some guatemala fotos

almost to pacaya volcan


hot lava


lava tracks


by the time we began hiking down from the volcano it was almost dark. towards the end of the hike i saw this energy plant on one of the hillsides opposite us. somethin about industrial buildings and urban settings that i love.


street corner in antigua


sleepin dogs. antiguas full of em, but most seem to be in good shape. its a pedestrian city so theres little threat of getting hit by cars and most look well fed.


subterranean circular room at the capuchin monastery (odd name--but it's for nuns, not monkeys). room had great acoustics and incredible lighting. reminded me of ronchamp.

night shots

gehry at night


astor place


new nyu dorms

i just got a new camera. it's a panasonic dmc-lz7... pretty basic, but i love it. the past couple of days ive been taking big night shots--shots of streets, distant buildings, etc. but i'm finding it tough to get enough light in the shots so they all turn out pitch black. i used one of the presets on the camera to get the nyu dorm shot and i auto-curved the gehry shot on photoshop to make the images brighter.

thanks

looks a little like one of those mega-architect project renderings...you know, the overly-hip, cheap photoshop-esque quality where nothing really goes together and makes complete sense. anyway, the message is sincere. thanks.

the canals of flushings

went walkin around flushings after the mets game wednesday night. we were looking for an atm, but all we saw were mechanic shops lining flooded streets. it was a flooded ghost town

Recap of the Domino Sugar Rezoning Public Hearing: Part 3, the public

When the politicians had had their turn, the public began their three-minute speeches. I can’t possibly mention everything that was said, but I’ll summarize as best I can. An old woman from Greenwich Village began—It was sort of an odd that the first public response would come from a little old lady from the Westside of Manhattan, but in many ways I love that things like that are possible. Anyone from anywhere can talk and give their view. Her speech wasn’t monumental. She had done her research and read the Draft Scope of Work and said it was lacking. She asked for more information about the project, like details and numbers on affordable housing. I couldn’t agree more. A man from RPA then spoke, but I couldn’t really understand anything he said. The fact that RPA sent someone, however, shows that this rezoning is a big issue. There were some crazy Manhattan-based preservationist and cultural organizations that spoke as well. These groups all seemed to be represented by old women from Manhattan. I had had my fill of preservation talk when the “Society for Industrial Archaeology” began. I’m all for preservation—and I think that old industrial buildings kick ass. I love to photograph them and I’ve even written before about how I want to selfishly keep them for myself as a private playground and wilderness for industrial exploration. Those reasons by themselves, however, are sort of selfish and short sighted. You need to know more than the history of the Domino buildings to fight for their preservation. You need to know all about the proposal and the community and its concerns. If you go in and talk about the importance of preserving New York’s industrial past, but you don’t know what the community wants and have no idea how to fund and use a preserved site then I think you’re arguments pretty weak. If an organization like Waterfront Preservation Alliance (WPA) had said something or if these preservation organizations had worked/talked with local community organizations than I would’ve had more respect for what they said. Talking about the importance of viewing the site from all Manhattan-Brooklyn bridges just seems kind of hollow. Preservation—by itself—is a profession of nostalgia.
A water taxi company owner gave an interesting speech on the need for waterfront accessibility to private water taxi businesses. He envisioned a public-private partnership to make waterfront transportation along Brooklyn, Queens, and Manhattan viable. The fact that so many different topics are discussed as these hearings is what makes them great.
Stephanie Feinberg (?) a community member seemed irritated by the insufficient data of the Draft Scope. Apparently the traffic analysis does not mention that Kent Avenue is one of the boroughs main truck routes and doesn’t analyze the impact on the Williamsburg Bridge or the Midtown Tunnel. Also all of the data is based on census numbers from 2000, which is insufficient in a community that is transforming everyday. NAG and some community members all gave similar speeches. They pretty much expressed concern about the study that was being done and the CPC proposal in general. There were two interesting points that were brought that I had never known: 1) M1 allows for commercial uses. This means that CPC doesn’t only want to create a buffer from existing manufacturing, but also wants to allow a mega-Whole Foods to buy property next door. 2) Small study areas have an inherent bias for large-scale development. Studying a half mile around a six block site that brings in 2400 households and affects an entire community favors developers enormously. Also, some community members wanted to see the Adant House and Powerhouse preserved.
Interspersed throughout all of this were some speeches from pro-CPC organizations. Churches United had a few people talk about the dire need for affordable housing in the Southside. This need is certainly undeniable, but some of the stuff that they said was unjustifiably naïve. One member said that affordable housing is needed immediately and that there should be no deliberation, objections, or delay in the EIS process. This kind of comment is just stupid. He was suggesting that the community should just blindly follow a developer as soon as they hear the words, “affordable housing.” A priest from a church right next to the site gave a great speech, and for the first time I really got an idea of the great extent of displacement going on. Peter talked with Churches United outside of the building after the hearing and tried to tell them that NAG wanted the same thing as Churches United. NAG’s first concern is for affordable housing as well, but fully endorsing CPC’s proposal so early in the process is a bad strategy. Why not ask for more affordable housing like Diana Reyna? Why not ask for as much research and studies to be done since the project and its effects will certainly be monstrous? Their strategy seems to be selling themselves short. It’s saying the Waterfront Inclusionary Housing Program is good enough when in actuality it could be better. This is the opportunity to make it better.
There were also some non-community organizations that spoke in support of CPC. Housing Partnership’s head, Dan Martin, praised CPC’s affordable housing legacy and the benefits of their proposal. I didn’t think much of this, but Peter said it was odd since Housing Partnership has been extremely critical of CPC in the past. Also representatives from Enterprise Community Development and Citizen’s Housing and Planning Council both spoke about the city’s housing crisis. They were each convincing—the city does have a housing crisis for both affordable and market rate housing—but I still think that the housing crisis cannot justify any project.
There was also a retired police officer and cancer survivor from the East Village who talked about how great CPC was. CPC had helped him build a cancer treatment center and private residence. I don’t doubt that CPC has done some great stuff and they seem to have a great track record. Nonetheless when a not-for-profit’s for-profit wing goes into business on residential development with Isaac Katan (huge developer), you still have to be concerned.
Lastly, an EVIDCO representative reiterated the earlier made point that Kent Avenue is a major truck route. He asked if million dollar condo owners know that trucks will be rumbling below their towers. At this point, I was a little tired from the two and a half hours of talk, so Peter and I left. Unfortunately the community might have come across as divided. A consensus that asks for more affordable and more research would’ve made a stronger impact, but ah well. We said what we had to say and CPC at least has to listen to it. Hopefully in the future, a community-wide collective action will force the city and CPC to create the most positive proposal. I should mention that there were only four city planning people at the hearing (I’m pretty sure that’s only a third of the usual council) and I think three of them were just staff people representing city planning officials. I don’t know what that means.

Recap of the Domino Sugar Rezoning Public Hearing: Part 2, politicos

After the land use lawyer and the urban planner finished speaking, it was the politicians turn to speak. A staff member representing State Senator Martin Connor (from Brooklyn) spoke first. Connor enthusiastically supported the project and made the claim that some of the affordable housing would be affordable to families with as little as $20,000 annual income. This was the first precise numbers about rental/ownership pricing, and I must’ve heard wrong because that’s a ridiculous, unprecedented number.


Next, a rep for assemblyman Vito Lopez spoke. While Vito liked that the project provided affordable housing, gave homes to displaced area peoples, and created open space, he had some serious concerns about the proposal. He was specifically concerned with the proposal’s density and the strain it would put on a neighborhood that has overburdened city services. He also was concerned about how the project would alter the neighborhood’s low-rise identity. At times his speech even became interestingly academic, as he called neighborhoods “complex organisms” and referenced to Jane Jacobs. He asked, “Why should affordable housing come at the expense of communities and at large scale density?” and asked people to dismiss the usual, illogical strict bureaucratic focus in order to give this proposal a serious look. He said he would not support the project until CPC reduced the height and density. This speech shocked most of the people at the meeting. As soon as he mentioned Jane Jacobs, audience members began excitedly looking around in disbelief asking if he was reading the right speech. I was caught off guard, but mostly I was happily impressed. Sure, it might just be a political ploy, but it was delightful and shocking. Ron pointed out that it was a completely academic speech, and therefore it was shouldn’t be trusted as sincere or realistic. On the day, it ended up being the most anti-CPC statement made.


Council Member Diana Reyna followed by asking for more affordable housing for low and moderate-income households. In truth, I think this was the smartest speech (apparently she had called up local community organizations the week before to try and gauge how the community felt). She said the need for affordable housing was so great that it should be 50-50 market to affordable. Maybe it’s shooting too high, but at such a preliminary stage in the process, it’s good to shoot high and let CPC know your ideals. I think the woman from LESCO agreed with me because she started crying “muy bien” to herself towards the end of Reyna’s speech.

All three politicians made very different speeches; their stances seemed to present the three major viewpoints about CPC’s proposal. One complacent speech addressing the affordable housing accomplishments and nothing else; one academic speech questioning density and impact; one asking for greater affordable housing and expressing caution and desire for an even better proposal.

Recap of the Domino Sugar Rezoning Public Hearing: Part 1, CPC folk

The hearing began with one of CPC’s land use lawyers giving a summary of CPC’s proposal. He just read straight from the Draft Scope of Work that had already been made available to the public, so it ended up being a dry and uninformative speech. To jog my memory, here are a couple of the key points they touched on: 2400 units at an average of 1,000 sf per unit and LPC is considering land marking the Refinery, which is a group of three buildings that CPC plans to convert to residential space. Next, the urban planners that are conducting a study of the area and preparing the EIS gave a speech that summarized some more stuff on the Draft Scope of Work…more dry uninformative talk. They stressed that the project would be compared at each point with “the future without the project”—the #1 alternative and basis of comparison. Their research seemed pretty extensive, even going as far as to view the site from various bridges, but overall seemed lacking. I kept wondering how they were able to look at the impact without a final design. Their proposal doesn’t explain specific uses, occupancies, or siting of buildings. I know that the impact statement studies the effects of the rezoning, but in this case the rezoning and the proposal are pretty much synonymous. All we know is their general framework, so how can a comprehensive study and EIS really be crafted?


I also found it funny that when he listed all the alternatives he skimmed heavily. He mentioned the “future without the project” and M3-1 as-of-right alternatives (= new manufacturing at site in new structure or existing structure), but that’s it. The point of alternatives is: 1) to find out the good/bad about a project by comparing it to logical alternatives and 2) to try to find an even better plan—find an aspects of alternatives that can be replace or be augmented to the existing proposal. While the alternatives that the planner mentioned might accomplish the first objective, they don’t even make an attempt at the second objective. Peter and I mentioned two alternatives that accomplish both these things—one that did not require special permits to alter FAR/building height/ base height regulations and the other that provided more affordable housing (as stipulated in the community board’s response to the city’s rezoning.) CPC had another alternative in their Draft Scope that the planner didn’t even mention! This other alternative is down-zoning non-CPC-owned surrounding property from M3-1 to a mixed use, as-of-right M1-4/R6A and M1-4/R6B. This awful alternative accomplishes nothing. It adds no valuable information to the study—it just is a realtor’s speculation on how more money could be gained and more people could be displaced from the surrounding area. Maybe if they owned it then it could be a rough concept on the way to building affordable housing, but they don’t even own it! For obvious reasons, the urban planner did not mention this alternative. This curious omission shows that he knows that it provides nothing to the study—he knows it’s unjustifiable and its mention will make some supporters hesitate, so he just mumbled over it.

CPC note

Peter noticed this in CPC's Draft Scope of Work

TASK 22: Alternatives

“An alternative with zoning map amendment for the Non-Project Rezoning Area to i)
M1-4/R6A for all of Block 2415 and the M3-1 zoned portion of Block 2403; ii) and a
change to M1-4/R6B for the M3-1 zoned portion of Block 2390;”

Oh man is this a wack alternative. It rezones an area that they don’t own to a mixed use M1-4/R6A and M1-4/R6B. Their original proposal rezones it to M1-2 from M3-1. This would pretty much just force out any existing manufacturing in the area! It would allow for as-of-right residential structures and the market to displace any business that exists on those blocks! What?!?! CPC seems to be using this alternative to encroach further on the livelihood of surrounding manufacturing, retail, and residents.

Sneak Peak at Domino Rezoning Hearing Statement

Public Scoping Meeting on the Proposed Domino Sugar Rezoning
Hearing Statement

My name is Peter Gillespie. I am the executive director of Neighbors Allied for Good Growth. We’re a volunteer-based community planning and environmental justice organization. Since we formed in 1994, a large part of our mission has been to recapture the North Brooklyn waterfront and encourage a waterfront development that supports a stable, healthy, mixed-use community. We believe that creating public waterfront parkland, building affordable housing, preserving viable industrial and artisanal jobs, and trying to maintain the neighborhood’s character are all essential to any waterfront development.

This is the largest project in our community’s history. If approved, CPC’s proposal will have a profound impact on the community. It is essential for CPC to take a very close look at these impacts. We recommend that CPC include some additional information in their scope of work and address our suggestions and concerns.

CPC must examine the residential displacement that their project will cause. CPC should expand their analysis of secondary displacement to include residents of stabilized and rent controlled units. Our experience has shown that through harassment, buyouts, and illegal evictions significant numbers of existing affordable units are being lost in the neighborhood. The enormous scale of the CPC’s proposal will only increase the problem. Also, we encourage CPC to analyze the extent to which ethnic groups will be displaced. The Southside of Williamsburg has historically been a Latino community and with the neighborhood’s ever-increasing development, portions of the Latino community have and may continue to be displaced.

We also would like CPC to extensively research the impact that their proposal would have on existing local commerce. CPC’s proposal designates 120,000 square feet of space for retail and commercial use. This space could fit two and a half, three-story Whole Foods like the one at Union Square. It is enough space to create an entirely new commercial strip and the deleterious effects it will have on local commerce must be thoroughly analyzed.

CPC’s proposal also downzones part of the M3-1 district to M1-2. This downzoning would directly displace heavy-manufacturing in the rezoned area. CPC’s analysis should carefully study how to aid these displaced businesses as well as how to alleviate the negative impacts on the remaining light-manufacturing business.

Despite the acceleration of residential construction and development over the past decade, unemployment numbers have not significantly improved. Recent rezoning has not generated jobs for people in the neighborhood. With this in mind, we encourage CPC to hire locally. There are many qualified architects, contractors, construction firms, marketing groups, crafts persons, and building material supply companies in the community. Recruiting locally would generate local jobs and act as a great means of economic development.
We also have concerns regarding the effects of CPC’s proposal on neighborhood transportation. The L-line is already one of the most over-burdened subway lines in the city and the JMZ line is gaining passengers by the day. We understand that CPC’s proposal could create shuttle bus service. If it does, we would like CPC to make this transportation inclusive to the entire community. It’s also important to mention that Kent Avenue is the neighborhood’s main truck route and one of the major truck routes in Brooklyn. Residential towers would create added traffic on this important avenue and could divert trucks and traffic upland. These transportation concerns must be heavily researched since unsafe and overburdened transportation affects the quality of life for the entire community.

As part of CPC’s proposal, they plan to dedicate 100,000 square feet of space to community facility use. While this could allow for some exciting community facilities, it is an immense amount of space. It’s enough space to fit 5 Madison Square Garden Arenas. Therefore, we would like CPC to provide more information about this community facility space, such as its proposed uses and its impact on the community.

Lastly, we would like CPC to include two lesser build alternatives in their scope of work. The alternatives should restrict the height and density of the project’s waterfront and upland portions to conform to the City’s approved Greenpoint-Williamsburg rezoning plan. We believe that a lesser build alternative would accomplish the CPC stated goals and would minimize the project’s negative impacts. The alternatives should also increase the amount of affordability to accord with Community Board #1’s ULURP response to the City’s rezoning proposal.

RG LLC v CB

kinda lame, but I wrote a scene to try and sum up the opposing views of development:

Realty Group LLC: Hey guys, just here to give you a heads up that we’re going to build you this incredible 40-story tower. All of the housing is going to go high-income families couples. These people are going to be living the sweet life. We’re going to build them a work out room, a pool, 24-hour doorman, private parking, private terrace and private courtyard space. The whole works. Rents in the area are going to have to go up as a result. I mean, do building owners have a choice? If everyone else is charging more and the neighborhood is hot shit, why wouldn’t they? Some people will be directly displaced, but most long-time residents will feel the brunt of this project indirectly—through the increased costs and prices of a rapidly gentrifying neighborhood. You guys are going to enjoy this gem of tower until it displaces you. Anyway, just letting you know this project is gonna be totally sweet. We’ll start some bizarre ad campaign soon. It’ll use misuse uncommon adjectives to describe the place…something like “arousing new urbania, well-lubricated into the beautifully hip environs, a diamond in the industrial shadow of the past”…oh man. I am so pumped.

Community Board: Rabble rabble rabble. Not in my back yard. Rabble rabble rabble. We want blood.

Realty Group LLC: Hey, easy there guys. I’m helping you out. You’re neighborhood was crap! Thanks to folks like me crackheads don’t sleep at your door anymore. Chill out. We’ll give you 10% affordable housing and a big tree that is open to the public.

Community Board: You didn’t fix our neighborhood we did, asshole. You just showed up when it was on it’s way up. 40-stories?!? Rabble rabble rabble.

Realty Group LLC: Alright, we know it’s high. We know no building in your neighborhood is higher than 6 stories. We know all that low-height zoning bullshit. But the more housing that’s built, the cheaper it’s all gonna be. This neighborhood will explode without more housing. Plus, for all you home owners, now you can sell your shit brownstone for millions! Fine, as a token of goodwill, we’ll give 20% affordable, retail space on the ground floor, and a day care center in the building.

Community Board: That’s better. Rabble rabble rabble. But this deal is still shit. The affordable isn’t even affordable to our residents. It’s affordable to middle-income households and with inflated NYC AMI #s that’s practically market rate! Rabble rabble rabble.

Realty Group LLC: Hey, I can’t change city-wide AMI (but I can change citywide zoning). Gimme a break. I’m building a tower in your neighborhood that’ll give you a day care center, retail space—and a tree—mind you. I could have just demo’d all the existing houses on my new property and built market rate homes without your consent. The low height would’ve made it way lamer. And what are you guys complaining about anyway. This is gonna bring some well-educated young professionals into your neighborhood and now you’re neighborhood will be safe and have culture. And you know the city pays attention to neighborhoods like this.

Community Board: Rabble rabble. I guess. There’s some good stuff, but a lot of it sucks ass. This really doesn’t benefit the community that much. A tower blocks out the sunlight, it brings more density to an already over-dense neighborhood, it displaces long time residents who rent their homes…Our subways are already some of the most crowded in the city. We haven’t had a hospital in 30 years. Now you want to build this monster tower, which is gonna strain the neighborhood and give private luxuries to new residents. We’re getting next to nothing…At least we get a tree.

Also thought this rendering for the Quadriad site was kinda interesting. I think it was pre-Quadriad. It's as-of-right, but boy is it pugly.

Jumble of Thoughts

Over recent days I've received some criticism from my readers (my brother, will) commenting that all these posts have the same tone and make the same points. This is something that kind of worries me, so I thought I'd try to clarify the goal of this blog and my stance on development-related issues.

First, I'm a student, and I'm treating this blog as an educational resource. A place where I can share my writing and photos with whomever chooses to view them (once again, my brother will). As many blogs are, it's a journal of ideas and reactions. As such, at times I will post things that seem illogical, stupid, and rash. I'll post things one day that I'll adamantly disagree with the next day. I'm really just using this as a wall to throw all my ideas against, which I can then view on a pretty webpage.

Second, I hate to think that I'm starting to sound like the folks at gowanuslounge and curbed. I love these sites and check them out everyday, but often times they seem completely anti-development (see: http://www.curbed.com/archives/2007/02/12/184_kent_update_now_its_an_ice_palace.php). Every new construction they seem to label a luxury tower by a mega-developer. I think curbed tries to be non-partisan about these issues, but it's eternally sarcastic tone belies this attempt. I don't want to give the impression that I'm completely anti-development. Sure, sometimes I'll get frustrated by a pugly design for a new building, but I try to look at both the good and bad as thoroughly as possible.

Maybe it's because I don't live in the neighborhood that I blog about (cb1, Brooklyn) that I'm able to be more objective in my posts, but I don't think this is the case. The issue of development in NYC is a constant source of confusion and uncertainty for me. I hate all of the new ugly architecture that development in Wburg is bringing. I ally with many residents that feel the low-scale quality of Wburg's upland is being destroyed. I think that the same few developers and architects really are making this neighborhood ugly and unaffordable. Nonetheless, I can look past some of the illogical, nimby-protests that curbed and gowanus make. I think that some of the old manufacturing in the area should be torn down. It's stupid and selfish to want to keep an ugly brick plant intact when it's no longer in use. Most of the time it's hypocritical to advocate affordable housing and advocate the preservation of an empty box-making warehouse that'd be used by junkies if the neighborhood were in worse shape. It's hypocritical to be try to bar mcdonalds from opening a franchise in a neighborhood and still advocate affordable housing. Anyway, these thoughts are jumbled. I'm trying to say that I'm not strictly pro-preservation, nor am I strictly anti-development. I'm trying to approach each complex issue I face with an open mind and with only a bit of cynicism.

Homogeny Part I

Top row, left to right: 184 Kent Ave aka Austin Nichols Building, Schaefer Landing Residential Development (in conjunction w/ Gene Kaufman), 11 Broadway.
Bottom row, left to right: 55 Berry St, "Residential Condo Project" at 185-191 South 4th Street, 60 Broadway aka The Gretsch Building.

What do all these projects have in common? They were all designed by Karl Fischer Archtiects. Never mind that the Montreal-NYC firm has a staff of a little more than 30 people and mostly builds single family homes in wealthy Montreal boroughs, it's still getting a staggering amount of work in Williamsburg. As seems to be the case, a handful of mid-sized firms without much recognition are designing lots of huge, new residential buildings. Seems like there are a few architects that have been hired to transform Wburg-Gpoint.

Only half of these projects are new construction, the other half are residential conversions. Nonetheless, here are some dizzying figures of the extent of Fischer's work in CB1:

1.661 billion square feet = Total square footage of all projects
$279 million = construction costs

Note: I'm not positive that all of these projects were actually built or chosen to be built. Some I'm sure lost out to other designs/interest. It's still kinda funny though that such a small firm, straddling two nations would care so much to design 6+ major projects in one square mile of Brooklyn.

Tommorrow: Gene Kauffman

Northside Urban Renwal Project

Peter and I obtainted a copy of the "Bedford Ave-North 3rd Street Urban Renewal Project" published by HPD back in October 1985. It's a bit confusing, but it's a brief and interesting read. It gives you a sense of how different the Northside's concerns were two decades ago. For instance, HPD writes that the majority of housing is moderately priced with “a substantial number of housing units for low income families both privately and publicly supported." Also, they describe the neighborhood’s transportation as “good” and educational facilities as “plentiful”--two features that the neighborhood currently needs improved.

The point of this exercise was to see how the Urban Renewal Project might have an effect on Quadriad's project. Although the land that Quadriad owns was never acquired by HPD (or so we think), all of their land is within the Urban Renewal area and is thus greatly effected by some of its guidelines and objectives. Anyway, there were two specific questions that I had while reading this. Hopefully NAG will ask them to someone from HPD or Housing Partnership, but for now they'll just be posted (I've also posted a map above the questions to help explain):


1. What’s going on with Lot 35 of Block 2351? The lot is in the urban renewal area and is listed as a property acquired by HPD. From the Land Use map that HPD provides, it appears to be a sliver of land in between what is currently lot 28 and lot 40. Yet, neither DOB nor Sanborn maps list this lot. Why was this originally acquired as an HPD-owned urban renewal site, if its location and size are somewhat odd? What purpose did it serve before it merged with neighboring lots and its existing structure was demoed? Is it possible that this site is still HPD controlled or owned in someway? If not, how did HPD lose ownership/control of this property? Especially if the land use provisions and building requirements are to remain in effect for 40 years (till 2025). Wouldn’t that somehow dictate ownership too?

here's a close up of the block (lot #35 is highlighted in orange)


2. As seen in the map above, the south two-thirds of the block are “Q” parcels. This means that they are in the Urban Renewal Area but were not acquire by HPD. Nonetheless, HPD designated that “Q” parcels must be kept at a high level of maintenance and meet the rehabilitation standards set forth in “Property Rehabilitation Guidelines” (these guidelines are pretty much in concurrence with city wide standards, but also include strong recommendations for residential property.) Also, in Section D, under subheading #3, titled “The Limitation on New Construction on Not to be Acquired Properties,” it says:

“If any structure designated Q is demolished, no new construction is to take place on the site without the prior approval of HPD.”

The site (lots 1, 40, and 28) is currently a vacant lot. The buildings were demolished in August 2005 and the owner of the site, Quadriad Realty, has plans to construct new residential structures. Since the Urban Renewal Plan lasts for 40 years, doesn’t Quadriad have to seek approval from HPD before new construction can take place? Can HPD negotiate a certain project agreement with Quadriad before giving them approval? Is there anyway Quadriad could bypass HPD?

200 Eleventh v Clymer Street

I was looking at renderings and floor plans of 200 Eleventh Avenue. It's got the whole works. Double height ceiling, en suite sky garage, a gorgeous park nearby (planned to be built just north of chelsea piers), private gym, great views, blah blah blah everything. I even like the design. Anyway it got me wondering, Is New York going to become a giant park with glass and steel luxury condos (most of which are doggish)? After all, it seems like that’s all that’s being built now. There’s really no other new construction. Also I think that there is a constant, unending demand for luxury housing near the waterfront with gorgeous, new-landscaped parks. People with money keep flooding the city to move to these quaint, less gritty, city-like luxury towers in the park. It's like a yuppie corbusier-robert moses hybrid has taken over the city, and with their rule has transformed the city into a place that can be both brain-numbingly monotonous and irresistibly luxurious and enticing. Anyway, I realized that all my doomsday talk was off-the-mark when I looked at this photo I took last week

...not really, but I like the photo anyway

Letter to City Hall

Regarding CPC's proposal for the Domino Sugar Site:

We would like the CPC to expand its scope of work draft. In expanding this document, we hope that the CPC will further research and address our concerns.

(1) We are concerned about the CPC’s proposal to transfer 190,000 square feet of floor area development rights from its waterfront property to its upland parcel (Block 2428). This would give the upland parcel an FAR of 6.0. (2) We are concerned about the CPC’s proposal to modify the height and setback regulations for its waterfront and upland parcels. The CPC’s proposed height regulations would far exceed what is currently allowed under R6 and R8 zoning. (3) We are also concerned about the CPC’s proposal to rezone parts of three upland blocks that they do not own. We would like them to closely examine the industry in this area (specifically the heavy industrial businesses) that might be displaced by this change in zoning. (4) We would like the CPC to more thoroughly research the effects of its proposal on residents of rent-controlled and rent-stabilized apartments. This segment of the population must be included in the CPC’s research on possible residential displacement. (5) Lastly, we believe that the CPC can accomplish its project goals and objectives without applying for special permits to exceed maximum building heights and densities. We encourage the CPC to propose an alternative at a reduced size; we believe this would lessen many of the project's adverse impacts. We request the Department of City Planning support our request and press the CPC to research these areas of concern.

Community Preservation and Development Corporation

I'm reading the CPC's "Draft of Scope of Work" that they've made accessible to the public in anticipation of the July 31 public hearing. There's a lot I don't like about it, but some of the stuff they're doing (like intense research and the creation of affordable housing) is great. I know that because of the immense scale of their project (2.86 million square feet with 2400 residential units) the city and requires that they do an enormous ammount of research, but read this:

As part of their research on residential displacement, CPC will “identify populations at risk of displacement by determining the portion of the population below the poverty level and the portion with income levels that are lower than the median for Brooklyn, and the portion of the population living in units not protected by rent control, rent stabilization, or other rent regulated programs.”

The Site

To those who visit this site:

My name is Bart Thanhauser. I'm a student at Cornell University, and I'm on summer break. I'm studying political science and urban/regional planning, so I thought I could learn a lot by helping out at NAG this summer. Peter and I thought it would be a cool idea to setup a new NAG website that could be easily updated and publicize neighborhood news. (neither of us know how to edit/update the old nag website). The two posts below are samples of the kind of information that this site would act as a conduit for.

We still aren't sure how this site is going to work and what its function will be. Here are some of our questions: What type of information should this site focus on? (nag-specific news? or community-wide news?) Should the site be used as a nag newsletter? Or should the site be used as a place where events and opinions are voiced? Who will operate this site? (I can only help run it till late August) Should it be updated daily, weekly, or whenever something is extremely important?

I kind of envision this site as a place where topics like the two sample posts below can be posted. I think the site should be a place where NAG can 1) voice its stance on topics like Quadriad, Domino Sugar, etc, 2) rally support for its cause, 3) receive public feedback, and 4) serve as an up-to-date source of community news, events, and concerns. Sort of like curbed.com or gowanuslounge.com except more focused on the Williamsburg community and NAG's mission.

If anyone is interested in helping out with this site or have questions / advice, you can email me at bjt35@cornell.edu or post a comment below this post.

Thanks,
Bart

Domino Sugar Rezoning

There is a Public Scoping Meeting on the proposed Domino Sugar Rezoning on July 31, 2007 from 2:00 PM to 5:00 PM and from 6:00 PM to 8:45 PM at City of New York Department of City Planning, Spector Hall, 22 Reade Street. You can read the draft scope of work here, http://home2.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/env_review/scope.shtml.

Shade at East River State Park

The parks department recently erected a futuristic-looking tent at the northwest corner of the park. It doesn't provide a ton of shade, but on a sunny day it makes lounging in the grass a little cooler.