« Brownstoner in Berlin: Part 2 Just Sold in Brooklyn »
July 12, 2007
DumboNYC Guest Post: Dock Street Building Plans
Over the next few weeks, we're going to be inviting some neighborhoods bloggers from around the borough to write guest posts on Brownstoner. Today, DumboNYC kicks it off:
Remember the previous post by Brownstoner on the proposed Dock Street building? Two Trees Management is formally presenting their proposal to the Dumbo Neighborhood Association (DNA) this week and have started an advertising campaign with mailers and a website, but some residents have responded with their own photo renderings and will begin lobbying against the structure citing its proximity to the Brooklyn Bridge and the skepticism of having a dual purpose school and residential tower in the same building. It's reported that the campaign against the Dock Street building is underway, organized by residents of three Two Trees buildings; 30 Main Street, 70 Washington Street, and 1 Main Street, and 57 Front Street.
Ultimately this campaign should not be about 'anti-developer' or 'not-in-my-backyard because it blocks my views'. The real issue is the need to preserve Brooklyn's most iconic bridge view without a building next to it that stands taller than it does. Expect a full effort campaigning from both Two Trees and Dumbo residents this summer before, during, and after the formal submission of documents to the city. -Hideyoshi, DumboNYC.com
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/1580
Comments
The best part of the bridge are the towers which are in the water and nothing taller will ever be built to hide them. So who cares what happens at the ramps. I mean in the Manhattan side it doesn't matter really.
Posted by: Josh at July 12, 2007 11:00 AM
As a mother, I can say that having a school in a residential tower makes perfect sense to me! My kid goes to daycare in an office tower in Manhattan and it's very convenient to people who work nearby or even in the building itself.
Posted by: anon at July 12, 2007 11:00 AM
Current residents of DUMBO didn't protest when their buildings were built, moving to the area not expecting something to be built between their windows & the water was foolish. Protesting a beautiful project that meets multiple community needs is just selfish. The rendering above ... seems fairly exaggerated. DUMBO is, has been and will always be a compact, congested, sweet little nabe & every inch of it will be redeveloped.
Posted by: SuitsYou at July 12, 2007 11:08 AM
morons. the new building is nowhere near the important part of the bridge, the towers. And the view of the towers will only be blocked from a few lower income housing blocks further down into Brooklyn. The view from the Manhattan and Brooklyn waterfronts will remain unchanged.
Posted by: thurston at July 12, 2007 11:11 AM
Yeah - I don't expect much of an outcry from the rest of Brooklyn, just DUMBO...
Posted by: Anonymous at July 12, 2007 11:21 AM
i'd like it -- we need more housing in brooklyn, and we'll need more schools.
I looked at 70 wash and asked about this, and when I asked, they said that things could be built there.
Besides, it should make the existing condos a bit quieter since the traffic noise from the bridge will be blocked.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 12, 2007 11:35 AM
I find these illustrations misleading -- aren't these the plans that were squashed? the new plans are much lower and in line with height of one main streetS
Posted by: Anonymous at July 12, 2007 11:41 AM
Clearly the first few post are from Two Tree Cronies. Cut the Crap! If Two Trees wants to build a school then they should,BUT this is not about a school. It's about appeasing a few Brooklyn Heights stroller mommies, while Walentas really $cakes$ off on some rental units.
A 300 seats school in area that will have so many new children? who gonna gets those 300 seats? Let them build a eight story state of the art super school for 5 times the amount of student. This would REALLY serve the community.
They won't because it's not about that.
Posted by: Keep it Real, Two Trees at July 12, 2007 11:41 AM
its in true poor judgment to think that every neighborhood should be as tall as the rock can hold ..
if let to developers we get Atlantic Yards
It first starts at dont you want a school (basketball team ) and ends with twenty 44 story bldgs...
dont be fooled...
Posted by: wrong at July 12, 2007 11:41 AM
The building is only about 50 feet away from and towers over the Brooklyn Bridge. It places itself as a sore-thumb prominent feature in the viewscape of the bridge. Like that awful Verizon building we see looking into the city.
How can this be allowed regardless of how many schools or other quid-pro-quo quasi-bribes Walentas throws around to special interest groups.
Zoning is there for a reason - to keep out-of-scale, out of place buildings from being built at all, period. Not as a bargaining chip to squeeze more concessions out of developers before dispensing with the zoning restriction. The current zoning restriction of four stories is there for fundamental reasons that aren't changed by putting a school in the building.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 12, 2007 11:49 AM
Ugh. What a heinous, mugly, giant, blocky, institutional box of a building. So they're going to build something that covers the entire block? How does it make it a nice school without a courtyard and yard? Weird. What a completely depressing idea for a kid to have to live in a big box and never ever leave it, because the kids go to school there too. If you hate traveling through Brooklyn that much, move to the suburbs and live in your protective bubble there. As for the bridge, it definitely detracts from the beauty of the towers on the bridge, whether looking at it from the Brooklyn side or the Manhattan side. Totally competes visually with the bridge towers. It's really hard to see how anyone is arguing otherwise. Anyone without an agenda, that is.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 12, 2007 12:13 PM
Keep it Real, Two Trees is one of the ones loosing their views! LOL!
Posted by: Name at July 12, 2007 12:25 PM
11:49 - no the new building would be over 700 ft from the Brooklyn Tower and the area isn't zoned for 4 stories either - but don't let facts interfere with your arguments.
Here we go again, it makes me laugh that the NIMBY's are always claiming that developers are the ones who resort to lies and misrepresentations when time and time again it is project oponents who are far more guilty of same.
The Building here is slated to be 16 stories - which is FULLY CONTEXTUAL with the numerous buildings in DUMBO; it is also significantly lower then the 273 ft Tower.
Additionally, just like all the ridiculous AY renderings, the one shown here by Brownstoner is purposely misleading. The building is not going to be a recreation of the 2001 monolith, it will have windows and color and light will reflect off it etc...
Please explain why (except for some people loosing a view) this building shouldn't be built. And for a few people loosing their view - you end up with a school, needed retail and 20% affordable housing in DUMBO?
At least if your going to be NIMBY - be honest.
Posted by: David at July 12, 2007 12:50 PM
Only the Dumbo-ites will protest this.
They hate Wallentas. He could be building a replica of Mt Vernon and they would have a cow. The only other group stodgy enough to protest this is the Brooklyn Heights Association. But they haven't liked a new building since 1932 -so who cares?.
The proposed building looks fine to me. It has no impact on the Bridge and it will house a school and more retail. All good.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 12, 2007 12:55 PM
re: 11:49
"Zoning is there for a reason - to keep out-of-scale, out of place buildings from being built at all, period. Not as a bargaining chip to squeeze more concessions out of developers before dispensing with the zoning restriction. The current zoning restriction of four stories is there for fundamental reasons that aren't changed by putting a school in the building."
Yes, and zoning was supposed to keep RESIDENTIAL USE out of the INDUSTRIAL AREA that is DUMBO. You can't have it both ways, really, can you? Zoning changes benefit you so you can move in then call foul at the next zoning change (IF ANY?) that helps a developer (who is a crucial, if not very wealthy, part of the neighborhood fabric) build more residential.
And to say that the school is negligible, or that the developer is acting in bad faith, because the school portion isn't big enough to house all the overflow students in the Borough, or isn't built to fantasy specifications, is preposterous.
So, if this isn't about losing the view, tell me, in the Brooklyn-view photo shown in the sight, what is out perspective? Where are we when looking towards the bridge. It appears that we are at a vantage point higher than the road deck, which seems to me to either be from the approach road (which needs the view?) or from a point above ground, such as a building....?
Posted by: all-nimby at July 12, 2007 1:05 PM
although i usually find myself disagreeing with David, i have to agree this go round. more and more, brownstoner reads like curbed but with a better vocabulary.
-- height limit in a M1-2 district? 60 feet. (i also note that crematoriums are among the permitted uses in M1-2 districts. walentas would never cut off his nose to spite his face, but wouldn't that be a last laugh....)
-- dumbo residents have asked for a middle school, not just "brooklyn heights stroller moms" (when in doubt, start the name-calling)
-- what is the benefit of a 1500 seat middle school? the trend is toward smaller schools at all grades. another false argument
-- there is roof-top open space. i don't know if that will be made available to the school, but the fact that the base of the building covers the entire lot is probably irrelevant
-- zoning is always there for a reason; often, however, the zoning is out-of-date and only corrected when a developer advances a project. or are the good folks in dumbo advocating for returning the neighborhood to industrial use?
-- finally, i don't have an agenda and i don't have any relationship with two trees, although that is always a fine school-yard kind of argument
Posted by: Anonymous at July 12, 2007 1:06 PM
re: 11:49
"Zoning is there for a reason - to keep out-of-scale, out of place buildings from being built at all, period. Not as a bargaining chip to squeeze more concessions out of developers before dispensing with the zoning restriction. The current zoning restriction of four stories is there for fundamental reasons that aren't changed by putting a school in the building."
Yes, and zoning was supposed to keep RESIDENTIAL USE out of the INDUSTRIAL AREA that is DUMBO. You can't have it both ways, really, can you? Zoning changes benefit you so you can move in then call foul at the next zoning change (IF ANY?) that helps a developer (who is a crucial, if not very wealthy, part of the neighborhood fabric) build more residential.
And to say that the school is negligible, or that the developer is acting in bad faith, because the school portion isn't big enough to house all the overflow students in the Borough, or isn't built to fantasy specifications, is preposterous.
So, if this isn't about losing the view, tell me, in the Brooklyn-view photo shown in the sight, what is our perspective -- where are we when we're looking towards the bridge?
It appears that we are at a vantage point higher than the road deck, which seems to me to either be from the approach road (which needs the view?) or from a point above ground, such as a building....?
Posted by: all-nimby at July 12, 2007 1:06 PM
I agree with David, If you are going to be a NIMBY at least don't lie to the public about what you are opposing.
The rendering that appeared in the Brooklyn Eagle and elsewhere bears no relation to what is shown above. The real proposed building looks appropriate in terms of scale and massing. It looks like a modern version of one of the old DUMBO warehouses.
Yes it will block some views from other buildings, but that's life in the big city. The arguement about the impact on the Brooklyn bridge is, IMHO, 100% baloney.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 12, 2007 1:10 PM
I will be honest here. Yea I am fighting it cause it will block my views! I pay too much for an aprtemtn witha view, plus I use the parking lot aswell. So am I not entitle to fight what I dont like? So I will fight it until the end. Hopefully they make the parking lot into a park one day and I can have my views forever.
Posted by: NIMBYDumbo at July 12, 2007 1:15 PM
My favorite posting is the guy that says that "zoning rules should be respected"
Ha! it's a little late now dontcha think?
Manufacturing uses are not likey to make a big come back in the area any time soon, But if they do, you can be sure that the Planning Commission would then change the zoning to residential. They are such kidders in that office.
Posted by: Sam at July 12, 2007 1:21 PM
It should be noted that Walentas has personally, firmly rejected the idea of adding a school in Dumbo for years.
Several schools have inquired about space in the neighborhood over the last several years (including a successful private school that at one point was looking for much larger space to grow).
Walentas (or his son Jed, can't remember) responded to the school's friendly, polite enquiries for space by saying he had absolutely zero interest in a school in any of his buildings, and had equally zero interest in talking about it any further. Unprovoked "hell no" sort of response, just like that.
So...
1) You may attribute the lack of additional school options there (despite growing community) to a deliberate policy decision on the part of Walentas, due to his outright rejection of and attitude toward schools seeking space there.
and
2) It certainly leads me to wonder if he has been reserving the school presence thing all along to pull out as an emergency goodwill ruse in the case of otherwise heavy opposition to any of his proposed developments.
Whee.
Posted by: webster at July 12, 2007 1:31 PM
Let's discuss the actual facts about that mailing:
Neither PS8, CB2, nor DNA have asked for or approved this project. I am quite involved with the first 2, and have read published quotes from the third group. 2 Trees created a mailer that makes it sound as if they got quotes and requests from them all , but they didn't. Felicitously, CB2 and PS 8 had just begun their summer break before when the fallacious flyer mailed. What a coincidence...
How could the school be only for DUMBO, Broolyn Heights and Vinegar Hill -- it would have to be for anyone in the zoned area, and the area would also include parts of Fort Greene , maybe Clinton Hill and probably the Farragut, Whitman and Ingersoll Projects. Sounds like coded language to me.
Yes, PS8 parents are in search -- desperately -- of a public middle school for their kids. Ironically, Walentas has profited tremendously from PS 8's success -- many young families buy his apts because there's a good public school just up the hill. Well, truly it seems no good deed goes unpunished.
We don't need to be bribed to support a honking big eyesore beside the Brooklyn Bridge to get a school. It's insulting to think that any of these organizations would go for that.
Last -- one fo the reasons to loein Brooklyn is because it'sdifferent from Manhattan. Even in built-up, post-industrial DUMBO, space around the bridge and between buildings.
Posted by: bklyn20 at July 12, 2007 1:37 PM
you need a jet pack to get the POV these two images reflect. one flying over the BQE behind the bridge (or somewhere) and one over the river.
I don't know where I stand on this debate yet, but images like the ones posted here don't move the debate forward.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 12, 2007 1:38 PM
1:06 is wrong - there is no building height limit in M1-2 district. They could build that thinh as an office building. The thing is they need rezoning for the residential and school use.
Posted by: anon at July 12, 2007 1:55 PM
Even if there is no public school in the building, the proposal is still fine.
There is no zone around the bridge approach that limits or prohibits new construction. What sort of flaky non-argument is that? This isn't a historic distrcit and the approach ramps are not even part of the landmark section of the bridge.
Blocking the view of the bridge?
You've got to be kidding.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 12, 2007 2:04 PM
"flaky non-argument?" It's what killed the project last time. And there is a limit, which I don't remember from 2004, to how close the building can be to the bridge (which I assume the designers have taken into account.)
Posted by: Anonymous at July 12, 2007 2:15 PM
Why would PS8 be consulted at all? Has nothing to do with them. Board of Ed would be involved, yes, but not individual schools. And since when is Clinton Hill or Ft Greene in this region -- even with the July 1st changes.
PS8 has been good for brooklyn heights and dumbo and vice versa. It's not a one way street. In fact, many people think that PS8 didn't hit anyone's radar until Carmen Farina's pregnant daughter moved to Dumbo and CF needed a school for her future grandchild (you can google her own quotes on this). You could agrue that without Dumbo, PS8 would be were it was 10 years ago.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 12, 2007 2:25 PM
"The flaky non-arguement killed the proposal last time"
I don't think so. Firstly, it's far from dead. And secondly, 2 years ago Wallentas had other fish to fry, namely 110 Livingston Street. He was probably also already in negotiations to buy the old nova clutch building so he could build a bigger building and make even more money.
That's my take, I have no affiliation with 2 trees, but I read the papers.
Saying that there is an "aura" zone around he Brooklyn Bridge that retricts the height of new buildings is, I'm sorry, flaky. It is made-up from whole cloth, there is nothing in the zoning regs to support it.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 12, 2007 2:32 PM
You could argue that without Dumbo, PS8 would be were it was 10 years ago.
Interesting observation.
I think some of the ladies in Brooklyn heights, like Judy Stanton, would kick you in the nuts for that statememt.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 12, 2007 2:46 PM
who cares
dumbo is already ruined with jcondo and beacon
might as well build avery last square inch as high as possible
and if ure a jcondo/beacon buyer, u have no rightto complain
Posted by: meh at July 12, 2007 2:55 PM
I posted this on the last string but I feel likes its important to put the nimbies in their place- 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.
Also, these renderings are ridiculous and fictitious. I've been told by a neighbor that sat in on a 2trees presentation that the height of the building is the same as one main st and 70 washington.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 12, 2007 3:32 PM
Local grammar schools are asked for approval before new apt buildings are built in a neighborhood? Now that is a new one.
Next you think the local grocer should be asked too.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 12, 2007 3:35 PM
I'm not saying that PS8 should have been consulted. My point is that the mailing leads the casual reader to assume that P 8, CB2 and DNA have given their blessing to this project --which they have not.
I agree - PS 8 only became a really solid school 3-4 years ago. Why that makes it less important now is beyond me. And as another poster has noted, people (including me) were working on improving it for several years before the "renaissance" -- and I'm eternally grateful to the senior Ms Farina for her help.
This discussion should really be about the Dock Street DUMBO project; I am simply pointing out Walentas' dishonest tactics to render it palatable to the neighbors.
Posted by: bklym20 at July 12, 2007 3:36 PM
I'm not saying that PS8 should have been consulted. My point is that the mailing leads the casual reader to assume that P 8, CB2 and DNA have given their blessing to this project --which they have not.
I agree - PS 8 only became a really solid school 3-4 years ago. Why that makes it less important now is beyond me. And as another poster has noted, people (including me) were working on improving it for several years before the "renaissance" -- and I'm eternally grateful to the senior Ms Farina for her help.
This discussion should really be about the Dock Street DUMBO project; I am simply pointing out Walentas' dishonest tactics to render it palatable to the neighbors.
Posted by: bklym20 at July 12, 2007 3:36 PM
I'm not saying that PS8 should have been consulted. My point is that the mailing leads the casual reader to assume that P 8, CB2 and DNA have given their blessing to this project --which they have not.
I agree - PS 8 only became a really solid school 3-4 years ago. Why that makes it less important now is beyond me. And as another poster has noted, people (including me) were working on improving it for several years before the "renaissance" -- and I'm eternally grateful to the senior Ms Farina for her help.
This discussion should really be about the Dock Street DUMBO project; I am simply pointing out Walentas' dishonest tactics to render it palatable to the neighbors.
Posted by: bklyn20 at July 12, 2007 3:36 PM
I'm very aware of Judy Stanton's works and the 50k the BHA gave to PS8. And I am one of the "ladies in Brooklyn heights". Pffft.
You're not doing your side of the debate any good here -- whatever side it is you're on. I had no issue reading that mailing for what it was. I don't think most readers thought the local elementary school approved this project. That's not really what elementary schools do.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 12, 2007 3:48 PM
I had someone read me what the mailer says about Community Board 2 and, sorry bklyn20, I think anyone who reads that as an implied endorsement of the project needs some remedial reading comprehension classes. Community Board 2 has taken a position on the need for a middle school in the area, which is all that the mailer seems to say, IMO.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 12, 2007 4:06 PM
I reitirate, this would be a fine project with or without the middle school. If the Board of Ed decides to open a school somewhere else nearby, fine. It's all good for the community.
If the building does not house a school, then maybe it can house a Whole Foods or a Best Buys or something like that. What's the prob?
Posted by: Anonymous at July 12, 2007 4:18 PM
Its so obvious that all those in favor of the building are Walentas trolls -but thats neither here nor there - I think the Boro Pres summed it up nicely back in 2004 when he disapproved of the previous incarnation of this project to the CPC, which didn't have the bells and whistles of a space for a school if the city decides to put one there, but was as high, and only 50 feet closer to the bridge, so I'll give you his words, keeping in mind that he may not feel the same way this time around (he was pretty chummy with Jed at the TJ opening)...
The Brooklyn Borough President further believes that the proposed development of 38 Water Street as a residential building with a public parking garage and Water Street retail is an appropriate land use in context with the development of the DUMBO area, however, the project, as proposed by Two Trees, should reflect the lower-density scale of this part of DUMBO and the Fulton Ferry neighborhood to the West.
The area proposed for rezoning is framed by the context of the four-to-six story buildings located at 64-72 Water Street and the Civil-War era Empire Stores and Tobacco Warehouse in Brooklyn Bridge Park located directly across the street from the subject site. This area serves as a transition zone between the taller concrete industrial buildings found along Main Street to the 2-to-3 story buildings in Fulton Landing which are in character with an R6B contextual zoning designation.
The appropriate building height is one that respects this transition as one enters DUMBO from Fulton Ferry. In addition, the height of the building must not create a canyon effect on Water Street opposite the Empire Stores, as this route is the prime pedestrian link from DUMBO into neighboring Fulton Landing. The historic character of the Tobacco Warehouse and Empire Stores should not be flanked by building massing that would distract from their significance.
The Brooklyn Borough President also believes that as an architectural and engineering icon of the world, the significance of the Brooklyn Bridge is represented by more than just the towers and the span between them. Views of the span, representing the whole of the bridge, must be protected as well. A large massive building like the one the applicant proposes would mar the view of the span by superimposing its façade over the bridge span.
The Borough president is also equally concerned that the appropriate maximum height of the proposed building not impede significant views from the Brooklyn Bridge pedestrian walkway. As proposed, the applicant’s proposal obscures the span of the Manhattan Bridge and the sweeping views one enjoys of the river and Manhattan from the Brooklyn Bridge.
To mitigate these concerns and accomplish the objective of creating sound development complimentary to the sensitive historic environment of the Brooklyn Bridge and the DUMBO neighborhood, the Borough President believes that it would have been more appropriate to propose the building rise no higher than approximately 80 feet.
Suck on that argument, troll.
Posted by: Rudy at July 12, 2007 4:36 PM
luckily this building is completely shifted and does not have the problems marty described above. there is not a wall on water street anymore, thank goodness.
Posted by: anon at July 12, 2007 4:48 PM
No wall for 50 feet of the block. Everything else is still there, troll.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 12, 2007 4:52 PM
Rudy, I think you need some meds, and I think you should not delay getting them.
In a free and open society adults can have varying opinions without being trolls of your perceived nemesis.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 12, 2007 4:54 PM
Hey 3:32, 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 4:54 PM
Fortunately, the borough president gets it. His words summarize the situation exactly.
Of course it is legitimate to change the zoning from commercial to residential in that Brooklyn made the decision to allow rezoning to residential in DUMBO 10 years ago. That's how Walentas got rich, buying up all the commercially zoned properties then convincing the city that DUMBO would better serve everyone going residental.
The zoning for height has nothing to do with the use of the structure and much more to do with the issues named by the Borough President. And those are the issues that should not be for sale to the developer with the "largest school" to offer.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 12, 2007 5:01 PM
Alas if both sides of Water Street had been included in the Fulton Ferry Historic District, Rudy's arguments would have some legal basis. But the east side of Water Street is not in the historic district and therefore it is solely the Planning Commission who must decide, based on what the residential comparables are to the area's manufacturing zoning, how tall or bulky the building can be. The fact that it is across the street from a historic district has no bearing. A miss is as good as a mile as they say. There is no magic halo that surrounds historic districts. One is either in or out. Period.
Perhaps after it is built, the new building can be included in a DUMBO historic district some day.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 12, 2007 5:06 PM
I have read both the 30 Main and the 70 Washington offering plans. The 30 Main offering plan does in fact have a clear disclaimer that Two Trees plans to build on the site and eliminate the bridge views. The 70 Washington offering plan does not breathe a word of it, and in fact the 70 Washington marketing materials feature the bridge view heavily and salespeople lied outright saying Two Trees would use all its political connections to oppose any development in order to protect 70 Washington owners and the Two Trees brand. All the while Two Trees was designing the new tower and using all its political connections to get it built.
Posted by: 70Wash at July 12, 2007 5:06 PM
4:54 makes an interesting point about my meds - but a failing one - who else really cares about this project enough to post incessantly here in a 4 hour window - (1) people who's views will be blocked, and (2) those who will profit from this project, namely TwoTrees (theres a third category I guess - those too bored at work or disillusioned enough to think that their kids will be guaranteed a spot in a 300 student middle school - So I'll give you credit for those free and open socitey adults). Of course Two Trees knows the impact that these blogs can have, just look at the reaction to the Scarano travesty in Carroll Gardens from the blogs. Alterior motives all around. But ones apparently worth fighting for. Money and Money.
Posted by: Rudy at July 12, 2007 5:08 PM
Ah, yes, Rudy ... see my last point at 1:06. When all else fails, accuse everybody of being a troll. 4:54 is right; most medication takes a couple weeks before it becomes effective, so don't procrastinate. Oops, sorry, that's the kind of vitriol I was deploring just a minute ago. It's clear that there is strong opposition to the project as it is currently being described. But it is also quite improved over the 2004 proposal and Two Trees is marketing (awkwardly, in my opinion) the project right from the get-go. Let's talk again in early 2008. Mark my words: I predict this gets approved with a couple changes.
Posted by: betting man at July 12, 2007 5:09 PM
Actually Rudy since AY is almost approved I am now getting $ (per post) from Walentas....
The truth is that the current proposal will have almost no effect on Bridge Views both to the Bridge and from the Bridge - EXCEPT to those people who already bought condos from Walentas - Sorry but Zoning and Land Use is not designed to protect the condo views of a few owners.
Its also funny how the very same people who complain that Brooklyn is too expensive for 'regular people' then demand only low rise construction.
Posted by: David at July 12, 2007 5:30 PM
David, if that's true, then you would support 18 story high rise construction throughout Brooklyn without regard to zoning? Put the Brooklyn Bridge in a canyon of 18 story high rises, each of which sporting a school?
Or does only the first developer on the scene with a school get a variance? Curious what your guidelines for handing out zoning variances would be.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 12, 2007 6:27 PM
6:27 you're not quite getting it--- the current zoning for that site doesn't have a height limit. the issue is they need the variance to allow residential not office or commercial. they could build the office building tomorrow with no special approval
Posted by: name at July 12, 2007 6:34 PM
Rudy, I don't want to push you over the edge, but isn't it ironic that the folks who buy condos in the new building will have their views protected forever because they are across the street from a historic district and a state park?
Posted by: Anonymous at July 12, 2007 7:31 PM
Yes, they can build an office building tommorrow. So why don't they
If they need a variance of any sort the community must weigh in.
It's funny to me that the Two Tree water color rendering pick such odd views. Not views from the apartments they sold.
Are the views shown here out of scale??? I don't know, but the building right next to the rendering is 7 stories, so it's reasonable to me that a 18-20 story building would take up this kind of space.
I'm down for this propopsal if TT builds a big ass public school that everyone INCLUDING the children in Farragut Projects get to use. This after all would be their zone school.
Posted by: Keep it real , Two Trees at July 12, 2007 7:38 PM
As long as it doesn't have a massive neon verizon logo on it, the building could be worse.
Posted by: John at July 12, 2007 7:47 PM
if they could actually build a transparent building i could like with that.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 12, 2007 8:55 PM
6:34 - the rezoning they are seeking is not just from industrial to residential but also includes additional density. The renderings they are circulating assume that extra density. The zoning of the parcels in question currently does not allow that much density. And yes, there are literal and de facto height limits on the property now. Literal based on complex code requirements for a hotel (the most lucrative commercial development they might do) and de facto based on the minimum floor size requirements of a viable building divided into the current FAR.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 12, 2007 9:47 PM
7:31 - Actually it's more lucrative to Two Trees than condo sales. The units will be strictly rental, not condos, no way no how. Two Trees sold the views to the condos it was going to block, so that it could be the one to own the views that are protected forever.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 12, 2007 9:51 PM
You don't like it? You love it? Have a view? Suckle at the white haired teat of greed? Think this is out of context? Want a school? Fed up with developers dictating how our city looks? Tell Yassky, Markowitz, Bloomie, the BHA & DNA. Be proactive. Be heard. Nothing is happening here (besides veiled threats (see 2004 bow out) to build an as right commerical building that'll be a waste of money - and we all know money talks, except when its for pretty carousels that the wifey likes and for perceptions of being 'arty') without serious zoning changes and opportunities for community input. Thats a fact.
Posted by: VOR at July 13, 2007 12:16 AM
Please people. Simplify your thinking and follow the money. The only one who serves to gain is Two Trees. This proposed building is an abonimation. Grossly out of scale and out of context. Much like, but even worse than, the Jay Condo and that other monstroscity who's name escapes me. It will only detract from the quality of our neighborhood and the Brooklyn Bridge. The proposed school, which is a disengenuous deceipt, at best, and some new retail, is a huge price to pay for this absurdly large asault on our neighborhood. It is time to stop the over development of Brooklyn and the destruction of the scale of our communities. Enough is enough. Please write David Yasskey's office and Marty Markowitz and let them know how we feel! To Two Trees and their employees who are writing these bogus entries here all I can say is "what's the deal?" Why do you want to hoist this crap on all the rest of us? This proposed building will not be serving the community. It will not make Dumbo better. Nor Brooklyn. It will only make you wealthier. At the entire cities expense.
Posted by: enough with these large crappy buildings at July 13, 2007 4:42 AM
Think about one important thing. You cannot just build a building and call it a school. The Board of Education has to fund the operation of that school. There is nothing happening along those lines. For all everyone knows a "school" can be built which sits empty. A school in an apartment building? With no outdoor space for hormonal middle school kids?
I have recently searched for NYC skyline photos for a design project. Almost half include the Brooklyn Bridge. All those photos/views will be altered forever if this building is built. It's not just about views from apartment buildings. But from everywhere on both sides of the bridge. And every photo and every poster.
The plans are hideous and look nothing like the rest of the neighborhood. This is a manipulative plan which is causing such bad feelings in a beautiful neighborhood.
Posted by: Anon at July 13, 2007 8:58 AM
School? Ask Two Trees what they are doing with the schools that lease from them now. And ask Jed what he thinks about children and school buses. He's been pretty vocal about his distaste for them.
The only reason they want a school now is for the tax benefits to them. They could give two shits about whether the location is appropriate. No yard, no easy street crossing to get to the school. This is all about Two Turds maintaining control in the neighborhood. This is all about ego and $$$.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 13, 2007 10:25 AM
Where exactly is the 1st photo from? as what perspective? Someone's apartment or rooftop? or a public park?
Posted by: Anonymous at July 13, 2007 10:37 AM
Anonymous,
That has been my wife's exact direct experience with Two Trees as well, even when they have had a ton of open space in recent years.
(see my July 12, 2007 1:31 PM post above)
Even when ABC Carpet left its HUGE space a year or so ago and the space was subdivided into several other spaces.
The schools (including my wife's) that inquired seeking space were willing to take on the usual challenges of getting any given space upgraded and approved by city and state to be used as a school space.
My wife's school filed and got approval for school space conversion and improvements where they ended up anyway (not in DUMBO), after their polite inquiries were met with a rude reception by Two Trees, who seemed pissed just to have been asked about leasing to a school (nevermind that schools are booming these days, and all them families in DUMBO have few options).
Yes, after having been asked nicely for the "privilege" of paying to upgrade and rent one of their raw spaces, their response was a flat-out hell-no to having a school in their neighborhood.
Odd, since there have long been special needs educational facilities there. Guess they got sick of or regret their past decisions there, and decided to slam the door shut on any new schools years ago.
So yeah, the school thing is totally disingenuous, just a hail-mary, last-resort tactic to chalk up some false good will, get this failed plan through and otherwise put lipstick on the pig.
As they stated to my wife and representatives of other schools with similar leasing space requests -- clearly at odds with the best interests of an ever-growing family community they were building there in their little dominion -- they had absolutely zero interest in having any kind of school in their properties (which, Guttman aside, is pretty much all of DUMBO).
The fact that they suddenly trot out the idea of this school to look like the good guys in the face of failing to get approval just speaks volumes here.
Posted by: webster at July 13, 2007 11:39 AM
Webster is there a way to discuss this off the blog? Anon 10:25
Posted by: Anonymous at July 13, 2007 3:30 PM
Instead of posting any personal email address here (for spam crawlers to harvest), I suppose you could email me via my spam filtering account as follows:
webster@spamhole.com
Posted by: webster at July 13, 2007 3:57 PM
ok thanks
Posted by: Anonymous at July 13, 2007 4:27 PM
WOW! Who does Walentas have as his spinmeister??? Its amazing how he and his gang have twisted this story into making the residents of Dumbo portrayed as the villianous, selfish landowners trying to hold down the innocent benevolent developer just trying to make a living. Is it true that Jed Walentas has told groups that he purchased Nova Clutch, ripped it down in a minute to build this rental complex for a mere 5% return on his investment? Hey, can someone take them over to Sovereign bank in his building for a 6 month CD- he'll definately do better- unless he's lying?! I know he sez he needs to do this deal to make the money he needs -just like the kid who wants to go to the orphans' ball cause he just shot his parents! maybe the big fat developer can't push everyone around.
Posted by: I LOVE NY at July 13, 2007 6:23 PM
Rumor has it that TT loves kids so much, that they are not renewing the lease for the United Cerebral Palsy school on Washington Street. He loves kids that look good in the video and get him tax breaks. Handicapped children in wheel chairs apparently do not serve his needs.
Posted by: Is it all about the Kids ? at July 13, 2007 6:32 PM
Agreed. I have been hearing from a lot of people in Dumbo about how sleazy the Wallentas are. Didn't believe it until I saw this project. Wow. Some balls.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 13, 2007 7:59 PM
Correct. If Walentas unflinchingly lies to, uses, and then screws over his best customers, those who paid him millions for his marquee properties, is there any reason to think he will treat random bussed-in children better? He will lie to, use, and then screw them over without even noticing he is doing it.
Anyone who doesn't believe that, I have a bridge to sell you. The Brooklyn Bridge actually. Yes, it's for sale now, for the price of a school.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 13, 2007 8:10 PM
'No Guts No Glory'
Posted by: David at July 15, 2007 1:47 AM
Byers still hasn't forgiven you David.
Posted by: anti-W at July 25, 2007 6:48 PM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.