Man on the Street: Ready for a Rezone, Sunset Park?

I like this, Brownstoner. Asking residents how they feel on certain topics. Adds some balance to the site.

Posted by: guest at August 23, 2007 9:19 AM

OK....I like this segment a lot.

As someone who grew up in sunset park I have to vent.

The problem here isnt the condos its the problem that folks are buying old limestones digging down 10 feet and having 60 people live in them which is very dangerous and not sanitary.

It is ruining the neighborhood...granted it isnt park slope or anywhere near it but it really needs to be looked at! Who wants to buy a house with 60 people living next door?

I think it is a HUGE issue that needs to be addressed...Condos or no condos.

Posted by: guest at August 23, 2007 9:32 AM

Great to hear what people on the street think - interesting juxtaposition to the blogosphere

Posted by: guest at August 23, 2007 10:01 AM

Not surprisingly the residents of a hood do not wish to see any new developments - hardly insightful. However I do like this new feature. How about asking people something more specific?

Posted by: guest at August 23, 2007 10:10 AM

The same sort of expediency worked its way through the South Slope just recently. There was a lot of hype about stopping all of the over-scaled development and the greedy developers. The down-zoning was passed.

Now, there are those one or two-family homeowners who are now finding out that they won't be allowed to add on that new kitchen addition or guest floor they have always been dreaming of and were told they would be able to build when they originally bought their house x number of years ago. They wonder why they were never informed by the group who pushed through the downzoning about how they were going to be affected personally. The focus of these efforts are placed so much on the developers that the masses of the locals end up blindly following the politically charged leaders.

Note to those leading the push for the down-zoning in Sunset Park: Make sure EVERYBODY knows what the down-zoning means for them. Not just that it will stop the high-rises from being built, but that there will be limitations placed on their own properties or that their buildings may be considered over-built.

Posted by: guest at August 23, 2007 10:16 AM

Re. 10:16, it shouldn't come as too much of a shock for people that a change in zoning might actually affect their own ability to add a kitchen or another story. These changes don't happen overnight, so people could get the new addition started before the zoning goes into effect if they were at all proactive about it.

Posted by: guest at August 23, 2007 10:24 AM

Fourth avenue can handle much taller buildings, large swaths of the four-lane corridor are vastly underdeveloped. sidestreets with brownstones are a completely different story. I hope that the downzoning process takes this into account.

Posted by: guest at August 23, 2007 10:26 AM

i just wish the condos on 4th wernt so ugly

Posted by: guest at August 23, 2007 11:19 AM

RE: Guest 10:24 The South Slope rezoning DID indeed happen overnight (in rezoning terms) It was pushed through at a record speed of under one year.

My point is that the locals were not well informed about the zoning change. All of the focus was on the large developers building the 8-12+ story condos. Most people who own 2 story homes, unless they are specifically told, are not going to assume that they can not add a room on the back of their house.

I'm speaking with some experience as an architect, living in the South Slope neighborhood, and being approached by a few potential clients wanting to do a small addition. They were all shocked that they could no longer do what they wanted. And when they find this out, their opinion of the movement to change the zoning shifts towards the negative side.

And trying to be "proactive" when it comes to undertaking a construction project and dealing with applications to the DOB, doesn't always cut it. Even planning, filing, financing, and constructing a small addition can take well over 1-2 years to undertake...unless you are loaded with cash.

Guest 10:16

Posted by: guest at August 23, 2007 11:31 AM

One of the potential problems with mid-rise construction on 4th Avenue in Sunset Park is that it will effectively PRIVATIZE the spectacular view from Sunset Park. Instead of hundreds of neighborhood residents being able to enjoy a view that encompasses Staten Island, the Statue of Liberty, and the Manhattan skyline all the way to midtown, only those select few with upper floor western facing apartments will have that privilege. I have lived in Sunset Park for 15 years. It is a neighborhood of working class, moderate and middle income folks. Nothing fancy. The great amenity of our neighborhood is our beautiful park, and if chunks of that view are blocked (no doubt it would be in exchange for a paltry number of affordable apartments), it would really be sad.

I'm very bothered by the idea that there's nowhere left in Brooklyn to build new apartments. In my travels throughout Brooklyn, especially in poorer neighborhoods, I see tons of falling down old structures and plenty of still-vacant lots. There's no reason to sacrifice an irreplaceable view of New York harbor, as seen from the second highest point of elevation (the highest is in Greenwood Cemetary), for the sake of the promise of additional housing units.

Posted by: guest at August 23, 2007 11:36 AM

Everyone should visit the Park in Sunset Park and watch a sunset there before jumping to any conclusion. Its one of the best views in all of Brooklyn, and to box it in would be a loss to everyone.
A "view-corridor" rezoning might be a good middle-ground, allowing for taller buildings down near the water where the elevations are lowest.

Posted by: guest at August 23, 2007 12:02 PM

I guess its the nature of the "debate" on development. People are made to be afraid by a very driven process where by a few politicians and community leaders scare people into thinking the community they love is coming to an end. What happened in the "South Slope" really devalued a lot of peoples properties. Those people were not real well educated and sort of taken along for a ride. As is presently going on in Carroll Gardens (though already a much wealthier neighborhood with more "brownstone" housing stock) only one side of the "debate" is being heard. DeBlasio has latched on to the down-zoning to protect his political cred against the anti-Atlantic Yards people. But the people who own the many two-story frame houses in the South Slope really lost an enormous amount of property value in the process. Who benefitted? The owners of the property in the adjoining locations that were upzoned, thats who. Meanwhile the rubes in the neighborhood, voluntarily screwed themselves out of a million or so in property values. I don't blame DeBlasio, he is just another guy who wants to be elected Borough Pres because he is term limited.

I like the feature too, but I in the interest of accuracy I would like to see the actual questions and how they are framed. There is a big response difference regarding down-zoning if you ask "how do you feel about all the big buildings going up around here blocking your view and ruining your parking?" or if you ask "would you like this neighborhood down-zoned so that the rents will be higher and the apartments smaller and your house worth a lot less".

Posted by: guest at August 24, 2007 12:48 AM

i don't trust some of the people making these comments in support of the rezoning. i feel that some of them are actually in cahoots with developers who want to screw-up sunset park with condos, so they pose as residents and try to convince everyone what a great idea rezoning is. comments are great but take them with a grain of salt. i guess that means mine as well. oh well.

Posted by: guest at August 24, 2007 10:34 AM

Guest at 8/24 12:48 AM -- The only side of the debate that you seem to hear is the one with dollar signs. I guess you cannot grasp that to many people their homes and neighborhoods are not pure commodities. They are not looking to convert their properties into dollars. They make their lives in their homes and communities and want these places to retain their character and scale.

In any case, if development continues on 4th Ave., the homes on the side streets will certainly continue to increase in value. I don't see how South Slope home owners are big losers. Yes, they can no longer sell their home as a development site, but that doesn't mean their home has lost value.

By your logic, Park Slope homes should have plummeted in value when that neighborhood was downzoned. Is that what's happened?

Posted by: guest at August 24, 2007 11:13 AM

11:13

"By your logic, Park Slope homes should have plummeted in value when that neighborhood was downzoned. Is that what's happened?"

Not so. Park Slope already had sufficient density when the down zoning went down. There are many six story buildings in Park Slope and even more five story buildings above the limits R6B. Magnificent buildings in fact. And it is not a question of plummeting property values in any event. The density dollars are not all in the pockets of the developers, they are also in the pockets of the tenants whose rent is lowered by the increased available supply. The downzoning is really a formula for astronomical rents for very small apartments in sometimes worn, shoddy frame houses. Improving those properties under the new regs is prohibitively expensive for the small owner occupier who doesn't have the resources or ability to manipulate the system but a piece of cake for the big developer.

Posted by: guest at August 24, 2007 11:34 PM

Guest at 11:34 --
"Park Slope already had sufficient density when downzoning went down."

??? How did you decide that? How did you determine that the density was "sufficient"? Why stop at 5 story buildings?

My guess is that your determination is aesthetic, and therefore not something that can be determined by those laws of supply and demand. Just like the homeowners in the South Slope who didn't want their backyards overshadowed from all sides acted out of aesthetic concerns.

Once again, the point about housing is that it isn't a pure commodity. People are about other things than money -- as hard as it may be for you to believe.

Posted by: guest at August 27, 2007 2:35 PM