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
I’m very aware of Judy Stanton’s works and the 50k the BHA gave to PS8. And I am one of the “ladies in Brooklyn heights”. Pffft.
You’re not doing your side of the debate any good here — whatever side it is you’re on. I had no issue reading that mailing for what it was. I don’t think most readers thought the local elementary school approved this project. That’s not really what elementary schools do.
I’m not saying that PS8 should have been consulted. My point is that the mailing leads the casual reader to assume that P 8, CB2 and DNA have given their blessing to this project –which they have not.
I agree – PS 8 only became a really solid school 3-4 years ago. Why that makes it less important now is beyond me. And as another poster has noted, people (including me) were working on improving it for several years before the “renaissance” — and I’m eternally grateful to the senior Ms Farina for her help.
This discussion should really be about the Dock Street DUMBO project; I am simply pointing out Walentas’ dishonest tactics to render it palatable to the neighbors.
I’m not saying that PS8 should have been consulted. My point is that the mailing leads the casual reader to assume that P 8, CB2 and DNA have given their blessing to this project –which they have not.
I agree – PS 8 only became a really solid school 3-4 years ago. Why that makes it less important now is beyond me. And as another poster has noted, people (including me) were working on improving it for several years before the “renaissance” — and I’m eternally grateful to the senior Ms Farina for her help.
This discussion should really be about the Dock Street DUMBO project; I am simply pointing out Walentas’ dishonest tactics to render it palatable to the neighbors.
I’m not saying that PS8 should have been consulted. My point is that the mailing leads the casual reader to assume that P 8, CB2 and DNA have given their blessing to this project –which they have not.
I agree – PS 8 only became a really solid school 3-4 years ago. Why that makes it less important now is beyond me. And as another poster has noted, people (including me) were working on improving it for several years before the “renaissance” — and I’m eternally grateful to the senior Ms Farina for her help.
This discussion should really be about the Dock Street DUMBO project; I am simply pointing out Walentas’ dishonest tactics to render it palatable to the neighbors.
Local grammar schools are asked for approval before new apt buildings are built in a neighborhood? Now that is a new one.
Next you think the local grocer should be asked too.
I posted this on the last string but I feel likes its important to put the nimbies in their place- I may be biased, because i have a soon to be middle schooler, but I don’t work for 2trees. Those people who are claiming that 2trees sold them a unit in 70 Washington or in Sweeney (30 Main st) without being upfront about future development on this Dock st site are are being completely dishonest. This is a quote verbatim from PAGE 1 of my Sweeney offering plan, which we all got from 2trees before we bought apartments:
“1. An affiliate of Two Trees plans to construct a multi-story mixed use building on Dock Street between Water Street and Front Street. The owner of such property may construct a building up to a height of approximately 210 feet which does not include water towers or other roof top mechanical spaces and equipment. Accordingly, the proposed building, if constructed, may be built to a height greater than the height of the Sweeney Building, and, therefore, may obstruct water views of certain Unit Owners and Roof Terrace Owners.”
I am having a hard time believing that those complaining about views FROM the bridge are anything more than NIMBY condo owners who don’t want their views blocked. I don’t feel that this building does anything to compromise the landmark brooklyn bridge as I think a few loud condo owners would want you to believe.
Also, these renderings are ridiculous and fictitious. I’ve been told by a neighbor that sat in on a 2trees presentation that the height of the building is the same as one main st and 70 washington.
who cares
dumbo is already ruined with jcondo and beacon
might as well build avery last square inch as high as possible
and if ure a jcondo/beacon buyer, u have no rightto complain
You could argue that without Dumbo, PS8 would be were it was 10 years ago.
Interesting observation.
I think some of the ladies in Brooklyn heights, like Judy Stanton, would kick you in the nuts for that statememt.
“The flaky non-arguement killed the proposal last time”
I don’t think so. Firstly, it’s far from dead. And secondly, 2 years ago Wallentas had other fish to fry, namely 110 Livingston Street. He was probably also already in negotiations to buy the old nova clutch building so he could build a bigger building and make even more money.
That’s my take, I have no affiliation with 2 trees, but I read the papers.
Saying that there is an “aura” zone around he Brooklyn Bridge that retricts the height of new buildings is, I’m sorry, flaky. It is made-up from whole cloth, there is nothing in the zoning regs to support it.