« Wednesday Links Hubbard House Gains LPC Designation »
January 14, 2009
CB2 To Vote Tonight on Dock Street

Community Board 2's land use committee failed by one vote to approve the mixed-use development in Dumbo known as Dock Street when it met last month. Since then, the opposition has held a protest (at right) to call attention to how the 18-story project would block views from and of the Brooklyn Bridge and the Brooklyn Paper has written an article in which it says views wouldn't be that obstructed by proposed building after all. Now, tonight, the full board of Community Board 2 will convene for a final vote on the project, which includes roughly 400 apartments (20% of which would be affordable) and a public middle school. And even though its decision carries no legal weight (merely advisory), breaths are bated on both sides. Jed Walentas even wrote a letter to the board earlier this week that included this rendering intended to address the criticism that Dock Street would be as big a blight on the Brooklyn side of the bridge as the Verizon building is on the Manhattan side. Regardless of the outcome of tonight's vote, the matter will work its way through the ULURP food chain, from borough president to City Planning to City Council to the Mayor. Update: Opposition group Save the Brooklyn Bridge just posted this rendering of how it thinks the proposed development would impact views of the bridge.
CB2 Says Dock Street Design is "Too Tall" [Brooklyn Paper]
Dock Street Moves Forward — Second Vote on Saturday [Brooklyn Paper]
Full House, No Vote at Dock Street Hearing [Brownstoner] GMAP
How Does Dock Street Stack Up? [Brownstoner]
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]
Protest photo from DumboNYC
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/7959
Comments
The Verizon building should be getting better looking soon. Taconic Partners has bought most of it and, when they get a tenant, to strip off the facade and replace it with glass.
Posted by: denton at January 14, 2009 9:13 AM
Denton, that sounds like it spells the end for that god-awful Verizon sign???
Posted by: Johnny at January 14, 2009 9:16 AM
Another misleading photo from the Walentas camp.
How about a photo rendering of the BROOKLYN side of the bridge, where this tower will stick out like a sore thumb?
That's the whole point of the opposition - waterfront Brooklyn is not lower Manhattan and we don't want to load it up with a bunch of towers. Why would we sell off one of the prized qualities of our borough?
Posted by: NorthHeights at January 14, 2009 9:33 AM
The picture is slightly misleading because of the distance and height of the camera - but it does make the point - opponents to the plan have gone much further in distorting reality. The Walentas building will have ZERO effect on the beauty and setting of the Brooklyn Bridge.
Posted by: fsrg at January 14, 2009 9:44 AM
quote:
which includes roughly 400 apartments (20% of which would be affordable)
i am ALL for affordable housing, but i hate when they refer to apartments set aside at a lower rent / price than the others. obviously, every apartment will be affordable to someone. call it what it is. it's subsidized housing and/or below market rate. calling it "affordable" just sounds stupid. and it should be more than 20 percent alotted btw. it's also annoying that those "affordable" units ALWAYS go to people ONLY on the community boards within their certain district and then a bunch alotted to people with supposed disabilities when we all know full well they actually go to people who wash each others' hands. there's more fraud in these types of housing programs than in bernie madoff's entire portfolio.
*rob*
Posted by: PitbullNYC at January 14, 2009 9:52 AM
The proposed Dock St. project will be much closer to the bridge. Also it will be placed on some of the tightest, narrow streets in Brooklyn, creating massive shadows and nightmare traffic among other things.
Posted by: AndYouWillKnowUsbyTheTrailofRenters at January 14, 2009 9:52 AM
How can you be opposed to a building that is comparable in height to surrounding buildings, will provide low income housing AND a much needed school for the neighborhood? I understand the concern of some opponents, but you can't be opposed to something that in the end will prove to be a very good thing for DUMBO. Also, just think of what could happen if this piece of land falls into the wrong hands...
Posted by: SouthParker at January 14, 2009 9:55 AM
the only thing i can think of is that many people who live in nyc do not WANT more schools. more schools = more families = more children = less edge to a neighborhood = less fun = nyc just being a crowded bizarro version of the suburbs. just a thought.
*rob*
Posted by: PitbullNYC at January 14, 2009 10:00 AM
SouthParker, judging by your name you do not live there so I don't know if you are the best person to say what is good for the neighborhood. A huge building which includes 465 space parking garage in an area of narrow, cobblestone streets that have same direction one way streets would not be good for the neighborhood. It would cast a shadow on the empire stores and shops on water st. it would have tons of cars going down water st. to get back to old fulton and it would look like it was on top of and towering over the bridge.
Posted by: AndYouWillKnowUsbyTheTrailofRenters at January 14, 2009 10:03 AM
North Heights - your comment is really unfair and disingenuous. Walentas has produced tons of renderings showing what the building would look like on the Brooklyn side. If you care about this issue (as you seem to) you must have seen these. So don't pretend that this is the only image walentas is using. This drawing was produced to respond to a specific allegation that was made at the hearing that this building will have the same impact on views of the bridge as the hated verizon building had on the Mnahattan side. To me, this image does a pretty good job of blowing that bogus claim out of the water.
Posted by: Make My Heights the P Heights at January 14, 2009 10:05 AM
well, AndYouWillKnowUsbyTheTrailofRenters, that's my opinion and the opinion of friends who do live in the neighborhood. And, by the way, why not focus on saving the empire stores which, in my humble opinion, is the real problem?
Posted by: SouthParker at January 14, 2009 10:11 AM
SouthParker, I agree with you there.
I was walking through the park the other day looking at the stores and wondering if they could somehow do a school there and still keep within the landmark status. I am sure there are a million issues with that, but imagine how awesome it would be to go to school there. That would be great for the kids and the neighborhood.
Posted by: AndYouWillKnowUsbyTheTrailofRenters at January 14, 2009 10:14 AM
AndYOuWillKnowUs - pretty much every one of your issues is incorrect and just fear mongering. I spend alot of time in DUMBO, specifically on that block. That block is already in shadows for most of the day because of the height of empires stores, the height of the buildings across the street and the narrowness of the street. Once you are in the shadows, I don't think another building can put you MORE in the shadows. Also - who cares if the building casts a shadow on Empire Stores? From the renderings I've seen, it will in no way lok like it is on top of or towering over the bridge. The bridge pier will still be significantly taller than this building. In all likelihood the new building will blend into the background with the other similarly sized DUMBO buildings along Main Street and Washington St. Finally - yes, the garage is large and will likely lead to an increase in car traffic in the area. But having spent alot of time on those streets I can attest to the fact that those are some of the most deserted streets I've ever been on in a gentrified part of brooklyn. You can stand on Water Street for any given hour of the day and the most you'll see is maybe one car per minute go by. That's nothing. You can add alot more traffic to those streets without even coming close to "nightmare traffic" the fact remains that DUMBO is kind of a dead end. Noone goes through DUMBO to get somewhere else. The only traffic in DUMBO comes from people who are specifically going there, and for all it's hype, it's still a pretty small neighborhood (population-wise. Just take a chill pill and calm down. This building will be good for DUMBO.
Posted by: Make My Heights the P Heights at January 14, 2009 10:18 AM
Okay, Rob, let me thoughtfully respond to your comment about people not wanting more kids in NYC....
I have kids and they go to summer camp in RI. When the kids from the suburbs call others "gay" as an insult, my kids call them out on it. I think of that as a benefit of growing up in the city and learning tolerance of others that are different from you.
Peace. And by the way, my teenager probably thinks she has far more "edge" than you!
Posted by: Schultz at January 14, 2009 10:42 AM
No *rob* it will mean that only wealthy families who can afford to send their kids to private school will have the opportunity to live in Brooklyn and allow their children to get an education at a school without metal detectors.
I'm all for this development - as opposed to most developers, the Walentases actually seem to give a crap about the community and not just making a quick buck.
Posted by: columbiatch at January 14, 2009 10:44 AM
count me in as local who is very PRO dock street! and yes, I've seen and studied renderings by both two trees and opposition.
Posted by: Ringo at January 14, 2009 11:03 AM
quote:
I have kids and they go to summer camp in RI. When the kids from the suburbs call others "gay" as an insult, my kids call them out on it. I think of that as a benefit of growing up in the city and learning tolerance of others that are different from you.
and ill call YOU right back out on that. i cant tell you how many times i was called "g@y" and even my dog was called a "f@g" YES, by KIDS in upper manhattan who obviously grew up in the city. your point is totally moot.
*rob*
Posted by: PitbullNYC at January 14, 2009 11:03 AM
I am not pretending NYC is kumbaya (sp?) land, but I do find much greater tolerance here than outside the city for many, many groups. And many of my friends openly admit they choose to live here because of that.
And yes, we've all had insults hurled at us. You sound a bit irked today.
Posted by: Schultz at January 14, 2009 11:09 AM
diversity my butt. where do these people even send their kids to school? (be honest.) most have no intentions in creating a true diverse atmospher. they send their little crotchfruits to completely homogenous sterile suburban-lite private schools. okay so im a little irked today. gonna take a break from posting for a bit to relax.
*rob*
Posted by: PitbullNYC at January 14, 2009 11:20 AM
And you respond to kids who call your dog "fag"!!!!!!????????
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at January 14, 2009 11:21 AM
yeah i sorta do dave. i can relate more to those kids than the influx of little madisons and mccalaighs who infest nyc these days.
*rob*
Posted by: PitbullNYC at January 14, 2009 11:26 AM
ROb - nice job hijacking this thread. Anyone with any sense knows that NYC is a pretty big place. Plenty of space for those who want to live out their "edgey" lives unencumbered by the moral obligation to protect the delicate sensibilities of children. And plenty of space for breeders who want to ensure that, above all else, their kids grow up in a safe environment. As a matter of fact - those two camps are not mutually exclusive as most people start out in one and eventually move into the other (and some even move back into the first one again, eventually).
Posted by: Make My Heights the P Heights at January 14, 2009 11:49 AM
The only reason people oppose this building is because their views will be blocked by it. Period. NIMBYism at its finest.
Posted by: dirty_hipster at January 14, 2009 12:18 PM
"The only reason people oppose this building is because their views will be blocked by it. Period. NIMBYism at its finest."
Bingo
Posted by: Biff Champion at January 14, 2009 12:25 PM
walentas and Twelve Trees did 2 projects while I still lived on Schermerhorn st. I have to say, they went out of their way to make us feel comfortable with what would happen during construction. The head engineer and construction site manager even came to introduce themselves and answer any questions we had. They do care- otherwise why come visit jittery residents and make themselves available to keep good community relations? Brooklyn College never bothered- and among other things they collapsed a building right behind mine.
My building has serious issues when the Dorm went up- seriously terrifying issues, not just lost my sunlight issues.
Dock St. looks to be a great addition to the area. As someone else said- it could be a lot worse if someone else had the property.
Posted by: bxgrl at January 14, 2009 12:29 PM
Nice soundbite about NIMBYism but not true for me. I have no dog in the blocked view fight. I simply think a building of this size is not right for Dumbo, particularly in this spot. I think J Condo and the Beacon detract more from the neighborhood than they add, and I think the same will be true for Dock Street. I do give credit to Walentas for his past efforts on converting the existing buildings (all of which are at least somewhat smaller/shorter than the new towers, I might add).
Posted by: NorthHeights at January 14, 2009 12:40 PM
interesting how the opposition rendering happens to be from the vantage of 70 washington. pretty telling as to what this protest is really about.
Posted by: BrooklynLove at January 14, 2009 12:43 PM
Funny thing about that rendering linked to from opponents. Viewpoint over Watchtower parking lot, an as of right residential development site that will some day be built. So view going away anyway.....
Most important, Dock Street site as of right 290 feet nearly if developer put 2.8 FAR community facility under 2.0 hotel. Opponents info saying only 2.0 wrong....
So proposal best building likely on site.....
Posted by: BK realestate veteran at January 14, 2009 1:09 PM
Better the devil you know - I'd rather see this building built then a bunch of 5 story Hot Karl or Scarano buildings.
Posted by: dirty_hipster at January 14, 2009 1:10 PM
NIMBY out of control! Everyone who lives in NYC knows that their views are not protected, DUMBO is a canyon of shadows already, and only in NY where there is constant, constant school overcrowding can a developer offer to build a school for a community and have it shot down because it will block a view....
Posted by: lalaland at January 14, 2009 1:56 PM
People oppose this building for two, possibly three, reasons. The first as stated by Biff, is that many people who paid top dollar for their chi-chi lofts will have their views blocked. Of course everyone has known for years that this parcel would be developed eventually. The second reason is a sort of blood feud that certain locals have with David Wallentas. It is remarkable personal hatred. the third is that there are people, generally a wee-bit neurotic, who hate new buildings over five stories in height. I have talked with some of these people and they actually shake with fear. Odd. Imagine living in NYC and being afraid of tall buildings.
I think this project will be great for the area. Think about a brand-new public school and a large garage! How can city people be so closed minded and provintial when it comes to new development and modern architecture? You would think they lived in backwoods Vermont.
Posted by: sam at January 14, 2009 3:23 PM
The brand-new public school will be for all of District 13, not just for P.S.8 kids -- who are attending a very diverse school right now, by the way. This is not going to be a "neighborhood school" -- a phrase which, I might add, has been disingenuously used by the Walentas team as a coded language term.
You need not have to worry about your views to dislike this proposal. I, and many others, think the building, like the J and others, is too tall -- but this is much closer to the Bridge, too.
You may remember that Walentas declined to renew the lease for The League School in DUMBO -- what does that say about 2 Trees' commitment to education? He may be a better developer than Gutman or Scarano. Does that then give 2 Trees the right to elbow in on a national (international) landmark for profit?
The buildings at Court & Atlantic improved on a raised parking lot. The current Dock Street proposal disparages the Brooklyn Bridge. There is no comparison.
Posted by: bklyn20 at January 14, 2009 5:56 PM

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