Preliminary drawings for 333 Carroll Street presented last night by developer Isaac Fishman
Councilman Brad Lander
Debbie Fuka of Aguayo & Huebener, speaking on behalf of 333 Carroll Street developer
333 Carroll Street project manager "YC" on left and developer Isaac Fishman on right
It's Confirmed: 333 Carroll Street Will Lose Its Top
The Carroll Gardens Neighborhood Association had invited, Isaac Fishman, owner and developer of 333 Carroll Street, the beautiful old industrial building with the huge 2-story 'steel birdcage' on top, to attend their monthly meeting in order to update the community on how he will proceed. At the meeting last night, Fishman confirmed that the addition will indeed be taken down.
Speaking for Fishman, Debbie Fuka of Aguayo & Huebener, explained that construction will resume shortly and will be fully enclosed in the existing building, without the additional floors. When finished, there will be 37 one-two & three-bedroom apartments available. A parking lot in the rear of the building will accommodate 9 parking spaces. The developer allowed this blogger to take a photo of the proposed design (see above), but repeated several times that this was just a preliminary drawing of what the building will look like after completion.
The news that the structure will lose its unsightly top was greeted with relief from the audience. A resident on Carroll Street told Mr. Fishman that his block was going to host a giant barbeque the day addition comes down.
I would like to thank Councilman Brad Lander and his staff who were immensely helpful in regards to this issue. Their ongoing dialogue with the developer, with the NYC Department of Buildings and with the community were key in resolving the issue.
Related reading:
.JPG)
29 comments:
It truly is an eyesore. You can bet these people don't live in the neighborhood. And did I read correctly - 38 apartments, but only 9 parking spaces? What's up with that?
That question was posed last night as well. Fishman explained that since it is an existing structure, he does not need to provide as many spots as if it were a new building.
You realize that according to the elevation that they're still adding a floor. Which means they will be taking off that nice, historic pitched top and rebuilding it one floor higher.
A miracle but why 9 parking spots? Why not a back yard with a tree? Maybe there will be rentals for people who dont own cars. Lets hope the facade stayes the same. That building needs love.
Did he mention whether the rear extension will be demoed to create the parking spaces? Will the developer create a tunnel through the cellar? Sorry I couldn't be there but it was my kid's birthday. Thank you for braving the weather.
Oh, this makes me so, so happy.
HDL -- I don't see that on the elevation, can you explain further?
If you count the windows vertically there's one more than exists on the facade currently. (compare how it lines up with the house next door with what is shown in Katia's photos) What they are doing is "stretching" the top window vertically to include two levels. The current top floor windows also seem to be getting juliet balconies added. They're not going to be able to simply raise the pitched roof portion along with the corbels. They'll almost certainly need to remove it and rebuild it. When they are done I doubt we'll even recognise this charming old structure.
If you click on the elevation you'll go to Katia's flickr page. Then click on "original" size you'll see that above the "existing third floor" on the right side of the drawing where the dimensions are is "new fourth floor" and "new fifth floor". They are adding a new level disguised as the old building with no setback. Did they file this as part of the steel demo work?
Mr. Lander, is this part of the deal?
Oh ugh. You're right.
So what about Katia's note in the post that Debbie Fuka said "construction will resume shortly and will be fully enclosed in the existing building, without the additional floors"? The elevation would seem to contradict that. Was it just a prevarication or carefully worded to not really mean that or what?
Under the new zoning, the building cannot exceed 50 feet. How high is the building right now?
If I'm reading correctly the Dimension on the new elevation is shown as 58'-3 1/4" to the roof. Plus there's a 42" parapet.
Debbie Fuka answers some of the questions in the video I included. She does specifically mention that all 37-38 apartments will be within the building, but she does say that they have added a floor.
Debbie Fuka is a broker. Nuff said.
On the application to remove the "birdcage", it's listed as currently 59 feet and 5 stories.
http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/JobsQueryByNumberServlet?requestid=2&passjobnumber=320216510&passdocnumber=01
(section 13)
But I don't know if that includes the height of the birdcage or not?
The proposal to add the birdcage stated a proposed 100 feet high without stating the current building height:
http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/JobsQueryByNumberServlet?requestid=2&passjobnumber=301918744&passdocnumber=01
(section 13)
There is absolutely NO WAY that the existing building is 59 feet. At least not as measured from the average curb height.
"Everyone gets what they want" according to Fischman's quote in the Brooklyn Paper. Yeah right!
So he's still going to end up with 10 feet higher than the current zoning?? That's crap!
Katia, you have got to get to the bottom of this! Please, for the sake of all of us...
They're totally trying to sneak half that addition onto the plan!!! I call shenanigans!!!!
Right after the CG rezoning went through I called DOB and was told that because the street slopes they can measure lower points of the building to get more FAR. I got confused so did the only sensible thing which was to put Katia on the case who was able to get DOB to listen to us and send someone out the confirm that the building had to comply with the new zoning.
There is no way in hell the builidng with birdcage is 59 feet. The Satori is probably 50 feet.
Are they going to add an additional interior floor - the celing heigh might permit that.
Someone that has a decent relationship Brad (not me) should call him.
5:49 here again.
I watched the Fuka video and it sounds like they will be adding interior floors.
regarding the additional floors: it looks, from the drawing, like they are adding floors INSIDE the existing building. For instance, if you look at the bottom of the structure it also says "new first floor" and "new second floor". the only floor that stays the same is the third floor. just because it says "new fourth floor" and "new fifth floor" doesn't mean they are adding these to the top of the structure; it just looks like they are reconfiguring the floors inside. And the folks who spoke in the video do seem to be very clear on the fact that this will all go on inside of the building. I live across the street from this thing and will now live in hope that they are telling the truth. Although the parking situation is not going to be good around here...
It will be fascinating to see what is snuck in there. Also, that rendering is just a prelim, no? A rough? Yes, where will those cars drive to park?
As far as I am concerned, personally, is that that steel addition is removed and my view is restored. Now, don't get me going on that Oliver House....or that CG finger by the tunnel..or the Saonara..er Santori.
I know what they said. But I also know what they've drawn. I'm an architect so maybe I'm more adept at reading this drawing, but I can tell you that the drawing is representing an existing condition that does not exist. It is a fabrication to say this building measures 59'. It is a fabrication that the existing structure is 5 stories. go back and forth between the drawing and the photo above it and you will see there is no way that facade was drawn accurately. What is the reason for the inaccuracy? Either its an innocent mistake or someone is getting sneaky. I find it hard to believe that someone is basing a development proforma which incorporates 38 units fitting into an existing structure and the structure is drawn inaccurately.
It looks to me as though they are trying to get the 59' dimension listed as "existing" on as many DOB documents as they can so they can claim it in fact is 59'.
I just don't trust this guy. Someone needs to measure that thing for the record BEFORE any work begins.
To be honest, I'm not sure why everyone here is looking for more parking. It only encourages more cars and the last thing this city needs is more people driving cars around. There's a zip car lot one block away.
Also, the Satori is down at the bottom of the hill obstructing nothing and it's shorter than the senior housing building on 1st St. one block away.
PropertyShark says it is 52 feet high and states it gets its info from the Dept of Finance (DOF.) Again, I don't know if that is supposed to include the "birdcage" or not.
But it also says it's 6 stories, and that makes no sense.
HDL, as an architect... what is the proper way to measure a building's height? Can you do it without access to the property? (I didn't exactly fail geometry but I can't say it was my favorite subject either!)
From Propertyshark:
Bldg dimensions: 60 ft x 100 ft
Stories: 6
Res units: 31
Has extension: No
Has garage: No
Year built: 1931
Year last altered: 2006
Property
Lot SF: 6500
Height: 52
Building
Residential SF: 39993
Total SF: 39993
PropertyShark obtains its records from the DOF and updates them bi-annually.
It seems that they must be intending to reconstruct the entire front facade though there are no notes saying such. If you look closely, he has lengthened the top floor windows, shrunk the middle row and lengthened the bottom row. If the building to the left is drawn to scale, he has maintained the head height of the middle row of windows but raised the sills. The head of the bottom row has been raised so that it is now 2 stories tall. The sill of the top row of windows has been lowered, but it looks like the head has also been raised so that it is now 2 stories tall. Problem is, there is no place to raise the window head without increasing the height of the facade. Lastly, in comparison to the building to the left, the building appears to be twice the height in the photo, but about three times the height in the drawings.
I notice in that the DOB application, viewable on the DOB web site, says the existing building have 5 floors, which is wrong; it only had three floors above the cellar. This calls into question the legality of the floor area they are proposing in that they are not permitted to enlarge the bulk of a non-conforming building. Bulk includes height as well as floor area and lot coverage.
Thanks for the analysis, Anon 11:31AM... As I suspected, shenanigans are afoot. Someone should alert the neighborhood association.
Post a Comment