« 360 Smith: Update and Review of New Plans Condo of the Day: Price Cut at The Simone »
July 3, 2007
Development Watch: Race Against Clock at 163 Wash
The clock is ticking at 163 Washington where the developers are trying to get the foundation for their 17-story as-of-right tower before City Planning approves the Clinton Hill/Fort Greene rezoning at its June 25th meeting. From what we hear, neighbors are standing ready with video cameras in case the developer tries to cut any corners nights and weekends.
163 Washington: The Digging Has Begun [Brownstoner] GMAP P*Shark
Rally at 163 Washington for Shorter Building [Brownstoner] DOB
Tower Plans for Washington Ave Ruffling Feathers [Brownstoner]
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/1531
Comments
June 25th meeting?
Posted by: Anonymous at July 3, 2007 11:17 AM
I'm really hoping this building doesn't get built. It won't ruin the neighborhood but putting an 18-story building on a block of three-story woodframe houses is just an insult.
The hulking brick monoliths on Hall Street are at least a block off Myrtle, behind a block of commercial buildings. They are incomparable to this out of place disaster.
Posted by: Hall Street Resident at July 3, 2007 12:15 PM
From the renderings at the second jump, I don't think it looks bad. At least there appears to be a lot of space between it and its neighbors. I think that's better than the crappy condos that go in right next to brownstone that stick out many feet past the brownstone's entrance.
Posted by: lemonhead at July 3, 2007 12:23 PM
I don't think it looks so bad. Its more housing.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 3, 2007 12:32 PM
there is a lot of concern about the adjacent houses which have not been shored up by the developer despite earlier excavation up to the lot lines. as you can see from the photo, this lot is all loose sand.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 3, 2007 12:34 PM
"From what we hear, neighbors are standing ready with video cameras in case the developer tries to cut any corners nights and weekends."
I'm sorry but don't white people have anything better to do with their time then this?
Posted by: Anonymous at July 3, 2007 12:36 PM
Mr. B, I would think that given the horrible state of affairs on Fulton Street, that you would welcome a project of this size and scope on Washington. Am I wrong?
Posted by: Anonymous at July 3, 2007 12:39 PM
again, there was a plan for a lower structure, more than 10 stories lower in fact, and that plan provided for more apartments than are accommodated by this 17 story tower.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 3, 2007 12:39 PM
I meant Myrtle....
Posted by: Anonymous at July 3, 2007 12:41 PM
There are about four buildings of equal height 17 stories plus literally right around the corner from this development site. First, who are you people kidding about it being out of context and second, who cares since the building is "as of right"?
More housing is good in general and more upscale housing is great for this section of Myrtle Avenue in particular.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 3, 2007 12:46 PM
Are those accurate renders? I'm more concerned with what the entire lot is going to look like rather than just a tall building.
If its just going to be a tower in a parking lot that is crappy.
Posted by: Remistompa at July 3, 2007 12:46 PM
As we've said before, we certainly sympathize with those people whose backyards and light would be negatively impacted by this and we wish this were not as tall (10 or 12 stories would be better), we think Myrtle Avenue in general is an appropriate place to build some bigger buildings. They will only boost the food and retail offerings on that stretch; plus, there needs to be more housing built in the neighborhood in general. Our reasoning is similar for 525 Clinton Avenue.
Posted by: Brownstoner at July 3, 2007 12:53 PM
"More housing is good in general" This is not necessarily true. There seems to be this mentality that anyone who throws up a trashy building is bestowing some gift on the neighborhoood. Behind every building is a developer whose only interest is how much money he is going to make. As inappropriate, oversized building are built they make the neighborhood less desirable and destroy the property values of the original owners. These builders are taking money from the owners of the original brownstones in effect. And virtually none of these buildings are for low income people who have fewer and fewer alternatives in this part of Brooklyn
Posted by: Anonymous at July 3, 2007 1:08 PM
I really don't understand how this will destroy property values and I'd say this area already has plenty of housing available for people of low income. I agree with bstoner. Hopefully it will boost food and retail on Myrtle.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 3, 2007 1:13 PM
I don't think this building is oversized. It will occupy the equivalent of 12 lots for the neighborhood of 2-3 family houses. So its 49 units being put into what would normally have been 24-36 units.
Personally I prefer the 4 - 8 story city model but when you have a lot of land developed at 1-3 stories you have to make up the density somewhere.
The final say on property values is going to be if we get a quality new construction or a cut cost substandard building- which I don't know at this point.
Posted by: Remistompa at July 3, 2007 1:16 PM
First off, Mr Brownstoner, this building does NOT front Myrtle Avenue. Secondly, contrary to your clearly limited understanding of this situation, "backyard light" is barely the reason for opposition to this 17 story tower.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 3, 2007 1:20 PM
As BStoner said, it's also what development will bring to the area in terms of food and retail establishments, for example. Improvements in such respects will presumably be a benefit to property values.
Posted by: lemonhead at July 3, 2007 1:22 PM
Original plans for this building called for 7 stories on Washington and 5 stories on Hall street and included MORE apartments. That means they would have provided more density which means more Princeton grads would have been able to move into your neighborhood.
Furthermore, this building does NOT front Myrtle. The only thing they could put in this building resembling retail would be a daycare or a doctor's office.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 3, 2007 1:27 PM
Anon 1:27: Who said anything about retail *in* the building? Nobody.
Posted by: lemonhead at July 3, 2007 1:30 PM
The neighborhood and retail in general, both on Myrtle and other area commercial strips nearby, have been improving gradually and organically, which is probably the best way. Supporting new housing for the sake of new housing seems short sighted to me, especially if you have a long-term bullish view of the neighborhood. If they could fit more units in a shorter building by using the entire land area, why would anyone be opposed to that? I know some of you are trying your best to not be "Brownstone snobs" and opposing anything deemed too tall, but even the most neutral party would understand while standing in front of the site that the planned building is not contextual to the block. Relative to this city, 17 stories isn't tall, but in this particular block, and within the proposed Wallabout historic district, this building could and should be shorter and better designed while accommodating more housing units.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 3, 2007 1:58 PM
that blocks needs development. its too desolate most of the time.
Posted by: armchair_warrior at July 3, 2007 2:02 PM
Amen 1:58
Posted by: Anonymous at July 3, 2007 2:15 PM
Amen 2:02.
Posted by: lemonhead at July 3, 2007 2:25 PM
See ya at the BSA boys & girls. No way this foundation is getting in within the next 2 weeks.
If they try, and they might, neighbors better document everything.
Most likely they are going to sit and wait for the rezoning, then file "hardship" applications to allow them to work under the old zoning.
Ought to be as good a fight as we had in the South Slope and Greenwood Hts.
Waiting to see...
Posted by: ccgh at July 3, 2007 2:40 PM
In case it seemed like we were trivializing the matter in our comment of 12:53, there are also serious structural and traffic issues that relate to this particular situation that need to be watched very closely. Perhaps one of the people close to the situation can elaborate...
Posted by: Brownstoner at July 3, 2007 2:52 PM
there are several major issues here including:
-the safety of the adjacent 150 year old structures and the people who live in them, as seen from the picture, this lot is sand and they previously excavated up to the adjacent buildings' lot lines. at least one of these buildings has since started shaking from traffic vibration alone. the developer has not provided any formal shoring for these buildings.
-suspect interpretations of building codes in regards to the definition of "roof" and "cover" in calculating open space (these calculations influence how high the structure can be)
-flaws in the plans relating to handicap provisions throughout the building
-a 35 car parking lot on Hall street
-a 2-way driveway to this parking lot accessed by the impossibly narrow Hall street
-6 ft concrete walls fronting the street
-the builder broke an adjacent buildings backyard fence and debris fell into their yard. the owner of this building has kids and now can't use his backyard due to safety concerns
-cracks in the wall on the top floor of one of the adjacent building's apartment.
there is more but i'm done
Posted by: Anonymous at July 3, 2007 3:56 PM
well if they are causing cracks and other safety issues. watch them like a hawk. a lot of developers are slime.
Posted by: armchair_warrior at July 3, 2007 4:08 PM
yeah, dude! developers are evil doers! off with their heads!
man, this is like the '60s all over again! let's take to the streets and riot!
Posted by: Anonymous at July 3, 2007 5:08 PM
I live in CH and I fully support the project. I hope the developer succeeds in getting the foundation down before the deadline. For those of us who support high density development in the area, how can we help out? I'd love to through on my construction hat, grab a sturdy shovel and help out with the digging. I say we take back the night and stop these NIMBYS dead in their tracks!
I love the renderings and think the development would bring about a lot of new projects to the area. Yes, Myrtle has made some gains but it still sucks! I say Supersize it and bring it on!
Posted by: Anonymous at July 3, 2007 5:17 PM
Kum Kau is already overworked! How will they ever produce enough chinese food for the nabe if this place is built?
hehe
In all seriousness, I am not opposed to one such building going up, if thats all it will be, though I admit I would be furious if it blocked my light. That particular block is not in desperate need of development, I could think of many others nearby that are though.
Posted by: Guvna at July 3, 2007 5:22 PM
"I say we take back the night and stop these NIMBYS dead in their tracks!"
Great anon 5:17pm. No need to help out man, the GC's been doing it all on his own. Early mornings (illegal), nights (illegal) and weekends (illegal).
Perhaps you could stand close to the whole and watch...don't fall in!
Posted by: ActionJackson at July 3, 2007 6:22 PM
"hole" not "whole."
Though, perhaps I was thinking you could fall the "whole" way in the "hole."
Posted by: ActionJackson at July 3, 2007 6:24 PM
You people are annoying.
I'm sure you favor the telegraph to those new cell phones too.
And forget those fancy electric subway trains, bring back the coal powered locomotive!!
Stop sitting in your dark gloomy CH brownstone with "original" detail and open your eyes. Some places actually benefit from this type of development
Posted by: Anonymous at July 5, 2007 2:46 PM
I lived in Clinton Hill-Ft.Green for 10 years before they gentrified it.It used to be a nice neighborhood before outsiders moved in. All of you people can go right to hell.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 5, 2007 4:35 PM
Ya, food poisoning from Sprinkles was a treat back then.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 6, 2007 9:59 AM
4:35 i lived in Clinton Hill-Ft. Greene years before you moved in (yes you, outsider) and you can go right to hell.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 8, 2007 11:54 PM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.