BSA Approves Controversial Sheepshead Bay Condo
The BSA has made a couple of decisions this week that aren’t exactly endearing them to neighborhood groups. First, they ruled in favor of allowing the Scarano’s infamous Finger Building to rise to its full glory of 17 stories (per Curbed), despite vehement neighborhood opposition. And now it has given the thumbs up to a…
The BSA has made a couple of decisions this week that aren’t exactly endearing them to neighborhood groups. First, they ruled in favor of allowing the Scarano’s infamous Finger Building to rise to its full glory of 17 stories (per Curbed), despite vehement neighborhood opposition. And now it has given the thumbs up to a six-story, 25-unit condo at 1610 Avenue S in Sheepshead Bay, an equally unpopular project. This photo, by the way, is from Google Streetview, so we don’t know how updated it is, but chances are it doesn’t look much different now: “The developer, Samuel Kahan, has not done major work on the building since spring 2006, a year and a half before the Buildings Department belatedly withdrew approval for it, prompting his appeal to the board,” reports the NY Times. Objections go beyond issues of size and scale: slabs of the foundation were found missing, paperwork lost or unfiled, safety tests unconfirmed. So why the BSA’s turnaround? Here’s what the BSA said: No comment.
Sheepshead Condo Project May Proceed [NY Times]
um, your name is polemicist. polemical is implied.
longtimelistener:
You are clearly new to such forums. Because someone writes a critical piece does not mean one is angry. Your question regarding his anger is a newb misunderstanding that isn’t really worthy of a response.
In this case, Benson wrote a very well reasoned (and written) response to the staff’s interpretation of this news story. If you disagree with it, why don’t you respond to the points he raised rather than your perceived interpretation of his emotions?
My guess is that the reason finger building went forward is due to political pressure on DOB from groups financed by the developer. That’s just a guess though. In my experience, the DOB is not about deciding each case on its merits, it’s about rubber stamping destructive development for developers. It’s also about the personal agendas of its own board members. Community input is never considered.
East 16th & Avenue S is in Homecrest.
16th st and ave s isnt even sheepshead bay.
its marine park/midwood.
duh.
well, won’t get the answer to my query, then. might want to ask yourself that question.
Longtimelistener;
Well,if that is how you feel, then just ignore my posts. I say my piece, and have no need to justify my view to you.
yep, seem angry. your point of view generally seems to try and drum up resentment against the posts. you’re right that the point of the comments is to, well, comment. i’ve just noticed the consistent tenor of yours and wonder what you get out of it.
Longtimelistener;
Angry? Where am I angry?
I assume that Brownstoner allows his or her readers to comment so that they can offer their point-of-view. If it turns out that I am often critical of their take on things, so what? That does not imply that I “hate” this site or am angry. You’re reading whay too much into my posts. Moreover, I find, in my own work, that I learn the most from folks who offer thoughtful critical analysis. I don’t learn much from an “amen” corner. If that’s what you want for this site, I suggest that you go to one of the blogs for the true believers.
Finally, I believe that Lisa did more than recap the Times story. The Times story was just about the condo in Sheepshead Bay. Lisa tied this article to the recent decision on the Williamsburg condo (the finger building) to draw a pattern about the BSA. The point of my criticism is that two data points are insufficient.
Once again, if you object to critical comments of Borwnstoner’s stories, I suggest that you find a blog for true believers.