Newsletter |
« Today's The Big Day at Atlantic Yards Walkabout: St. Marks Avenue, Conclusion »
30

Developer Decapitates Streetlamp Outside Minerva

Categories: Greenwood Heights, Quality of Life, Streets

620-23rd-St-0310.jpg
It's not unusual that a developer of a new building makes a street darker, but it's usually by blocking light and views. In Greenwood Heights, though, one developer is doing it another way: By decapitating streetlights. This photo comes to us via the Concerned Citizens of Greenwood Heights, who are concerned that the developer of 620 7th Avenue, formerly known as the Minerva, got DOT to remove a streetlight at the corner of 23rd Street and 7th Avenue without any kind of community review or notification because he was worried it would shine too brightly into the windows of the new townhouses he has built right there (most of which have sold). Given the safety concerns alone, this certainly seems troubling on its surface. Hopefully there will be more details on the case forthcoming.



By Brownstoner at March 11, 2010 10:00 AM | Comments (30)

30 Comments

By tybur6 on March 11, 2010 10:02 AM

Oh My Gawd! We're all gonna die! Robbed, then raped, then murdered all outside this new luxury condo. When will the insanity end?!

By daveinbedstuy on March 11, 2010 10:03 AM

Somebody got paid off. I paid some sanitation workers in Philly to knock down the concrete filled metal post that kept me from pulling up on the sidewalk in the very narrow street next to our house.

By Butterfly on March 11, 2010 10:03 AM

quote:
he was worried it would shine too brightly into the windows of the new townhouses he has built right there

:-/ wouldnt it just be outright illegal to cut down street lamps? so basically now if the residents arent home the street will be pitch dark? dont the residents have to get into their apartments? why would they want to walk down a dark deserted street like that?

*rob*

By bxgrl on March 11, 2010 10:06 AM

I'm guessing this is illegal and once the City knows about it, they will love fining the developer since we need the money. Maybe the city will replace them with huge brilliant mercury lamps like they have in Home Despot. Then he'd know what "bright" is.

By bxgrl on March 11, 2010 10:07 AM

rob- the developer is also a liar. Street lamps have long extended arms that go out over the street and do not face the building.

By ou812 on March 11, 2010 10:11 AM

I guess you all are having trouble reading:

"got DOT to remove a streetlight at the corner of 23rd Street and 7th".

Everyone is upset because they didn't get to vote here.

By Action Jackson on March 11, 2010 10:16 AM

Tybur6, that's for the constructive discussion.

No, the world's not gonna end, however, having traveled up and down that block during the day and night, on foot and by car, it's an accident waiting to happen.

Especially when you consider the curb-cut-palooza going on on the Ave and St side of the property.

I can totally see a new condo owner zipping into 620's garage as a friend's stroller-mom better half rounds the corner and gets side-swiped at dusk.

And then there's the definite possibility of safety concerns on that dark corner. While we should have no fear from the neighbors in Green-Wood causing an issues, the fact it is very dark and quite begets other denizens of the night.

And for what? Someone has to put shades in their windows? Give me a break.

Chalk up another mark on the a-hole board for this developer.

By bkny on March 11, 2010 10:23 AM

give me a break! if you don't like street lamps - move to the suburbs! i grew up on a block with a street lamp directly across from our house. we were used to it & when the bulb blew out - it was pitch black and scary! we couldn't wait for them to fix it. this is an accident waiting to happen - i mean this is new york f...ing city, no matter what hood your in. don't like it - leave!

By Action Jackson on March 11, 2010 10:27 AM

"Everyone is upset because they didn't get to vote here."

Huh? If you mean the folks in the community (or Community Board) had no clue, nor were advised, yes? Otherwise I have no idea what you are stating.

It is typical for DOT to do a traffic/safety study for even the smallest of modifications. And also typical for a local Community Board's transportation or safety committees to be made aware of a change, much like the addition of a new traffic light or stop sign...or road work.

By wine lover on March 11, 2010 10:36 AM

this story sounds like a total fabrication. let's see some proof please.

By pluvious on March 11, 2010 10:39 AM

that's the dead end of 7th ave, cornered up against the cemetery, so it's gonna be pitch black w/out that streetlight, for sure. no other light spilling from anywhere to help illuminate the street. seems like a small thing, but that missing light will make the corner kinda spooky...

By ou812 on March 11, 2010 11:05 AM

What I was stating? I thought it fairly obvious.

"Somebody got paid off"
"wouldnt it just be outright illegal to cut down street lamps?"
"I'm guessing this is illegal and once the City knows about it, they will love fining the developer since we need the money."
"the developer is also a liar"

While the article clearly states:

"got DOT to remove a streetlight at the corner of 23rd Street and 7th".

Whether or not proper procedure and protocol was followed by DOT is a seperate issue hence "the right to vote comment". If it was improper to proceed, then DOT should have addressed that and said no.

By Action Jackson on March 11, 2010 11:08 AM

"that's the dead end of 7th ave, cornered up against the cemetery, so it's gonna be pitch black w/out that streetlight, for sure."

Exactly what my friends are worried about, amongst other things.

wine lover, it's my understanding, from the e-mails flying around, that they have gone to Brooklyn Community Board 7 and the local council member (and I believe Borough President) to confirm who/why the removal was requested and permitted.

If I find out anything from the folks in the area, either way, then I'll let Mr. B know, or post it here.

This whole development project has been a fabrication, so the light post provocation does not seem out of the ordinary.

By Action Jackson on March 11, 2010 11:14 AM

"If it was improper to proceed, then DOT should have addressed that and said no."

It's my understanding that no one (other than the developer, I guess) knew of the removal, thus could not have questioned/challenged DOT.

By ou812 on March 11, 2010 11:21 AM

Who's fault is that?
The developer's or DOT?

By Action Jackson on March 11, 2010 11:24 AM

Good question. Perhaps both.

By be_rude on March 11, 2010 11:26 AM

Perhaps -- I don't know, but I'm just throwing it out there instead of jumping to doomsday conclusions -- the developer plans to have lights attached to the building adjacent to each of what looks to be garages below the units? Maybe they got the streetlight removed because of that?

If so, the sidewalk would likely be brighter than it was... not sure how much ambient light will find its way into the actual street, but surely some...

By greengoblin on March 11, 2010 11:27 AM

There is a street light on the corner directly accross the street. Plus the new houses have outside lights which will help. I think some people who are so against these new developments are jealous and really need to get a life. I know I don't spend my time worrying about other peoples houses.

By Action Jackson on March 11, 2010 11:39 AM

"the developer plans to have lights attached to the building adjacent"

Looks like the building have their own lights (from what I have seen), but that's not the same as a 20+ foot tall street light which illuminates the street and sidewalk on both sides of the corner, no?

By jawbreaker on March 11, 2010 12:13 PM

AJ, what do you mean by the whole project being a fabrication? They have fabricated houses as the picture shows.

By garlon21 on March 11, 2010 12:32 PM

Embrace the dark sky...street lights are bad for critters

By bowl of dicks on March 11, 2010 12:34 PM

Doesn't that building have spectacular unobstructed views of the harbor / lower manhattan? my guess is that the illumination of a street lamp right outside the window completely washes out that amazing city lights view at night - which is what those peeps really paid for!!

By BrooklynGreene on March 11, 2010 12:43 PM

Maybe they'll install a nicer street lamp that really does manage to illuminate the street and sidewalk but not wash up onto the building

What struck me is that apparently these houses have just about all sold. I thought everyone was saying they'd never sell, that they had water flowing through them.

Also, this is NOT a dead-end street, is it? I thought it bends around the curve along the hill of the cemetery, no?

By greenwoodgeneral on March 11, 2010 1:09 PM

ccgreenwoodheights has a very specific point of view on this whole development, but raises this issue in order to prompt interested people like us to ask questions of the DOT and other officials.

It would be interesting to get the full story. Even the mail that ccgreenwood sent out on the topic, there was an indication that he was looking for confirmation on all of this. Encourage you to read it: http://wp.me/PLFAH-G

By greengoblin on March 11, 2010 3:18 PM

..

By denton on March 11, 2010 3:29 PM

"this story sounds like a total fabrication. let's see some proof please."

Wine lover, here's a photo of 'before'.
http://www.pbase.com/dentontay/image/114149251
Now do you think it's a fabrication?

"ccgreenwoodheights has a very specific point of view on this whole development"

I too have a specific POV on this project: I like it. In fact I've taken the time to correct, here on Brownstoner, what I felt were some misleading posts concerning this development in the past.

However, in this case, whether or not the man had DOT approval, he is jeopardizing not only the community at large, but the same people who have bought his units. In some ways, it doesn't even make sense unless a particular buyer decided he would only buy if the lamppost was removed. Stranger deals have been made in this town.

By greengoblin on March 11, 2010 4:05 PM

z

By Action Jackson on March 11, 2010 4:39 PM

"fabrication"

Read past posts on this blog. Undersized block walls. No steel stick framing. Uneven floors and walls (prior to installation of exterior sheathing/stucco). Wooden decking and wooden beams. Water issues in the rear yard and all 11 basements every time it rains.

Complete an utter "fabrication" of the facts as to what "should be built" under common sense vs. the "minimum threshold" that the NYC DOB allows, make a fast buck, and get the hell outta Dodge.

Eyesore to the community and compromises the view from Battle Hill to Liberty. Period.

Anyone who feels these structures are contextual, are built well and belong at this location, in this community has "fabricated" this reality into a farcical dreamland.

Gotta Bridge I can sell you if you want to bargain...

By greengoblin on March 11, 2010 5:00 PM

Do you work for the building dept Mr.Jackson or just going by posts. While you think its an eyesore I think they are the nicest on a old and rundown block.

By Action Jackson on March 11, 2010 7:15 PM

GG, My application is pending...till then, I stick by my gut feeling.

So, when do you close on your development with your partners and the suckers you have sold to?

Post a comment

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

Related Posts with Thumbnails