Small Protest Over Glassy PLG Tower

What happened to Sarah Ryley? I thought this was her neck of the woods, so I assumed she'd write about this topic.

I haven't seen her byline in a while.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 10:09 AM

Theories abound as to what the "concerned citizens" are concerned about, but it's been noted that members of CC also opposed development when rumors that Costco was coming to Empire blvd were circulating, which would have brought jobs to the neighborhood - the argument for basic economic opportunity/justice seems out of balance, indeed.

There are also plenty of other issues impacting rent stabilzed tenants in PLG - such as absentee landlords who have allowed their buildings to become slums, essentially. rather than tackle ongoing problems, CC seem to be pinpointing a single development as a symbol of injustice - unfortunately, the issues of displacement and housing quality appear to be more of an excuse to protest than the motivation.

Generally, it seems like the group is just plain ol' opposed to development - reasons unknown. It's a shame, because there are a bunch of issues in PLG worth addressing.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 10:21 AM

who is the developer building this bland glass tower for?

how many of the units will be affordable to low-moderate income community residents?

why would anyone allow developers to plant the seeds for their own displacement?

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 10:29 AM

Who is being displaced, 10:29? There was an abandoned shell here before. If you really want more affordable housing in PLG, why not remove the 1-family restriction in Lefferts Manor, and all those houses can be broken up into apartments?

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 10:47 AM

"If that means shifting blame for the basic economics of supply and demand, exaggerated warnings about the coming avian holocaust, or stoking fears about gentrification, so be it."

Unless you lived next door to it, right gabby? easy for you to talk and act like your- or the blog's opinion is important. Maybe we could take it more seriously if you weren't posting really dumb articles about clothing.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 10:53 AM

The group was not founded by people worried about their own displacement, 10:29. It was founded by people worried that their quasi-suburban low-rise slice of heaven will be intruded upon. They are trying to agitate the people who will be displaced whether or not this tower gets built into directing their anger at this one building.

Charles
http://hawthornestreet.com

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 11:15 AM

um, 10:53, that quote you quoted was in quotes in Gabby's post. She didn't write it. Calm down.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 11:17 AM

would that make them "real estate agents provocateurs", Charles?

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 11:19 AM

Most of those protesting this building do not live "next door" to it. They are in Lefferts Manor or the residential streets of PLG, which are long avenue blocks away from it.

They conveniently ignore the fact there are two 17 story buildings only one block away from this building site. Nice, doorman buildings at that. Whose presence when they were built a few decades ago raised the rent in the neighborhood.

If New York City can't build high density housing on a huge commercial artery right next to mass transportation (both subway and bus stop) then where can they build it?

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 11:24 AM

Not protesting the building, just the snotty attitude of the blogger

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 11:30 AM

If people are worried about violating Olmsted and Vaux's pastoral masterpiece, we should also get rid of the baseball fields and ice rink. And women should start wearing whalebone corset stays again. And we can all get cholera. Those were the days!

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 12:03 PM

Wasn't the Dakota already built by the time Olmsted was finishing Central Park? It towered over the landscape at the time.

We have to ask these people to provide exact quotes as well as references to sources for their claims that Olmsted believed nothing tall would ever be built around his parks. The idea for these parks was to create a green oasis in what all the city planners at the time knew was a city that would continue to grow and grow and grow. And the technology for tall buildings was there and was happening. For them not to think tall buildings could or would ever be built near the parks of NYC is too hard to believe.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 12:09 PM

As a LM resident, my concern about the building is the increase in the number of renters. Based on what is happening to almost all new "condo" developments, it seems highly likely that this will go rental too. Taht's a lot of new short-term people for the area to absorb.

In general, I think the PRO faction is out of there minds in terms of what they expect this project to do. I fail to see how it is going to radically gentrify the area, as they expect. The CON faction is just silly.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 12:13 PM

I doubt that 12 people yelling and beating drums is going to accomplish anything remotely genuine.

Rallies and marches are useless and typically require little, if any, planning or energy. They usually give participants a feeling that something worthwhile has been done, when, in reality, nothing has changed.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 12:14 PM

Huh? Increase in renters is not a bad thing, 12:13. People have to live somewhere and not everybody buys a place.

Renters renting in the new condo buildings in Brooklyn that couldn't sell are great to have around. They are young professionals. They spend money locally at restaurants and stores. And that improves amenities way more than families who always stay at home in their one-family houses and do not eat out and drink a lot in local bars. Also don't forget the two commercial floors on the bottom of this building and the developer's efforts to find decent tenants for those spaces.

It's win-win.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 12:21 PM

I agree with 1216. Perhaps along with
providing the shopping and service amenities
that the neighborhood so desperately needs; it
will encourage some of the rental buildings
to upgrade and provide better services to tenants along with the inevitable rent increases. And maybe those in the neighborhood who treat the sidewalks as a garbage dump will begin to take some pride in where they live. If this is gentrification, I'm all for it!

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 12:58 PM

I live two blocks from here and use this subway station. I think new development in this area is great, but between the glass and the height, this building's just out of character with the neighborhood.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 1:33 PM

i am generally a bitter renter (not stabber though) who is waiting for doom and gloom to descend on "prime" brownstone brooklyn before i would ever consider buying. but if this is priced significantly below the slope, i am all over it.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 1:34 PM

Oh puh-lease! The bloggers are snotty idiots that want this building to go up at any cost so they can have a better chance at swapping their home out for someplace else.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 3:53 PM

As a longtime resident of PLG, I think this new building will be a terrific addition to the neighborhood. We need something completely different from the ugly new buildings going up around us. No one is being displaced, no eminent domain use here, no eyesores are being built where once stood small nice-looking homes, and nothing of architectural interest is being torn down for it.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 4:07 PM

No 11:24, most of the people protesting the building do not live in Lefferts Manor but outside the Manor in PLG. Almost all the Manor residents that have commented on this building on the blogs ave been in favor of replacing the old rat infested shell of a building. There has been one vocal opponent from the Manor but that person opposes everything.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 4:07 PM

3:53, you are a moron, or a bitter renter, or both.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 4:29 PM

This developer bought a piece of land on which he is building something that is fully within the zoning and yes, in context too, of this busy commercial street right next to a subway. He made a decision about the investment based on the knowledge he could develop the property in a certain way to recoup his investment and yes (the horror!) make a living at it too.

THAT is my biggest reason for defending this building. In my view, it's not about what I want or think personally about a design. I can and would weigh in of course, but please, I'd never in a million years feel I had the right to halt construction of something based on my personal tastes. It's so arrogant and meglomaniac to feel entitled to strip somebody of their private property rights. I really can't grasp it. Well maybe because I'm not a socialist.

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 6:08 PM

This building is for the birds. NEXT!

Posted by: guest at June 25, 2008 6:21 PM

I live right behind the building site, and have literally watched this decaying old building being disassembled brick-by-brick over the last 6 months or so, and the remaining detritus dozed away within the last two weeks. Understandably, I'm not super psyched about the noise coming from the site. Also, I'm concerned about the influx of commuters with whom I'll be jockeying for space on the Q/B in the mornings; and, I think many of us are agreed that the design of the new building is... well, a little bit much for the neighborhood.

I think many of my neighbors share these sentiments, but we all tend to agree that the negatives are outweighed by the good which this building will bring to the neighborhood. More people will bring more money, will be a boon to businesses in the neighborhood, and will ultimately benefit everybody. It's as simple as that.

And, I agree with 12:58 -- it would be quite nice if residents did not treat Lincoln Road like a big trash can. Please put your chicken bones and other assorted refuse in a garbage pail, thank you very much. Perhaps the new building will help clean things up a bit. I'm not wealthy, and I'll probably never be able to afford to live in this shiny new tower, but I certainly take pride in where I live.

Posted by: guest at June 26, 2008 10:29 AM

"They conveniently ignore the fact there are two 17 story buildings only one block away from this building site. Nice, doorman buildings at that."

Thats a joke, right?
Yes, the Patio Gardens buildings are 17-feet high but they certainly do not have doormen. We have a security booth that buzzes EVERYONE into the front gates and completely unlocked front doors on both buildings. There is no actual "security" nor is there a doorman. Residents cannot buzz guests in. Its rediculous and unsafe.

As for the new building, while I do think it is too high and hideous I will be pleased if it means more ammenities for residents of the neighborhood. Since we already have two groccery stores I'd personally prefer a gym or a restaurant on the ground floor.

Posted by: guest at June 26, 2008 11:45 AM