« Monday Linkage In Dumbo, Clocktower Mania, Confusion »

October 2, 2006

Barf! Katan Tries to (Ab)Use Affordable Housing

factory
As we reported three weeks ago, preservationists are setting their sites on the Domino Sugar Factory just as Isaac Katan is gearing up to squeeze as much FAR as possible out of the plot of land that the iconic structure sits on. Katan, who is one of the most reviled developers in the borough by people who care about little things like aesthetics and safety, has obviously been learning from Bruce Ratner' success at hiding under the rubric of Affordable Housing. To wit, his attempt to define the debate on those terms: “We certainly support preservation,” said a Katan spokesman. But he added, “Our priority is affordable housing, and we want to achieve a balanced plan.” What a load of baloney! Yassky, who opposed the landmarking of 184 Kent last year (wonder how that decision ended up playing out at the polls?), is onboard to save Domino. “It’s a landmark in the popular sense of the word. When I talk to people in Queens or Manhattan about that part of my district, I say it’s right by the Domino Sugar factory, and they know where that is.” Hey, if the populist angle will help save the building, go for it, Dave.
In Williamsburg, a Face-Off Over the Future [NY Times]
Photo by Sherilyn




Posted by Brownstoner at 8:55 AM | Comments (26)
Categories: Landmark

Comments

Landmark what?!? Save what?!? This must be a joke. The site is a collection of old decrepit buildings with no architectural merit to speak of. The politicians, LPC and activist need to back off on this one; this is the wrong battle to fight. Taking a stand in favor of landmark protection for the Domino site would undermine everything that the LPC stand for and represents. When will this madness end? Not everything that is old and decrepit is worthy of landmark preservation status, which should be reserved for truly historic sites and architecturally significant neighborhoods. No way preservationists win this fight. Taking such a ridiculous stance will only further alienate the average Brooklynite who is seriously disturbed by the blight on Brooklyn's waterfront and is looking forward to substantial, high end development on the Brooklyn shore. New York City is a first world city yet our waterfront is so third world. Preservationist and anti-development whackos want to keep our antiquated waterfront relegated to highways, housing projects, abandoned factories and warehouses and underutilized docks and piers. Our waterfront is an embarrassment!

Posted by: Anonymous at October 2, 2006 9:37 AM

The main building on Kent avenue is a beautiful old brick factory with rounded windows and wonderful proportions--there's no reason this shouldn't be turned into residential housing rather than tearing down. As for the sign, we're with Yassky on its iconic stature. Can't speak to every structure within the complex.

Posted by: brownstoner at October 2, 2006 9:47 AM

Understood Mr. B. But what about all of that crap directly on the water? Are we looking to protect this too? Perhaps the scope of the preservation effort should be more clearly defined so that some of the quality buildings are not simply lumped with the vast majority of hideous structures on this site. With that being said, I still don't understand what makes these buildings historically or architecturally significant. Yes, "a beautiful old brick factory with rounded windows and wonderful proportions" might make a building "charming" but "charming" doesn't elevate a property to landmark preservation status. IMHO, the Domino site will never pass the LPC's stringent landmark scrutiny test.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 2, 2006 10:07 AM

Brownstoner is right - the main building is a remarkable and beautiful structure. It is also an important part of the history of Brooklyn and (more specifically) Williamsburg. Landmarking would be completely within LPC's guidelines and past actions (ever see photos of Soho or Tribeca 30 years ago?).

In the photo above, the main building (constructed 1884) is blocked by a number of 1920s buildings. There are also two other smaller 1884 structures that are not visible here, but have the same round-arch style.

The advocates for preservation of the site are NOT calling for the preservation of everything. They are also not saying that it should remain a factory. They are saying that LPC should take jurisdiction of the entire site to decide what stays and what goes, and what gets built there. So hopefully this will be an exciting development with good new archtiecture, not the run-of-the-mill Katan eyesore that is usually foisted on Brooklyn.

Posted by: WBer at October 2, 2006 10:20 AM

*Snort* Affordable Housing.
OK, how long before someone posts that they need to do this project and brings out the banner of: housing for the homeless, poor, new immigrants and huddled mass, etc. etc.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 2, 2006 10:26 AM

God just told me this (yes, told me DIRECTLY, Mr. Anonymous 9:37 a.m.): Don't tear down Domino. And don't try to make its shell into yet more "charming" condominia. Instead, with an inventive blend of private and public funding, turn it into the Brooklyn Museum of Industry, an urban "Shaker Village" in tribute to the mighty makers of stuff who built this city/borough through their toil...the sugar refiners (some of whom died in agony as they fell into ill-guarded vats of boiling syrup, seriously)...the brewers...the Spaldeen ball makers...all the nameless fabricators of gunships, ceramics, rope, steel, fancy goods, toys, electrical fuses, you name it that poured out of Brooklyn to the world in peacetime and wartime. For future generations of Brooklynschoolchildren, it will afford the only glimpse in their lifetime of what it means to...make stuff, make it with hands and machines, with sweat and capital and ingenuity...and make it right here, not in China or Bangladesh. We've got plenty of preservation for our religious, artistic,and literary past and the lifestyles of our dead plutocrats. I say preserve one factory in tribute to a lost age. God to Flatbush, over and out.

Posted by: Brenda from Brooklyn at October 2, 2006 10:38 AM

Amen, Sister Brenda!

Posted by: lyofbrooklyn at October 2, 2006 11:07 AM

Love the idea of a museum of some sort. Someone had made comparisions to the Tate Modern in London. I think that something of the sort would be a spectacular use for the building. Another option is to use it as a permanent farmers market akin to the Chelsea market or Granville island in Vancouver.

Posted by: BillBurger at October 2, 2006 11:11 AM

Brenda, that sounds all fine and dandy but neither you nor I own this property - Katan does!! What about his ownership and property rights? Do they not matter? It's his INVESTMENT and he is entitled to do what he pleases with HIS property. If he wants to make it a pig farm then that's his right! Are all anti-development-preservationists broke crusaders?!?! Why didn't any of you buy this property years ago? Where were all of your grand visions for the community then? Huh? Answer this very basic question. Same goes for AY. You guys are all talk and nothing else. A bunch of dreamers and Monday morning quarterbacks! Katan spends tens of millions of dollars on the purchase of the site and then he's expected to turn it into a children's museum?!? Are you kidding me?!?

You people are beginning to sound more and more unstable everyday. Save the Red Hook docks! Save the railyards at AY! Save the factories and warehouses on the waterfront! Down with Ikea! Down with Walmart! So pathetic...

Posted by: Anonymous at October 2, 2006 12:47 PM

Adaptive reuse for the public good is a great idea except when it comes to finding someone to pay for it. One can always point to a "better" use for a building or parcel but that use may be unrealistic as compared to one that could actually make someone a profit. Buildings and land can't be set aside indefinitely in the hopes that a not-for-profit organization will one day be able to spend the millions of dollars needed to purchase, remediate, restore, and convert it to a new use. A sad reality of a city where the real estate costs are so high. That being said, landmark status would encourage, if not require, the developer to reuse at least a part of the factory, which in my opinion has a lot more aesthetic value than the ugly white block a short way up the river.

Posted by: the supersleuth at October 2, 2006 12:51 PM

To comment on the structure of these types of buildings, there is a good chance that no matter what use is slated for this site, trying to preserve the original factory building will entail a massive structural overhaul just to meet current code requirements. One cannot just assume that because the building was originally designed for an industrial use back in the early 1900's, it can contain any other use today. These old buildings are full of structural inadequacies that are very expensive to correct. Landmarking such a building will only compound the expense. And after that, it doesn't matter what goes into it because no owner will be able to afford to convert it...into condos or a cultural center.

Posted by: Anonymous Architect at October 2, 2006 1:48 PM

Well, since Katan is not the only one involved in this site, maybe there is a very slight hope for Brenda and Bill’s excellent suggestions. They are good ideas and shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand. If developers and community groups and non-profits were to get together and put together a plan that can please everyone, even just a bit, that would be monumental in of itself. Instead of sneering at this plan, or accusing non-profit and generally creative people of unrealistic ideals over pure profit, maybe we could have the necessary pairing of profit and community. It happens elsewhere, and it happens when developers have the desire to benefit the community as well as themselves, and foster the creativity needed for a project provided by those who may not have the money to do it themselves.

New York deserves an impressive waterfront and harbor line, but that doesn’t mean that it has to be nothing but endless lines of glass and steel luxury condos with a park or two thrown in to appease the public. The Tate Modern in London is a great example of adaptive use of a fine old building, and Brenda’s idea of a museum of industry and greenmarket, in addition to housing, is feasible and would be a fine addition to Brooklyn and New York City, and could generate business and funds to the area. Amen, indeed!

Posted by: CrownHeightsProud at October 2, 2006 1:49 PM

Great! The property cost $30 million. Now how much money are the community and not-for-profit groups contributing? Why should private business parties entertain community input at all? The seller of the property didn't offer Katan any discount on the purchase to accomodate the community needs. To the contrary, the sellers made out like bandits by selling the property to highest bidder. Where were the community and not-for-profit groups then? They certainly were not at the negotiating table attempting to get Katan a steep discount so it would be economically feasible for him to incorporate some of their goals.

You guys are living in a fantasy world. The real world doesn't work work this way. Katan does his due diligence, takes the risk, buys the property and now you want to have input and dictate the project to the point where it doesn't make financial sense. Should we expect every developer to seek community input before bidding on every single development site? Wake up folks. Get real. You want input? Start writing some damn checks!

Posted by: Anonymous at October 2, 2006 2:15 PM

Uh, they paid $30 million for a factory that is ZONED for manufacturing use. (Thankfully, I don't think that pig farming is an allowable use, though.)

If Katan & co. want to use it as a factory, so be it - they need no special approvals and no input from the community. However, if they want to use for housing, they will need to rezone the property. And a rezoning requires an environmental review and a host of public reviews. Part of the environmental review is the assessment of the historic significance of the site.

I hope that they do rezone the site for residential use, and in the process, I hope that they save the significant historic structures and integrate them into an exciting new development.

Its called comprehensive land use planning, it is very real, and there is no reason it shouldn't be done in Brooklyn's waterfront neighborhoods.

Posted by: WBer at October 2, 2006 2:26 PM

Excellent point WBer. Also of note - the original owner made out like a bandit when he threatened to close the place down about 8 years ago. The employees - most of which were lower middle class working slobs - got the city to give the previous owner a shit load of tax breaks and give backs with the promise that he would keep the plant and all it's employees in business. He kept his promise just long enough to suck every last drop out of the city and his workers, then sold it to another Scumbag - Katan.
If Katan is involved there is more than enough reason for concern - No matter what happens at that site. The fact that the city is still allowing this criminal to do business, much less entertaining the idea of Granting him Variances is a very bad sign.

Posted by: My2Cents at October 2, 2006 3:13 PM

I take issue with this comment made at 9:37 from an anonymous poster - "the average Brooklynite... is seriously disturbed by the blight on Brooklyn's waterfront and is looking forward to substantial, high end development on the Brooklyn shore....Our waterfront is an embarrassment!"

All of the average Brooklynites I know would disagree with this statement.

I find great beauty in the industrial Brooklyn waterfront. So do the the thousands of people who have viewed my photographs of Brooklyn's waterfront neighborhoods. They all agree that we should preserve the unique architecture of Brooklyn's waterfront as its neighborhoods change and develope.

The Brooklyn waterfront is not an embarrassment nor an eyesore. The rapid destruction and haphazard development of this important piece of New York's history is an eyesore. Selling out neighborhoods and important industrial zones to the richest bidder in the name of "high end development" is an embarrassment.

To hold millionaire developers and corporations to some standard of preservation and construction is a right which all of us in Brooklyn possess and which we should excercise to preserve our shared appreciation of this beautiful and historically important area.

Posted by: Gowanus at October 2, 2006 3:31 PM

Please everyone calm down. I am sure Isaac Katan, Henry Radusky and Bricolage Designs will find a beautiful creative solution for this new developement site.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 2, 2006 4:04 PM

Here Here! Gowanus.
What is not being considered is that NY and particularly Brooklyn was put on the map by the working class. Most of whom worked in jobs that were somehow related to our waterfront and it's incredibly deep and natural water line. That the power brokers of this city have taken it upon themselves to sell it out along with all the jobs that it produced is what is truly an embarrassment. How many "LUXURY CONDOMINIUMS" do we really need? Who will buy them all once you've pushed all the working class out of the City? Katan and his cronies could not possibly afford to buy all of the Luxury Condo'd on the Market. Even if they could I can assure you that they wouldn't be buying the ones that they have built. They are all death traps built with Nonunion Day labor of inferior and unstable craftsmanship. If anyone doesn't believe me, just ask any of the many people who have had the experience of buying into one of his illegally built Towers. Or there neighbors for that matter.

Posted by: Daquestionsman at October 2, 2006 4:08 PM

To our howling red-meat capitalist who says, "Hey, he paid for it, he can do what he wants with it," I say (in the accent of Ingrid Bergman): "Mister Bogardus, you are going to GIVE us the building!" (I hear bells!)

Posted by: Brenda from Flatbush at October 2, 2006 5:06 PM

So i'm a developer and I spend 20 mil on a property. I don't give a fuck about what anyone living there thinks and I build 6 buildings that resemble giant dicks. It's my property and it's my right to make a profit. 99% of the community oppose six giant penis buildings, but they go up anyway. Why shouldn't the community have a say about what goes up in their back yard?

Posted by: Tom at October 2, 2006 5:08 PM

That's right. I paid 30 mil for a ware house and now You are going to give me a Variance to build Luxury Condoms. Which will be made of shit and I'll probably kill a few illegal immigrants in the process. But what the fuck. They don't pay taxes anyway. Oh yea! I don't pay all my taxes either, but I do pay off a lot of politicians so that makes me more important than the rest of you.
Oh! By the way. I forgot to tell you that the rest of you poor slobs will be paying for my new digs in Israel by way of increased taxes while I get a tax break for the next 20 years. Thanks to your stupid 421A tax abatement.
Thanks and Happy Yum Kippur

Posted by: Katan at October 2, 2006 6:31 PM

I agree! Write some checks or shut the hell up! Otherwise, accept the fact that you will be living next door to six 50 story penises! You guys are a sad and sorry bunch! You have no comprehension of the real world and probably have failed at everything ever attempted in life. How can you succeed in anything when you do not live in reality? Hate on Katan all you want. He's filthy rich and you're dirt poor and bitter. A bunch of desperate, left wing, radical, anti-development whackos! So pathetic!

Posted by: Anon at October 2, 2006 11:22 PM

I love you Brenda

Posted by: carolyn at October 3, 2006 2:00 AM

why do i feel this building is going to catch on fire really soon.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 3, 2006 10:51 AM

"Hate on Katan all you want. He's filthy rich and you're dirt poor and bitter. A bunch of desperate, left wing, radical, anti-development whackos! So pathetic!"

So are mob bosses and other criminals. there is a difference, greedy developer, between smart, sustainable development and short term gain that long term is bad for the community and society at large. If the Robert Moses and greedy developers of the 60s had their way, there wouldn't be a brownstone standing. Would this be an improvement? I love how Real Estate firms and developers always sell the neigborhood on its historic character, yet want to ruin just that. oh and I am right wing republican.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 3, 2006 10:55 AM

well, that thread just got more and more thoughtful as we went along....

going back to the question at 9:37 am, "Landmark what?!?," this is the last of what was eight (+/-) sugar refineries that defined the economic and physical landscape of Williamsburg. can't speak for LPC, but that certain is enough to pass muster for the national register of historic places.

thanks WBer for reminding some folks about certain realities that are as real as, 'he paid $30M, blah, blah, blah'

and finally, a Williamsburg neighbor of mine walked through the place and told me, 'it's not a building; it's a machine with a skin over it.' that may also affect the question of adaptive reuse.

you may resume bickering about capitalism and social responsibility now....

Posted by: Anonymous at October 3, 2006 5:31 PM

Post a comment

Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.

Latest Restaurant Additions