cg-school-12-09.JPG
The Hannah Senesh School’s desire to build a two-story addition to its facility on what is now a city-owned courtyard has provoked a firestorm of criticism from some Carroll Gardens residents, a population that hasn’t been known to shy away from not-in-my-front-yard battles. At issue in the neighborhood’s latest development skirmish is a Local Law amendment outgoing Councilman Bill de Blasio plans to introduce that would permit the school to sidestep the mandated setback at its 1st Place and Smith Street property for a build-out. Although a rep for the Councilman says this would be a one-time exception to the rules and regs, outraged community members think it could set a precedent for building over the area’s front yards. And the language from the opposition has gotten fiery! Some quotes, c/o the Eagle: We have worked so hard to save our courtyards, only to be sold out by our councilman; “Can you believe that here is the city’s new public advocate [de Blasio] selling off the neighborhood that he still represents — courtyards that have been protected by law since 1845!”; and “Imagine if more owners of corner properties should claim the right to build on their corner garden?” De Blasio is expected to ask the Council to approve the amendment on Wednesday.
Historic Gardens Threatened by Precedent-Setting Proposal [Brooklyn Eagle]
‘Carroll’ Crusade [NY Post]
Councilman Angering Many in Carroll Gardens [PMFA]
Duped in Carroll Gardens [CG CORD]


What's Your Take? Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

  1. I tend to agree that the potential of this lot is being romanticized a bit. While there were some childish boos and hisses at the community meeting with regard to the architecture of the school, I like it and know many other neighborhood residents who like it.

    I haven’t made up my mind about this particular issue, since the only drawing of the proposed addition didn’t show the view from Smith (I don’t expect I would like the corner view as currently designed), but I certainly am not convinced simply by the age of the Administrative Code. I think the school has brought something to the neighborhood and the proposal should be given some serious thought.

  2. Pete,

    See your point but I walked by there after work and guess I have a hard time seeing this lot as a continuation of the setback gardens further down the block. This lot is on the corner of a commercial stretch of Smith — hardly a stately tree-lined avenue — that is right across the street from the massive PS58 school building, which is surrounded by this ugly fence and a concrete playyard and has no context to the beautiful front gardens further down the block. On the same stretch of Smith is the ever lovely Lee Brothers auto body repair shop, with its corroded awning, grafitti, and used vehicles parked in the “courtyard” setback next to it. What stood on this site before the Hannah Senesh building was a decrepit municipal structure and its adjacent dumpy parking lot. Now there is an attractive new building — and the same dumpy parking lot. It’s not like someone paved paradise to put up this parking lot. They razed fugliness and are now trying to put that poor parking lot out of its misery. Good luck to them! The neighborhood has been downzoned (thanks in no small part to DiBlasio) and the historic garden blocks face no danger. It is pretty annoying when these “residents’ associations” — who anointed them king? — claim to speak on behalf of the residents of the neighborhood. Guess us working stiffs don’t have the time to sit around and plot about how to stop some school from building a classroom because it offends our sense of 1840s era municipal code.

  3. The front sections of those blocks have been protected from building since the late 1840s.

    The law that created this protection was one of the City’s first community design concepts that would benefit the entire community. It doesn’t matter who owns those properties, nor what the lot’s uses are (school, private, whatever) — the lots were uniformly designed.

    This is not pro-development vs. anti-development, or NIMBY, or secular vs. religious schools, or the aesthetics of a parking lot vs. a garden. It is a matter of retaining a unique neighborhood characteristic.

    And by the way, I don’t the school was ever allowed to use the yard for parking — vehicle storage in the front yards was one of the uses that was barred via the 1840s law. The city informally allowed employees of the district office to park there, and it got carried forward when the property was sold to the Hannah Senesh school, and the community cut them some slack rather than protesting parking.

    This is an incredibly slippery slope. An exception on one lot is inherently a precedent that can be cited in any future consideration for other lots.

    I hope this doesn’t become an us vs. them debate. The school is a part of the community, and as a member they should respect the history and character of the community and the desires of their neighbors. In the spirit of community and good will, let the lot remain.

  4. The problem here is not that the school would be doing everyone a favor by building over an ugly concrete sidewalk/courtyard/parking lot. It’s that this neighborhood has a big problem with overdevelopment knocking at the door, and the local residents and property owners are very aware that they need to speak up or loose their neighborhood.

    The recent downsizing amendment caps the building height and if there is a precedent set that allows people (especially greedy developers greasing political wheels) to build onto the courtyards to maximize the FAR that can’t be achieved by building up, then every lot on the “Place” blocks will be venerable to future development.

    I am a Place block owner. Call me a NIMBY all you want. I just want to stop the prospect of finding my neighbors house has a 35 foot four story addition being built on it.

  5. Pete- 2 things.

    I think any private school would have gotten the same help and favors. Schools are for the future and are an asset to the community.I just think in this case it is because it’s a private school, and although it has religious studies, it is not a Yeshiva.

    And secondly- it is a school, not an individual. The rezoning benefits an institution which affects a lot of people, not an individual so I’m betting DiBlasio sees it that way. However I am not refuting that pols cater to religious groups. there’s plenty of proof.

  6. I mean that walk down court or smith or hoyt and on those blocks that are built with the deep front yards…that extends down to corner. The corner lot does not get to build shallower/to the sidewalk. It is one continuous setback for entire block. The homeowners have front gardens.
    The school has a paved parking lot. Ugly parking lot yes, but they from some grandfathering they are allowed to use that way. They could make nice landscaping like everyone else. Just because they maintain an ugly lot doesn’t seem to
    be a reason – gee let them build something where nobody else is allowed. I can’t extend my house out to the sidewalk line.

  7. I’m saying should not being able to build because nobody else is allowed to ‘infill’ that part of property.
    I am saying they are carving out an exemption because politicos pander to religious communities.
    There is no separate lot for where the school is parking cars..it is so-called city property just the way front of other houses are ‘city’.
    I am saying it is responsibility of the school to maintain look of the ‘parking lot’ – just as it is my responsibility to maintain front of my home. I can’t make it junky and then say it’ll look better if I can extend my house out to sidewalk.
    From what I recall – there is no other instance on these blocks where anyone has been able to build out like this….and the sight line is intact now.

  8. gowanus- actually I don’t. 🙂

    Pete- not sure what your point is. Are you saying they shouldn’t be allowed to build because they didn’t take care of the courtyard? Or because they are a religious private school?

1 2 3