Clarett Says It'll Cap 340 Court Height

Maybe the Forte isn't selling so well and Clarett has read the writing on the wall about the condo glut. I am happy they are recognizing the need for family size apartments.

I guess this delay could put a bit of a damper on the Toll Brothers and Public Place projects.

Posted by: guest at November 16, 2007 9:17 AM

how much will be set aside for affordable housing?

Posted by: guest at November 16, 2007 10:02 AM

You NIMBYs crack me up. But of unemployed/under employed busy bodies. Ignorance is bliss.

Posted by: guest at November 16, 2007 10:07 AM

One of the most significant reforms that could me made to NYC politics would be the elimination of the community boards. They are counter-productive, and serve as nothing more than platforms for political hacks-in-training, and allies of already established political hacks like Joan Millman. This issue provides a perfect example.

The CB's and political hacks posture day and night about the need for more "affordable" housing, yet here they constrict the supply of new units, which contributes to higher pricing. They are proud of the fact that they pressured the developer to cut down the building size by more than 50%, even though he had the legal right to build to 21 stories. They are economically ignorant.

They also add to the cost of housing by slowing down the approval process, even in cases like this where the builder could build as of right. They have no concern that this delay only adds to the "soft cost" of a project. Once again, though, they will expend so much hot air on the need for "affordable" housing.

These hacks will also posture day and night about the need for "eco-friendly" policies. Yet here you have a situation where a developer wanted to put up a reasonably dense building in a central district well-served by mass transit. This is exactly what you want to discourage an over-dependence on automobiles. Such a bunch of know-nothing political hacks.

Eliminate the CB's. Stop the soviet-style government interference in the housing market.

Benson

Posted by: guest at November 16, 2007 10:14 AM

please make these 100% artist housing
we are entitled to live in the brooklyn we created

Posted by: guest at November 16, 2007 10:16 AM

Although they may have been able to build 21 stories as of right - from what I read - it never would have made sense and they never proposed such a building. Since the sq footage is limited - 21 floors would be a sliver building small footprint. More economically feasiable to fill the building lot and keep shorter.

Posted by: guest at November 16, 2007 10:16 AM

tall buildings scare me boo hoo

Posted by: guest at November 16, 2007 10:34 AM

I agree with Benson but what are you and others going to do about it other than come onto these blogs to complain about it.

You should attend these CB meetings and communicate with your representatives as the NIMBYs often do.

Posted by: guest at November 16, 2007 10:57 AM

G man;

Nice try. I especially like how you make all sort of assumptions and statements on behalf of the developer. Some points:

-Suurreee, I believe that a building's size can be cut down from 21 stories to 6 stories without affecting its FAR. I'll have some of what your'e smoking.

-I am glad to see that you "know" that the developer is not upset. I'm also glad to see that "know" the economics of his construction costs.

-I think the most telling comment you made was the ususal blather about "stakeholders". This goes to the essence about my comment about the soviet-type system you apparently support. What "stakeholders"??? Do you believe in private property??? This company purchased this property with their own money, and yet were not able to build what they were legally to entitled to, due to the pressure from these political hacks, whom you called "stakeholders". What skin did they put in this game?? Who the hell are they to stop somebody from developing their property in full compliance with the law??? Their behaviour is downright thuggish. If they don't like the zoning laws, work to have them changed. In the meantime, obey the law, and let private property be.

Benson

Posted by: guest at November 16, 2007 11:51 AM

Again - any building 'as of right' can't be blocked by Community Board. And from what I read, this didn't happen here.
Secondly, I do not see in the article - that a 21 stroy building was ever proposed or was ever the desire of the developer. Only that the height limit would have been about that.
There is no indication in the article that developer is building less sq footage than the law permits him to do.
So, without further knowledge, I don't read anything that indicates more housing could have been built. Only the shape of the building MIGHT have been different.

Posted by: guest at November 16, 2007 12:02 PM

12.02;

Are you reading the same article I am?? It specifically states that the developer "compromised". Why did the developer need to "compromise" if he could build "as of right"? Because of political pressure from the thuggish NIMBY's, CB and political hacks, that's why.

As I said to G Man,if you believe that a building envelope can be cut from 21 stories to 6 stories on a small lot and not affect FAR, I'll have some of what you're smoking.

Benson

Posted by: guest at November 16, 2007 12:15 PM

Benson, you are the stupidest f@cking guy on the planet.

You also clearly know absolutely nothing about the neighborhood . . . carroll gardens a "central district"? Developers being shackled? What Brooklyn have you been looking at for the past several years?

Get a copy of the the Zoning Handbook for less than $30 from city planning. There are two options in an R-6 zoning area; build up, or build "quality housing" which is lower in height but at greater density. Once you've read the book, come back and maybe we can have a conversation.

BTW, there are lots of pictures, so even you can understand it.

Posted by: guest at November 16, 2007 12:15 PM

12.15 PM;

Thank you for the rational discussion.

I've been looking at a Brooklyn where only luxury condos can be built by developers. The reason is that the cost of construction is driven up by the thuggish NIMBY's ( as your post demonstrates) and political hacks, such that they can only make a return on luxury condos. The irony is that the thuggish NIMBY's and political hacks then expend alot of hot air on the need for "affordable" housing.

If I look at a map of Brooklyn, Carroll Gardens IS a central district, and perfectly suited for further residential development, especially along Court Street. It is less than a mile from downtown Brooklyn, and a 15 minute train ride from downtown Manhattan.

Where do you propose that increased residential development take place in Brooklyn? What is your definition of a central residential district: Canarsie?

Once again, I appreciate your rational discussion.

Benson

Posted by: guest at November 16, 2007 12:29 PM

Thuggish NIMBYs! That's the funniest damn thing I've heard all week.

Planet Benson must have a very oxygen-poor atmosphere.

Posted by: guest at November 16, 2007 12:44 PM

G man;

Are you associated with Joan Millman? How is that you have regular interactions with the developer? How is it that you know the exact square footage of this lot? I believe that you have a role in this issue that you are not fully disclosing.

Also, with regard to the lot size: I believe that this is the size of the entire lot, which includes that portion on which the developer wants to build townhouses.

In anticipation of your follow-up question: I have no role in this matter. I live in Park Slope, and have no direct interest in this issue.

Benson

Posted by: guest at November 16, 2007 12:56 PM

Unless someone is going to post the zoning analysis schematics of the new building you are all spinning the wheels of conjecture - otherwise - GO BENSON!!!

Posted by: guest at November 16, 2007 1:05 PM

The article does quote Joan Millman as saying the developer doesn't have to adhere 6 to 7 stories - so they could have a change of heart and build 21 stories and there isn't anything anyone can do to stop them. Joan recognizes this.

Benson, do you live in the downzoned portion of Park Slope?

Posted by: guest at November 16, 2007 1:19 PM

1) The developer never wanted a thin 21 story building on the lot.
2) The developer is most likely using the Quality Housing, bumping the FAR from 2.43 to 3 in exchange for a contextual envelope with height restrictions.
3) There will be no afforable housing requirement unless the city is willing to provide funding to ensure each affordable unit receives some type 'subsidy' to offset the loss in NOI.

Posted by: guest at November 16, 2007 1:19 PM

This 21-story scare was a media produced phenomenon. CG's residents are paranoid so hearing that the lot could support 21 story structure made all the headlines. There's plenty of examples of developers building sliver buildings in R6 zones but no evidence that Clarett was proposing to follow that model.

Clarett has a high profile - it would be extremely unlikely that they jeopardize their position to milk a little extra cash from a tower's views. Listen, CG is already a high priced market to begin with. The target market for this neighborhood wants cute apartments... not 360 degree views.

Posted by: guest at November 16, 2007 1:28 PM

this looks like a very positive move by Clarette group.

Posted by: guest at November 16, 2007 1:36 PM

I am curious about what is going on in this Board. I see a number of posts wherein people are tripping all over themselves to ensure us that the developer was not bullied into making a compromise. The post at 1.28 PMtakes the cake in this regard.

I also see a number of posts of people going out of their way to assure us of just how peachy-keen certain politicians are.

I smell a rat here!!

G-man: in answer to your question as to why I use the word "thuggish", I'll be happy to respond. To demonstrate my point, let me pose a hypothetical situation. Suppose I went into my backyard, and saw my neighbor doing something legal, yet it rubbed me the wrong way - let's take smoking, for instance.
Would it be thuggish of me if I organized a protest against them, and got my local politician to call them about this activity, and then report on it at a meeting of the community board? Wouldn't it be more thuggish if I and/or the politician threatened to interupt their legal economic activity? Sounds ridiculous, right? Well, what the hell is the difference between that hypothetical situation and what we are looking at here. This developer had the LEGAL right to build a 21 story tower. Who the hell are you or any of these other NIMBY's to interfere with that right? Why are our politicians serving as advocates for those who would interupt ANY entity's right to make a LEGAL living?

We have become so used to this thuggish behaviour in NY that we have come to accept it. I don't.

To the person who asked: yes, I live in the downzoned part of Park Slope. So what? I have no problem with communities organizing to be downzoned. That is the political process. That is not what we are dealing with here. Furthermore, I live very close to a tower that is outsized, that was built before the downzoning went into effect. Doesn't bother me.

Benson

Posted by: guest at November 16, 2007 1:50 PM

Benson,

You seem to have a bod combination of not understanding how zoning laws work and having deep "conspiracy theory" issues. People are pointing out that Clarett never proposed to a 21-story tower - because this article makes that assertion, and there is no backup to prove it. People are praising Joan Millman, because in general she seems to be a good representative of the public. It's very easy to paint all developers as greedy bastards and all politicians as incompetent and corrupt, but it's more important to let people know when the developer is actually thinking about how to fit into the neighborhood and when a politician is actually representing the interests of her neighborhood.

It's kind of sad that the only way to be "authentic" is to disparage developers and politicians and anyone who comes to their defense on the few occasions where the negative comments are undeserved gets labeled as a shill or a member of a conspiracy.

And as for your zoning analysis: A 21-story tower would only cover a small portion of this site. That's how a 6-story building that covers most of the site could be as many Square feet as a tower. It's really very simple and you should probably be embarrassed that it needed to be explained to you.

Posted by: guest at November 16, 2007 2:47 PM

My, my, people certainly are touchy.

Thuggish behaviour??? Nahhhh...perish the thought!!!

I'll look forward to further hot air about the "lack of affordable housing" and "getting people off the roads".

Benson

Posted by: guest at November 16, 2007 3:00 PM

Hey, what do ya say we get some newbies together and go beat up Benson.

Posted by: guest at November 16, 2007 4:22 PM

So The Real Deal ran with the Brooklyn Paper's story about a proposed 21 story tower...

Where is the 21-story thing coming from again? I can't find any conclusive statements about a plan to build something like that.

So Millman is fighting against an imaginary demon to advance her standing, Clarett and L&M look like they're shining pilars of compromise, and the CG community gets ammo for a rezoning fight. Uh yeah - talk about the potency of irrational fear.

Posted by: guest at November 16, 2007 4:58 PM

What I say to BENSON and all of the other development cowboys is — Look out!!! Its a new day in development of Brooklyn!!!
This is the ultimate example of the free market system working. Clarett is compromising because its good business not because they are such nice guys.
Carroll Gardens has finally started to get its act together and protect its character.
Chalk one one up for the NIMBY Thugs!!!!

Posted by: guest at November 16, 2007 6:30 PM

Seems the result is about the density of the "Towers" over off of Hicks and further down in Brooklyn Heights. Some of the best buildings around maybe 130 years old thats context. And, if he got his FAR and/or more how is it a victory for the NIMBYs. Sounds more like a defeat for the NIMBYs. I think you can see how muddled and blurred the political sides are in the development debate. That you can't decide to apportion either praise or blame for Joan Millman only shows that she is doing her job.

However, merely on eloquence and a reasoned sequence of argument G-Man going away.

Posted by: guest at November 17, 2007 7:12 PM