« ‘Dead’ Hook: When Gentrification Doesn’t Take Video: Anatomy of a Boiler Part 2 »
November 13, 2007
Five Developers Bid for Public Place Site
Some of the city’s biggest firms are looking to redevelop the contaminated Public Place site in Gowanus, according to an article in the Brooklyn Eagle. The Related Companies, Two Trees Management, Strategic Development with Avalon Bay Communities, the Hudson Companies with Fifth Avenue Committee, and the World-Wide Group all responded to the city’s RFP for the six-acre site off of Smith Street last month. The proposals include 500 to 1,000 units of housing, around 50 percent of which will be affordable. The Public Place is Related’s first attempt at building in Brooklyn, and one of the firm’s associates says redeveloping the site of a former manufactured gas plant would be “no more complicated than any other real estate development project in this city.” How long do you think it'll be until something's actually built here?
Five Developers Vie for Gowanus’ Contaminated Public Place [Brooklyn Eagle]
ISO Private Developer for Public Place [Brownstoner]
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/2900
Comments
"The proposals include 500 to 1,000 units of housing, around 50 percent of which will be affordable."
So whats the standard for "affordable" in this market and that area? Lets see....700K for a 2BR?
; )
Posted by: guest at November 13, 2007 10:07 AM
The site clean was quoted I believe at close to a billion dollars? It amazes me the they would actually put housing there!? Seems awfully irresponsible. Can someone point out a case where site that is as toxic as this has sustained housing without any long term harmfull effects on it's residents? I think the only person really able to do it would be The related group, The Hudson group is a joke and Two Trees would probably try to get rid of the low-middle income portion somehow.
Posted by: guest at November 13, 2007 10:40 AM
Related is as cheap as the next one. The site "clean" will be interpreted differently as we move forward to something more reasonable.
I walked by teh site the other day and it looks like they are doing toxic probes to see what is under there.
Posted by: guest at November 13, 2007 11:20 AM
I am cynical enough to think that it is not particularly shocking that an actual volunteered 50% affordable housing proposal would be on our own little Love Canal.
Whoever does this will have to spend so much money in not only cleaning up the site, but in constant monitoring and testing forever. If they don't, and act as if this is just another piece of land, and there ends up being cancer clusters, birth defects, two headed pets, and glowing plant life, it won't be a surprise. In all seriousness, that is incredibly irresponsible and downright criminal, and shouldn't be allowed to happen. Do we even know how to really clean up sites like this? I mean neutralizing the toxins, not just covering them up? Have the long term effects of living on a "reclaimed" site ever been studied? No one should be a guinea pig for that kind of experiment.
Posted by: Montrose Morris at November 13, 2007 11:26 AM
Certain areas of Brooklyn will never be practical for residential housing. This part of Gowanus is one of them - the canal, the elevated train and the elevated highway all make this inhospitable. - doesnt mean that millions wont be risked and lost trying. See Red Hook post for more of the same.
Posted by: guest at November 13, 2007 11:36 AM
After watching Erin Brokovich I would not knowingly live on a toxic site no matter how much they claim it is safe to do so. That being said, I damn sure will not be patronizing Whole Foods either.
Posted by: guest at November 13, 2007 11:40 AM
I thought the city's recent plans for South Brooklyn had this section of the Gowanus continued to be zoned Industrial?
Posted by: guest at November 13, 2007 12:06 PM
if you are thinking of the industrial business zone, 12:06, that is limited to the west side of the canal south of Huntington St. and on the east side of the canal south of 3rd Street. but city planning has signaled that a good portion of both sides of the canal, outisde of the industrial business zone, will remain manufacturing even after the rezoning.
Posted by: guest at November 13, 2007 12:15 PM
And what the city doesn’t want you to know -- When they give away this publicly held land and change the zoning for this development it will also allow the developer to cash in by developing the adjacent warehouse site you can see in the picture creating more than 1500 units with no real improvements to the infrastructure. Potentially doubling the demand on an already stressed school. Forcing more traffic to a Dilapidated and toxic subway station... Overburdening an already maxed out and frequently flooding sewer system... And aggravating an already problematic traffic and parking situation. True to form the city is Developing without a plan. You can thank Bill deBlasio for loosing his voice on this one.
Posted by: guest at November 13, 2007 12:29 PM
You would have to be an idiot to live on that parcel.
Posted by: guest at November 13, 2007 12:30 PM
My god the alarmism here is comical.
1) They can cap the ground with 20 feet of concrete and build a tower on top of it. Containing environmental contamination is not a big deal. Many parts of Manhattan that were once industrial have been reclaimed as residential. It is not a huge deal.
2) 12:29 post is crazy. No one who buys in such a development is going to put their kids in the same school as kids from the Wycoff and Gowanus Houses. As well, the majority of condo buyers don't have kids (there is reason you don't see many 3-bedroom apartments in new developments). I have no idea what to make of the toxic subway station nonsense.
Parking for at least 50% of the units will be required by zoning. What more of a plan can anyone possibly want?
And the final, most crazy comment - the flooding of the sewer system. Hello, there is a canal right nearby! Unless there is a tsunami, flooding is not going to be an issue.
Posted by: Polemicist at November 13, 2007 1:23 PM
There IS regular flooding in the area during/after heavy rains, especially at the corner of Smith/9th St, which is all too often nearly knee-deep.
Posted by: guest at November 13, 2007 1:45 PM
Dear Polemicist,
Wow. And you call yourself a real estate consultant... But then maybe that’s the problem.
Brooklyn has a far more industrial history than almost any part of Brooklyn. This is a Brownfield the likes of which are almost unparalleled even by Manhattan standards. Of course it can be dealt with but where is if informed plan that makes nearby residents aware of what is about to happen in their lives?
The school district is ps 58. One of the best in Brooklyn. Surely a real estate consultant you wouldn’t be saying that the addition of 1500 units wouldn’t impact the local school system... Or would you?
And the subway... If you like peeling lead paint and delaminating asbestos panels then Smith and Ninth is for you... But clearly you don’t know the hood so I wouldn’t guess you would heve been there.
The Canal is not a Sewer. The overflow from the local sewer system into the canal is well documented. Tons of raw sewage are forced into the canal during rains. Being the real estate expert you claim to be, certainly you can see that the same people who will be buying those expensive condos don’t want to be living on a river of shit.
GET A CLUE AND A NEW GIG.
Love,
12:29
Posted by: guest at November 13, 2007 2:01 PM
Hey Polemicist, I'm with 12:29/2:01
The song and dance for public place is affordable and senior house. Do you think there should be two standards for residents like those paying market rate can send their kids to 58 and those living in affordable will make do with 32? My kids attended elementary school with kids who live in Gowanus and Wycoff and are certainly no worse for wear. As a matter of fact they better for it. And it didn't hurt their ability to attend stellar middle and high schools.
To suggest that new schools aren't needed is naive.
Posted by: guest at November 13, 2007 2:23 PM
Why is it called Public Place?
Posted by: guest at November 13, 2007 4:05 PM
"Public Place" is actually a semi-technical term (not defined in the Zoning Resolution.) I don't remember what it means, but this is not the only "Public Place."
Posted by: g man at November 13, 2007 4:29 PM
What is the suggested alternative to development here? There's been a lot of nothing done for way too long. Cleaning and capping the site is really not that complicated (though I guess Whole Foods got in over their heads). This site would be a great opportunity for a project with a sizeable affordable housing component. Rather than being exploitive of poor and middle income residents it would provide housing near transportation within a reasonable commuting distance. As far as schools the SCA will be spending billions over the next decade or two, why not some of it here? The Subway station at Smith and Ninth is aready slated for renovation as is the overpass itself (to be completed by 2011).
Some have posted that "millions will be risked and lost trying" to develop in areas like this. Others say its a windfall for developers who will be lining their pockets. Which is it? I don't know but with the risks comes reward.
Posted by: HDL at November 13, 2007 4:37 PM
For the record, the Smith/Ninth Street station will be completely rebuilt and reopened by the time anything gets built on this site.
Sewage and flooding are major issues. Toxins are also an issue; however, no one is getting well water in this neighborhood. It's different than Erin Brockovich or A Civil Action. Apples and oranges.
I hope to god that they are not planning on adding parking for half of the units. This ain't the suburbs.
Posted by: guest at November 13, 2007 5:47 PM
If you live on top of this stuff, it will have health consequences. There is no magic concrete cap, there is no magic way to get rid of the contamination.
Well, except one.
Pretend it's not there. Which is exactly what the developers and some people in this thread seem inclined to do.
Posted by: guest at November 13, 2007 6:10 PM
Someone needs to do another Carroll Gardens cancer cluster study.
Posted by: guest at November 13, 2007 7:36 PM
The Brownfield hook is that Keyspan is on the arm for the expense of the abatement. The developer will just cash in. Welcome to the neighborhood.
Posted by: guest at November 13, 2007 8:31 PM
KeySpan, now owned by a British energy conglomerate? I bet they wriggle out of any responsibility.
Posted by: guest at November 13, 2007 8:47 PM
Polemicist believes that flooding will only come with a tsunami--now that is the most inflated statement here.
In recient rain heavy storms, storms that will be typical for the future of this area, the canal floods over it's sides. And when the rain comes down fast, the sewer caps along Bond Street are forced out of their seating by the sewer waters--flooding the streets with sewer content. Lets not forget that this same sewer pipe runs across the Public Place site where regular cleanouts will also need to be located. Lets also not forget that the Ratner project will be keeping their clean rain water and sending millions of gallons of dirty waste down this pipe.
Polemicist shouldn't be so sure that the canal waters and sewage won't overtake this site, unless God has told him so. Will Polemicist be assuming this libality for all? The Developers certainly don't care, the City is on for all the risk here.
Posted by: guest at November 14, 2007 9:44 AM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.