“Although no architectural masterpiece, and certainly not within the context of the existing built environment of brownstones and row houses, the building provided health care for ILA members and their families for years, having a full compliment of health care professionals under one roof. If an ILA member was out of work, he could receive his health care on the west side of Court Street, and then cross over to the east side to pick up his unemployment benefits (in the building now occupied by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints). Without the health center, ILA members now have health care plans like most other union members.
In 2000, the property was passed on to Long Island College Hospital, which sold it in November, 2007 for $23,750,000. The purchaser, a national developer named The Clarrett Group, promptly tore down the building in early 2008. They had planned to redevelop the site into a mix of townhomes, retail spaces and one large condo building, known as “The Collection at Court Street”.”
Recently, some money was found for the 4th Avenue/9th Street Subway Station rehab. From the Brooklyn Paper:
“The Beep said this week that he has set aside $2 million for improvements in and around the station, which critics say shares the same aesthetic of a Turkish prison.
“This $2 million will showcase the potential to create safer conditions all along this roadway and make it a beautiful thoroughfare that better serves us,” he said.
The station — once targeted for a grand facelift as part of the $250-million reconstruction of the elevated tracks between the Carroll Street and Fourth Avenue — has been in limbo since MTA budget cuts delayed the lofty plan.”
Seems that the Park Slope Civic Council agrees that the rehab will be in the best interests of safety and aesthetics as well. Unfortunately, they can’t do that without whining about development. From the Brooklyn Eagle:
“A renovation would eliminate thousands of pedestrian trips across Fourth Avenue, one of the city’s most dangerous streets. Earlier this year, the NYC Transit Authority estimated that a renovation would cost about $3.5 million, according to Cairl. The Brooklyn Paper recently reported that Borough President Marty Markowitz is willing to use about $2 million of his office’s capital budget.
While there may be money for rehabilitating subway stations, several development projects have stalled on the corridor because of the credit crunch. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, at least for the time being, Cairl said. Most recent development on the corridor left neighborhood advocates wanting something better. Citing ugly design and structures too often out of scale with the surrounding community, the Park Slope Civic Council would like developers to take a more organic approach.
“New development is great but it needs to relate to the community,” said Cairl, citing the “unfriendly street presence” of so many buildings. “You can’t just sit at a drafting table and not come and walk the ground.” S.J. Avery joined the council because she perceived that type of development insensitivity, but it originated from city government, she said, noting that the way the city handled the eventual condemnation of historic P.S. 133 upset her so much that she had to get involved.”
A more appropriate villain than “developers” might be the high-density zoning that has been a failure. Until the City changes the zoning codes to allow a great mix of uses within the high-density FAR, and does something to slow down traffic on 4th, there will be no streetscape to speak of.
Someone finally got someone’s attention about the well-documented problem of public space being used to as private space. Interesting that it is the DOB ticketing the cars, as it would seem that the DOT has jurisdiction over public rights-of-way. Wonder why no one has gone after Hannah Senesh? From the Brooklyn Paper:
“Three homes were ticketed after the Department of Buildings’ inspection, a visit that followed a stunning report in this newspaper that many residents of Fourth Place between Smith and Court streets were violating city zoning, which forbids parking in the front yards along First, Second, Third and Fourth places.
Decades-old zoning designed to preserve the gardens that give the neighborhood its name designates such front yards as part of the street and not the homeowner’s lot, giving the city oversight about what is permissible there.
Two homes were summonsed for illegal front yard parking. The third home was found to have an illegal curb cut.”
The Park Slope Civic Council is hosting a forum on November 6th to try and wrap their heads around the current situation that is 4th Avenue. No need for discussion, guys, the WSJ hit it right on the head.
“While the 2003 rezoning resulted in 859 new apartments—either built, under development or in planning—the design of many of the new buildings have come under attack. They’ve done little to improve the character of the neighborhood or make it more pedestrian friendly because they have parking garages, air vents or concrete slabs at street level rather than shops and cafes, critics say.
The result is that Fourth Avenue remains relatively desolate, attracting little of the street activity that has made Park Slope one of the most desirable neighborhoods in the city.”
The solutions to 4th Avenue’s problems are simple; eliminate a lane of traffic, expand pedestrian and bike space and change the draconian zoning regulations that dis-incentivize (made up word, yes) the creation of mixed-use development and instead result in a plethora of “community facilities” (read: “Commercial space limited to medical uses”) which do nothing to the streetscape (second made up word).
Although a mixed bag, the expansion of the Carroll gardens Historic District will ultimately benefit the local community. It certainly took the LPC long enough to answer the CGNA’s request, and it will be quite some time before the actual rules are in place, but it seems as if the boundaries have been set. From the Brooklyn Paper:
“The Landmarks Preservation Commission revealed last week the working boundaries of the proposed historic district — an area bounded by Court, Henry and Huntington streets, and First Place — that would dwarf the existing postage-stamp-sized zone bounded by President, Carroll, Smith and Hoyt streets.
A second zone is unnecessary, said John Esposito, co-founder of the anti-expansionist group Citizens Against Landmarks.
“Landmarking will force the old-timers out,” he said. “All the new people who have $100,000 income a year think this is a great idea.”
But a study by the Independent Budget Office suggests that landmarking does not, in itself, cause higher home prices.”
Again, John Esposito cites his study that proves that “old-timers” will be forced out. This study was commissioned as a response to…oh, wait. That’s right. I forgot. No one has ever proven that anyone has been moved by anything other that market forces.
Also, the picture shown on the Brooklyn Paper identifies the two women as being Third Street residents, but they are staged in front of homes on either Second Street or a Place block, the very type of street that needs preservation protection, unlike Third.
The Brooklyn Eagle has a little story about how a Carroll Gardens architect has found success as a developer. Although it’s not uncommon for architectural firms to invest in their projects (see: SHoP), it isn’t frequently seen in our neighborhood.
““The demand is there for well-designed conversions, particularly, and they sell quite well,” he told the Eagle.
“And that fits with our philosophy. We care about the design and the neighborhood is one that appreciates that.” Noting that he looks for “underutilized” properties, he admits he finds them in “motley” ways.
“We looked where we live and at what we loved and by luck and good fortune we found projects we wanted to do,” he said.”
It’s a little ironic that the before photo included in the article iswas of one of the uglier buildings in the area (seriously, how small can you make the windows?), but developer is such an ugly word.
The Times recently highlighted an NYU study that examined the overall effect of Mayor Bloomberg and City Planning Commissioner Amanda Burden’s rezonings that have taken place recently. And there have been a LOT of them. “The report considered 76 rezoning measures and is said to be the first statistical analysis of the city’s current strategy. It said that on 86 percent of the lots that were rezoned, building capacity was reduced or limited, or limits were placed on the kind of structure that could be built.
On the remaining 14 percent of rezoned lots, rules were eased to allow for greater density. Despite the thrust of the rezoning of most of the lots, the cumulative effect of the changes was to add 1.7 percent to residential capacity.”
So, what the Bloomberg administration has accomplished here is to reduce the value of property in those neighborhoods who had loud advocates for no development, but to increase exponentially the value of those areas who were not organized enough to lobby for lower-density development (or who were smart enough not to). The overall effect has NOT been the increase in units or development that was Bloomberg’s stated goal, but instead a net neutral effect on housing in the city.
How is housing ever supposed to become affordable if supply stays the same while demand increases?
The anti-Landmarks group called CALM has found a friendly ear in the New York Post. A conservative newspaper run by Rupert Murdoch, which also came out against Superfund Designation? Color me surprised. Well, they really went off the deep end this time. Let’s break this down, shall we?
“A move is on to expand the entire nabe into a historic district, which gives landmark status to all houses, and magically turns a window replacement into a $2,000 job. Some folks, whose families go back here a century, are mad as hell.”
And some want landmarking. We just don’t go barking to the Post.
“”We don’t need Big Brother to protect us,” said Michael Di Meglio, 63, a member of Citizens Against Landmarking.”
So, the 76th Precinct should be wiped out as well? You’ve got guns in your house to protect yourself?
“Yet, newcomers want the city to make it the law. A neighbor puts in a cheap Home Depot door and it becomes such an eyesore,” said Katia Kelly, 49, who’s lived there a mere 25 years.”
Since when does living in a neighborhood a “mere” 25 years make one a newcomer?
Weak, CALM and Post. Come strong or don’t come at all.
In a decision that couldn’t come quick enough, Robert Scarano was barred by a judge from submitting plans to the New York City Department of Buildings. From the New York Times:
“The judge, Joan R. Salzman, accused Mr. Scarano of “deliberately overbuilding” and said some of his filings were “so deceptive that they call to mind out-and-out fraud.”
“False filings lead to chaos,” she wrote. Mr. Scarano, the fourth architect to be barred from submitting documents under a 2007 state law, did not return calls seeking comment. A spokeswoman, Linda Alexander, said in a statement that his company, Scarano Architect PLLC, “is pursing all avenues available to reverse the erroneous rulings that were issued today.”
Mr. Scarano’s lawyer, Raymond T. Mellon, said he would most likely challenge the constitutionality of the 2007 law, which authorizes the city to bar licensed architects.”
Writing as someone whose chosen profession not only is reliant on the construction industry, but has strict ethical guidelines for those so certified, I can say that Mr. Scarano got what was coming to him. Plenty of architects find little ways to help out clients and are horrific at public relations, but just due to his sheer volume, Mr. Scarano took it to another level. His floor plans became the stuff of legend amongst anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of the Zoning Resolution. Plus, who wants to live in a half-height space?
First, do no harm, Mr. Scarano. Image from Brownstoner.
Numerous neighborhood blogs and advocates have bellowed far and wide about the supposed developer-friendly bias of the New York City Board of Standards and Appeals (from Brownstoner today: “a group that historically has bent over back to accommodate developers.”). What they fail to note in their complaints, however, is the fact that the BSA is legally bound to reach their decisions based on the laws of New York City, specifically the Zoning Resolution (a ridiculously complex document if there ever were one). And, those laws must recognize the United States’ laws about private property rights, which tend to lean heavily toward property owners (in these cases, developers).
Given the uproar that we saw regarding BSA decisions such as 360 Smith Street and the Williamsburg “Finger” building, the silence about the BSA’s recent decision to NOT grant extra townhouses to 580 Carroll Street is deafening. In what is being termed as a “death blow” to the project, the BSA basically told the developers that they should have done more due diligence before their construction, which would have made their claimed “unforeseen circumstances” clear. The BSA should be applauded for seeing through this argument, but alas, there was scant coverage of the decision, sharing a post at Curbed:
“The BSA took some time to think about it, but came back earlier this week with another unanimous no for the developers. And it sounds like this one might be final.”
