Two Trees Plans Mixed Use Building Next to Bridge
As we suggested back in the beginning of May, Two Trees’ plans for the Nova Clutch building (which it has been demolishing over the past few weeks) were far grander than a replacement building. The Dumbo-based developer today made public its proposal for a mixed-use building on the entire half a block bounded by Water,…
As we suggested back in the beginning of May, Two Trees’ plans for the Nova Clutch building (which it has been demolishing over the past few weeks) were far grander than a replacement building. The Dumbo-based developer today made public its proposal for a mixed-use building on the entire half a block bounded by Water, Front and Dock Streets; in addition to Nova Clutch, this swath also includes 38 Water Street, the site of St. Ann’s Warehouse, where Two Trees tried to get approval for a 16-story tower back in 2004 before withdrawing the application in the face of public opposition. The proposed design by Beyer Blinder Belle, which includes 400 “green” apartments, 80 of which would be affordable, as well as retail, parking and a new public middle school, aims to address the central criticism of its 2004 plan—that it cramped the Brooklyn Bridge’s style. The inclusion of the school is a very smart political move, as many Dumbo residents are deeply concerned about where their kids will go to school after P.S. 8. Now let the vetting process begin!
Prepping for Something Bigger at 39 Front? [Brownstoner] GMAP P*Shark
Two Trees Seeking Approval for 15-20 Story Building [DumboNYC] DOB
View from Front Street. Nova Clutch, June 22, 2007.
View from Water Street. St. Ann’s Warehouse.
The public middle school was a very smart move. It makes things a little bit more complicated for people who are against or apathetic about the build since this area seriously needs a middle school. Though the act is very transparent as to what the real motive is I can accept that for a public middle school.
What a fucking scumbag Walentas is. Justifying his out of context tower by promising a middle school, affordable housing, etc? The link on the site to Yassky and the slick mailer to PS 8 residents?
You may be clever but were not stupid, asshole. Build it all but keep it under the bridge. I can’t wait to protest this thing as planned.
I agree that impact on individual unit owners’ views aren’t relevant (unless the offering plan made representations to the contrary) but there are other good reasons for opposing this project. It’s entirely out of scale with that part of the neighborhood and obstructs views from and of two landmarks (Brooklyn Bridge and Empire Stores). These are the reasons TT’s 2004 plan wouldn’t have passed City Council — and why the current one shouldn’t either. As an aside, the middle school proposal is just silly. What person in their right mind would want to rent in a building with a middle school downstairs?
For those of us who bought at 70 Wash and Sweeney- did we not all get the same offering plan? It refers more than once to future development that will likely block views. One reason I didn’t buy on the view side. Seems pretty upfront to me.
This thing is far from definitely done. There is a process here, as was done in 2004:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/cpc/010645.pdf
Write to David Yassky, Marty Markowitz, the BHA, the DNA, et.al. and let them know your opposition to this plan. Walentas does not have an absolute right to build what he has proposed here. Something called current zoning (industrial), required variances, etc…
It is up to the buyer to research a property on their own before purchasing, especially if you are paying a premium for a view.
I looked at 70 Washington and was told by the selling agent that the empty lot adjacent to the bulk of the remaining units was zoned for a seven story parking garage. Unless the surrounding buildings have historic landmark status all bets for a permanent view are off.
Anyhow, I wish everyone would lay off the Dumbo bashing. It isn’t a perfect neighborhood, but no one is a moron simply for wanting to live there, especially considering the proximity to Manhattan, the waterfront and the Soho / Tribeca feel of the neighborhood which is greatly appealed to a recent Manhattan expat like me. If I wanted an hour commute into the city, I’d move to CT.
unless your contract stated your views were unobstructed for life i don’t see how anyone who purchased in those developments have a legal foot to stand on. just face it you’re fucked…
As Gregg Singer has proven with the PS 64 debacle, city bureaucrats have no authority to selectively enforce the law. The law grants the owner of this parcel the right to construct this building. If the city tries to deny that right by circumventing the legislative process, they will find themselves sued once again and they will lose.
More than that – these ridiculous selfish comments are shocking. You have no right to any view. If you and your neighbors wanted to preserve your views, you should have purchased the property that is the subject of this thread and built a park.
The primary issues here are the fundamental concept of property rights and the public need for housing. A current resident’s views are so ridiculously secondary only the most self centered person would believe they have any chance in hell of stopping this project on that basis. No, I’m sorry – the world does not revolve around you.