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
Thuggish NIMBYs! That’s the funniest damn thing I’ve heard all week.
Planet Benson must have a very oxygen-poor atmosphere.
Benson, reading is fundamental.
If you want some of what I’m smoking, roll it in the pages of the Zoning Handbook that 12:15 recommends that you buy. It’s a big piece of property (40,895 square feet). R6 doesn’t grant (relatively) a lot of FAR (2.43, at its simplest). A developer can configure the same square footage many different ways. Besides which, I admit what I do and don’t know from what has been said publicly. You’re the one making assumptions, apparently from a rather unsophisticated understanding of the Zoning Resolution.
I make no assumptions or statements on behalf of the developer. I don’t “know,” as you accuse me; “I doubt,” as I wrote. And my doubts are based on regular interactions with developers, including Clarett, so I consider them informed doubts, making me comfortble stating them openly.
And finally, I believe — that’s a verbal clue that I am expressing my opinion — that there are more ways to be a stakeholder than just ownership. In this country and by consensus, ownership is more powerful than other ways, but the other ways do exist. Joan Millman was duly elected to office to advocate for the needs and desires of her constituents. That grants her a say that you seem to think she doesn’t have. I could go on but your philosphical stance seems clear and not particularly open to reconsideration. Which, of course, is your right.
12.15 PM;
Thank you for the rational discussion.
I’ve been looking at a Brooklyn where only luxury condos can be built by developers. The reason is that the cost of construction is driven up by the thuggish NIMBY’s ( as your post demonstrates) and political hacks, such that they can only make a return on luxury condos. The irony is that the thuggish NIMBY’s and political hacks then expend alot of hot air on the need for “affordable” housing.
If I look at a map of Brooklyn, Carroll Gardens IS a central district, and perfectly suited for further residential development, especially along Court Street. It is less than a mile from downtown Brooklyn, and a 15 minute train ride from downtown Manhattan.
Where do you propose that increased residential development take place in Brooklyn? What is your definition of a central residential district: Canarsie?
Once again, I appreciate your rational discussion.
Benson
Benson, you are the stupidest f@cking guy on the planet.
You also clearly know absolutely nothing about the neighborhood . . . carroll gardens a “central district”? Developers being shackled? What Brooklyn have you been looking at for the past several years?
Get a copy of the the Zoning Handbook for less than $30 from city planning. There are two options in an R-6 zoning area; build up, or build “quality housing” which is lower in height but at greater density. Once you’ve read the book, come back and maybe we can have a conversation.
BTW, there are lots of pictures, so even you can understand it.
12.02;
Are you reading the same article I am?? It specifically states that the developer “compromised”. Why did the developer need to “compromise” if he could build “as of right”? Because of political pressure from the thuggish NIMBY’s, CB and political hacks, that’s why.
As I said to G Man,if you believe that a building envelope can be cut from 21 stories to 6 stories on a small lot and not affect FAR, I’ll have some of what you’re smoking.
Benson
Again – any building ‘as of right’ can’t be blocked by Community Board. And from what I read, this didn’t happen here.
Secondly, I do not see in the article – that a 21 stroy building was ever proposed or was ever the desire of the developer. Only that the height limit would have been about that.
There is no indication in the article that developer is building less sq footage than the law permits him to do.
So, without further knowledge, I don’t read anything that indicates more housing could have been built. Only the shape of the building MIGHT have been different.
G man;
Nice try. I especially like how you make all sort of assumptions and statements on behalf of the developer. Some points:
-Suurreee, I believe that a building’s size can be cut down from 21 stories to 6 stories without affecting its FAR. I’ll have some of what your’e smoking.
-I am glad to see that you “know” that the developer is not upset. I’m also glad to see that “know” the economics of his construction costs.
-I think the most telling comment you made was the ususal blather about “stakeholders”. This goes to the essence about my comment about the soviet-type system you apparently support. What “stakeholders”??? Do you believe in private property??? This company purchased this property with their own money, and yet were not able to build what they were legally to entitled to, due to the pressure from these political hacks, whom you called “stakeholders”. What skin did they put in this game?? Who the hell are they to stop somebody from developing their property in full compliance with the law??? Their behaviour is downright thuggish. If they don’t like the zoning laws, work to have them changed. In the meantime, obey the law, and let private property be.
Benson
Benson:
1. The brief above states that the building will be shorter. Where does it state that the developer is leaving FAR on the table? If Clarett isn’t, your statements “constrict the supply of new units,” “cut down the building size by more than 50%,” etc. don’t make any sense.
2. Speaking of being economically ignorant: squatter buildings tend to be less expensive to build than taller buildings.
3. The delay here as various stakeholders negotiated design considerations was minor. I doubt Clarett is remotely as upset as you are.
4. I can be as critical as anyone of community boards, but I think this is issue, and the outcome, is a pretty weak argument for their elimination.
I agree with Benson but what are you and others going to do about it other than come onto these blogs to complain about it.
You should attend these CB meetings and communicate with your representatives as the NIMBYs often do.