« Commenting Update Just Sold in Brooklyn! »
April 10, 2006
Drilling Down Into McCarren Park Development
The most recent issue of NY Construction takes a look at the eastern side of McCarren Park, which, coincidentally we spent some time exploring last week. In particular, three developments on Bayard Street are profiled:
A couple interesting facts jumped out at us from the article: 1) The three continguous developments on Bayard Street are all being done by developer Isaac Hager; 2) All three are grandfathered under the old zoning, enabling them to be much higher than would currently be allowed.
Brooklyn Mid-Rises [NY Construction]
McCarren Park Condo Confusion [Brownstoner]
Comments
30 bayard/developers group has an ad in the print version touting the fact that they got grandfathered under the old zoning rule and that no one else would have their views of the park...
quite cheeky of them
Posted by: ltjbukem at April 10, 2006 11:13 AM
That's corny!!!
Posted by: Anonymous at April 10, 2006 11:38 AM
Sick and wrong. Grandfathers suck.,
Posted by: Anonymous at April 10, 2006 12:54 PM
Sick and wrong. Grandfathers suck.,
Posted by: Anonymous at April 10, 2006 12:55 PM
I stuttered. I'm sorry.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 10, 2006 12:57 PM
Developers Group is corny!
Posted by: Anonymous at April 10, 2006 1:44 PM
grandfathering sucks less than the zoning changes which made it necessary, and in fact if we want a beautiful, affordable neighborhood, all zoning regulations have to be repealed, which we came close to in the 1970's.
For some reason, all laws of economics are somehow suspended or at least fingers-in-the-ears-I-can't-hear-you ignored when it comes to the issue of NYC housing, and the the further government intervention will somehow rectify it, instead of making it somehow worse, which it usually does.
Remember, there is no such thing as a free lunch.
Posted by: iceberg at April 10, 2006 2:04 PM
If I had the kind of dough you'd need to buy one of those places, I sure as hell wouldn't buy one overlooking McCarren Park on the Toxic Williamsburg/Greenpoint border. Wait til they get a whiff of the sanitation processing plant. Nothing like the fresh scent of poo on a summer day.
Posted by: Judy at April 10, 2006 3:01 PM
Ice-
Hate to sound like a broken record again, but where are these mythical cities without zoning that you so love, Candyland? Houston, yes I will give you, but its not really everyone's cup of tea. Would you permit a nuclear powerplant on 14th Street? I imagine no, so instead of pushing free market fundamentalism, you should push for intelligent zoning which promotes the good and limits the bad. For the record, I love these developments and think that there should be more of them. The willy nilly downzoning that has been embraced by the outerborough's is bad for the housing situation, but to eliminate all zoning, is also not for the best and is not politically realistic.
Posted by: GrandPa at April 10, 2006 3:53 PM
GrandPa,
I'm sorry, but you do come off like a broken record. Why? Because I am not here to offer empirical evidence demonstrating a conclusive study of the effect of zoning regulations.
Now, there exists empirical studies of the sort, for instance from both CATO and the Manhattan Institute which I suppose might be dismissed offhand with the "ah, typical libertarian moron crap!", which make the case that zoning is a negative sum game.
But your asking for evidence of the mythical unzoned city is evident that your scientific beliefs are grounded in historicism/positivism. Unfortunately, like in the case of global warming, you honestly cannot present a testable hypothesis when all your evidence is ifself a hypothetical.
What you are asked instead to do is engage in strictly a priori economic analysis, which ceteris paribus, will demonstrate that zoning regulations are strictly a negative sum game.
To be clear, a negative sum game means that despite visible evidence of seeming gains, your total gains thru zoning ordinances are in fact negative! In other words, you are trading a higher value for a lower value.
If you wish to understand how that is so, I am very willing to share this insight.
Posted by: iceberg at April 10, 2006 5:41 PM
What's so great about overlooking an astroturf field with a running track?
Posted by: Anonymous at April 10, 2006 7:27 PM
iceberg - you must have read too many Ayn Rand novels. Your sense of belonging to a society of interdependent humans is greatly atrophied. Zoning maintians quality of human life. That should be gain enough..
Posted by: anonymous at April 10, 2006 9:34 PM
Anonymous @ 9:34 PM,
Because you would understand Ayn Rand's thoughts, right?
Even if you did, and excuse me if you do, you would know she had an irrational hatred for Immanuel Kant and his rigor of logic, and she firmly maintained the Aristotelian "A is A" epistemology.
Ayn Rand and "a priori" could not thus be uttered in the same sentence without seriously amusing my sense of humor.
Go bark up another tree, you anonymous "second-hander".
Posted by: iceberg at April 10, 2006 11:34 PM
We actually checked out some of these offerings on Sunday.
The Lotus (the small green building to the right of those above)has a loft setup which is nice, but the ceilings in the upstairs space are low...not so good for anyone over 5'10"
Manhattan Park is nice (its the one closer to Greenpoint, around the corner from the buildings pictured above), but its not quite the right feel for the amount they want (is this a problem with the aptsandlofts people?). But, they seemed very happy to sell, so I think you could get a good deal (for the area).
The Aurora was really the star of the show - the views higher up are wow and the finish out is nice. But, the price per sq ft is high and the spaces are small (650K for a 770sq ft).
Interestingly, we were told that the Icon (the low building on the left) was going to be even *more* high end than the Aurora - which is sort of unreal.But the spaces will also be bigger -2 beds on the 1st 4 floors and open lofts on the next four floors (in a new building to be built on top of the current structure). Anyway it was interesting - certainly makes some of the other developments in the 'Burg seem down right cheap!
Posted by: cityjane at April 11, 2006 12:06 AM
Its not about positivism or Hegel, although I am partial to Nietzche myself.
Actually Iceberg, I asked the question because I am interested in how life is actually lived. You strike me as someone who does not "get out much". I don't mean that as an insult, but just an observation that alot of people go through that phase in their life, usually in college when they embrace philosophical dogma over interaction with the real world.
The world is a complicated and beautiful place that does not easily fit into theoretical frameworks. If your argument is that no zoning would increase the housing supply, well of course it would, that is not at issue, the issue that most people on this board are interested in, is what kind of City do we want to live in, especially the best possible one in light of current politics and financing limitations.
New Yorkers generally do not want to see Brooklyn Heights replaced with tower blocks, there is something to beauty and history that is intangible. I think you would have to admit that you don't think that places like Central Park should exist, as they run counter to your dogma, and is a perfect example of a negative sum game in your book. On paper maybe, but not in that of the life that is lived. Something that members of the Vienna School certainly contemplaged as they walked the wonderful streets of that exquisitely "planned" baroque City, whether they ever were willing to acknowledge that fact in their darkest hours of philosophical doubt or not.
Posted by: GrandPa at April 11, 2006 12:47 AM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.