Thursday, August 28, 2008

Bell Blvd "wedding cake" raises eyebrows

By utilizing set-backs and sloped surfaces, Toscano managed to get plans approved for a 61-foot high building on a lot about 47 feet wide, with a total of 18,942 square feet on a 6,832 square foot lot.

If all this is a little too complicated for you and you cannot imagine a building with a basement parking lot for 22 cars, two floors of offices accommodating 60 people and six residences with a penthouse on the fifth floor, on a lot for a two family house, you’re not alone.


Bayside “skyscraper” stuns residents

6 comments:

Miles Mullin said...

I publically call for Hunter and Pratt etc to stop doing development studies, and start to to studies to look into things like this.

I remember that picture of the buildings on 69th Street in Woodside with grafitti that were poorly maintained (you posted them a few days ago).

Someone suggested getting a photo of 70 years ago and comparing it with today.

Side by side, the deterioration would be painful

Why don't these schools of urban planning look into these outrages and do studies explaining why this happens, and propose solutions?

And why in the hell arn't groups like Muni Art Society, Landmarks Conservency, and Hist Dist Council demanding they do so?

italian girl said...

I drove by this just a few days ago. It looks even worse in person.
I don't understand why a property can have two zonings. I mean, either it's residential or it's commercial. How is it both? All these loopholes screw all of us real good. It's so unfair that sideyards can be eliminated with that commercial overlay. What the hell is a "sky exposure plane"? And I thought Bayside had been rezoned a couple of years ago.
And you have to see the crap that replaced Hazel's on Bell Blvd. as well.

Anonymous said...

Yea, maybe this will be examined at the next HDC conference.

Their president is from eastern Queens.

Trilby said...

I do not understand how set-backs are advantageous to commuities such that they should give builders the bous of going higher.

For instance: I like to walk in the city. Doesn't everyone walkt he streets more, here, than elsewhere whether you enjoy it or not? It's a given. OK, when buildings come up to the sidewalk, they provide pedestrians with shade and partial shelter from rain and wind. That is a good thing. With a setback building you create unpredictable wind-patterns and offer NO shade or rain protection. So why should a setback be rewarded with a higher limit? I do not get that AT ALL.

Anonymous said...

And all of this happened in Avella's front stoop while he was protesting pasta buildings on Qns Blvd. How ironic, as Alannis Morissette would say.

Anonymous said...

Chuckle, chuckle, chuckle!

Those "Nay-siders'" emphatic credo of, "It'll never happen here"
has just happened!

So it's Bayside down the toilet along with their Flushing neighbors.

Not to worry...
snorkeling through a 4 inch waste
line is such great sport.

We'll meet you at the main sewer
outlet in the FMCP retention tank.

Do you finally see what happens when one adjacent town won't cooperate with another in curbing over development ?