This site is closed to new comments and posts.

Notice: This site uses cookies to function.
If you are not comfortable with cookies then please don't browse this website.

Hudson Companies Residential Development on Flatbush Ave. in PLG - Page 2 — Brooklynian

Hudson Companies Residential Development on Flatbush Ave. in PLG

2456

Comments

  • There isn't much of a concern with architectural context now.

    While the zoning code for a given area often takes into account what is already there, it allows a great deal of flexibility.

    ...Flatbush avenue is not landmarked, so the Landmarks Preservation Commission has no jurisdiction.

    ...HFA only has to do an EIS when the impacts are believed to be substantial; merely violating the neighbors' subjective definition of what is "contextual" doesn't warrant one.

  • The pending law suit, which deals with the lack of a proper EIS, and the campaign for contextual zoning address different issues. To the best of my knowledge no one has suggested landmarking Flatbush Avenue, even though the Prospect-Lefferts Gardens Historic District is across the street from this proposed building, the Ocean on the Park Historic District and Prospect Park are across the subway cut, to the rear and, to the north, Chester Court will very likely be eventually designated as either an extension to the existing PLG HD, or a separate district.

  • ...as you are aware, being near a historic district is not the same as being IN one.

    Also, while historic districts are popular, they certainly are not without costs. We can (and should) only pay for so many.

    You are correct, the EIS is a different issue. The HFA didn't "forget" to create one, they didn't create one for a reason: They didn't perceive any impact from this project that warranted one.

    As stated above, I'd be surprised if the judge disagreed with the HFA.

    The judge will likely conclude that the zoning code effectively addresses the concerns of "the community", and that there are very good reasons that changing the zoning code is time consuming, tedious and arduous.

  • I think we've beaten this issue to death whynot; merry Xmas! :-)

  • Likewise. Happy Holidays!

  • edited June 2014
    A hearing on whether the complaint against HFA has any merit will be held on Thursday, Jan 23rd.Click "see original post" for details on the position of those seeking "Contextual Zoning"

    https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=1541468051247516447&postID=4265056286635649071
  • No word yet re: whether the complaint was found to have any merit.Here's the promo website from the developerhttp://www.hudsoninc.com/626-flatbush-avenue/
  • edited April 2014
    Demolition of the existing structure on the site is well underway:  http://theqatparkside.blogspot.com/2014/02/about-time-that-building-came-down-i.html

    The architecture and engineering geeks over at skyscraper.com have been watching this site for a long time:http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=203934   

    Click thru for photos, etc
  • Meanwhile, people against the building believe that government should step in to prevent the developer from building so high, even though the height of the build is within the zoning code.

    http://www.change.org/petitions/develop-don-t-destroy-prospect-lefferts-gardens


  • 10154365_10203401144249562_912860114_n

    Even though he won't be able to stop this development, Eric Adam's can't lose by showing up at this event.

    I do love grandstanding.

  • edited March 2014
    I didn't know about the building coming to Fenimore Street. Is this area going to turn into a mini-Manhattan?

    "We are the only neighborhood bordering the park with no building height limits."

    Wow, I didn't know that. I wonder why. I also wonder whether elected officials will be prompted to propose legislation to address that issue.
  • edited April 2014
    From the Skyscraper.com link above:

     
    "NIMBYs are really pathetic.
    The tower is as-of-right, so there's nothing the Borough President can do. They can appeal to the Pope or Obama while they're at it.


    And that rendering is obviously massively exaggerated. The building will look nothing like that from the park.

    Then they top off the idiocy by calling for 80-foot height limits on major Brooklyn thoroughfares (basically 7 floors), and then simultaneously complain about high prices and rising rents. Well, gee, I'm sure calling for no new development will really drop those home prices..."
  • From the Skyscraper.com link above:

     

    Then they top off the idiocy by calling for 80-foot height limits on major Brooklyn thoroughfares (basically 7 floors), and then simultaneously complain about high prices and rising rents. Well, gee, I'm sure calling for no new development will really drop those home prices..."
    It's not about calling for no "new" development. People are complaining about the scale of the development. no? There's a difference. 
  • edited April 2014
    Agreed.

    I posted the quote mostly to show how far apart the two sides are.

    For simplicity, we could call one side the "as of right builders" and the other side "contextualists".

    It seems the "As Of Right Builders" are proceeding as the law allows, while the "Contextualists" want people to respond to their emotion; They want the process to be subjective and based on democracy (populism?).

    Here's the thing, the two sides are never going to get along.   That's why these discussions are held in anticipation of future development, and result in zoning.

    ....this is sharp contrast to discussions that occur in response to planned development.   We are presently witnessing the latter. 


  • 10154365_10203401144249562_912860114_n

    Even though he won't be able to stop this development, Eric Adam's can't lose by showing up at this event.

    I do love grandstanding.

    I attended this event tonight. I won't attempt to sum up the entire meeting (as I expect the Q at Parkside to do that more eloquently soon). I will say that it was very well-attended (standing room only). There were a people from a variety of racial, ethnic, and economic backgrounds there, and it seems that many of them feel threatened on some level by the upcoming developments.

    There was some level of grandstanding, but part of the political process would be to allow people to speak out. 

    The politicians were very honest that there really isn't much that can be done about this particular development. The best course of action seems to push forward with rezoning (downzoning) to prevent something like that from happening in the future.
  • As you are likely aware, property owners usually object to down zoning because they perceive it as diminishing the value of their asset.

    Under Bloomberg, upzoning was the norm. He shot a little to high with the proposed rezoning of midtown, but generally won....

    https://www.google.com/search?site=&source=hp&ei=hmNEU9-VM6LW2gXR84D4BQ&q=bloomberg+upzoning&oq=bloomberg+upzoning&gs_l=mobile-gws-hp.3...4438.15512.0.16506.19.18.0.3.3.2.1828.10174.2-5j1j3j6j1j1j1.18.0....0...1c.1.39.mobile-gws-hp..8.11.3693.3.nVxStB-irio

    If DeBlasio were to become powerful, I imagine him being able to stop the trend of upzoning, but I can't envision him being able to enact down zoning.

    Population growth which involves more wealthy people is rarely successfully fought, or even constrained.
  • Note that the Prospect Park East Network the organizers of this meeting [along with PLGNA, LMA, and FDC] are looking for contextual zoning, NOT downzoning. This would limit the height, but not the density of new buildings. They could achieve the same volume by covering a larger portion of the lot, something possible, but not required under present zoning. All they're asking for is zoning similar to what currently exists on the other sides of Prospect Park,
  • edited April 2014
    And what are they offering in return?

    ....why should the developer (and other affected property owners) come to the table?
  • I suspect they will not do so, unless they think the law suit is likely to succeed. Personally, I'm far more concerned about the larger issue of contextual zoning than about this one project, although many of my neighbors would disagree.
  • edited April 2014
    In the eyes of people who own property, contextual zoning is the same thing as down zoning; It limits the options a developer has, and therefore a property's value.

    IE It quacks like a duck, but the "locals" are insisting it isn't one....

    It is a good time to be a lawyer; they are certain to win.
  • Zoning changes will take a long time.  While that process is ongoing I agree with whynot and wonder what the idea of "contextual" will take on.   The R7 zoned areas include this new project, Tivoli Towers and Ebbets field.  Why would a similar development to those be considered out of context?   BTW, i heard the spice factory recently changed hands and if development happens there (along with Seacrest) then single family homes will be out of context. 

    If PPEN is not opposed to density then is the goal of PPEN to simply reduce the height of new buildings around the park?
  • edited April 2014
    Here is the zoning for the area:

    imageNote the /// indicates that there is a C1-3 overlay.
    Map created by Ben Dodd for CB9.    Data:   NYC Dept of Planning

    According to the flyer above, PPEN seems to be concerned about the building height not only because it could scene from the park, but also because it will be filled with luxury tenants who will cause a ripple effect of increasing costs. 

    Other flyers want 30% of the units to be "affordable", which basically kills the projects profitability (aka viability) given the current level of support available from the state and city for such purposes.

    Why should property owners bear the brunt of social goals?


  • edited April 2014




    Screen shot 2014-04-08 at 10.38.55 PM

    The building we are talking about will be on the west side of Flatbush near Fenimore St.     The building in the above photo is already demolished and construction is underway.

  • edited April 2014
    Zoning changes will take a long time.  While that process is ongoing I agree with whynot and wonder what the idea of "contextual" will take on.   The R7 zoned areas include this new project, Tivoli Towers and Ebbets field.  Why would a similar development to those be considered out of context?   BTW, i heard the spice factory recently changed hands and if development happens there (along with Seacrest) then single family homes will be out of context. 

    If PPEN is not opposed to density then is the goal of PPEN to simply reduce the height of new buildings around the park?
    According to the woman who made the presentation at last night's town hall, there was a request to change the zoning placed in 2008. The city allegedly hasn't gotten around to it yet. Now people want some action to be taken on this request so that future developments like 626 Flatbuish are curtailed.

    Ebbets Field is not as close to Prospect Park as the 626 Flatbush site, and neither is Tivoli Towers. By the way, the Brooklyn Botanic Garden (BBG)  is in between Prospect Park and both of those two high rise developments.

    Tivoli Towers is one block away from BBG (between Franklin and Washington Avenues). The grounds for Ebbets Field are located 1.5 blocks east of Franklin. Patio Gardens seems to be more fitting in terms of an example of something that is "out of scale" in that immediate area.
  • edited April 2014
    All of that is true, and has contributed to making R7-1 zoned areas with no height restrictions being very valuable.   

    -The Spice Factory site on Franklin Avenue
    -The Sea Crest Linen site
    -The site for sale for $10M by the shuttle tracks
  • edited April 2014

    According to the flyer above, PPEN seems to be concerned about the building height not only because it could scene from the park, but also because it will be filled with luxury tenants who will cause a ripple effect of increasing costs. 

    Other flyers want 30% of the units to be "affordable", which basically kills the projects profitability (aka viability) given the current level of support available from the state and city for such purposes.

    Why should property owners bear the brunt of social goals?




    Here's another question: The property was zone that way for years; why are people paying attention
    now and starting to develop in this manner now?

    The developers of 626 Flatbush have accepted some government funding to have the project constructed. Don't expect citizens not to want to have some say. ;) It would be different if the funding were entirely from private sources, no? 
  • edited April 2014
    Answer to question 1: Developers are developing now because the numbers now work. 

    Answer to question 2: The developers have met the established mandates of the public funding sources; They do not have to also meet the arbitrary demands of the public. They are building this "as of right". 

     Here's the zoning for the area above Empire ....which seems to only load upside down image
  • edited April 2014
    One more point:
    Why should property owners bear the brunt of social goals? - See more at: http://www.brooklynian.com/discussion/comment/546814#Comment_546814

    Once upon a time there were incentives for those developers who participated in afforable housing programs like Mitchell-Lama. #justsaying
  • edited April 2014
    According to the woman who made the presentation at last night's town hall, there was a request to change the zoning placed in 2008. The city allegedly hasn't gotten around to it yet. Now people want some action to be taken on this request so that future developments like 626 Flatbuish are curtailed.

    Ebbets Field is not as close to Prospect Park as the 626 Flatbush site, and neither is Tivoli Towers. By the way, the Brooklyn Botanic Garden (BBG)  is in between Prospect Park and both of those two high rise developments.

    Tivoli Towers is one block away from BBG (between Franklin and Washington Avenues). The grounds for Ebbets Field are located 1.5 blocks east of Franklin. Patio Gardens seems to be more fitting in terms of an example of something that is "out of scale" in that immediate area.
    Tivoli Towers is as close to the BBG as this new development is to the park. Ebbetts field is close enough to be included when evaluating what "contextual" means (IMO). I still think the major beef here is with it's proximity to the park. For example, if this development were on Empire east of Bedford, would it be getting so much attention? I doubt it....