By Trudy Whitman
Whether or not the large lot facing Henry Street behind the Beaux Arts building at 110 Amity Street — formerly owned by Long Island College Hospital and now in private hands — should or should not be developed for housing was never at issue. Indeed, most of the Cobble Hill residents who testified at a January 8 Landmarks Preservation Commission hearing at 1 Centre Street in Manhattan explained that they would welcome residential development at and around 110 — but not the plan put forth by Lucky Boy Development in partnership with Time Equities.
Before interested neighbors, representatives from the Cobble Hill Association and Community Board 6, and members of the Historic Districts Council, the Society for the Architecture of the City, and the Municipal Art Society, as well as aides to Senator Martin Connor, Assemblywoman Joan Millman, and City Council Member Bill de Blasio spoke out against the development, the project’s architects — members of the Manhattan firm RKT&B — described the project to the LPC commissioners. The design features five narrow five-story townhouses with a depth of 30 feet built on a gated “mews” cut into the vacant property behind 110 Amity, running parallel to that street and perpendicular to Henry. An additional townhouse flanks the eastern side of the former Lamm Institute (110 Amity) but is separated from that building by a walkway.
Aided by architectural drawings and photographs, over 20 neighbors criticized the design that they said would contradict “the doughnut” plan so seminal to brownstone Brooklyn — entrances on street frontage facilitating an active streetscape, with homes surrounding communal backyards. Other objections included the bulk mass of buildings visible from surrounding streets; the corruption of the term mews, which in our neighborhoods usually alludes to former carriage houses of between two and three stories; inappropriateness of a gated community within the context of Cobble Hill; and unsuitable fenestration and window placement.
The plan does not fit or enhance the neighborhood, Council Member de Blasio’s aide told the commission in a statement that went on to chastise the developer for a “lack of transparency” and for not “engaging with the community or reaching out to our office.” Assemblywoman Millman’s statement was even harsher. She characterized the plan as “a poorly designed attempt to pay lip service to landmark regulations with the sole intent of maximizing profit at the expense of a historic neighborhood.” Roy Sloane, a member of CB 6’s Landmarks/Land Use Committee, read a CB 6 memorandum, which, after enumerating the problems with the design, stated that the community “stands ready to engage in active dialogue with the applicant.” Alice Basheer, whose family has owned and inhabited 365 Henry Street since 1912, spoke about how alien a gated community would be in the heart of neighborly Cobble Hill.
Only three participants spoke in favor of the project. They asked the commissioners to consider the people who might want to move into the new buildings, the creativity of the architects in designing for such an atypical site within a landmarked district, and the added safety that would ensue from a more populated block. One of the three identified himself as a Brooklyn Heights resident, another said he lived on Atlantic Avenue, and a third refused to reveal the street where he lived when asked by this reporter.
The hearing lasted over two hours, and, in the end, as reported in this column last week, the plan was roundly and soundly rejected by LPC. Although several of the commissioners applauded RKT&B for its ingenuity in formulating a design for the challenging site, which one called “an aberration,” they all rejected the mews concept and stressed that the townhouses must have entrances on the existing streets. Gated communities are entities that the city as a whole is trying to avoid, said one, and the bulk and height of the new buildings must be in context with the neighborhood. Another called the “intrusion of mass” a “real problem.” One commissioner asked that in subsequent submissions the architect pay attention to the fenestration and streetscape of the existing brownstone buildings, and another urged that the developer “continue consultation with the community.” Neighborhood participants were congratulated on their “thorough, professional, and polite presentation,” by one of the commissioners, who added that she hadn’t witnessed such a well-presented community effort in a long time.
Amy Breedlove, a member of the Committee for the Historic Integrity of Cobble Hill, an ad hoc group formed to oppose the 110 Amity design, said in an email following the hearing that her group was “honored that the commission let us present to them in the way that we did” and that the commissioners “were very receptive to our arguments for inappropriateness.” She added that neighbors would be “happy to meet with the developer and his architects during this [new design] phase should they choose to engage us.” Breedlove thanked the community for its input and local elected officials for not only writing letters of support, but for sending representatives to LPC to deliver their messages.
© Brooklyn Daily Eagle 2008
All materials posted on BrooklynEagle.com are protected by United States copyright law.
Just a reminder, though -- It’s not considered polite to paste the entire story on your blog. Most blogs post a summary or the first paragraph,( 40 words) then post a link to the rest of the story. That helps increase click-throughs for everyone, and minimizes copyright issues.
So please keep posting, but not the entire article. arturc at att.net
Main Office 718 422 7400
