Man on the Street: Carroll Gardens Development

70 *stories*?? I sure hope that's just a typo...

Posted by: guest at September 13, 2007 10:18 AM

"I think developers are the worst people in the world, but since I’m an architect, I have to try to work with them all the time."

Such a bizarre thing to say. I mean if there's no developers there's no architects right?

Posted by: guest at September 13, 2007 10:55 AM

Its always funny to read comments of long time residents who with some reluctance welcome the new development. What they should of asked was how "Dimitri; has lived in Carroll Gardens for 18 years" felt about development 5, 10, 15 year ago. Carrol Gardens wasn't always "homey and like a good place to raise a family".

Brooklynites (meaning those born in BK) know that the city will always change, and for that matter all New Yorkers. Italians in, Irish out. Jews out, Blacks in. Puerto Ricans out, Yuppies in. I would suggest to the newcomers to get used to the change or go back to the Midwest.

My brother-in-law's family are generations old to the neighborhood. They always say the same thing about change in Brooklyn, "The good ones always stay."

Posted by: guest at September 13, 2007 10:58 AM

"super-tall buildings would super-suck"

Posted by: guest at September 13, 2007 11:00 AM

if developers are the worst people in the world, the world much have solved of its real problems while i wasn't paying attention.

kudos world!!

Posted by: guest at September 13, 2007 11:07 AM

I think one thing no one has mentioned about the site at 360 Court is the adjacent parking lot. The parking situation is getting worse and worse in Brooklyn in general. While I don't think cars are really a necessity in the city and it would be better if less of us had them, sometimes, there are legitimate needs for them.
My worry is that taking this very large lot out of the mix would really affect the parking situation.

Brooklyn is a special place and we need to thing long and hard as a community about whether we want to change it's very nature and character with large, out of context developments like AY as well as with smaller out of context buildings. The question is, do we want Brooklyn to look like any other city in America, or do we work to preserve its historic character?

Posted by: guest at September 13, 2007 11:07 AM

If I may say so, CG has always been "homey and like a good place to raise a family". I've lived here for 50 years, and it has always been one of the more stable neighborhoods in Brooklyn and a great place, indeed, to raise a family. Most of my long-time neighbors would agree. Did you see the four-page spread in the Sunday Daily News last month -- which only reinforces what I've said above.

Regarding the loss of the parking lot at 360 Smith, I agree. This will be the second lot we've lost to development, the first being on the corner of Smith & President, where the current (Eckerd) Rite Aid is located. While a car is not an absolute necessity for everyone here (I don't have a car myself), parking lots are an important amenity, especially with alternate side parking rules four days a week on some streets.

My two cents :)

Posted by: guest at September 13, 2007 11:35 AM

I don't think your survey was very representative because everyone was against the proposed building, and there are people like myself who don't object to it. Personally, I think to call a 70 ft, 7-story building "super tall" or a "tower" is ridiculous, and it's next to other 50 ft. 5-story buildings, so in camparison, it's not that out of scale.

Where were all the anti-development people in Carroll Gardens when the Atlantic Yards or The Ikea were being planned? Where was their outrage then? I bet that most of them were actually in favor of those two developments because they will bring services near them, but not too close. Did they seriously think that once projects like AY were approved, that development would stop there?

In my opinion, it's just a case of NIMBY-ism over a relatively minor project, and there are plenty of other more important problems in the world to get upset about than this.

Posted by: guest at September 13, 2007 3:40 PM

Yes 3:40 but in this case this particular building is being used to scare the neighbors into downzoning the balance of the neighborhood. This poll, like most polls, is really an opinion piece with mathematics. Only this poll lets itself off the hook by saying in a self-deprecating way that is was a "highly unscientific survey" then goes on to make all sorts of conclusions based on its unscientific character. Lets see what questions were asked and how the sample was draw.

I'm a lifer in this neighborhood and it if fun to watch all the back and forth about the old days and whether they were good or bad. There is a lot of selective memory. One thing is clear here, property values are rising quickly, so are rents. What is unusual is to see the beneficiaries of that inflation, the property owners, bellowing how we need to "save the neighborhood". Even worse are those that think that keeping development out will somehow create affordable housing while simultaneously restricting the supply of new housing.

Now if you do a survey asking different questions you will likely get different results. Are you in favor of higher rents in this neighborhood? Do your kids want to rent a place here? Should empty space be turned into housing? Do you want to sell your house under the same zoning rules you bought it under? Are you in favor of decreasing the value of your house?

Seventy feet is nothing to be afraid of, my favorite buildings in this neighborhood, The Towers between Hicks and Henry, are this height, bulk and density. They were built for workers over a century ago. How can the same size building have become out of context?

This neighborhood is strong enough that its character will remain in tact squeezing a few more neighbors in. In fact, a lot of what makes this neighborhood great, small artisan bakers, butchers and candlestick makers, will be much better off with more customers within walking distance.

The neighbors should accept this builder and work on issues that could actually make a difference to them during the construction in stead of opposing every new brick that is laid. That parking lot and the transit stop is full of rats. Work on rat abatement during the construction phase. Thats something both the builder and the community should get behind. Work on traffic calming during the construction phase, maybe the community will learn how important it is to quality of life.

None of that stuff is the responsibility of the builder, but this guy would be responsive to that. He wants to build a good building. But he paid a market rate for the property based on the R6. Turning it into an R5 at this point would not be in my mind fair. Likewise for the rest of the neighborhood. The moratorium is complete nonsense and the community shouldn't let it pass as a political campaign issue for Borough President. There are more important fish to fry.

Posted by: guest at September 13, 2007 8:19 PM

I think Agness would be much hotter if she actually worked as an Architect like her parents paid for her eductaion to do instead of continuing to be an air headed escort service chic.

Caroll gardens needs some new people based on this pole.

Bring on the new building at 360 and stop the madness of public place.

Putting mothers and infants on such a contaminated site. I guess Bloomberg with do anything for money.

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 2:50 AM

I am not at all reluctant about new development in brownstone Brooklyn. I think a taller building at 360 Smith would look great, if it is well designed. That section of Smith is dreadfully boring now and it could use some sprucing up for sure. And, since you asked, 15 years ago Smith Street was a scary dark hell-hole; we used to dash towards the safer Court Street, if we ever wound up getting off the F-train after dark. I would've loved to see Smith Street "developed" back then and I am thrilled that it became a bustling commercial center it is now.
And, for the record, I haven't lived in Carroll Gardens for 18 years, as many of you so thoughtfully pointed out. I've lived in Park Slope, Cobble Hill, Gowanus and Prospect Heights since 1991. Dimitry

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 8:48 AM

Poor Dimitry must have been chased by gentrification from neighborhood to neighborhood. Downzoning will get rid of him for good, he'll never be able to afford it here. Go away, try East New York, lots of good "context" out there.

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 11:24 AM

I loved the oriental architect who lives in Bed-Stuy and hates her clients. What a joke.

She can't afford to live in a neighborhood like Carroll Gardens because all the rich fucks restrict the supply of new housing. So instead, she moves to the ghetto and commutes and/or drives miles to her "favorite" neighborhood.

How, pray tell, would ANYONE find this normal?

Seriously, at times, New York City makes me feel like I am in a world gone mad.

Posted by: guest at September 15, 2007 6:10 PM

OK, the comment about me on the 14th was obviously written by a bitter dimwit, from the sound of it somewhere in the 19-22 age range. But come on! The "guest" on the 15th is a clearly so bigoted and disatisfied with life in our great city that he feels the need to insult Agnes by calling her an "oriental" and her neighborhood by calling it a "ghetto!" BedStuy is a fun neighborhood with some great housing options and lots of great food, and it's really a hop, skip and a jump from Carroll Gardens and surrounding neighborhoods. One of the beautiful aspects of our lives here is that it's so easy to, and so fun, to have breakfast in Washington Heights, lunch in Astoria and dinner in Park Slope all in one day. Want to check out the "world gone mad?" Try living in Boston or Philadelphia. But I suggest that you get on your bike and take a 15 minute ride to BedStuy and see what it's really like. Enjoy! Dimitry

Posted by: guest at September 16, 2007 3:07 PM

Carroll Gardeners get what they deserve. That's it.

Posted by: guest at September 16, 2007 11:46 PM

To all the overworked people full of piss and vinegar that just like to hate on others:

If you have ever worked with developers they are usually cheap sexist Jews who don't respect women to begin with so I do see what Agnes is saying....also they don't care about the preservation of a neighborhoods or historical value they just look at an empty lot or abandoned building as an opportunity to make a buck.

Posted by: guest at November 19, 2007 5:15 PM

can't we all just get along? if developers and architects cared for a neighborhood listened to what the neighborhood needs, and built in response, everyone wins in the long run.

Posted by: guest at November 19, 2007 9:48 PM

to the people who are offended by the statement about developers - get a life!! Developers get their reputation for a reason and ignorant comments against "the oriental" are unwarranted and pathetic. GET A LIFE, FOLKS.

Posted by: guest at November 19, 2007 11:25 PM

Hi bob, how's that golden parachute these days? How do you sleep at night? Enjoying those audits? A business model built on destroying neighborhoods is not sustainable.
-you're ex-employee and a friend of the "air headed escort service chic"

Posted by: guest at November 20, 2007 9:19 AM

I think anyone who responded to the quotes on a personal level is an idiot. Those were benign generalizations. If you have nothing better to do than to lambast comments and make other people waste their time by responding to them too, you are obviously a very unhappy person and a loser in life too.

Posted by: guest at November 20, 2007 10:08 AM

Going back to the issue of architects vs. developers. You can have architects without developers. They're not always synonymous. Alot of indigenous architecture was created without developers; private dwellings are created by architects without the inclusion of developers, etc.

My quote was cut and pasted. Developers can be one of the more evil people in the world when they rip up neighborhoods, displace people, and try to maximize their profit at the cost of quality of living. If this is new concept to anyone, I would accuse that person of a rare and brash ignorance. And yes, there are worse things in the world. But taking it to another level...waging wars, for example, aren't they often times simply a grand scale of developing and territorialism? Historic preservation is there to protect those neighborhoods which need to be protected. Buildings cannot speak for themselves, and developers are often times too active in seeking to destroy these neighborhoods for personal gain.

However, in the adverse, which I also stated but which was not included, I do believe that developers are helpful in raising the quality of life too. Whole neighborhoods are restored and made active again. Small economies are made viable due to the resurgence of certain neighborhoods. Crime goes down, commodification goes up, and a neighborhood's general well-being is cultivated.

I was not familiar with this site, like I had already stated. However, now that I am a little more familiar with it, I would have to say that I'm still pretty ambivalent about the development. As you can see from the statement from the people who are actually local to CG, they're not too happy about it. Ultimately, it's a fine balance between impacting too much on the present condition of the site versus impacting too little for the future gain of the neighborhood. I'm still not sure in this particular situation but that's really what the developers should be figuring out in detailed discussion, along with how much they're going to get in the bank. Agnes.

Posted by: guest at November 20, 2007 11:42 AM