« New York State's Mortgage Aid Seven Years and Counting for Ingersoll Center »

August 11, 2009

US Concrete, Red Hook's New Resident

Red Hook residents have been distressed for a couple months now over the planned arrival of US Concrete to their neighborhood. Although Red Hook was historically a center of industry, and once considered one of the worst neighborhoods in the city, the neighborhood has greatly changed over the past ten years (duh). Now, residents fear that the new concrete factory will disrupt the balance they fought to create, reports the Brooklyn Paper: they worry about traffic, noise and pollution from trucks, dust from the factory, and its proximity to a community farm, Red Hook Park, and Ikea's waterfront park. The area's democratic councilwoman, Sara Gonzalez, held a summit meeting for residents and company representatives last Thursday, but so far, it looks like US Concrete will go forward with its plan.
Concrete Plant Plan Is a Real Red Hook Dust Up [Brooklyn Paper]
Residents Upset over Location of Concrete Plant [NY Daily News]
Photo by sgoodyear

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/10956

Comments

This is most likely a concrete staging operation to fill trucks, not an actual plant that manufactures cement or another components of concrete. These are put in urban setting s all over Asia where development is rapid. Other than the truck traffic, they are not the nuisance that people believe they will be.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at August 11, 2009 10:05 AM

Really nice looking chart on this stock...RMIX. There's been some insider buying.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at August 11, 2009 10:13 AM

also weren't these the same residents who thought the very same thing (more noise, more traffic,more pollution) when Ikea was proposed?
The point is if it's just a staging operation, then it will create 1 less desolate block and more jobs in RH which is much better than leaving that block empty for years to come!

Posted by: gemini10 at August 11, 2009 10:15 AM

G10 - some people will complain about any change no matter what!

Posted by: sixyearsandcounting at August 11, 2009 10:16 AM

true Six
it's just funny to me as I go to RH a lot and I think the new Ikea is a welcome oasis at the edges of RH and didnt create more of the things people complained about

Posted by: gemini10 at August 11, 2009 10:22 AM

Hey, what happened to all those folks who were clamoring for a "working waterfront" when Ikea was being proposed? What caused the change of heart?

I have a theory that some of these trust-funders want some type of 'old Brooklyn background", complete with old-timers like my dad, who pronounces toilet as "terlet' and does hark back to the days when Red Hook was a gritty, tough place where fists landed on faces quite often. It gives them some romantic notion that they are "keeping it real". Lo and behold, however, when an actual industry does plan to come to Red Hook, with its inherent dirt, they are "concerned". What a hoot!

By the way, there is one way you can instantly tell if someone is actually fron the old Red Hook: they never call it that. It was called "The Point" (or,as it is actually pronounced "the pernt") or "Erie Basin". Why it was called these names is a different story.

Posted by: benson at August 11, 2009 10:27 AM

LOL my grandfather pronounced toilet as terlet and oil as earl hahah.

yeah people complaining about stuff like this is absolutely ABSURD

it's jobs and manufacturing people! welcome it!

*rob*

Posted by: PitbullNYC at August 11, 2009 10:29 AM

Benson - I notice that "Erie Basin" train car that sits on the dock near Fairway - why was RH once called Erie Basin?

Posted by: gemini10 at August 11, 2009 10:30 AM

Gemini;

The reason is that Red Hook was developed as a port (or basin, as it was then called) after the Erie Canal was constructed. More specifically, alot of Midwest wheat was shipped to NY harbor via the canal, and much of that wheat wound up in Red Hook, where it was then loaded onto ocean liners. Those huge abandoned concrete silos that still stand in RH were for that purpose.

I don't know why it was called "The Point". What I do know (from my parents) was that anything south of Atlantic Ave was referred to as "South Brooklyn", which was then sub-divided into "The Point" (Red Hook and Carroll Gardens) and "The Creek" (Current-day Gowanus and parts of Cobble Hill). People were referred to as "Pointers" and "Creekers" based upon where they lived.

Posted by: benson at August 11, 2009 10:38 AM

Gotta agree with you on this one, Benson.

Posted by: Montrose Morris at August 11, 2009 10:39 AM

There are cities around the country that would welcome new businesses no matter what the industry. The people who will work here are the same that built their palatial loft.

Every city still needs a working class. Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't appreciate the city's true history and/or have never broken a sweat in their lives (aside from being in their spin class).

Posted by: big swinging nick at August 11, 2009 10:49 AM

Benson, you took the words right out of my mouth (and it wasn't while you were kissing me, no matter what Meatloaf sez!) This should be a panacea to all those moping that Gentrification will make Red Hook lose its "grit" and "edge." What could be grittier than cement? But no...cement is yucky. You are spot-on: What they seem to want is a moody, mostly empty stage set of a "gritty" past, dotted with some nice Internet cafes. I totally understand--that's pretty cool, and one feels quite hip in such a setting--but it doesn't do a hell of a lot for the local economy and the folks who actually live there.

Posted by: Brenda from Flatbush at August 11, 2009 10:52 AM

Is there anything the residents of Red Hook don't get distressed about?

Posted by: new2hood at August 11, 2009 10:56 AM

And there won't be Wi-Fi access at this ready mix plant..

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at August 11, 2009 10:57 AM

Ahh Nimbism - it is rare when you get to see the hypocrisy of its proponents (and of course deniers of being NIMBY) being so glaringly displayed....

Lets see if I can see the life cycle of RH Nimbyism - start from the premise that I want things to remain exactly the same as the day I got here:

1. Ikea proposed
Nimby response - too much traffic, destroys neighborhood brings pollution, destroys the industrial base of RH and replaces good jobs with cheap jobs.
Nimby action - frivolous lawsuits, rable rousing public hearings, scare tactic publicity 9sounds like the healthcare debate)
2. Ikea Built -
Broader community response= hey this is pretty good, good transport, no traffic issues, beautiful park and cheap meatballs!
Nimby response - (rather than admit they were WRONG) they still say no Ikea stinks, neighborhood destroyed, too much traffic, ugly, mallification of RH, park is inaccessible and surrounded by store parking, lost cherished dry dock
3. Concrete Plant proposed
Nimby response - too much traffic, destroys our beloved Ikea waterfront park, too industrial for residential neighborhood

Lesson - NIMBYs - are generally selfish hypocritical pricks, who are against EVERYTHING - they should be virtually ignored

Posted by: fsrg at August 11, 2009 11:11 AM

Benson - were they shipping American Midwest Wheat via these oceanliners to Europe/Asia and Africa back in the 50's??

Posted by: gemini10 at August 11, 2009 11:20 AM

Wow- this must be the first time a b'stoner thread has had a real consensus on anything! Benson- you are totally right. I'm happy industry is coming back to Red Hook (or actually anywhere in NYC). I think its a big mistake to have conceived as NYC as a strictly residential luxury condo only sort of place but it seems that that's exactly what City Planning has been doing for quite some time now. Finally reality is setting in- I was really happy to read about the new RH plan a few months ago.

Posted by: bxgrl at August 11, 2009 11:43 AM

Memorable day - I've agreed w/ Benson on two topics!

Posted by: Arkady at August 11, 2009 11:45 AM

Interesting clarifications, perhaps the term "Erie Basin" is generational? My next door nieghbors, a couple who are are approaching 90 years of age, occasionally will drive to Fairway to buy groceries. I have heard them say.."We are going to the Fairway at Erie Basin..." They never say they are going to Red Hook...As for the proposed facility, hopefully it will provide needed jobs for residents in the area.

Posted by: Crescent Hill at August 11, 2009 12:18 PM

It's interesting to me that the same people who criticize Red Hook residents for worrying about truck traffic and its attendant issues (air pollution, building damage) cry foul if a condo development in their neighborhood is too tall. There's a lot going on behind the residents concerns here but as usual the commenters on this thread discuss the issues in the most reductive and uninformed matter. If a concrete plant were to be sited in their neighborhood *without and environmental impact study*--which is what's happening here--I can imagine the clamor it would create. And as for IKEA, the thing that gets overlooked constantly when commenters want to slam the residents for their protests about the development was the historic, still working, civil war era graving dock (so we're talking something of cultural, historic, and economic merit) was filled in to make a parking lot. A parking lot that beyond the initial opening is *never* even close to filled to capacity. That in fact is at best half full on the weekends. But IKEA and the city said f-you to the neighborhood. And then a week after the IKEA opened the city released a study that said we're short on drydocks and that it would cost a billion dollars to build a new one . . . And you wonder why the residents are cautious and vociferous about new development here. Because we're not in the brownstone belt we're just supposed to suck it up and take whatever is throw at us. Well next to the South Bronx, Red Hook has some of the worst air pollution and highest asthma rates in the city and I think that gives the residents a right to be concerned about how any new industry will effect that.

Posted by: Combustiblegirl2 at August 11, 2009 12:44 PM

Nothing personal here; this comment is not directed at anyone in particular, merely at the subject of this graving dock that comes up with some regularity.

The graving dock thing is talked about all the time but I'm not so sure the graving dock thing isn't just a bit of a red herring or convenient illusion, in the end.

For example, if a new graving dock were proposed in the neighborhood today, how many there would protest it for these same reasons of pollution and truck traffic, heavy industrial chemicals etc?

Also, I was left with the impression that this was an old, out-of-use drydock. Certainly not up to today's pollution containment standards.

So who is to say that it amounted to little more than just a hole in the ground, and would have had to be entirely re-constructed according to current environmental standards?

And is there an assumption there that retro-fitting an old graving dock would be cheaper than new construction? No idea if that's the case.

Was its infrastructure even efficient and desirable for the way things are done in shipyards these days?

In all seriousness...would the neighborhood not have protested its reopening?

Posted by: jeffrey at August 11, 2009 1:18 PM

Sorry- this city needs industry and jobs. I do understand the RH residents are concerned but this a working neighborhood until it started getting gentrified not all that long ago. And being in the "brownstone belt" doesn't really mean that much- they want to put up AY and that environmental impact study was a total sham. If in fact they ever really did one. The reality is no neighborhood in NYC is completely environmentally safe. You live in a city, you are not breathing in the sylvan air of the mountains.

Posted by: bxgrl at August 11, 2009 1:34 PM

While as a Red Hook resident, I'm not thrilled about a concrete plant, I don't buy the gloom and doom that my neighbors claim it will bring as it's pretty far away from the residential area. Moreover, I find it a bit disingenuous when the people that are complaining the most about traffic and air pollution, are the very same people that drive the most in the community.

Also, combustiblegirl2, please verify your claim that Red Hook has the worst air pollution and highest asthma in the city. is that just anecdotal or do you have some hard datum. I've heard that stat before and I'm wondering if it hyperbole on the part of the NIMBYs or true.

Posted by: JonB at August 11, 2009 1:34 PM

"Because we're not in the brownstone belt we're just supposed to suck it up and take whatever is throw at us."

Not quite - because the proposed site is zoned as industrial, you shouldn't be suprised when it is put to an industrial use.

Posted by: etson at August 11, 2009 1:37 PM

Posted by: Combustiblegirl2 at August 11, 2009 12:44 PM "but as usual the commenters on this thread discuss the issues in the most reductive and uninformed matter" -

I do not believe that anyone posting is being reductive and that they are necessarily uninformed. They are merely commenting on one aspect or another of thier choosing related to the topic at hand. I particularly have little interest in the proposed industrial business issue in Erie Basin. Another person may feel otherwise. These strains of thought are what makes the thread interesting and informative to most, vestigial condescending remarks do not .

Posted by: Crescent Hill at August 11, 2009 2:23 PM

My guess is that this cement plant will be just like the ones in Gowanus (my neighborhood) - there's one on 5th and Bond, and another over near 9th and Smith. Sure, you've got tons of trucks coming and going, and its dusty, but if you choose to live in an industrial neighborhood, it comes with the territory. It is great to hear that there will be some more jobs for the people who make these neighborhoods what they are. The opposition should pack their bags and take their selfish and elitist attitudes elsewhere.

Posted by: solidago at August 11, 2009 2:49 PM

Combustiblegirl2,

You don't need to conduct environment impact statement if the current zoning allows the use as-of-right which in this case it does. If you're going to fight the good fight, at least know the law.

Posted by: JonB at August 11, 2009 3:08 PM

"Memorable day - I've agreed w/ Benson on two topics!"

Haven't seen the other one but I'll go for this one!

Posted by: denton at August 11, 2009 3:23 PM

Gemini;

I'm back! Yup, the wheat was bound for overseas. Today the Erie Canal is all but forgotten, but its importance in the economic development of NY AND the Midwest cannot be overstated. It basically caused NY to become the pre-eminent port in the country, which was the initial impetus for its growth in the 19th century. For the midwest, it opened up vast new markets for its products.

Posted by: benson at August 11, 2009 4:03 PM

Combustiblegirl2 - others have done a pretty good job of addressing your post but let me say that - yes I condemn the NIMBYs of RH who aim to stop the use of this property in a manner consistent with its zoning, its historical use as an industrial area and necessary in NYC and NO you will not hear me cry foul if a condo (or any other building) is proposed in my neighborhood - I am for development and growth and for example supported the rezoning of 4th Ave and the AY development - both are in my neighborhood.

Posted by: fsrg at August 11, 2009 5:23 PM

in response to Jeffrey:

The Red Hook graving dock was not defunct. IKEA would not close on the property until the last ship left, which was the Empire State, the training ship for SUNY Maritime in the Bronx. You can see several photos of it here http://www.bigcitiesbigboxes.com/red_hook_graving_dock_endangered/

The company operating the dock was Stevens, a tenant of NY Shipyard, and they wanted to continue operating. However, they did not own the facility they had no control. The city's own DEP sludge boats (which move partially processed sewage from facilities around the city to the final processing up in the Bronx) were also hauled out in this dock; and the closing of the dock caused considerable delays and cost increases to the city, likely one of the reasons that the City Comptroller Thompson wrote a letter of support to the Save the Graving Dock effort.

Lastly, the dock was NOT "civil war era." A graving dock of one form or another, and during certain periods two graving docks, had been on this location since the Civil War era; but the dock that was filled was NOT that old. In the era of google, factual errors get repeated too easily and the "civil war era" line was one such mistake.

Posted by: eyeharbor at August 12, 2009 8:32 AM

eyeharbor, thanks for the clarifications. Those definitely serve to inform the discussion with facts, beyond mere conjecture.

As for the "civil war era" thing, Combustiblegirl was the sole poster in this thread to mention it but I think she meant to use it in a positive sense regarding the areas maritime culture and historic legacy.

But yes, we've all seen that term twisted around to the negative, attempting to underscore obsolescence. When I mentioned the potential of being outdated above, I meant more along the lines of potentially missing the last 30 years of environmental and technological updates in the shipyard business. Not 145 years. :)

But back to the other question about shipyards and graving docks, despite the area being zoned for such industrial and (now diminishing) port-related use, would there not be protests if plans for a new one were announced?

But again, I guess that calls for conjecture on my part, who really knows.

Posted by: jeffrey at August 12, 2009 1:34 PM

« New York State's Mortgage Aid Seven Years and Counting for Ingersoll Center »

August 11, 2009

US Concrete, Red Hook's New Resident

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions