FAR house has a deal

136 Lockwood Road, $2.750 million, reports a pending sale. Not, to my eye, one of our more attractive homes, but it’s a typical example of a 2004 house built in accordance with the dictates of the P&Z’s Floor Area Ratio rules. Notice the bump-out boxes in the front – they don’t reach the ground, hence they don’t count against FAR. See the flat roof behind the dormers? Another FAR result.

Blame for this mess can’t be entirely laid on the shoulders of Diane Fox and her staff, because an architect must have been involved, and only he, or she, could have chosen the hodgepodge of siding materials and the phony Romeo and Juliette balcony above the stoop. Still, we demand this sort of structure, and now we all have to live with it.

136 Lockwood Road, as designed by the Greenwich Planning & Zoning Commission

136 Lockwood Road, as designed by the Greenwich Planning & Zoning Commission

11 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

11 responses to “FAR house has a deal

  1. Anonymous

    That is a dreadful looking house.

  2. Publius

    CF,

    Your father must have done something right because your use of the term “stoop” is often not associated with a Greenwich native. Did he perchance grow up in Brooklyn or Queens????

    • Scarsdale, but he was born in 1905. He did own, and live in, a 4-story brownstone on W. 11th street for many years but unfortunately he sold it in 1954 when he moved us out to Greenwich (I was barely one, and didn’t have a voice in the matter). Too bad – I think he sold it for $50,000, Zillow now estimates it as worth $33 million.

      • Publius

        If he took the $50,000 and spent half on a slice of heaven in Riverside and invested the rest in the S&P 500 (assuming a 1/1/1954 execution date), as of 12/31/2013 the value of the equity would have been approx $11.5mm and that slice of heaven???? Well you know better than I that any house in Riverside right now is worth at least $10mm+, unless it sits against the tracks and then it’s worth only $6mm….

  3. Fred

    Well, it’s not worse that most other new houses, though that _is_ a low bar ( think , lying in a trench buried in pig manure.)

    When you think of all the decent models of good residential architecture style that architects could out and out COPY, one is constantly amazed how dull and grim most houses end up.

  4. Anonymous

    I’m not sure the horrible design relates to FAR rules. Other than the low, almost flat roof I don’t see anything that looks like they are trying to work FAR.

    The boxes that stick out and don’t touch the floor – window boxes – need to be finished as a bench/seat inside in order not to count towards FAR so you’re really not getting any additional space.

    This is just bad design. My favorite FAR loopholes that i have personally witnessed are:

    – carport
    – retaining wall around whole house in order to be able to finish basement with high ceilings
    – connecting the attic of the two car garage to the master bedroom for a massive closet with only 6’11” ceilings so zero of it counts towards far.
    – lowering all closet ceilings to 6’11”
    – creating an outdoor room that is essentially completely finished except for the windows and heat. Owners just need to pop in windows when they move in.
    – full attic with 6’11” ceilings to be ripped out and raised once you move in

  5. Anonymous

    Tax card say 3,991sf. Lot can support 4486sf. Bad architect who didn’t know how to build a house in Greenwich.

  6. Anonymous

    What a horrible looking house! And the one on Robin is almost as bad.