« Officers' Row Preservation Coming to a Contentious Head 270 Greene Avenue: Not a Good Looking Building »
December 7, 2007
Dock Street Protesters: 20% There on Signatures
The public relations piece of the fight over the Dock Street development proposed for Dumbo is in high gear, with protesters braving the cold temps to collect signatures against the mixed-use project. (Whether it's any match for the postcard-mailing campaigns of Walentas & Co. remains to be seen.) What's not to like? Some folks in the area, including the Dumbo Neighborhood Association and the Brooklyn Heights Association, think the proposed building is too big and too close to the Brooklyn Bridge and aren't being won over by the inclusion of 80 affordable units of housing or the potential for a new public middle school. One of the guys with a placard and a noteboard told us they'd collected about 2,000 sigs to date out of the 10,000 they're hoping to get before the ULURP hearings begin.
Dock Street Plans (Marina and All) Go 3D [Brownstoner]
Yassky and Walentas Square Off over Dock Street [Brownstoner]
Two Trees Plans Mixed Use Building Next to Bridge [Brownstoner]
DUMBO Controversy Spurs Petition Drive [Brooklyn Eagle]
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/3153
Comments
What's not to like? What is there to like about this absurd monster of a proposal? It will permanantly destroy the quality of the Brooklyn Bridge and the neighborhood! For what? So 2 trees can make more money! Good for them bad for the rest of New York City, Brooklyn and America. Very few, if any, are against a residential building and retail being built in this spot. No one is opposed to 2 trees deriving income from the property they own. What everyone objects to are the height and scale of this proposal.
Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 10:11 AM
"Very few, if any, are against a residential building and retail being built in this spot. No one is opposed to 2 trees deriving income from the property they own. What everyone objects to are the height and scale of this proposal"
The truth is the exact opposite.
Everybody is agaisnt a residential building being built on this spot and nobody wants to see two trees deriving any income from anything ever again.
The "community" is irrational on this issue, it is all a personal pissing contest between the old guard and David Wallentas. A pox on both their houses.
Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 10:23 AM
80 units of AFFORDABLE housing?
A PUBLIC middle school?
Might the kids come from the nearby PROJECTS?
Maybe they'll be BLACK kids?
Lions and tigers and bears, Oh my!
STOP the insanity!
Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 10:35 AM
"nobody wants to see two trees deriving any income from anything ever again."
Oh yeah. right. That's what this is about. Picking on poor, poor too twees. boo hoo!
They just don't get it.
This simple minded over simplification of what is truly at stake here was no doubt written by a Two Tree employee.
Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 10:39 AM
I looked at protesters materials and some of them are as misleading as Walentas'. But I don't think it's all that bad and if they'd double the size of proposed middle school, I'd protest the protesters
Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 10:43 AM
yeah, everyone in the neighborhood & Brooklyn Heights complains constantly about lack of schools and NO ONE not Yassky or anyone else has come up with another viable location for a middle school. PS 8 doesn't even have room in their elementary bldg for all the new kids coming their way. there are tall bldgs near the Brooklyn Bridge in Manhattan and it doesn't detract from the bridge and this bldg isn't so bad it's not worth the middle school & affordable housing.
Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 10:48 AM
Black children in DUMBO??
IT WILL RUIN THE BROOKLYN BRIDGE!!!!
THINK OF THE BRIDGE!!!!
Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 10:50 AM
This project has absolutly nothing to do with race or income and to suggest that is disgusting, disengenuous and rascist! To suggest that people that oppose reckless, large scale development are trying to keep people out of the area or are are rascists is such a low life tactical ploy. Typical of Two Trees.
Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 10:50 AM
Chop down Two trees!
Don't do it for us, do it for the Bridge.
Stop this building not because it will block our views and make scads of money for our nemesis, but because it is near the bridge and buildings near the bridge WILL DESTROY THE BRIDGE!!!
Don't you get it?
Only a racist would not understand that new buildings destroy old bridges!!!
Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 10:59 AM
Glad to see the TT PR team is awake this AM. Free Dock Street T-shirt to the employee who posts the most comments!
Affordable housing? See how well that's going over on Court Street if you're black.
Nice tall buildings in Manhattan next to the bridge? Yeah, that Verizon building rocks, glad it's there.
Badly needed middle school? Since when do we sell our public services to developers. If so, I would at least like to see a Halliburton bid for the school and get a little auction going.
Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 11:11 AM
Please stop the empty posturing and tell us exactly how the development "will permanantly destroy the quality of the Brooklyn Bridge and the neighborhood" and be "bad for the rest of New York City, Brooklyn and America." Two Trees hasn't convinced me yet and neither have the naysayers.
Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 11:14 AM
Forget about the school! There will not be and never was going to be a school. Never. A school would be a really great thing. Everyone agrees to that. Or should anyway. Just because someone says they are going to build a building and put a school in it does not mean that a school will just materialize. It is far, way, way more complicated than that. Even two trees knows this. Of course they will not admit this. The school was used as a ploy to get folks juiced up about this building they want to build. So people can say "if you oppose this building than you oppose kids" You were tricked people.
Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 11:19 AM
I wrote a letter to Yassky in support of this.
The neighborhood needs more housing, and needs a middle school. We're in a major housing crisis, and building another 400+ apartments is just what we need.
But more fundamentally, it is a massive waste of peoples' time to prevent a builder from putting up this building on shaky aesthetic grounds, and, in doing so, force about 1000 people to commute an extra 15-20 minutes each way -- DUMBO and Bklyn heights are close to manhattan, and should have much higher densities.
Not to mention that this building will eventually pay a lot of taxes, so the pols are not doing what is best for the city.
Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 11:26 AM
The community group is delusional. I posted the 10:23 comment and I have nothing to do with Wallentas, thank you very much.
I am afraid that the community organizations are alianating many of us by being a bit over the top. A new school and affordable housing are really importnat amenities. The fact that the building is to be built on a lot near the bridge's on-ramp (it is nowhere near the towers or midspan) seems to me no reason for saying that it will somehow diminish the enjoyment of the bridge. that is nutty. The truth is that the proposed building is no larger than many of the old industrial buildings in DUMBO, and it will have no effect on the Brooklyn Bridge. I have studied the renderings and I think that the bridge-damaging argument is just baloney and NIMBY on toast.
Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 11:30 AM
I've seen the rendering produced by the "protesters" and they are misleading to say the least. They even collected signatures from tourists and gallery goers who obviously did not live here. Being a diehard liberal, I'm ashamed that my fellow NYers resorted to the dishonest Republican tactics.
Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 11:32 AM
Good thing Yassky's already come out against it.
Check out www.savethebrooklynbridge.org
Great argument against this monstrosity.
Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 11:37 AM
just bcs you bought in 70 Washington and didn't do your homework, don't blame us. you're going to lose your view. too bad.
and I'm not a walentas fan 100% but he follows thru on what he says. we need afforable housing, empire stores needs the parking, we need the school. there's no reason to think he can't make those things happen
Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 11:41 AM
Yassky is in Wallentas' pocket, Puleeze. Where is he going to get the dough to run for higher office? the fulton ferry assoc? Ha!
He is just coming out agaisnt it before he comes out for it. (I voted agaisnt it before I voted for it) The deal is already done I'm sure. Wallentas tweaks this or that and then Dave will declare victory and support the project.
Those people are freezing their dumbos off for nothing.
Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 11:53 AM
"The truth is that the proposed building is no larger than many of the old industrial buildings in DUMBO, and it will have no effect on the Brooklyn Bridge".
This is completely false and inaccurate. It is proposed to be 8 stories taller than any existing building in the neighborhood. It is proposed to be 13 stories taller than the building right next to it!
It will affect views of the bridge from almost all points in the neighborhood. It will be narly the same size of the tower of the bridge and 100 yards away from it and it will be an ugly, poorly designed incongruous addition to a neighborhood that has already been shat on by developers including Boymelgreen's piece of garbage and Caro and Kramers pice of garbage. If you love large, ugly thoughtless development please move to the upper eastside or to the future Atlantic yards. This building represents almost everything thats run amok in the world of development in Brooklyn.
Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 11:55 AM
The building of this thing has nothing, NOTHING, to do with a school being built in Dumbo or the development of the Empire stores. Your prmise is completely incorrect. There's no reason to think that he can make those things happen.
Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 11:59 AM
Two Tree Spin Meisters are definetely in a effect. Build a school, that would be GREAT. Build affordable housing, This is also GREAT.
BUT, WHY OH WHY DOES IT HAVE TO Be 20 STORIES HIGH!!!
Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 12:00 PM
11:55,
take it easy hon, you're going to pop a gasket. This is just a blog. Many folks do not agree with your position and do not accept your arguements. That's alright, that's life in the big city.
Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 12:11 PM
Does nobody care that this will be the end of St. Ann's Warehouse?
Just wait until Two Trees buys Admiral's Row from the military...
Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 12:13 PM
Does nobody care that this will be the end of St. Ann's Warehouse?
-I would say nobody cares much, no.
Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 12:22 PM
Tht is the one true and only relevant question. Why does it have to be at the proposed height? Why not just build the building, school, shops and all and keep it a below the height of the bridge? There by respecting the bridge and the strong feelings of most of the community? Can someone from two trees answer this? And please don't use the bogus answer that it's the only cost effective way to build this thing.
Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 12:56 PM
would be interesting to know what % of dumbo residents pushing the resistance would have views from their homes negatively impacted by the current proposed building.
Posted by: BrooklynLove at December 7, 2007 1:02 PM
I am an offifal representative of Two Trees and I have spoken to David who wants to see the community happy. He has asked his architect to revise the plan to be only a five story building to house a middle school, afforadable housing (but not too much) an all-organic food cooperative, a swedish sandal outlet, and a yellowcake uranium enrichment cyclatron.
The building will have a low silhouette and the soft green glow will bathe the bridge in an otherworldy glow that the Jehovah's witnesses will love.
Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 1:13 PM
The whole school thing is a red herring and a thinly veiled bribe. An implicit acknowledgment by Walentas himself that this building is unacceptable as it is.
Moreover Walentas is actually giving nothing. He is simply promising to rent space to a school at market rates. Any number of other building owners would just as readily rent space to a school for the same rates.
The bigger question is should developers be the ones deciding when and where schools should go according to their personal interests. Or should the Board of Education be the ones deciding according to bona-fide public interests.
Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 1:41 PM
Two Trees renting to St Ann's Warehouse (for a very very low rent) and expressly said it wasn't forever. They are looking to find them new space, but no, it won't be as prime. Both sides knew this going in.
Two Trees also recruited Galapagos with nice space at a really good price.
Two Trees does some things right. You may disagree with them on this issue, but that doesn't mean they are all bad.
Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 1:55 PM
I am one of the people out there talking to people and collecting signatures on street corners. I've approached and engaged literally hundreds of people on this topic.
I'd say roughly 2%-3% of people support the building and about 97%-98% oppose it.
The very different ratio of comments here tells me either A) there are large masses of supporters of this building who don't walk down public streets but do vocally post on blogs or B) some interested party is singlehandedly driving blog traffic.
Put another way, the day I see some unpaid volunteer on a street corner successfully collecting thousands of signatures _for_ the building is the day I'll believe some of these supportive blog comments are genuine.
Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 1:59 PM
1:59, I can come up with several other methodological explanations for why the posts on this thread are less uniform than the results of your street survey. It's really easy--too easy--to question how genuine other comments are.
How many postcards has Two Trees sent to Councilman Yassky? (I have no idea.) Although not generated by "some unpaid volunteer," that's the flip-side to your petition drive.
Posted by: g man at December 7, 2007 2:13 PM
1:59, I don't support or oppose this building as it is currently proposed. I would like the school and I think some of your materials are misleading. When you're on the street corner of Henry and Montague, I move past and don't engage. I'm not signing, so why would I bother. I did take the time to write to Yassky about it.
In other words, while I know you'd love to think we're all on Walentas payroll and it's some vast conspiracy, there may be simpler explanations. You can believe I'm genuine or not.
Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 2:20 PM
1:59, people who support or at least are not against the development avoid interacting with you zealots. That's why most people whom you talked to are on your side. Is that so hard to understand? Scientologists would tell you exactly the same thing - they are well supported and loved.
Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 2:21 PM
If that photo is the worst they have, I don't think it's that bad. Sure, when you're drunk, in the gutter near the abandoned Empire Stores looking up, it's not great. But otherwise... pffft. This is NYC!
I dont' get people who are against this really. But I didn't get the people who were trying to save that 1950ish utility that really does block the whole base of the bridge. Get rid of THAT and build this and I'll call it even
Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 2:27 PM
I'll say it again. And again. A SCHOOL IS NOT, WILL NOT, NOW, EVER, come to that building. I am 100% certain of this. If you are in favor of this building because you think it will provide a school then you are confused.
Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 2:46 PM
2:20 and 2:21 hit the nail on the head. The NIMBYS believe that God is on their side and therefore everone must agree with them. They are quintessential zealots.
Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 2:56 PM
I don't get people who are in favor of this really. What do they have to gain with another butt ugly super tall out of context building. Wait....unless they do have something to gain....Like..they work for the company that wants to hoist it on us..Hmmmmmm ... You busy little beavers at 2 trees!
Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 2:59 PM
The purpose of the law is to benefit the entire population of the society in which the laws are in effect. Preventing development in DUMBO for the few hundred people who cherish their view of the bridges adversely affects everyone in the city. It direct affects the 800 people who won't be able to live in this building if it is never constructed. It indirectly affects everyone who cannot afford a home right now because this is just one more small step in reducing supply and thus making housing even MORE expensive.
The constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. NIMBYism goes against everything this country is founded upon. It excludes the many to benefit the few, all under the pretext of "the law". History has proven that unjust laws never stand the test of time. At the current rate, the future of New York City can be only 2 things: 1) the housing crisis gets so bad that the "have nots" will actually begin to understand supply and demand economics and realize NIMBYs are selfish rich people intent on screwing them and react violently or 2) NIMBYs have not ingratiated themselves with the people, and in the event of a major downturn int he US economy, their neighborhoods will become targets of those disaffected people.
Let the wealthy be warned - as long as their is a housing shortage of epic proportions in this city, there will be an enormous class divide. It is in your best interests to insure that everyone has access to desirable housing. When that is achieved, your petty concerns can perhaps be addressed. Until that time however, the welfare of the people takes precedent.
Posted by: Polemicist at December 7, 2007 3:26 PM
why on earth would someone have an opinion that is not my own? how can that be? you must be being paid by THE ENEMY! only possible answer....
Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 3:28 PM
1:59
you tried to enagage me and i gave you the finger. i do the same to the CORD. dont take it personally
rather than sign a petition y dont you start a collection out there? with 98% of brooklyn supporting you I bet you will be able to collect enough to buy the land and keep it free and clear of any infringement of the bridge...
Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 3:48 PM
so lets see... people who are opposed to this project are rascists, nimbys, class oppresors, anti education, in need of medications, zealots, anti constitutional and anti N.Y.C Have I left anything out Two trees? You guys seem angry. What's up?
Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 4:05 PM
NIMBY? Please. Walentas needs a zoning change to build this. Guess that makes him an IMBY. If he wants, let him screw us all and our million dollar views (both of AND FROM the bridge) by building a commercial tower as of right. But as long as he needs approval to build was what never contemplated here, I'm gonna fight it.
Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 4:07 PM
I doubt these "pro-building" posts are by Two Trees employees. More likely a PR firm hired out of Walentas's deep pockets. PR firms offer cross-media packages like this that include crafting messages like "It's all about the kids!" and doing postcard mailings, website, blogs, press, etc.
Anyway, I'll discuss facts with anyone, be he Walentas funded or not.
This is not a NIMBY argument. This is not an anti-development argument. This is a zoning and appropriateness argument.
Zoning laws are there for reasons of legitimate public interest. For example, the city wouldn't allow an 18 story tower to be built on Liberty Island for good reason. It is a significant national monument. The Brooklyn Bridge is no different.
The city currently has zoned this lot not to allow an 18 story building. Walentas is seeking a major rezoning and variances to eliminate that restriction and triple the currently allowed density.
Instead of building a scale appropriate building there in context to the surrounding landmarked historical buildings and the Brooklyn Bridge, Walentas wants to build a monstrous building giving him ownership of an extra several hundred thousand square feet with exclusive views of the Brooklyn Bridge in perpetuity.
The city has zoning laws not to quash development, but to keep it respectful and in-scale. More than any other site in NYC, respectful and in-scale development is what is desperately needed at this site.
Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 4:15 PM
Fun fact - Walentas shares his precious kids on the mailer and Dock Street website with ConEdison's recent mailer. You know, the devil came to Jesus in the form of a child. And Jesus smote him.
Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 4:31 PM
4:15
The zoning law makes allowances for the pursuit of waivers, either through the Landmarks Commission or the BSA or the CPC itself. That's why people are living in the Eagle Warehouse and other buildings that are zoned manufacturing use only. Going through the process is hardly not following the law.
Honestly, it really is all about NIMBY. There is a vacant lot and the folks nearby do not wish to see it developed and cannot understand why people all over the Boro do not feel the same way. Anything other than a factory would require waivers on that lot.
The process could yield goodies for the community if they were smart enough to engage the process. Why not fight for the inclusion of a new middle school? Make it a condition of the approval. That's the way to constructively improve the neighborhood.
Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 4:33 PM
this building is needed for it's parking if Empire Stores are ever to be developed. see NY Times on this issue recently
Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 4:39 PM
"The process could yield goodies for the community if they were smart enough to engage" - Wow, that's a heavy handed developer speaking if I ever heard one. Translation - play ball with me and I will "take care of you."
The only "goody" the community wants is appropriate development. The community's objection is not to residential use, the objection is to an 18 story tower. Nobody would say boo about a tasteful residential development under the currently allowed density of about four stories across the entire site.
Not what you had in mind though, is it?
Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 4:45 PM
The community would have no objection to building several levels of parking under the four story building.
Oh, but that's also not what you had in mind, is it?
Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 4:50 PM
Based on some of these postings, this community is inane.
No wonder Wallentas just steamrollers over them time and time again.
Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 5:03 PM
4:50, please don't speak for the whole community since I live in dumbo and ITD with you. I guess your views will be blocked, huh?
Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 5:34 PM
There is no way these two parties are ever going to negotiate. They are like the Bush administration versus the axis of evil.
The Fulton Ferry people are the worst, during my years working in land use at the city they were the biggest assholes in the boro. We would not even take their calls.
our commissioner understood.
Wallentas gets such a free pass because of these assholes, it is so ironic.
Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 7:45 PM
Yeah, I agree. This is not about a building, but those evil neighborhood associations. The building should be 100 stories. And Wallentas is so handsome.
Posted by: guest at December 8, 2007 7:58 AM
I like how the owners of million dollar condos at 70 Washington have positioned themselves as "the community" in this debate and the people who want affordable housing in the area and a decent public school (absolutely possible if space was made available -- not any space but space designed for a schoool and up to those codes) are the greedy bastards.
Posted by: guest at December 9, 2007 9:26 AM
I've read most of the post here, and the "pro" Walentas/Two Tree post tend to make vague comments about affordable housing and schools. Implying that anyone against the project is against these ideals.
I live in Dumbo, I could care less if TT used the entire site for affordable housing or a school or even both. I don't want a building that is not contextual and is too tall.
Is Walentas saying that the only way he can bring these features to a building is to put them in a gigantoid building?
He owned many building in this area for DECADES, why didn't he put in a school or affordable housing before? His current scheme like many of the "pro" variance post here is disingenuous.
Posted by: guest at December 9, 2007 4:31 PM
I think it's smart business. He is giving something up to get something. Are people that dim?
Meanwhile, I live in Brooklyn Heights and was walking in this area today -- like most days -- and there are MANY large, 20+ storey buildings in this immediate area. How is it out of context? Okay for your condo building, but not this building? Pull back on the protesters shot of the bridge and you'd see the Witnesses have a bunch taller than this, just as close to the bridge. Or closer.
I sense this will come down to about 14 storeys and I am 100% fine with that. Let's just make sure we get the affordable housing too. I'm sick of what Dumbo has become.
Posted by: guest at December 9, 2007 6:52 PM
Hey, wait a minute, its going to block my view of the bridge, I'm going to protest! I deserve the view I paid for.
(dramatization of real life conversation)
Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 1:16 AM
I am not sure if Walentas will actually rent out space for a school. I would be suspicious of this. There is a special preschool that already exists down in DUMBO for the past 17 years and he is not renewing the lease b/c he is making the building into condos.
Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 8:47 AM
@6:52
"and there are MANY large, 20+ storey buildings in this immediate area."
You don't know what you're talking about, there are NO 20 story buildings within a three blocks of this proposed site. There are only two 20+ story buildings in all of DUMBO; J and Beacon. They are also perfect example of what happens when buildings get built out of proportion. We are talking very specifically about THIS immediate block.
The landscape would be significantly altered for the worse if this thing is allowed to be built as TT is proposing.
Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 9:16 AM
Can't we all just love one another? Where is the love? where is the love?
Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 5:43 PM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.