« Wednesday Food & Drink Round-Up Development Watch: 111 Steuben/543 Myrtle »

May 30, 2007

Scarano Pushback on Smith

Some Carroll Gardens residents are very, very upset about a Scarano building that a developer wants to put up on the corner of Smith Street and Second Place. According to Gowanus Lounge, plans for an 8-story, 46-unit building of glass and metal were recently denied by the Department of Buildings. But neighbors are trying not to leave anything to chance. Flyers have been popping up all over the nabe urging people to attend to show up for the Carroll Gardens Neighborhood Association meeting on June 11 at 7:30 PM at Buddy Scottos’ Funeral Parlor and to contact Community Board 6 to express concern over the scale and style of the project. And how's this for street cred? The woman behind the flyers is the great grand daughter of Frank Lloyd Wright’s first cousin by marriage. Okay.
Smith Street Revolt Brewing Over Shiny New Building? [Gowanus Lounge]
Smith Street Could Get Very, Very Shiny [GL] GMAP P*Shark DOB
Photo by Kate Leonova for Property Shark

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/1267

Comments

How does one go about battling these NIMBYs? Time and time again NIMBYs are in the minority but are the only voice heard by the pandering politicos. I bet you most people in the neighborhood have no problem with this project, but don't have the time or passion to show up at "community" meetings. We have lives, with work and family and don't care to try and out-shout the anti-everythings. The project is as-of-right. Who wants a vacant lot over new housing? Not me.

Posted by: Crawford at May 30, 2007 11:28 AM

We need development that is attractive and smart. Require new building to be well designed and attractive, but protesting anything that is new is silly and counterproductive. New York is not a museum. Scale? Its 8 floors high. This is not the Trump Soho, its a modern high density development that should be supported.

Posted by: GrandPa at May 30, 2007 11:34 AM

I moved to Brooklyn in 2002. Therefore 2002 is the boundary line, beyond which all changes to Brooklyn should be opposed. I had the sense to get in earlier--the rest of you are too late! No more room! Go home!

We need public intervention to keep Brooklyn the way I personally like it!

Posted by: Anonymous at May 30, 2007 11:41 AM

Mr B, is it safe to say you would stop attacking Scarano if he took out an ad like Forte? You promised change when you went full-time but all I see is a superiority complex in judging real estate and bus stop ads. what happened to some editorial content from real experts - you can host the forum but don't assume the role of expert - I never see anything from the likes of Shahn Anderson anymore telling me the site is becoming less relevant.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 30, 2007 11:57 AM

Crawford: The choice is not between a vacant lot or this project. The choice is between developing the parcel in a manner keeping with the neighborhood, or in throwing up this piece of crap and covering over what is currently a public plaza in front of the subway stop.

Grandpa: This development is neither attractive nor smart, in my opinion. The vacant lot is the perfect place for new residential development. Covering over the plaza is unnecessary and unwarranted.

Why would you want to give away the farm, in this case a public space, for development that would be enormously profitable at 6 floors?

Posted by: Gary at May 30, 2007 11:58 AM

If it was for these NIMBY types none of Brownstone Brooklyn would have been landmarked and there would be a lot fewer Brownstones left for people to discuss on this site. So, kudos to the people who do take the time to go to meetings and do care about what happens to the neighborhood. For everyone making smarmy comments, I'd say if you want to live in a city that looks like Huuston, move to Houston.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 30, 2007 12:04 PM

Lay off of Brownstoner, I am sure he is just trying to find his groove/balance now that he is full time. Stop being so critical.

Rock on Brownstoner!

Posted by: Anonymous at May 30, 2007 12:04 PM

Anonymous, care to explain why an eight-floor modernist condo with no parking directly above a subway station is somehow not in context with NYC, but is in context with Houston(!) of all places???

Do you find Amsterdam, Stockholm or Berlin similar to Houston? This building looks exactly like the new stuff in these cities. And cut it with the historic district reasoning. This building isn't in the landmark district. Cities in Europe have 500-year old buildings located in proximity to modern design and it doesn't seem to be a problem. Why is it always such a problem with activists in Brooklyn? Relatively young 100 year-old buildings can't have modern neighbors, but Rome's 2,000 year-old buildings can??

I'm guessing you would prefer suburban retro-Disney New Urbanist development. Somehow you think suburban Virginia is an appropriate context for South Brooklyn.

Posted by: Crawford at May 30, 2007 12:19 PM

Crawford,

this is the most intelligent post I've seen on this site for a while.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 30, 2007 12:29 PM

Crawford, you haven't addressed the big issue here, which is how can you justify this naked grab for the plaza in front of the subway stop?

Not one person that I know of has argued against developing the vacant lot (currently used for parking).

Posted by: Gary at May 30, 2007 12:31 PM

I live in the neighborhood and don't have time for the community board meetings or the neighborhood association meetings. That being said, if you're looking to make millions by building on that piece of land, which you could easily make that much, you can at least put some thought into it. The buildings in the neighborhood were carefully and thoughtfully designed by architects that cared about the visual presentation as well as the context of the buildings and used the best materials available to build them. They made homes not just buildings. That's what NIMBYism is about. Don't come into my neighborhood, my home, which many of us have worked hard to beautify for the entire community, take a huge steel and glass crap and call it chic, so you afford to buy your second home down in Miami.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 30, 2007 12:32 PM

Here's a link to a google map of the site: look at the size of the lot. Look at the size of neighboring buildings.

The scale of this project is totally unnecessary. And there's no way in hell it will get approved as presented.

http://tinyurl.com/26fra6

Posted by: Gary at May 30, 2007 12:37 PM

Amen Gary- they are welcome to build on the empty lot- and yeah, I would be happy to bitch about it. But no way in hell are you taking the plaza in front of the subway. How is that ground not public? Who owns it?

Posted by: Max at May 30, 2007 12:42 PM

12:32: You don't have time for meetings, but " many of us have worked hard to beautify [the neighborhood] for the entire community"? Yeah, sounds like you've really been sweating over it. Putting in a new kitchen does not count as community service.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 30, 2007 12:51 PM

Sorry but I totally agree that it should be developed, that the proposed building is fine, certainly not flat out horrible. The person who owns the brownstone next to the parking lot had to know that at some point the parking lot would be replaced by a building of some kind. Some people just have nothing better to do than oppose all progress. Nothing just stays the same - ever - anywhere. Crawford's post is brilliant and true despite being a massive generalization. Gary, the building next door is just as big as the footprint of the parking lot. There are large buildings in the area. Schools as it happens but they are there.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 30, 2007 12:55 PM

Max and Aon 12:32, good to have some company here.

I live in the nabe, as you might imagine. My understanding is that MTA owns the plaza land (though typically it would be transferred to the city, in this case it was not). At least, that's what someone stated at a meeting last month.

Everybody's entitled to their opinions. If you want yours to count, get involved. It doesn't take much effort to contact the community board, your councilman, or any other representatives. And at least in our neighborhood, they are remarkably accessible.

Posted by: Gary at May 30, 2007 12:55 PM

Correct me if I am wrong, but I can't think of a single 8-story building on Smith from 9th all the way to Atlantic. Call it NIMBY is you want, but I don't think it is just a small group of people who want to use whatever means they have to influence new development. Lots of people around here want development to be attractive and in scale with the surrounding buildings.

Posted by: Carol Gardens at May 30, 2007 1:09 PM

There is nothing above 4 stories around it except a couple of 5 stories, including the basement apartments. Develop the hell out of that lot, but do it right.

http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&cp=qscxv98v08xn&style=o&lvl=1&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=1926875&encType=1

Posted by: Anonymous at May 30, 2007 1:20 PM

Anon @ 12:55: you've got to be kidding. 1st: NO ONE opposes building on the parking lot. Another vacant lot was built on, in scale with the neighborhood on 4th Place just last year. How do you define progress?

2nd: Using the size of a school (which by the way, is only a couple of stories high) to justify the size of a residential building is comparing apples and oranges.

Posted by: Gary at May 30, 2007 1:20 PM

Stop calling this "a public place" or "the plaza". Its an empty lot. Its not 1890 anymore, accept it. We should build attractive buildings that reflect our times, not live in an imagined past.

Posted by: GrandPa at May 30, 2007 1:34 PM

Given that so many people become hysterical over any building taller than one story, I propose that developers begin erecting "negative height" buildings. That's right, the stories could be built underground so that ample housing is provided but the NIMBYs incessant demands for "in context" development are respected.

Then again, I'm sure that NIMBYs would still find reasons to complain. They'd probably insist that their gardens were being ruined by so much underground construction.

There's no pleasing some people...

Posted by: Anonymous at May 30, 2007 1:45 PM

We have zoning laws to protect the density and scale of neighborhoods. If you don't like them, rally to change the laws, but as far as I can tell this building is entirely in accordance with them. Fair's fair. Should Scarano be able to lobby for a building that's 3 stories HIGHER than zoning permits, just because that's what he prefers?

Posted by: Anonymous at May 30, 2007 1:48 PM

Grandpa, part of it is a plaza. And people wait for the train there, hang out there, school children congregate there and every once in a while an event will be held there, like when they opened the community garden across the street.

1:45 is everyone who looks at an out of scale, out of context building and thinks something better can be done with the space a NIMBY to you? You have a brain, use it.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 30, 2007 1:51 PM

They should leave Carroll gardens alone it is beautiful the way it is. Enough with the nonsense buildings.

Posted by: ron at May 30, 2007 1:55 PM

Grandpa, have you ever been to the site?

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. . . your opinion on the matter should be considered accordingly.

There is an empty lot, and there is a plaza. The plan is to build on both. Building on the lot: not controversial. Building on the plaza: naked land grab.

Is that clear enough? Take a look at the link I posted above.

Posted by: Gary at May 30, 2007 2:18 PM

"Its a modern high density development that should be supported." Why do we have to give in to higher density. People have a right to fight for the quality of life their neighborhood provides. Why do we need additional people and cars. Why do they have to give it up. Protecting one's home and neighborhood goes back to when people lived in caves.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 30, 2007 2:26 PM

Posted by: Anonymous at May 30, 2007 2:27 PM

Crawford, your post was awesome. There's just no getting through to these nimby's.

An 8 story building next to a 4 story building is NO BIG DEAL. I live in a detached house boxed in by 6 story apartment buildings. I deal with it, I live in the densest city in America after all.

As for the design, why does everything have to be brick with you people? I'd rather see a great modern design like this one than a cheap brick imitation of 100 year old buildings. If there was any place for an 8 story building, it's above a subway stop. Morons.

Get the hell out of Brooklyn and into the suburbs where you belong.

Posted by: hi! at May 30, 2007 2:28 PM

If I wanted to live in a place without sun and light, with ugly tall buildings everywhere...I would live in the Upper East Side, and spare myself the daily hour of F-train hell. But I live in Carroll Gardens because it is a special place with an extraordinary quality of lfe. NIMBY...damn right. I'll fight tooth and nail to keep what makes this neighbourhood special. I am all for that ugly lot getting built with much needed housing, but really, how hard its it to design something that complements the neighbourhood and doesn't destroy it.

Posted by: coco at May 30, 2007 3:06 PM

didn't anyone notice that the rendering included a note saying the expected completion was 2005?
perhaps this project is already dead.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 30, 2007 3:14 PM

"Why do we have to give in to higher density. People have a right to fight for the quality of life their neighborhood provides. Why do we need additional people and cars. Why do they have to give it up. Protecting one's home and neighborhood goes back to when people lived in caves"

I wish the cavemen (and women) were as passoniate about their neighborhoods as modern-day man (and woman). We would not be having this discussion. Instead we could all be in caves that were contextual with the surrounding caves.

Posted by: anonny at May 30, 2007 3:20 PM

this project has been onScarano's website for ages. Not sure why sudden news....new application with DOB?
Does sound a bit overdramatic...that this building will destroy neighborhood...while open parking lot and litter blowing across 'plaza', tons of those ugly free newspaper boxes, does not. And this is right after the elevated goes underground - and those elevated tracks somehow never destroyed the area.

Posted by: petebklyn at May 30, 2007 3:46 PM

Pete, precisely because this is where the elevated goes underground, this is a rare spot where you can wait for the train outside and enjoy a bit of sun until you see your train coming.

Agree, the open parking lot is ugly, and I'll be glad to see it developed . . . the right way.

Posted by: Gary at May 30, 2007 3:54 PM

Fact is Scaranco is just a bad architect. If the proposal gave a little more thought to the neighborhood and was more interesting then it could be well-recieved. Much like Meier's Prospect Park Condos. It doesn't have to look like the buildings around it but it shouldn't ignore the context either. This POS could be plopped anywhere in brooklyn.

Posted by: JGNY at May 30, 2007 3:59 PM

Ridiculous that some posters are accusing NIMBY's and NEWBIES of blocking development in CG. I moved to CG in 1985. From 1985 through 2000 there was hardly any new building and I can't think of one that was more than 4 stories tall. This new generation of developers who want to through up the cheapest POS they can build are the real NEWBIES and it's ridiculous to react as through opposing them is somehow against truth justice and the american way. I say this all as a property owner with some skin the the game. I own a vacant lot on a prime street. Just becase zoning and DOB would allow me to build some POS there doesn't mean I should.

And to Crawford, yes I have been to Amsterdam, Stockholm and Berlin. If you think Scarano type buildings in those cities wouldn't be opposed then you're as obtuse as a certain President who vacations in a town that shares your name. I've been to Paris and London too and have seen what a commitment to good archoitecture and building can do to enhance a city.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 30, 2007 4:37 PM

Cocco, be honest, you couldnt afford the Upper East Side.

Posted by: Annonymous at May 30, 2007 5:18 PM

Cocco, be honest, you couldnt afford the Upper East Side.

Posted by: Annonymous at May 30, 2007 5:24 PM

I go to those community meetings. Pre-determined agendas led by a few "activists" push a relentless down-zoning jihad inimical to the needs of the 60% of Carrol Gardens residents who rent. Of the 40% who own many are apparently affluent enough to devalue their property by down-zoning. Many are not. I am one of those. Most of my money is wrapped up in my house and I don't want my Floor Area Ratio restricted by turning the R6 to R5. At least not for free. And, many people agree with me. I'd like to see one community meeting open to presenting the arguments against down-zoning, of which there are many. Believe it or not there are downsides to down-zoning.

Posted by: Niccolo Machiavelli at May 30, 2007 9:39 PM

"how hard its it to design something that complements the neighbourhood and doesn't destroy it."

is the neighborhood so fragile that a single new building can "destroy" it?

Posted by: z at May 30, 2007 10:04 PM

There must be a special department of Scarano underlings working full time writing these comments praising his designs.

Who else would think well of them.

His designs are ugly and clumsy.

Like he wants to "ugly-fi" the neighborhood.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 31, 2007 1:48 AM

"jihad inimical"... Give me break! And if you own in Carroll Gardens for anything more than 5 years you have made a killing and are plenty affluent yourself. You think of down-zoning as devaluing the neighborhood, but in the long run it will preserve the value of the neighborhood. But perhaps you just want to sell at a premium and get out of this nimby infested neighborhood.

Who does Scarano sleep with at the DOB?

Posted by: Anonymous at May 31, 2007 2:34 AM

It's Scaranos pblebes doing the designs.
He just approves things. They were supposed to shock the monkey and come up with new and wonderfully modern designs.
Part of designing a building is using the best materials possible, not the cheapest.
Brooklyn is pock marked with shabby construction. You should really look before you leap. Many of these buildings are less than afive years old, and look shabby.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 31, 2007 10:08 AM

Boy you are good, I've owned here for about that time and done well. But I rented here for 30 years first and now my daughter can't find an affordable rent in the neighborhood. In the long run? Keynes said in the long run we are all dead. Downzoning raises rents and lowers property values, the iron laws of economics, supply and demand. The essential character is an industrial-maritime working class neighborhood, I like it that way. You want to freeze development at a particular point in time. If this proposed building is the worst thing to happen in the coming development boom then I, personally, have nothing to fear. Building a dense development, above a transit stop, displacing a parking lot is what I think we need more of.
See you at the voting booth. Thats what it comes down to. DeBlasio thinks he can have it both ways, pats on the back from you for downzoning, while preaching about affordable housing.

Posted by: Niccolo Machiavelli at May 31, 2007 10:27 AM

Downsizing equals less supply, and more demand, provided we can keep the neighborhood as beautiful and desirable as it is today. Therefor, higher property value.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 31, 2007 10:58 AM

JGNY

"are you kidding me Richard's building next to prospect park has relation to the buildings around it?context, and if it does please tell me how...."

Richard is just a celebirty architect thats why he is respected.

Posted by: Finan at May 31, 2007 2:32 PM

Higher value per square foot maybe but fewer sqare feet available equals less total value. Like my project right now. My building is aprox 2000 sqare feet, so is my lot, three stories. My 2000 square feet is about 1.4 million or 700 per square foot. I want to add another 1000 square feet and that will be worth about the same or roughly $700,000. It will cost me, on the high side about $150 per square foot or $150,000 to get $700,000 in value. The space will rent for about $25,000 a year at market rates so I pay it off in six years and have another 700,000 in value. Or I move my daughter in there and keep her in the neighborhood. Anyway, this economic potential is added value for my property. Giving that away is not something I consider wise. I'm not looking for trump plaza here just another 1000 square feet in my own neighborhood. The downzoning jihad opposes my right to do that. You do your math I'll do mine, maybe I'm making a big mistake and I'll go broke and you can pick up a nice piece of property cheap. My bad.

Posted by: NIccolo' Machiavelli at May 31, 2007 2:35 PM

You're not losing a plaza, you're gaining a homeless shelter.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 31, 2007 2:56 PM

So add 700 square feet.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 31, 2007 2:58 PM

Yes Grandpa, we should build attractive buildings here in Brooklyn!
Problem is Scarano hasn't built even ONE attractive building in Brooklyn!

Where did this guy get his architectural degree anyway?
Could the ever growing resistance here come from our basic human sense that these Scarano buildings are ugly? Could it be all these ugly new buildings Brooklyn has seen coming for only two horrific architectural firms that have turned community after community away form new development?

It is possible to build new buildings that intergrate into a community, so why should we put up with this junk?

Posted by: ug at June 1, 2007 9:53 AM

Yes Grandpa, we should build attractive buildings here in Brooklyn!
Problem is Scarano hasn't built even ONE attractive building in Brooklyn!

It is possible to build new buildings that intergrate into a community, so why should we put up with this junk?

Posted by: ug at June 1, 2007 9:53 AM

Oh the angry mobs, what will they do next?

You cannot pay for this kind of entertainment.

Posted by: Scarano at June 5, 2007 12:40 AM

I am a property owner in Carroll Gaardens for 10 yrs. I bought my run down brownstown because I saw the neighborhood as a great place to raise a family and commute to the city.

The new development in the neighborhood has created an overcrowed public school (P.S. 58), limited parking and the trains are getting more packed. We have only one subway stop in Carroll Garderns.

This neighborhood doesn't need anymore housing. We could use a good supermarket and a municiple parking lot for the residents.

With all the new residents and apartments, where are the children going to school? Where are they going to park cars? Which subway are they going to commute from?

My co-workers who live in Williamsburg have to let 3-4 trains pass in the morning because the trains are so overcrowed, they can't get on.

These developers do not live here!!

Posted by: Anonymous at June 9, 2007 10:03 PM