« Streetlevel: Olive Garden Coming to Lower Slope Development Watch: Race Against Clock at 163 Wash »
July 3, 2007
360 Smith: Update and Review of New Plans
No one can accuse the group of Carroll Gardeners protesting the large building that William Stein is trying to build at 360 Smith Street of lacking enthusiasm. Tact and subtlety, maybe, but definitely not enthusiasm. In the wake of the developer being granted permits to erect a fence around the property at the corner of Smith and Second Place last week, the group, which calls itself CORD (Coalition for Respectful Development), called for Bill de Blasio's head on a stick in a somewhat manic email. Up to that point, de Blasio's targeting of the project's architect, Robert Scarano, had jibed nicely with CORD's agenda of reducing the size and increasing the contextuality of 360 Smith. The issuing of the permits, however, prompted the protesters to accuse de Blasio of being "very disingenuous." This email followed another in which they urged people to fight the building on behalf of the squirrels who like to hang out in the plaza and the circulation of a petition calling for a moratorium on the construction of any building over the height of 50 feet "until landmarking or a down-zoning is decided." (The petition had over 800 signatures at last count.) The latest news, via a CORD email last night, is that the revised renderings (which have not been publicly released yet) are still unacceptable:
With or without the trademark Scarano elements the building is clearly massive. On the southern-most corner of the Smith Street side, where the building facade will be "commercial" not residential is a seventy foot tower. This rectangular prism juts vertically into space sure to cast an enormous shadow and act as a light barrier for all the buildings on Smith Street. The rest of the commercial facade is very tall and goes along the Smith street sidewalk with no set back and joins the Hannah Senesh School known for its VERY! eclectic mix and match materials and colored architecture. The new facade in turn, will cast an enormous shadow on Second Street.
It's hard for us to weigh in on without seeing the new renderings but there's no reason to think that the description above isn't right on the money. Can anyone email the renderings to us (anonymity guaranteed)? In the meantime, if there's anyone in the neighborhood with a background in public relations who opposes the project, you should think about donating your time to CORD. They would benefit from some polish and focus.
Scarano Pushback on Smith [Brownstoner] GMAP
Mixed Agendas at Anti-Scarano Rally on Smith Street [Brownstoner]
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/1543
Comments
while I mostly agree with their agenda (reducing the bulk of the building), these people are all over the map, and they lose credibility with overstated claims
the squirrel bit was funny though
Posted by: Anonymous at July 3, 2007 9:58 AM
Yeah, screw the renderings--I wanna see the squirrel e-mail.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 3, 2007 9:59 AM
if i am not wrong, the building will be on the NORTH side of the Second Street. how exactly it is going to cast a shadow ON the street? most of the shadow should be on the school's side to the north FROM the building.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 3, 2007 10:05 AM
I seriously tired of all this low scale development talk. 50 feet? are kidding me? My five story brownstone is almost 50 feet high! For crying out loud, this is NYC - not Omaha, Nebraska!
This past weekend my wife and I took a leisurely stroll along 4th Avenue and were amazed at what bloggers on this board have been calling "skyscrapers", "towers", "monstrosities", "bohemoths", etc. No such tall buildings exist on the avenue! It's pure BS! Where do you people come from? The backward hills of Mississippi? When did a 9-16 story building constitute an immense tower? Same goes for the Scarano project in CG. You got to be kidding me. You want to put something low scale on that lot then you pay a fortune for the land and build a structure too small to break a profit or worse that will ensure your eventual bankruptcy!
Posted by: Anonymous at July 3, 2007 10:11 AM
agreed -- the concept of a "70 foot tower" is pretty silly.
Posted by: z at July 3, 2007 10:29 AM
yes, you're talking about roughly 6-8 floors. oohhhhh... the outrage! lol!
give it a rest people. feigning moral indignation is a major turnoff.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 3, 2007 10:42 AM
Just to reiterate—a seventy foot tower... ha!
Posted by: Bryan at July 3, 2007 10:50 AM
No John. You are wrong. This is not just any tower. This is a 70 foot MASSIVE TOWER!!! It will cast long dark shadows from Carroll Gardens to Bay Ridge!!!!
LOL!!!!
Posted by: Anonymous at July 3, 2007 10:55 AM
So I guess every city in Europe is nothing but towers. The basic streetscape in Rome, Berlin, Paris, Barcelona and many others is about 70 feet. Even smaller cities generally have the same streetscape. Have these crazy NIMBYs ever left the U.S.?
Posted by: Anonymous at July 3, 2007 10:58 AM
THE BALLS people have to tell someone what they can and cannot do in their property. Ever hear the words As of right?
Posted by: Anonymous at July 3, 2007 11:00 AM
I think what most people don't realize (or maybe just don't give a shit about) is the fact the the developers are beginning to use a loophole in the zoning resolution that allows the 'garden' streets on CG (which are precisely wide enough to allow one car down them at a time) to be considered wide streets, and consequently build greater FAR on the lots than would be allowed on narrow streets. This is because the gardens in front of the rowhouses are an easement from the city (laid out in the 1840's I think), and the actual lots in the area start at the face of the buildings. I believe that this is the only place in the city where this condition occurs (if somebody knows of something similar, I'd love to hear about it). Thus, what gives CG its charm is starting to be exploited to build buildings out of scale with their surroundings.
Yes, an 8 story building is not a 'tower', but it would tower over the 3 to 4 story houses in this area.
Posted by: rocco at July 3, 2007 11:01 AM
Thanks for that info, Rocco. 4th Avenue is a very wide street. Smith is not. 2nd is not, unless you measure house to house which is ridiculous. Obviously, the people who are protesting cannot tell the developer what to do. They can only protest and express their opinion and work for landmarking/zoning changes in the future. Carroll Gardens is not landmarked like Cobble Hill because homeowners in the past did not want limitations on what they could do with their property. Seems the sentiments have changed for many but we shall see...
Posted by: Carol Gardens at July 3, 2007 11:08 AM
I'm all for giving Brooklyn a lively, diverse, varied and interesting streetscape. There is nothing wrong with a little variation here and there, especially along commercial strips. It creates FLAVA. Which is good.
There is a serious housing crunch in this city and as such everything cannot be low scale. There must be room for high density development, within reason, especially near good public transportation. The F subway line is about a block away.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 3, 2007 11:08 AM
"Yes, an 8 story building is not a 'tower', but it would tower over the 3 to 4 story houses in this area."
Give me a break! How about the Wycoff and Gowanus "towers" which are much taller? Other than the drugs and the occasional shooting, how much of a physical detriment are they to the surrounding community?
You NIMBYS are ridiculous! Where's SPer, Sterling Silver and the rest of the wackos? How can you defend this cause?
Posted by: Anonymous at July 3, 2007 11:14 AM
Anything "as of right" does not have consider rights of the "folks next door". But it was meant for stuff like fixing your doors or windows NOT! a 46 family hosuing developmetn! "As of right" is being grossly maniplulated by slick developers with big bucks, that much is obvious. What really irks here is the inherent compilcity of the POLS deBlasio and Markowtiz are right there on the top of the list. Money talks, and the POLS understand the zoning lawas better than the average Joe. The "people" are right to be furious! You would be do if these guys were planning this project next door to the beautiful house you have lived in and worked on for years. Cut them some slack!
Posted by: anon at July 3, 2007 11:17 AM
Ohhhhh boy....More corruption non-sense. Yes, we heard it all with AY: backroom dealing, money under the table, complicity and "developers gone wild." Yadayadayadayada.... So boring... :-(
Posted by: Anonymous at July 3, 2007 11:22 AM
I wish I could figure out your point. Wycoff and Gowanus towers would not be built today if you had to flatten an entire neighborhood. (Not too many people would say that 60s-style urban renewal was a big success.) What does that have to do with the Smith Street project? NO ONE is saying that there should be a ban on tall buildings in New York City. They are merely trying to convince a developer to scale back one project which is the size it is because of a strange zoning loophole.
Posted by: Carol Gardens at July 3, 2007 11:28 AM
Boring but true.
Posted by: Carol Gardens at July 3, 2007 11:30 AM
You moved next door to a MASSIVE empty corner lot that sits on a major commercial strip. What did you expect would eventually get built there? A community garden?
Real Estate 101: Caveat Emptor - Buyer Beware
Posted by: Anonymous at July 3, 2007 11:31 AM
Don't want someone towering down on you from three stories up (you got to chuckle!) then buy out the developer. I think it would be a great investment. The lot can be yours for $4M and then you can turn around and create an organic vegetable garden for the community. Now how noble would that be? You'd be a local hero!
What? What was that you said? It wouldn't make "economic sense"? Hhhhhmmmm...that's a novel concept. First time hearing of it on this board. What does it mean?
Posted by: Anonymous at July 3, 2007 11:37 AM
I don’t understand. How is it that the developer can build on the plaza? Is it not public?
Can someone please explain?
Posted by: Anonymous at July 3, 2007 11:39 AM
to posters 10:11, 10:29, 10:42, 10:50, 10:55, 10:58 and 11:00
thank you for your thoughtful and carefully-reasoned arguments against the neighborhood committee's concerns. It is truly refreshing to see enlightened debate on both sides of a contentious issue
Posted by: Anonymous at July 3, 2007 11:41 AM
Yeah, more conspiracy, corruption, yadda, yadda. Not that the zoning, etc hasn't been in place for decades. And the proposed bldg had been on Scarano's website for several years (but only at last minute is the outrage). BTW, even on his website the new rendering is not yet available.
Even under current zoning, there are very few parcels in the neighborhood that could viably be asembled to build these 'towering' apt buildings. So fear factor of area being taken over or forever changed is hysteria. There are some buildings in area that are this size (or bigger) and seem to work well. Degraw between Hoyt and Bond - the old school). Degraw between Smith and Court has newer bldg. 505 Court st is very bulky.
Fine if want to work to get new zoning in, etc. And especially important to prevent 'tear downs' etc. And would be great to expand 'historic district'. But hard to imagine this proposal is any way harmful. The shadow talk is really silly. Very very few people can afford to buy a townhouse or brownstone. All neighborhoods have to allow other types of housing in. Carroll Gardens is too central to have total 50' cap.
It is unrealistic and selfish. Especially on top of a subway station on a commercial street.
Why not all this neighborhood energy go into improving look of Smith St. on blocks immediately south of this location? That is blight. Not this proposal.
Posted by: petebklyn at July 3, 2007 11:42 AM
I'm sorry but there's no issue here. The developer, as a private property owner, is entitled to the "benefit of the bargain". He understood the the zoning, as did many downtown developers, and stayed on top of the owner for many years until the owner finally decided to sell (at market highs). The owner of the property had many offers but held out for the highest bidder and maximized his profit on the sale. The buyer who paid a handsome premium for the property based on his ROI analysis which took into account the zoning restrictions and potential profit from selling residential condos is now expected to voluntarily scale back his project to appease the community? Are you for real?
Do you think the seller will call the developer and grant a refund for the lower expected return on his investment? Surely he must be compensated right? How about those who object to this "as of right" project coming together and cutting a fat check for $3M to compensate the developer for the economic loss of scaling back project?
Since the building is "as of right" I would like to hear suggestions on how the developer should be compensated by the community for reducing the size of the project. Surely you don't expect an act of altruism?
Posted by: Anonymous at July 3, 2007 12:12 PM
no one is expecting altruism from the developer. The developer wants to build as big a building as he possibly can to maximize his profit. Good for him. Some residents want to obstruct him at every step of the way, because they don't want a big building in their neighborhood. Good for them. Will they have any effect? Time will tell.
Both points of view (developer's and resident's) are essentially selfish - they want what they believe is in their best interest. Being on either side of this issue does not make one a crackpot or asshole
Posted by: Anonymous at July 3, 2007 12:24 PM
Building "against the neighborhood committee's concerns"? WTF? This is an "as of right" project. Who cares about the community's concerns? They don't have any input on the matter. It's within the developer's legal right to build the project as long as he adheres to the zoning restrictions.
Just because the "community" is against the size of this project doesn't give them a right to alter or stop someone from doing what's within their legal right. For example, let's suppose the "community" was against black, Hispanics or gays moving into the neighborhood should we simply oblige them because that's what they want? Of course not. Why? Because it's not about what you or I want, it's about the law. In this case the developer has the law on his side and the community has nothing.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 3, 2007 12:29 PM
I don't see how scale is really an issue here -- this corner of CG (almost Gowanus, really) is pretty scattershot anyway, and doesn't really have one unifying feel. The obsession with "context" is the sort of thing that drives everybody's rent up. Eventually the city *will* have to get denser, lest it stagnate completely.
That said, I don't think the developer should be able to destroy a public plaza. But I'm not sure I fully understand the legal mechanics at work there anyway.
Posted by: Q.R. at July 3, 2007 12:47 PM
Who are you republican “As of Right” assholes?
Isnt feeing Scooter enough for you today?
Surely none of you live in CG.
Laws don’t just exist, they are made by people. If people protest and the noise is loud enough that politicians feel the pressure, rules change and sometimes bad development doesn’t get to exploit the legal loophole. Sometimes Right can beat “As of Right”.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 3, 2007 12:51 PM
If the developer is using the higher FAR as allowed in the quality housing option, they're required to set back the top floor(s) over 60ft. The maximum height of the building would be 70', minus roof mechanical. - It would be nearly impossible to get 8 floors out of this site unless the developer wanted to build around 7.5' floor to ceiling... Making it difficult to unload as condos.
You would hardly see the top floor.
The community is battling over two floors, one of which they won't see...
Posted by: Fez at July 3, 2007 12:51 PM
"AS OF RIGHT" Fine, but we're talking about an architect who basically writes his own rule book. Self Certified ? Dob plan examiners? If I wanted this building stopped I would hire an architect to do a re-examination of the approved plans for any"errors" that could add extra FAR. The DoB approves all kinds of faulty, overloaded $hit all the time.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 3, 2007 12:51 PM
Uh, let me retract that "no unifying feel" part. When I walked by this site, my memory associated it with the blocks of Gowanus that I was coming from, but apparently I blocked out those two brownstone blocks.
Nonetheless, big buildings on subway stations on major streets is probably the way to go.
Posted by: Q.R. at July 3, 2007 12:52 PM
"Wacko" here, as per 11:34. Contrary to popular belief, I am not against development, or even tall buildings, in the right places. However, I make it a point to not comment about places I am not at least passing familiar with. I've been in the neighborhood on occasion, but do not know the neighborhood well, or it's dynamics, so you won't have me to knock around on this one, so sorry to disappoint. I pass.
Posted by: Sterling Silver at July 3, 2007 12:55 PM
If you live in a community and respect the opinions of your neighbors, most of the time they will respect yours. You may at times disagree with what they want and they may disagree with what you want - but then there is this thing called compromise. It is the most civil way to resolve issues and move forward in our world.
To date the developers have had sway over what is happening in our city. Most (as far as I can see) have very little respect for the people around them. The community is fed up - and fighting back. I see no problem with this.
Posted by: Anony at July 3, 2007 1:01 PM
anon 12:29, your argument is that since the developer is building to the letter of the law, the residents should shut up, bend over and take it. There is no equation here between lawfully protesting what they feel is a bad law, and discrimination based on race. Laws get changed when sufficiently convincing arguments are made against them
Posted by: Anonymous at July 3, 2007 1:02 PM
Hey Sterling! Where've you been, buddy boy! We miss ya!
Alright, see you on another thread!
As for bloggers on this board being right wing, Republican, "As of Right" assholes, thank God there's some diversity of opinion on this board and we are not all masturbating to the sound of our own singular voice.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 3, 2007 1:06 PM
There seems to be some misunderstanding about the word "right". In nature, there are no rights. Rights are privileges granted to PEOPLE by governments - which in the case of this fine city, derives authority directly from the people.
"the community" has no legal standing. There is an increasingly irrational stance that communities are some sort of quasi-political entity. They are not.
There are really only two possibilities in support of these irrational arguments , 1) work within the current political system to have zoning laws changed 2) secede from the City of New York and no longer be subject to its laws.
I do love the political connotations here that it's republicans who are for these restrictive zoning measures. We have a bunch of rich assholes in Carroll Gardens who don't want to share their precious enclave with those who don't have enough money for a brownstone.
Yeah, that's the spirit of liberalism. Let's turn the entire country into a gated community and push all the poor people to the fringes of Eden!
Once again - the hypocritical mind of a liberal proves their insanity.
Posted by: Eryximachus at July 3, 2007 1:18 PM
ah, at last!
Eryximachus has pronounced!
no further discussion will be necessary!
thank you all for participating
Posted by: Anonymous at July 3, 2007 1:41 PM
On behalf of all the squirrels of 360 Smith, we love this neighborhood for the same reasons that you humans do: the bakeries, the deep front gardens, the proliferation of children who leave their Veggie Booty on the ground, the quiet tree-lined streets, the bakeries, the small-town feeling and, finally, did I mention the bakeries? This is a grass-roots effort: we don't have a lot of money for lawyers, but we have a strong sense of community. We believe that a building this big is wrong for the neighborhood. The developers should not be allowed to define 2nd Place as a "wide street" (streets are measured from facade to facade, apparently, so those beautiful front gardens that define Carroll Gardens are considered part of the "street") This allows the developers to build a much, much larger building. We are appealing to Amanda Burden to prevent the developers from exploiting this loophole. I encourage everyone to click on this link and let Ms. Burden, our Chair of City Planning know how you feel on this issue: http://www.nyc.gov/html/mail/html/maildcp.html
Sincerely,
Rocky Ferrarro
President, Carroll Gardens Neighborhood Squirrel Association
Posted by: Rocky Ferrarro at July 3, 2007 1:47 PM
thank god there is still the developer, looking out for the best interest of the poor
Posted by: Anonymous at July 3, 2007 1:48 PM
Exactly. This is not a building for "the poor" and will not make even an itty bitty dent in the affordable housing needs of the city. The developer will make plenty of money with 5, 6 OR 7 story construction. Also, I'm sure there are plenty of rich people here, but also renters, those who have owned a long time (okay...they are potentially rich if they sell), etc. and both lefties and righties (politically and holding-a-pencil wise...)
Posted by: Carol Gardens at July 3, 2007 2:19 PM
Eryximachus---
Ahh yes. Good to see liberals showing their true colors. You have to remember, liberalism is a mental disorder.. it's not their fault. A true liberal would not care of the value of their home. Thats capitalistic greed, you should sell your home for the amount you paid for it, and help your fellow man. What happened to Socialism? Did you NIMBY's check it at the door? An I thought the blog would be slow today because of the holiday.
Posted by: Dr. Savage at July 3, 2007 2:20 PM
That corner is never shoveled in the winter, a tiny path is barely made to the steps of the subway the "children " of the neighborhood and the elderly are exposed to hazardous conditions, and in the fall and spring the refuse from the "children" in the neighboring schools , is strewn all over, no one maintains it, but now everyone is concerned...lets say for arguments sake the buiding never gets built (oh it'll get built), guess what happpens this winter?, same thing...and the locked garden across the street is not accessable to the "community"...not sure what i am trying to say... no one in the community maintained that corner in the past,but now everyones apeshit over it...there, I said it..
Posted by: anon at July 3, 2007 2:45 PM
For what it is worth, looking at DOB page today on NYC.gov and looks like plans are approved for NB -new building not just fence.(although there is mention of withdraw of doc#5 -whatever that is).
I might guess that besides from DOB that builder would also need some sort of okay from TA also -since above station and they have easement for entrance. But no expert on that stuff.
Also - I don't see any mention of 'commercial' in this building appl. but is mentioned in email quoted above.?? Acutally surprised no 1st floor commercial.
If indeed a 'loophole' builder is using - and it is without much precedent in past- IF that is true, then this has to be cleared up, ruled on, clarified - especially for future.
But, in general, I don't see why this should not be built.
Also - the 'plaza' was not public land - private so can build on it - but easement must remain.
All you anti-tall building people in area - start NOW on the Court St building LICH is selling. Don't wait until final sale and plans are submitted. Not really fair and obviously not effective.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 3, 2007 3:09 PM
Nah, not slow at all Dr. Savage - it's the holidays, and I can barely focus on work myself. This site is always a great way to get the mind off more troubling matters.
Anyway - this is not a legal "loophole", it's the law. The purpose of much zoning and the street width definition is to maintain a consistent streetscape (ie, consistent building frontage) in a given area. It really doesn't have much to do with the actual physical roadway.
Rocky just doesn't get it. His organization is not asking for a legal loophole to be closed, they are asking for a revision of the zoning code. They are insinuating the original legislatures who enacted the zoning law didn't understand what "wide street" meant. I mean seriously the zoning code for this district indicates a narrow street is less than 100 feet. Seriously, 100 feet? How can anyone possibly think that refers to the width of the roadway? I bet Atlantic Avenue isn't even 100 feet from curb to curb.
This entire argument is just nuts. If the zoning code were revised to stipulate the measurements were to apply to the width of the roadway, you wouldn't be able to achieve the maximum FAR almost ANYWHERE in the entire borough.
Posted by: Eryximachus at July 3, 2007 3:32 PM
"anon 12:29, your argument is that since the developer is building to the letter of the law, the residents should shut up, bend over and take it. There is no equation here between lawfully protesting what they feel is a bad law, and discrimination based on race. Laws get changed when sufficiently convincing arguments are made against them."
Okay. Then change the law but until that happens, then build this MOFO!!
LOL!
Man, so you guys are just protesting and raising hell to change the law? All this time I thought you NIMBYS really had a case with respect to this specific development. Now I get it. You guys are simply begging publicly for the developer to lower the scale and scope of the project by: (a) embarrassing him; (b) humiliating local elected officials; (c) chastising the Dept. of City Planning; and (d) alienating everyone else in the community that reasonably thinks that the project at 7 stories is more than acceptable. Wow! Nice job! Sounds like a winning plan! LOL! :-)
Posted by: Anonymous at July 3, 2007 3:42 PM
"We believe that a building this big is wrong for the neighborhood."
Okay, what the heck is wrong with you people! The building is only 7 stories high and will be standing next to five story brownstones! Why the outrage!!!
This is not a tower! This is a small apartment building! I'm telling you, after meeting Pat Hagan, Dan Goldstein and some of the anti-development crowd over the past four years, there seems to exist one commonality in the bunch: they are all delusional and certified psychos. This building will be only 7 stories tall but no matter how much you present them with the facts, they only see the Empire State Building. They're nuts!
Posted by: Anonymous at July 3, 2007 3:51 PM
Rocco's comment shows he has bought into the paranoid fantasys about what "could" be built, about to be built or some evil "developer" could possibly profit from. And, the minor "fact" that there are no three story buildings on that block eludes him as well.
And the politics of 800 "signatures" on an on line petition. Wow, where to begin. Bill D's constituency is maybe 200,000. And, not for nothing the City must make decisions for 8,000,000. Thats one thing that makes NYC great, that the NIMBYs can't run the show here like in the suburbs, or at least they couldn't historically.
And, anonymous 11:41, the downzoning NIMBYs regularly cite the debate on the blogs as a reason to downzone. They say "look at the blogs" and expect you to look at the ones they read. Debate in this case equals echo chamber. The Carroll Gardens Neighborhood Association, the epicenter of NIMBYs and BANANAs in in the are has held about five hours of one sided jihad on downzoning, Bill D has been a big player there with Buddy Scotto, the Godfather of Downzoning.
They are pumping up the NIMBY/BANANA nexus. It is meant to give Bill D cred for his run for Borough Prez after Marty terms out.
Any lower density for a parking lot above a transit stop cheats the rest of New York out of housing and tax base. This is an entirely appropriate density. The abutters bought property price discounted as a function of proximity to the trash strewn open lot. It could have been built upon years ago but wasn't. Now it is. It is going to be built and the developer is the same man behind the Yeshiva next door, so what I think he is poised to become a stake holder in the neighborhood. Welcome to him.
And housing is housing, "affordable" or not. Each unit fills a demand at a price and frees up another unit at another, usually lower price as people move up.
I'm a Socialist but not opposed to markets. Enough Carroll Gardens Neighborhood Association meetings will make you a Republican pretty quick. I think the Phil Ochs gem is important to remember "I cried when they shot Martin Luther, but that Goddamn Malcolm X got what he deserved, love me, love me, love me, I'm a Liberal".
Posted by: Anonymous at July 3, 2007 3:52 PM
Rocco's comment shows he has bought into the paranoid fantasys about what "could" be built, about to be built or some evil "developer" could possibly profit from. And, the minor "fact" that there are no three story buildings on that block eludes him as well.
And the politics of 800 "signatures" on an on line petition. Wow, where to begin. Bill D's constituency is maybe 200,000. And, not for nothing the City must make decisions for 8,000,000. Thats one thing that makes NYC great, that the NIMBYs can't run the show here like in the suburbs, or at least they couldn't historically.
And, anonymous 11:41, the downzoning NIMBYs regularly cite the debate on the blogs as a reason to downzone. They say "look at the blogs" and expect you to look at the ones they read. Debate in this case equals echo chamber. The Carroll Gardens Neighborhood Association, the epicenter of NIMBYs and BANANAs in in the are has held about five hours of one sided jihad on downzoning, Bill D has been a big player there with Buddy Scotto, the Godfather of Downzoning.
They are pumping up the NIMBY/BANANA nexus. It is meant to give Bill D cred for his run for Borough Prez after Marty terms out.
Any lower density for a parking lot above a transit stop cheats the rest of New York out of housing and tax base. This is an entirely appropriate density. The abutters bought property price discounted as a function of proximity to the trash strewn open lot. It could have been built upon years ago but wasn't. Now it is. It is going to be built and the developer is the same man behind the Yeshiva next door, so what I think he is poised to become a stake holder in the neighborhood. Welcome to him.
And housing is housing, "affordable" or not. Each unit fills a demand at a price and frees up another unit at another, usually lower price as people move up.
I'm a Socialist but not opposed to markets. Enough Carroll Gardens Neighborhood Association meetings will make you a Republican pretty quick. I think the Phil Ochs gem is important to remember "I cried when they shot Martin Luther, but that Goddamn Malcolm X got what he deserved, love me, love me, love me, I'm a Liberal".
Posted by: Nicolo Macchiavelli at July 3, 2007 3:53 PM
Buddy Scotto is a selective godfather of downzoning. His daughter was one of the developers of the building on Rapeleye and the BQE which looks like it is seven stories or more. Bill D and Buddy couldn't give a rat's patoutie about high density development east of Hoyt even though the same architect is currently involved in at least two projects around the canal.
It is all just political lip service. By targeting Scarano (which is a good thing provided it is effective) Bill D. gets to look like a good guy. However, make no mistake - Bill D. is not opposed to large scale development in CG and he will talk up an affordability component to make it more palatable.
Check out who the players are in the IND.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 3, 2007 4:22 PM
Wow! I guess a few squirrels lawfully voicing their dissent have really got your knickers in a twist, Nicolo!
Posted by: Rocky Ferrarro at July 3, 2007 4:25 PM
A few privileged squirrels who have monopolized all the best trees and don't want anything to change do not speak for us. Screw those Not In My Treetop assh*les.
Garbage is good for squirrels. Pizza crusts, dropped pretzels, open garbage cans. Screw trees, I'd chop down every one of them for the chance to eat one open bag of potato chips.
More people, more garbage, more body fat, more young surviving the winter, go go go Scarano!!!
Posted by: Squirrels for Carroll Gardens Development at July 3, 2007 4:39 PM
Rocky just doesn't get it. His organization is not asking for a legal loophole to be closed, they 'are asking for a revision of the zoning code. They are insinuating the original legislatures who enacted the zoning law didn't understand what "wide street" meant. I mean seriously the zoning code for this district indicates a narrow street is less than 100 feet. Seriously, 100 feet? How can anyone possibly think that refers to the width of the roadway? I bet Atlantic Avenue isn't even 100 feet from curb to curb.'
Erixymachus, I fear you are in need of a little real estate education.
Lots typically extend to the sidewalk - ergo, the sidewalk is considered part of the width of the street. On the 'garden' blocks of CG, the sidewalk AND and front yard is considered part of the street (catch the neat distinction there?). There are LOTS of wide streets in the neighborhood - Court Street, 3rd Street, 4th Avenue to name just a few. These streets can and should be rightfully developed as wide streets. The present zoning resolution went into effect in the 1960's, and this was an easement granted in the 1840's. Clearly these streets are not 'wide' streets as intended by those who wrote the zoning
Posted by: Anonymous at July 3, 2007 6:59 PM
Rocky,
Do you know that many of the four stoy brownstones with basements are already over 50 feet not counting their stairbulkheads. I believe that a 60 foot wall on smith and second with a 10 foot setback on both streets then up to 70 feet will not feel that out of scale as the 120 foot buildings on 4th ave do to their 40 to 50 foot neighbors on the side streets.
As far as Buddy is concerned he is a vocal supporter of Scarano's projects since they have worked together for years.
I also understand that the plaza will be planted on 2nd place like the rest of the block is now and at least 12 street trees will be planted along the entire frontage.
The small animal thing was not cute since squirrels do not belong on trees on smith street anyway. Way to dangerous.
Do not live in the past and welcome the change that will anchor this end of the gardens so new blood will come in now that we let all of our own children get pushed out by making hugh profits selling our grandmothers brownstones to yuppy scum.
Smith Street needs a Southern anchor and maybe convincing the developer to put in a real community meeting space in the building would be a more realistic goal than harassing him to scale back one or two floors.
Wars are never a good thing for either side and there is always the colateral damage one does not anticipate.
Act as a leader and others will follow. Set realistic goals that do not destroy peoples lives or reputations. That is a true leader!
Posted by: The Shadow at July 3, 2007 7:17 PM
Wow, who sent the goons out to plaster the boards with their pro-development drivel today? Is it all the same poster?
Posted by: Anonymous at July 3, 2007 7:22 PM
"The Shadow"
Thanks Bob (Scarano) for your input into your own project.
Happy July 4th!
Posted by: who casts the shadow? at July 3, 2007 8:48 PM
7:22,
Why would anyone want to participate on a homogeneous and monolithic blog where everyone thought the same and agreed on every issue?
This brownstoner.com and not low-scale.com or anti-development.com. As a brownstoner poster from the site's inception I can tell you that posters on this board are very diverse. We have people of every ethnic, racial, social and economic background on this blog. We have renters, homeowners, brokers, architects, contactors and developers. We have "good" guys and "bad" guys. We have advocates for affordable housing and advocates for instant gentrification. We have traditionalists and modernists. We have preservationists and progressives. We have AY opponents and AY proponents. We have low scale advocates and high density advocates. We have those who are anti-development and those who are pro-development.
In short, WE HAVE IT ALL.
The sooner that bloggers on this board accept the fact that brownstoner covers a broad universe of people and opinions the sooner we can have civil and constructive discussions about the pertinent issues which affect us all.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 3, 2007 9:17 PM
Okay so stop the talk about the building height already and let's talk about building density....Do you really believe that this tiny Second Place block is meant for 46 new units? Give me a break!
Mr. Stein who supoosedly "LOVES, LOVES, LOVES!!" the neighborhood has said himself that he has created some "extra units" (more desity) because the MTA is charging him extra to be overseen by the agency so he needs to make up the difference....ka-ching ka-ching "How do I love thee? Let me count the ways"...
In other words, Mr. Stein's love affair with Carroll Gardens is kind of like the way a guy might think of a "starter wife", not a long term partenrship. In other words, sooner or later, he will surely find "another brighter love" elsewhere, maybe near one of you!
BTW, Mr. Stein also said he was not "married" to Mr. Scarano, which is not "news" in the sense that it means anything one way or another. However the role of the MTA must be considered here, and profits are certainly being shared by more than one or two or even three parties as is obvious by the financers of this 360 Smith Street project who have their own motives, clearly! No one seems to be talking about them. I wonder why?
Now, there are not even 40 houses on that Second Place block. Most of you have no idea of what you are talking about (and would be in litigation ASAP if you were in that unfortunate boat you call "the community") but few if any of you would be so dumb as to live anyplace for life and commit all your resources there as "community" does not exist in your vocabulary.
So you say loudly, "AS OF RIGHT" is the "letter of the law" and any developer with any plan as per "AS OF RIGHT" is just plain right. Now if the residents all get up and move away and the community no longer exists then you call that "white flight". If the residents challenge "As of Right" as being flawed or even N/A any longer you scream: AS OF RIGHT IS THE LAW SO GET OVER IT YOU NIMBY.
The only way a rich man such as Mr. Stein will ever be a part of any community he loves (the same he "loves" Varroll Gardens) is to build a big building and live in the penthouse all the while infuriating his neighbors.
Wow. What Love! Has anybody (including the developer or the architect) ever thought about the electric sytem/water system/traffic/general conjestion/school sytem/hospital near by and a host of other "community concerns" that are reasonable concerns of any community? I forgot, you guys think there is no such thing as community so I guess you must unmoved by the cry that AS OF RIGHT gives no one the slightest responsiblity to consider the impact or consequences of building on a "place" (let's not even call it a community as that seems like such a loaded term here)....let's just call it the "zone of approximate others" for the sake of argument and say that this "zone"
1) does exist
2) deos have rights to reasonable enjoyment of their homes
3) does pay taxes to get many of the services listed above
4) does have a deep, vested interest as a group in the immediate neighborhood.
To think otherwise is the think in kind of anarchy that many developers are now enjoying here in Brooklyn and elsewhere these days due to several factors but mostly greed, plain and simple. Greed on multiple levels.
But I know that "g-word" is a taboo one here as we are all entitled to as much as we want and when we want it as long as have got the bucks so I guess I should move to where you all are hiding out:
all holed up in some "secret" zone with your generators and canned goods someplace deep in Brooklyn hoping the developers do not catch on how nice it is by you.....
Posted by: Anonymous at July 6, 2007 9:38 AM
I can't believe these idiots are bitching about the design of the Hannah Senesh school as well. What jerks. We desperately need more classroom space in Brooklyn. I'd have been happy if they added three more stories to Senesh. It's the only new school that's been built in the area in who knows how long.
They might have an argument against Scarano but this just makes them seem like they will complain about anything and everything new.
Posted by: a at July 6, 2007 11:33 AM
Hannah Senesh is a private Jewish school. It will open thios fall I believe. That's not the same things as building more classrooms for the general community which desperately needs them. Most people's kids go to public school because they can not afford private school. The Hannah Senesh building used to be a lower, red brick building occupied by the Department of Education (formerly the Board of Education). I know because I worked in that building for many, many years. Now it's taller, private, and defintiely not red brick or anything like it.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 6, 2007 12:17 PM
(This is the one without typos, sorry for the second post). Hannah Senesh is a private Jewish school. It will open this fall I believe. That's not the same thing at all as building more classrooms for the general community which so desperately needs them. Most people's kids go to public school because they can not afford private school. The Hannah Senesh building used to be a lower, red brick building occupied by the Department of Education (formerly the Board of Education). I know because I worked in that building for many, many years. Now it's taller, private, and defintiely not red brick or anything like it.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 6, 2007 12:20 PM
Anonymous,
What's your point? To provide benefit to the broader community all new schools must be red brick? Or small? Or public?
We might send our kids to Hannah Senesh when they are a bit older. If Hannah Senesh didn't exist or didn't have the space, then my kids would occupy crowded classroom space at a local public school.
New private schools, red brick or otherwise, are an important part of the school over-crowding solution. New private schools have the potential to be built faster and with far less bureaucracy than new public schools. So, I'm perfectly happy to see new private schools opening up (even though we can barely afford them ourselves).
Should we have excellent, well-funded, high-quality public schools too? Yes.
Should we also be happy to see a new school opening up on Smith Street. Definitely.
Posted by: a at July 6, 2007 1:30 PM
the stupidity continues
Posted by: Anonymous at July 6, 2007 6:40 PM
Look it's one thing to call Hannah Senesh a "community" facility. Fine, if you want to go that way. But then don't turn around and use that "community facility" argument to beef up the size of your "As Of Right" building on the adjoing property. That's trying to have it both ways and it reeks.
And don't conduct underhanded (and illegal)construction practice on Hannah Senesh and expect people not to notice.
And don't call Second Place "wide" because of the Front Gardens and then say you love the neighborhood.
Go look for yourself: only one car at a time can go up Second Place; there are not even any trucks allowed to go up the street due to an earlier incident. Surely the developer and the architect drove up that block once.
I blame the developer, Billy Stein. If the developer had come to the community with actual drawings earlier, this might have proceeded better. Instead he hid behind a person or two in CG he called the "community" and called that a "public" discussion. The neighborhood in general for it's part, was glad that the school was finally finished and breathing a sigh of collective relief over that construction phase being over, when the bombshell was "leaked" to the public that the 46 unit/70' building was coming.
No one has given the public a shred of hard info on the project before that or since that day claiming "as of right" and the plans are "not available" yet downtown (despite their approvals) for any other architect to view. It is obvious that major games are being played here.
To date the public has not seen ONE! actual sketch from the devloper. Is there any wonder they are pissed off?
I totally blame the developer here and his choice of architect did not help matters at all, as it only brought him all the bad press that the Scarano name carries with it at present, not to mention the on-going State and City investigations.
Calling the neighborhood of Carroll Gardens "idiots" is actually rather humorous.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 7, 2007 10:09 AM
Maybe the developer knows that nothing he would do to change his development will ever satisfy people who are simply opposed to density while living in the most dense city in NYC. Following the pattern of the opponents of Atlantic Yards negotiation is simply futile. I understand he already changed his choice of materials to satisfy the community complaints. And the opposition continues. The NIMBYs and BANANAs are being played by the politicians who know this project is going forward but want to put on a show of opposition for their own electoral purposes. Go ahead fight to change the zoning, I'll fight to have it remain the same. Good luck. I just want to get the improvements I have planned to my building underway before the City caves to the NIMBYs and takes away the rights I bought and paid for to build to R6 limits.
Posted by: Niccolo Machiavelli at July 7, 2007 8:27 PM
Maybe the developer is just being shrewd; what a surprise that would be.
Good luck trying to equate 360 Smith Street overdevelopment with Atlantic Yards, NIMBYS and BABANAS.
Over here in Carroll Gardens we like to call ourselves other names. But we have the good sense and the class to keep them to ourselves.
Posted by: Anthony Giardini at July 7, 2007 9:08 PM
Maybe the developer is just being shrewd; what a surprise that would be.
Good luck trying to equate 360 Smith Street overdevelopment with Atlantic Yards, NIMBYS and BABANAS.
Over here in Carroll Gardens we like to call ourselves other names. But we have the good sense and the class to keep them to ourselves.
Posted by: Anthony G. at July 7, 2007 9:09 PM
Why not get off the bashing Scarano band wagon for five minutes and look at the fact that NO ACTUAL ACTIONS were taken against him as a result of his design work while his office continues to win Local, State and National awards for their projects.
And the most important fact, THEY ARE NOT CONTRACTORS and are not now or ever were responsible for actions of the General Contractors at his sites.
Believe politicians and you deserve what you get from them, Nothing.
Take a chill pill already and look before you leap.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 8, 2007 11:19 PM
Everyone already knows the only person actually bashing Scarano is Bill d.B. and his crew. No one in the nabe cares.
They just want a smaller, more contextual building, that's all!
Why is everyone calling reasonable people "idiots" and idiots "reasonable"? Where I come from it is so easy to tell the difference.
Posted by: Still living in Carroll Gardens at July 11, 2007 11:36 PM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.