420 42nd Street Building Gets Cut in Half
In a surprising turn of events, the developers of the planned 12-story building at 420 42nd Street on Saturday revealed their intention to play ball with the politicians and neighborhood activists who have been calling for a more contextual proposal. At a ceremony hosted by Councilwoman Sara Gonzalez (at left), William Chiu (at center, with…
In a surprising turn of events, the developers of the planned 12-story building at 420 42nd Street on Saturday revealed their intention to play ball with the politicians and neighborhood activists who have been calling for a more contextual proposal. At a ceremony hosted by Councilwoman Sara Gonzalez (at left), William Chiu (at center, with pen), a spokesman for the developer, agreed to cap the building at six stories or 60 feet and to consult with the Councilwoman on any future projects. (Complete text of agreement on the jump.) I am pleased to see that the developers listened to the community message and brought down the size of the building, proving that responsible development can also be profitable, said Randy Peers, Chair of CB 7. Members of the Sunset Park Alliance of Neighbors (SPAN), clearly gratified at the success of their first cause, annouced that the planned protest on Sunday (yesterday) would be turned into a celebration instead. Ivette Cabrera, the leader of SPAN, also made reference to working with Gonzalez to rezone Sunset Park. Anyone know any details about this plan? This obviously sounds like good news, but we wish we knew what Gonzalez had to give up in the back-room horse-trading. From the bullet points of the agreement, it sounds like she’s going to throw the developers a few fat bones to build affordable housing in the area. It had to be something attractive because you can be sure these guys aren’t cutting this project in half out of the goodness of their hearts.
420 42nd Street and the Rule of Law [Brownstoner]
420 42nd Street: This One Could Get Ugly [Brownstoner]
In the interest of being good neighbors and fostering good will in the neighborhood, the following memo outlines the commitments of the 420 42nd Street LLC to the community of Sunset Park:
* The structure at 420 42nd Street will now be downsized to no higher than 6 stories – not more than 60 feet.
* There will be a parking garage on premises
* Residential units will be made available to all eligible applicants
* The first floor will be designated for community use facilities
* We commit to working inthe future with Council Member Sara M. Gonzalez to examine affordable housing in Council District 38, in conjunction with the City of New York.
* It is agreed the developers and their representatives will consult with Councilwoman Gonzalez and the community on any future projects envisioned in Council District 38.
You ever live in a project? Ever earn minimum wage? Ever have to wait on line as a child for a swing? Or wait two weeks for a phone line? Or wait 5 hours to register your child for school? Or wait 6 hours in a packed ER? Sunset Park does not have the resources to provide services for Starett City type of development.
Have you looked at the 2000 census? Even if you haven’t…can you tell me that EVERY immigrant family completed one? No. Half of them? Nope….Maybe a quarter…could be. Now think about taller buildings…new buildings being built in Sunset Park. Who’s going to move in? Immigrants you say, huh? Ok so lets play…immigrants move in…still no census forms? Well still no money for services because we don’t need the services. Maybe priced-out Park Slopers move in…oops…I can’t afford my rent next month cause my landlord figures ahe can get more rent from them.
I ain’t a politician, don’t plan on being one, but I know what gentrification smells like and I don’t like it.
Xiaanais,
You’re like most established minorities in NYC. You have your rent stabilized apartment, and you could care less that finding one in Sunset Park is practically impossible these days.
Sunset Park has an absolutely ENORMOUS amount of property that should be totally demolished. Virtually the whole neighborhood is a dump and should be redeveoped.
You complain about this one building – but it is people like you who make it nearly impossible for anything to be built. If it were 100 buildings instead of just 1 building, affordability wouldn’t be an issue.
Look around Sunset Park. Look at the Rent stabilized apartment building you live in – it likely EXCEEDS current zoning regulations. If it was a tenament, it was built in a very narrow boom time prior to WWI. If it is a nicer building further west near the park, it was built in just a short 10 year timespan during the 1920’s before the depression.
It takes a decade to get this one building built, but practically every large apartment building in Sunset Park was built in a 5-10 year timespan.
Wake up!
and, SPer, this building was not the Equitable Building. A 12-story building is not going to affect your view of the sky. You’re kidding yourself. And if the choice is squalor or 12-story buildings, most would choose 12-story buildings. You, fortunately, have benefited from the system and don’t have to make that choice. For the rest of us, it’s not quite so easy.
that’s “crawford” not “crawfrd.” My bad.
Perhaps an abbreviated “crwfrd” is better 😉
Crawford, I truly think you are an idiot. A beautiful park is not a “limited and amorphous public good.” It is a tremendous public good and in the case of Sunset Park it is one that is enjoyed by hundreds of people — I invite you to visit that park on summer evenings and weekends.
To say that valuing a beautiful park means that “nothing should ever be built again anywhere on earth” is a supremely retarded thing to say. To argue that protecting the view from a public park means that nothing can be built that is “taller or larger than the existing built form” is equally stupid. Increasing density is entirely compatible with protecting valued public benefits like beautiful public parks.
I don’t know why people like you are incapable of understanding the difference between no development and good development. I also don’t understand why you believe that people of lesser means don’t value beauty or recreation or open space & skies. Is this something that’s only for those who can afford to live on Central Park?
Crawfrd, again it is YOU who are confusing issues.
The original building, or the new one for that matter, will do nothing but add above median income (way above) housing stock into a market that is saturated and needs affordable stock. Even if someone moves out of an expensive apt. to purchase an expensive condo, you are still left with an expensive apt., no?
Thus none of the “mythical” SSP’s who would “never trade their view for housing” could afford to stay, regardless of the scope of this building.
Unless the market tanks, and I don’t mean a soft landing (which is the opposite of what it’s currently doing), there will be no affordable housing (in the classic sense) in Bklyn in the near future.
Perhaps with madatory inclusionary affordable housing components in higher densisity buildings via 421-A or zoning perks from City Planning. But nothing else…
Xiaaanais, I also need to respond to your last paragraph. Your downzoning plan will result in a decrease in affordability and social services and an increase housing stress throughout Sunset Park.
If you really claim to have a community mandate, then lobby for higher buildings along Sunset Park avenues. Otherwise, you are part of the problem.
Hopefully, the immigrant majority will one day have the voting power to throw out people like Gonzales (the Old Guard) and elect someone representing the Sunset Park majority.
Sper, I truly think you are delusional. People would never value a limited and amorphous public good over a basic need like housing. If that were the case, then nothing should ever be built again anywhere on earth that is taller or larger than the existing built form.
I would like to add that one of the greatest assets of Sunset Park is the view from the park. This is something that residents of every color and income level greatly enjoy. Not all of us can have an apartment on the top floor of a tall building but all of us can, and do, enjoy the view from the park. As much as the neighborhood needs housing, I truly believe that if you polled residents and asked if they were willing to have the park view of the harbor blocked in exchange for X more new apartments, the majority would say no.
Xiaanais, your post makes no sense. I think you are intentionally trying to confuse the issue.
The opposition has NOTHING to do with affordability; it is concerned only with BUILDING HEIGHT and VIEWS. If the concern was affordability, the community would be lobbying for increased floor area ratio and affordability incentives. At the least they would welcome tall new buildings; the taller the better (provided everything is done legally within the zoning envelope).
Your actions have done just the opposite, to the detriment of the vast majority of your community. Do you think most Sunset Park residents care about building heights and views over affordabilty and social services?!
This “victory” dealt only with the height issue. If anything, it made Sunset Park affordability WORSE, because it cut off housing supply while doing nothing on the demand side. This will increase the burden on immigrant families while starving the city taxpayer $$$ for social services, while you are provding a cover for anti-height NIMBYS by saying the issue is affordability.
If you really care about affordabilty, then prove it and have your “community group” lobby Gonzales for the original proposal.
I don’t know why you are asking me to join your meetings. I disagree with the premise of your anti-development colleagues. Same goes with the vast majority of your Sunset Park neighbors.
You claim you are for affordable housing, and then claim to represent outsiders who are trying to stop new housing and preserve views.