« Monday Links No Portal Required: Board Lets Firms Off Hook »
March 12, 2007
420 42nd Street Building Gets Cut in Half
In a surprising turn of events, the developers of the planned 12-story building at 420 42nd Street on Saturday revealed their intention to play ball with the politicians and neighborhood activists who have been calling for a more contextual proposal. At a ceremony hosted by Councilwoman Sara Gonzalez (at left), William Chiu (at center, with pen), a spokesman for the developer, agreed to cap the building at six stories or 60 feet and to consult with the Councilwoman on any future projects. (Complete text of agreement on the jump.) “I am pleased to see that the developers listened to the community message and brought down the size of the building, proving that responsible development can also be profitable,” said Randy Peers, Chair of CB 7. Members of the Sunset Park Alliance of Neighbors (SPAN), clearly gratified at the success of their first cause, annouced that the planned protest on Sunday (yesterday) would be turned into a celebration instead. Ivette Cabrera, the leader of SPAN, also made reference to working with Gonzalez to rezone Sunset Park. Anyone know any details about this plan? This obviously sounds like good news, but we wish we knew what Gonzalez had to give up in the back-room horse-trading. From the bullet points of the agreement, it sounds like she's going to throw the developers a few fat bones to build affordable housing in the area. It had to be something attractive because you can be sure these guys aren't cutting this project in half out of the goodness of their hearts.
420 42nd Street and the Rule of Law [Brownstoner]
420 42nd Street: This One Could Get Ugly [Brownstoner]
In the interest of being good neighbors and fostering good will in the neighborhood, the following memo outlines the commitments of the 420 42nd Street LLC to the community of Sunset Park:
* The structure at 420 42nd Street will now be downsized to no higher than 6 stories - not more than 60 feet.
* There will be a parking garage on premises
* Residential units will be made available to all eligible applicants
* The first floor will be designated for community use facilities
* We commit to working inthe future with Council Member Sara M. Gonzalez to examine affordable housing in Council District 38, in conjunction with the City of New York.
* It is agreed the developers and their representatives will consult with Councilwoman Gonzalez and the community on any future projects envisioned in Council District 38.
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/703
Comments
Photos of Sunday's SPAN rally on flckr:
http://tinyurl.com/2t9tor
Hopefully some detailed info on the rally to come. Heard there was a good turn out and a good showing in the press.
Posted by: ccgh at March 12, 2007 9:46 AM
This is horrible news. Less affordable housing and further suburbanization of Brooklyn. Why won't developers stand up to these NIMBYs?
Posted by: Crawford at March 12, 2007 10:25 AM
Crawford,
Nice to hear your typical NIMBY slogans without any back-up.
For once, and this may be a near first, the developer worked with the community, community board and the elected officials for a lower-scale, more contextual building, where God forbid, he (they) are actually going to potentially turn MORE of a profit by not going tall.
Go figure. How does that sit in your Libertarian craw?
Seems the community helped the developer not totally f*ck-up this time. And I hear he and his partners have other sites ready for development...be a good neighbor here and other communities should also be good neighbors.
While 6 stories is a bit high for the 2-3 story block, it's a heck of a lot more contextual than 12.
Win-win for both sides in my book.
PS. "affordable housing?" Where was it in this plan? You privy to something I (we) are not?
Posted by: lostinbrooklyn at March 12, 2007 11:12 AM
LostinBrooklyn, why are you calling me a "Liberterian"? What is "Liberterian" about my post? If you're interested, I would consider myself a left-of-center Progressive. I work in the public sector, have been a proud union member and am a strong advocate of affordable housing.
Re. "affordable housing"- Lostinbrooklyn, if you think that affordable housing only exists when it is mandated, then you seriously need to take Econ 101 and leave Brooklyn for a grand world tour. You will find that affordable housing exists almost everywhere but places with NIMBYism. It isn't Liberterian or whatever you want to call it to think that adding supply to a market will ease affordability. If you don't believe that then you don't believe in the most basic tenants of Econ (accepted by everyone from Marxists to Liberterians).
The developer was building an appropriate structure under existing zoning. Now the community will be stuck with an underbuilt structure on the same size lot. Another lost opportunity for the community. The people lose and a special interest group wins (NIMBY Motto- don't build anything anywhere though if we can't stop you from building, build as low as possible, with as few units as possible).
Where is there any evidence of Community involvement outside of this one NIMBY group? I don't see any community involvement. The Sunset Park community is 80% Mexican and Chinese immigrant, and (if asked) STRONGLY supports new development and they want as much development as possible under zoning.
I guess Gonzales only cares about the new gentrifiers and the old-school Puerto Rican families with one foot out the door. A big FU to Sunset Park and affordable housing.
Posted by: Crawford at March 12, 2007 11:37 AM
Crawford,
Sorry for my "Libertarian" comment. Snarky and left over with debates with other folks who walk a different path than I, like you do.
I won't talk Econ 101, because that is not what's at stake here. IF the developer had said "hey, we want to build 12 stories so XX number of units would be set aside for low-mid income folks in SSP, under say 421-A, then we'd have a different story here. These were to be (and still will be) above market rate housing (my assumption is always condos) that NO ONE living in that community can afford.
For the record, the "community" that came out in protest, which included SSP's elected officials + a unanimous support by CB7 (representing ALL of the district), in 4 separate occasions (2 meeting/1 press conf/1 march & rally) totaling over 300-400 folks) were Latino, Chinese, Caucasian and I'm sure some other mixes. Ethnicity aside, income levels ranged from working class to white collar. So I think this particular "community" response was well rounded, well founded and not heavy one one side of the demographic or the other.
So now we move to looking at the potential rezoning of SSP and the rest of CB7...I agree, certain sections of the district will want higher density housing, others lower density. it's up to the community to voice their wants and for City Planning to listen and respond where appropriate: low density in some places, higher in others, industrial here & there, etc.
BUT, the argument comes back to "affordable housing..." Please define.
If you are talking about housing that new comers to SSP (all races and ethnic groups...including non-immigrants) can afford, then you are barking up the wrong tree.
I know you know that Bklyn is a luxury market. Barely a stitch of affordable housing has been built in the past few years and next to none in the long hall.
The economic model for projects like this (tax subsidized or not) are not for "affordable" sub-market rate housing. Not rentals nor condos.
Yes, SSP needs MORE affordable housing. This, my friend, is not a proper example, in my working-class/small biz owner opinion.
So if you really want to gentrify SSP, let's allow more out of scale developments to go in, price out the folks who are there and allow high end living (from high end incomes) occur.
Would be a real shame.
But, you and I have been down this vein of discussion before, no?
Posted by: lostinbrooklyn at March 12, 2007 12:56 PM
Who in there right mind would not want affordable housing? Are you pulling the race card? I am Dominican, single mother, a lifelong resident of Sunset Park, a renter and a founder of Sunset Park Alliance of Neighbors. And if you were at the event or at any of the meetings you would have heard that we, SUNSET PARK RESIDENTS, are primarily concerned with the fact that these condo apartments were not affordable.
Crawford, if you are truly concerned about affordable housing in Sunset Park, might I suggest that you put your money where your mouth is. Join the effort to rezone Sunset Park and help us mandate developers to include afforadble housing as part of their plan.
Posted by: Xiaanais at March 12, 2007 1:51 PM
I wished I had pressed the refresh button prior to my submission...because if I had I would have read lostinbrooklyn's response and left good enough alone.
Thank you lostinbrooklyn for adding color to the "affordable" housing discussion.
Posted by: Xiaanais at March 12, 2007 2:49 PM
Xiaanais, your post makes no sense. I think you are intentionally trying to confuse the issue.
The opposition has NOTHING to do with affordability; it is concerned only with BUILDING HEIGHT and VIEWS. If the concern was affordability, the community would be lobbying for increased floor area ratio and affordability incentives. At the least they would welcome tall new buildings; the taller the better (provided everything is done legally within the zoning envelope).
Your actions have done just the opposite, to the detriment of the vast majority of your community. Do you think most Sunset Park residents care about building heights and views over affordabilty and social services?!
This "victory" dealt only with the height issue. If anything, it made Sunset Park affordability WORSE, because it cut off housing supply while doing nothing on the demand side. This will increase the burden on immigrant families while starving the city taxpayer $$$ for social services, while you are provding a cover for anti-height NIMBYS by saying the issue is affordability.
If you really care about affordabilty, then prove it and have your "community group" lobby Gonzales for the original proposal.
I don't know why you are asking me to join your meetings. I disagree with the premise of your anti-development colleagues. Same goes with the vast majority of your Sunset Park neighbors.
You claim you are for affordable housing, and then claim to represent outsiders who are trying to stop new housing and preserve views.
Posted by: Crawford at March 12, 2007 3:30 PM
I would like to add that one of the greatest assets of Sunset Park is the view from the park. This is something that residents of every color and income level greatly enjoy. Not all of us can have an apartment on the top floor of a tall building but all of us can, and do, enjoy the view from the park. As much as the neighborhood needs housing, I truly believe that if you polled residents and asked if they were willing to have the park view of the harbor blocked in exchange for X more new apartments, the majority would say no.
Posted by: SPer at March 12, 2007 3:30 PM
Sper, I truly think you are delusional. People would never value a limited and amorphous public good over a basic need like housing. If that were the case, then nothing should ever be built again anywhere on earth that is taller or larger than the existing built form.
Posted by: Crawford at March 12, 2007 3:34 PM
Xiaaanais, I also need to respond to your last paragraph. Your downzoning plan will result in a decrease in affordability and social services and an increase housing stress throughout Sunset Park.
If you really claim to have a community mandate, then lobby for higher buildings along Sunset Park avenues. Otherwise, you are part of the problem.
Hopefully, the immigrant majority will one day have the voting power to throw out people like Gonzales (the Old Guard) and elect someone representing the Sunset Park majority.
Posted by: Crawford at March 12, 2007 3:39 PM
Crawfrd, again it is YOU who are confusing issues.
The original building, or the new one for that matter, will do nothing but add above median income (way above) housing stock into a market that is saturated and needs affordable stock. Even if someone moves out of an expensive apt. to purchase an expensive condo, you are still left with an expensive apt., no?
Thus none of the "mythical" SSP's who would "never trade their view for housing" could afford to stay, regardless of the scope of this building.
Unless the market tanks, and I don't mean a soft landing (which is the opposite of what it's currently doing), there will be no affordable housing (in the classic sense) in Bklyn in the near future.
Perhaps with madatory inclusionary affordable housing components in higher densisity buildings via 421-A or zoning perks from City Planning. But nothing else...
Posted by: lostinbrooklyn at March 12, 2007 3:45 PM
Crawford, I truly think you are an idiot. A beautiful park is not a "limited and amorphous public good." It is a tremendous public good and in the case of Sunset Park it is one that is enjoyed by hundreds of people -- I invite you to visit that park on summer evenings and weekends.
To say that valuing a beautiful park means that "nothing should ever be built again anywhere on earth" is a supremely retarded thing to say. To argue that protecting the view from a public park means that nothing can be built that is "taller or larger than the existing built form" is equally stupid. Increasing density is entirely compatible with protecting valued public benefits like beautiful public parks.
I don't know why people like you are incapable of understanding the difference between no development and good development. I also don't understand why you believe that people of lesser means don't value beauty or recreation or open space & skies. Is this something that's only for those who can afford to live on Central Park?
Posted by: SPer at March 12, 2007 3:46 PM
that's "crawford" not "crawfrd." My bad.
Perhaps an abbreviated "crwfrd" is better ;)
Posted by: lostinbrooklyn at March 12, 2007 3:46 PM
Xiaanais,
You're like most established minorities in NYC. You have your rent stabilized apartment, and you could care less that finding one in Sunset Park is practically impossible these days.
Sunset Park has an absolutely ENORMOUS amount of property that should be totally demolished. Virtually the whole neighborhood is a dump and should be redeveoped.
You complain about this one building - but it is people like you who make it nearly impossible for anything to be built. If it were 100 buildings instead of just 1 building, affordability wouldn't be an issue.
Look around Sunset Park. Look at the Rent stabilized apartment building you live in - it likely EXCEEDS current zoning regulations. If it was a tenament, it was built in a very narrow boom time prior to WWI. If it is a nicer building further west near the park, it was built in just a short 10 year timespan during the 1920's before the depression.
It takes a decade to get this one building built, but practically every large apartment building in Sunset Park was built in a 5-10 year timespan.
Wake up!
and, SPer, this building was not the Equitable Building. A 12-story building is not going to affect your view of the sky. You're kidding yourself. And if the choice is squalor or 12-story buildings, most would choose 12-story buildings. You, fortunately, have benefited from the system and don't have to make that choice. For the rest of us, it's not quite so easy.
Posted by: Eryximachus at March 12, 2007 3:57 PM
You ever live in a project? Ever earn minimum wage? Ever have to wait on line as a child for a swing? Or wait two weeks for a phone line? Or wait 5 hours to register your child for school? Or wait 6 hours in a packed ER? Sunset Park does not have the resources to provide services for Starett City type of development.
Have you looked at the 2000 census? Even if you haven't...can you tell me that EVERY immigrant family completed one? No. Half of them? Nope....Maybe a quarter...could be. Now think about taller buildings...new buildings being built in Sunset Park. Who's going to move in? Immigrants you say, huh? Ok so lets play...immigrants move in...still no census forms? Well still no money for services because we don't need the services. Maybe priced-out Park Slopers move in...oops...I can't afford my rent next month cause my landlord figures ahe can get more rent from them.
I ain't a politician, don't plan on being one, but I know what gentrification smells like and I don't like it.
Posted by: Xiaanais at March 12, 2007 4:01 PM
LOL....I see we have some real estate agents and developers posting. My bad! Hey! "Who needs a damned park anyway! What have green grass and trees ever done for anyone anyway? Damn tree huggers!" LOL!
Posted by: Xiaanais at March 12, 2007 4:11 PM
Erxy --
1. You don't know me, and you don't know how I may or may not have benefitted from "the system" as you call it, so STFU on that score.
2. The choice isn't, as I pointed out above, "12 story buildings or squalor." This is the usual rhetorical idiocy that people like yourself employ. Please stop it.
3. You clearly don't know the park or you would know that a wide and tall building at that location would substantially impact the view. Moreover, it could easily lead to other, similar buildings that would, indeed, completely block the view. And this is a view that is shared by all, not something available solely to those who can afford desirable apartments.
4. Please STFU about my neighborhood. "The whole neighborhood is a dump and should be redeveoped." Really? Well, if you feel that way, please keep the F out of the neighborhood.
Posted by: SPer at March 12, 2007 4:14 PM
Let's not get to upset at Eryximachus...
He's just a troll who thinks anything older in South Park Slope, Greenwood Hts. Sunset Park, "Billburgh/Greenpoint (shall I stop?) than a Scarano project built in 2005 is "squalor" (did I get that quote right?) and should be torn down in the name of progress...
How dare we stand in the way of Eryximachus' viewpoint of progress!
Onward, ho! Demo we go!
Posted by: Anonymous at March 12, 2007 4:28 PM
Anon 4:28pm was me. TypeKey crapped out on me. Have to let my bud Eryximachus know who's got his back ;)
Posted by: lostinbrooklyn at March 12, 2007 4:30 PM
That view saved us from the red coats and thier King. It should be landmarked.
Posted by: Where's George at March 12, 2007 4:38 PM
SPer, you are a caricture of gentrifiers everywhere. Your "idiot" comment is hilarious considering your premise.
Since you think that Sunset Park residents prefer park views over tall structures, you should immeditely call for the demolition of the beautiful church on 42nd. It's even taller than the proposed apartment building and blocks views to the harbor. We wouldn't want your views to be compromised.
Xiaanais, so ironic that you now claim that pro-housing advocates are anti- park. Apparently you are ignorant as to how city parks are funded. Your opposition to new development starves parks of funding, lessening the quality of life for New Yorkers. Pretty selfish for someone claiming to represent the "community."
Posted by: Crawford at March 12, 2007 4:51 PM
Anyone think Crawford ever been to Sunset Park? I don't. We have one park with green grass and the most children under the age of 18 anywhere in the city.
How does it go the more people the more services or the more housing the more service? Or more housing more people? Or more services more people? I get mixed up.
Haven't seen any new parks springing up taking the place of all the community gardens that were ripped out as Bloomberg sold all city property! Has anyone? Anyone? AND I'M IGNORANT!???? I may be ignorant of alot of things, but not of your kind!
I would love for you to find someone in at the gowanus project to tell you they don't want to get the hell out. Go ahead. You and the other Roberto Moses type have no respect for the integrity of communities. As for me being established...never been called that before...thank you?....
Finally....Never said I oppose development, just things that don't match...like my socks. If they don't match I won't put them on. Even us Sunset Parkers like pretty things you know. Rezoning means just that...resoning some up and some down.
And Crawford, I am the community. I don't represent it.
Posted by: Xiaanais at March 12, 2007 6:32 PM
Just for the record. When Mr. Tepadino bought the vacant land located at 44th Street & 4th Avenue at auction from the City and built two three-family houses no one complained. We cheered. It had been a gas station. When Lutheran Medical Center finishes the 81-unit apartment house at 405 44th Street we will applaud. It was a vacant garage. Someone is finishing a three-family down 43rd Street near Third Avenue on the site of Sadie Murphy's store. If housing finally comes to the 68th Precinct at 4302 4th Avenue which has been vacant for 35 years and falling down we will all be relieved. The proposed building on 42nd Street will add another 15-20 units, maybe. Sure the neighborhood will be really crowded but "for a growing New York" what else do you expect to happen? It should all look nice, I think. At the very least Sunset Park is doing its part in providing housing for all.
I think people commenting on 420 42nd Street should first ascertain the truth about the area and its people. St. Michael's Church tower is art, like the Statue of Liberty is art. Both were here long before the housing was even two stories high. We all moved here because we like it. It was affordable too. Also, you might want walk around and meet the people and ask where they came from before you assign a stereotype to them all. It shows ignorance. It's disrespectful.
Posted by: tommurphy at March 12, 2007 6:45 PM
Crawford -- and what exactly is this premise of mine that you object to so strongly? I objected to your assertion that a beautiful park is nothing to care about or protect. I assert that, as tommurphy has so helpfully pointed out, there is good and welcome development and there is crappy and unwelcome development, and that the community should have a say in which they get. Is that really very difficult for you to understand?
Thank you, tommurphy, for your rundown of welcome new housing in SP. I was thinking about this on my bike ride home from work along 5th Ave and the cemetary, where I noticed new construction underway and recently completed construction that no one objected to.
Developers and those who think they can do no wrong seem always to use all or noting rhetoric. It's just plain false.
Posted by: SPer at March 12, 2007 9:48 PM
Latest Restaurant Additions
-
Le Barricou
added November 20, 2009 12:00 PM in Williamsburg -
Der Schwarze Kölner
added November 19, 2009 12:00 PM in Fort Greene -
Oak Wine Bar & Café
added November 18, 2009 12:00 PM in Williamsburg -
Mr. Wonton
added November 17, 2009 12:00 PM in Park Slope -
Casa Rosa
added November 16, 2009 12:00 PM in Carroll Gardens -
Cousin John's Café & Bakery
added November 13, 2009 12:00 PM in Park Slope -
Elote
added November 12, 2009 12:00 PM in Williamsburg -
Miracle Grill
added November 11, 2009 12:00 PM in Park Slope -
Phoebe's Cafe
added November 10, 2009 12:00 PM in Williamsburg -
Ruthie's
added November 9, 2009 12:00 PM in Clinton Hill, Downtown Brooklyn
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.