"b'stoner picking thst comment out of context was gratuitous for him."

Anon 2:39pm.

Well, perhaps, but there were "those type of Slopers" who were not just concerned about family oriented units, more interaction with FAC and such.

There has been a TON of fear mongering, shit slinging and quite frankly, outright bigotry from neighbors in the 15th/16th St. area. Not all (this is not a large group in opposition, majority approves of the FAC proposal), but enough to make me NOT want to be associated with these "neighbors."

Posted by: lostinbrooklyn at April 13, 2007 4:24 PM in response to City Planning Considers 5th Ave Housing Facility

"GH and proud "

AGREED! But, I hope you stay :)

nite.

Posted by: lostinbrooklyn at April 13, 2007 12:02 AM in response to New Development: Fusion on 20th Street

Oh, and for the record:

"I think you should look for other things when you are losing another case in Brooklyn"

The only Scarano project we fought...we won :)

Posted by: lostinbrooklyn at April 12, 2007 8:39 PM in response to New Development: Fusion on 20th Street

Anon 6:39 PM, no need to respond other than to say you nailed the situation by grouping this development with the other architects of ruin...though I am less familair with Carl, so I'll stay off his case.

Unfoutunately my experiece is backed by way too much time dealing with stes like this one, their porblems, shoddy workmanship, illegal activity, etc. as a hobby of sorts...like protecting my community from those who would exploit it.

Who's the "loser sitting at home" bucko? Man of the streets way to often. Please back up your BS, I'd like to understand your POV...

Betcha you won't. Another anon shill.

PS. GH made some good points, crappy as they are...they will sell.

Posted by: lostinbrooklyn at April 12, 2007 8:06 PM in response to New Development: Fusion on 20th Street

bob999,

As per typical of Scarano tag-team projects (I REALIZE he does not build them...well, so we think), the finishes are always for shit. Look nice from across the street, but when you get up close, yuck.

We have 4 buildings in our area, all the same. Nice on paper, lousy in the flesh.

This job is gonna look like crap in 5 years, trust me.

Wait, did I just kinda give Mr. S a kinda compliment?

Posted by: lostinbrooklyn at April 12, 2007 5:37 PM in response to New Development: Fusion on 20th Street

meant "fast buck" in the last sentence...

Posted by: lostinbrooklyn at April 12, 2007 3:29 PM in response to New Development: Fusion on 20th Street

Anon 3:16pm

"more people does not equal bad"

When did I ever post that more people are bad?

We're talking about out of scale (and my opinion FUGLY) architecture from a known bad-boy architect.

Am I missing something here?

I think I'm a pretty good neighbor watching your back to make sure what's new in our 'nabe is legal, safe, well built and is a "good addition" and not another sh*itbox to turn a fast back, no?

Posted by: lostinbrooklyn at April 12, 2007 3:25 PM in response to New Development: Fusion on 20th Street

Wait, even better yet...

let's rename it "The Confusion"

Posted by: lostinbrooklyn at April 12, 2007 2:24 PM in response to New Development: Fusion on 20th Street

OOOOOH, and did I mention 20th St is one of the MAJOR truck routes in the 'nabe?

Those 18 wheelers bounce by this bad-boy day and night. Better hope the bedrooms are in the back.

Posted by: lostinbrooklyn at April 12, 2007 2:23 PM in response to New Development: Fusion on 20th Street

Total POS.

mezzanines galore (in fact may be a problem when they go for a CofO). So overbuilt the developer had to go around to neighboring properties and buy air rights.

And to ANON 11:21 am, this puppy was vested under R6, not built under R6B, otherwise it would have been MUCH smaller in size and mostly bulk.

You should see how it looms over the back of the property, into the 30' required rear yard (legal?), over the neighbor's back yard. They will be able to read the box tops of the new condo owners...

For the record, this has been a poster child for us as to whats WRONG with typical 55' high Scarano specials.

And the boys at Cyberstruct (yes, that's the developer) went all out on the finishing. Must have spend all their money on Bob's fav black brick, 'cos the rest of the exterior finishings are awful.

To tall, to fat...Fugly! But hey, that's why we got the zoning changed.

Posted by: lostinbrooklyn at April 12, 2007 2:19 PM in response to New Development: Fusion on 20th Street

Right you are, as always, Eryximachus...

This POS really does sacrifice the "Brownstoner Aesthetic."

How astute of you to point our such a glaring flaw none of us noticed.

And this 'bute certainly adds to your argument of "Greenwood Heights is a dump," right?

Tear-em down, buil-em up! Rawhide!!!

Posted by: lostinbrooklyn at April 9, 2007 3:46 PM in response to Not Much Left at Abby Court

Perhaps it's for scooters and motorcycles only ;)

Posted by: lostinbrooklyn at April 9, 2007 1:44 PM in response to Not Much Left at Abby Court

That's what we thought, but unless they have changed their plans, it was for 4-5 spots. Have not peered over the gate lately.

Posted by: lostinbrooklyn at April 9, 2007 12:12 PM in response to Not Much Left at Abby Court

"Anybody know what's going to go between the two buildings, where now there is a gray, plywood construction gate?"

Oops, forgot to add...

Parking. There are spaces in the back, last time I checked...

Posted by: lostinbrooklyn at April 9, 2007 12:02 PM in response to Not Much Left at Abby Court

Bob999 hit the nail on the head...

FUGLY!

And buyer beware. Took almost THREE YEARS for the conversion and addition. Lots of issues with DOB and the neighbors.

Developer was a total A-hole to the block, what's new...

And those top penthouse extensions? The buyer's best hope for no strong winds coming off of Green-Wood. They'll be in sitting on 6th Ave in the street...

Wizard of Oz anyone?

Posted by: lostinbrooklyn at April 9, 2007 12:00 PM in response to Not Much Left at Abby Court

Mr. B, no stink on how the NY Times bit your Simone posts from the past 6 months into an article in this week's weekend section (link above)?

The who premise of the article (and that photo!) came right of of this site.

Guess we know where the Times is lookin'

Posted by: lostinbrooklyn at April 9, 2007 11:56 AM in response to Monday Links

Anon 12:23pm

Ours started out as 4 family condo developments as well...till the developer learned he could make more $$ with smaller (not necessarily cheaper) units.

We'll see if this stays 4 family.

And Eryximachus, not to spar, but something that North in the Slope, even though it's btwn 3rd/4th, it will not be affordable...well perhaps by Park Slope standards.

I am beginning to further doubt what you consider "affordable housing" these days in this market...

Posted by: lostinbrooklyn at April 4, 2007 3:47 PM in response to Development Watch: 232 7th Street

"community boards allow anything to be built"

For the record, CB's have no power over "what gets built" unless it comes before a Board's land use committee for a BSA or ULURP application. And still then it has nothing to do with the aesthetics, so to speak.

Wish they could, but then that is overstepping constitutional boundaries.

Posted by: lostinbrooklyn at April 3, 2007 7:43 PM in response to Charming Paint Peeler, RIP

Mr. B, why are you assuming they will be "family-sized apartments?"

We have 4 similarly sized buildings on my block and each one has EIGHT units...

What's the incentive for larger units?

Posted by: lostinbrooklyn at April 3, 2007 7:34 PM in response to Development Watch: 232 7th Street

Being one of those supporters "who does not live on 16th St.," I'd like to point out one factor that has not been covered here, nor in any article I have read...

This project affects ALL of South Park Slope, Greenwood Hts. even the northern part of Sunset Park.

WHY?

Well, if the proposed program works as well as the Warren St. facility, the residents of 575 5th Ave. will interact with ALL of these communities, not just the NIMBY folks on 16th St. around the corner from the proposed site (and I cannot believe I used the NIMBY term, crawford, door's open here for you!).

I have spoken to wide range of folks from the 3 communities I mentioned, less than 10% oppose the project, 15% have more questions, but think it's a good idea to use underutilized space (Mr. B's photo is very telling, that lot is NEVER more than 1/2 full, except when Grand Prospect Hall uses it, hardly a normal neighborhood biz) and the rest of us, while we had questions and pressed FAC hard, we got answers!

And, the FAC folks spent the better part of this Sat. on the corner of 16th St. and 5th Ave (and neighboring blocks, going door to door)AGAIN reaching out to folks, I heard they were well received.

SO, BIG PICTURE: supportive and affordable housing to add to a vibrant & mixed community OR the BP and CPC killing the plan to support the NIMBYs and DOT selling to another "for profit" developer and more luxury condos and the further gentrification of the South Slope and it's affect on the 2 other 'nabes I mentioned?

Your call...

PS. funny we have not heard from the opposition after the BP's recommendation. Perhaps not quite what you were looking for?

Posted by: lostinbrooklyn at April 1, 2007 8:20 PM in response to Marty DK's Fifth Avenue Housing Project

RETRACTION:
I actually believe the lot line windows are on the first floor...so a "sunny kitchen" or the like.

Posted by: lostinbrooklyn at March 30, 2007 10:28 AM in response to Charming Paint Peeler, RIP

Dang, did it again...

"sustaining the supportive housing!!!"

Posted by: lostinbrooklyn at March 30, 2007 10:18 AM in response to Marty DK's Fifth Avenue Housing Project

My bad not calling it "supportive housing." Thanks Clinton Hillster!

Needed more coffee.

How about "sustaining the supported housing?"

Mr. B, the FAC cannot exclude anyone from applying (assuming they are in the system), but "screens" all applicants with extensive background checks, interviews and figures out how they will "integrate into the community" (part of the basis of the program). While there may be ex-offenders or folks who have overcome substance abuse, CURRENTLY FAC has zero sex-offenders.

From everything I heard from FAC, keeping profiling aside, that would stay the same for 575 5th Ave...or would have.

Posted by: lostinbrooklyn at March 30, 2007 10:15 AM in response to Marty DK's Fifth Avenue Housing Project

Agreed with Sper, Mr. B.

You are perpetuating some of the BS being flung around the 'nabe by a minority of folks. The "sustainable" units are for folks with mental disabilities (which could be just chronic depression folks...) at the highest level of housing out of the shelter system. the rest of the units (20 out of 49) will be for folks earning less that $30K a year. Currently the FAC had ZERO sex offenders in it's assisted living facilities.

There is a concern over "who" will be allowed to move in, that's what FAC's Community Advisory Board is for and FAC has said they are committed to making it as open to the community as possible. CB7 even mandated it as such in it's recommendation.

What you are failing to highlight is the BP'si insane, though well intended, notion of rezoning this property to allow for a FAR bump allowing an additional 10,000 sq. ft. WTF!

First he's concerned about keeping the low rise character of this "embattled" 'nabe, next he wants to add several floors to the project (up to a total of 7 stories in the variance). Great, more density to a crippled and condo-glutted 15th St./16th St. corridor.

FAC's original plan (though I know limited their program to single room efficiency apts, not SROs) was contextual along 5th Ave and stepping down further along 16th St. to be the most contextual development in the area.

So now what...if this is killed by CPC, it goes back to DOT? If so, what new developer might be in the picture?

Perhaps out buddy Katan can move over from across the street?

Think about the implications folks...

Posted by: lostinbrooklyn at March 30, 2007 9:30 AM in response to Marty DK's Fifth Avenue Housing Project

Eryximachus, well, then I guess that would be 1/2 the Board then. Got a whole new brunch of youngin's in now. Please do come up to the Executive Committee and introduce yourself next time you are there. They can point me out.

I'm the "crazy looking one."

(And I actually don't believe you have EVER attended a meeting, if I am wrong, name one topic other than zoning that has been discussed in the past 3 months...there's been a ton, if you need a hint, let me know)

Funny thing is, 1/3 (if not more) of the Board is of Latino, Chinese or African American decent...not just a bunch of white folks, so your diversity comments are again worthless.

But what's new?

Posted by: lostinbrooklyn at March 29, 2007 5:17 PM in response to Sunset Park One Step Closer to Rezoning

Oh, Eryxi, my buddy...I did not know folks in their mid-thirties are considered "elderly."

Perhaps "foolish," sometimes...but never about protecting and representing their communities.

Posted by: lostinbrooklyn at March 29, 2007 12:10 PM in response to Sunset Park One Step Closer to Rezoning

Sorry folks to glomm my post from curbed yesterday, but since erixy boy-o basically spewed the same shit, I might as well do a repeat performance. Perhaps I'll add more later to the frey...and away we go:

Eryximachus, thank you for being as eloquent as always. I love the way you are able to spew total BS and make it sound credible.

"quality of the housing there is inferior"

Are you referring to the brownstones, limestones or brick structures? Perhaps the Finnish Coops? Or the historic coordoor along the park? SSP has as unique a building style(s) as major parts of "brownstone" Brooklyn like the North/Central Slope and Brooklyn Heights.

Sure, there is some sub-par frame stock, but nothing a bit of TLC can help (I speak from experience, but you and I have sparred on this before). Re-use is key here.

As far as higher density, that is why it is called a "REZONING." CPC is always looking for areas to allow higher density, while preserving areas of lower density housing. And heck, there's going to be a percentage of the SSP population who wants/needs higher density.

That's where SPAN and other community groups come in and assist City Council, CB7 and CPC in making sure EVERYONE'S needs are addressed.

Seems pretty reasonable to me and about time!

Posted by: lostinbrooklyn at March 29, 2007 12:01 PM in response to Sunset Park One Step Closer to Rezoning

Sorry folks to glomm my post from curbed yesterday, but since erixy boy-o basically spewed the same shit, I might as well do a repeat performance. Perhaps I'll add more later to the frey...and away we go:

Eryximachus, thank you for being as eloquent as always. I love the way you are able to spew total BS and make it sound credible.

"quality of the housing there is inferior"

Are you refering to the brownstones, limestones or brick structures? Perhaps the Finnish Coops? Or the historic coordoor along the park? SSP has as unique a building style(s) as major parts of "brownstone" Brooklyn like the North/Central Slope and Brooklyn Heights.

Sure, there is some sub-par frame stock, but nothing a bit of TLC can help (I speak from experience, but you and I have sparred on this before). Re-use is key here.

As far as higher density, that is why it is called a "REZONING." CPC is always looking for areas to allow higher density, while preserving areas of lower density housing. And heck, there's going to be a percentage of the SSP population who wants/needs higher density.

That's where SPAN and other community groups come in and assist City Council, CB7 and CPC in making sure EVERYONE'S needs are addressed.

Seems pretty reasonable to me and about time!

Posted by: lostinbrooklyn at March 29, 2007 12:01 PM in response to Sunset Park One Step Closer to Rezoning

Ah, sweet 266 22nd St.

Yes indeed, this was the poster child for the rezoning effort in South Park Slope/Greenwood Hts. CM Avella actually used it as an example of "community facility" bonuses gone awry...especially since the current facility has been converted into 2 apartments, not the day care center that's on the paper work.

Doubtful DOB will ask him to lop off a few floors (though I'd give Lancaster a big smooch if they did!). There's a huge culpability issue here on their part...

Besides, you gotta love old Jack giving the finger to the community, all 9 stories worth. Heck, throw Green-Wood Cemetery into the FU from Jack. Perhaps if he has "perpetual" property in the Cemetery they can return the favor one day ;)

Posted by: lostinbrooklyn at March 28, 2007 11:25 AM in response to Views From Greenwood

"must be a typo"

Not a "typ-o" but a "Scaran-o"

What a few thousand extra sq. ft amongst friends.

Posted by: lostinbrooklyn at March 23, 2007 10:31 AM in response to New Development: 195 Humboldt Street

And PS., word on the street (for a while now) is that Developers Group dumped Mr. S a while ago. Who's gonna be the next rising star?

Or falling? Guess that depends on your prof. cert. status, no?

Posted by: lostinbrooklyn at March 22, 2007 7:51 PM in response to New Development: 195 Humboldt Street

We all keep calling them "windows..."

It's GLASS. The majority of this facade (if like the one in our 'nabe) is a curtain wall of glass, so no "windows" just more HVAC...who needs breezes and outside air when we have iconoclastic luxury condos.

3...2...1...BLAST OFF!

(and, my 2 cents, more rocks thrown the better)

Posted by: lostinbrooklyn at March 22, 2007 7:48 PM in response to New Development: 195 Humboldt Street

WAIT! Isn't this 23rd St in GWH?

Gee, another "beam me up Scotty" from Bob's Benetton crew.

Perhaps an endorsement deal with Windex is in order?

Puke!

Posted by: lostinbrooklyn at March 22, 2007 12:54 PM in response to New Development: 195 Humboldt Street

"Zoning laws are the primary reason for the lack of affordable housing in New York City."

More words of wisdom from our resident jester.

I agree CPC has a few gears to fix, but Libertarians like Mr. E. would have all of the Borro mowed down for mega-story luxury housing. Love to know what Eryximachus pulls in each month, must be much more than I with all this shilling for new luxury condos he does daily.

Back on topic, I have not heard any DOB ruling on lot-line windows, except that can be made "illegal" lickety-split my new adjacent developments. I certainly would love to see a 30' law, I'd be able to have the windows of an adjacent new property bricked in before I could spell D...O...B. No more luxury over-look of my private backyard garden!

Posted by: lostinbrooklyn at March 20, 2007 7:19 PM in response to Development Watch: Stalled on Franklin

Anon 4:28pm was me. TypeKey crapped out on me. Have to let my bud Eryximachus know who's got his back ;)

Posted by: lostinbrooklyn at March 12, 2007 4:30 PM in response to 420 42nd Street Building Gets Cut in Half

that's "crawford" not "crawfrd." My bad.

Perhaps an abbreviated "crwfrd" is better ;)

Posted by: lostinbrooklyn at March 12, 2007 3:46 PM in response to 420 42nd Street Building Gets Cut in Half

Crawfrd, again it is YOU who are confusing issues.

The original building, or the new one for that matter, will do nothing but add above median income (way above) housing stock into a market that is saturated and needs affordable stock. Even if someone moves out of an expensive apt. to purchase an expensive condo, you are still left with an expensive apt., no?

Thus none of the "mythical" SSP's who would "never trade their view for housing" could afford to stay, regardless of the scope of this building.

Unless the market tanks, and I don't mean a soft landing (which is the opposite of what it's currently doing), there will be no affordable housing (in the classic sense) in Bklyn in the near future.

Perhaps with madatory inclusionary affordable housing components in higher densisity buildings via 421-A or zoning perks from City Planning. But nothing else...

Posted by: lostinbrooklyn at March 12, 2007 3:45 PM in response to 420 42nd Street Building Gets Cut in Half

Crawford,

Sorry for my "Libertarian" comment. Snarky and left over with debates with other folks who walk a different path than I, like you do.

I won't talk Econ 101, because that is not what's at stake here. IF the developer had said "hey, we want to build 12 stories so XX number of units would be set aside for low-mid income folks in SSP, under say 421-A, then we'd have a different story here. These were to be (and still will be) above market rate housing (my assumption is always condos) that NO ONE living in that community can afford.

For the record, the "community" that came out in protest, which included SSP's elected officials + a unanimous support by CB7 (representing ALL of the district), in 4 separate occasions (2 meeting/1 press conf/1 march & rally) totaling over 300-400 folks) were Latino, Chinese, Caucasian and I'm sure some other mixes. Ethnicity aside, income levels ranged from working class to white collar. So I think this particular "community" response was well rounded, well founded and not heavy one one side of the demographic or the other.

So now we move to looking at the potential rezoning of SSP and the rest of CB7...I agree, certain sections of the district will want higher density housing, others lower density. it's up to the community to voice their wants and for City Planning to listen and respond where appropriate: low density in some places, higher in others, industrial here & there, etc.

BUT, the argument comes back to "affordable housing..." Please define.

If you are talking about housing that new comers to SSP (all races and ethnic groups...including non-immigrants) can afford, then you are barking up the wrong tree.

I know you know that Bklyn is a luxury market. Barely a stitch of affordable housing has been built in the past few years and next to none in the long hall.

The economic model for projects like this (tax subsidized or not) are not for "affordable" sub-market rate housing. Not rentals nor condos.

Yes, SSP needs MORE affordable housing. This, my friend, is not a proper example, in my working-class/small biz owner opinion.

So if you really want to gentrify SSP, let's allow more out of scale developments to go in, price out the folks who are there and allow high end living (from high end incomes) occur.

Would be a real shame.

But, you and I have been down this vein of discussion before, no?

Posted by: lostinbrooklyn at March 12, 2007 12:56 PM in response to 420 42nd Street Building Gets Cut in Half

Crawford,

Nice to hear your typical NIMBY slogans without any back-up.

For once, and this may be a near first, the developer worked with the community, community board and the elected officials for a lower-scale, more contextual building, where God forbid, he (they) are actually going to potentially turn MORE of a profit by not going tall.

Go figure. How does that sit in your Libertarian craw?

Seems the community helped the developer not totally f*ck-up this time. And I hear he and his partners have other sites ready for development...be a good neighbor here and other communities should also be good neighbors.

While 6 stories is a bit high for the 2-3 story block, it's a heck of a lot more contextual than 12.

Win-win for both sides in my book.

PS. "affordable housing?" Where was it in this plan? You privy to something I (we) are not?

Posted by: lostinbrooklyn at March 12, 2007 11:12 AM in response to 420 42nd Street Building Gets Cut in Half

Glad to see Karl is having his draftsmen/CAD boys shill for him in the 11:01 pm and 8:19 am posts.

Please, it's a "shit-teaux."

"What are these "architects" doing, pulling rejected office space drawings and selling them as residential plans? Looks like an office park in Jersey!"

LOL!!!

Posted by: lostinbrooklyn at February 23, 2007 1:47 PM in response to New Condos: Suite Sixteen Hits Market

Eryximachus, I forgot. Read before you post!

it was an old factory, not 4 houses...

So not only do developers in the area displace renters and families in lieu of luxury condos, they also displace Bkyn business as well. Let's go Gowanus next...

Who needs to work in Brooklyn, more condos!

Posted by: lostinbrooklyn at February 22, 2007 3:19 PM in response to New Condos: Suite Sixteen Hits Market

Ah, Eryximachus, it's been such a long time.

Glad you have been brushing up on your troll-isms.

For the record (as if you would have any idea): one exterior wall (mentioned above), one foundation wall, one interior wall was observed. Period. this was not a reno nor an adaptive reuse.

the site was in open demo for a year, lots of photos and lots of witnesses. The only $$ they saved was to circumvent the system and get the building built faster.

Certainly that would be due to the fact the developer didn't want to spend time in our "ghetto."

Perhaps you can come on by, buy one of the $1.2M shitboxes and bring some sunshine to the 'nabe!

Posted by: lostinbrooklyn at February 22, 2007 3:13 PM in response to New Condos: Suite Sixteen Hits Market

"what's the "alteration permit" backdoor?

Posted by: Anonymous at February 22, 2007 11:44 AM"

The "back door" is that they originally filed as an "alteration," i.e. they left a side wall and some interior walls.

2 reasons here: one, no change of use as far as the tax base goes. Second, it allows them to fly under the radar that some of the scrutiny that DOB may have put to a new building rather than an alt.

Leave a few walls and build a chateau!

Ultimately this little trick got them caught and there was a SWO on the property for quite a while. What I love (and you can only see it from the street) is the western wall they left, approx 15-20 ft. high, then the rest of the tan bricks start from there. Real nice aesthetic.

This is another "beam me up Scotty" NASA building like the Scarano on 23rd St.

Puke!

Posted by: lostinbrooklyn at February 22, 2007 1:43 PM in response to New Condos: Suite Sixteen Hits Market

Hey, glad y'all like my site...needs updating, though...too damn busy looking at brownstoner and curbed (in that order).

As for my opinions, to each their own.

Speaking of which, where the heck is crawford or iceberg? I miss you guys!

Posted by: lostinbrooklyn at February 16, 2007 6:40 PM in response to A Wig and a Mullet for Bar 4

Anon 1:59 (geeze, can i get a handle here or typekey, I hate the anon stuff).

Points well taken.

No, not from Des Moines...but due to my supposed NIMBY posts (remember folks it's "NIMB" now), I get told I should abandon the Boro...Bklyn for 20 years. Though summers in Southwestern Iowa on my Grandfolks lake front home were nice ;) More bass fishin' I could do in a lifetime.

Checked out that vid, yikes, what a monster!

Posted by: lostinbrooklyn at February 16, 2007 2:39 PM in response to A Wig and a Mullet for Bar 4

anon 1:03

Libertarinas unite!

My comment was meant that this particular maxing of the FAR, regardless of style, is totally out of context not only with the neighborhood, but the building as well. Develop all you want, but why so big? But, that's the name of the game, right?

Too bad. I am all for reuse, but this is a beautiful turn-of-the-century brick/brownstone building. Did it really need such a large and strange add-on?

The sloping modern rood addition and wrap around might work on a more modern structure. but, I'll bet this will be a glass & stucco job. Not really befitting the original structure, no?

And please, no "move back to Des Moines" comments...we can and should talk contextual aesthetics when it comes to reuse.

Posted by: lostinbrooklyn at February 16, 2007 1:30 PM in response to A Wig and a Mullet for Bar 4

Man, tons of violations on this bad-boy and they were working this last Saturday. Seems Mr. Van Brody (love that architect) is maxing out every square inch of the FAR in this rezoned R6A block.

Posted by: lostinbrooklyn at February 16, 2007 11:57 AM in response to A Wig and a Mullet for Bar 4

Woooweee!

All business in the front and all party in the back!

I feel like I'm in Florida. Daytona anyone?

Looks like a big ol' FAR wig to me. Anyone check this bad-boy out on BIS? Seems the extension is going a bit far back (pun intended) and to high for the new zoning...

Posted by: lostinbrooklyn at February 16, 2007 11:43 AM in response to A Wig and a Mullet for Bar 4

UPDATE 02/16/07

Seems that the South Park Slope Community Group / Concerned Citizens of Greenwood Hts. meeting on Tuesday may have assuaged many of the concerns and controversy over Fifth Avenue Committee's (FAC) and HPD's plans for 575 5th Ave.

Here's my POV on the latest hearing...

CB7's public forum started off at approx. 6:30 pm with another "fine tuned" presentation by HPD, FAC and FAC's architect. FAC's executive director, Michelle de La Uz, fielded questions from CB7 members first, ranging from parking issues, FAC's business practices and section of this "type of plan," screening of the applicants, community input, tenant selection for the 2000 sq. ft. retail space and again asked for clarification for some of the misconceptions that are floating out in the community (ex-offenders, substance abuse, level of mental disabilities, security, etc.).

The biggest topic, and learning experience for FAC, CB7 and the community is earlier community input was definitely needed for this project...and something that MUST be done in future affordable housing projects within CB7. With 4th Ave. upzoned with a 20% affordable housing component, John Burns, CB7 Land Use Chair, was quick to point out that this wasn't the last time we'd see FAC coming before the Board.

Then the forum was opened to the public. St. Michael-Emmanuel's church was full and over 40 folks had signed up to speak, including a rep from CM Gonzalez's office and CM DeBlasio. The meeting went on beyond 9:00 pm...

What became very clear (and interesting) was that FAC had learned a few things with their first two meetings (mini-meeting with several CB7 members 2 weeks ago and the SPSCG/CCGH meeting Tuesday): stack the deck with positive examples of how "supportive housing" works. The majority of the initial speakers were either FAC advocates, associates of FAC (through other not for profit agencies) and even a tenant of their Warren St. facility. A neighbor to the Warren St. facility gave a short and sweet thumbs up to FAC's programs and asked the CB to welcome this project into the community.

What we did not see where folks speaking out against the project. While the CB expressed concerns that needed to be addressed, the "public" seemed to have been satisfied with FAC's answers to their questions from SPSCG/CCGH meeting on Tuesday. We did not see many of the same folks from Tuesday. Very telling, in my opinion. In fact, of the 40 folks signed up to speak, on 2 spoke in opposition, specifically focusing on parking.

The full Board is to vote on Wed. 02/21/07, but I have the feeling the project will move forward...stated in my humble opinion :)

Posted by: lostinbrooklyn at February 16, 2007 11:40 AM in response to FAC Development at 575 Fifth Avenue

The hope/want, from FAC's perspective, is the majority of the units (both the 60% assisted mentally handicapped and the 40% low income) will be pooled from the South Slope/Greenwood Hts./Sunset Park area. They mentioned the preference that would be given to displaced residents of the area that are in the shelter system, no matter their current housing location.

Not saying good or bad here, just relaying some of what I heard last night.

PS. there has been a concerted effort to push Markowitz into postponing the 2/20 hearing back...let's see what happens.

Posted by: lostinbrooklyn at February 14, 2007 5:20 PM in response to FAC Development at 575 Fifth Avenue