310 East 23rd Street #12G
1 bed•1 bath
Condop in Gramercy Park
344 West 12th Street
1 bed•1 bath•450 ft²
Co-op in West Village
160 Leroy Street
Bronx family livid after developer builds apartment 12 inches from their home. More victims of the property line.
Wow, this is "insane" ... is right.
The problem isn't the developers, I have to say, it's our laws.
Ha! That's a *typical* view if you live in a Tokyo apartment!
(Some people will have the other building put some silver sheeting on their outer walls so that more light reflects into their windows. It doesn't really work all that well.)
If they next door building is 12 inches away from their window, doesn't that mean there window is on the property line? Why should this family have more rights over his prioerty than the new developer?
If they don't like it, they should move their house away from their own property line, not try to move the house on the other person's property...
that's why i like towns that specify that you can't build x ft from property line. some are nuts to say 10 ft, but here it's millimeters
Always important to research building rights on adjacent lots and lots that can impact your views before purchasing. Then you can weigh the risks before buying.
Exactly. Just standing on the sidewalk and looking would've been sufficient.
The block faces I-95, so not quite salubrious to begin with.
It's a row of nine 25' lots with a big-lot apartment building at each end. Every house is either 23' or 25' wide.
The house next door must've burned down at some point, so the former neighbor bought the lot and had a 26' side yard on his combined 50' lot. That's what the developer bought, and of course built to the full 50' width, as the zoning allows.
These whiners should join with their four neighbors on the other side and sell their shitboxes to a developer, who can put up a 125' building on the 125' lot.
> These whiners should join with their four neighbors on the other side and sell their shitboxes to a developer, who can put up a 125' building on the 125' lot.
A big part of urban planning and zoning these days is the REQUIREMENT that a continuous "streetwall" be maintained, to avoid the alienating choppiness that comes with lot-side setbacks.
So they should have built right up to his building. More energy-efficient for heating and cooling, too.
But you can build only on your own land, so the new 1' gap would be there anyway.
I misstated the range of houses. They're not each 23' wide centered on a 25' lot. Instead, they're narrower and placed off-center, so between each pair of houses is either a 2' alley (1' from each lot) or a shared driveway.
The last house in the row has the same 1' gap between itself and an adjoining full-lot-width apartment building.
"So they should have built right up to his building. More energy-efficient for heating and cooling, tooI agree; it's more aesthetically pleasing, sanitary, and energy efficient when you don't have those tiny gaps between buildings. If you're going to have gaps, I think they should be 3 to 5 feet wide so that a human being can fit through them and so that you can put stuff like garbage cans and bicycles there. I wonder if one reason that the tiny 1-to-2-foot gaps are so viscerally unattractive is that a person can't fit into them, so they inspire a kind of claustrophobia. And there's not much uglier than seeing one of those gaps piled high with unremoved garbage.
very sad indeed. after 12 years of adapting to the noise of the Bruckner Expressway and the smells of of the landfill they will now have to adapt to no light. A google map and street view will illustrate how this kinda of poorly located house has been transformed from home to horror by the wheeles of progress. This really falls under the heading of caveat emptor. Sad sad tale.
Falco, I'm looking at the street view on Google Maps now and am noticing that:
* The neighbor's yard is entirely to the left of the house
* The neighbor's frontage (and that of 3531 and 3533) is roughly twice what the aggrieved 3525 family's frontage is
* The number of the neighboring house is 3529, and there's no 3527.
This makes it look like at one point there were five lots of equal size, and that some previous owner bought out 3527, razed it, and integrated it with 3529, which is why a monster apartment building filling up its whole lot looks so bad. Had a second single-family house been built in that space, even 12 inches from 3525, it wouldn't look as awful. Is this what's going on?
3529 is gone and a new building is in it's place. 3525 already sits very close to the line.
I show you something more sad.
All east facing apartments in the Hampton house located on 79th and first. All those east facing units had a wall of eastern windows on the lot line. Now they have a a wall and all interior changes are the fiscal responsibility of the Hampton House owners. First you lose a spectacular view and then YOU pay to brick it up.
To top it off, it's a condo so it's not a shared expense but an individual expense.
Triple_Zero, I speculated that the next-door house was razed at some point, and its lot merged with the one to the right. Maybe it was always 50', though. The fence a foot away from the complainer's house should've been a constant reminder that the party might soon be over.
The new building will be only 4 stories, 36' tall, so not huge.
From the article:
“He should have been required to have three feet of side yard,” Patty said.
Um, if it's 12" from your house, you don't have 3 feet of side yard, so why should they be forced to?
falcogold1, yes, those G-line buyers were risk-takers.
Page 14 in the condo declaration, and somewhere in the offering plan, says how the east-facing windows are fire-rated and protected by sprinklers, and "may be obstructed by possible future construction of high-rise building on adjoining site."
On the plus side, the suspense is over.
@NWT - Good catch; I missed your post!