Size Doesn't Matter on Luquer Street?

I live on the block - right next door, in fact. While I wish the building fit the surroundings a little better (why such a small footprint?), this is not a classic brownstone block. I think everyone here just wants the block to improve, and any new construction should help.

Now if only we could get a little Greenstreets triangle in the intersection between Luquer and Hamilton...

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 10:52 AM

I'm just a guy in the neighborhood who owns a brick townhouse, I want my daughter to be able to afford to stay in the neighborhood, she is an adult living in our home presently. I have aged relatives that want to be able to stay in the neighborhood, too, they are renters. I paid for my house what I paid for my house because it was R6 and could be expanded to accomodate them. If the neighborhood is downzoned and I can't expand rents will be driven up as more rentals come off the market with more condo and coop conversions.

Downzoning is gentrification on steroids. I can't afford the downzoning, all of my money is tied up in the building I presently own. Dowzoning away my value is going to hurt a lot. Buildable Square Footage is an improtant component of property values. When and if the downzoning occurs, I will vote against those who push it, maybe you will vote for them, thats OK with me. 2/3 of the people in this neighborhood are renters and the downzoning will be very tough on them, chase them away over time.

Basically, the downzoning is going to push away new neighbors, which is apparently OK with Chopper and the other NIMBYs, with DeBlasio cheering them on. They apparently are flush enough that tossing away their property values is irrelevant to them and their financial position. Good for them.

Just picking out one thing Mr. Stein said at the CGNA meeting is not particularly productive. He also offered to give up his Chopper and the others through sale of his property (at market rate). They should take him up on it and build whatever they want to.

Sincerely,

Money Grubbing Jerk

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

This is bound to be worthless once AY is done.

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 11:28 AM

Not going to address the zoning intricacies, because I don't claim to be an expert, but a general comment on rentals: The rental situation in the city is so miserable that if next year there were an additional 10% more units available, it would only be a good thing.

Right now, with vacancy in Manhattan at 1 pct., and nearby bklyn probably not much higher, you've got landlords ignoring maintenance, folks doubling and tripling up with strangers, illegal sublets, and on and on.

If the rental market were looser, sure rents might not keep rising, but if landlords actually had to compete for tenants, it would significantly improve everyone's q of l.

Just a guess, but I'll bet there's a net loss of brownstone-style rental units every year as people buy 3 -and 4-family homes and convert them to 1 and 2-family ones.

The only alternative for builders is to max out FAR and other zoning mechanisms.

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 12:08 PM

The comment that carroll gardens will be worthless once AY is done does not make sense. Wouldn't the opposite take place given carroll gardens will be one of the few neighborhoods without giant developments.

Also any development by luquer and the bqe is helpful to that street.

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 2:03 PM

I think the reason is outcry is less on Luquer Street (so far) is partly because between the Public Place deals, the 360 Smith Street deal, and the ILA deal, (all occurring in more visible parts of the nabe) the neighborhood residents just plain can't keep up with all the sudden changes. Not everyone was on blogs a year ago when pictures of these developments started showing up. No one expected so much change in CG such a short time and many people were reading and worrying about AY more than they were perhaps focused on their own back yard. So CG was caught off guard I think. The people on the blogs now loudly crying loudly over their future FAR losses on their brownstones if downzoning happens really take the cake. Why don't we all just build as high as possible and forget the nabe? Or why don't they just file their paperwork already since the protection of any historical neighborhood or intimate neighborhood scale here in CG is clearly not in their own best self-interest?

Posted by: guest at September 14, 2007 9:29 PM

I only want to go a few feet higher than the 50 foot limit but I want to keep my FAR rights as well. I want to add a thousand feet but could add almost 2000 presently under R6, R5 will cut that back some. It won't kill me but it will increase my construction cost substantially as I have to move other things around to get the additional square footage.

Downzoning is not going to stop development in any event. The people who bought the ILA building now that Murder Incorporated let it go paid 24 Million for it. Anyone who thinks that they are going to be stopped by Landmarking or DoB from building economically is naive. The big builders will not be stopped but the down zoning will stop the smaller owner occupants from fully expanding their properties.

If its really a landmark block landmark it and stick to it. But big builders routinely roll over landmarks. My block has a bus route, many buildings already over 50 feet and a couple Fedders places as well. The architectural virginity of my block was lost a long time ago.

Yeah, the downzoning will increase the value per buildable square foot. But losing buildable square footage will decrease the total value of the property. Letting the open spaces be developed in R6 density will save space for other than residential uses. I continue to oppose the down-zoning though the less rabid of the NIMBYs make a few good points.

Posted by: guest at September 15, 2007 10:52 AM

If no one wants to move into high density development, all these ugly buildings, then what is everyone worried about? The stupid developers will stop building them as soon as they realize there is no market. On the other hand, if they make pretty good homes they will be full and the developers will continue to build. Is there another way buildings get built? Or is everyone supposed to move to Jersey?

Posted by: guest at September 15, 2007 10:56 AM

Homeowners who oppose increases in density are selfish. There is NO WAY for the city of New York to expand economically or for our people to have a better standard of living until EVERYONE can afford a decent home. There hasn't been any significant amount of vacant land in this city since the 1950s. The vast majority of housing units in Brooklyn are located in buildings that date from an era when the borough had 1/4 of its current population. Even these rich fools in Carrol Gardens have a hard time understanding they are paying a fortune to live in housing that was developed for the lower middle class.

People who support zoning laws in NYC are the #1 reason the poor and middle class have experienced nothing but a decrease in living standards DESPITE the city booming economically. FIGHT ZONING LAWS - FIGHT THE RICH WHO SEEK TO KEEP YOU DOWN.

Posted by: guest at September 15, 2007 5:56 PM

I'm guessing there isn't as much of an outcry because the block is mostly rentals? There's some old timers on the block, but a lot of the apts are rentals w/out owners on premises. Unlike a lot of the place blocks that are owner occupied buildings.

Posted by: guest at September 16, 2007 2:35 PM

this place on Luquer won't be worth a cupful of your mama's poom poom sauce once AY is built.

Sorry to say it, my friends...wake up and smell the "REALITY." You are being enslaved.

The What

Posted by: guest at September 17, 2007 12:24 AM