« Reprieve for The Little Room Commercial Properties in Distress »

December 18, 2008

Full House, No Vote at Dock Street Hearing

A full house of almost 300 people showed up for last night's public hearing on Two Trees' proposed Dock Street development, a 323-unit complex with a 20% affordable housing component and public middle school. Hosted by Community Board 2, the event drew plenty of supporters and critics of the project, most of whom, it turned out, wanted to put their thoughts on record. As a result, the public comment period, which kicked of with a speech by Jed Walentas (thesis: we listened to your criticisms from 2004 and redesigned a project that we think is good for the neighborhood) stretched from the 6 p.m. kick-off time until the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. As a result, the two CB2 committees that were supposed to vote last night—Land Use and Youth Cultural Affairs—did not have time to do so. They plan to reconvene in the upcoming days; after that, the board has to make a final recommendation. Did any readers attend? We'd love to hear your version of events.
How Does Dock Street Stack Up? [Brownstoner] GMAP
The Next Step for Dock Street [Brownstoner]
DOE: It's Time to Examine Dock Street [Brownstoner]
Two Trees Plans Mixed Use Building Next to Bridge [Brownstoner]
Dock Street Plans (Marina and All) Go 3D [Brownstoner]
Dock Street Protesters: 20% There on Signatures [Brownstoner]

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/7691

Comments

I was not there but there are some good eye-witness accounts on the Brooklyn Heights blog. Evidently the pros and cons were largely divided along racial lines. But the meeting was more boring than confrontational.

Posted by: sam at December 18, 2008 10:18 AM

Although few if any blacks spoke against the project, the predominantly white audience was fairly evenly split for and against. I disagree with sam's assessment.

Posted by: g man at December 18, 2008 10:32 AM

As I said, I wasn't there, but I know that the three lilly-white community groups: the BHA, DNA, FFA, were all adamantly opposed. Yassky sided with them. The group from the Farragut houses were in favor, and Trish James sided with them. That sounds kind of split along racial lines to me.

Posted by: sam at December 18, 2008 10:46 AM

sam, you're right regarding the community groups' stances. However, on an individual basis, and I wasn't there, I'm just going by my own discussions with others in the neighborhood, I agree with g man that I've also observed far less of a divide along racial lines with respect to the projects. Many whites, including me, are in favor of it. Does this mean the community groups are not truly representing their constituency on this issue...probably. Although I do think the BHA does some great work, so I don't want to knock them.

Posted by: Biff Champion at December 18, 2008 10:54 AM

The trouble with the BHA is that they are always agaisnt everything.

Posted by: sam at December 18, 2008 10:56 AM

I was there. It was a typical farce of a community board hearing. A parade of non-profits that obviously have recieved money from Two Trees testifying in support of their patron's project and an equally absurd parade of lilly-white owners of multi-million dollar condos complaining about this medium sized building "looming" over the Brooklyn Bridge. The whole thing was absurd. Its a medium sized, contextual building that is literally half the size of our beloved bridge (and therefore physically incable of "looming" over anything).

I for one wish dearly that my biggest problem in life protecting the sunset skyline views from my million dollar "loft." I love how these guys try to thinly desguise their naked self interest in the cloth of "preservation." Speaker after speaker compared this project to building condos next to the Washington Monument or Eiffel Tower. I guess they didnt notice all the highrise development that surrounds the bridge on both sides of the river and has so far not lead to a total collapse of western civilization.

Get a life people!!!

Posted by: clintonhillbuyer at December 18, 2008 11:15 AM

does anyone know when the feud between walentas and the BHA originated? It is kind of funny because the BHA opposed the initial change of use waivers for the big (formerly empty) industrial buildings in DUMBO and now, half the condo owners in DUMBO are Brooklyn Heights refugees. Why did the BHA oppose the residential re-use of the Gair factories and the clocktower building. Seems so silly in retrospect.

Posted by: sam at December 18, 2008 11:34 AM

Typical of Yassky (and other ambitious politicos) to side with the outspoken groups. See it all the time (the Brooklyn House of Detention another issue).
Where these groups purport to speak for the community, they speak mainly for the narrow opinions of a few and rarely consider the wider opinions of others.
Unfortunately they have Yassky's ear. Joann Simon is one of these mouthy ones who now wants to run for councilperson.

Posted by: Petebklyn at December 18, 2008 11:49 AM

I'm sure Yassky has already reached a deal with Walentas that a story or two will be lopped off the top of the proposal and then he will claim vistory. Actually, if that is the case he would be right to claim victory. If the process makes the building a wee bit smaller, maybe its all good.

Posted by: sam at December 18, 2008 12:03 PM

I was there for all 4 hours and I also spoke (in opposition). My issue is that most supporters are in favor because of the school. My question to them is why do we need 18 stories of above the school. I am confident Two Trees could still earn a nice return on a 9 or 10 story project, and everyone would be happy.

Yassky makes the most appropriate point very well, you have to consider the project seperate from the school. Otherwise it is jsut a non-monteary bribe used to futher a project that would otherwise be shot down.

Posted by: AndYouWillKnowUsbyTheTrailofRenters at December 18, 2008 12:33 PM

Can someone also explain to me about the "jobs" this will bring to Brooklyn? as someone mentioned last night 10-15 jobs is not worth sacrificing the neighborhood and the bridge.

Also, to reiterate: if the building was smaller wouldn't we just have 8-12 jobs instead. That seems acceptable to me.

Posted by: AndYouWillKnowUsbyTheTrailofRenters at December 18, 2008 12:39 PM

"Can someone also explain to me about the "jobs" this will bring to Brooklyn?"

well apart from the (many) construction jobs at a time when construction will be winding down, there would be the building jobs like doormen, concierge, porters, handyman, garage attendants, plus the retail jobs in the new stores, and the childcare and housekeeping jobs that 700 new residents will require. There will also be new professional teaching positions and school administration jobs as well as custodial jobs for the new middle school.

Posted by: sam at December 18, 2008 12:48 PM

nice model. build this.

Posted by: BrooklynLove at December 18, 2008 1:41 PM

Thing to understand before you make any decision, a multistory hotel taller than this proposed building can be built as of right on this large site. So his is probably the best building we will ever get and preferable to a large hotel. Two Trees can't say this as would be taken as a threat. Not sure if the opponents realize this.

Posted by: BK realestate veteran at December 18, 2008 2:08 PM

I was at the mtg. for 4 hours. It was not equally divided. There was clearly more in opposition than against. And the opposition was not just condo owners with view implications. There were all kinds of people concerned about the quality of life in this area. The opposition's arguments were solely about the school and affordable housing, yet people don't understand the complexities of having a public school housed in a private development. Opposition thinks it's somehow a free school accessible to everyone and that it will be built no matter what in a few years. It's just a shell and will cost $41MM to outfit. There's no guarantees it will ever get built or built as being presented. There are so many unknowns yet people are quick to say yes because it's an easy choice. Do your work and ask questions about this supposed school and project if your really care. Otherwise, a huge, out of context building will be built and remain forever. BTW, clintonhill person, there are no building this close to the bridge. Open your eyes.

Posted by: slly at December 18, 2008 2:11 PM

clintonhillbuyer at December 18, 2008 11:15 AM I was there too and heard things differently from how you heard them. Apart from the fact that an 18-story building is not "medium," it would, as at least one speaker noted, run along Water Street, which is very, very narrow across from the Empire Stores. At 9 to 18 stories, it would indeed loom over the Empire Stores and cast a big dark shadow on them and other nearby low-lying structures. PS--I may not have a million dollar loft but that doesn't keep me from wanting to preserve what precious little remains of the history that surrounds the bridge. That puts me in good company with the substantial number of people who don't even live close to the bridge (or see it from their homes), yet found the issue compelling enough to drag themselves on an evening in the holiday season with the hope that they could help make sure the character of that area is not forever spoiled for the many who travel to it.

Posted by: giovanni at December 18, 2008 3:53 PM

I actually think the as-of-right hotel building would be way smaller than the proposed residential building. The manufacturing zoning in place does not provide a lot of FAR. The developer wants to add an "R8" zoning overlay to the site creating a large amount of FAR, especially when coupled with a community facility (the school). that is how they would be able to build such a massive building. The existing zoning I believe is M2, which is low-rise manufacturing. It would not yield nearly as much FAR as the R8 zone. How they are justifying this tremendous uptick in density beats me, but I think they will get it or close to it. It's all about more tax revenues for the city, who is dying for it right now.

Posted by: sam at December 18, 2008 4:10 PM

sam, transient hotels are as-of-right in manufacturing districts. I think that is the alternative that some people are referring to above, not an industrial building of some sort.

Posted by: g man at December 18, 2008 4:46 PM

sam is incorrect, the site is big enough, and with air rights transfer from other two trees buildings on the block to do over 30 stories, check it out professionally and you'll see

Posted by: BK realestate veteran at December 18, 2008 5:28 PM

g man - go back and re-read sam's comment. You clearly didn't understand it the first time.

And you will know us by the trail of renters - first of all, this is a rental building. I would think that based on your name, you'd be in favor of rental housing (just kidding - I actually get the reference to the band name). Secondly, the notion that Walentas could subsidize the construction of the core and shell of a school and still make a decent return on only half the residential square footage he's proposing is laughable. I don't know how you can be so confident about Walentas' returns. Clearly you've never actually put pen to paper and figured out how real estate finance works. Maybe if you said he could cut off a floor or two - maybe. But you're lopping off the 9-10 of the highest revenue generating floors and claiming that it won't have too much of an impact. That's just flat out wrong.

Posted by: Make My Heights the P Heights at December 18, 2008 5:37 PM

I know enough about development to understand that the profits come from the two top floors. therefore it is absolutely in the interest of any developer to have high top floors with drop-dead views. On this site you have to have the building rise well above the Empire Stores to have a panoramic view. the choice of a community facility is smart because that boosts up the base height. the lower floors will contain the affordable housing and the cheaper apartments. The top two floors are the honey spot. that is where the profit is. A nine-story building with views of the underside of the bridge and the tobacco warehouse ruins could only be built as charity operation. Get real. This is New York.

An as-of-right hotel here would not be able to rise above the Empire Stores and the bridge sufficiently to be desirable. If a hotel could work financially here, the Walentases would have built it last year.

Posted by: sam at December 18, 2008 8:58 PM

The Walentas' profit in the project is directly related to their cost basis in the land. They have an extremely low basis on the vast majority and the part purchased more recently was acquired from another developer via disputes associated with another project.

The appreciation in the land value alone, not to mention a 150 story luxury rental building earning average rents of $3500 to $4000 per month, plus parking and commercial revenues would generate a tidy profit.

I have not crunched the numbers yet, (and yes I do know how) but even reselling the parcel of land would create a hefty return.

Posted by: AndYouWillKnowUsbyTheTrailofRenters at December 18, 2008 11:43 PM

Thanks MMHTPH, I did miss the key word "hotel" in the first sentence, which isn't quite the same as not understanding.

Posted by: g man at December 19, 2008 10:43 AM

For Sam:
"does anyone know when the feud between walentas and the BHA originated? It is kind of funny because the BHA opposed the initial change of use waivers for the big (formerly empty) industrial buildings in DUMBO and now, half the condo owners in DUMBO are Brooklyn Heights refugees. Why did the BHA oppose the residential re-use of the Gair factories and the clocktower building. Seems so silly in retrospect"

I do not live in BH and am not a BHA member. Nor do I have a view issue.

First of all, in the 1970's regarding Empire State Park, BHA played the significant roll in the acquisition of the land by the State and formation of a state park. They have always maintained an interest in the area surrounding the Bridge

The first 'feud' I can remember was in 1998 over the proposed TT inter-bridge hotel, movies and shopping destination project in the footprint of the Empire State Park and his Water Street holdings (i.e., Dock Street lot) - This was strongly opposed by all the local community groups, and BHA joined a little later. TT lost that, but there were other powers at work besides community activists. The Empire State Park parcel was eventually included in the Brooklyn Bridge Park.

TT then made several rezoning requests for each of their properties which were not opposed because of residential housing, which most groups, including BHA, supported, but that TT was doing what is known as 'spot' zoning instead of addressing the whole area. This is partially the reason why the Dock Street project lots have never been rezoned. TT won all of these zoning battles.

BHA (and all other community groups, all the LEOS, CB2, and most important, the City Council) opposed TT's prior offering in 2004 for a similar structure. Most arguments today against have not changed other than in detail. The school and 80/20 seemingly has raised a race card, but I think is a false and misleading reaction against the opposition by those who are for. It's the height and the density issues.

If you want to explore something really interesting, I recommend that you research why TT waited 15 years to develop DUMBO - they had most of these properties in the early 1980's. That may enlighten you.

Posted by: Borgqueen at December 21, 2008 1:08 PM

« Reprieve for The Little Room Commercial Properties in Distress »

December 18, 2008

Full House, No Vote at Dock Street Hearing

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions