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]
I think the point being overlooked is- as rob points out- single people get screwed. I can’t get free health insurance and I was lucky that my last job provided me with health insurance but that’s now gone. People with a comfortable income have no problem telling those with less to make do on less. Bloomberg’s idea of NYC was a luxury city- it was both short-sighted and damaging. And montrose makes a number of good points- why should my status as a single person mean I can’t get the same access to benefits as families? And why should that mean I have to live in a one room studio?
And as one of the “snowflakes” benson loves to rag on, let me ask – since you are such a great proponent of Fedders buildings, do you live in one? Or is it only ok for those who you feel do not deserved, for one reason or another, the quality of life you feel you are entitled to? Oh I’m sorry- I forgot. Your motto is “do as I say, not as I do.”
It may be “more affordable than anything else” but flat out affordable…it aint.
A family with children gets free health insurance for the kids in NYC up to around the median income via Child Health Plus.
The income limits are much lower for the parents or single adults:
http://www.health.state.ny.us/nysdoh/fhplus/who_can_join.htm
It’s a lot more affordable than anything else.
Remember, the median household income in NYC is aroudn $50k. In Brooklyn it’s around $40k.
And there are tons of jobs that don’t provide health insurance. Hell, I’ve had attorney jobs that didn’t give me health insurance. And paying for it yourself is prohibitively expensive. So much so that I did better to just cough up the cash each time I went to the doctor instead of paying a monthly premium. But, again, my main point is that the City needs to stop cloaking this shit in terms of affordable when it’s not.
Tybur6, you made my point better than I did. We need to start recognizing the difference between mere subsistence and actually making it. And no, by making it I don’t mean getting rich. I don’t have a problem with the numbers laid out above per se, but I have a huge problem with that being labeled “affordable” because it just ain’t.
Thanks Snappy! That’s exactly the point. I thought “Affordable Housing” was supposed to lift people up and out of the *survival* level and give them financial stability and so on. If “affordable” housing is just another means to provide basic subsistence, then what’s the point?! Yeah, where is the savings? What if you have unexpected things? (e.g., your mother dies and you need a $100 bus ticket to get to the funeral in Daytona… or is Greyhound too fancy and living beyond one’s means?)
It’s not affordable if 90% of your income is tied up in basic expenses. That’s absolutely survivable, but it’s not affordable.
when I say 40K salary, I am including healthcare as part of employee benefits. If you make 40K as self employed, that’s a whole different story.
Snappy I have a bag of dark clothes and a bag of white clothes per 2 weeks and another bag of bedding. It’s a $1.25 in my building laundry room to wash and a dollar to dry. I fill 3 machines every 2 weeks of laundry to wash and 2 machines to dry since they are much larger machines for drying. So it turns out $5.75 to be exact. Why would it cost a lot more for a single person?
But the question isn’t whether people *do* survive on that…the question is whether that is truly “affordable.” Where is there room to save money in a nest egg? Pay for health insurance? So many things are left out of the equation that “affordable” becomes an even more questionable term as used here.