firmly behind him. Buddy Scotto, longtime Carroll Gardens resident and member of both the Carroll Gardens Association and the Gowanus Canal Community Development Corporation argued in favor of the developer in front of the commission by saying that Stein had been "extraordinarily respectful and responsive"
and that he was "particularly concerned for Stein."
Pardon me for asking, but why did this one particular construction project come up at the City Planning Commission? I thought that it was a hearing about closing a loophole instead of a discussion about Stein's project? But of course, that is just my humble opinion.
Related Reading
***Photos Courtesy of Barbara at Carroll Garden History
One has to wonder what is going through the developer's mind as the Carroll Gardens' community came out in significant numbers to testify in favor of the Wide Street Text Amendment before the City Planning Commission on Wednesday. This amendment is intended to correct a mistake in the definition of Carroll Gardens' signature garden blocks as wide streets. Wide streets are allowed larger buildings and developers have taken advantage of this loophole. If the Wide Street Text Amendment passes before the foundation of "Oliver House" is completed, the developer may have to rethink the project.
A lawyer representing Bill Stein in front of the City Planning Commission argued that Stein has gone out of his way to address the concerns of the neighborhood by parting ways with his original (and highly controversial) architect, Robert Scarano, and by changing some of the building's design elements. All this apparently cost him construction time. His lawyer suggested that because of his" good faith effort," Stein should get an exemption from the amendment if it passes before he is far enough along. How that is possible without giving all other projects currently under construction on the Place blocks the same consideration is unclear.
Not everyone is impressed with Mr. Stein's efforts to make his 7 story, 70 foot development more contextual to this brownstone neighborhood. However, he seems to have one resident firmly behind him. Buddy Scotto, longtime Carroll Gardens resident and member of both the Carroll Gardens Association and the Gowanus Canal Community Development Corporation argued in favor of the developer in front of the commission by saying that Stein had been "extraordinarily respectful and responsive"
and that he was "particularly concerned for Stein."
Pardon me for asking, but why did this one particular construction project come up at the City Planning Commission? I thought that it was a hearing about closing a loophole instead of a discussion about Stein's project? But of course, that is just my humble opinion.
Related Reading
Bird's Eye View Of Bill Stein's Oliver House Construction Site
***Photos Courtesy of Barbara at Carroll Garden History
.JPG)
3 comments:
Good question Katia! I wonder who has the honest answer?
Did you notice change of the use garden of the townhouse on the right side? From April to the June picture, it went from a garden to a construction site buddy...
If I remember well the owner of this townhouse was a well known member of the community that swithed her position from not in favor of the project to in favor, I guess that explains it, some $$$$ were exchanged...
I think the house/garden referred to was sold to the developer. The people there moved out of town (for other reasons).
Else, I strongly support the clarification of narrow/wide street for the garden blocks and some more landmarking.
But I don't find this proposed project objectionable. If we downzone or limit much or heart of the neighborhood - I think should also support increased density where appropriate. That is one commercial streets and close to subway. Fits with urban planning principals.
It is not so out of scale ( some other apt bldgs on block are nearly same height).
Post a Comment