« Development Watch: 1101 Prospect Avenue Open House Picks »
June 22, 2007
Two Trees Plans Mixed Use Building Next to Bridge
As we suggested back in the beginning of May, Two Trees' plans for the Nova Clutch building (which it has been demolishing over the past few weeks) were far grander than a replacement building. The Dumbo-based developer today made public its proposal for a mixed-use building on the entire half a block bounded by Water, Front and Dock Streets; in addition to Nova Clutch, this swath also includes 38 Water Street, the site of St. Ann's Warehouse, where Two Trees tried to get approval for a 16-story tower back in 2004 before withdrawing the application in the face of public opposition. The proposed design by Beyer Blinder Belle, which includes 400 "green" apartments, 80 of which would be affordable, as well as retail, parking and a new public middle school, aims to address the central criticism of its 2004 plan—that it cramped the Brooklyn Bridge's style. The inclusion of the school is a very smart political move, as many Dumbo residents are deeply concerned about where their kids will go to school after P.S. 8. Now let the vetting process begin!
Prepping for Something Bigger at 39 Front? [Brownstoner] GMAP P*Shark
Two Trees Seeking Approval for 15-20 Story Building [DumboNYC] DOB
View from Front Street. Nova Clutch, June 22, 2007.
View from Water Street. St. Ann's Warehouse.
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/981
Comments
Looks like all the condo owners at 30 Main Street facing the bridge are losing their views.
Posted by: Anonymous at June 22, 2007 1:23 PM
all the geniuses that bought views at 70 washington.... (complete the sentence)
Posted by: Anonymous at June 22, 2007 1:30 PM
after jcondo & beacon
why bother fighting
dumbo is dead
Posted by: meh at June 22, 2007 1:45 PM
yep...it was only a matter of time for the 70 Wash. owners to lose their views. it was either this block or the joeho parking lot that would be built first. when they're both done, 70 Wash. will be surrounded on all sides...bummer. too bad for the 30 mainers too, but they had to know it was coming...
Looks like the building will be a nice one. The school is a brilliant and necessary touch...
Posted by: Anonymous at June 22, 2007 1:59 PM
this plan will never be approved...too many people will fight it..not only the residents of the other buildings but also city council, the DNA, and many other agencies. nothing this large will ever be approved, not that close to the bridge. it's a fact, just like his botched plan years ago, rejected.
Posted by: Anonymous at June 22, 2007 4:16 PM
This is private development with a public conscience. Wallentas gets no credit for his vision and his real accomplishments in DUMBO.
I like this scheme very much.
Now lets prepare for the wails of agony from the community. What will it be this time? Views are being blocked to the Tobacco Warehouse? Huming bird migration paths will be impaired?
Posted by: Anonymous at June 22, 2007 4:19 PM
I like it but I'm biased as I'd like to see the middle school built. Walentas is one of the few Brooklyn developers with any taste - and he seems to be able to get things done.
Posted by: cb at June 22, 2007 5:05 PM
Walentas, I wish he was doing Atlantic Yards. And how come no one is forcing Ratner to build a school in Atlantic Yards?
Posted by: Anonymous at June 22, 2007 10:40 PM
D = Dumb
U = Urban
M = Morons
B = Buy
o = Over there
Posted by: stoner squad at June 23, 2007 1:22 AM
You've got to admit the school is another brilliant Walentas gambit. I bet this one flies...
And also, I like how they show that idiotic tent in the Tobacco Warehouse... way to burn $100k on facepainting Conservancy fools.
Posted by: Vinegar Bob at June 23, 2007 1:26 AM
it was only a matter of time that the big W out did himself. he' now going up against himself with buildings that block the views of his own buildings. when will the public wake up and see the bigger picture? people who bought in 70 washington were probably never told this was even a discussion AND they probably weren't told that at some point, very very very soon, the parking lot adjacent to 70 (used by Jehovah's) will eventually be sold and developed...those that paid too much for the condos at 70 will be in the dark...on every side....
Posted by: em at June 23, 2007 7:34 AM
OK, so now that we see the plan's for this development, how do we challenge it. We must stop the sarcastic ridiculing of DUMBO residents by the wannabee who didn't buy when they had the opportunity, and band together as a community to demand a smaller scale development that will not encroach on anyone's views nor devalue the neighborhood, our property and our quality of life.
Posted by: DUMBO resident at June 23, 2007 12:05 PM
Many of us are pro Walentas. There would be no Dumbo without his efforts. Now you might think that is a good thing. Progress
does happen. Too much of a good thing?
Move where the population growth is a negative.
Posted by: Anonymous at June 23, 2007 12:43 PM
this isn't about anti walentas or anti dumbo or suckers who lost out on buying early on. this is about developement that infringes on those that did invest in and believed in DUMBO and are now having all those luxuries taken away by greed...
Posted by: sam at June 23, 2007 1:21 PM
As Gregg Singer has proven with the PS 64 debacle, city bureaucrats have no authority to selectively enforce the law. The law grants the owner of this parcel the right to construct this building. If the city tries to deny that right by circumventing the legislative process, they will find themselves sued once again and they will lose.
More than that - these ridiculous selfish comments are shocking. You have no right to any view. If you and your neighbors wanted to preserve your views, you should have purchased the property that is the subject of this thread and built a park.
The primary issues here are the fundamental concept of property rights and the public need for housing. A current resident's views are so ridiculously secondary only the most self centered person would believe they have any chance in hell of stopping this project on that basis. No, I'm sorry - the world does not revolve around you.
Posted by: Eryximachus at June 24, 2007 9:43 AM
unless your contract stated your views were unobstructed for life i don't see how anyone who purchased in those developments have a legal foot to stand on. just face it you're fucked...
Posted by: Anonymous at June 24, 2007 9:05 PM
It is up to the buyer to research a property on their own before purchasing, especially if you are paying a premium for a view.
I looked at 70 Washington and was told by the selling agent that the empty lot adjacent to the bulk of the remaining units was zoned for a seven story parking garage. Unless the surrounding buildings have historic landmark status all bets for a permanent view are off.
Anyhow, I wish everyone would lay off the Dumbo bashing. It isn't a perfect neighborhood, but no one is a moron simply for wanting to live there, especially considering the proximity to Manhattan, the waterfront and the Soho / Tribeca feel of the neighborhood which is greatly appealed to a recent Manhattan expat like me. If I wanted an hour commute into the city, I'd move to CT.
Posted by: T at June 25, 2007 10:03 AM
Write to David Yassky, Marty Markowitz, the BHA, the DNA, et.al. and let them know your opposition to this plan. Walentas does not have an absolute right to build what he has proposed here. Something called current zoning (industrial), required variances, etc...
Posted by: Anonymous at June 25, 2007 1:00 PM
This thing is far from definitely done. There is a process here, as was done in 2004:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/cpc/010645.pdf
Posted by: Anonymous at June 25, 2007 2:02 PM
For those of us who bought at 70 Wash and Sweeney- did we not all get the same offering plan? It refers more than once to future development that will likely block views. One reason I didn't buy on the view side. Seems pretty upfront to me.
Posted by: Anonymous at June 25, 2007 2:48 PM
I agree that impact on individual unit owners' views aren't relevant (unless the offering plan made representations to the contrary) but there are other good reasons for opposing this project. It's entirely out of scale with that part of the neighborhood and obstructs views from and of two landmarks (Brooklyn Bridge and Empire Stores). These are the reasons TT's 2004 plan wouldn't have passed City Council -- and why the current one shouldn't either. As an aside, the middle school proposal is just silly. What person in their right mind would want to rent in a building with a middle school downstairs?
Posted by: Anonymous at June 25, 2007 5:14 PM
What a fucking scumbag Walentas is. Justifying his out of context tower by promising a middle school, affordable housing, etc? The link on the site to Yassky and the slick mailer to PS 8 residents?
You may be clever but were not stupid, asshole. Build it all but keep it under the bridge. I can't wait to protest this thing as planned.
Posted by: Anonymous at June 25, 2007 5:57 PM
The public middle school was a very smart move. It makes things a little bit more complicated for people who are against or apathetic about the build since this area seriously needs a middle school. Though the act is very transparent as to what the real motive is I can accept that for a public middle school.
Posted by: Joe at June 25, 2007 9:04 PM
The school is such a cynical ploy. PS 8's four kindergarten classes next year will likely number over 100 kids alone. If Walentas builds this thing the number families who move into his 400 new rental units will be more than enough to overcrowd the school right from the start. My questions for Yassky are what has he done to address the middle school problem in the area and why hasn't he done more to protect the area from such stupid development. The Nova clutch factory wasn't a historic structure, but the Brooklyn Bridge sure is. Yassky needs to hear the community opposition now otherwise he'll hedge like he did on the park and won't weigh in until it's too late. Who will he support on this one, David Walentas or the community? That's the choice. He needs to know that we are watching
Posted by: TC at June 26, 2007 12:11 AM
i like this building. its no bigger than 70 washington and the other gairs. and from what i've read, it will have many more features that benefit the neighborhood than the luxury condos that have been going up everywhere. its about time.
Posted by: anon at June 26, 2007 6:27 PM
This would be as stupid as building a residential tower in the shadow of the Eiffel Tower. There is more economic incentive to improve the view of the bridge than block it. There is a reason why nothing near the bridge is over 3-4 floors. There has been a historical respect for one of the most iconic bridges in the world, and preserving this is an enormous asset to Brooklyn's economy. Dumbo has one of the largest undeveloped lots in the city further back from the bridge. A school should be built there.
Posted by: Anonymous at June 28, 2007 7:30 AM
I may be biased, because i have a soon to be middle schooler, but I don't work for 2trees. Those people who are claiming that 2trees sold them a unit in 70 Washington or in Sweeney (30 Main st) without being upfront about future development on this Dock st site are are being completely dishonest. This is a quote verbatim from PAGE 1 of my Sweeney offering plan, which we all got from 2trees before we bought apartments:
"1. An affiliate of Two Trees plans to construct a multi-story mixed use building on Dock Street between Water Street and Front Street. The owner of such property may construct a building up to a height of approximately 210 feet which does not include water towers or other roof top mechanical spaces and equipment. Accordingly, the proposed building, if constructed, may be built to a height greater than the height of the Sweeney Building, and, therefore, may obstruct water views of certain Unit Owners and Roof Terrace Owners."
I am having a hard time believing that those complaining about views FROM the bridge are anything more than NIMBY condo owners who don't want their views blocked. I don't feel that this building does anything to compromise the landmark brooklyn bridge as I think a few loud condo owners would want you to believe.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 3, 2007 9:29 AM
Hey July 3, you hold onto the offering plans for condos that you've looked at from years past for fun, or did you pull it out of the filing cabinet at of your office at 45 Main (in the 2Trees office). Thats what I thought. Have fun this year at the retreat on the Polo Farm out in the Hamptons. Asshole.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 12, 2007 4:50 PM
Now that family and staff of TT has given us their comments, let's see what other people have to say in the "Why didn't I think of that??" category.
1.Place a middle school in a high volume traffic area right off the highway with few sidewalks, insufficient transportation and few services available(but they will have a park to hang in)Get a huge tax incentive for a school.
2.Place a 3 story garage under the Bridge that is on highest alert for national security issues including bomb detectors at each end.
Who cares about water tables and historic Belguim blocks?
3.Build an 18 story rental apartment within 70 feet of the Bridge, taller than the Bridge towers. 80% or 320 luxury apartments in the building will now go for $3,500-$12,000+ per month? Make sure to own the building so you can keep the income.
4.Reposition and move its wide side to block sun and light from Front and Water Street. And make it tall enough with big glass windows to increase sound levels bouncing off the Bridge.
5.Make sure to block the historic Gair buildings from any view including the Bridge walkway, the water, Fulton Ferry, the Seaport, Henry Street.
6. Suck the charm out of the neighborhood and chase away films, photo shoots and people festivals.
Respect for a community includes the fore sight to make an honest evaluation of what would best serve the community and its neighbors. Destroying the historic waterfront, over powering the majesty of the Bridge, ruining landmark vistas and adding congestion is not what is needed in DUMBO in the 21st century.
Posted by: "sad" in dumbo at July 13, 2007 5:05 PM
The artists and hipsters that moved to
dumbo in 1965, and made the area buzz.
Bought their buildings for twenty grand. I can't think of one person left.
They moved to Santa Fe, and Prague,and points elsewhere. Prices go down when you don't have a view. The only reason
to live near all that pollution would be for I guess a view. I understand paying twenty grand for a six story building. I don't understand paying the prices now. And more than likely your neighbors are going to boring twits, versus, well you know.
Posted by: Anonymous at August 8, 2007 9:56 AM
Although Walentas might benefit by the new building, so will a large segement of Dumbo. This is a win win situation and having views obstructed has no relationship to the legal and moral underpinnings of the proposition...schools and affordable housing are good things!
Posted by: guest at August 11, 2007 3:34 PM
New York Lost © is a documentary about the loss of what makes New York, New York. Developers are destroying it's unique stores, ethnic neighborhoods, and character while replacing it with chain stores that all look alike and glass condos. At risk is the exciting and diverse community that brings so many to New York, and what makes New York the world center of art, communications, finance and fashion. Is New York turning into a gated community and giant shopping mall? Is it fair to ask whether all of this change is a good thing? Will developers kill the goose that laid the golden egg? Is the spirit of neighborliness dead? I interviewed several New Yorkers from the founder of the Guardian Angels, Curtis Sliwa to an old time Fulton Fish Market docker worker. I think you will be fascinated with what they have to say. Visit www.myspace.com/newyorklost to view the film for a limited time until film festival premier.
Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 9:40 AM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.