Flatbush Rezoning in the Works

Great, another authentic neighborhood gone. This is ridiculous. When is the madness going to stop!!??

Posted by: guest at June 16, 2008 10:47 AM

ok 10:52...

as a resident of this area -
i can easily avow for how much of a need there is for LESS density in parts of this area.

it's funny because there are two extremes -
beautiful victorians w. manicured lawns and then there are blocks that resemble eastern european post-war housing.

this area is EXTREMELY dense and does NOT need further density. Even if the main drags were to be densified, they're not very attractive to be residential (coney island ave & flatbush ave. for examples)...

Posted by: guest at June 16, 2008 11:15 AM

The entire area needs to be down zoned. There have already been several wood frame houses torn down for large and out of context apartment buildings.

There are currently entire blocks of intact wood frame houses (except for the occasional brick attack on the front porches). Once these houses are lost, the entire historic feel of the area is lost.

Posted by: guest at June 16, 2008 11:50 AM

Polemicist -- you want middle class taxpayers in your city? A few trees? A variety of neighborhoods?

The "tremendous need" for greater density all over the city is the need for developers to make a buck. There is tremendous need for people to have livable neighborhoods, and that doesn't translate into highrises for all.

And, you clearly haven't ridden the Q at rush hour.

Posted by: guest at June 16, 2008 11:57 AM

Bssssssssttttt! Wrong, thanks for playing though.

The whole area of Victorian Flatbush was specifically developed as a suburban area with large detached or semi-detached houses and big front and back lawns. They were built in proximity to the trolleys (later the below grade subway lines) as a convince so the home owners could commute into the more urban parts of the city.

If you bother to walk around the more commercial area of the district, and the streets on the borders of the various sections, you will see plenty of large apartment buildings. The area does have density, where it is appropriate, and has the large house on the blocks that were laid out to have the houses, lawns and trees.

Proximity to a subway should not condemn historic building to be recklessly ripped down to put up shoddy new construction brick nastiest that pass for apartment buildings. Find an already vacant lot, or a non historic building and put up something new there, but don't tear down history that can never be replaced.

Posted by: guest at June 16, 2008 12:05 PM

Check you history Flatbushwhacker, the whole point of the area was as a Mecca of Victorian suburbia:
http://home.att.net/~ebasics/flatbush.html

At the end of the nineteenth century, Flatbush was still a sleepy village deeply rooted in its Dutch colonial past. Less than a decade later, thousands of massive, wood frame, single family homes dotted the landscape, transforming what had previously been farmland into a self-proclaimed "Mecca" of Victorian suburbia - New York's very own version of Boston's prestigious Brookline.*

"Modern Flatbush, with its beautiful streets, handsome homes and impressive buildings, is to-day generally regarded as the most attractive and desirable place for residence in the great City of New York," remarked Edmund D. Fisher, in his introduction to the 1908 publication, The Realm of Light and Air: the Flatbush of To-Day.

Posted by: guest at June 16, 2008 12:11 PM

Did you go on the Victorian Flatbush Open House tour?
Have you been on walking tour of the neighborhood with a Brooklyn historian.
These houses are not just old, they ARE historic.
The level of detail both in side and out is amazing.
And coupled with the blocks and blocks of intact houses and 100 year old trees,
It makes that area somewhere to be treasured, not ripped down.

Why the heck are you trolling around a bog that focuses on Historic houses in Brooklyn,
If you want all the houses torn down. If you can post stuff like "go to Jersey or Update"
Then I can post go find another bog that is not about historic houses.

Posted by: guest at June 16, 2008 12:35 PM

polemicist,

this is 11:15,

i DO happen to live in one of the denser co-op buildings on ocean ave, and it is indeed very very crowded on those blocks. (as i said, different PARTS of this area are extremely dense) i dont know what part of suburban jersey you mention comes close to resembling the urban activity of church ave.

yes, there may be pockets here and there for mid-rises, but to propose further density out of scale w. the current context would be irresponsible and unsustainable. its not a NIMBY issue, its about respecting the character and livability of the already WELL-established neighborhoods in the area.*ditto to 12:05 about maintaining the integrity of the historical components. definitely dont want the area plagued w. atrocious McCondo Towers

walk around and you will see its not in fact entirely the jersey burb you claim.

Posted by: guest at June 16, 2008 12:42 PM

Neighborhoods without amenities will never ever get those amenities without SOME higher density new buildings.

Some historical, residential streets should be downzoned. But not huge commercial arteries like Flatbush. That's retarded.

Posted by: guest at June 16, 2008 12:58 PM

Smith Street in Brooklyn went from having a bunch of social clubs and religious what not stores, to having a ton of restaurant, bars, and shops, and it didn't require knocking down the historic buildings in that area.

You don't have to put up out of scale/context ugly shoddy constructed buildings filled with cubby holes to pack in the most people possible, to get amenities in a neighborhood.

The wood frame houses have been around for 100 years and are solid enough to be around for a lot longer. The crap new construction that goes up is not any where up to par with the existing apartment buildings on the more commercial streets in the area.

Posted by: guest at June 16, 2008 2:00 PM

I find the amenities hip but pretty sparse and spread out in places on Smith Street, 2pm. I wouldn't be entirely happy with its offerings if I lived there.

Posted by: guest at June 16, 2008 2:40 PM

Why does everyone want to move out here now? It has great subway access?? So does everywhere else in NYC dummies. You have 2 train lines!! Leave our neighborhood alone!!

Why does an area need to become more dense? Because it is NYC? This area has been like this forever and now we have to change it? Isnt the whole benefit of living farther from the city that you can get more space and you dont have to be in the rush of things all day every day? You want a more dense area, move to SOHO, that will be real dense for you. Im actually amazed it took this long for this to happen.

Posted by: guest at June 16, 2008 2:55 PM

Amenities follow income, as well as density. In Park Slope, you get both (although obviously much lower density than some parts of our fair city, which by the way is already the densest in the country.) In Vic Flatbush, you're getting more income, so now we have some restaurants etc. But people don't move there for the amenities so much as the affordable space.

The ideology of density is threatening to kill parts of New York City, and I'm glad the Planning Department is taking a sensible approach to this issue.

Posted by: guest at June 16, 2008 2:58 PM

While the Q train can get me to 34th Street or 42nd Street in about 45 minutes on the weekends,
I have to allow a full hour to get from Cortelyou Q to Wall Street with a transfer a Atlantic Ave.
The Q train gets all mixed up with the B train, and you sit and sit on the tracks between stations.

I would hardly call the Q train a convent and fast way to get into Manhattan for work.
My commute time has doubled from when I lived in either Fort Green or Carroll Gardens.

But I live in the area because of the amount of space. I'm in a legal 3 family wood frame
(it has separate meters for gas and electric, it is not an illegal apartment).
Not every 3 story house in the area is occupied by just one family.

Posted by: guest at June 16, 2008 3:09 PM

Agreed 3:09. And you know what, if all the 3 story houses were just 1 family, good for them. NYC doesnt have to be high rises everywhere and everyone moving as tight as lemons on the ave's.

Next thing we will hear is that Brownsville is convenient and should be all $1million + condos.

Posted by: guest at June 16, 2008 3:21 PM

So, does every last historic building in Brooklyn need to be torn down,
And make every bit of this map the highest density possible?
http://www.brooklyngreenway.org/smap3.htm

How are all those people going to fit on the already crowded subways?
Where are they going to park their cars?
Where are they going to send their kids to school?

Haven't we learned anything from housing project where there are mega blocks of
High-rise buildings, and the result is mega poverty and crime concentration.

A diverse area with some mid rise on the comercial streets and side streets
Residential makes for a much better mix, and that is what Victorian Flatbush is trying to perserve.

Posted by: guest at June 16, 2008 3:51 PM

"They're only rare in NYC because in other neighborhoods, as land values rose it made sense to replace low-density houses with more intensive development..."

Polar Mist your statement is precisely why in NYC the character of Victorian Flatbush needs to be preserved. This is one of the (if not the) most beautiful neighborhoods in Brooklyn.

Posted by: guest at June 16, 2008 6:17 PM

Actually, the demand for luxury housing in Lagos is quite high. It is the reason that people are being pushed out of previously undesirable neighborhoods that are close to the city center. Not only do wealthy Nigerian nationals desire to have homes in Lagos but wealthy Ecowas in general, especially those in the entertainment industry desire to live ther as well. Gentrification is not unique to NYC or the U.S.

Posted by: guest at June 16, 2008 9:35 PM

Polemicist -

do yourself a favor and walk down flatbush from eastern parkway and make a right at glenwood rd, make another right at ocean ave and walk back to where you started.

you will clearly see the extent of density of this particular stretch of flatbush.
this area is NOT the victorian flatbush (prospect park south historic district) you have in your mind, but all of these areas are encompassed under the same unmbrella name of 'flatbush'. within one region there are both extremes of density. the challenge is how to integrate contextual development that doesn't overrun the infrastructure.

your comments above show that you have an understanding about basic re economics, but your are seriously inept when it comes to truly understanding urban planning challenges this city faces.

Posted by: guest at June 17, 2008 9:58 AM

3:09, it is a bit of an stretch to say you have to give yourself an hour to get to wall street on the Q or B, but I would agree that when I took the subway I always gave myself 45 minutes to be safe. I then learned about the express bus from a neighbor who works in the financial district. If you take the express bus to wall street from Cortelyou, it makes one other stop in Brooklyn and then shoots through the battery tunnel and drops you off downtown in about 20 minutes. It costs more ($5) but the commute is fast, pleasant (you always get a seat) and allows you to reply to e-mails on your blackberry, etc.. during the trip because you aren't underground. I now give myself 25-30 minutes to be safe.

Posted by: guest at June 17, 2008 10:40 AM

"3:09, it is a bit of an stretch to say you have to give yourself an hour to get to wall street on the Q or B, but I would agree that when I took the subway I always gave myself 45 minutes to be safe. I then learned about the express bus from a neighbor who works in the financial district. If you take the express bus to wall street from Cortelyou, it makes one other stop in Brooklyn and then shoots through the battery tunnel and drops you off downtown in about 20 minutes. It costs more ($5) but the commute is fast, pleasant (you always get a seat) and allows you to reply to e-mails on your blackberry, etc.. during the trip because you aren't underground. I now give myself 25-30 minutes to be safe".

45 minutes sometimes works on the Q Cortelyou, change at Atlantic, for Wall Street. The B doesn’t stop at Cortelyou, and is jam packed if it's across the platform at Church.
When you have meetings promptly at 9 AM, you have to allow the extra time for the Q train AND the train you transfer to both to trains to be "stupid". Therefore a full hour is needed to insure your not getting yelled at by your boss on a regular basis.

And that Express bus can get caught in traffic, and take even longer then the subway, besides I'm not wealthy enough to pop $10 bucks a day for the Express bus.

Posted by: guest at June 17, 2008 3:29 PM

If you are taking the Q, change at DeKalb to the R right across the tracks instead of changing to the R or 4 at Atlantic and you'll cut 10 minutes off your commute. I'm closer to Church so I used to just take the B or Q, whichever came first, and change at DeKalb. It never took me more than 45 minutes.

Posted by: guest at June 18, 2008 1:39 PM

Who says I’m changing for the 4 at Atlantic? I’m taking the 2 or 3 to Wall.

The R train to Rector and the Express bus both stop on the West side of Manhattan, and by the time you walk over to the East side of Manhattan and Wall Street, any gain in travel time is eaten up by the walk.

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 11:17 AM