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.