Comments on: Dock Street Dumbo Building Opposed by Yassky

By: Dumbo NYC, Brooklyn » Archive » Dock Street Dumbo Hearing (DumboNYC.com)

Thu, 18 Dec 2008 17:14:47 +0000

[...] local politicians began with their comments. It was already public that Council member David Yassky opposes the development, who believes that a middle school can either be expanded at PS8 or developed in another location [...]

By: Too Much Hype

Too Much Hype — Thu, 29 May 2008 19:07:16 +0000

Bob,

I believe the lot actually is zoned for a shorther building. The problem is that Walentas’ plans are for constructing his building across the street from the parking lot you reference. That does not help your law suit.

By: ?

Thu, 29 May 2008 18:49:29 +0000

check your offering plan first, bob. there may be a ‘known risks’ section that mentions the loss of your view.

seems like the sales agents can tell you just about anything they think you’re going to want to hear, true or not, to get you to sign the contract. they may say that there will be a rainbow outside your window every day for the life of the apartment, but in the ‘known risks’ chapter of your offering plan there will probably be a ‘the rainbows may only last for x years, etc.’ clause.

By: Bob Seelos

Bob Seelos — Thu, 29 May 2008 17:34:25 +0000

When I purchased my condo at 70 Washington Street along with a rooftop deck space, i was assured that the parking lot on the brooklyn Bridge side of the building was zoned for a relatively short buuilding. Now that all the units have been sold at 70 washington Stret, Two Trees wants to block all the views that we paid extra for. Sounds like a good lawsuit is brewing and I will be happy to be in it. Bob Seelos

By: Dumbo NYC, Brooklyn » Archive » Joint Statement by BHA, DNA, FFL, on Dock St Dumbo Building (DumboNYC.com)

Mon, 01 Oct 2007 11:22:17 +0000

[...] and significantly historic urban context. They have joined Council member David Yassky who also does not think the building is appropriate so close to the Brooklyn [...]

By: margery

margery — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 03:50:00 +0000

dumbonyc: oh great- I didn’t know whose operation this was- congrats on a great and comprehensive blog- don’t know how you can find time~but good work! I’ll let you know if there’s anything up in my side of the neighborhood~

By: dumbonyc

dumbonyc — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 19:51:38 +0000

Margery: nope, this blog is not run by Walentas. Of course Walentas comes up quite often when posting about Dumbo, but I am not affiliated with Two Trees or any real estate related companies. I went to medical school and work in the pharmaceutical industry as a biometric systems engineer. Just a one person operation writing in between my commutes around the country, with help from neighbors who email me with great tips and info. Please email me if you have any stories you’d like to submit or want me to cover. Thanks!
-hideyoshi

By: margery

margery — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 05:06:25 +0000

Isn’t this blog run by Walentas? That’s what I heard. At any rate. yes I agree that a public school does not belong in a 17 story luxury condo bulilding. It’s a way of co-opting and exploiting a public need by a private entity that is interestied in making a private (and hefty) profit. As a long term renter in the Walentas Empire (renting studio space) I’ve noticed the following: they’re always fair and straightforward in their “way” and in the terms they present things. But they don’t mention things like- “we will be attempting to put up a giant building right in front of this one you’re buying into” -Or, in my experience- we’ll give you less than “market rate” but NOT tell you about how we plan to do massive construction work on the building for the next 4 years of your lease that will make being there loud and hellish. Trust me, elevator installations, concrete trucks, jackhammers- just try to make art or do graphic design or whatever- under those circumstances. Technically, yes- Walentas can do what he does. but it’s not quite honest. So people with children who need a middle school should work with our public elected officials to solve this problem and NOT Two Trees, which has it’s own interests, which aren’t so civic in nature.

By: got schooled

got schooled — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 12:20:31 +0000

I admit it. I bought in 70 Wash. I’m a sucker. Walentas sold the view. I bought the view. I cannot believe that at the time, the guy did not know that he planned to block the view. He didn’t say anything; he just stuck out his hand and took my money for the view. That’s a material omission. Put another way –the guy lied. He lied to a bunch of people –in my building and others — the same way. That makes him a liar. Yeah, it makes me a sucker, too. I know it’s NY. I know it’s business. And if he get’s away with it, good for him. Go America. Leaving aside legal analysis regarding whether he had to disclose his plans when I bought, he’s still a liar and a jackass.

By: dumbostreets

dumbostreets — Wed, 08 Aug 2007 12:03:59 +0000

DOT, I appreciate what Two Trees has done but that does not give them cart blanche in Dumbo. While Mr. Walentas deserves his due, the families that actually generated the return are now part of the equation.

Dumbo is no longer a bunch of rented warehouse space where Two Trees can do whatever it pleases. This controversy is just the beginning of the problems of locating a public school in a luxury rental. There is no reason why the Dumbo community cannot form its own school, entirely on its own terms, like any other community. Does everything, even our public schools, need to route through Mr. Walentas? This issue is at least as important as the views.

Quickly, how is the Dock Street Project worse than J Condo or Beacon Tower in terms of relative proximity to a bridge …?
It is a lot closer. The Brooklyn Bridge is more iconic. The Brooklyn Bridge walkway is one of the most popular and historic observation decks in the city. It is how a growing amount of foot traffic gets to Dumbo. We should bend over backwards to improve the experience, not block it. We can simply put the school elsewhere without degrading the bridge. The view from the bridge is a gigantic asset to the neighborhood (commercially and historically). But these are just a few of the problems…

By: Dumbo NYC, Brooklyn » Archive » (Temporary) Parking Lot on the Nova Clutch Site (DumboNYC.com)

Wed, 08 Aug 2007 04:05:39 +0000

[...] least until something is built on that [...]

By: adam

adam — Wed, 08 Aug 2007 03:25:37 +0000

I’m not interested in jumping into this debate right now other than to address this:

“Unless you’ve been living in dumbo for 20 years, the only reason you’re probably here is because of the “added benefits” two tree’s has given artists and businesses through the years to foster the growth of the neighborhood.”

Dumbo sans Two Trees sounds just fine to me; problem is, twenty years ago I was in grade school. I would’ve really liked Soho in the early 80s too but some things aren’t possible. I give TT their dues but to me at least, they don’t make Dumbo.

By: DOT

DOT — Wed, 08 Aug 2007 03:19:23 +0000

Fulton Ferry Res… what’s so UES about an affordable pharmacy? Would you prefer that it be called Reade Duane? I’m glad that the neighborhood will finally have a place to purchase cough medicine and deodorant, but do we really need a high end apothecary for that? An apothecary will certainly blend in well with the neighborhood (by all means bring it on), but it won’t be practical for everyone. If you prefer to spend $7 for a box of tylenol, as opposed to $5, perhaps you belong on the UES, not in Brooklyn. Starbucks didn’t “ruin” the neighborhood and I highly doubt ONE chain pharmacy would either. We’re not talking McDonald’s here, we’re talking prescriptions.

By: DOT

DOT — Wed, 08 Aug 2007 02:56:52 +0000

dumbostreets… perhaps I wasn’t clear. Ultimately, yes… this IS all about the views. Would you be opposed to this project if it were to be only 5 stories? Don’t think so. However, you have those who oppose the project because they have a self interest in protecting their views and then you have those who are concerned with protecting the vistas for all. Some would argue that everyone griping here have selfish motivation in protecting their investment. My point was that I am not taking that close minded stance. I believe some people actually care beyond their down payment. However, loosing some vantage points of the bridge from dumbo or vice versa isn’t enough to make me oppose a development that could have come without a school or affordable housing.

Yes, two tree’s have their interest in mind with these “added benefits” but they could just build a shorter building that brings nothing but more million dollar housing right now. Unless you’ve been living in dumbo for 20 years, the only reason you’re probably here is because of the “added benefits” two tree’s has given artists and businesses through the years to foster the growth of the neighborhood. It’s always about the bottom line for developer’s, but that doesn’t mean we can’t benefit either… even if for only a small time… because things change.

By: sherry brown

sherry brown — Wed, 08 Aug 2007 02:31:43 +0000

The building, the density and the complexity of a middle school under the Bridge, 400 apartments, retail and who knows whatever, is inappropraite in a historic district with few amenities and services. Dock and Water Streets are not able to handle 1200+ people every day. Front Street congestion will back up onto the Brooklyn Bridge and BQE. At what price and cost does the community pay to allow the a developer to have 400 rental apartments?