« Thursday Links Gowanus Green/Public Place Gets Public Meeting »

December 18, 2008

Rezoning for Brighton Beach?

oceana-1208.jpg
Kensington's doing it. So is Flatbush (and Gowanus and Greenpoint/Williamsburg, too). And now Brighton Beach is slated for the rezoning bandwagon, too. City Limits reports that that proposal is "an attempt to limit destructive overdevelopment by setting clear limits on construction and creating height restrictions for buildings in the area. Most of the neighborhood is now zoned without any height limits." The limits were removed in the 1970s to stimulate development. Guess it worked, with an influx of young money and immigrants tilting the nabe away from the low-rise housing that once dominated and toward projects like the Oceana, in the photo above. Thus it's been the victim of the speculation that's harmed other Brooklyn neighborhoods, with half-finished or vacant projects looming over the area. If the rezoning goes through, most of the neighborhood would have to respect a 40-foot height limit, with 80 feet on commercial streets and 100 feet over on Brighton Beach Avenue, the throbbing hub of the 'hood. But some folks think it's too little, too late. "Asked whether the proposal will solve the development situation in Brighton, [CB13's district manager, Chuck Reichenthal] said: 'No, it won’t.'”
Rezoning Too Late for Brighton Beach? [City Limits]




Posted by lisa at 9:04 AM | Comments (25)
Categories: Brighton Beach, Zoning

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/7660

Comments

That Oceana look pretty good from the pic.
"the victim of the speculation that's harmed other Brooklyn neighborhoods, with half-finished or vacant projects looming over the area" - as opposed to the run-down obsolete slummy wooden shacks that existed before?

Posted by: Petebklyn at December 18, 2008 9:44 AM

that description is paraphrased from the article.

Posted by: longtimelistener at December 18, 2008 9:50 AM

I am wondering if the author of the City Limits article even bothered to go to Brighton Beach to investigate this story. This article is so poorly done, it's incredible. Just a few of the holes in the story:

-the article prominently positions a picture of a group of very tall buildings,supposedly to show the results of this recent overdevelopment. They conveniently forget to mention that these towers, called Warbasse, are over 40 years old, are located in neighboring Coney Island, AND were developed by a Union (Amalgamated) as a limited-equity co-op. They are not condos developed by a private interest.

-the artcile also cites the Oceana as an example of overdevelopment. This really has my head spinning. The section of Brighton Beach immediately next to the Oceana is chock-a-block with dreary, 6-story 1920's apartment buildings. The density and dreariness of these apartment buildings is oppressive. On the other hand, as clearly shown from the photo, the Oceana buildings are 7-12 stories set in a nicely-landscaped space. They may not be everyone's cup-of-tea, but they are a vast improvement over the neighboring buildings.

Do the anti-development forces think they are doing a service to their cause by publishing nonsense like this? Also, I wonder if Brownstoner believes it is serving a useful function in just passing along stuff like this. A little critical analysis would be helpful.

Posted by: benson at December 18, 2008 10:13 AM

I've been in several of those 20's (and newer) apartment buildings and found them to be lovely (I worked out there in the early 90s). Maybe you should take up journalism, Benson--I have never heard you say one positive thing on here. Really a drag.

Posted by: longtimelistener at December 18, 2008 10:17 AM

Longtimelistener;

OK, I'll indulge you for one sentence. Is this what you would like me to say?

"Gosh darn, Lisa, thank for passing on that article. Yet another well-done article about the evils of over-development".

Now, getting back to reality, I have several questions for you:

-are you saying that I should not point out gross factual mistakes that were made by a journalist in making a case? Do you think it is acceptable that they prominently displayed a phote of the Warbasse towers in Coney Island, and tried to pass them off as private condo towers in Brighton Beach?

-I would like to know exactly which apartment building, in the area adjacent to the Oceana, you found to be "lovely". I'm not talking about other areas of Brighton, I'm talking about that specific areas. Please give us an address so that readers of this blog can go and check it out for themselves.

Posted by: benson at December 18, 2008 10:26 AM

If you want to affect change, try a different tone. If you actually have information that we can use, I'd love to hear it. Your polemical tone makes it hard to digest as fact; it incites skepticism. I'd love to learn, but not from a rant.

Posted by: longtimelistener at December 18, 2008 10:38 AM

Longtimelistener;

So I see that you will not respond to my factual questions.

I also see that you are not joining in the recent efforts by many Brownstoner regulars to avoid personal attacks. As such, I'll end this conversation with the same advice I recently gave to you in another thread: if you don't like what I have to say, just skip my posts.

Posted by: benson at December 18, 2008 10:51 AM

not to belabor the point, but I don't think asking you to be civil, or telling you that i wish i COULD learn from you is a personal attack, and I find that you attack the folks who post (or write) articles. I guess I was hoping I could affect change in YOU. Ah, well, no go. I don't say this as an attack: I don't think you add to the discussion. I say it in the hope that you'll consider changing your tack and tone.

Posted by: longtimelistener at December 18, 2008 11:04 AM

also, haven't worked there since '94, but i believe we were in the brighton 3rd area--big deco-y buildings, spacious, nice floors, curved walls, subtle moldings...good stuff.

Posted by: longtimelistener at December 18, 2008 11:05 AM

i have been in brighton beach for over 20 years and the only thing bad about all the new development is the traffic. these side streets west of coney isl ave were horrible drug infested prostitution bums this neighborhood is filled with pre and post war apartment buildings that make up most of the population. the bungalows that are being sold and developed were worth something when this was a vacation spot 100 years ago they are worthless now. if you want to talk about over development in this part of the world talk about sheepshead bay where you have a couple hundred vacant apartments right now. its also a joke that some people are afraid of over developing coney island its prime water/beach front land just like brighton. the way they are talking about changing the zoning is a joke who would want to live in a 10 story building on top of the train nice view of the B line. i live 5 blocks away from the train and with windows open i can hear it. anyway the zoning should be made higher on the side streets where the little houses are and down zoned on the avenue and keep it retail west of coney isl ave. one thing that most dont realize about brighton is this place is going to change alot in the next 10-15 years most of the people that live here are immigrants that are getting old and are not going to be around much longer alot of their kids are not staying here most move to jersy and long island and florida this is not going to be the same brighton in 15 years they should take this into account if they want to change the zoning because most of the people who want changes are not going to be around to see them.

Posted by: Local Broker at December 18, 2008 11:12 AM

Local Broker;

Please have your article reviewed by Longtimelistener. Even though you live there, it is not appropriate and "civil" to state the facts about the neighborhood. Moreover, you must be missing those wonderful structures that are "big deco-y buildings, spacious, nice floors, curved walls, subtle moldings...good stuff". Why would the children want to flee these wonderful buildings for NJ and Long Island?

Tsk-tsk. Longtimelistener will not approve of such negativity.

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

local broker, those are interesting thoughts--although i think the low-rise side streets should be maintained, personally. sounds like you should share your thoughts with the local community board. also, not sure, but seems like the rezoning would be larger than just brighton beach, which is perhaps why buildings not officially in the nabe (as benson asserts) are used as examples of "over development." if you know the boundaries of the rezoning proposal, please share. thanks.

Posted by: longtimelistener at December 18, 2008 11:39 AM

i do not know the boundaries. im a commercial broker and have been involved in alot of development sales over the past few years and with knowledge of this neighborhood this is what the zoning should look like. fisrt off lets set the lines of brighton beach boardwalk to the south beltparkway to the north ocean parkway to the west and corbin place to the east. everything south of brighton beach ave stays the same no need for change its all buildings except for brighton 1st which has houses on it not many maybe 10 which are nice and a couple at brightwater court on the same block. brighton beach avenue from coney isl ave to ocean pkwy should be a retail zoning with a small residential overlay like R4. BBA from CIA to corbin should be up zoned for higher residential and keep the retail the same little grocery or bakery no big retail which wouldnt come to this side of brighton anyway. now everything north of BBA east of CIA should stay as well i believe its and R6 with no commercial zoning except for brighton 11th street which has some stores and M zoning should be taken away from brighton 11th street at cass place and make it a mixed use zone for just the beginning of the block where there is a small warehouse tile store and medical office. and this part of brighton doesnt end at the belt its at cass place where neptune meets emmons ave. now the hard part north of BBA west of CIA should be R6-R8 up to neptune ave. but if someone wants to build a brand new 1-3 fam house that should be allowed even though i dont see that happening. neptune ave from OP to CIA should be R6-R8 with commercial overlays there are parts now that are stores but can only be built to residential it should be mixed use. neptune from east of CIA should be R4 no retail. and everything north of neptune should be R3-R4 no retail thats where the houses should go. simple and i think that would make most happy. as far as community meetings go i think its a joke at least here it is the people in this community have no pull with politicians theres no old money here old ties thats why a lot are saying its to late if they cared and had pull this would have happened in 2004 when most of the new stuff started going up now at the end of the market they want change please. i just saved the city from spending a lot of time and money on their research on what to do in brighton just send me the check and change the zoning.

Posted by: Local Broker at December 18, 2008 12:18 PM

oh and warbass is mostly russians just like trump you can call it brighton but its not it coney island even though its closer to brighton than what most think of when you say coney island either way those buildings are from the 60s and have nothing to do with over development the guy who wrote that article doesnt know about real estate or whats going on the nabe

Posted by: Local Broker at December 18, 2008 12:27 PM

"the guy who wrote that article doesnt know about real estate or whats going on the nabe ".

Local Broker: thank you for confirming my suspicions about the author. BTW: I lived in neighboring Gravesend for over 40 years, which is why I know the area. Gravesend is seeing alot of development with mid-rise condos too. Many 2nd-generation Russians from Brighton Beach are moving to these condos.

Good luck with your ventures!

Posted by: benson at December 18, 2008 12:45 PM

Local Broker,
What are your thoughts about Trump Village coops? In your opinion, would the prices there do better or worse than the overall Brooklyn prices in the southern half of the borough?
Thank you.

Posted by: Gravis at December 18, 2008 2:00 PM

question, though: you guys say overdevelopment's not a prob, but the community board chair sure believes it is. is it just that the properties mentioned in the article aren't the best examples, or do you really think it's not a problem? I get that it's worse in some neighborhoods, but that wouldn't preclude rezoning. Anyway, i'm sure your voices would be welcomed in the discussion.

Posted by: longtimelistener at December 18, 2008 2:31 PM

i think the market has been hit in some way everywhere but this part of the world is unique its dominated by one group of people sure there are different ethnicities in the nabe but by far russian and its ocean/beach front what im saying is these people want to be here near the stores family boardwalk for how long i dont know but like i said before im guessing another 15 years as for trump i think its expensive for a coop high maintenance cost as opposed to condos with no real amenities (pool, gym) there are other coops in the nabe that do have them but the location is good clean buildings doorman security parking if you could get one and its nearly impossible to get a spot its not a bad buy in trump but i hear that the owners of the buildings are going to refi for improvements and the maintenance is going to go up also 60s construction sucked there are condos you can buy for nearly the same money some of those apartments are asking
as far as over development goes one of the problems is alot of the builders are putting up quality stuff and layouts suck that was the problem with oceana in the first phase but they changed up and put in much better materials that was a great development for sure that was just nothing but pure profit there are some spots in the nabe where buildings should have not been put up certain blocks on the side streets were not ready for it and you have amateur wanna be developers doing things like this everywhere not every project can be good but i think most did well

Posted by: Local Broker at December 18, 2008 3:17 PM

Longtimelistener;

I am not stating that overdevelopment is perhaps not a problem. Some rezoning may be called for in this area. I am not qualified enough to make a judgment on the matter, as I haven't studied the traffic, schoolroom capacity, etc.

You keep asking about what drives my point of view. I thought about it a bit, and will try to answer it here.

I am a passionate defender of the right of private property. I believe that this right is as fundamental to a society's well-being as the right of free speech, the right of free association, etc.

I recognize that there must be some regulation of private property, much in the same way that some speech is regulated. For instance, I do believe that reasonable zoning is an appropriate function of government. Having said that, I will fight against those who would restrict development merely out of ignorance, or some ill-thought-out utopian vision, and I see this type of thing creeping often onto these pages. When I see such attacks on private property, I defend this right. If that requires that I must call into question the work of authors, so be it. If it makes me NOT warm and fuzzy, so be it.

In my opinion, this article was worthy of such criticsm. Clearly the author has some type of anti-development ax to grind, and will bend the facts to make his case, as I pointed out. He went so far as to take pictures of twoers that are not even in the area.

Anyone who takes a walk through the section of Brighton Beach in question will see that some sort of development is needed. This section consists of old bungalows, built 100 years ago. Into these poorly built wood-frame structures are crammed 3 or 4 Russian or Pakastani immigrant families. Many of these bungalows face narrow alleys, not the street, and they are firetraps. The electical systems are substandard. It is unbelievable that these structures are still standing in 2008 in NYC. Those who would hinder the redevelopment of this area simply because they have an affinity for lower-density areas, and do not even visit the section in question, are worthy of criticsm.

Posted by: benson at December 18, 2008 3:22 PM

Thanks, Benson. I still disagree with you that the article has an "ax to grind," which seems different to me than having a point of view. I'm fond of some of those old beach bungalows (especially those in far rockaway) and generally air on the side of cautious development: i like dynamism, contrast, but i also like neighborhoods that evolve slowly and don't leap to tear downs and manhattan-ish versions of themselves. i think we agree on some things--you don't seem fond of the big buildings in the area, either. anyway, if the author of the article indeed included buildings that have nothing to do with the rezoning, probably good to tell him/her. The private property versus public good quagmire is an old and complicated one. We're not really a property rights kinda town, alas, as places like Phoenix are. Usually the denser and area, the less attached people are to property rights (and the bluer an area is, coincidentally).

Posted by: longtimelistener at December 18, 2008 3:36 PM

i totally agree with you benson those small houses are garbage and dangerous as for the guy who wrote that article i dont know what his motives are but he definitely got it wrong
i went to the city zoning site and there is nothing there for brighton beach by the time they get to it we will be in the next real estate cycle it will be interesting to see how it plays out over the next few years

Posted by: Local Broker at December 18, 2008 5:06 PM

Local Broker,

For the love of G-d, could you please edit your sentences? Reading your comments hurts my eyes! (Yes, I am a teacher).

Posted by: sixyearsandcounting at December 18, 2008 5:14 PM

your the teacher you can figure it out.
i didnt realize i was getting a grade on this.
you can skip my comments i promise you wont hurt my feelings.

Posted by: Local Broker at December 18, 2008 6:32 PM

It's late, but you're still getting an unofficial grade: your poor grammar shows obvious carelessness. It takes ALMOST NO EFFORT to pay attention to capitalization, periods, and commas. Have some respect for your audience.

Posted by: sixyearsandcounting at December 18, 2008 10:17 PM

I THINK THE KEY WORD IS almost.............

Posted by: Local Broker at December 19, 2008 10:17 AM

Post a comment

Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.

Latest Restaurant Additions