« Weekend Events Food Co-op Planned for Ft. Greene/Clinton Hill? »
December 21, 2007
Burg Downzone in the Works
City Planning is moving forward with a zoning amendment to a 13-block chunk of Williamsburg that was left out of the area’s 2005 rezoning. The amendment will change Grand Street’s zoning between Berry and the BQE from R6 (sky’s the limit) to R6B (max height=50 feet). The city’s been working on the tweak for a while now, and Curbed’s been reporting on how developers have been trying to "beat the downzone” by planning high-rises. The proposal still needs to be OK’d by CB1, the Planning Commission and the City Council.
Grand Street Rezoning [nyc.gov]
City Planning Approves Williamsburg Zoning Amendment [Brooklyn Eagle]
New Williamsburg Tall Building Smackdown Coming [Curbed]
Map from nyc.gov.
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/3299
Comments
we need tall buildings in america to help the freaking environment!!! what the hell is wrong with you suburb loving idiots. to save us from the melt down you space hogging la loving people should learn to live in a city and density.
Posted by: armchairwarrior at December 21, 2007 9:21 AM
This is terrible. WE need more real estate, not less!
Posted by: guest at December 21, 2007 9:38 AM
we're getting tall buildings and plenty of them so what are you whining about. this just rightly preserves a little bit of sky and history.
Posted by: guest at December 21, 2007 10:22 AM
9:38 - this is not a down zoning, its a contextual rezoning. The amount of real estate (as in FAR, or density) is a wash; the only changes are 1) height limits; 2) elimination of density bonuses for community facilties; and 3) implementation of a density bonus for the construction of affordable housing.
The FAR remains pretty much the same, and in some cases goes up a tick or two.
Posted by: WBer at December 21, 2007 10:52 AM
I hate nimbys.
Posted by: guest at December 21, 2007 11:37 AM
Taller buildings provide better quality of life, as it affords greater access to light and air. People should be allowed to construct buildings up to 12 stories high everywhere in the city. Yes, it was probably a good idea to prevent a city filled with equitable buildings, but 12 stories is just not hight enough to turn the city into a dark wasteland. Just look at Manhattan.
Posted by: Polemicist at December 21, 2007 11:43 AM
I don't necessarily disagree, Polemicist, but I do think that the tall buildings you get out of R6 (or other height factor zoning) are bad for the city. That's because there is no minimum street wall requirement, so what you wind up with is a series of "towers in the park", which kill street life. They are a disaster, urbanistically. Most of Manhattan is taller, street-wall buildings, which you can't build under this zoning.
The context in this part of Williamsburg is shorter street-wall buildings with retail at the ground floor; the rezoning will continue that (albeit at a slightly taller scale than what exists now).
Posted by: WBer at December 21, 2007 12:16 PM
I do agree, street wall frontage should be mandatory, as well as retail in areas with a commercial overlay.
Posted by: Polemicist at December 21, 2007 1:41 PM
11:43. Manhattan is a dark wasteland, especially downtown. What I love about Brooklyn is the low density and shorter buildings. If people want skyscrappers, go to Manhattan.
Posted by: guest at December 21, 2007 4:51 PM
A building of this size and density in this location is going to kill a really vibrant neighborhood just to the north of the tower. If any of you nimby haters out there have every even been on Fillmore Place you might understand what will be sacrificed for something crappy. The shadow is going to do as much damage to light and air as a massing of towers as in third avenue in manhattan. Hope this doesn't get built.
Posted by: guest at December 21, 2007 6:21 PM
More supply = more people= more traffic= lower quality of life. Fifty feet seems reasonable. Why is it so offensive to some to have low density neighborhoods!?
Posted by: guest at December 21, 2007 9:46 PM
Wow, the NIMBYs are out in full force! Now they claim that tall buildings somehow impact "light and air". What exactly does that mean?
The planned buildings are no bigger than in the proposed rezoning, but they are taller and thinner, meaning they will bring more light to the street than shorter, squatter buildings.
As for "air", I don't know what that means. They are just parroting NIMBYspeak. Is it more difficult to breathe in proximity to tall buildings? Is air quality better in a neighborhood of short, squat buildings than in a neighborhood of taller, thinner buildings?
Posted by: guest at December 22, 2007 3:49 AM
6:21, if you really believe that low density is better than high density, and more people = decline in quality of life, then why did you choose to move to the densest, most populous city in the country? Makes no sense. Detroit is getting less dense by the minute and its population is declining, so you will likely consider it paradise.
I don't even know why you brought up these viewpoints. The proposed new zoning has nothing to do with density, It will basically allow for the same density but a different building envelope.
Posted by: guest at December 22, 2007 3:53 AM
"Taller buildings provide better quality of life, as it affords greater access to light"
For those on the uppermost floors only.
Posted by: guest at December 23, 2007 1:33 AM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.