Tuesday, December 16, 2008

Partial collapse of landmarked building

A building near East 36th Street and Lexington Avenue partially collapsed Monday afternoon, delaying 4, 5 and 6 train service, officials said.

The building, at 133 E. 36th Street, is a five-story brick building that appears to be under construction, according to city building department records. An external wall collapsed at about 3 p.m. but no injuries have been reported, the fire department said.


East side building partially collapses

Hmmm...maybe DOB shouldn't issue a permit to combine 3 apartments into 1 if they aren't sure the structure can handle it...

9 comments:

Taxpayer said...

"Hmmm...maybe DOB shouldn't issue a permit to combine 3 apartments into 1 if they aren't sure the structure can handle it..."

But perhaps they're certain that they can handle the bribe. Even after sharing with Commissar Death and Taxes.

Mr. Angry said...

I've heard that this one: http://ltvsquad.com/Locations/urbanexploration/ID/301/

...is over on 57th and 9th - and another landmarked building which has partially collapsed. The dirtbag owner has left the building to rot for 20+ years and the DOB & city gov. can't seem to do a thing about it.

Anonymous said...

My guess is that the contractors didn't shore up the floors properly. They went thru the floor, my guess- to add a staircase, without double bracing the openings...?

Anonymous said...

Um, the building is NOT landmarked. More Queens Crap lies, but what else is new...

Queens Crapper said...

Click on the address. DOB says it's landmarked. What more proof do you want? Is Curbed saying it good enough for you?

Anonymous said...

Um, the building is NOT landmarked. More Queens Crap lies, but what else is new...

YOU WANT BULLSHIT GO OVER TO MAS HDC HUNTER NYU PLAT THE CRAP COLUMBIA SACRED SITES LANDMARKS CONSERVENCY ET AL

THIS IS WHERE ITS AT. YOU FELLAS AINT DEFINING THINGS ANYMORE.

AS MY RUSSIAN GRANDMA UP IN HARLEM USED TO SAY TUFFSHITSKI.

Anonymous said...

Sorry Crapper, you're wrong, it's NOT landmarked. Check your link.

It's in a LANDMARK DISTRICT, which is totally different. You claimed the building itself was landmarked. Buildings within a landmark district are not individually landmarked and can be altered or even demolished and redeveloped (though most alterations and all demolitions require LPC oversight).

In contrast, landmarked buildings cannot be significantly altered or demolished.

Queens Crapper said...

I checked with the Historic Districts Council, the grassroots advocacy organization in NYC, about what you posted. Individual landmarks and historic districts are regulated EXACTLY the same way. The only difference is if a building in an historic district is considered a "non-contributing" resource. If that's the case, then those buildings can be altered, demolished and replaced with the approval of a new design by the Landmarks Preservation Commission. If a building is considered "contributing" then it cannot be demolished. Any alterations must be approved by the Landmarks Preservation Commission.

If this was a contributing building in an historic district and it collapsed, it needs to be rebuilt - on the exterior - to exactly what was there. The owner could also file for a hardship to demolish the rest of the building and replace it, but that rarely is granted.

Anonymous said...

Now you go off and re-read the NYC municipal landmark law regarding individual landmarks and historic districts before you open up your dumb yap again!

The "Queens Crapper" has just outflanked you!