10 Comment

  • ah

    Looks okay, but they weren’t starting with much.

    Kilroy was here?

  • It’s as equally barfy as the original building is. More of the same, but at least they were able to match it exactly.

    Are you sure this is an add-on and not the original 2-story camelback?

  • I agree that it’s all relative here. From such a humble starting point, I think the fact that they matched the brick so seamlessly and probably increased space and light by 200% makes this a pop-up to be praised. They should have build a roofdeck in the front, though, as they eliminated the entire backyard.

  • That looks seriously fishy to me. Houses can legally only take up a certain percentage of residential lots. It varies, but I think it’s usually 60% or 70%. I’d love to know the story behind this project…

  • The good thing is that they built w/ brick. The funny thing is that the thing looks completely out of code dependent upon what the use of the adjacent property is. They are obviously over the 65% lot occupancy unless that is some funky shaped lot back where we cannot see.

    In addition, they took a narrow starting house, and narrowed the addition even more… the reason being is because you cannot put windows in on the property line. And I actually believe there is a minimum set back (forget what it is) that this property does not seem to be in compliance with either.

    Pop-ups at the ends of rows are extremely difficult to execute in any way that is pleasing to the eye… in my opinion.

  • Why do you think they increased the footprint, and hence lot coverage, FAR? You can sort of see the original building, with the old brick being repointed into a whiter mortar. If so, there is no issue with FAR.

Comments are closed.