150 4th Avenue: The Renderings

I like the proposed building, and I hope that it is built, so that Brooklyn and NYC can continue to progress.

For those who wished that the old cold-water-flat tenement buildings remain, I ask a simple question: where exactly do you think new housing should be built in Brooklyn? Here you have a location that is underutilized and served well be mass transit. I believe that a 12 story building is contextual on a broad avenue like this. This is a textbook case of "green", smart city planning.

I would also like to remind all that 4th Ave was upzoned precisely to take development pressure off the more historic side-streets of Park Slope. There is a demand for new housing in Brooklyn, and big buildings were starting to go up on the side streets (like the big building on President St. between 4th and 5th). In order to stop this type of truly non-contextual development, these streets were downzoned, while at the same time, 4th Ave, mostly a backwater street, was upzoned.

Again I ask: where should new housing be built? All of the buildings that have gone up on 4th Ave,including the Novo which was much-derided on these pages, have sold out. There is a market for these buildings. What would you say to these people?

Posted by: benson at December 9, 2008 12:57 PM

Nokilissa and all;

In addition to what Denton has said, I would add that alot of this comes down to economics - the dismal science, as they say.

Developers know that folks will only pay a certain $/sq_feet for a given location,and they work back from there. They look at the land pricing, their profits, and back out what they are going to spend on construction.

If you would like a higher grade of building in NY - and we can all agree on that point - my suggestion is that folks take a look at what drives up construction costs in NY. Construction costs in NYC are way above that of Chicago's, for instance. This is a quite involved topic, but let me point to a couple of things:

a) land costs in New York are high. Some of this is just due to the fact that NYC is already dense. Some of it, however, are self-inflicted wounds. Everyone wants downzoning in their neighborhood, everyone wants historic buildings preserved, and there are alot of places off-limits to development (Projects, for instance). The net efect of all this is that it reduces the supply of developable land, and hence drives up costs to a quite high level.

b) construction costs in NYC are out-of-sight. Some of this is due to onerous regulations. For instance, developers in NYC must carry huge liability insurance policies with regard to scaffolding accidents. NYS law states that any scaffolding accident is AUTOMATICALLY the fault of the contractor. This law has led to abuse.

If you want better buidlings - pressure your lawmakers to reduce such obstacles.

Posted by: benson at December 9, 2008 2:54 PM

Mopar;

Do you really think that a 12 story building puts Brooklyn in the same league as midtown Manhattan? Most of Manhattan is covered with mid-rise buildings, but it hasn't impacted the charm of, say, Amsterdam Ave or 5th Ave. I can understand that folks don't like the architecture of this building, but I don't think that building a 12 story building on 4th Ave. destroys the fabric of Brooklyn. We already have streets like Ocean Parkway, Eastern Parkway and Shore Road. This building is not setting a new precedent.

Posted by: benson at December 9, 2008 7:34 PM