Carroll Gardens Diary

Brooklyn Paper Lets Fort Greene Idiots Rant

Wed, 15 Feb 2012 09:54:00 -0500

Please excuse this foray into Fort Greene. I hate when neighborhood blogs cover things outside of their area, but this is too juicy.

The Brooklyn Paper is reporting that one man is outraged over a plan requested by neighbors and business owners to restrict turning for one block in Fort Greene. MENSA candidate Joe Napoli:

““This isn’t Amsterdam — we need our street!” said longtime resident Joe Napoli. “There’s already a war here between bikers, drivers and people who never even go near a car.””

The irony of this quote, and one that the Brooklyn paper did not point out, is that the majority of Brooklynites don’t even own a car, let alone use one on a daily basis for commuting. But this is the typical driver mentality, to assume that everyone is like him.

“But some neighbors are devastated that they’ll lose their speedy route to Fulton Street from the one-way, southbound S. Elliott Place. Instead, they would be forced to turn left on Lafayette Avenue and travel one block until they reach S. Portland Avenue, where they can turn right and reach Fulton Street.”

What does it take to drive an extra block? 5 seconds? 10 seconds? If you throw in occasionally waiting for a light, what is the maximum time Joe Napoli could be waiting? An average of 15 seconds? But no, Joe Napoli has declared war, and the Brooklyn Paper is all too happy to report on it.

“The Fulton Area Business Alliance, which started pushing for the plaza plans nearly two years ago, says eliminating the roadway would turn the dreary open space into a pedestrian hub, bringing new life to a dead and forgotten piece of land.

“This is a wonderful opportunity to transform an underutilized space,” said Phillip Kellogg, director of the business group. “If somebody doesn’t want to sit in it, they don’t have to. The beauty is that it’s there for people to use.””

Kudos to the Fulton Area Business Alliance for being progressive (most business alliances screw themselves by demanding parking, parking and more parking) and seeking out this change to enhance a pedestrian plaza. This is a democratic process that came from a business group, that went through community approvals and is coming to fruition, an investment in the community that will cost very little but bring big returns. That is what the Brooklyn paper should be reporting. Instead…cars cars cars.

A nice start, but...

Tue, 14 Feb 2012 09:24:44 -0500

A nice start, but...

SLUDGE!

Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:07:53 -0500

SLUDGE!

Lazy solution to CSO problem

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 10:03:05 -0500

Lazy solution to CSO problem

Swales

Thu, 26 Jan 2012 10:00:05 -0500

Swales

More Delays for Whole Foods

Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:19:42 -0500

More Delays for Whole Foods

The Red Hook Star-Revue Scooped the New York Times on Customs leaving the port

Tue, 24 Jan 2012 16:37:03 -0500

The Red Hook Star-Revue Scooped the New York Times on Customs leaving the port

Great Quote on Landmarking

Sat, 21 Jan 2012 07:53:35 -0500

Some disingenuous whining from Cobble Hill about the modification of a home in the historic district:

“The backyard renovations wouldn’t be visible from the street and the rooftop work would only make one section of the building six feet taller than its neighbors — but that’s enough to trigger an upward-sprouting, light-hogging development trend that could forever change the look of the block, some Cobble Hill residents fear.

“It could cause a domino effect,” said Jeff Strabone of the Cobble Hill Association.”

Nevermind that the character of the neighborhood is what is visible from the streetscape (thus the ability to modify interiors of properties, but not exteriors)!

But CB6’s own Glenn Kelly delivers a rational quote to the Brooklyn paper, explaining why that argument is BS:

““The building was badly in need of a renovation,” said Glenn Kelly of Community Board 6, adding the revamp will likely be an aesthetic upgrade. “The owners are well within their rights.””

Boom

Go Jerry

Tue, 17 Jan 2012 09:24:21 -0500

Go Jerry

Artist Colony in Red Hook

Fri, 13 Jan 2012 23:00:50 -0500

Artist Colony in Red Hook

Zoning Tradeoffs Result in 7 Story Building

Thu, 12 Jan 2012 21:45:00 -0500

The Columbia Waterfront Neighborhood Association recently brought to the world’s attention the new development proposed at the site of Sokol’s furniture store, which recently closed up shop after ~~centuries~~ decades in the same location. The scale and nature of the development can be directly traced to the wrong-headed rezoning of the neighborhood two years ago.

When outraged community members railed against perceived out of scale development in Carroll Gardens during the real estate boom of the mid aughts, they successfully lobbied elected officials to get the City’s Department of City Planning to take away roughly a floor of unbuilt square footage from most lots in the area. Some lots were already overbuilt, and some lost two or three floors worth of rights, but the average was probably about a buildable floor.

City Planning officials, despite the haphazard and rushed nature of the downzoning, correctly recognized that an entire neighborhood should not be completely devoid of new development opportunities. They wound up upzoning some lots along mixed-use corridors, a fairly standard practice. Whether this was in recognition of the need for growth, tax base enhancement or simply a best practices stance for mixed-use development, we can only guess. Nonetheless, it resulted in some new development rights being created along Court Street, some scattered sites throughout the rest of the neighborhood, and along Columbia Street. One way of understanding this is that the development rights belonging to the downzoned owners were transferred to the upzoned owners - only problem was, there was no compensation for the downzoned owners.

Columbia Street was an interesting choice for upzoning. Once the center of the neighborhood when the docks were the major source of employment, Columbia Street was all but abandoned in the 60’s and 70’s (the city’s thoughts of containerization didn’t help), and experienced a renaissance in the late 80’s and 90’s, and now that Park Slope and Manhattan transplants are finding their way down the hill from Smith Street, even the New York Times knows about it. Although the residential population is growing (and growing wealthier) with every development and conversion that takes place, there are still few retail options along Columbia and Union Streets. Culinary options abound, as do dry cleaners and bodegas, but there are no banks, supermarkets or barbers.

This leads to the first major issue with this proposed development (details of which are, admittedly, a little sketchy at this point): lack of retail space. Recently, the City has focused on the Fourth Avenue corridor to try and revive the pedestrian space and streetscape. The problem that has been identified? A lack of retail space at the street level. In Fourth Avenue’s case, those lower floors tend to be occupied by garage entrances or Community Facility space. It results in not only an unsightly (and, in the case of garage entrances, dangerous) streetscape, but does nothing that new development is supposed to do: diversify the tax base, increase the economic resiliency of the corridor, provide services for the new residents, or create the mix of uses needed in a “mixed-use” area.

Our City Councilperson, Brad Lander, has committed to requiring active uses at the street level for new and revised zoning categories. In his statement on the rezoning, he wrote the following, which summarizes the point succinctly and correctly:

“I am concerned that developers will not include retail space, but instead build on-grade parking, with residential development to the full 3.0 FAR above. This is not the type of development that will strengthen the area, and I urge that changes be made to prevent it.”

The proposed rendering is the exact situation (minus the garage, which we will get to below) that our City Councilperson warned us about, and it may come to pass.

Although conscious of the higher marketability of residential space along Columbia Street, the on street level, combined with a lack of privacy, combine to make the value of the space as residential or commercial roughly equivalent. In order to ensure orderly development patterns, create economic diversity and resiliency, ensure a mix of uses and provide services to Columbia Street residents, the street level uses of this new development MUST be commercial in nature, not residential.

The second major issue with concentrating development along Columbia Street is the lack of transportation options. Unlike Fourth Avenue, a brisk ten minute walk takes one to the F train or one can try the B61 (much maligned, but not proven to be an inferior line). That’s it. Flush with transportation options, Columbia Street is not. From a development, tax base, resiliency and good planning perspective, the upzoning should have been concentrated all along Smith Street, with nodes at the subway stops. Ironically, it is a building directly over a subway stop that caused the most uproar that lead to the rushed downzoning in the first place.

Nonetheless, in order to ensure public safety, prevent the further exacerbation of the lack of transit options along Columbia Street and allow for retail uses at the street level, a garage MUST NOT be permitted at this location. Although none is shown in the rendering provided, this may be an early sketch. Density does not work if it creates additional automobile trips without providing retail space for services for those new residents.

Although not exactly historically contextual, the proposed development is well within zoning. The city, community and developer need not take any drastic measures, such as taking away square footage or height (which factored into the rather large purchase price), but make some smart, community oriented, long-term decisions which will serve to benefit all stakeholders.

Sackett and Smith becomes a little safer

Thu, 05 Jan 2012 11:13:58 -0500

Sackett and Smith becomes a little safer

I really hope the Viveria stays...

Thu, 05 Jan 2012 10:00:06 -0500

I really hope the Viveria stays...

Photo

Mon, 02 Jan 2012 16:09:07 -0500

The EPA has released their Draft Feasibility Study for the Gowanus Canal

Fri, 30 Dec 2011 09:40:04 -0500

The EPA has released their Draft Feasibility Study for the Gowanus Canal

Loving the B61

Wed, 28 Dec 2011 10:00:05 -0500

I love the B61. I ride it frequently, to the gym, the train, to Brooklyn Bridge Park, to Park Slope, to Fairway. Sometimes, I look for excuses to ride it! I find it to be convenient and fast and frequent. My elderly Grandmother uses it as her main mode of transportation, and she loves it as well. If my family had a bus nowadays (since the elimination of the B71), the B61 would be it.

However, the B61 has gotten a bad rap. A study commissioned by City Councilperson Brad Lander, City Councilperson Sara Gonzalez and Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez ripped the B61. In fact, when I mentioned to Mr. Lander that my experiences differed from the conclusions found in the study, he told me that I was the first person with anything positive to say regarding the B61, out of hundreds of respondents and constituents. I was as shocked to hear that as he was to hear something positive about the B61!

How could my family’s experiences differ so greatly from the conclusions formed by this widely publicized study?

***

Let’s start with the positives first: the recommendations contained in the study. There are some great suggestions here. From signal priority for buses to eliminating stops which are bunched closely together to more buses to limited/express service to extending other bus lines to take some ridership off of the B61, all of the suggestions would serve to help the B61. But they would also help the B49.

And the Q1.

And the M10.

The recommendations would help ANY bus line’s performance. In fact, the only recommendation made that is germane to the B61 route, bus shelter and pedestrian improvements at the 9th Street stops (although very welcome and a step forward for our area) would have no effect on bus performance whatsoever, only rider comfort and perhaps safety.

But, as shown below, there is no proof contained in the study that the B61 deserves those improvements over any other bus line, nor that it is performing any worse than any other bus line.

***

In the Findings section of the report, is is stated that only 43% of B61 buses arrive in acceptable time on peak hours! The MTA says that that number for the B61 is 64%! Wow, what a difference. Typical MTA, like the DOT on Prospect Park West, always fudging the numbers, right?

However, footnoted in that finding is the fact that the MTA’s figures are for ALL times, not just peak times, which are the times that the report measured. This at least explain part of the discrepancy, and possibly all of it. Buses that run late at night and early in the morning are more apt to run on time; there are fewer passengers, hence fewer stops, as well as fewer other vehicles on the road. By extracting the peak hour statistics and comparing them to statistics for all hours, the report successfully compares Apples to Oranges, and actually provides no meaningful measure of the B61’s peak time performance. The statement that this “strongly suggests that the regularity of the B61 bus has significantly decreased” (the MTA’s figures were from roughly a year earlier than the report’s figures) is simply not proven by the facts presented.

Additionally, the figure of 43% is essentially presented in a vacuum, without giving the context of what the MTA’s overall average peak bus head time performance is, or what Brooklyn’s average peak bus head time performance is.

Found under Bus Crowding Findings: Buses don’t stop at Columbia and Union. 42% of buses don’t stop there because they’re so full. Between 8-9 am, which is prime commuting time. That’s a big percentage, no doubt. The report then goes on to call the percentage of full buses between 5-6 pm (23%) “…a clearly unacceptable level of bus service.” Is that so? Some good questions that might be answered from this conclusion: What is the acceptable level of bus service? What is the MTA’s system-wide level of service? What are the macro and micro levels of service to compare and contrast this with? Unfortunately, none of those questions are answered herein, so it is anyone’s guess as to what an “acceptable” level of service might be.

***

One factor which might have caused decreased performance on the B61 (again, the decreased performance of which has not been proven) is lightly referenced in the report: the temporary closure of the Smith-9th Street train station. The Smith-9th Street stop on the F and G lines has been closed since June, 2011, and is slated to reopen sometime in the spring of 2012. This station serves areas of Gowanus, many areas of Red Hook and some sections of Carroll Gardens; all areas which the B61 passes through. A train station which normally services over a 1.5 million trips a year is closed for close to a year, right smack in the middle of the B61 service area. Sure, some of those trips are absorbed by the B57, the Carroll Street stop and the 4th Avenue/9th Street stop (and maybe some people choose to drive or bike or walk to work for now), but it would stand to reason that a large portion of those trips would be absorbed by the B61. The idea that the levels of service found on the B61 would increase to “acceptable” levels once the Smith/9th Street stop is reopened in a few months is not addressed in the report.

***

It is not that I have very much doubt that the B61 is performing poorly; with the closure of the Smith-9th Street stop, the elimination of the B71, B77 and the B75 lines and the corresponding MTA service cuts, it is not surprising that the B61 is strained. It is just that in addition to the timing being odd, with the Smith-9th Street Station slated to reopen in a few months, and that none of the conclusions or statements in the report prove that the B61 is performing badly, or that it is performing worse than any other strained bus line which doesn’t fall within the districts of the report’s sponsors.

***

* Disclaimer: I have contributed to Brad Lander’s 2013 reelection effort

http://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/34/49/dtg_b61isbad_2011_12_09_bk.html

http://carrollgardens.patch.com/articles/city-will-install-shelters-along-b61-route

http://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/34/51/dtg_b61dry_2011_12_23_bk.html

Photo

Fri, 23 Dec 2011 16:08:28 -0500

There has been a partial building collapse at the corner of Columbia Street and Degraw Street. The...

Fri, 23 Dec 2011 12:06:25 -0500

There has been a partial building collapse at the corner of Columbia Street and Degraw Street. The building is non-residential and no people were injured or displaced. NYPD, FDNY and the Department of Buildings has responded to the scene to ensure that all safety measures are taken.

New stop light going in on Columbia and Summit. What a shame.

Fri, 23 Dec 2011 10:53:11 -0500

New stop light going in on Columbia and Summit. What a shame.

Gowanus Whole Foods Gets Some Land Use Setbacks

Thu, 22 Dec 2011 16:46:38 -0500

Whole Foods has been trying to finish up their development for years now on the corner of Third and Third. Last year, we analyzed their traffic study, which was laughable in that it proposed the minimum required “improvements” for the community, and also their pathetic responses to traffic generation concerns. In fairness to them, the response from Community Board 6 to their application was perhaps even more laughable than the application itself. Tomatoes were of larger concern to the Land Use Committee than transportation impacts.

Well, earlier this week, Whole Foods heard back from the BSA on their Variance application. Both Patch and the Brooklyn Paper covered this development. Unfortunately, both sources misidentify the reasons for the BSA’s continuation of the matter as having to do with environmental concerns related to the Gowanus Superfund cleanup.

While it is true that opponents of the project cited environmental concerns, the BSA correctly did not cite them in their statements. What they did cite, however, is the lack of appropriate parking mitigation and comprehensive land use analysis. The most important reason though, is that the BSA wanted Whole Foods to adequately demonstrate that their site is materially different from all other sites along the Gowanus Canal. This will be harder to prove, and is more important for the future of the Canal Corridor. If the BSA finds that the Whole Foods side is unique, that precedent could be used to justify a variance for ANY lot along the canal, which would then, of course, make none of the sites unique.

Also, there’s this.