At Rally, News of Carroll Gardens Downzoning Progress
About 50 people (and one well-dressed canine) showed at Borough Hall this morning to support the drive to downzone Carroll Gardens. Council Member Bill de Blasio organized the rally, and he had some big news to share: The Department of City Planning has officially committed to studying a downzoning of the neighborhood. The news comes…
About 50 people (and one well-dressed canine) showed at Borough Hall this morning to support the drive to downzone Carroll Gardens. Council Member Bill de Blasio organized the rally, and he had some big news to share: The Department of City Planning has officially committed to studying a downzoning of the neighborhood. The news comes hot on the heels of Planning’s announcement that it would initiate a a zoning text amendment to impose height limitations on 1st through 4th Place. De Blasio is also pushing for the city to impose building height limitations of 50 feet while the downzoning is studied. We want to limit heights until a legal downzoning goes through, de Blasio said at the rally. Representatives of Assemblywoman Nydia Velazquez and Assemblywoman Joan Millman also spoke in support of the downzoning, as did Gary Reilly of the Carroll Gardens Neighborhood Association. What attracts people to the neighborhood is its low scale, said Reilly. We want to prevent Carroll Gardens from becoming the next Williamsburg, with developers throwing up buildings willy-nilly. De Blasio noted that downzonings typically take a year to a year and a half to push through, and time is of the essence in terms of downzoning Carroll Gardens since the clock is ticking on the current administration’s term.
Prelude to a Downzone in Carroll Gardens? [Brownstoner]
Update on Carroll Gardens Development Issues [Brownstoner]
3:06
Huh? You are saying that anyone wanting to preserve architectural design is NIMBY? I said I’m fine with lots of things in MBY. Fill the neighborhood with more 4 story buildings, up to the Gowanus, clean the Gowanus and tax me so that people enjoy being on a Venice-type inlet, put in rehab houses, just keep the flavor of the neighborhood I moved to 25 years ago and pay 1/3 of my salary to live in. I didn’t mind it when Smith street had social clubs dangerous to walk past with roommates and I don’t mind Starbucks–but 6 stories put me literally in the dark.
If you have facts on why low income housing (which of course none of these 6 story building are) cannot be accomplished with more construction in keeping with the neighborhood, than state it. Don’t tell me I’m “faith-based” and won’t listen to facts. Those anti-religion have the ability to say show me God, and the religious to have to state their Faith. I have the ability to point to the architecture.
Why is it so wrong to want not to have enormous ugly buildings in your neighborhood?
nice faith-based argument, 3:06.
Trying to have a discussion with a nimby is like trying to have a discussion with a religious person. It’s wasted time that you will never get back.
There are those that are “faith based” and there are those that are “fact based”. Nimbys are obviously faith based and the silent majority are obviously fact based. You can discourse with a nimby until the cows come home but they will not budge from their view, no matter what. Evidence be damned and fancy talk be damned! I have GOD on my side! A fact based person on the other hand will listen to all the points of the argument, consider the choices and go over the pros and cons for the greater good of the community. If their current opinion was based on false information they will change their view accordingly.
snip:
>Nimbys, when will you learn? You have taken a noble idea of preserving vanishing beautiful buildings and perverted the very core of the system so that nothing can grow in this city. Everything changes, it grows, falls apart, and gets built again to serve the community but trying to do what Paris did by making the city a museum is wrong and not the course this city should take.
Sure, and Grand Central should have been knocked down and made into something like Penn Station — and Cobble Hill Park should have been made a supermarket, as was planned in the early 70s.
Funny, last I checked, noise from builders working at night, asbestos in the air from their unchecked demoliton and streets made slippery by ice caused by their using city hydrants for their own construction needs are just as dangerous to renters as they are to homeowners.
And all of that has happened in just the past month at the 340 Court site.
Oh, and I forgot, when the builder starts slamming the site with a backhoe and cornices start coming loose, I’m sure that they will only hit rich people.
We are out protesting by any means possible because overdevelopment in general and the Clarett Corp. in particular has left us no other choice.
Oh, and the buildings planned for that seven story building at 340 Court consists of 16 single family townhouses (maisonettes was the name given that that should jack the price up even more) and 32 two-and-three bedroom units — because the builders themselves are on record as saying that will maximize their return in this market.
Not leaving room for poor and mid-income folks? Maybe you should direct your ire at the builders themselves.
Or would that entail a bit of self-criticism?
Gian Trotta
cgunion.wik.is
It is reasonable to complain about “opposition to everything.” For instance When the Genovese (later Eckherdts, now Rite Aide) was suggested for Smith and President to replace a parking lots, neighbors complained, reversing Joni Mitchell’s Paving paradise. That was ridiculous. BUT, wanting to keep a landmark neighborhood? That’s NIMBY? That is one warped view of politics.
So those wanting to drill in National parks are looking out for the poor people and those wanting to keep the beauty are keeping it for their rich selves who can afford camping trips?… no doubt with all the days off they have as nonworkers with rent control!
I suppose the ancient ruins in the middle of Rome where I’m also sure they lack affordable housing should also go? Yes 100 year old buildings may not rank with the rest of the world as ancient, but they’re what we’ve got and towering over them with chrome monoliths twice their size certainly takes away from the quaintness. There does have to be a mix in a city and homeowners, renters, politicians have the right to want to keep their view without being called heartless NIMBY.
I’d openly welcome a homeless shelter on my block just keep it to 4 stories.
Now 4:13 clearly feels that the laws of supply and demand have been repealed. Downzoning, anyway you cut it, limits supply, less supply given equal or great demand yields higher prices (rents). That is what will happen here just like it happened in all the neighborhoods where downzoning has occurred. Since it caps how much space an owner can add to their building it restricts supply there too so the per square foot price goes up. However, since the buildable square footage goes down the total value of the building goes down. Downzoning manages to increase rents and the same time in decreases property values. Quite and accomplishment.
Not for nothing it also limits tax receipts so the city’s ability to improve schools and infrastructure to adjust to population is also destroyed.
I think these people are well meaning but narrow minded and not really very critical thinkers. I’ve been to many Carrol Gardens Neighborhood Association meetings and there are many genuinely mentally ill people who are easy to scare with horror stories about development. This is the “road to Hell is paved with good intentions” rule or its “unintended consequences” corollary.
Some of the best buildings in South Brooklyn are well above the entirely arbitrary 50 foot height limit. All of these politicians have heard from me. If there is an anti-development majority in this neighborhood so what? These decisions do and should have to be made on a city wide basis.
Who is running against DeBlasio? Anyone against down-zoning gets my vote.
They pulled it off in the south slope which was zoned R6 forever now tops off at 40 feet with R6B. They will succeed in get that re-zoned too. They will trade off for some upzoning somewhere else closeby and then cry about that later too. I am not sure if it has anything to do with affordable housing, rich people, yuppies, property values, or any of these alleged issues with the exception of parking. They bitch about that for sure. They just don’t want their slice of Idaho to change and wish to dictate how you will live within it. A diverse group for sure. All for the common good as long as they agree with it. Don’t disagree with this crowd else you be labeled uninteligent.
6:26 – You are wasting your time trying to talk sense to the Poleguy. You would get a more intelligent response from the festively attired dog in the photo above.