Garage Plan for Heights Building Rears Its Head Again

I hear what the tenants are saying, but if it were condo and if there were parking, I'd be interested. that backyard area, as it is now, is kinda crappy

Posted by: guest at March 26, 2008 10:05 AM

It's a very small section of BH, it'll be devastating for the residents. The greedy owner should take the plan to Atlantic Avenue near the water.

Posted by: guest at March 26, 2008 10:15 AM

the trees in the yard currently shield the tenants from the BQE

Posted by: guest at March 26, 2008 10:21 AM

BH needs more parking much more than it needs a kind of dark and grungy park. The only time I ever went to hang out in that park, a giant rat ran right in front of me. I'd prefer the parking lot.

Posted by: guest at March 26, 2008 10:28 AM

the drawings clearly show more trees going in.

meanwhile, the "landlord" is also known as the "owner" and it's perfectly in their right to go condo.

Posted by: guest at March 26, 2008 10:31 AM

you mean 3 dwarf trees as opposed to the 5 mature trees there now? Yea, good point.

So I presume the landlord is trying to cash in on the lack of parking at One Brooklyn.

Posted by: guest at March 26, 2008 10:35 AM

Looks like there is enough room for both.

Posted by: guest at March 26, 2008 10:37 AM

At least 95% of the posts on this site are from people who're logged in as "guest". This means that someone reading the comments on this site will be reading almost everything in faded type. Now, I understand why the faded type is used for "guests". However, in my opinion it's not worth it.

The faded type is clearly legible, but over the long haul it is more fatigue-inducing than regular, darker type. So, Mr. B, do you really want to condemn your readership to slogging through so much faded type?

Just a thought. Again, I do understand why the faded type was introduced. I just don't think it's worth it. You're shooting yourself in the foot (and inducing eyestrain in your readers) as things currently stand.

Many thanks for all you do.

Posted by: guest at March 26, 2008 10:41 AM

Oops! The Brooklyn Eagle and Brownstoner are both showing before and after pictures from the 2006 proposal.

Posted by: guest at March 26, 2008 10:45 AM

every time i drive by this building on the BQE, i think to myself how lovely these buildings are and it doens't even occur to me that it's right near the BQE and how that can be very unpleasant. these trees probably don't do THAT much to shield in terms of noise, but i'm sure they help somewhat with that, probably pollution too, and are generally pleasant to look at. it has taken them a long time to reach this level of maturity, it would be a shame to cut them down before they really needed to be.

i'm not familiar with this particular courtyard, but it seems to me any caliber of rear yard has to be better than a parking garage. if the lot were for tenants (owners?), that would be one thing. but if it's a public garage, that's a shame. i know, i know, private property and all that stuff, but still. patches of green space are important in this city. so is quality of life.

Posted by: guest at March 26, 2008 11:04 AM

those trees are scrazzly. i like the new proposal

Posted by: guest at March 26, 2008 11:09 AM

I want a parking garage -- the existing ones are full and overpriced, and with the demise of the one on love lane, parking is basically impossible.

Posted by: guest at March 26, 2008 11:22 AM

The "Riverside" complex is a very important example of New York "model" tenements, built by A.T. White. (Another of his projects is the "Home and Tower Buildings" in Cobble Hill and is now a co-op, I believe).

Originally, there was another line of buildings defining Riverside's courtyard. These were demolished for the BQE.

The courtyard is an essential part of the scheme. Indeed, such courtyards were what distinguished blocks like this from 19th-century slum tenements elsewhere in the city. And their open space also established principles of 20th-century city planning. There's a straight line from Riverside to Stuyvesant Town and, like them or not, the hundreds of urban renewal projects that changed the face of New York by the 1960s.

(I've always found it interesting that the BQE circles Brooklyn Heights, where affluent neighbors enjoy the Esplanade, but slashes through working-class blocks like this, no doubt because of the Heights' power to resist Robert Moses.)

As an artifact, the courtyard deserves to be saved. It's proto-modern urban planning. Freshen it up, don't destroy it.

-- U. Designer

Posted by: guest at March 26, 2008 11:29 AM

Everything UD says above is true. In the Eagle article, Holt says that half of the original garden was lost when the BQE was built. However, only the southwest corner was shaved off. (Doesn't the publisher care if Holt gets the facts right?)

LPC will be looking at the design of the proposed parking structure and whether it is appropriate here, behind this historic building, in the Brooklyn Heights Historic District. Whether or not the building may go condo, the price and availability of parking, and other like topics are not relevant to the commission's decision.

Finally, to clarify a common misconception, trees do little to mitigate noise. Trees do absorb some carbon monoxide and the leaves do knock some particulate out of the air, but that's about it. Some studies have also found that what you cannot see doesn't sound as loud as what you can, but that is an improvement happening between, not in, the ears.

Posted by: guest at March 26, 2008 11:48 AM

People are so annoying. BH has no parking.. SO what about the people that dont have a garage at their house and bought a co-op in the area they cant have a car as well.. GREAT IDEA the area needs a garage real bad...People are so into them selfs and forget that all areas need some sort of change... This would not hurt the quality of life in BH so RELAX.......

Posted by: guest at March 26, 2008 12:06 PM

Boy oh boy, parking and a garden. Who does this landlord think he is? Next he will want to put in air conditioning and cable. Stop this evil monster!

Posted by: guest at March 26, 2008 12:06 PM

11:41:

Nothing in my post says that the buildings shouldn't be upgraded.

Read it again.

As for "Dickensian" conditions: I know a former Navy WAC from World War II who lives very happily in on old model tenement. Her apartment is small but bright and cheerful, spotless, and full of childhood memories. (She grew up in an apartment in the same building!)

It all depends on how buildings are maintained. Riverside and others like them were built to last forever. Judicious improvements can keep them attractive and eminently livable -- and affordable (in this town, as important as any parking garage).

U-Designer

Posted by: guest at March 26, 2008 12:07 PM

they aren't city-owned. they are privately owned. unless U-Designer wants me to come over and demand that you privately create affordable housing, at your expense, then I dont' see how you can demand it of others

Posted by: guest at March 26, 2008 12:18 PM

12:18:

You and 11:14 should take a class in reading comprehension.

I don't make any "demands." I point out that "judicious improvements can keep [Riverside and others]... affordable."

I do say that having affordable housing in NYC is as important as any parking garage. You and I may disagree on that.

-- U. Designer

Posted by: guest at March 26, 2008 12:30 PM

These buildings are much more attractive from the outside than from the inside. For one thing the corridors and stairs are on the EXTERIOR. the rooms are tiny. They are fine for low and moderate-income tenants, don't get me wrong, although I would hope that the younger folks in there will aspire to something better and not just live out their lives holding on to childhood memories.
That does sound a little Dickensian.
I'm all for the project.
Progress and change within landmark areas are important if we are to maintain a modern standard of life. These buildings are not just a quaint stage set of "model Victorian tenements". Ugh, just the phrase is kind of gross.

Posted by: guest at March 26, 2008 12:31 PM

12:06, a tenant of this complex told me that sometimes they don't have heat and hot water, so I'm guessing the tenants don't have to worry about the "threat" of air conditioning and cable.

Posted by: guest at March 26, 2008 1:17 PM

Sam and the others who think this project will not hurt the tenants have no idea of its impact on all the ground story--namely it will seal them into a reinforced concrete tank. If you want to park your car, park it in your own front yard, backyard or somewhere else--Oh and did I forget to mention? at your own expense in construction cost, noise and air quality. While you are at it, provide gas masks for all the people exposed to your exhaust fumes. Keep your energy guzzling vermin to yourself.

Posted by: guest at March 26, 2008 2:21 PM

I think affordable housing is important, but I'm with previous commenters in that this is a privately-owned building. It is not for us to say how he or she improves their property. You don't like it, move out. How is this different than anyone else with rentals who improve their property?

Posted by: guest at March 26, 2008 2:25 PM

I think the problem is people are treating this building as individually landmarked when in fact it's in a landmark district. Uses that don't detract from the overall aesthetic and historical value of the district are generally permitted. At this point, since the courtyard is viewable from the interior and BQE only, I don't see how this would affect the district under that standard.

Having said that, I don't see see some people here think neighborhood residents are entitled to parking, and any proposal that includes a garage automatically trumps other concerns (e.g. those of the tenants who actually live here and could be negatively affected).

Posted by: guest at March 26, 2008 2:42 PM

The parking structure is visible from Joralemon Street, which is why it was reviewed by CB2 and will be by LPC. CB2 and LPC are not included in the "us" in the statement by 2:25.

Posted by: guest at March 26, 2008 3:42 PM

I don't see why neighbors get a say or TENANTS -- they rent! can you imagine if the guy who rents the apartment in your brownstone got a say in how you renovated your home?

I leave this to the owners and wish them luck

Posted by: guest at March 26, 2008 3:57 PM

The courtyard is viewable from the sidewalk. The comments here are filled with misinformation and ignorance, not to mention a heartless attitude. The reason the building is subject to regulation is that it houses 160 families, or at least 6 which is all NY State requires. This situation is in no way comparable to a brownstowner who is renting out 1 or 2 floors. These families should not be subject to the greed of a racketeering landlord who does not maintain the building and cares nothing for how his tenants sleep and breathe. Yeah, let's bring all the cars to your doorstep. Let's see how you like sleeping in a parking lot.

Posted by: guest at March 26, 2008 5:27 PM

rent control really can ruin people's lives.
it discourages ambition and stops upward mobility. It is sad to hear from people who hate their building and yet feel trapped for life. Many of the most vociferous complainers in the building pay little or no rent. They have the typical squatters-rights attitude to the building and to private property in general. All of us that decided to sacrifice and buy a little piece of real estate while still young should be so grateful that we did not fall into this NYC rent-control trap. It produces such unhappy people and such dysfunction between owners and their renters. This building is a battleground. I don't care what happens to it. Sounds like the tenants and the landlord are ideally suited to each other.

Posted by: guest at March 26, 2008 9:28 PM

the BH residents on joralemon will go nuts over this.

Posted by: guest at March 26, 2008 9:52 PM

the bha will go nuts over this too.
the peasantry didn't need cars in the nineteenth century why should they need them today?

Posted by: guest at March 26, 2008 10:11 PM

10:11:

I owned an apartment for 20 years on Columbia Heights, arguably the best street in BH, so I guess I'm not a "peasant."

Never owned a car the entire time.

One of the beauties of BH is its great subway connections. And then there are the taxis.

Who needs a garage?

-- U. Designer

Posted by: guest at March 26, 2008 10:18 PM

The point of rent control, and to a lesser degree rent stabilization, is to give tenants basic property rights in their apartments. So long as they pay the rent, they have the right to live there -- just as owners have the right to live in their buildings so long as they pay the mortgage and taxes and do not evict people whose rights are superior to their own.

There is no rule in law or nature that says that the landlord here has an absolute right to build a parking garage regardless of its impact on others.

12:06 -- the annoying people are the ones who "are so into them selfs" (sic) that they think that BH should be rebuilt to their personal specifications regardless of the views of their neighbors or the law.

Posted by: guest at March 26, 2008 10:45 PM

Right on, U. Designer. This is one of the premier urban neighborhoods in the country.

If people want parking, they should move to New Jersey.

Posted by: guest at March 27, 2008 9:31 AM

I was at the CB2 meeting (for something different) and heard the presentation and the impassioned objections from many, many tenants. It seems that the residents have been fighting with the landlord for years to address maintenance issues and so his garage plan, which is viewed by many to be a money making scheme comes as a slap in the face.

It is a fact that the landlord was ordered by landmarks, when he paved part of the garden, to restore the space to it's original purpose and appearance. He apparently submitted fake photos to clear the violation.

There seems to be a consensus amongst the community board and landmarks that the parking would be cost prohibitive to the current tenants and that the landlord in effect is trying to take a garden space that he has neglected and altered and turn it into a public parking lot.

Then comes the concern about the wall that rises to mid window for some folks, and the fact that there is a narrow space between the building and the garage- not large enough for a fire engine but large enough to shelter street folks or to aid thieves. The plan also does not currently include a structural study of what would be involved in creating a garage with four feet of soil on it's roof. The plan is to have huge mature trees that would start at a 10 inch trunk diameter. Then the issue of water, etc. . .

It is ill conceived.

Posted by: guest at March 27, 2008 9:55 AM

A neglected garden and parking garage is not any better than the neglected lot that is there now.

Posted by: guest at March 27, 2008 10:02 AM

Reviewing some of the thoughtless banter tossed out in this discussion makes one suspect whether these contributors are perhaps not authentic brownstoners in the sense of actually owning a building but rather brownstoner wannabes. Given that the Riverside buildings may not be to your taste whether due to the 6-floor walkup, their Victorian roots or maybe just a preference for chocolate-colored plaster over red brick and to such an aesthetic, certainly subtle features such as the brick patterning and iron work would be lost, how would introducing the circulation of 135 cars thrown into the mix somehow make things better? How do the significantly high insurance premiums, garage parking fees [which is the sole impetus for this proposal] coupled with the absolute rarity of being able to drive your vehicle over 30 mph in these districts, unless you happen to get lucky on one of the socalled "express"ways very early on a Sunday morning, make keeping a car here attractive, let alone feasible? Why is it that energy measures favorable to a healthy environment are most often expressed in terms of their equivalence to taking x number of vehicles off the road? I get that cars are a necessary evil--they just don't have that status in districts so well equipped with taxis, bus routes and subways and woefully short on green space. Dudes, you need a whole 'nother planet to take care of your mess.

Posted by: guest at March 27, 2008 11:05 AM

Allow me to chime in as a former tenant here. These buildings and their tenants do not deserve to have their historic courtyard destroyed by an ill-conceived parking garage which will not benefit the majority of the tenants (most of whom don't own cars). My windows looked out on the nearly-century-old oak trees which tower over the courtyard. I would have been devastated if those were destroyed, especially for others' benefit (and to line the pockets of the absentee landlords).

Pinnacle Management is a faceless conglomerate that slumlords dozens of buildings in NYC and cares nothing for these buildings or their tenants. They have a growing file of complaints with the BBB (as I discovered when researching how to get my security deposit back). They would not care to beautify the currently neglected courtyard because it does not benefit them financially, yet their parking garage plan is obviously not thought out and would cause a number of the tenants to come eye-level with the cars of other (richer) BH residents. The tenants' privacy woud be compromised once the garage was built, not to mention the construction noise during the buildout. It's a bad plan, through and through.

I still don't understand why anyone feels they need a car in Brooklyn Heights anyway... it's the crossroads of the entire MTA network. Park your gas-guzzling luxury SUV in Long Island where it belongs. I don't need to breathe in your fumes and neither do the residents of this historic building, who deserve to have a say in the project.

Posted by: guest at March 27, 2008 5:49 PM

Parking is definitely needed. These dumps were built even before the automobile became commonplace in America! It's a joke how so many people make a big deal about garbage that was built 100 years ago, for people who just came off the boat. These buildings are substandard firetraps, and should have been torn down years ago. Every so often you see one of these collapsing by themselves! When are people going to realize that living in a crap building like this is not being "trendy" or "cool"? Tear all these damn tenements down and build some beautiful, highly efficient, safe modern structures with garages. It's been awhile since the people who lived in them tied their horses to their front gates.

Posted by: guest at March 29, 2008 12:47 PM

www.riversideapartmentsgarden.com

Posted by: guest at April 5, 2008 8:13 AM

I'm an architect who recently moved to the neighborhood from San Francisco. I was just walking by the building today with my wife (also an architect) and we were struck by the beauty of this building. This building is better than 99.99% of what is built today. To suggest that it be replaced with a modern structure with garages (in this neighborhood???) is just an astonishing comment. And I'm a person who believes in modern architecture and has committed my life to it. I'm truly stunned and depressed by your attitude, 12:47! Are you a real person, or a disney-esque villain?

My question is: what's going on with the vacant ground-floor retail spaces in this building? That could be a nice little strip!

Posted by: guest at April 6, 2008 5:14 PM