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 agree with David, If you are going to be a NIMBY at least don’t lie to the public about what you are opposing.
The rendering that appeared in the Brooklyn Eagle and elsewhere bears no relation to what is shown above. The real proposed building looks appropriate in terms of scale and massing. It looks like a modern version of one of the old DUMBO warehouses.
Yes it will block some views from other buildings, but that’s life in the big city. The arguement about the impact on the Brooklyn bridge is, IMHO, 100% baloney.
re: 11:49
“Zoning is there for a reason – to keep out-of-scale, out of place buildings from being built at all, period. Not as a bargaining chip to squeeze more concessions out of developers before dispensing with the zoning restriction. The current zoning restriction of four stories is there for fundamental reasons that aren’t changed by putting a school in the building.”
Yes, and zoning was supposed to keep RESIDENTIAL USE out of the INDUSTRIAL AREA that is DUMBO. You can’t have it both ways, really, can you? Zoning changes benefit you so you can move in then call foul at the next zoning change (IF ANY?) that helps a developer (who is a crucial, if not very wealthy, part of the neighborhood fabric) build more residential.
And to say that the school is negligible, or that the developer is acting in bad faith, because the school portion isn’t big enough to house all the overflow students in the Borough, or isn’t built to fantasy specifications, is preposterous.
So, if this isn’t about losing the view, tell me, in the Brooklyn-view photo shown in the sight, what is our perspective — where are we when we’re looking towards the bridge?
It appears that we are at a vantage point higher than the road deck, which seems to me to either be from the approach road (which needs the view?) or from a point above ground, such as a building….?
although i usually find myself disagreeing with David, i have to agree this go round. more and more, brownstoner reads like curbed but with a better vocabulary.
— height limit in a M1-2 district? 60 feet. (i also note that crematoriums are among the permitted uses in M1-2 districts. walentas would never cut off his nose to spite his face, but wouldn’t that be a last laugh….)
— dumbo residents have asked for a middle school, not just “brooklyn heights stroller moms” (when in doubt, start the name-calling)
— what is the benefit of a 1500 seat middle school? the trend is toward smaller schools at all grades. another false argument
— there is roof-top open space. i don’t know if that will be made available to the school, but the fact that the base of the building covers the entire lot is probably irrelevant
— zoning is always there for a reason; often, however, the zoning is out-of-date and only corrected when a developer advances a project. or are the good folks in dumbo advocating for returning the neighborhood to industrial use?
— finally, i don’t have an agenda and i don’t have any relationship with two trees, although that is always a fine school-yard kind of argument
re: 11:49
“Zoning is there for a reason – to keep out-of-scale, out of place buildings from being built at all, period. Not as a bargaining chip to squeeze more concessions out of developers before dispensing with the zoning restriction. The current zoning restriction of four stories is there for fundamental reasons that aren’t changed by putting a school in the building.”
Yes, and zoning was supposed to keep RESIDENTIAL USE out of the INDUSTRIAL AREA that is DUMBO. You can’t have it both ways, really, can you? Zoning changes benefit you so you can move in then call foul at the next zoning change (IF ANY?) that helps a developer (who is a crucial, if not very wealthy, part of the neighborhood fabric) build more residential.
And to say that the school is negligible, or that the developer is acting in bad faith, because the school portion isn’t big enough to house all the overflow students in the Borough, or isn’t built to fantasy specifications, is preposterous.
So, if this isn’t about losing the view, tell me, in the Brooklyn-view photo shown in the sight, what is out perspective? Where are we when looking towards the bridge. It appears that we are at a vantage point higher than the road deck, which seems to me to either be from the approach road (which needs the view?) or from a point above ground, such as a building….?
Only the Dumbo-ites will protest this.
They hate Wallentas. He could be building a replica of Mt Vernon and they would have a cow. The only other group stodgy enough to protest this is the Brooklyn Heights Association. But they haven’t liked a new building since 1932 -so who cares?.
The proposed building looks fine to me. It has no impact on the Bridge and it will house a school and more retail. All good.
11:49 – no the new building would be over 700 ft from the Brooklyn Tower and the area isn’t zoned for 4 stories either – but don’t let facts interfere with your arguments.
Here we go again, it makes me laugh that the NIMBY’s are always claiming that developers are the ones who resort to lies and misrepresentations when time and time again it is project oponents who are far more guilty of same.
The Building here is slated to be 16 stories – which is FULLY CONTEXTUAL with the numerous buildings in DUMBO; it is also significantly lower then the 273 ft Tower.
Additionally, just like all the ridiculous AY renderings, the one shown here by Brownstoner is purposely misleading. The building is not going to be a recreation of the 2001 monolith, it will have windows and color and light will reflect off it etc…
Please explain why (except for some people loosing a view) this building shouldn’t be built. And for a few people loosing their view – you end up with a school, needed retail and 20% affordable housing in DUMBO?
At least if your going to be NIMBY – be honest.
Keep it Real, Two Trees is one of the ones loosing their views! LOL!
Ugh. What a heinous, mugly, giant, blocky, institutional box of a building. So they’re going to build something that covers the entire block? How does it make it a nice school without a courtyard and yard? Weird. What a completely depressing idea for a kid to have to live in a big box and never ever leave it, because the kids go to school there too. If you hate traveling through Brooklyn that much, move to the suburbs and live in your protective bubble there. As for the bridge, it definitely detracts from the beauty of the towers on the bridge, whether looking at it from the Brooklyn side or the Manhattan side. Totally competes visually with the bridge towers. It’s really hard to see how anyone is arguing otherwise. Anyone without an agenda, that is.
The building is only about 50 feet away from and towers over the Brooklyn Bridge. It places itself as a sore-thumb prominent feature in the viewscape of the bridge. Like that awful Verizon building we see looking into the city.
How can this be allowed regardless of how many schools or other quid-pro-quo quasi-bribes Walentas throws around to special interest groups.
Zoning is there for a reason – to keep out-of-scale, out of place buildings from being built at all, period. Not as a bargaining chip to squeeze more concessions out of developers before dispensing with the zoning restriction. The current zoning restriction of four stories is there for fundamental reasons that aren’t changed by putting a school in the building.