Clarett Says It'll Cap 340 Court Height
Rather than spend months embroiled in a bitter battle with neighborhood residents, According to the Brooklyn Eagle, The Clarett Group has decided to compromise on its plans for 340 Court Street, until recently the International Longshoremen’s Association building. Although Clarrett (which is the developer behind the Forte and an advertiser on Brownstoner) can build up…
Rather than spend months embroiled in a bitter battle with neighborhood residents, According to the Brooklyn Eagle, The Clarett Group has decided to compromise on its plans for 340 Court Street, until recently the International Longshoremen’s Association building. Although Clarrett (which is the developer behind the Forte and an advertiser on Brownstoner) can build up to 21 stories on the site as of right, Assemblywoman Joan Millman announced at a community board meeting on Wednesday night that the developer pledged to limit the height to six or seven stories. Clarett plans to build one building with 30 to 40 condos and five additional townhouses; the company is also looking to place a commercial tenant—possibly a grocery store—on Court Street. Clarett’s plans for the property have been a particular point of concern to Carroll Gardens residents worried about the height of new developments in the neighborhood and have contributed to a push for a rezoning—a rezoning that, as Gowanus Lounge reports today, doesn’t seem to be on City Planning’s front burner.
Real Estate Round-Up [Brooklyn Eagle]
Burden to Carroll Gardens: Rezoning Will Take a While [Gowanus Lounge]
Will Clarett Think Big in Carroll Gardens? [Brownstoner] GMAP
I am curious about what is going on in this Board. I see a number of posts wherein people are tripping all over themselves to ensure us that the developer was not bullied into making a compromise. The post at 1.28 PMtakes the cake in this regard.
I also see a number of posts of people going out of their way to assure us of just how peachy-keen certain politicians are.
I smell a rat here!!
G-man: in answer to your question as to why I use the word “thuggish”, I’ll be happy to respond. To demonstrate my point, let me pose a hypothetical situation. Suppose I went into my backyard, and saw my neighbor doing something legal, yet it rubbed me the wrong way – let’s take smoking, for instance.
Would it be thuggish of me if I organized a protest against them, and got my local politician to call them about this activity, and then report on it at a meeting of the community board? Wouldn’t it be more thuggish if I and/or the politician threatened to interupt their legal economic activity? Sounds ridiculous, right? Well, what the hell is the difference between that hypothetical situation and what we are looking at here. This developer had the LEGAL right to build a 21 story tower. Who the hell are you or any of these other NIMBY’s to interfere with that right? Why are our politicians serving as advocates for those who would interupt ANY entity’s right to make a LEGAL living?
We have become so used to this thuggish behaviour in NY that we have come to accept it. I don’t.
To the person who asked: yes, I live in the downzoned part of Park Slope. So what? I have no problem with communities organizing to be downzoned. That is the political process. That is not what we are dealing with here. Furthermore, I live very close to a tower that is outsized, that was built before the downzoning went into effect. Doesn’t bother me.
Benson
this looks like a very positive move by Clarette group.
This 21-story scare was a media produced phenomenon. CG’s residents are paranoid so hearing that the lot could support 21 story structure made all the headlines. There’s plenty of examples of developers building sliver buildings in R6 zones but no evidence that Clarett was proposing to follow that model.
Clarett has a high profile – it would be extremely unlikely that they jeopardize their position to milk a little extra cash from a tower’s views. Listen, CG is already a high priced market to begin with. The target market for this neighborhood wants cute apartments… not 360 degree views.
1) The developer never wanted a thin 21 story building on the lot.
2) The developer is most likely using the Quality Housing, bumping the FAR from 2.43 to 3 in exchange for a contextual envelope with height restrictions.
3) There will be no afforable housing requirement unless the city is willing to provide funding to ensure each affordable unit receives some type ‘subsidy’ to offset the loss in NOI.
The article does quote Joan Millman as saying the developer doesn’t have to adhere 6 to 7 stories – so they could have a change of heart and build 21 stories and there isn’t anything anyone can do to stop them. Joan recognizes this.
Benson, do you live in the downzoned portion of Park Slope?
Unless someone is going to post the zoning analysis schematics of the new building you are all spinning the wheels of conjecture – otherwise – GO BENSON!!!
No, Benson, I am not associated with the assemblywoman. I deal with developers as part of being a g’ man. The 250 X 163.58 lot size is a matter of public record easily found on the Internet. I have had no role of any sort in this project. I believe that the dimensions are for the entire lot. That a developer can conceive of a design that includes both townhouses and a condominium no taller than six or seven stories illustrates my point that a “developer can configure the same square footage many different ways.” Have a good weekend — seriously.
G man;
Are you associated with Joan Millman? How is that you have regular interactions with the developer? How is it that you know the exact square footage of this lot? I believe that you have a role in this issue that you are not fully disclosing.
Also, with regard to the lot size: I believe that this is the size of the entire lot, which includes that portion on which the developer wants to build townhouses.
In anticipation of your follow-up question: I have no role in this matter. I live in Park Slope, and have no direct interest in this issue.
Benson
Oh, and one more thing Benson, you keep using the word “thuggish.” A thug is someone who “treats others violently and roughly,” according to the dictionary in my lap. Expressing ones needs, preferences and desires — do you have evidence that Assemblywoman Millman did anything but? — doesn’t qualify as thuggery.