City Planning Certifies Domino Sugar Factory for ULURP
[nggallery id=”39816″ template=galleryview] Yesterday the New York City Department of City Planning certified the development plan for the former Domino Sugar Factory, kicking off the seven-month ULURP process. Known as New Domino, the project is slated to bring 660 units of affordable housing (breakdown by income category on the jump) and 1,540 units of market-rate…
[nggallery id=”39816″ template=galleryview]
Yesterday the New York City Department of City Planning certified the development plan for the former Domino Sugar Factory, kicking off the seven-month ULURP process. Known as New Domino, the project is slated to bring 660 units of affordable housing (breakdown by income category on the jump) and 1,540 units of market-rate housing to the Williamsburg waterfront; there will also be 128,000 square feet of retail, 98,000 square feet of commercial office, and 147,000 square feet of community facility space. The ambitious undertaking, which has been in the planning stages now for almost five years now and includes the preservation of the existing landmarked refinery building and the creation of 11 acres of public space, is being developed by the Community Preservation Corporation and designed by Rafael Vinoly Architects and Beyer Blinder Belle. “This is an important moment for us, the community and the city; acres of parks, views of three bridges and affordable housing for hundreds of families,” said Michael Lappin, President and CEO of the Community Preservation Corporation (CPC) and CPC Resources, Inc. “We look forward to full community participation as we enter the formal public review process. According to the blog Brooklyn 11211, which had an extensive post on the topic yesterday, the presentation to Community Board 1—the first step in the land review process—could happen as early as next week with a full board vote coming by the second week in February.
Big Plans for Old Sugar Refinery Face Review [NY Times]
City Begins Review of $1.2B Domino Project [Brooklyn Paper]
City Planning Certifies Domino Sugar Waterfront Development [Brooklyn Eagle]
City Planning Certifies Waterfront Project [Courier Life]
New Landscape Renderings on ‘New Domino’ Site [Brownstoner]
Inside the LPC Meeting About Domino: New Plan OK’d [Brownstoner]
LPC Still Not Buying Domino Plan [Brownstoner]
New Domino Plans Falter at LPC Hearing [Brownstoner]
More Domino Plans [Brownstoner]
Domino Sugar Factory Proposed Addition Revealed [Brownstoner]
BREAKING! LPC Approves Historic Designation for Domino [Brownstoner]
CPC Shows and Tells Its Plans for Domino [Brownstoner] GMAP
Plans for ‘New Domino’ Released by City Planning [Brownstoner]
Downsizing, preservation, and the desire to see more affordable housing are not mutually exclusive, Benson, as much as you like to try to make us think. We “special snowflakes on Brownstoner” see no conflict of interest in making this happen in neighborhoods that have been historically downsized since their beginnings. New and necessary housing can and should be encouraged by first of all, renovating all existent abandoned and warehoused housing stock, especially multi-tenant buildings. New construction can be designed and built contexturally in empty lots or where older buildings cannot be redeemed. Taller buildings can and should be built on certain streets that have been re-zoned for such, the way 4th Avenue was. It just takes some imagination and vision to make those buildings attractive, not necessarily more money than usual. Unfortunately imagination and vision seem to be sorely lacking. However, depending on the specific neighborhood, that would increase the housing stock immensely right there.
In respect of all the reflection on the Williamsburg Waterfront’s industrial past, here’s an amazing overview of the history of the area as a manufacturing and industrial train transit hub.
A look at what was once there, compared to what’s there now is really unbelievable:
http://www.trainweb.org/bedt/BEDT.html
Bxgrl;
I’m not sure what your point is, but let me try.
I don’t live in a Fedder’s building because I can afford better. What does that prove? My point in mentioning that I live in a BG building is that folks who live in a luxury pre-war on Park Ave must think I’m living in a $hitbox. So what?? It suits me fine, until I can afford something better.
Likewise, for many working people, Fedders are a great home – until they can afford something better.
Works like that in all markets. Because I can afford better than a Chevy doesn’t mean I can’t recommend it as a great car for folks of more modest means. So again – what’s your point??
The horror! The horror! (Does it have that horrid cast pink brick?)
And as far as that goes, benson, you and I both know what we mean when we say “Fedders building.” You certainly are not living in one- nice try but no banana.
Ha!
Snappy;
Yes, I had to beg Mr. B.not to revoke my handle when he found out that I purchased such a place!!
Oh, damn…Boymelgreen is at the bottom of the B’Stoner high-falutin totem pole, isn’t it!
Bxgrl;
I live in a type of housing more hated on Brownstoner than a Fedders. Yes, I live in a – gasp!!!! – Boymelgreen condo!!!!!!!!
“People with a comfortable income have no problem telling those with less to make do on less.”
Oh. Yeah. Right on sister girl!