DumboNYC Guest Post: Dock Street Building Plans
Over the next few weeks, we’re going to be inviting some neighborhoods bloggers from around the borough to write guest posts on Brownstoner. Today, DumboNYC kicks it off: Remember the previous post by Brownstoner on the proposed Dock Street building? Two Trees Management is formally presenting their proposal to the Dumbo Neighborhood Association (DNA) this…
Over the next few weeks, we’re going to be inviting some neighborhoods bloggers from around the borough to write guest posts on Brownstoner. Today, DumboNYC kicks it off:
Remember the previous post by Brownstoner on the proposed Dock Street building? Two Trees Management is formally presenting their proposal to the Dumbo Neighborhood Association (DNA) this week and have started an advertising campaign with mailers and a website, but some residents have responded with their own photo renderings and will begin lobbying against the structure citing its proximity to the Brooklyn Bridge and the skepticism of having a dual purpose school and residential tower in the same building. It’s reported that the campaign against the Dock Street building is underway, organized by residents of three Two Trees buildings; 30 Main Street, 70 Washington Street, and 1 Main Street, and 57 Front Street.
Ultimately this campaign should not be about ‘anti-developer’ or ‘not-in-my-backyard because it blocks my views’. The real issue is the need to preserve Brooklyn’s most iconic bridge view without a building next to it that stands taller than it does. Expect a full effort campaigning from both Two Trees and Dumbo residents this summer before, during, and after the formal submission of documents to the city. -Hideyoshi, DumboNYC.com
As long as it doesn’t have a massive neon verizon logo on it, the building could be worse.
Yes, they can build an office building tommorrow. So why don’t they
If they need a variance of any sort the community must weigh in.
It’s funny to me that the Two Tree water color rendering pick such odd views. Not views from the apartments they sold.
Are the views shown here out of scale??? I don’t know, but the building right next to the rendering is 7 stories, so it’s reasonable to me that a 18-20 story building would take up this kind of space.
I’m down for this propopsal if TT builds a big ass public school that everyone INCLUDING the children in Farragut Projects get to use. This after all would be their zone school.
Rudy, I don’t want to push you over the edge, but isn’t it ironic that the folks who buy condos in the new building will have their views protected forever because they are across the street from a historic district and a state park?
6:27 you’re not quite getting it— the current zoning for that site doesn’t have a height limit. the issue is they need the variance to allow residential not office or commercial. they could build the office building tomorrow with no special approval
David, if that’s true, then you would support 18 story high rise construction throughout Brooklyn without regard to zoning? Put the Brooklyn Bridge in a canyon of 18 story high rises, each of which sporting a school?
Or does only the first developer on the scene with a school get a variance? Curious what your guidelines for handing out zoning variances would be.
Actually Rudy since AY is almost approved I am now getting $ (per post) from Walentas….
The truth is that the current proposal will have almost no effect on Bridge Views both to the Bridge and from the Bridge – EXCEPT to those people who already bought condos from Walentas – Sorry but Zoning and Land Use is not designed to protect the condo views of a few owners.
Its also funny how the very same people who complain that Brooklyn is too expensive for ‘regular people’ then demand only low rise construction.
Ah, yes, Rudy … see my last point at 1:06. When all else fails, accuse everybody of being a troll. 4:54 is right; most medication takes a couple weeks before it becomes effective, so don’t procrastinate. Oops, sorry, that’s the kind of vitriol I was deploring just a minute ago. It’s clear that there is strong opposition to the project as it is currently being described. But it is also quite improved over the 2004 proposal and Two Trees is marketing (awkwardly, in my opinion) the project right from the get-go. Let’s talk again in early 2008. Mark my words: I predict this gets approved with a couple changes.
4:54 makes an interesting point about my meds – but a failing one – who else really cares about this project enough to post incessantly here in a 4 hour window – (1) people who’s views will be blocked, and (2) those who will profit from this project, namely TwoTrees (theres a third category I guess – those too bored at work or disillusioned enough to think that their kids will be guaranteed a spot in a 300 student middle school – So I’ll give you credit for those free and open socitey adults). Of course Two Trees knows the impact that these blogs can have, just look at the reaction to the Scarano travesty in Carroll Gardens from the blogs. Alterior motives all around. But ones apparently worth fighting for. Money and Money.
I have read both the 30 Main and the 70 Washington offering plans. The 30 Main offering plan does in fact have a clear disclaimer that Two Trees plans to build on the site and eliminate the bridge views. The 70 Washington offering plan does not breathe a word of it, and in fact the 70 Washington marketing materials feature the bridge view heavily and salespeople lied outright saying Two Trees would use all its political connections to oppose any development in order to protect 70 Washington owners and the Two Trees brand. All the while Two Trees was designing the new tower and using all its political connections to get it built.