« Tuesday Links Open Thread »

November 3, 2009

Pelli Tower Proposed for Greenpoint Waterfront

Something about this seems so 2006! A first-time developer (but former lawyer for The Donald) is proposing building two tall residential towers, annexing streets and building piers as part of a 890,000-square-foot, Cesar Pelli-designed project on India Street near the East River in Greenpoint; the waterfront portion would also include sand dunes and wetlands. Countless approvals would be needed at the city and community level for this thing to happen, but the concept did get a warm reception from one not easily taken in by developers' visions of grandeur: “It’s a beautiful project with a hard sell,” said Ward Dennis, chair of local Community Board 1’s land-use committee. “What the community needs to decide is where that balance is between density and open space and affordable housing. And really, that’s what all of these projects come down to.” Waddya think? Crazy or just so crazy it might work?
Greenpoint Rising [Architect's Newspaper]
Introducing the Latest Crazy Greenpoint Waterfront Plan [Curbed]

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/12119

Comments

The community has asked time and time again for low rise housing here, not high rise. Many residents don't want it to be another Williamsburg waterfront, but CB1 continues to be deaf. Low rise houasing, with an affordable component.

Posted by: dittoburg at November 3, 2009 9:07 AM

Looks like Las Vegas circa 2007. I would say not such a great idea since there isn't transit infrastructure to support the population density. It's funny how the lessons learned in the 20th century have to be learned again and again.

Posted by: Maly at November 3, 2009 9:18 AM

im not a fan of all the waterfronts in the city turning into such banal little yuppie enclaves. it's just not my idea of nyc, take that shyte design back to denver.
*rob*

Posted by: Butterfly at November 3, 2009 9:21 AM

why dont they go over to the Viridian to see how large luxury buildings in Greenpoint have done before they do this?

Posted by: bitter_bubble_buyer at November 3, 2009 9:23 AM

im not a fan of all the waterfronts in the city turning into such banal little yuppie enclaves. it's just not my idea of nyc, take that shyte design back to denver.
*rob*

Posted by: Butterfly at November 3, 2009 9:21 AM

What Rob said.

Posted by: Joe from Brooklyn at November 3, 2009 9:27 AM

Hahaha... in the rendering, it actually looks like a Denver scene -- complete with mountains in the background!

Posted by: tybur6 at November 3, 2009 9:36 AM

holy crapola tyburg, youre right :-/ they couldnt even bother taking out the mountain backdrop! pathetic. dont even get me started on the ubiquitous eco-zombies in these kinds of renderings.

*rob*

Posted by: Butterfly at November 3, 2009 9:39 AM

Don't mean to piss on the cynical parade over here, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say those are trees and buildings, not mountains.

Posted by: squaredrive at November 3, 2009 9:48 AM

well if that's the case, squaredrive, they need to do a better job at rendering. sorry but it still looks like mountains to me. very bob ross-ish in fact! the future of NYC: trade all our avante-garde and precient artists for colonies of Bob Rosses. barf!

*rob*

Posted by: Butterfly at November 3, 2009 9:52 AM

I recognize the Con Ed tower in that mountain so I'm guessing squaredrive is correct...

Posted by: Beau Guest at November 3, 2009 9:53 AM

well you know the old saying, ugly is in the eye of the beholder.

*rob*

Posted by: Butterfly at November 3, 2009 9:58 AM

btw, denver doensn't really have a waterfront to speak of - ever been? It's basically in the desert. So 'take that shyte back to denver' doesn't even make sense. But hey, as long as you guys are amusing yourselves....

Posted by: squaredrive at November 3, 2009 10:02 AM

it would be so great if we could pass some legislation that would limit building heights in Brooklyn to no more than like 12 stories...like D.C. or Paris, etc.

yea this is bullshit. i'll be happy to throw the first brick through the pretty glass.

Posted by: ftgreenepark at November 3, 2009 10:04 AM

quote:
So 'take that shyte back to denver' doesn't even make sense.

uh, it's the denver mindset, genius. :-/ not the actual physical geography.

*rob*

Posted by: Butterfly at November 3, 2009 10:14 AM

Funny how nobody actually cares about the architecture - it's all in the entourage. My personal fave is the suburban style lawn in the middle of the street. If you erased those funny blue things sticking up in the middle, it could be a nice development.

Anyhow, I guess this is what happens when you squash down the zoning further away from the waterfront. In Greenpoint, you do have the contextual zoning inland. I understand (though I am not local to the area) that there was a kind of compromise struck - the "community" wanted to preserve low scale (40 foot high streetwall) development in the areas that were already built up, so they got their R6B, and in return, more density was permitted along the waterfront. Fun times.

Posted by: architect66 at November 3, 2009 10:15 AM

arch66 - As BBB notes, it's not like there is the demand in Greenpoint to fill those R6A developments (Viridian), let alone density at this scale. And the R6B inland was not a tradeoff - it was an afterthought (enacted four years after the waterfront rezoning).

Posted by: WBer at November 3, 2009 10:28 AM

Yea, it was a great deal, either you get hi density everywhere or you shutup and we'll put hi density on the waterfront and make your streets R6B. It was contract of adhesion.

Posted by: dittoburg at November 3, 2009 10:31 AM

Oh - thanks WBer - I was always curious about that dynamic. Opens up questions about housing typology - I think the point of the large scale development isn't to take advantage of existing demand in the neighborhood, but to entice people to come, for whatever reason (waterfront amenities, skyline views, etc.)

Posted by: architect66 at November 3, 2009 10:37 AM

From the looks of it, luxury housing (as a typology) isn't doing either! Of course none of that luxury is on the waterfront, where people might actually pay a lot of money to live. But people aren't paying a lot of money to come to the Viridian, and the locals can't afford the Viridian's prices.

Posted by: WBer at November 3, 2009 12:16 PM

are people even living in the Viridian yet?

Posted by: bitter_bubble_buyer at November 3, 2009 12:34 PM

I'm all for it as long as it's clad in some combination of stucco, vinyl siding or shingles.

Preferably all three.

Posted by: ennuiater at November 3, 2009 1:14 PM

If we can't have it in AY, why not have it here.

Posted by: denton at November 3, 2009 2:10 PM