« Wednesday Food and Drink Round-Up Experiments in Affordable Townhouses: Freeman St. »
January 31, 2007
PACC Keeps Busy, Breaks Ground on Quincy
A stone's throw from the Broken Angel, the Pratt Area Community Council is building a 48-unit development for those who earn less than $26,588 a year. According to The Brooklyn Eagle (from the snippet we could see on the free portion of the site — what's up with a local newspaper charging for content?), PACC broke ground on the 6-story, 50,000-square-foot project on Monday. Located at 15 Quincy Street, this site is the same one a reader wrote in about a couple of months ago. Check the discussion on the link below. Anyone seen any drawings?
Development Watch: Question on Quincy [Brownstoner] GMAP P*Shark DOB
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/326
Comments
Why that's un-American! We need more glassy towers with $1.5M 1 bedrooms spa apartments
Posted by: Anonymous at January 31, 2007 9:43 AM
Please stop building poor people warehouses.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 31, 2007 10:07 AM
the brooklyn downtown star ran an article "Two Towers: One on, One Half Off (Site)" about this lot. it is the affordable housing portion of a development two miles away. last they knew, CB2 was going to discuss/vote in the new year. a drawing appears at the top of the article. here's the link
www.brooklyndowntownstar.com/StoryDisplay.asp?Headline=Two%20Towers,%20One%20On,%20One%20Half%20Off%20(Site)&PID=4&NewsStoryID=5073
Posted by: TBONE at January 31, 2007 10:42 AM
I hope this is good for my condo investment in the area.
Posted by: BrownStonerReader at January 31, 2007 10:59 AM
what household makes less than 26,500 a year and lives in NY. This is another case of the govt creating issues that reduce people's desire to work harder/smarter and earn more money (on the books). I work with people who will refuse over time for fear of making more than is allowable to live where they live.
This is a crutch that will continue, and not solve the problem. This will likely increase the polarization of lower and upper classes
Posted by: what at January 31, 2007 11:02 AM
Yeah! Im all about helping people live comfortably, but cant they build these apartments in less desirable neighborhoods, like East New York, or out in Queens somewhere?
Posted by: BrownStonerReader at January 31, 2007 11:08 AM
Is that income figure accurate for these units? Indeed, exactly how can a single person, let alone a household, expect to live in NYC on $26K a year? What would the rent be--a hundred bucks a month?
Posted by: anon at January 31, 2007 11:36 AM
And what if it were $100 per month?? Are we all praying that within five years time only those making in excess of $250K can live in Brooklyn, barely scraping by?? You ask a good question 11:36. Now get on the phone, call Bloomberg and tell him to raise the starting salaries of entry level teachers, cops, court officers, firemen and assistant ADAs.
Posted by: anonymous at January 31, 2007 11:47 AM
BrownStonerReader......only a jerk off transplant would write something like that. A real NYer knows that there are parts of Queens, that make the best part of Brooklyn look like the ghetto. Not to offend anyone else, just have to defend my boro.
Posted by: QUEEEENZ at January 31, 2007 11:51 AM
Stop QUEEEENZ!
There is literally No part of Queens that makes the best of Brooklyn look like a Ghetto. That being said, there are parts of Queens that are so beautiful--well, it makes you want to weep!
BROOOOOOOOklyn
Posted by: Anonymous at January 31, 2007 11:59 AM
back to the real question people:
how can the affordable housing planned for Quincy be considered "inclusionary"
if it is located nearly two miles away from the original luxury development planned for myrtle/flatbush? what is inclusive about that?
Posted by: TBONE at January 31, 2007 12:09 PM
Tasted space in my opinion what kind of people do you think are gonna live there ? 26 k a yr and under ? Build it in ENY not brownstone brooklyn
Posted by: anon at January 31, 2007 1:16 PM
Many many times more people living on less than 26K in this city than living on more than 200k.
Don't show your ignorance by making stupid comments.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 31, 2007 1:33 PM
1:33 - Exactly. Some people here are so out of touch with reality.
Posted by: anonymous at January 31, 2007 1:43 PM
I agree with anon 116
Posted by: BrownStonerReader at January 31, 2007 1:58 PM
It is asanine to argue that affordable housing should only be built in faraway neighborhoods. Affordable housing works best when mixed in throughout a stable community. I also hate it when people here invoke the term "Brownstone Brooklyn" in a snobby way--and I'm lucky enough to own a B-stone in just such a landmarked Bklyn district. (Although I WOULD argue that if you're going to build anything at all in a historic 'hood, you should be required to build something that looks nice and respects its surroundings--and I can't imagine why anybody would disagree with that, anywhere.) I like diversity in my hood. A little rich, a little not-rich, owners, renters, students, different races/cultures, all working together (ideally) and caring about the hood and each other. I, too, I wish entry-level teachers and cops were paid more. I'm just asking: Is $26K REALLY the upper limit on income to be eligible for these apartments? That is, indeed, pretty low. You ask me, housing for that income level would be better if it were more scattered. 48 units is a lot concentrated working poor, and does smack of warehousing to me.
Posted by: anon at January 31, 2007 3:14 PM
Sorry I don’t mean to sound rude or inconsiderate but…I own a home on Quincy Street and it's already bad enough that at the corner of Classon and Quincy there’re drugs dealers hanging out, playing loud music all times of the day (mostly in the summer) and people running extension cords from their apartment windows to the street and repairing cars in front of the building.
I was hoping that whoever purchased 15 Quincy and the other properties at the other corner of Classon and Quincy would help elevated this problem not make it worst by building another low income building.
I’m NO WAY stating that everybody who makes $26,500 or less are drugs dealers and I know not all people can afford $1,800 and up rent but there has to be a better way. Instead of turning these into apartment why not make it into lower income condos? I found that people who own instead of rent usually takes more pride in where they live and it’s up keep.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 31, 2007 3:21 PM
Some of the comments in this conversation are truly appalling. I grew up in Brooklyn and remember when "Brownstone Brooklyn" was very diverse, socioeconomically, racially, ethnically, religiously. People of all stripes mingled, sometimes harmoniously and sometimes not. And what it taught me was to respect all people, regardless of their differences. Why should people who earn less than the investment banker/lawyer/suburban newcomers be relegated to "less desirable" areas? Shouldn't they have access to the benefits of a "good" neighborhood -- the schools, the grocery stores, the safety? If you want to live in a neighborhood populated by people who earn the same income as you, move back to the suburbs. Good riddance!
Posted by: Anonymous at January 31, 2007 4:03 PM
Mark my word's if they really do place the 26 k a yr and under crowd we all know what's gonna happen .LOUD kid's ( we all know what kind right ? )Drunks ,Lazy types the list goes on .Clinton Hill just took 1 step back .
This has nothing to do with being a racist . The truth is those type of people are lower class . They just do not know how to act period . Loud , filthy,5 kids with 5 diffrent daddies . This will be no better than the project's in my book .
Posted by: anon at January 31, 2007 4:20 PM
Sweet Jesus, this is a vicious crowd!
4:03: Right on, right on. We all deserve access to the benefits of a good neighborhood and everyone has to start somewhere.
Could this, maybe, be that starting point for some people given that not everyone can enter "the market" paying 2K in rent or 2M+ for the oh so coveted brownstone?
Show some sense of grace people, it cost you NOTHING.
Posted by: anonymous at January 31, 2007 5:35 PM
WOW! First of all, these posting do not show racism. They show class-ism. You can change your socio-economic class, but you cant change your race. So, there is a high level of personal responsibility to one's misfortune due to socio-economic class. Personally, I dont care what the socio-economic status of people who live in my neighborhood is, or race obviously for that matter. As long as its safe, clean, has the amenities/stores I need, and that the property value of my condo increases. Lets just hope that putting 48 families in my neighborhood that make less than $26K keeps my neighborhood desirable for me to live in.
Posted by: BrownStonerReader at January 31, 2007 5:36 PM
Oh yeah, I just remembered that this will be the same block as Broken Angel, where they are making fancy condos now, for better or worse. We'll see what happens...
Posted by: BrownStonerReader at January 31, 2007 5:40 PM
Wow ..Exellent post brother man .
Posted by: eletricgreek at January 31, 2007 7:40 PM
i just emailed this topic to PACC...
I for one don't think this would be good for the comunity . Call me racist but . They really wana put this in a comunity that's struggling to thrive ? ..... You know what ? There's nothing more to say about this , Brother man said it all . Fuckin shame
Posted by: eletricgreek at January 31, 2007 8:00 PM
Why can't PACC do what Habitat for Humanity does?
Let the people who want the apt's or homes prove it by hard work . You think drug Dealers are gonna help? The one's that will help are the people who really want a home .They will feel good about themselves and prove to others there worthiness . If PACC does it like this then the 48 apt's will go to the people who truly deserve them
Posted by: eletricgreek at January 31, 2007 8:57 PM
Wow, 7:15-8:37, and EG, spot on! So sick of the entitled native losers bitching about how they have a RIGHT to insanely-cheap housing on top of a popular boulangerie subsidized by their immediate neighbors who work for a living. The projects are a DISASTER, they physically destroyed the neighborhoods they were built ON, and then like a cancer destroyed the neighborhoods they were built IN. Bulldoze em all and let us fix what Robert Moses destroyed.
PS: You should all show up at the Museum of the CIty of NY to boo and write nasty notes in the Moses exhibit guest book. haha!
Posted by: Jeremy at February 1, 2007 12:17 AM
I can't believe I'm loosing sleep over this .
You all know what this is right ? Modern projects ,nothing more .What's PACC gonna do when this blows up in there face ?? Not a damn thing .Who's gonna deal with it ? The GOOD people who will be living in the building ( til they get so scared they move out ) and the neighbor's who have been waiting for YRS for there neighborhood to improve .
What's PACC gonna do when some of the new tenant's who are only supposed to be making $26,500 a yr are parking outside the building listening to music on there $ 5,000 systems ? Kick em out ? NAH . Or when they pull up in there $ 75,000 cars .There's only one way to keep those type of people out .Do it the Habitat for Humanity way .
Posted by: eletricgreek at February 1, 2007 1:07 AM
This is an article from about a month ago: http://tinyurl.com/ynq5vq
Here are the parts most relevant to this discussion:
***
Unlike at 180 Myrtle Avenue, however, the rest of the inclusionary housing planned for the Flatbush tower is, as Lawrence Whiteside presented, "the normal type of project where the low-income development goes up [somewhere else] and the air rights are transferred downtown."
In this case, half of the affordable housing that will provide governmental kickbacks to the developer is off-site - about two miles off-site, at 15-21 Quincy Street between Classon Avenue and Downing Street, which is at the far eastern boundary of the CB2 area.
Nonetheless, 15-21 Quincy Street, will offer 48 total units, nine of which are for tenants at or below 30 percent AMI (about $22,500), with preference given to people transitioning out of homelessness, and 38 for tenants at or below 50 percent AMI (with one unit for the super).
The Quincy Street building will be managed and marketed by the Pratt Area Community Council (PACC), and is slated to be constructed within the next two years, according to Drew Kiriazides, PACC's director of housing development.
To many observers, the Quincy Street project represents the unpleasant side of affordable housing incentives: the market-rate condo shoppers get to live in increased luxury in their glass tower without having to run into any unfortunate low-income tenants on the elevator - or in this case, within a one-mile radius.
Kiriazides, however, is a good deal more optimistic about the plan. "It's not like we're dumping people in Clinton Hill," he told the Star, referring to the Quincy location which some pre-gentrification old-timers still think of as being firmly in the neighborhood of Bedford-Stuyvesant.
"The original plan was to develop a larger site that included going into Myrtle Avenue with all of the affordable housing built at the site of the Flatbush tower," Kiriazides explained. Quincy Street is by no means a poor plan B, in his estimation.
"PACC is very excited about having this kind of project," Kiriazides continued. 15-21 Quincy Street "is a stand-alone building that we're allowed to manage and provide all services for," as opposed to on-site affordable housing where it might fall to the developer to provide for the needs of lower-income and special-needs tenants.
With the off-site set-up of Quincy, however, Kiriazides said, PACC, a non-profit management agency that serves the underprivileged, "can provide services to the formerly homeless tenants [at 15-21 Quincy], job-readiness programs, food stamp assistance," and a number of other services all under the same roof.
(PACC does also manage affordable housing units in on-site properties. Lawrence Whiteside mentioned that 180 Myrtle Avenue had applied to PACC to request that they manage their 20 on-site units.)
So what did CB2 think of 180 Myrtle Avenue and 15-21 Quincy Street and its Flatbush tower?
The end of the year board meeting was attended by Councilwoman Letitia James, as well as representatives from the offices of many borough luminaries. Nevertheless, the night was marked by little discussion aside from repeated holiday greetings to one and all.
The vote on 180 Myrtle Avenue met with no discussion whatsoever, and CB2 approved it unanimously.
***
If what this article says is still true, the majority of apartments would have an income cap of about $37,500, and there will be a live-in super.
I have a much bigger problem with the politicians and laws involved in this than in anything that PACC is trying to do. I think that PACC is at worse misguided but well meaning. The law, however, is ridiculous and once again lets private developers take advantage of loopholes large enough to drive a backhoe through.
Posted by: Amy at February 1, 2007 11:00 AM
This article is a little older (November) but explains the loophole a little more.
http://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/29/45/29_45nets2.html
Amy
Posted by: Amy at February 1, 2007 11:14 AM
Most of the problems here center around problems with subsidized housing. Since property rights supercede individuals' needs for housing, it's difficult for organizations to successfully distribute low-income housing throughout an area. There are still many board-ups in Clinton Hill and Bed-Stuy while many people still need somewhere affordable to live. The end result is high-rises, ghettos, warehousing, etc.
Nonetheless, there are a lot of generalizations on this board to what under $26k is. That is the income of many folks in social work, single mothers working part-time, fixed-income people on social security, etc. as well as those on welfare.
As far as all the "there goes the neighborhood" opinions, Clinton Hill has rapidly gentrified in the past ten years. Not everyone can afford a $1M brownstone or the escalating rents. While I'm not judging this sort of trend, this also drastically changes community and has significant effects for "hard-working" families.
One poster states "as long as... the property value of my condo increases"... I'm sorry if your investment is impeded by people from Clinton Hill trying to find somewhere they can afford to live, as your property values rise.
Posted by: onLafayette at February 1, 2007 11:28 AM
"I'm sorry if your investment is impeded by people from Clinton Hill trying to find somewhere they can afford to live, as your property values rise." These people will probably not be "from" Clinton Hill. Some will be "transitioning from homelessness". How can anyone argue that its good to live next door to people transitioning from homelessness? Moving to Clinton Hill will be like running from 1st base to 3rd base. House them in East New York until they can establish themselves. Also, I worked hard to get to the point where I could buy a place. Nothing was given to me for free. I went to a State University paid for 100% with loans and part-time jobs. The vast majority of the time, people really have to screw their lives up in order to become homeless.
Posted by: BrownStonerReader at February 1, 2007 2:25 PM
Thank you 2:25pm for articulating what I could not. In particular:
"Nonetheless, there are a lot of generalizations on this board to what under $26k is. That is the income of many folks in social work, single mothers working part-time, fixed-income people on social security, etc. as well as those on welfare"
The general tone of this board seems to be that if you make 26K, you are, as one poster so elegantly voiced, "dirty, loud and have five babies with five baby daddies" I'd like to know the precise income level that instantly makes you a better tenant, neighbor, homeowner or citizen?
Posted by: ANON at February 2, 2007 11:18 AM
I am a little disgusted by how reactionary a lot of these posts are.
Looking at the Queen Ledger article, the building will have 48 units, 38 (or ~80%) for people making less than $37.5k. Only 9 units are for under $22.5k.
Characterizing 38 people (or families) making less than $37k as a bunch of drug addicts is offensive and is blatant bigotry. I wonder what "value" people with THAT attitude add to our community.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 2, 2007 11:24 AM
Wow, I can't believe that some of you really feel that only drug addicts or people on welfare and single,low class mothers are the types of people who are going to move into your neighborhoods. That comment about poor people warehouses, and the homeless, was really insulting and just goes to show what kind of class you really have if all you can do is insult other people. What about college students, new graduates who are classy and just looking to move out in something they can afford. Or Single women with a decent job who are saving to buy a house, or people like me.
I just graduated college w/my B.S. as a paralegal. Im just as hardworking, classy, and decent a person and looking for something affordable and have been looking to move into quincy st neighborhood.
Its whats affordable for hardworking peple like myself who are trying to come up and who take care of themselves and their property. Im not a drug addict, I've never done drugs in my life, no kids,I dont drink, I work everyday. I am 23 so I do go out sometimes, but I clean up after myself, I take care of myself, been independent since I was 15 and think I should be able to move into a nice neighborhood w/afforable rent as a recent college grad and not be looked down upon because I dont make $60k a year.
There are plenty of people like me who are looking at this neighborhood as a chance to be on their own at an affordable rent temporarily until they earn a higher income where they can pay a higher rent and will gladly do it. You shouldn't be so damn closed minded, no one is perfect, we cant all make $60 and $80k a year, its not going to happen.
Posted by: guest at October 28, 2007 10:05 PM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.