360 Smith: Update and Review of New Plans
No one can accuse the group of Carroll Gardeners protesting the large building that William Stein is trying to build at 360 Smith Street of lacking enthusiasm. Tact and subtlety, maybe, but definitely not enthusiasm. In the wake of the developer being granted permits to erect a fence around the property at the corner of…
No one can accuse the group of Carroll Gardeners protesting the large building that William Stein is trying to build at 360 Smith Street of lacking enthusiasm. Tact and subtlety, maybe, but definitely not enthusiasm. In the wake of the developer being granted permits to erect a fence around the property at the corner of Smith and Second Place last week, the group, which calls itself CORD (Coalition for Respectful Development), called for Bill de Blasio’s head on a stick in a somewhat manic email. Up to that point, de Blasio’s targeting of the project’s architect, Robert Scarano, had jibed nicely with CORD’s agenda of reducing the size and increasing the contextuality of 360 Smith. The issuing of the permits, however, prompted the protesters to accuse de Blasio of being “very disingenuous.” This email followed another in which they urged people to fight the building on behalf of the squirrels who like to hang out in the plaza and the circulation of a petition calling for a moratorium on the construction of any building over the height of 50 feet “until landmarking or a down-zoning is decided.” (The petition had over 800 signatures at last count.) The latest news, via a CORD email last night, is that the revised renderings (which have not been publicly released yet) are still unacceptable:
With or without the trademark Scarano elements the building is clearly massive. On the southern-most corner of the Smith Street side, where the building facade will be “commercial” not residential is a seventy foot tower. This rectangular prism juts vertically into space sure to cast an enormous shadow and act as a light barrier for all the buildings on Smith Street. The rest of the commercial facade is very tall and goes along the Smith street sidewalk with no set back and joins the Hannah Senesh School known for its VERY! eclectic mix and match materials and colored architecture. The new facade in turn, will cast an enormous shadow on Second Street.
It’s hard for us to weigh in on without seeing the new renderings but there’s no reason to think that the description above isn’t right on the money. Can anyone email the renderings to us (anonymity guaranteed)? In the meantime, if there’s anyone in the neighborhood with a background in public relations who opposes the project, you should think about donating your time to CORD. They would benefit from some polish and focus.
Scarano Pushback on Smith [Brownstoner] GMAP
Mixed Agendas at Anti-Scarano Rally on Smith Street [Brownstoner]
“Wacko” here, as per 11:34. Contrary to popular belief, I am not against development, or even tall buildings, in the right places. However, I make it a point to not comment about places I am not at least passing familiar with. I’ve been in the neighborhood on occasion, but do not know the neighborhood well, or it’s dynamics, so you won’t have me to knock around on this one, so sorry to disappoint. I pass.
Uh, let me retract that “no unifying feel” part. When I walked by this site, my memory associated it with the blocks of Gowanus that I was coming from, but apparently I blocked out those two brownstone blocks.
Nonetheless, big buildings on subway stations on major streets is probably the way to go.
“AS OF RIGHT” Fine, but we’re talking about an architect who basically writes his own rule book. Self Certified ? Dob plan examiners? If I wanted this building stopped I would hire an architect to do a re-examination of the approved plans for any”errors” that could add extra FAR. The DoB approves all kinds of faulty, overloaded $hit all the time.
If the developer is using the higher FAR as allowed in the quality housing option, they’re required to set back the top floor(s) over 60ft. The maximum height of the building would be 70′, minus roof mechanical. – It would be nearly impossible to get 8 floors out of this site unless the developer wanted to build around 7.5′ floor to ceiling… Making it difficult to unload as condos.
You would hardly see the top floor.
The community is battling over two floors, one of which they won’t see…
Who are you republican “As of Right†assholes?
Isnt feeing Scooter enough for you today?
Surely none of you live in CG.
Laws don’t just exist, they are made by people. If people protest and the noise is loud enough that politicians feel the pressure, rules change and sometimes bad development doesn’t get to exploit the legal loophole. Sometimes Right can beat “As of Rightâ€.
I don’t see how scale is really an issue here — this corner of CG (almost Gowanus, really) is pretty scattershot anyway, and doesn’t really have one unifying feel. The obsession with “context” is the sort of thing that drives everybody’s rent up. Eventually the city *will* have to get denser, lest it stagnate completely.
That said, I don’t think the developer should be able to destroy a public plaza. But I’m not sure I fully understand the legal mechanics at work there anyway.
Building “against the neighborhood committee’s concerns”? WTF? This is an “as of right” project. Who cares about the community’s concerns? They don’t have any input on the matter. It’s within the developer’s legal right to build the project as long as he adheres to the zoning restrictions.
Just because the “community” is against the size of this project doesn’t give them a right to alter or stop someone from doing what’s within their legal right. For example, let’s suppose the “community” was against black, Hispanics or gays moving into the neighborhood should we simply oblige them because that’s what they want? Of course not. Why? Because it’s not about what you or I want, it’s about the law. In this case the developer has the law on his side and the community has nothing.
no one is expecting altruism from the developer. The developer wants to build as big a building as he possibly can to maximize his profit. Good for him. Some residents want to obstruct him at every step of the way, because they don’t want a big building in their neighborhood. Good for them. Will they have any effect? Time will tell.
Both points of view (developer’s and resident’s) are essentially selfish – they want what they believe is in their best interest. Being on either side of this issue does not make one a crackpot or asshole
I’m sorry but there’s no issue here. The developer, as a private property owner, is entitled to the “benefit of the bargain”. He understood the the zoning, as did many downtown developers, and stayed on top of the owner for many years until the owner finally decided to sell (at market highs). The owner of the property had many offers but held out for the highest bidder and maximized his profit on the sale. The buyer who paid a handsome premium for the property based on his ROI analysis which took into account the zoning restrictions and potential profit from selling residential condos is now expected to voluntarily scale back his project to appease the community? Are you for real?
Do you think the seller will call the developer and grant a refund for the lower expected return on his investment? Surely he must be compensated right? How about those who object to this “as of right” project coming together and cutting a fat check for $3M to compensate the developer for the economic loss of scaling back project?
Since the building is “as of right” I would like to hear suggestions on how the developer should be compensated by the community for reducing the size of the project. Surely you don’t expect an act of altruism?