Comments on: Judging New Construction – Warder and Luray Pl, NW

By: Dan

Dan — Thu, 05 Apr 2012 00:48:33 +0000

Yeah, their front porch gets morning and afternoon sun, right up until it doesn’t thanks to the pre fab on the corner.

By: Dan

Dan — Thu, 05 Apr 2012 00:46:39 +0000

Yup–you’re right. Still looks ugly though. I remember when there was a rusty old car in that yard. Looked better than what’s there now.

By: ET

ET — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 18:52:47 +0000

I wouldn’t mind this if all the other places on the same side of the street were just like it. Sometimes the new blends well with the old but this isn’t one of those cases.

It looks the gawky kid in the school picture who hit their growth spurt before everyone else.

By: emily

emily — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 18:47:05 +0000

That was pretty much my opinion. I live on Warder and see this out my front door. It’s not so much that its ugly, its just in the wrong setting. I could see it working in a shore/bay area or north west, but it just seems out of place here.

By: melle

melle — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 18:32:19 +0000

They didn’t remove a rowhome. The rowhome to the left used to be the end unit. They bought the end unit and built this on the side-yard.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 17:53:18 +0000

From the back and side it looks like 3 trailer homes stacked on top of each other. Clazzzy.

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 17:28:57 +0000

Ugly, ugly, ugly! Tear it down! This designer / architect should be expelled from architecture school. This has to be the work of a poorly trained student. Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should. This is what happens when money grubbing speculators flip properties for quick profit and don’t care about the city.

It also appears illegal since they have constructed on public space.

By: theheights

theheights — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 16:37:50 +0000

Of course the responsibility is with the owner, but you already knew that. Instead of sarcastic nitpicking, you might want to educate yourself:

The court in Hotel Corp. v. Forty-Five Twenty-Five, Inc. held that the free flow of light and air across adjoining land and structures is not the lawful right if a landowner. Where a structure serves a useful purpose, it does not constitute a nuisance when light or air are cut off from an adjoining property, even if the structure in question was built partly for spite.

Now you know.

By: Ronald

Ronald — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 16:16:58 +0000

they’re connected by love

By: Park View Drew

Park View Drew — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 14:44:20 +0000

From the looks of it, I would love to live *in* it. But as it stands now, I’m not too thrilled to live *near* it.