« Eddie's, Up Close and Personal Foreclosure of the Week: 1316 Beverley Road »

May 20, 2009

Council Vote Approaching, Dock Street Debate Crescendos

dock-street-0509.jpg
With the final public hearing on Two Trees' controversial Dock Street Dumbo development scheduled for tomorrow at City Hall and a final City Council vote likely to take place in June, the opposition is pulling out some eleventh hour celebrity spokespeople, including most recently Ken Burns and Ugly Betty stat Ana Ortiz, in its bid to derail the approval of the mixed-use (400 apartments, 1 school) development; the publicity blitz comes on the heels of a protest on the steps of City Hall three weeks ago. Meanwhile, the developer sent an open letter last night to the eight celebs who've lent their name to the opposition urging them to hear both sides of the story and charging that opponents were spreading disinformation and putting their personal wants (like preserving the views from their lofts) over the needs of the community for a public middle school and affordable housing. (The Brooklyn Eagle defends the process through which the city came to support the school in an article today.) Tomorrow's public hearing takes place tomorrow morning at 10 a.m. in the City Council Chamber at 260 Broadway in Manhattan.
City Planning Approves Dock St. Minus 1 Floor [Brownstoner]
Dock Street Decision 'Most Difficult to Date' [Brownstoner]
CB2 Gives Thumbs Up to Dock Street [Brownstoner]
CB2 To Vote Tonight on Dock Street [Brownstoner] GMAP
Full House, No Vote at Dock St Hearing [Brownstoner]
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]




Posted by Brownstoner at 10:30 AM | Comments (20)
Categories: Development, Dumbo

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/9841

Comments

I'm not for this or against it. Hell, I've never been to DUMBO. But what the hell does it matter if two "celebrities" are enlisted as spokespersons??? They carry no more weight than any other Asshat.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at May 20, 2009 10:38 AM

DIBS;

I'm with you. In fact, I tend to go against any cause that seeks to enlist an array of celebs. I take it as a substitute for an argument based upon its merits.

By the way, is it just me or is Ken Burns an annoying person? I find his films wearying to watch, as they are invariably sermons on how Ken thinks the world should be run, thinly disguised as a historical documentary.

Posted by: benson at May 20, 2009 10:46 AM

DIBS you are so right....

This whole thing is a tempest in a teapot, mainly drummed up by people who are upset about losing their views. The Brooklyn Bridge is surrounded by buildings on both sides of the river (including the ugliest building in history - the Verizon Tower) and you know what - the bridge is just as gorgeous, just as impressive as it ever was....I know - I walk over the thing every single day (if the temp is over 55)

Posted by: fsrg at May 20, 2009 10:50 AM

FSRQ;

I'm not sure you know, but the world's ugliest building (with which I agree, btw) will soon be no longer. I read a report a few months ago that it was sold to a new owner, and will be reclad in glass. Now THIS is good news.

Posted by: benson at May 20, 2009 10:53 AM

Does anybody really think that the building will have any effect on the Brooklyn Bridge? I mean truthfully?
I don't get it. But then, I'm not a celebrity.


Posted by: sam at May 20, 2009 10:54 AM

It is interesting to note that, in his latest newsletter, Yassky comes out against the Dock Street site and chastises the SCA for “not exercising due diligence” and notes that it seems “intent on pursuing the (project) without doing their homework.” He ends with a stirring plea that “government must renew its commitment to fiscal responsibility and transparency”.

Sadly, he does not hold the SCA to this same standard when it comes to the PS 133 project – which will result in the destruction of one of the few buildings of historic significance on 4th Avenue, and create an environmental nightmare for local residents. He full supports the primary PS 133 plan and has not been open to any discussions of alternatives that would include restoration of the old school and new building that could create needed seats.

Posted by: Brooklyn Red at May 20, 2009 10:57 AM

Benson - yes I'm aware - supposed to be a total refacing (like they did to the Verizon Tower across from Bryant Park) - but given the economy I doubt that starting and completing such an office project (in a weird location) is going to be done anytime soon.....either way the Bridge is still a wonder - Verizon tower or not.....

Posted by: fsrg at May 20, 2009 10:58 AM

This was the first time I clicked on any of this stuff. After all the horror stories I was expecting something terrible - but the building looks fine, and contextual.
Agree with fsrq that the main reason for objection would be from those who will lose their views. Guess it took Ugly Betty to get me to notice - and disagree with her.

Benson, I find Ken Burns' films very soporific. Turns every subject into the same sepia-toned sentimental mush.

Posted by: etson at May 20, 2009 11:02 AM

Please for the love of god ditch that #$%#ing verizon sign.

I know, I know, far bigger issues out there in the world. But damn is that sign a blight on our beautiful city.

Posted by: Johnny at May 20, 2009 11:03 AM

Why don't the DUMBO folks focus their considerable energy and star power to press for the restoration and reuse of the Empire Stores? Those Albany-owned buildings are in a terrible state of disrepair and are a disaster waiting to happen.


Posted by: sam at May 20, 2009 12:08 PM

I think it's worth mentioning that the Brooklyn Eagle's landlord is, yes, 2 Trees/David Walentas. The office had a (slanted to Walentas'advantage) diorama of the project in their window for weeks until people questioned the idea.

When a preschool is built adjacent to the Eiffel Tower, then this project will be appropriate. (I.e., never.)

Posted by: bklyn20 at May 20, 2009 1:10 PM

bklyn20, two trees is former landlord of Brooklyn Papers, which is now in MetroTech.
Eagle is in a small buildng at 30 Henry Street.

Posted by: chrishavens at May 20, 2009 1:18 PM

bklyn20, you do realize that your last posting was completely incoherent.

Posted by: sam at May 20, 2009 1:47 PM

2 Trees was the landlord of The Brooklyn Paper AND is The Brooklyn Eagle/Brooklyn Heights Press' landlord (yes, at 30 Henry Street.) If you don't know, 30 Henry Street is conveniently located close to PS8 -- very suitable location for a marketing campaign. In addition, newspapers that pretend to be impartial outside their editorial pages should not be displaying models of proposed development projects -- whoever their landlord might be.

My second point is that the Brooklyn Bridge is a national and international landmark. Thus, it should not have any additional buildings impinging on its airspace. That's why I liken it to the Eiffel Tower -- nothing is built cose to the Eiffel Tower, even a much-needed middle school, nursery school, hospital... whatever.

Posted by: bklyn20 at May 20, 2009 1:58 PM

bklyn20 - the owner of 30 Henry is

CELE REALTY CORP
cecile l. is her name....
475 HENRY ST
BROOKLYN NY 11201

http://nycprop.nyc.gov/nycproperty/statements/asr/jsp/stmtassessasr.jsp?statementId=133142680
check it please

Posted by: chrishavens at May 20, 2009 2:34 PM

The Eiffel tower is in a park. The Brooklyn bridge is not.

Posted by: zgori at May 20, 2009 2:36 PM

The Eiffel Tower is more like the Washington Monument in that it is set within a large federally owned and maintained garden called the Parc du Champ de Mars. In Washington it is called the National Mall. There is no national mall or champ de mars surrounding the bridge. There is a newish waterfront park beneath the Bridge and that will not be effected at all by the new building.
The idea that one cannot or should not build a new building near a famous NYC landmark is a novel approach to preservation in NYC. There is nothing in the landmarks law that prohibits or limits in any way new construction adjacent to landmarks. This is simply a made-up argument that has no foundation in local preservation law or traditional practice.

Posted by: sam at May 20, 2009 2:36 PM

"There is nothing in the landmarks law that prohibits or limits in any way new construction adjacent to landmarks. This is simply a made-up argument that has no foundation in local preservation law or traditional practice"....or common sense

this is much ado about peoples views from their brand new apartments

Posted by: fsrg at May 20, 2009 3:53 PM

I apologize if 2 Trees doesn't won the building -- I had heard they did from a (previously) reliable source. But the other point still obtains -- a newspaper shouldn't have a building model in its window! And I don't live in DUMBO, and have no views to lose. The same is true of many opponents of this project.

Posted by: bklyn20 at May 20, 2009 5:05 PM

Sam, it is the Parc du Champs de Mars. plural Champs.
A very lovely huge park in the heart of Paris.

The Brooklyn Bridge has no Champs de Mars but it has the expansive East River to set it off. The argument about a little building on Dock Street taking away from the bridge is pure hooey. Any smart six year old could tell you that.

In terms of the newspaper not displaying a model in its window. why the heck not? what better way to display the project to the public so as to let them make up their own minds? But the model showed the truth and that ticks off the nimby-ites who do not wish to let the facts get in the way.


Posted by: mcKenzie at May 20, 2009 7:41 PM

Post a comment

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

Latest Restaurant Additions