Comments on: Goodbye Nova Clutch Building

By: Dumbo NYC, Brooklyn » Archive » Dumbo Then and Now: N Side of Front Street at Dock Street (DumboNYC.com)

Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:10:35 +0000

[...] right side of the 1928 photo shows the Zerega building (aka Nova Clutch building), which was demolished in June 2007 to make way for the highly publicized and controversial Dock [...]

By: Johnson

Johnson — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 20:58:52 +0000

For those who believe the Walentas PR machine, take a minute to notice how he treated the 70 Washington people. Sold them views at millions in premiums while simultaneously planning this building and marketing campaign to obliterate those views.

By these actions, the man has shown he is an outright liar and a thief when it benefits him. That type of evil will screw over anybody and anyone to get what it wants. Do you think you, the poor, or the pretty little girl in the photo on his PR site are somehow immune? That he will treat you any differently in the end?

By: TWC

TWC — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:26:00 +0000

Lets keep in mind that when it was built the Brookly Bridge was the tallest structure in the NY skyline and to this day it has retained its character. Perhaps we just need to see more artist renderings of how this project will look. Until then the argument seems subjective and only based on the perception of one sketch.

By: Rudy

Rudy — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:15:50 +0000

Hey Walentas trolls: You know what a compromise is? Its building the affordable housing, a school and incuding the precious retail and rentals, all in a package that stays below the roadway deck. Thats a compromise. Preserving the bridge, the views, the low rise character of that portion of Dumbo, all while providing the much wanted amenities. Why should anyone have the right (which he doesn’t yet) to build a tower 15 stories higher than the formerly tallest building on the parcel right next to the most famous bridge in the world? Its greed, plain and simple, and its disguisting. I for one will fight this to the last review meeting. And I don’t even live in Dumbo – my own views will still be fine from the Heights.

By: Bill

Bill — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 12:48:32 +0000

Putting a fifteen story building in that location is an absolutely horrible idea and will have an irrepairable impact on the context and meaning of the Brooklyn Bridge. Regardless of how you feel about DUMBO, as a New Yorker you should be upset at the prospect of new third tower, out of context and essentially imposed on the Bridge, completely upsetting its balance and aesthetics.

The importance of the Brooklyn Bridge as a landmark cannot be understated: People come from all over the world to New York to see the Brooklyn Bridge. Significant protests are held on the Bridge to harness its power as a symbol of the city. Remember the transit strike? Or the March for Immigration Reform? Every news media outlet chose the Bridge as the representative backdrop of us to report these events. Post 9/11 more than ever, the Bridge has become New York. And on a small scale, it brings people, myself included, a tremendous amount of happiness to be around. In all, the life of New York is lived on and through that bridge. It is a treasure that we, as citizens, have inherited with an obligation to protect.

If this building is built, something significant will be lost. When you walk over the Bridge from Brooklyn, the new building will now be an unwanted guest in your classic shot of the gothic arches, crowding the openness of the promenade, now feeling like a tunnel, until you get all the way through to the center. Coming from Manhattan, it will compete for your attention with the distant support tower, pulling the Bridge left, like it was broken. From the water and the park, a new building will loom like an intruder, making the Brooklyn side seem heavy and disproportionate. Stand in the Empire-Fulton Ferry Park and block the left tail of the bridge with your hand every time you admire the view. Is this okay? I don’t think so. (BTW, don’t let the soothing watercolor rendering fool you, the plot is closer and the building will be higher when actually built, than it appears in the developer’s pitch).

Yes, schools are nice and necessary but they are not bargaining chips for developers to use to get previously rejected buildings built. Building a school should not be a take it or leave it ultimatum from a developer. If you agree with what I am saying I would take a minute to get in touch with David Yassky’s office or Marty Markowitz, or even Bloomberg to tell them to get involved now to stop this disaster before it gets too late.

By: TWC

TWC — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 12:12:31 +0000

I agree with Mike#2. This is a golden opportunity and a great idea to fill that void on Front Street. You dont pass up opportunities like this. I, for one, will be more than happy to sign that flyer.

By: mike #2

mike #2 — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 22:23:01 +0000

Yeah, Two Tree’s might be building a school for the sole purpose of being able to build residential space, but so what? The point is that they are BUILDING A SCHOOL and SOME AFFORDABLE HOUSING. They had to compromise and they did. What’s so insulting about that? It’s a win-win situation. And No… I don’t work for TT’s.

By: suz

suz — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 01:02:03 +0000

We got the flyer in the mail this evening. I find it insulting and cynical for them to send out cards for us to send to them for Yassky expressing support with their wording. Sure it would be great to have a good middle school but it feels like they are just proposing that to get their 400 apartment + 10K sq feet of retail development approved.

By: adam

adam — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 14:50:58 +0000

re: dockstreetdumbo.com
oh my. how can you NIMBYs say no to those darling little girls on the website?

By: kg

kg — Sun, 24 Jun 2007 18:06:09 +0000

check this out: http://www.dockstreetdumbo.com/index.html

was handed a brochure this morning and asked to sign a petition for a new middle school in Dumbo. Why does this seem like a threat… no new bldg., no new shool! Can’t we have a new school in a smaller bldg? btw, I was told by someone at Two Trees that these would be 400 one- bedroom and studio rental units only.

By: Marty

Marty — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 19:58:59 +0000

Here's another link about 38 Water Street: gothamgazette.com/community/33/officialword/143

By: Rudy

Rudy — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 19:51:08 +0000

I think the main mechanism for contesting the height is the current zoning which I don't belive is residential and would need to be changed. In addition to mucking up the views of the BB and downtown from Dumbo, this is going to be a solitary tower in a low rise portion of DUMBO poking up though views from the north Heights of midtown. This link explains some of the past history: The Views Are Just Fine, for Now, NY Times

By: art liker

art liker — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 14:05:13 +0000

I am all for a structure on this site, no higher than the original building. What is the mechanism for contesting Walentas’ desire for height? Does any building plan, even one less than 120ft. need to be approved by the CB? How does the neighborhood prevent him from using his power/influence to erect something too tall here?