Sections

Block-buster! Landmarks green-lights revised Pavilion Theater condos

Change is coming: This rendering shows what the Pavilion Theater will look like with its residential add-on following the Landmarking Preservation Commission’s unanimous approval of a developer’s plan for the cinema built in 1928.
The Brooklyn Paper
Share on TwitterTweet
Share on Facebook
Subscribe

Don’t miss our updates:

It is cor-nice!

The city’s Landmarks Preservation Commission on Thursday unanimously approved a developer’s proposal to alter the historic Pavilion Theater in Park Slope, after architects re-jiggered designs that the commission shot down in August for sporting, amongst other things, underwhelming cornices — also known as the decorative railing around the roof.

Locals unsatisfied with the original design are generally pleased with the developer’s changes, which now include strong cornices worthy of Park Slope, according to a local leader.

“I think it’s safe to say that we’re pleased to see that they had fully considered the feedback they received and integrated much of it into their redesign,” said Community Board 6 district manager Craig Hammerman.

The commission gave a thumbs down to developer Hidrock Property’s original blueprints for affixing a condo building to the side of the Bartel-Pritchard Square cinema because many locals and commissioners felt the new five-story addition overshadowed the 87-year-old theater and didn’t quite fit in with the neighborhood historic district.

The original design for the new building’s decorative ledges featured a fifth-floor cornice that curved out from the facade that Hammerman described as more of an “optical illusion” that “suggested a cornice” rather than the real thing, and did not line up with the railing on the Pavilion Theater’s own roof.

The architects have now redrawn the cornice from the realm of illusion and into actual existence and have lowered it to align with the theater’s own superficial ledge — keeping the design in-line with not only the adjoining theater, but with the neighborhood’s general architectural motif, Hammerman said.

“What they proposed was much more pronounced,” he said

The developer also selected what it describes as a “warmer” brick color for the residential addition, assigned the ground-floor space over to the theater — rather than its previous plan to install retail stores — and reduced the size of its fifth floor, setting it back from the rest of the building so it is much less visible from the street and doesn’t detract from the starring attraction next door.

Hidrock, which purchased the property for $16 million in 2006, plans to keep part of the original theater as a movie house, reducing the current eight screens down to four and potentially hiring a new operator for the business.

The specifics of the cinema remain a mystery, but they’re coming soon to a theater near you, Hammerman said. The developer still needs to score a land-use variance from the city for its construction, which will require yet another public-review process, during which time the community will get to see its interior plans and will have even more opportunity to comment on the proposal.

“We haven’t seen an interior of the plans,” he said. “We’ll see that in the next round of reviews.”

Reach reporter Colin Mixson at cmixson@cnglocal.com or by calling (718) 260-4505.
Updated 10:17 pm, July 9, 2018: Updated to clarify changes to the condo building's ground floor.
Today’s news:
Share on TwitterTweet
Share on Facebook
Subscribe

Don’t miss our updates:


Reasonable discourse

Tyler from pps says:
I'm thinking of getting a new couch for my apartment -- where do I post renderings for community review and approval?
Oct. 26, 2015, 10:53 am
Sanders from PPF says:
Tyler - don't buy a cheap, ugly couch.
Oct. 26, 2015, 11:45 am
Mike Curatore from Carroll Gardens says:
So what's the alternative, Tyler? No public review of any projects at any time? Really? Is that what you're proposing? Because there's nothing constructive about your comment.

Try getting up off that couch, Tyler, and moving beyond your keyboard. You'll see that good things can happen when people care enough to get involved.
Oct. 26, 2015, 12:04 pm
Tyler from pps says:
Mike --
As I've said before on this website, I support the overall mission of the LPC and community review for projects like this. But there are standards and then there are the intrusive whims of folks that want to impose their personal aesthetic preferences on others. These two designs are EQUALLY acceptable. In fact, if the new (approved) design had been presented first... Do you think, honestly, it would have been approved?! It's all about weird egos and nothing about principled review... The developer and architect had to "prove" themselves as willing to bend to the whim of the board.

By the way, my couch comment was more about the public comment on the INTERIOR plans for the building use variance. And I'm sure the requirements are for fully detailed renderings of the interior spaces. But WHY?! The interiors are not landmarked. These decisions can be made with a spreadsheet! X sq ft reduction in commercial space, replaced with X sq ft of residential, etc. There is NO REASON to see what it looks like!!!
Oct. 26, 2015, 12:39 pm
Tyler from pps says:
I would add to my first paragraph above -- For architects that work in landmarked areas of the city, I would not be surprised if an initial "throw-away" design or two is built into the timeline and budget.

"Mr. Client, here is our proposal for designing your new building. Yes, it is 15% more expensive than you originally thought because we'll need to submit at least 1, but more likely 2 or 3, redesigns for 'community' approval. Which design is ultimately accepted is completely unpredictable. So, I hope you're in this just for the money because all design choices will be by committee and you'll have little to no choice over your own property in that regard."
Oct. 26, 2015, 1 pm
Me from Bay Ridge says:
The first one looks better.
Oct. 26, 2015, 2:09 pm
Irony from Ironic says:
Tyler not everything is up for review by some hints should be. Imagine if the homeowner that provides your illegally subdivided apartment had to submit designs...
Oct. 26, 2015, 8:22 pm
Tyler from pps says:
Irony -- Your dumb comment conveniently misses my point. Well done.
Oct. 27, 2015, 10:56 am
Tyler from pps says:
(by the way -- I think most people who aren't willfully ignorant recognize the difference between code enforcement and landmark and zoning requirements)
Oct. 27, 2015, 11:39 am
old time brooklyn from slope says:
tyler from flatbush needs a gf
Oct. 27, 2015, 9:57 pm

Comments closed.

First name
Last name
Your neighborhood
Email address
Daytime phone

Your letter must be signed and include all of the information requested above. (Only your name and neighborhood are published with the letter.) Letters should be as brief as possible; while they may discuss any topic of interest to our readers, priority will be given to letters that relate to stories covered by The Brooklyn Paper.

Letters will be edited at the sole discretion of the editor, may be published in whole or part in any media, and upon publication become the property of The Brooklyn Paper. The earlier in the week you send your letter, the better.

Keep it local!

Stay in touch with your community. Subscribe to our free newsletter: