CB2 Gives Thumbs Up to Dock Street
By a margin of 30 to 7, Community Board 2 voted in front of a full-house to recommend that Dock Street, Two Trees’ proposed mixed-use development in Dumbo, be approved; the vote, which carries only advisory weight, was the first step in the ULURP process. The proposal, which was revised significantly after community opposition blocked…
By a margin of 30 to 7, Community Board 2 voted in front of a full-house to recommend that Dock Street, Two Trees’ proposed mixed-use development in Dumbo, be approved; the vote, which carries only advisory weight, was the first step in the ULURP process. The proposal, which was revised significantly after community opposition blocked an earlier version four years ago, carried the day largely, it seems, because of developer Two Trees’ crafty decision to include space for a much-needed public school, a project that the city has already set aside $43 million in funding. When we look at what [the community board] has asked for in the past, the need for a middle school tops that list, board member Lincoln Restler said. Resident Sidney Meyer, reported the Brooklyn Paper, spoke for many of the people in the room opposing the project when he made the point that, It’s a mistake to build anything that close to the bridge — it’s an icon for the entire city of New York. A school can be built somewhere else. The next step in the ULURP process will include a hearing held by the borough president on January 27 from 4 to 9 p.m. at Borough Hall.
Walentas ‘Dock’ Project Sails Ahead [Brooklyn Paper]
CB2 Approves Dock Street DUMBO Project [BH Blog]
CB2 To Vote Tonight on Dock Street [Brownstoner] GMAP
Dock Street Moves Forward — Second Vote on Saturday [Brooklyn Paper]
Full House, No Vote at Dock Street Hearing [Brownstoner]
How Does Dock Street Stack Up? [Brownstoner]
The Next Step for Dock Street [Brownstoner]
DOE: It’s Time to Examine Dock Street [Brownstoner]
Two Trees Plans Mixed Use Building Next to Bridge [Brownstoner]
Dock Street Plans (Marina and All) Go 3D [Brownstoner]
Dock Street Protesters: 20% There on Signatures [Brownstoner]
Yawwwnnnn. More of the same from you.
take your potshots while you can.
think this is the only icon that will be blotted out?
this is our boros eiffel tower. it should be treated as such.
the view up that street towards the bridge is magnificent. few other compare in the world. but two trees has already milked the money out of the rest of the area.
and about the profit margin…lets see the profit margin and compare it to any standard we develop.
they are not poor and shouldnt be given special dispensation with the city over an, in all liklihood, mediocre civic asset.
and,
you can rationalize the benefits all you want. its all b.s. till yu ANALYZE them.
evidenthy some people think that business dinners with wine included are somehow morally reprehensible.
It is good to know that 17th century Puritanism survives in Brooklyn.
Wining and dining -Oh My gracious!!!
Bkn4life;
I agree with Sam with your posts are not rational. You are using the words of a populist politician. Please explain to us exactly how you define “unbridled greed”. What is it? Do you believe that their profit margin is too high? If so, please explain what margin you believe does not constitute “greed”, and please demonstrate other large, complex development projects that have accepted this margin.
“i think its too tall” Any other concrete opposition???
Arguing with you is like trying to argue with a smoker that he doesn’t have the “right” to kill others.
sam….all that is too logical and rational for opponents like bkn4life
DIBS/sam:
it smells like a backroom deal to me. thats all. my opinion.
never said bribed. said wined and dined. there is a difference. unfortunately legal.
in this day and age we are not required to bow down to these types of deals. recourse is available.
if you have followed development in brooklyn (i have been in brooklyn since 87) this is a typical process. proposal. rejection. wait a while. some minor nuance. approval. the minor nuance is almost always a ruse and when the numbers are done, never really worth it. it is sold as some public amenity the city cant afford. they are putting in new cobblestone streets. the city can afford its own schools without sullying its hands with a private developer.
and, FWIW, i think it is too tall. contextual is the warehouses across the street. retail even. but thats another discussion altogether. unbridled greed is the word of the day kids, not “development”, not “schools”, not “the children”.
If the project is only the colored buildings in the image, the NIMBY’s are truly ridiculous with their argument. What possible “views” can it block? If you’re lying on the street and looking at the bridge?
bkn4life, your posting is irrational. are you saying that a developer needs to be “barely getting by” in order to get a project approved by CB2?
I have no horse in this race but I do believe that the developer is doing a very professional and well-organized job of showing and explaining the project as required by the ULURP process. The architects have produced excellent graphics, the zoning consultants have obtained preliminary approval from the planning board, and they have somehow romanced the school construction authority into agreeing to open a much-needed new middle school. so what exactly is the problem? as far as I’m concerned this looks like a well thought out and competent development proposal. Would you really have been happier with an as-of-right McHotel?