DOB Backs Community Opposition to 15th St. Tower
Developers of an 11 story residential tower at 182 15th St. (GMAP), in South Slope, should not be allowed to continue to build, the DOB says. Tommorow, the BSA will decide whether the developers, Global Development, should be allowed to erect the building in the recently downzoned neighborhood. The developers argue that they laid the…
Developers of an 11 story residential tower at 182 15th St. (GMAP), in South Slope, should not be allowed to continue to build, the DOB says. Tommorow, the BSA will decide whether the developers, Global Development, should be allowed to erect the building in the recently downzoned neighborhood. The developers argue that they laid the foundation before the rezoning and thus should be allowed to continue. But Janine A. Gaylard, assistant general counsel to the DOB, wrote in a letter to the BSA that the developers did not apply for a permit for mechanical demolition – and had they, it would not have been approved. The developers, Gaylard said, would not have been able to beat the clock by manual demolition. The letter says the mechanical demolition is “clearly unsafe.”
DOB Backs Tower Critics [Park Slope Courier]
UPDATE 07.25.06:
This morning the BSA unanimously voted NO in the vesting application for 182 15th St. So, it’s official…no 11 story monster on a 2-3 story block.
I look forward to the eventual 4-5 story condos that will go in place of the original out-of-context building.
For a brief description of today (first on the home page):
http://www.southsouthslope.com/
PS. Darco, I have my own business, which I “choose” to close (at the expense of my pay check and bottom line) and support things I care about in my community. But, that is my choice, right?
And I love tending my garden when I am not out being an active member of my community 😉
Darco,
I’ll agree with you that 11 stories is not 30 stories. Math and a number line tell me those two things are different.
Pretty much everything else in your post, though, I disagree with you on.
1) There are not “plenty” of 11-story buildings in PS. It’s primarily brownstones or condos that are limited height.
2) You have no, absolutely no, no, idea on the employment of any, “NIMBYs”. If these “NIMBYs” are so derelict, then how are they affording to buy places in the Slope? No sense.
3)Development does not necessarily help the area. Development that the area wants and is within the area’s guidelines helps the area. That’s why we have public policy and city councils and legislatures and city planning boards rather than any two-bit developer deciding what sort of a development an area, “needs” or “wants.”
This development is only about the developer’s bottom line. The area has told the developer what sort of development it needs: a 5-story building. It’s simply not what maximizes his profits.
4) Go take care of some garden? Whatever. Your credibility = 0.0.
Darco- the big issue isn’t that we need more housing- of course we do- but that a developer can lie and cheat to evade the law. There is no reason or excuse good enough to let someone break the law. Most NIMBYS are not against development – I don’t know how many times they have to say it before you hear it- they are against irresponsible development. That’s a big difference.
I am with crawford, we need more housing and so we need more of these type of buildings. Why are people angry about the height? It is ONLY 11 FLOORS! There are plenty of 11 story buildings in Park Slope.
These NIMBY’s need to get a job. Too much time in their homes can make you do crazy things like stopping developmnent, that will improve the area.
People! 11 stories is not a 30 story tower that will loom over everybody. Get over been anti-development!
Go take care of some garden.
Great post, lostinbrooklyn. Did anyone read the article on the disappearing middle class in the Times this weekend? Real estate is one of the reason the City is losing its middle class. While some people don’t think it’s such a big deal, they are very wrong.
I also tink it’s safe to say that when someone tlaks about the aesthetics of something, they are also including size and scale, whether or not they specifically say so. Because size and scale are part of the aesthetics. I don’t understand the comments about NIMBYS- seems that you, crawford, are the one who sounds bitter. Park Slope would not be the desirable neighborhood it is today without all those NIMBYS. They are fighting for a particular quality of life that very obviously you like, since you are talking about wanting to buy the the Slope. What you don’t understand is that the kind of development you want will ultimately destroy that neighborhood. You can’t have it both ways.
But I think the most important issue is whether or not developers are going to be allowed to do whatever they want- even by outright lying. Why should they get a pass? THe fact is housing in the City is not the problem- affordable housing is. There is a glut of co-ops and condos these days- but it’s not going to help those who aren’t well off.
I have to say, crawford, that I don’t think urban planning necessarily means humongous buildings, housing thousands on every block. A city is a mix and and good planning takes all of it into account. As for blighted or unsightly areas- I don’t like the way they look but my priority is not whether or not you have a lovely view.
It is a rare occurence when the community is given its way in real estate matters. How can you complain about the NIMBYS who supposedly manipulate the system when too many developers have been masters of it.
Crawford,
As one of the so called “nimby” folks in the area (a majority in the area which you would have seen, if you had attended any of the meetings, marches, rallies, public hearings [held by the Community Board, BP Markowitz, City Planning, City Council or the BSA] or heck, shown up to ANY community board meetings over the past 2 years), I’d like to point out you are incorrect in your assumption of who’s actually fighting this site and ones like it. There are lots of folks of all ages, gender, ethnicities and creeds (happen to be a 30-something, designer-atheist-DIYer myself and my wife’s sure as heck not an old “white hair” as you would assume of us) who cared enough to demand safe, legal and responsible development. Something this site had no intention of being or becoming.
But, I digress.
1. This developer, Isaac Katan (like the majority, not all are scum bags, but track record proves a lot) is NOT CREATING AFFORDABLE QUALITY HOUSING FOR OUR COMMUNITY.
2. He does not care about “you” or anyone in the South Slope (“nimby” or not). He cares about turning a quick buck, bottom line. Not improving the neighborhood, not improving this borough, not improving this CIty. Don’t kid yourself.
3. While the activists were able to work WITH the Community Board, City Council, City Planning and sometimes the DOB, the BSA’s decision is SOLEY based on testimony from the developer’s attorney and the DOB. They must prove they have “substantially completed foundation” that was done legally and correctly. They have not.
4. While public opinion is taken as part of the record (whether from community leaders or politicians), it has little to do with the final outcome. 2 properties, with just as shady track records and to who the public came out against (for the illegal activity, not just the development sites) were vested recently by the BSA, under the law despite public and political opinion to the contrary.
5. The BSA…There is a system in place. Some might feel it’s broken or in need of a tune up, but it is there for these types of variances and appeals.
6. And finally…For the record, the developer had not purchased the all properties, nor began work until the entire rezoning was in City Planning’s hands. The rezoning effort was announced at the community level (though meetings) and publicly (though the Community Board, elected officials, etc.) and thoroughly through the press starting in May 2004.
If the developer chose not to read/watch the NY Times, NYDN, NY Post, NY1, BKLYN 12 or any of the local Brooklyn press, then you can see how much he truly cared about the community he was to build in.
Yes, at the end of the day, there will be some open pits and “eye sores” that will eventually be developed into contextual (now, that’s 5 stories) housing stock that hopefully is created safely and legally. I have an eyesore at the top of my block right now, due at the BSA next month.
As an aside, just how much do you think units in this development or one’s like it will be going for? In the 500+ units to be completed in the South Slope/Greenwood Hts. area in the next year and a half, the average price so far has been $600K and up. Who is this market for? Where are the folks who used to live in the 2-3 family homes going to live? Where is the diverse community (of new and old immigrants, young and old middle class residents, etc.) going to live? Certainly not in these luxury condos, or am I missing something here…
You are correct, we do need more housing. But, I feel it should be done responsibly, legally and contextually…and the developers can still turn a profit. Who loses with that scenario?
Mateo,
I do not care for developers either.
My concern is for:
1. Desperately needed new housing;
2. Urban, not suburban zoning (street retail, higher building heights, etc.);
3. Developed sites, rather than ugly blights
4. Equal application of the law (a development shoudn’t be thwarted in one neighborhood just because there happen to be some extremely savvy locals who know how to work the system to their advantage)
Unfortunately, anyone who supports new housing is always characterized as being a shill for developers.
The NIMBY pejorative seems entirely appropriate and I believe I have been consistent in its use. It refers to the small minority of Slopers (for some reason almost entirely elderly white women) that are pushing the downzoning.
I have spoken to many Slopers (though I don’t claim to have a representative sample) and everyone I speak with thinks the new buildings are ugly, yet there are few complaints of scale.
Unlike the elderly white women who are somehow in control of the neighborhood’s future built form, I am a young, single person who would eventually like to buy an apartment in the nabe. I do not have time to protest or break bread with local politicans.
crawford,
i’ll grant you the zoning was much quicker than i thought. (found a link to the original re-zoning: http://gothamgazette.com/community/33/news/2095).
however, you’re being prejudicial and misleading in your statements. the community will be further victimized? no. the developers, maybe. but the community will be just fine. it’s new york. you have empty lots all the time. and something will be built on there eventually. don’t worry.
and, “so that the South Slope can be rid of all these NIMBY blights”??? i don’t even know what you’re trying to say. you throw around NIMBY as rush limbaugh tosses around liberal. so it’s unclear what you want to get rid of.
in any case, there are risks and rewards in any venture. i dare to say that the developers at 182 15th just ran into one of the risks. and did not comport themselves within the points of the law, if all testimony is to be believed.
so shall i feel sorry for the developer? i really think not. maybe i should create a cute acronym: DIrty Developers Who Harm Ascetic Treasures… DID WHATs. now i can just blame the DID WHATs for ruining my neighborhood.
Mateo,
The developer(s) did NOT know the timeline and the restrictions. They all planned, financed and initiated construction long before there was any NIMBY backlash. The new restrictions were initiated by the NIMBYs in response to these developments.
The only reason this downzoning exists is because projects like 182 15th Street had already begun construction and NIMBYs thought they could “outrace” the construction workers.
The NIMBYs also tried to delay by calling in multiple complaints (probably some legit, some bogus), knowing that even a day or two of delayed construction could make a difference.
It is now entirely possible that the community will be further victimized by both sides, as litigation, etc. drags on and the blighted sites just sit. I want these projects completed and occupied, so that the South Slope can be rid of all these NIMBY blights.