CB6 Okays Toll Brothers' Spot Rezoning
At last night’s CB6 Landmark/Land Use committee meeting, members gave the thumbs up to Toll Brothers’ request for a spot rezoning of the site along the Gowanus Canal, between Carroll and 2nd Streets. The change would happen in advance of the neighborhood-wide rezoning being undertaken by City Planning, allowing Toll Brothers to erect a mixed-use…
At last night’s CB6 Landmark/Land Use committee meeting, members gave the thumbs up to Toll Brothers’ request for a spot rezoning of the site along the Gowanus Canal, between Carroll and 2nd Streets. The change would happen in advance of the neighborhood-wide rezoning being undertaken by City Planning, allowing Toll Brothers to erect a mixed-use development with housing between four and 12 stories, a couple of hundred parking spaces and a public park along the canal. According to Pardon Me For Asking, even some members who voted yes did so reluctantly; they want the canal cleaned and feel the best way to make that happen is to have constituents living near it. PFMA points out the Councilman Bill de Blasio lobbied the committee to say yes, and Toll Bros. spent $365,000 on lobbying efforts. Far as we know they don’t have to pay for cleaning up the canal.
CB6 Land Use Committee Votes Yes to Toll Brothers Project [PMFA]
Toll Bros Gowanus Project Ok’d CB Committee [GL]
And the Verdict on Toll Brothers Is… [Brownstoner]
Toll Brothers’ Gowanus Rezoning Certified by DCP [Brownstoner]
The Next Unveiling of Toll Brothers’ Gowanus [Brownstoner]
Reps From Toll Brothers Detail Big Development [Brownstoner]
FSRQ;
In general I agree with your arguments, until right up to the end. In essence, what you are advocating is that if residential development is to occur, it should be organic and not subsidized. Once again, no arguments on that one.
Where I believe you lose it is the issue of cement distribution. This cost is factored in through the price of the cement. The owner of the cement supply will decide if it is worth his while to stay in Gowanus or other areas, considering land cost, transportation and labor costs, time for the cement to set, the price he can get for cement,etc. The owner of a parcel of land in Gowanus should not have to consider this issue in their decision as to what to do with their property.
Once again, while I agree that the environmental clean-up of the canal should be factored in, I think you are creating a bias against residential development by requiring it to take account of costs that are already factored in via the market.
Excellent analysis,fsrg, normally I’ve very aware of externalities; in this case, my plain *liking* of the project made me less analytical.
That said, and I fully admit I have not studied the boundaries of this project well, I’d say that it does not necessarily have to harm the existing manufacturing uses, but may that’s being a little idealistic, as LL’s as you say would rather wait for a change than rent to manufacturing.
The city could do a BID/TIF type subsidy for manufacturing here if it warrants it, and mixed uses could co-exist. There I go again with pie-in-the-sky ideas.
“The demise of manufacturing in the city is historical, long-standing and probably irreversible….”
True but here is the problem when talking about the Gowanus areas – the costs associated with making this area livable for people will likely not be fully bore by the developers (see how Toll isnt expected to clean the canal for example) – therefore while the ROI for residential may seem exponentially higher then for (light) manufacturing/distribution – the real costs for residential conversion are expected to be subsidized by government and insurance (flood, liability, etc…)
While this subsidy might make sense in a situation where the area was truly “dead” like Polemicist states – the reality is that this area is far from dead and has/had a very active light manufacturing/distribution business. The reality is that any disuse of property in the area is generally due to LL waiting to see if they can use their property for the more lucrative SUBSIDIZED residential development.
In order to make a valid determination if the change is economically beneficial, you have to add in the ‘hidden’ costs which may include public funds for cleanup and pollution remediation, infrastructure upgrades, and additional costs/risks (spread to all) due to flood risk. Finally it would likely be fairer if you could calculate the monetary and environmental cost (if any) resulting from the displacement of these light manufacturing/distribution businesses to outside the center city. (one simple example is the added expense of moving the concrete factory further away from Downtown Manhattan (where it is used).
As hard as it for me to agree with Polemicist, I agree. The demise of manufacturing in the city is historical, long-standing and probably irreversible. This rezoning does not add nails to that coffin.
Manufacturing (or, more accurately, light industrial/assembly) should be encoraged in places where it already exists, and places marginally “manufacturing” like Gowanus should be allowed to develop residentially in an organic fashion (ie not AY.)
That said, what are the chances of this happening?
Two words: Love Canal.
FSRQ;
Totally agree.
Lisa;
The logic of the FAC’s argument is astounding, but not surprising, coming from this group. By that logic, we should consider zoning some areas of Brooklyn for agriculture. After all, the land values for manufacturing yields more profit for the landlord, endangering agriculture.
Never going to happen……
Having just attended Fifth Avenue Committee’s demystifying zoning workshop (which I highly recommend), I understand at least one aspect of the opposition: rezoning for residential, which yields much more profit for landlords, endangers manufacturing. Seems like a big concern to weigh.
I will never understand the opposition to this project. The public utility derived from it is huge. Revitalizing a dead industrial district. Bringing needed housing to the most crowded county in the US. Cleaning up a polluted canal almost abandoned by the city government for a half century.
The reasons offered by Pardon Me For Asking are typically banal and exaggerated. The height is entirely moderate by historical standards of the past century. The density is low by historical standards. The fact it is a flood zone is irrelevant. Anyone who has vacationed on a barrier island in Florida knows there are literally thousands of buildings of a similar size in that state in areas with a far higher risk of flooding.
Again, Pardon Me For Asking attempts to hide the real issue: they simply don’t want more people in their neighborhood. I will never understand how someone can live in a neighborhood 2 miles from Wall Street and think they will forever have 4-story townhouses. It’s just delusional.