Clinton Erection Deflated

Brooklyn Paper: City Blocks Clinton Street Tower: Brooklyn Heights preservationists hailed a decision by the Department of Buildings to block a developer from adding six stories onto an already nine-story building at the corner of Clinton and Montague street.

Buildings officials would not comment on why they rejected the proposed addition, which would create a 185-foot tower within the footprint of the city’s first historic district.

The district’s zoning restrictions don’t apply to the commercial block of Clinton Street, but preservationists objected because the resulting building would dwarf nearby historic structures such as the old Spencer Church building and the landmark headquarters of Brooklyn Historical Association on the corner of Clinton and Pierrepont streets.

“It would be much too tall for that corner and would cast dark shadows into the historic district and onto very important structures” said Judy Stanton, president of the Brooklyn Heights Association.

A spokesperson for the Department of Buildings said the developer, Clinton Realty Holdings LLC, was free to resubmit new plans. Neither the New Jersey-based corporation, nor the project architect Edgar Rawlings, returned calls from The Brooklyn Paper.

Share this Story:

, , ,

  • Teddy

    I’m glad to hear it. I still can’t believe that the 33-story tower at 180 Montague got approved a few years back. Perhaps this will deter some developers from getting ideas on they can make money at the expense of Heights residents…or maybe not.

  • Claude Scales

    If I recall correctly, 180 Montague didn’t need approval. It’s an “as of right” building under the zoning applicable to that location.

  • Publius

    Anyone else notice that Homer has a proclivity for prurient and licentious headlines for his blog entries?

  • Robert Perris

    I think that the article in the Brooklyn Paper, while factually correct, gives the wrong impression. The C5-2A (R10A equivalent) zoning at this location does permit buildings as high as 185 feet on “narrow” streets. There are many reasons why plans can be disapproved, but the 185-foot height does not appear to be the reason here. (Disclaimer: This is not an endorsement of a mid-rise building at this location.)

    Robert Perris, District Manager
    Community Board 2

  • steve

    Perhaps the plan “to add six” floors to the already existing building was rejected because it would not have been structurally sound? If the owner of the building wanted to, could he or she take the building down completely and start over (and build to the full height allowed for the zone), since it lies outside of the landmarked district? But that seems unlikely (too expensive and not worth it in the end), so I’m not too concerned (or should I be?).