« Home Resales Hit Lowest Point in 21 Months Celebrating Vinyl and Aluminum in Greenpoint »
January 26, 2006
Commish: Fort Greene Next for Downzoning
Freebie subway reader Metro had an interesting interview with City Planning Commissioner Amanda Burden this morning. The most notable nugget for us was her statement that Fort Greene will be the next neighborhood to be down-zoned. "We’re entering discussions with the community this week," she said. Maybe the phallus won't get built after all.
Redeveloping New York City [Metro]
Comments
This doesn't make any sense. Fort Greene is an urban location with minimal value except for its location near Manhattan. Downzoning Fort Greene is as stupid as downzoning the East Village.
WE NEED MORE HOUSING, NOT LESS!!!
Posted by: Eryximachus at January 26, 2006 9:27 AM
Well said, Robert Moses.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 26, 2006 10:13 AM
I think Clinton Hill is part of this project too. If you go to the Fort Greene Association website, they are pushing for R6B zoning of residential streets.
As for the person looking for more housing, you will have more than enough highrise apartments at the Atlantic Yards project, why knock down existing brownstones or building highrises on brownstone blocks.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 26, 2006 10:33 AM
Here's the FGA link. http://www.fortgreeneny.com/r6b.html#alert
Posted by: Anonymous at January 26, 2006 10:34 AM
I don't really understand how downzoning affects a landmark district - such as that of Ft. Greene and Clinton Hill. Obviously, there are sizable parts of both of those nabes that are not landmarked. But do they really need to be downzoned? I thought the point of landmarking was to differentiate between that which should be preserved in an historical context (landmark districts) and that which is open to progress/capitalism/reality/accessible-housing (which the more costly housing within landmark districts is not) or whatever you want to call it. So can someone please explain how downzoning plays within and around historic districts? I.e., what's the point?
Posted by: Mr. Minerva at January 26, 2006 10:59 AM
this will also serve to increase property values and for resales, also, i would think.
Posted by: ltjbukem at January 26, 2006 11:09 AM
Mr. Minerva - good question. My opinion, and this is shared by many, is that the landmark designation in FG/CH left out too many blocks. Now what is happening is that developers are knocking down old buildings and/or building on empty lots adjacent to, or in the middle of, rows of historic brownstones and mansions with little regard to what the effects of building a 10-30 story building will have on all of the adjacent buildings. This is part of the reason why I personally do not have as much of a problem with Atlantic Yards. I feel that site it an appropriate venue for large development (though I'm not a fan of the stadium and I think more thought needs to be put into increased traffic and strain on public transport, along with schools). Landmarking an area or particular blocks, even blocks that are on the National Register of Historic Places, as mine is, is a long and time consuming process. In the interim, to prevent historic neighborhoods from being ringed by ugly highrises, and to prevent the random non-landmarked lot in the middle of a landmarked area from having a 30 story building built on it, area residents are seeking to downzone the neighborhood.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 26, 2006 11:16 AM
Down zoning from R6 to R6B will help to preserve historic district feel. To make it simple: it will prevent building set back high tower right next to historic district. Downzoning area is biger then historic dist.
http://www.historicfortgreene.org/r6b.html
Posted by: malymis at January 26, 2006 11:30 AM
I'm all for downsizing if it is balanced with sufficient and sensible upsizing. I think what was done in Park Slope with 4th Avenue is a good example. Now, I live between 4th and 5th Avenue, so I'm in sight of the 12-story monstrosity that Boymelgreen is erecting at 4th Ave and 5th St. Would I rather not look at it? Sure. But it's a reasonable compromise to maintain the scale of our side streets. And it would be obnoxious of someone like me, who is lucky enough to own a house, to pull up the ladder behind myself and say there's no room at the inn. New York is a growing city and that can be a pain but it beats the alternative imho.
Posted by: linusvanpelt at January 26, 2006 11:51 AM
I agree linus. The R6B downzoning push in FG/CH covers residential streets of brownstones and freestanding mansions, as well as few old apartment buildings. I think if you look at the map it is reasonable.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 26, 2006 12:31 PM
Although downsizing does reduce the maximum allowable square footage that a lot may contain (it's maximum floor area ration: FAR) the downsizing really has more to do with bringing about contextual design; that is, capping building heights, reducing setbacks, etc. This is to protect the character of the neighborhood and so that developers will not demolish a 19th century building to gain 3 floors of rental space.
Posted by: anon at January 26, 2006 10:24 PM
I think we should push for as much development as possible wherever we can get it. This will mean more housing for the city's working class residents and lowered real estate values for all of you wealthy, square glass wearing brownstone owners. I hope they build a freaking skyscraper on 7th Avenue. And throw a few housing projects in for good measure.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 27, 2006 10:02 AM
Good idea Anon 10.02am, then you'll have a flight of well off people leaving brownstone Brooklyn as property values plummet and your working class can live in a crime ridden slum. Well thought out.
Posted by: lp at January 27, 2006 10:44 AM
Wah wah give baby his brownstone if you buy a house here I'm running away and taking my ball and then you won't get to play at all!
Posted by: New Brooklyn Resident at January 27, 2006 2:45 PM
Well, they live in crime ridden slums now while at the same time living in crappy dwellings.
If you're going to live in a crime ridden slum, it might as well be in a brownstone.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 27, 2006 4:59 PM
LOL! Well said anon at January 26, 2006 10:24 PM
Posted by: Jabberwock at January 27, 2006 5:02 PM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.