Boerum Hill Looks to Downzone
In the wake of the rezoning of Carroll Gardens, which was finalized in 2009 and encouraged new buildings to stay in the range of 30 to 40 feet, Boerum Hill is now looking to protect its blocks against any incoming high rises. The Brooklyn Eagle reports on the proposal to downzone the neighborhood to a…
In the wake of the rezoning of Carroll Gardens, which was finalized in 2009 and encouraged new buildings to stay in the range of 30 to 40 feet, Boerum Hill is now looking to protect its blocks against any incoming high rises. The Brooklyn Eagle reports on the proposal to downzone the neighborhood to a 50 foot limit after residents realized “Boerum Hill was the last brownstone area that was not more fully protected. The Boerum Hill Association has been working with the Department of City Planning, where the only point of contention is the rezoning of the 3rd and 4th Avenue corridor. Currently, the blocks between 3rd and 4th are zoned at a maximum of 75 feet, and the DCP says the area has “more mixed character” than the rest of the neighborhood and should remain zoned as is. Regardless, the downzoning request is expected to reach City Council by June at the earliest.
50-Foot Limits Help Keep Brownstone Neighborhoods in Scale [Brooklyn Eagle]
Photo by noflashes
these are minor changes and don’t really effect density as someone said earlier.
Zoning already stated the FAR and that doesn’t sound like changing. Just be sure that you use your FAR and not go over 50 ft. No big deal.
Only area proposed for change is this 3rd/4th avenue corridor and I don;t see any reason to change —meaning I agree with city and not BH group.
“”Preservation” and “conservation” almost always benefit the wealthy at the expense of the poor”.
I’m not so sure about that. The owners of small three and four story houses aren’t all rich by any means [unless you mean ‘house rich’ which isn’t all that meaningful if they want to stay in their homes]. Also, it sure isn’t poor people moving into those new high rises.
Interesting that this crowd, which usually displays a healthy hatred of “finger” and “Fedders” buildings, suddenly gets all populist when attempts to preserve a neighborhood’s character are made.
Still, something is lost and something is gained. “Preservation” and “conservation” almost always benefit the wealthy at the expense of the poor.
Some semi-interesting stats:
By traditional boundaries, Boerum Hill is 36 blocks; the proposed area that will be limited is around 18-24 blocks (http://bk.ly/wBn). The total area is 0.566 square miles. With a total population is 20,901, which works out to a population density for Boerum Hill of 36,952 people per square mile. For the borough of Brooklyn, density is 34,917 people per square mile.
18-24 blocks seems like much ado about nothing.
I’d like to see a map for their proposal area, because Boerum Hill already has plenty of buildings above 50 feet.
Not only does this proposal attempt to freeze things in 1910, it ignores much that has happened since then.
The population density is already limited by zoning – for the typical project, this rezoning will INCREASE density by a small amount. The tradeoff is height limits – lower than what is allowed under current zoning (and no more “finger” towers), but still a bit taller than the typical row house. Since much of this area is already under Landmarks jurisdiction, heights are already regulated (though not with a hard cap).
You’ve got plenty of space to over-develop just a couple blocks away in downtown Brooklyn. No one’s rent is going to go up because someone couldn’t build at high rise tower on Hoyt st.
DH — I guess folks forget the reason *why* the brownstones and other 4-story buildings were built in the first place. I think it had something to do with population density. i.e., farm house on a 10 acre plot was no longer appropriate…. so they knocked it down an built bigger/denser. I guess 1910 is the cut-off for density in the urban core?
I’m all for a certain amount of preservation to create “museum” areas in the city… but I would also like to see folks making average wages not having to commute 2 hours *each way* WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS in order to work. Creating density instead of sprawl is how you do that. Screw you 1910 “character”
it’s stupid things like this that keep the rent so damn high!
*rob*