Karma Is a Bitch: 185 Ocean Developer Sucking Wind

Folks, this is right across the street from Prospect Park in an area that has been mostly multifamily for nearly a century. This house is one a few on a street that consists almost entirely of medium-density multifamily housing. It is right by an express subway station. Had the depression never hit, this house would have been demolished a long time ago.

The only thing that is outrageous here is the FAR is 3.44. There isn't a single apartment building near this site constructed to such a low density. It is incredibly unfair that once again we have people trying to help the few at the expense of the many. This could be the spot of a great apartment building that could make the lives of dozens of families better than they otherwise would be.

More extremist, reactionary nonsense on this site.

Posted by: Polemicist at November 20, 2008 11:14 AM

Great post Benson. Let's not forget the social utility. The guy wasn't risking his money on some kind of dubious financial instruments. He was going to make a profit by bringing more housing to the most crowded county in the United States.

Posted by: Polemicist at November 20, 2008 11:19 AM

Brenda:

Since when is it greedy to give the people want they want and get a profit for doing so? Is the grocer greedy because he wants to sell you food?

Were the developers who built the 30+ other apartment buildings on this area greedy? What makes this guy so special? Are you really trying to tell us that building multifamily housing, in and of itself, is greedy?

That is crazy talk.

Posted by: Polemicist at November 20, 2008 11:22 AM

JIPS:

So, again - the grocer is greedy because he doesn't give you food for free or at a discount? No one who has a family to feed is going to service you for free. Get a grip

Babs:

Right and right

This site is completely geographically separated from the historically protected area. It is also across the street from a park.

I've said before - I completely respect historical preservation. It MUST however be balanced with access to public amenities and the overall needs of the people. We do not pay taxes to support a subway system and 500+ acre park so a few rich folks can have a mansion nearby. Part of this area, just across the street from Flatbush Avenue, has already been rezoned to a density more typical of suburban communities with populations a fraction of just this neighborhood. That is quite a concession, so I suggest you be happy with you have gotten and appreciate the fact poor slobs stuck in apartment buildings can live side by side peacefully with the exclusionary rich with their mansions.

My sincerest apologies for saying dozens instead of dozen. A 15,000 square foot building would still house a number of people. A dozen families is probably quite accurate. My use of the term "great" applied to the living standards of the future residents. The building would certainly be modest, but they would have spacious modern homes, views of a beautiful park, and a quick walk to an express subway station. To most people in this city, that's pretty great. I'm sorry you don't see that.

Benson:

Thank you for mentioning the green aspect. That ALWAYS gets swept under the rug here. A typical NIMBY behavioral attribute though.

Posted by: Polemicist at November 20, 2008 12:15 PM

Bob Marvin,

I was under the impression the area was recently rezoned - but regardless, the present R2 zoning does not at ALL reflect the original development that began in 1893.

Practically every single building in the district exceeds the legal FAR, and most of the nicer houses do so by a factor of 3 or more. Some of the 4-story houses exceed the maximum FAR by 4 times, easily.

That zoning was purely oppressive to prevent ANY kind of development, EVER. It's absolutely outrageous and flies in the face of any notion of fairness or equal protection under the law.

Don't get me wrong - I am not saying we should nullify the restrict covenants or bulldoze the neighborhood. These kinds of zoning laws simply undermine the public's respect for the law. Be happy most are ignorant of them.

Posted by: Polemicist at November 20, 2008 1:11 PM

Babs,

Wealth is that which only the few can have. It doesn't matter what their income is - the truly wealthy in this city don't even work.

My point is this site in particular is highly desirable to a large number of people. We should be maximizing the number of people who have access to public transportation and parks - not turning them into private gated communities.

Posted by: Polemicist at November 20, 2008 3:04 PM

Brooklynista:

Nothing gives me greater pleasure on this site than pushing the NIMBY nutjobs into a crazed, rambling rant.

God, we need to start getting these people on video. I think I am going to make a documentary on this.

Posted by: Polemicist at November 20, 2008 4:39 PM

Brooklynista, you're definitely in the kook camp. "Yes we can" turn this into a battlefield!

People like you are going to end up in a shantytown sooner than you think. Be happy you have a roof over your head for the moment.

Posted by: Polemicist at November 20, 2008 4:48 PM

babs:

It's simple really. When the rule of law ceases to treat all people equally, people will simply cease following it.

In much of the world where the rule of law doesn't exist, most people live in shantytowns. It is the natural state of a formerly civilized society regressing to a primitive one.

Such is the fate of this republic, and we see it in a small way right here.

Posted by: Polemicist at November 20, 2008 5:48 PM

"I'm afraid my support will automatically make Poley carry on even more."

Honestly, I can't possibly top that novel written previously. But, since you insist - what the hell?

"Polemicist, as usual, has no idea what he is talking about, and having failed to come up with a decent argument, resorts to name calling and obtuse verbiage."

Yeah sure, it's just SO crazy to state that these houses are nothing special and that multifamily dwellings should be clustered near public amenities like parks and subway stations. Who on earth would EVER agree with that?

" He is way out of line, and wayyy wrong."

I'd absolutely LOVE to hear what I have said in this thread that is wayyyy wrong. Please, I'm dying to know.

"This row of houses is, as far as I can tell, the only row on Ocean Ave, the rest is entirely apartment buildings. For that reason alone, they should be cherished and protected."

Oh sure, THIS is going to rally the people! Every house in Manhattan should be protected! It's so freakin' weird there are still houses in the middle of office districts!

How can you possibly think this is a sound basis for a legal society?

Posted by: Polemicist at November 20, 2008 7:31 PM

It's funny - I just realized what the perfect solution is to historical preservation laws. Since clearly class and money has nothing to do with the situation, I propose a new law.

Since the public loses so much from historical preservation, the city should recoup the losses through a special sales tax on homes in historical districts. I propose a tax of at least 50%. The homeowners get half, and the people get the other half.

The proceeds should go directly into a fund that specially builds low income housing for the poor.

I think that is very, very fair. Since everyone is in agreement people don't want historic districts for financial reasons, I can't imagine anyone will have a problem with this.

Posted by: Polemicist at November 20, 2008 7:38 PM

Montrose, I make your blood boil because I consistently prove how you understand absolutely nothing about economics or productive human activity. If you were in charge, Brooklyn would look like Lagos.

"I also had some pithy and scathing remarks aimed at Polemicist, who has the singular ability on this blog to make my blood boil. He cares nothing about affordable housing, it's his straw man for any argument about preservation, but is amazingly absent from real discussions on the subject. He totally ignores the fact that if built, the apartments would be neither affordable, nor make even a dent in housing needs, as 8 units of unnecessary luxury housing is all about money, not about filling the need for anything except a Park view."

I actually chime in very frequently about affordable housing - I am something of an expert in HFA and HDC affordable housing programs as a matter of fact. I think you'll find very few discussions where I haven't corrected someone on the various programs offered by those agencies.

I once again must tell that supply and demand economics applies to real estate, like everything else. When there is a shortage, prices are high. It is the same with every product. These 8 units won't make a difference, but if we built 10,000 buildings of this size - it would make a huge difference. The reason this fight is so desperate is because we have had nearly a half century of dense, foolish citizens not understanding this fact.

You really just don't understand how or why anything gets built. Everywhere governments believe as you do, people live in abject squalor in slums unimaginable to any civilized people many centuries ago. I have the entire history of real estate development in the US on my side. What do you have? Nothing but concrete barracks in communist countries.

"He sees these houses as "nothing special", and has some horrible utopian nightmare of every street with access to public transportation or a park as the site of huge high density dwellings, as if that could possibly be the ideal way to live in any city. "

They ARE nothing special. There are tens of thousands of similar houses. I really want you to tell some family living in a 1-bedroom apartment that building more housing so they can afford something better is a "horrible utopian nightmare". This is why I want to get you on video. Let's stand in front of these houses - I want you to tell the world in person you think building an apartment building on this street, that is similar to a dozen others right next door, is a horrible utopian nightmare. You won't do it, because you know how crazy it sounds.

"Now these people have the nerve to want to hold onto their homes and their neigborhood's integrity, in the face of new and expensive development, so they are "wackjobs" for defending themselves and their choices. Yeah, right."

They are whackjobs for using the power of the state to restrict productive economic activity, the rights of their neighbors, and future owners of the property. If the previous nutjob wants to hold on to his/her house - don't sell it! No one is forcing anyone to sell here. There is nothing to defend against. What we DO have is someone nutjob thinking they are justified in taking away the rights of their neighbors.

"The public good is served by keeping that which makes our neighborhoods desireable, and here in Brooklyn, that means rows of low density row houses, combined with the apartment buildings, and other housing that was built to complement, enhance, and serve the needs of a diverse community. "

Total nonsense and BS. Who are YOU to decide what makes neighborhoods desirable? And how on earth could you possibly claim these rowhouses and other buildings were "built to complement, enhance, and serve the needs of a diverse community?" That is also totally crazy. Housing is built when the population grows. It is not built for anything more than to meet the demands of the people for housing. Back before people like you got into power, they used beauty to attract customers. Now, because of an endless housing shortage, that is unnecessary.

Almost every single apartment building in Brooklyn was built from 1900 to 1940, when in each decade the population increased at LEAST 25%. All the houses you love were built when the borough had a population of 800,000 - a tiny fraction of what it is today.

You seem to be under the delusional belief that once upon a time, the land was empty and overnight this amazing mixture of parks, apartment buildings, and townhouses were planned by some great central planner to give you the city you have today. That is not the way it happened, sorry to burst your bubble. Places like Ocean Avenue, by the way, were ALWAYS intended to have medium density apartment buildings. The Brooklyn fathers anticipated the borough becoming something like Berlin or Paris of that era.

"Preserving the work of one of Brooklyn's best, and most important 19th century architects is investing in our collective history, so future generations can see how a master created the limestones forming a unified row, with their interconnecting front laws and inner sidewalks."

I have said many times I appreciate this sentiment, but there are literally hundreds of city blocks protected already. We need not turn this borough into a museum, and it is an extremist view to suggest every old building should be protected.

"The public loses NOTHING from historic preservation. Quite the contrary. People flock to our neighborhoods, in part, because they are beautiful. "

No, the public loses developable land and thus affordable housing. I agree historical preservation results in higher prices - as I have said, housing shortages do that. BUT, my argument is people should pay for this. You should not be allowed to profit from the law.

"They aren't flocking to high density bland boxes on 4th Avenue."

Actually they

Posted by: Polemicist at November 21, 2008 10:15 AM