Gothamist: Carnegie Hill Residents Fight the McMansion

sonyactivision

Tue, 29 Apr 2008 19:58:40 -0500

Either hold this guy off long enough for the markets to crash and for him to get cleaned out, or STFU about it because we've seen worse from better.

Kingpin

Tue, 29 Apr 2008 14:12:22 -0500

It's taking three homes outside of the usual price backet they'd sell for in that neck of the woods, and adding what appears to be an extremely ugly extension onto what must be three very handsome brownstones. I can certainly imagine the objections being for those reasons. And if the works were to lower the respective values of the properties on either side, or even lead to structural undermining, well, I can easily see why it can become the business of the other residents of Carnegie Hill. But the point stands, if his existing home is two small then maybe he's looking in the wrong place, he can surely afford one of those overpriced condos that has been brought in at the expense of New York's soul.

EastRiver

Tue, 29 Apr 2008 13:50:59 -0500

I read the comments too and it doesn't sound like jealousy. I'm not jealous of this guy's money at all and I still think he's being absurd. If you need that much space go buy something larger. Go buy an empty lot and custom build something that suits your needs. He's basically taking old buildings that people would kill to live in and then ruining them by piling on additions on the top and in the back. To repeat and amend what I said earlier, if this guy is playing by the rules then he should be allowed to do what he wants but nowhere does it say we have to agree with it.

Politburo

Tue, 29 Apr 2008 13:32:29 -0500

It's perfectly valid to make observations based on published comments, as you have just done. If I'm not getting the right picture due to editing or self-selection, that's one thing.. but I read the NYT article and the Curbed site and the main thing that people seemed to be saying was that a house this size just isn't necessary. While I might agree, I don't see why that's a rational reason to stop the project, and therefore, to me, it seems like people pushing that as an objection are using it as a surrogate for something else.

EastRiver

Tue, 29 Apr 2008 13:17:23 -0500

I don't care what this guy does with his property but It seems like everyone opposed it just jealous. is getting really tiresome on this site. Don't assume you have any clue what other people think. It just makes you look foolish.

TKaisen

Tue, 29 Apr 2008 13:08:05 -0500

Once again, can someone tell me why it's anyone else's business what the guy does with his own property? Anyone calling this a "McMansion" should punch themself in the face. A McMansion is a very specific thing. It is not a remodeled 100 year old brownstone. It is a gigantic pre-fab house built with crappy materials on a postage stamp of land.

famdoc

Tue, 29 Apr 2008 13:04:41 -0500

Rich people should be allowed to do anything they want.

Politburo

Tue, 29 Apr 2008 13:01:52 -0500

It seems like everyone opposed it just jealous. The Times article talks about this whole donut thing, but check it out on the aerial photos. It's not some sort of paradise, just a bunch of separated yards/patios that border each other. The addition would shorten the yards on the Dr's properties by 5 ft. It's not 15 feet, the article is misleading, as the walls have already been extended 10 feet back.. and it seems the opponents are using this confusion to their benefit (see the writeup on Curbed which also contains the error). If there's any reason to object, it's because of the 5th floor and elevator bulkhead, imo.

Spiritof76

Tue, 29 Apr 2008 12:50:04 -0500

Okay, now isn't Gothamist overusing and misusing the word "McMansion"? A McMansion is supposed to be one of those giant houses in the burbs that looks like it rolled off some luxury prefab assembly line. Renovating and adding onto an existing building is something different altogether. Not that I think this is a good idea. Typical nouveau riche flaunting their money at the little people.