Neighbors who share the block with Number 145 West 118th Street are a bit upset these days because the said townhouse will eventually meet a different fate than expected. This twin dwelling has been up for sale for several years just east of ACP/7th Avenue and now it looks like a new owner just wants to tear the entire structure down for one of those skinny towers that somehow go up on a lot usually zoned for smaller homes. Keeping the original facade and adding a new glassy structure on top always seems to be an easy remedy and architecturally pleasing option for adding vertical space but the new developers who have been arriving uptown tend to go for the bland brick column model for some reason.
What a terrible shame. Do you have heritage laws in NYC?
ReplyDeleteI can't be too opposed to this. More taller buildings -> higher apartment supply -> more affordable housing
ReplyDeleteDevelopers generally don't care about aesthetics when they can achieve high profits on new constructions!!
ReplyDeletei am the block president here on the 100 block of west 118th street - we notified Ulysses that this was happening here on our block. We as a block are appalled that the DOB/Landmarks allowed this and many other issues to happen on our block.
ReplyDeleteFor years prior to my arrival in 2001 this neighborhood has had "historic district" signs up on the street lights - i guess giving the older owners some false hope that their neighborhood was worthwhile - but thes fasle hopes have no more worth than toilet paper when it comes to retaining the architectural heritage of the area.
The developer at 145 has already set the steel to build inside the existing structure, creating smaller floor to floor height - i am guessing they will be adding another floor to sell within height restrictions by doing that. more sq ft = more $$$
We have another developer on the block that has effectively stolen the air rights of a neighbor by building on both halves of the party wall without consent of the owner. That developer originally wanted to eliminate the stoop as well. And of course we can see the additional flors he has added onto the building from the street. All this is approved by the DOB as there are no other gate keepers for esthetics outside of landmarks, and if you are not landmarked then any developer can do whatever they want as long as it is built to code.
There should be an added step for these previously posted "historic" districts - or a flag that happens at DOB when landmarks is reviewing a neighborhood - that puts these type of actions on alert. It could be similar to SRO / C 5 - Non harrassment approval prior to construction. We have had numerous new developers noticing that Landmarks is reviewing the Mt Morris Extension - and they are getting approvals left and right from the DOB prior to this landmarking, because they will be able to make a bigger buck post landmarking.
And - why did our new mayor take so long to appoint the new Landmarks commissioner?
Mad Joy, I agree with you about supply / demand and the need for more housing units. But through good zoning we could have both. All of these new developments on 125th street should have apartments upstairs. Those empty lots on ACP above 125th street should be develop - on blocks without historic architecture I'm all for it. But let's not destroy these gorgeous blocks. The Mt. Morris landmark extension can't come fast enough.
ReplyDeleteIt is a terrible shame- I know the landmark designation is in the process of being expanded and I know that it will go as far as 7th Avenue for a couple of blocks, but I couldn't find whether it goes to 7th avenue on 118th street- I guess not though. "brownstone blocks" really are a gem and we should do everything to preserve them.
ReplyDeleteThis is pretty horrible. Boo to developers - and city laws/politicians - who don't care how much they trash our city's heritage and beauty.
ReplyDeleteHey, they bought the property, so they should be allowed -- for the most part -- to build the type of building there that they desire. Last time I checked, that building has long been an abandoned and delapidated eyesore. We should be applauding the developer for turning it into a nice new building.
ReplyDeleteThat the developers wouldn't consider, as you suggest, keeping the original facade (since they've already stabilized it and rebuilt the rest of the building around it) with added glass floors above makes you question the overall quality of their construction. Have they really stabilized the building if they can't save the facade? Are they generally cutting corners to get additional square footage? A more attractive facade would help get them higher rents/sales prices - so these questions are loom large.
ReplyDeleteAnd if they are going this way, you'd hope they could add a bit of charm to the building so it relates to its neighbors: maybe restore the original stoop and find a way to save and incorporate the cornice?