Sign up for the Brownstoner daily email
« Thursday Links Open Thread »

July 30, 2009

City's Coney Plan Approved, Deal With Sitt Near

coney-skyline-073009.jpg
As expected, the City Council approved the Bloomberg administration's plans for the rezoning and redevelopment of Coney Island yesterday afternoon, and reports surfaced that the City was close to reaching a deal with its long-time nemesis in the area, Joe Sitt. The Council voted 44-2 in favor of the plan, with only Tony Avella of Queens and Charles Barron of Brooklyn opposing it. The deal with Sitt is more interesting. According to The Times, the city would buy six of the ten acress Sitt's company Thor Equities owns in the footprint, leaving him four acres on Stillwell and Surf Avenues for him to develop; no word on price. Needless to say, the group Save Coney Island wasn't very pleased with the Council's vote: “This is a sad day for New York City," said spokesman Juan Rivero. "As a result of this rezoning, people across the city and around the world who love Coney Island could see its historic amusement district shrunk, covered up and blocked off with high-rises, its history destroyed and its potential squandered — all for nothing."
Council Approves Deal to Upgrade Coney Island [NY Times]
Bloomberg's Coney Island Plan Passes City Council [NY Daily News]
Council Approves Coney Plan [NY Post]
Photo by John Chevier




Posted by Brownstoner at 8:58 AM | Comments (23)
Categories: Coney Island Area, Development

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/10801

Comments

i have a fondness for the grittiness and surreal feeling of coney, especially on a cold winter morning, partially fueled by the first time i saw The Warriors. but i cant argue that these plans are a big loss to "people across the city and around the world". its become a bit of a blight, and more romanticized than actually frequented by the people who want to save it in whole. its prime property that could probably serve a better use than for decaying rides and shoot-the-freak games.

Posted by: goldie at July 30, 2009 9:10 AM

everytime ive been there it's been pretty packed. it caters to people who most likely can't afford to hop on the jitney to the hamptons. what's wrong with that? and gorgeous photograph above btw!

*rob*

Posted by: PitbullNYC at July 30, 2009 9:17 AM

I do wish Brownstoner would be a little more impartial in his posts about the Coney Island redevelopment. This is a smart redevelopment plan that will retain the core of the amusement area as a year round, inexpensive destination and provide desperately needed jobs and services for one of the poorest communities in the City.

I'm so sick of these self righteous hipsters like the "Save Coney Island" bunch whining about this project. These are middle and upper middle class white kids from Williamsburg who enjoy spending the weekend in gritty, sketchy, dangerous Coney Island and pretending like they're some sort of Warriors-Joey Ramone hybrid. And while I suppose that charming and all to some people, it (and they) utterly ignore the 40,000 mostly black and latino residents of Coney Island who suffer in serious poverty in a dirty, crime infested and poorly served community.

Coney Island used to be a destination for middle class outer borough families...the "working man's riviera." It hasnt been that for years. Its become a playground for thugs and rich 20 something white kids looking to "slum it" for a few hours. The idea that we should somehow save a seedy, run down, tawdry and crime ridden place as some sort of "romantic" "icon" to the "good old days" of the 70's and 80's is absurd.

Posted by: clintonhillbuyer at July 30, 2009 9:34 AM

And what makes you think Joe Sitt is going to build housing for the "the 40,000 mostly black and latino residents of Coney Island who suffer in serious poverty in a dirty, crime infested and poorly served community." He's going to build luxury high rises. The City wants Coney Island to cater to the rich, not the average New Yorker or working guy. Joe Sitt isn't planning to make this anyone's Riviera but his own.

Posted by: bxgrl at July 30, 2009 9:40 AM

beach property is prime property anywhere you go. if its luxury units, so be it. i lived in santa monica for years and never understood the argument for tight rent control or low income housing there. people with the means (who pay most of the taxes) were banging on the doors to try to move in, but much of the property was tied up by rent controlled folks paying a fraction of market rates. luxury living is not a right.

Posted by: goldie at July 30, 2009 9:46 AM

what is exactly is crime ridden on coney island? im talking mostly the amusement district and beaches. it's always seemed pretty safe to me.

*rob*

Posted by: PitbullNYC at July 30, 2009 9:46 AM

santa monica is not NYC. And it's not ok to shove people around based on who you think pays more taxes. Coney Island was called the "working man's Riviera" - the rich didn't have much interest. Now they do? So what? Why should they feel entitled to every place and every amenity, and why should the rest of us have less rights?

Posted by: bxgrl at July 30, 2009 9:55 AM

"Coney Island could see its historic amusement district shrunk"

This is such utter nonsense. The amount of land set aside under this plan for open amusements is far, far larger than the actual area devoted to those uses currently. For the last nearly 50 years, Coney Island has had C7 zoning that precludes pretty much everything EXCEPT amusements, and this zoning protection has coincided with a steady decline. People have this fantasy that there's some unmet demand for these uses that will suddenly appear from nowhere and inspire businesses to flock to the area to build more rides.

Posted by: Sparafucile at July 30, 2009 10:02 AM

I got talked into going out to Coney Island last weekend by a friend who had never been.

Then - against my better judgment - I let her talk me into riding the Himalaya.

Holy whiplash, Batman, never again...

Posted by: DitmasSnark at July 30, 2009 10:11 AM

what a wuss, snark! Try the Cyclone 3 times after a big lunch. :-)

Posted by: bxgrl at July 30, 2009 10:34 AM

i LOVE the hymalaya. there's two there right? or two very similar ones? i know one plays cheesy old heavy metal and one plays disco or something hahaha.

*rob*

Posted by: PitbullNYC at July 30, 2009 10:41 AM

"Try the Cyclone 3 times after a big lunch. :-)"

Said big lunch consisting of Nathan's frogs legs, of course.

Posted by: Sparafucile at July 30, 2009 10:54 AM

> what a wuss, snark!

I confess, I'm a wuss. But it really felt like I was going to be flung out of that thing.

> one plays cheesy old heavy metal and one plays disco

I was on one that played hiphop and disco, punctuated by airhorn blasts.

Posted by: DitmasSnark at July 30, 2009 11:02 AM

I agree with Goldie. Throw those people out. I live in a coop in a good neighborhood and have a great view from the 6th (top) floor. If a developer wants to throw us all out and build 20 stories and then another throws all of the the new owners out and builds 40 stories, so be it. And, according to the Supreme Court that's perfectly fine - it's all to the public good. Let the market (the mayor and the developers) decide (oops maybe that hasn't worked out too well recently.)

Posted by: giovannina at July 30, 2009 11:47 AM

Coney Island is not gritty, sketchy, and dangerous in season. In the dead of winter, maybe. Why is enjoying the uniqueness of the place "slumming it"? Making it more of a year-round destination is a good idea, but completely sucking out all the character is not.

Posted by: Carol Gardens at July 30, 2009 12:30 PM

like the sarcasm! but i wasnt saying throw people out. take the amusement park and make it into more useful public space, or revenue generating property such as lux highrises or retail space or whatever. as for santa monica, get rid of rent control and let it float to market rate. s.m. has many people paying a couple hundred a month to live near/on the water, while they drive BMWs and meanwhile the landlords can barely pay for maintenance.

Posted by: goldie at July 30, 2009 12:31 PM

I have no problem with high income people losing rent control staus- it should be according to income. But why should rich people be the only ones allowed to enjoy living in beautiful areas. Most people work- ergo they pay taxes too. Amusement areas seem to do very well in other parts of the country. Coney Island used to be a tremendous draw but it lost much of its magic over the years. So of course less people went there- pump it up, without turning it into 6Flags or disneyworld, and I guarantee you Coney Island will be the huge family attraction it once was. I love the place- I think it's awful to see how NYC is becoming a disneyfied version of itself. NYC- the Theme Park. Ugh.

Posted by: bxgrl at July 30, 2009 12:39 PM


"riding the Himalaya."

I HATE that ride! I always get seated next to some fat chick who winds up hermetically sealed onto my body! Ugh.

Posted by: East New York at July 30, 2009 1:16 PM

"what a wuss, snark! Try the Cyclone 3 times after a big lunch. :-)"

Bxgrl, one of my coworkers tried the Cyclone once after a big lunch, and christened some poor soul's lawn in Sheepshead Bay as a result...

Posted by: sixyearsandcounting at July 30, 2009 4:19 PM

6 years- a true Cyclonian never throws up :)

Posted by: bxgrl at July 30, 2009 4:32 PM

Coney Island is not the first NY neighborhood where services have been decreased and the area allowed to deteriorate so that developers can come in and save the community from blight. Planned shrinkage anyone? As for rent control we've heard for years the populist rants about the rich who unfairly have this benefit and how we must get rid of controls to make them pay market rates, whatever that is. Not much concern about housing the poor and middle class. Anyone keeping tabs on the homeless rates? If we keep getting rid of the poor we may all have to clean each other toilets.

Posted by: giovannina at July 30, 2009 6:14 PM

Coney island's time has passed. But it could be relevant again. However, the plan for high rise hotels and luxury developments isnt going to work with only a few minor attractions and a long commute into the city.

all things being equal, i'd rather they let disney redevelop it. It could use some Imagineering.

Posted by: slick at July 30, 2009 9:56 PM

Coney Island is a public space as well as an entertainment area. I am all for cleaning up Coney Island- there is no reason why poor and working class people should have to put up with the tawdriness when they take their kids out for a day's entertainment. For once, can the city please consider the needs of the millions of working class people in this city who have so few options for public recreation? We get the absurd waste of money high line for the wealthy, but there's no hue and cry for spaces for the working-class.

Posted by: orestes at August 1, 2009 2:10 PM

Post a comment

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

Latest Restaurant Additions