« Crappy Contractors Not Just for South Slope Anymore 63 Schermerhorn: How You Lookin'? »

November 27, 2006

Rezoning Whiplash: Fourth Avenue

4th ave
Brooklyn Papers reports that a group called Fourth Avenue Neighborhood Preservation wants to downzone Fourth Avenue just three years after it was upzoned. “The city should really take another look at it,” said Jerry Speier, a committee spokesman. “Aesthetically, these buildings [are] quite ugly. It would be a bad mistake to build them.” As unimpressed as we are with the tall buildings that are rising on the upzoned stretch of Fourth Avenue, we gotta say this sounds like a silly--and far-fetched--idea. It's not like most people had any illusions about the aesthetics of the buildings that would be put up between 6th and 15th streets when the rezoning was passed in 2003. It was a trade-off that helped preserve the scale of the side streets of Park Slope. And as readers remind us all the time, you have to build up somewhere to accommodate Brooklyn's rising population.
Downzone on 4th Three Years Late [Brooklyn Papers]
Photo by Betty Blade




Posted by Brownstoner at 11:01 AM | Comments (28)
Categories: Development

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/28

Comments

What a bunch of NIMBY assholes. I'm sure glad they have a better aesthetic sense than the rest of us and have deemed themselves better able to decide what should be built there.

It's also very noble of them to determine that their mostly one and two famly houses on the surrounding side streets better serve the housing needs of Brooklynites than large multi-resident buildings.

Posted by: Shahn Andersen at November 27, 2006 11:30 AM

If you lok at the buildings that cureently exist on Fourth Avenue, you will see that they are predominently four to five stories. The current upzoning encourages 10 to 12 stories and was forced onto the community by City Planning. In conversations at the time, I asked for the upzoning to be not so extreme, perhaps a height limit of 80-90 feet and was completely rebuffed. The only community opposition at the time caused a small concession for a package deal from HPD to hopefully encourage affordable housing (an omnibus package of about $13 million in credits and what-not). The notion of inclusionary zoning didn't take on until the Williamsburg rezoning a few years later.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 27, 2006 11:31 AM

I saw fliers posted around that area of 4th Avenue on NYMarathon Sunday.
The claimed 4th Avenue will be canyon of highrises.
I dunno - 4th Avenue looks so bleak and new development would help. And on such a wide Avenue - small buildings look sort of 'out of context' themselves.
To me only goes to show that can find a group of people against anything/ any change no matter what in NYC.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 27, 2006 11:33 AM

Like it or dislike it, it was the unfortunate trade off with City Planning to keep the side streets fairly low density (depending on your definition).

What gets my goat is the group is being a bit myopic. If we are going to hypothetically look at a "rethinking" (again) of 4th Ave, then should it not be ALL OF 4TH AVE, not just the area rezoned in 2003?

Hey, i am no fan of 12 story buildings, but I agree, higher density must go someplace. I guess the topic du jour is: how high?

Potentially "pissing in the wind" in this man's perspective. But hey, can't hurt to try, eh?

Posted by: lostinbrooklyn at November 27, 2006 11:57 AM

I would like to ask a basic question. Why do we need high rise, high density buildings. These are market rate condos, not public housing and will do nothing to prevent displacement of neighborhood people.
Assuming AY will be built the whole PS, PH, etc hoods will be overwhelmed with thousands of new residents, why do we need large buildings on 4'th Avenue.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 27, 2006 12:04 PM

I think 'market' determines is there is 'need'....if developers build and nobody interested in buying/renting at prices then further development stops.
If they sell/rent then I guess there is need.
If what you mean by 'do we need' the we is people that already own homes in area - answer could be no.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 27, 2006 12:15 PM

The problem that everyone has is that the buildings will be ugly and too expensive. These are not land use issues per-se but rather part of a larger issue, the city's aversion to good planning. These problems would exist regardless of height restrictions and setback requirements because the city has made it clear that people who build buildings are free to take tax breaks and incentives and build little affordable housing or even respect local zoning rules. Additionally, some of the blame for ugliness has got to lie with community groups who in their zeal to make sure that buildings aren't too tall often forget that small buildings can be even uglier than their tall counterparts.

I would encourage anyone who is interested in down zoning to read what zoning code says about R-5 zones. Think, required parking and crazy setbacks. I worked on a project in Park Slope that got rezoned as part of the 4th Avenue mess and it's a disaster. The zoning code specifies a much different kind of building in lower residential zones and in the hands of a bad developer it can be a very bad building.

Posted by: Dan at November 27, 2006 12:21 PM

Beware, City Planning is continuing to want to upzone 4th Avenue down to Sunset Park and perhaps even beyond (until it gets to the low rises of Bay Ridge). There's nothing wrong with allowing for growth...but organic growth should be striven for, not the wholesale selling of the sky merely because it can be sold. The views of the harbor are what make 4th Avenue attractive to developers, so of course they want to go as high as allowed. What are the effects of this high-rise luxury ghetto on the neighborhoods that are linked to it? Let me put this another way - what are going to the effects on the remaining small scale neighborhood retail when all the big bow stores open in the ground floors of the new buildings? A couple of Whole Foods, Best Buys, Trader Joes, Circut Cities, etc. will do wonders for local merchants, don't you think?

Posted by: Anonymous at November 27, 2006 12:33 PM

Anon at 12:33 -- let's please not romanticize living in a neighborhood without a diversity of retail options. I live in Sunset Park. I guarantee you that my neighbors are already shopping at Costco.

Posted by: sp'er at November 27, 2006 12:41 PM

re-visiting the re-zoning of fourth avenue is a non-starter. it may be a canyon of mid-rises (when did 10-12 stories become a highrise?), but it's a pretty wide canyon. green up the median and make it park avenue. there were people in power that pushed for inclusionary zoning but dcp dodged it here. later re-zoning further south on fourth does include text to encourage construction of affordable housing. sadly (or not), no laws in nyc regarding ugly. just the bully pulpit, and you've been reading it.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 27, 2006 12:54 PM

no matter how ugly these buildings are it is a lot better than the tire shops and crap that was there before. Just don't know why you would want to live there. Of course most of these buildings are not done yet. So it is yet to be seen what really will happen with the so called luxury housing on 4th.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 27, 2006 12:55 PM

And 4th Ave is so beautiful it is worth preserving? These people piss me off. Their NIMBYism is so sickening. Move to artic Canada if you need space. Or maybe I will see you strolling down the esplanade between lanes on 4th Ave. If someone wants to build there and someone wants to buy there, let them - it can't get any worse.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 27, 2006 12:58 PM

Screw local merchants. If big box stores can provide consumers with more, better and cheaper merchandise, then I'm all for it! In addition, big box stores will provide more jobs to the community too. The NIMBIES are always complaining about big box stores but where do they do all of their shopping? Costco, Fairway, Whole Foods, Ikea, Lowes, and Home Depot! Local business protectionism though idealistic is totally impratical. Bottom line: when families are trying to stretch every dollar, they are simply looking at quality, diversity and affordability. This is the reason why every measure to prevent the construction and opening of big box stores in Bklyn have failed thus far and will continue to fail in the future.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 27, 2006 12:59 PM

10 stories is not a high rise!!!

Posted by: Anonymous at November 27, 2006 1:00 PM

I actually love this group - they are at least honest about there agenda - NIMBY (i.e. 4th Ave from 6th to 15th).
Now of course they are pushing a ridiculous agenda but at least they dont cynically call themselves the '4th Ave Neighbors for Development' or something similar to mask what they are about.

As for "selling the sky" and "organic development" - no one is selling anything, the city simply changed the zoning (up for 4th Ave and down for the side streets) - nothing organic about zoning laws - either way.

Posted by: David at November 27, 2006 1:04 PM

I live close enough to the buldup of 4th Ave to be inconvenienced by it, but I do think the upzoning was a reasonble tradeoff. I'd rather not have so many huge buildings, but it's not all about me, and at least the deal leaves the side streets in scale. And in some ways I look forward to more people living on 4th -- I'd rather walk on the avenue at night if there were more foot traffic on it.

However, the issues here are not just about peopl living on 4th Avenue -- as with any big build, it's about the additional strain on infrastructure, for instance the schools of Park Slope. But I'd rather see the city improve the infrastructure than forbid the buildings.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 27, 2006 1:14 PM

You live in BROOKLYN. 12 stories is NOT big. This is not Omaha! 4th Avenue is so wide, 12 stories is not a big deal. Plus, it's the one place we should place growth, it has a subway line! Hello! If it was up to me, I would put 20 story buildings, and before you attack me, I am 100% in favor of the preservation of the beautiful sidestreets.

But this city needs to grow damnit. Instead of fighting over the difference between 8 and 12 stories, fight over pure aesthetics. THEN you will be doing Brooklyn a favor. I agree the buildings are ugly....because no one protests.

Posted by: hi! at November 27, 2006 1:55 PM

All of brownstone brooklyn from the waterfront to prospect park should be upzoned for buildings of up to 40 stories. That would solve much of the housing problem in the city. Too bad politicians are too short-sighted and self-interested to see that.

Posted by: anon at November 27, 2006 2:08 PM

yeah, let's knock down all those historic townhouses in brooklyn heights to make way for some housing projects. nyc will need to provide housing to support a million additional residents within a decade or so, according to a new study.
The only place that these additn'l residents can go is downtown brooklyn. So let's raze all of brooklyn heights, cobble hill, carrol gardens, park slope, boerum hill, fort greene, dumbo, clinton hill, bed sty, crown heights and prospect heights.
let's recreate 6th ave, madison ave and times square in brooklyn. yaaay!

Posted by: Anonymous at November 27, 2006 2:34 PM

If you check out old photos - 4th avenue was once a nice green tree-lined boulevard.
But then dug up to build subway. Probably can't really plant trees now.
But some planter boxes and other such stuff would help.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 27, 2006 2:35 PM

There's no reason 4th Ave can't have trees like Park Ave - which sits above the Metro North lines.

As for the buildup, buildings have to be built somewhere, and it is certainly a fair tradeoff. In this case, it is not like eminent domain was being used to give land to developers; in fact, the rezoning lets people who own property there really cash out. The truth is building tall on 4th ave is indeed organic, growing from the wide boulevard, good subway access and neighboring zoning rules that guarantee views. Replacing body shops with apartments in an area with prime public transport is simply good planning.

Posted by: chickenmadness at November 27, 2006 3:02 PM

high density buildings on top of a subway line is good urban planning. i think the rezoning of 4th Avenue is the best thing planning comish Amanda Burden has done so far during her tenure.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 27, 2006 3:46 PM

Medians on Park Avenue(mahh) are much wider than 4thAve (Brooklyn) and also have private funds for plantings and such.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 27, 2006 4:24 PM

As if the Park Slope offers any good stores to begin with! I am frustrated on a daily basis by how limited shopping is in the nabe.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 27, 2006 4:31 PM

You'd think that somebody might try to lean on Boymelgreen and the rest of the big 4th Avenue developers to pony up the relative pittance for street plantings on the avenue. Especially since they're so fond of using imaginary ones in their architectural renderings.

Posted by: linusvanpelt at November 27, 2006 4:32 PM

Yeah Linus...They should definately fix up the park on 5th Avenue (Old Stone House) and the ball courts and the walkway to 4th Ave...

Posted by: Anonymous at November 27, 2006 5:57 PM

To the opponents of up-zoning on 4th Avenue - Do you think anyone would buy property to develop on that road if they could only make the building four or five stories tall? You can't just be blanket anti-development in a city like New York, even if you do live in Brooklyn. City Planning estimates 1.2 million new residents in the city by 2025, and they need places to live, work and shop. Fourth Avenue, and the surrounding low-rise streets, will be a nice place for all of those things if the development is done right. I think it will happen organically, as a result of the rezoning, unless the city gets impatient and decides to somehow transfer all the land to one or two developers. Then it will end up a crap hole like Downtown Brooklyn.

There's plenty of 12 story buildings in "desirable" neighborhoods like Park Slope (along Prospect Park for example) that don't encroach upon the smaller buildings along the side streets. The trick is to find developers who are committed to ensuring that there's a good mix of retail on the ground floor, particularly locally-owned quality retail that attracts people to neighborhoods while supporting the local economy. Plenty of developers throughout the city have taken the time to do so, and found that it pays off in the end when the neighborhood is more attractive to buyers and office tenants (I would argue that not doing this in Downtown Brooklyn is the cause for their 800,000 s.f. of vacant office space).

Yes, property values will go up on and around Fourth Avenue. That's inevitable anyway, at least with some better development on that street it will be worth the money. I lived on Fourth Avenue and I can tell you that I got sick of only being able to eat Chinese Food, chips, tacos and White Castle. It's not a nice, neighborly street. BIDs generally pay for things like trees, or organize to get the money from some government source. So once there's a cohesive business district on the street, there's no doubt that they'll be finding a way to get money for trees and benches.

Posted by: brooklynite at November 27, 2006 11:18 PM

Only three years later?

This plan was stronlgy supported by both City Councilmembers (DeBlasio and Yassky) and went through a pretty extensive public review process (ULURP). Also, in NYC, site review, which is where the public gets to decide what buildings look like, doesn't really happen as a part of a re-zoning.

The bigger issue with the re-zoning is that the affordability component was very weak and resembled the weak Battery Park City Plan, rather than the strong Williamsburg Greenpoint affordability plan. Density is appropriate for 4th Avenue. Should it be built safely? Yes. Should there have been affordability with teeth? Yes.

Posted by: Anon at November 28, 2006 2:29 PM

Post a comment

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

Latest Restaurant Additions