More than 100 residents, activists and civic leaders showed up to the Community Board Six meeting last night to express their concerns over the planned 700-unit rental development for Gowanus by the Lightstone Group. The Brooklyn Paper reported that many were concerned the area’s infrastructure cannot support 1,400 new residents. Others were concerned about the polluted state of the Gowanus Canal, now a federal Superfund site. (The Superfund status is why Toll Brothers walked away from the development previously.) Others praised the project for bringing needed housing to the area and opening up the closed-off waterfront, factors the Lightstone Group were stressing too. The apartment complex includes a landscaped public esplanade, storm sewer upgrades, and 140 below-market-rate rental units. Developers are seeking only “minor modifications” to the Toll Brothers plans, which already went through the ULURP process, but many residents want Lightstone to undergo another city review. If Lightstone is able to avoid the full city review, they plan to break ground as early as next September. Update: As PMFA reported, the board requested that City Planning not move ahead with this and that it be tabled until a supplemental environmental impact study is performed, that 30 percent of the housing be affordable, that the height be reduced to eight stores, and that the developers follow the Community Board Responsible Contractor Conditions.
Critics: Gowanus Canal Development Would Be Too Populous [Brooklyn Paper]
Neighbors Concerned About Gowanus Development [Brownstoner]
All the Details on Lightstone’s Gowanus Development [Brownstoner]
New Developer Eyes Toll Brothers’ Old Gowanus Site [Brownstoner]


What's Your Take? Leave a Comment

  1. nimby. every town deals with expansion. with actual taxpaying actual voters new busses will not be doable if they are needed. since i take the f train, and have lived all over the city commuting for 20 years, the F train is nowhere near as bad as others (its my train btw). perhaps you should write to city hall and tell them no new residents should be allowed into the city. i’m actually shocked how brooklyners can live in the rapid changing capital of the world, yet hate broad and rapid changes, why not move to westchester or jersey?

  2. Its obviously not a minor modification. That’s an obvious tactic they took. You can’t ask for permission in this city or you will be schooled.

    My main concern is that they will build these, and residents will eventually hold the city liable for zoning them and allowing them to move into an area with known heavy dangerous toxins. Someone will get sick (as any percentage of 1,400 people would) and the lawyers will be recruiting to loot our tax money.

    “the area’s infrastructure cannot support 1,400 new residents”. On devils advocate note – I say prove it. Ever been on the 6 train during rush hour in Grand Central? The 1 train on morning commute on the UWS? The L train at Bedford during morning rush? The F train has plenty of capacity. The BQE is also nearby, and the LIRR not too far away. Why are you not protesting every development on 4th Avenue?

  3. Not only did the community voice their long list of concerns, but CB6 actually agreed with us!! Last night was exciting, and anyone who thinks that Lightstone can get away with this “minor modifications” bs is mistaken. I’m all for affordable housing–bring it on!– but 12-story towers and a high-density apartment complex has no place in brownstone Brooklyn.

1 2