« Predatorial Mortgage Co. Swindles Sick Old Lady Spotlight 5th Ave: Beautiful Former Furniture Store »

April 19, 2006

PACC Director Gives Her Side of the Story

lot
We've been busting the Pratt Area Community Council's chops the last few weeks over the organization's decision to tear down the derelict but nevertheless salvageable brownstone at 483 Washington in Clinton Hill (shown post-demo above). The lot has quite a bit of usable FAR that PACC decided, on balance, made it worthwhile to demo and start from scratch on a new building. We're glad that Deb Howard, PACC's director, took time to weigh in with a lengthy comment and set everyone straight, ourselves included, on a few misconceptions about PACC's identity, track record and mission. The entirety of her statement is below:

PACC is a community-based organization in existence since 1964 serving Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, and Bedford Stuyvesant and preserving and developing affordable housing since 1980. We are not affiliated with Pratt Institute or Pratt Center. We have two offices located at 201 Dekalb and 1224 Bedford Avenues.

Since 1980 we have developed 62 rental properties and 19 homes as well as sponsoring 430 units of NYC Housing Partnership Homes, 8 low-income tenant cooperatives (71-73 Clifton, 126 Cambridge are examples) and a 12 unit condominium project at 233 Greene. We began by gut rehabbing vacant city-owned buildings as rental properties for low-income tenants and then occupied city-owned buildings, temporarily moving the tenants out and moving them back. Some examples of these buildings in Clinton Hill are 41-43 Clifton Place, 236 and 250 Greene, 501 and 155 Clinton. We also have renovated HUD foreclosed properties an example being 218 St. James and 277 Gates and previously city-owned homes at 241, 282 and 288 St. James and 55 Putnam.

Until now, we have never torn down a building...

What A Difference A Week Makes [Brownstoner]

...and in fact we have renovated buildings with no back wall, no roofs etc. For example, 218 Gates Avenue which was mentioned, the whole facade fell down two weeks after we bought it and we restored it to its former glory, winning the NYS Historic Preservation Award in 2005. We have always believed that low-income and mixed income housing should look as beautiful as any other and that our architectural heritage should be preserved.

Now as to our plans for 483 Washington which has been torn down. This property was foreclosed on for real estate taxes owed to NYC through the Third Party Transfer Program. Neighborhood Restore, a holding corporatiion for the city, assumed ownership in 2002 and PACC as the designated transferee began to manage it in 2003. What we found were 4 SRO tenants living in horrible conditions. There had been a fire on the top floor so the roof was open, refrigerators, toilets and tubs had fallen through to the floors below. No heat, jumped electricity, and garbage filled the basement and first floor. We therefore moved the tenants to fully renovated studio apts. in our management portfolio and sealed the building. Yes, there was one individual living in the SUV out front whom we tried to convince to move to proper shelter, had neighbors speaking to him and social workers from Black Vets for Social to no avail. The actual purchase of the property was delayed until late last month but we are now in a position to move forward with the project.

It was a hard decision for us to tear this building down but in this market of escalating prices and mounting development costs with very little available land, we made the decision to maximize the use of the 50' x 135'property. With the onslaught of gentrification, we are trying to provide housing for existing residents to remain in this community many of whom are seeking affordable homeownership opportunities. We therefore are building a 16 unit comdonmium in partnership with a private developer using no government subsidies, eight units will be affordable and eight units market rate. We will begin marketing soon and have two community information sessions which will be posted on our website. The building will be a six story brick construction which we believe will fit well architecturally with the other apartment buildings on the block.

Regarding 418 to 422 Classon Avenue. We successfully completed the purchase of 422 Classon Avenue last month. The three buildings will be preserved (not torn down)and by utilizing several sources of grants and subsidies including the NYC Landmarks Conservancy will become 12 affordable condominium units with all the historic detail restored. We are very excited about having this opportunity to preserve these wonderful buildings which were HUD foreclosed properties and should begin construction in July or August. 418 and 420 Classon were part of a cluster of 13 HUD and HPD brownstone properties purchased by PACC in April 2005 (not six years ago) which will also be substantially renovated as affordable homeownership opportunities during this coming year. Again, please check our website for marketing information at www.prattarea.org or call (718) 522-2613 x 10 to get on our mailing list for affordable homes or apartments.

Lastly, thank you to those who have supported PACC in the above dialog and I hope I have responded to all of the comments and issues raised. If you have any further questions please feel free to email me at the above address.

Deb Howard




Comments

can we see some pics of the project? when is it going to be finished? who is going to market it? any relation to the lot in front of it?
Thanks

Posted by: Anonymous at April 19, 2006 11:09 AM

Pic of the new 483 Washington Ave:
http://tinyurl.com/lx8kh

Posted by: Anonymous at April 19, 2006 11:23 AM

Here are some pictures of some of the work that PACC has done in FG/CH:

http://www.cplusga.com/cgahome.htm

click on 'multi-family residential' link on left. Then click on the second to last link 'Pratt Area N.R.P .....'

Posted by: nutcase at April 19, 2006 11:27 AM

the 483 washington ave drawing (if that's it) looks like a fedders building to me (even has the fedders drawn in).

Posted by: anon at April 19, 2006 12:08 PM

Soooo glad to hear about 418-422 Classon. I always worried that they'd be torn down.

Posted by: Ando at April 19, 2006 12:27 PM

Am not so thrilled about the 483 Washington drawing on the architect's website, most especially the garage on the ground level. I suppose it could be worse. Am also glad my backyard isn't losing its light.

Posted by: alex at April 19, 2006 12:53 PM

Basically sounds good to me. I'm going to look up the site, and various links and get as much info as possible.

FG/CH/BS should always have affordable housing, and an organization that works towards that goal is a good thing for Brooklyn and the people they serve.

Posted by: CrownHeightsProud at April 19, 2006 1:28 PM

Why, FG, CH, BS were not built as affordable housing neighborhoods, they just fell into disrepair. Let market forces work in the opposite direction.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 19, 2006 1:39 PM

Let market forces work in opposite direction? We could restore all the brownstones to single family homes and create servants quarters for the displaced people to live. Please. Mono-class neighborhoods undermine our society, encouraging selfishness among the rich and wall the poor into underachieving enclaves. The market place doesn't create enough low income housing or starter houses - unless you want to pave all the way to the Poconos.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 19, 2006 2:01 PM

Oh, man, we are not happy to see this. What a shame. To think they tore down that old brownstone for this.

Posted by: Brownstoner at April 19, 2006 3:15 PM

i'm anon @ 12:08 pm...like i said earlier....it has fedders written all over it...also, based on the drawing i don't see how they will fit this building on that lot (width-wise)

Posted by: anon at April 19, 2006 3:24 PM

Yeah, that old brownstone seemed to have a lot of potential. But the restoration probably would have had to be a labor of love...which is less attractive currently given the obsession with fitting the max units within an allotted FAR.

You guys have pretty high standards. The building looks fine to my unrefined tastes. The wash. ave stretch between gates and fulton is currently so depressing that I think this would make a welcome addition.

I would be interested in seeing what types of new construction you guys go goo-go gaa-ga for. Please post some links if you can.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 19, 2006 3:46 PM

I don't have a link, but see the block of brick townhouses along Greene b/t Washington and St. James. Those buildings are contextual (as are [gasp] Ratner's townhouses over on Fulton in Ft. Greene). This is not.

Posted by: alex at April 19, 2006 3:51 PM

Yeah, those townhouses on Greene are really nice. But I think that PACC is trying to maximize the number of affordable units that they can bring to the market. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Not to trigger a controversy, but I would forego contextuality in this case.

This would be one scenario where I think max-ing out the FAR is justified. Keep in mind that those houses on Greene were built i a different era when the land-grab hysteria was non-existent and developers were not as stretched as they are today (in terms of finding vacant lots). They had the luxury of putting up 8 townhouses instead of a 50 unit building.

Posted by: nutcase at April 19, 2006 4:00 PM

Granted this isn't the best stretch of Washington, but Washington is such a grand old avenue it just seems a pity to sully it with (at best) mediocrity and non-contextual mediocrity at that.

Posted by: Brownstoner at April 19, 2006 4:28 PM

I unequivocally support PACC's efforts to build new housing, a portion of which will be affordable. The design however is very regrettable. But surely the problem doesn't lie with PACC. It lies with the city. Government must a) set higher design standards for new construction (this is possible without huge additional cost -- see what they do in Europe) and b) provide more funding to groups like PACC so that they can build more architecturally significant structures (in this respect I agree with brownstoner that Washington Ave is not the place for a 2nd rate bldg).

Posted by: Anon at April 19, 2006 5:02 PM

I think would should be congratulating them on their work and housing they are providing to less affluent among us...and stop critiqueing whether their design meets our esthetic standards and subliminally to what we think will impact on 'our investments'.
I read to many comments on here claiming it would take $500k in reno to make a place liveable -that no way in hell could anyone conceivably construct something to such imperial standards and 'be affordable housing'.
So thank you PACC for your years of work and effort.

Posted by: pete at April 19, 2006 5:14 PM

I live on Washington between fulton and Atlantic, did you ever see any of the 1940s photos of this strech, has always been a great one,I don't think that building is bad maybe a few changes will be nice but I support the work PACC is doing, we need to be concerned about the lot in front of it thats is going to uilt by bricolage, I have seen some horrible buildings done by them.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 19, 2006 5:28 PM

If these "low-income" residents are so poor, then why do they need a garage? Many middle and high income people survive just fine in Brooklyn without cars.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 19, 2006 6:29 PM

Someone said FG/CH was not built with affordable housing: and you wonder about the 12-foot-wide houses on St. James Place? There are plenty of old buildings here that were not built as luxury housing. And even the mansions had servants' housing in the attic.

As for the remark about parking: I believe it's required by the city housing code.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 19, 2006 9:04 PM

Anonymous 6:29: I believe the parking is required by zoning rules.

Anonymous 1:39: all the 12-16-foot buildings in Clinton Hill were built for working-class people, to say nothing of the many apartment buildings. Even the mansions had living quarters for servants in the attic.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 19, 2006 9:12 PM

It is incorrect to state that the project involves no government subsidies. Subsidies abound for this and other affordable housing projects, including tax credits syndicated by the developer's financer and CRE credits accruing to the purchasers' mortgage originators. Who pays for these subsidies? The taxpayer. PACC may not directly generate the tax benefits, but believe me, they will accrue to this project.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 19, 2006 9:21 PM

Have you notice the architects behind the 541 washington avenue building, those guys have done some nice work:

sbjgroup.com/

i can't wait to see what it will look like???

Posted by: Anonymous at April 19, 2006 10:07 PM

Can a comunity do something against bad design in our own neighborhood? those look like fedders ac! totaly wrong!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Anonymous at April 19, 2006 10:10 PM

The original proposal for the site on Greene between Washington and St. James was a design by Bricolage that looked like something out of Tel Aviv: yellow stucco and wrought iron balconies. The developer made a presentation (I think it was to CB2)and wasn't prepared for the local reaction to the sketches; the Society for Clinton Hill recommended a local architect who worked with the developer to come up with something better. Perhaps they could oblige again...

Posted by: Anonymous at April 20, 2006 2:09 PM

Curious... what's wrong with Fedders air conditioners? Is that a code with some other deeper meaning?

Posted by: citygrrrl at July 1, 2007 2:13 AM

Post a comment

Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.

Latest Restaurant Additions