« Duane Reade to Anchor Catsimatidis Complex on Myrtle Development Watch: 234 Greene Avenue »
November 13, 2007
A Look at L&M’s Big Plans for Columbia Street
A couple of weeks ago L&M Equities gave its first public presentation about its proposal to build more than 170 units of housing on three sites near Columbia and Warren streets. The biggest building L&M’s planning would be 80-feet tall, require a two-block zoning change, include around 40 affordable housing units, and rise on what is now city-owned land (104-116 Warren Street). (The other two sites in the plan are 75 Columbia Street and 86 Congress Street.) Many local residents are wary of the scale L&M’s proposing. A person who lives on Warren Street, for example, told the Carroll Gardens Courier that the 80-foot height “is so high up—it’s not part of the community.” Think most people who live around Columbia Street feel the same way?
Zoning Change Opposed [Carroll Gardens Courier] GMAP
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/2893
Comments
Picture is 75 Warren St no 75 Columbia St
Posted by: guest at November 13, 2007 12:01 PM
80 feet tall is not a high rise. The surrounding blocks have no context.
These people need to get a life.
Posted by: guest at November 13, 2007 12:13 PM
Sounds like they do have a life and wish to maintain the quality of aforementioned life.
Posted by: guest at November 13, 2007 12:27 PM
Sounds to me like they don't have a life, given that their quality of life will in no way be negatively impacted by vacant lots turning into housing.
Posted by: guest at November 13, 2007 12:35 PM
First of all these are not vacant lots. There are existing buildings that are vacant in all of these locations, some of which are quite beautiful and have historical significance to the waterfront. The problem is not vacant lots being turned into housing but that it is done correctly in a way that is best for the long term vitality of the neighborhood. For example why destroy the existing buildings which could easily be reused or incorporated into the new plans. When the city is essentially giving this land to the developer why is only 20% of the new housing going to be affordable housing and why will this housing become market rate in another 20 years. Why does the affordable housing mostly include studios and one bedrooms. Clearly they are not creating affordable housing aimed towards families who can grow with the neighborhood. Why is all the affordable housing in one building facing the BQE. Why is it 8 stories high when most of the surrounding neighborhood is 4 stories high. Once one person is allowed to build 8 stories then everyone will want to build at least 8 stories. The public schools and subways are already overcrowded. What plans does the city have to alleviate this overcrowding. Will the building provide morning and evening transportation to and from Borough Hall? What about all the beautiful open light in this small section of Brooklyn, which attracted people to the neighborhood as it exists today. This will all be destroyed by selfish myopic developers who will make a mess and leave it for the community to clean up.
Posted by: guest at November 13, 2007 1:42 PM
As a believer in affordable housing, I must say that the questions by 1:42 don't really strike me as all that valid. Why one bedrooms and studios as affordable housing - because the owner doesn't want large families to bother his market rate tenants. Why place the affordable housing on the bad side of the building - because developer isn't going to further reduce his profit by assigning the affordable housing units to the best locations. NYC is going to have more people in it - they can't all be housed in four story townhouses. 8 stories in NYC is hardly a skyscraper. And if the schools are overcrowded then we should build new schools. If there isn't good public transportation we should add more, nto expect developers to create a bunch of vans going back and forth to specific buildings. There is no guarantee of beautiful open light in NYC. Only the endless struggle to balance what is and what can be...
Posted by: Putnamdenizen at November 13, 2007 2:03 PM
1:42, your objections are ridiculous. The schools in Cobble Hill/Carroll Gardens aren't overcrowded- they are half empty. Brooklyn subways are the least crowded of the four main boroughs. Brooklyn has about 250,000 fewer people than 40 years ago.
80 feet will result in a 7 or 8 floor building- hardly inappropriate for this location.
Posted by: guest at November 13, 2007 2:17 PM
If my argument are not valid then why doesn't the city give the land to non-profit developer and have 100% of the development be affordable housing? This way you don't have to worry about families bothering the developers precious luxury tenants and we can keep the size of the building to a more contextual level.
Posted by: guest at November 13, 2007 2:19 PM
2:17 your post is ridiculous and makes me want to hurl in your general direction, because you have no idea what you are talking about if you think the public schools are half empty and that the Brooklyn subways transported more people 40 years ago than they do today.
Posted by: guest at November 13, 2007 2:25 PM
And we don't have to worry about the affordable housing going market rate in 20 years.
Posted by: guest at November 13, 2007 2:26 PM
2:25, feel free to hurl.
There were about 250,000 more people in Brooklyn decades ago. Granted, Brooklyn's population is rising but it will still be twenty years before we surpass our prior population.
Source:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/census/popcur.shtml
As for subway ridership, it was actually MUCH higher in the postwar era (about 8.5 million daily unlinked trips in the 50's, which dropped to about 4.5 million in the early 80's and is up to about 6.5 million daily unlinked trips).
Source:
The MTA website has historical data.
As for schools, the NYC school population is dropping. Overall youth population is growing, but a higher proportion of kids are in private schools (yuppies send their kids to private schools and the Hasidic/Orthodox population is booming).
This whole "overcrowded" crap is a few immigrant neighborhoods and a few high-performing schools. Basically ALL the schools in Brooklyn Heights and Boerum Hill have lots of room, while Cobble Hill and Carroll Gardens (with I think one exception) have room.
Posted by: guest at November 13, 2007 2:49 PM
I heard the developer wanted to put up a really nice row of brick townhouses and that the neighbors decided they'd rather a big building that would wrap around the corner instead of the townhouses and a larger building on one lot. Seems crazy to me. I guess big is better in Carroll Gardens with the NIMBYs.
Posted by: guest at November 13, 2007 3:09 PM
These buildings, as pictured, are not quite lovely. And give me a break, not everything over 50 years old has historical significance.
Posted by: guest at November 13, 2007 3:14 PM
There is a very recently constructed 7 story building a block south of this development
facing BQE (all market rate BTW) and I would guess that several bdlgs on TIffany 2 blocks south are probably pretty close to 80 ft also.
I think bogus argument against the project.
The very high end Arches condo also faces the BQE from other side - so I wouldnt make issue with the subsidized units are in the bldg along Hicks.
Hope the design is better than all the 80's
(subsidized) development nearby.
Posted by: guest at November 13, 2007 3:34 PM
Apropos of absolutely nothing, that corner brick building on Congress and Hicks used to be a factory that made Christmas ornaments. For years, a tubby Santa sat on the roof slowly listing left as the grime of the BQE collected on his red suit. It lent an air of perverse whimsy to what is actually a pretty desolate stretch--see broken glass from smashed car windows and piles of dog poop nobody bothers to clean up.
Posted by: Cobblekrill at November 13, 2007 3:52 PM
Sheesh, developers are really chomping at the bit to build here.
Posted by: guest at November 13, 2007 4:06 PM
The new development would be zoned for PS 29 which is overcrowded.
Posted by: guest at November 13, 2007 4:08 PM
I heard the developers wanted to build one story affordable housing but the people of Cobble Hill said build up and be free!
Posted by: guest at November 13, 2007 4:13 PM
You don't get better views than the Columbia Street Waterfront.
Posted by: guest at November 13, 2007 4:14 PM
Funny, I'm not finding any historical data on the MTA website.
Posted by: guest at November 13, 2007 4:18 PM
Maybe brownstoner should call L & M and get copies of the photos of the plans to post. Then we could see what everybody's talking about. And how many stories is 80' anyway? Also it would be great to see how the other stuff on the block looks. Is it nice or what? Must be run down on that block I'm guessing.
Posted by: guest at November 13, 2007 4:43 PM
The developer is at war with the community. They were practically stoned at the land use meeting. They will never relesase the plans to some blog.
Posted by: guest at November 13, 2007 5:29 PM
I'm not against development. I live a block away from this site.
But, Look at the crap THIS DEVELOPER, L&M, builds:
http://www.lmequity.com/portfolio/index.php?pid=47
I just can't sit here and watch some third rate developer with no desire to match surrounding architecture come in an destroy the place! Show us the plans. If it's even MILDLY tasteful, OK. Otherwise, the city has got to be able to hold out for a worthwhile developer.
Posted by: guest at November 13, 2007 10:10 PM
Perhaps the one glimmer of humor in that link, 10:10, is this bit of doofusism in the listing lingo:
"This seven story property is comprimised of 105 rental apartments and approximately 13,500 square feet of commercial retail space and basement space.."
"Comprimised"?
Nice.
Posted by: guest at November 14, 2007 3:01 AM
Thanks for link to developers website.
Looking through their projects, I find your criticism totally unjustified. Compared to the development in the area done 20 years ago - L&M projects are masterpieces.
Posted by: guest at November 14, 2007 9:06 AM
8 stories is pretty low highrise. Midrise, maybe. I live a few blocks away and am thrilled someone is building here. I am totally confused by the anxiety over the height: like 3:34 said, on the next block is a 7 story building, and in next one after that there are a bunch of 8-9 story buildings...
Posted by: guest at November 14, 2007 1:40 PM
I dont get it. Aren't there 3-4 buildings this height (8-9 stories) on Tiffany Place? Sounds NIMBY to me.
Posted by: guest at November 14, 2007 1:49 PM
The school that this area feeds into is PS 29. My daughter went there -- and it is one of the top schools in the entire borough (http://www.insideschools.org/fs/school_profile.php?id=430). The class sizes are generally around 30 or so per classroom now without an aide.
Second, I pass these buildings daily. They have been boarded up for as long as I can remember and are quite an eye sore. Something should be done about redeveloping the area where the buildings sit -- but a huge building (I thought I had heard that it would 20+ stories) wouldn't work here. The land itself sits about 1 block or so from the water -- and is basically fill. To be structurally sound, the architect should plan something that will not cause the building to crack or settle strangely when it is completed (some people who live in the area will know what I am talking about). Further, current residents in the area should be concerns about disruptions to neighboring buildings, sewers, water, and other infrastructure.
I think there are other issues that go well beyond the criteria you have listed here. Perhaps someone else can fill in what they are...
Posted by: guest at November 15, 2007 3:44 PM
3:34 - that building one block down on kane street is the ugliest eye sore in the whole neighborhood.
Posted by: guest at May 15, 2008 4:27 PM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.