« That's Me in the Corner, Losing My Lotline Windows Light & Air On Kent (But for How Long?) »

October 24, 2006

Affordable Housing Groundbreaking in East NY

lot
In about five minutes, the groundbreaking ceremony for a 103-unit affordable apartment building at 626 Sutter Avenue at Pennsylvania Avenue a/k/a Granville Payne Avenue will get underway. The New York City Housing Development Corporation-funded building — which will go up on this vacant lot and be reserved for low-income households — will also have 19,700 square feet of retail space. Check out the rendering on the jump. GMAP

building




Posted by Brownstoner at 9:55 AM | Comments (23)
Categories: Development

Comments

Not bad--So low cost housing really doesn't have to look like sh*t after all

Posted by: Bob Marvin at October 24, 2006 10:26 AM

I could just cut and paste...

If you go to their web site you will see that they are the "#1 issuer of bonds for affordable housing."

Now that made my day.

Where's the anti-Ranter crowd on this?

Posted by: JoshK at October 24, 2006 10:29 AM

So let me get this straight, because this complex is "well designed" it won't be a crime-ridden hellhole like any other govt. housing project?

I also found it amusing that these apts. have been “reserved for low-income households.” Like Mr. B and his readers are clamoring for apartments in East New York.

Please, spare me.

Posted by: c-roy at October 24, 2006 10:43 AM

I think the apartments are great, seems like E. NY could really use the face lift - there are other new developments that are being talked about for East New York.

Posted by: Mike at October 24, 2006 11:00 AM

I think the apartments are great, seems like E. NY could really use the face lift - there are other new developments that are being talked about for East New York.

Posted by: Mike at October 24, 2006 11:00 AM

In response to Joshk - I have lived on Brooklyn all my life and trust me no one was clamoring for apartments in fort green and the surrounding towns 10 or 15 years ago, it is only within the past 5 to 6 years that major gentrification took place there. Development take time - E. NewYork may take a bit longer but im sure in 5 to 10 years you will see some real changes.

Posted by: Mike at October 24, 2006 11:38 AM

c-roy,

This is not a "govt. housing project".

Its being built by a private developer with government subsidies--sort of like that POS Ratner is trying to build, only much less destructive.

Posted by: Bob Marvin at October 24, 2006 12:29 PM

Also creating an attarctive, sane development with retail space and other amenities will make it a more viable "project" than the traditional red brick hi-rise nightmare.

Posted by: clinton hillbilly at October 24, 2006 12:33 PM

First off, East New York has already gone through some amazingly positive changes in the last 10 years, much of driven by the creation of new affordable housing. Secondly, in response to JoshK's rather knee-jerk "where's the anti-Ratner crowd on this?" question, isn't the answer obvious? There's no comparison between a project to build a 7-storey apartment building on a vacant lot for low-income residents and a billionaire developer demolishing existing housing (some of which will have to be acquired through eminent domain) to erect 16 skyscrapers ranging from 35-60 storeys for new residents, of whom it is estimated 64% will have incomes in excess of $113k pa. No comparison at all.

Posted by: Anon at October 24, 2006 12:34 PM

great post Clinton HillBilly - I could not agree more, two Completely different animals.

Posted by: Mike at October 24, 2006 1:10 PM

This is a government project. You and I are paying the bonds issued, if I understand their site. This is going to subsidize developers.

If you are saying this is different because of who is going to occupy it, then that just strikes me as bizzare.

This is also a big development, not as big as Ratner's, but the same arguments apply. It's much larger than what was there before (out of context). How big is too big? That seems pretty subjective to me.

I'm not a big fan of the eminent domain use, however.

As far as "East New York has already gone through some amazingly positive changes in the last 10 years, much of driven by the creation of new affordable housing."

Remember, these programs are what destroyed the nabes in the first place, ask any of the old timers who moved out to LI in the first place.

Posted by: JoshK at October 24, 2006 3:53 PM

Great more poor people for East New York. Can't we mix up the neighborhood a little more? Maybe a little more yuppies and the such?

Posted by: Joalky at October 24, 2006 4:09 PM

This project can be good and bad for several reasons - I think its good for the overall developement of the nabe(better than vacant barron lots) and poor people have to live somewhere, and we have to maintain a balance in the citys budget, everyone cannot be middle or upper class - however my only concern is the quality new of residents that this project will bring to E. New York. This may drag E. New York down even further.

Posted by: Dave at October 24, 2006 4:27 PM

This project can be good and bad for several reasons - I think its good for the overall developement of the nabe(better than vacant barron lots) and poor people have to live somewhere, and we have to maintain a balance in the citys budget, everyone cannot be middle or upper class - however my only concern is the quality new of residents that this project will bring to E. New York. This may drag E. New York down even further.

Posted by: Dave at October 24, 2006 4:28 PM

JoshK, those old housing projects drove people away because they were executed poorly - destruction of the old neighborhoods to create monotonous highrises set apart from the rest of the city. In the new approach, buildings are integrated with the existing fabric of the neighborhood and placed where space can be found. Also, the bonds are paid for by the investors who buy them. There is no taxpayer money in bonds.

Posted by: Aaron at October 24, 2006 5:40 PM

sometimes I find the dialogues on brownstoner informative and enlightening. this however isn't one of them. there are so many perjorative generalizations of all types here that I don't know where I would even begin to deconstruct it. and since it all takes place in the ether, and will be a dead discussion by Friday, I don't even see the point.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 24, 2006 6:02 PM

Interest earned on municipal bonds is tax-exempt. That's the extent of the subsidy here. Otherwise, the developer issues the bonds, which are bought by investors, who get to earn interest tax-free, and the developer makes the principal payments.

Posted by: babs at October 24, 2006 7:51 PM

Anon at 6:02, truer words were never spoken. But I'm going to go there anyway.

First of all, c-roy, can you be more condescending or dismissive of an entire segment of the population? And kindy spare me your "amusement" that the readers of this blog might be interested in what goes on in East New York. Maybe some don't, but others of us actually are concerned and perhaps even active in the affairs of those outside of our own teeny-tiny self absorbed circles.

Mike is correct. Yesterday Ft.Greene, today Bed Stuy, tomorrow East New York. As the need for housing expands, and as the priced out "pioneers" are going ever outward, I guarantee that down the road we'll be getting inquiries about cool lofts on Mother Gaston Blvd. I give it five years.

Bob, you are so right. What a difference some good hype makes.

Josh, your feeble attempt to find fault with this project is really reaching. Even I know the people who buy bonds are the ones paying, not the public. Why get upset about the thought of paying for this indirectly, when we will all be paying much more for Ratnerville, with less social good? Why is the very idea that some people in this society need help to have decent living conditions that we all want to live in so abhorrent to many of you? I'm not talking about luxury condos either. We spend more money on our pets in this country than on helping our fellow man, and most people would be howling and screaming if an animal is found in inhumane conditions, but think nothing about the people who live in ratholes they wouldn't let a rat live in. How about some perspective here? And as to your last paragraph - many things destroyed East New York, including the flight of industry, the collective amnesia of most of the city agencies - they forgot the neighborhood existed, the flight of the middle class, and the dumping of thousands of poor and desperate people into high rise warehouses far from jobs, decent schools, even hospitals. The fact that the communities are starting to come back is a testament to the decent, hard working people who went to work everyday, raised their kids, were active in church and community and never saw the inside of a police station except to demand justice. This is the majority of East New Yorkers, not the criminals and gangbangers and knuckleheads. These are the people who need the revitalization of new homes. What is wrong with that?

Lastly, Dave - "the quality of the new residents...may drag East New York down even farther"?????? What in hell does that mean? Sometimes I think the quality of the utterances of some people who feel the need to write absolute drivel drags this blog down. Way down.

Posted by: CrownHeightsProud at October 25, 2006 12:40 AM

I won't even begin to comment on people like Dave and Josh K. I think CHP said very well. There's a lot of reasons why comparing this to ratnerville doesn't hold water. The first is to point out that apartment buildings are needed and this one looks like it will be a positive addition. It looks like the builder actually cares about how it looks in context, it's being built for people who desperately need it, it's going to add retail space- a plus to the neighborhood, it doesn't depend on taxpayers to fund it- that's just to start. We don't have to rehash the problems and negatives of ratnerville- everyone knows the story. Suffice it to say these two projects are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Ratner could learn a few things from them about how to actually improve a neighborhood, not steamroller it.

Posted by: Bx2Bklyn at October 25, 2006 2:07 AM

But why didn't they make the new buildings mixed-income instead of low- income only? How is this any different from the plethora of housing projects Brooklyn already has? Oh yeah, that first floor retail space, I forgot. Is the retail on the first floor going to prevent this from becoming the Tompkins Houses in, say, 10 or 15 years? I just don't see what some of you think is so great about high-rise low-income dwellings.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 25, 2006 8:06 PM

But why didn't they make the new buildings mixed-income instead of low- income only? How is this any different from the plethora of housing projects Brooklyn already has? Oh yeah, that first floor retail space, I forgot. Is the retail on the first floor going to prevent this from becoming the Tompkins Houses in, say, 10 or 15 years? I just don't see what some of you think is so great about high-rise low-income dwellings.

Posted by: New2Brooklyn at October 25, 2006 8:06 PM

How can I go about applying for this building

Posted by: tanisha at April 29, 2007 10:22 PM

How can I go about applying for this building

Posted by: tanisha at April 29, 2007 10:22 PM

Post a comment

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

Latest Restaurant Additions