Marty DK's Fifth Avenue Housing Project
Since it was proposed earlier this year, the supported housing facility that the Fifth Avenue Committee wants to build on a municipal parking lot on 16th Street and 5th Avenue in Park Slope has been dividing the neighborhood. Of particular concern and debate among residents has been the composition of the potential residents. In an…
Since it was proposed earlier this year, the supported housing facility that the Fifth Avenue Committee wants to build on a municipal parking lot on 16th Street and 5th Avenue in Park Slope has been dividing the neighborhood. Of particular concern and debate among residents has been the composition of the potential residents. In an unexpected turn of events, Borough Prez Marty Markowitz has come out against the project in its current form. In order for the Beep to get on board with the project, the site’s zoning would have to be amended to accommodate families, including seniors, within the project; the role of the community advisory board would have to be restructured to his liking; the residential entrance to the building would have to be moved to Fifth Avenue; and parking garage would have to be incorporated into the building. We’re unclear on whether this is a death knell for the project or just a bump in the road. Can anyone comment on the ramifications?
FAC Development at 575 Fifth Avenue [Brownstoner] GMAP
Dang, did it again…
“sustaining the supportive housing!!!”
My bad not calling it “supportive housing.” Thanks Clinton Hillster!
Needed more coffee.
How about “sustaining the supported housing?”
Mr. B, the FAC cannot exclude anyone from applying (assuming they are in the system), but “screens” all applicants with extensive background checks, interviews and figures out how they will “integrate into the community” (part of the basis of the program). While there may be ex-offenders or folks who have overcome substance abuse, CURRENTLY FAC has zero sex-offenders.
From everything I heard from FAC, keeping profiling aside, that would stay the same for 575 5th Ave…or would have.
There is also more than ‘zero-chance’ that any new totally upscale condo building could have sex offenders too.
Not entire certain, and I don’t mean to be picky, but I believe the term is “Supportive Housing” and that almost always means housing for populations with very specific social service or medical needs. But in case you failed to have an ounce of humanity about these things, you maybe traumatized to know that a sex offender can live anywhere. Read today’s Post.
Fair enough. We hadn’t realized that there was a zero chance of sex offenders living here, though don’t think it was incorrect to have characterized the controversy as being about that. Anyway, we removed the reference.
Agreed with Sper, Mr. B.
You are perpetuating some of the BS being flung around the ‘nabe by a minority of folks. The “sustainable” units are for folks with mental disabilities (which could be just chronic depression folks…) at the highest level of housing out of the shelter system. the rest of the units (20 out of 49) will be for folks earning less that $30K a year. Currently the FAC had ZERO sex offenders in it’s assisted living facilities.
There is a concern over “who” will be allowed to move in, that’s what FAC’s Community Advisory Board is for and FAC has said they are committed to making it as open to the community as possible. CB7 even mandated it as such in it’s recommendation.
What you are failing to highlight is the BP’si insane, though well intended, notion of rezoning this property to allow for a FAR bump allowing an additional 10,000 sq. ft. WTF!
First he’s concerned about keeping the low rise character of this “embattled” ‘nabe, next he wants to add several floors to the project (up to a total of 7 stories in the variance). Great, more density to a crippled and condo-glutted 15th St./16th St. corridor.
FAC’s original plan (though I know limited their program to single room efficiency apts, not SROs) was contextual along 5th Ave and stepping down further along 16th St. to be the most contextual development in the area.
So now what…if this is killed by CPC, it goes back to DOT? If so, what new developer might be in the picture?
Perhaps out buddy Katan can move over from across the street?
Think about the implications folks…
I agree about the ‘sex offender’ angle.
Those anti-project (this or similar ones) just raise this charge – it get repeated by media (papers and blogs) –
and then public believes must be true because they have read or heard it.
Media rarely bothers to see whether claim has any merit…. they are just ‘reporting’ what people claim.
As to project not having BPs support- means very little. Indirect influence at best. (Still don’t know why anti-AY folks spend so much time on him either – has almost no say on matter).
i think we can all agree that this space would be far better off as housing, in any form, than car parking…nyc has done a horrific job managing neighborhood car traffic and building affordable housing and this is a perfect example.
Why are you perpetuating the rumor that this facility would house sex offenders? I work in supportive housing and we do not specifically house sex offenders! Do you have information that this is who FAC is planning on serving? If not, I think you are being inflammatory in your posting.