Dock Street Dumbo Public Hearing at Borough Hall Tonight


(Photo from savethebrooklynbridge.org)

On January 14, the Community Board 2 met to vote on the proposed rezoning of the Dock Street Dumbo project and was approved 30 to 7 for the project. This evening, as part of the next step of the ULURP (Uniform Land Use Review Procedure) approval process, a public hearing will take place by Marty Markowitz (borough president) from 4 to 9 pm in the Brooklyn Borough Hall Courtroom, second floor, 209 Joralemon St. Below is a letter to the residents of Dumbo from Andrew Stengel, a member of the Community Board 2 on the reasons he opposes the Dock Street zoning application. Please note that this posting is not an endorsement for or against the project by DumboNYC. To be fair, please visit Two Tree Management’s website to read letters from the supporters of the plan:

To the Residents of Dumbo and Surrounding Communities:

I live in Dumbo and I am on Community Board 2 and its Land Use Committee.

As you likely know by now, Land Use rejected the developer’s Dock St. ULURP application by a vote of 7-6 (approved by the full board 30-7) and passed a resolution recommending R7B zoning, i.e., 75-foot height limit, by a 10-1 vote (two abstentions) that was never acted upon by the board.

There at least a dozen reasons I oppose the current Dock St. zoning application. Following are explanations for two of the primary issues.

The argument presented to the community is: you can have a new 300-seat public middle school and 80/20 housing only if we build an 18-story, over 200-foot tall building, adjacent to the Brooklyn Bridge. So, do we want to preserve the Brooklyn Bridge or build a new school? This is a completely false choice. (I agree that anything developed at the site should indeed include 80/20 housing. Affordable housing is a serious concern in the community.)

A new public school is a discrete issue. The process to choose Dock St. as the site for a new school was completely dysfunctional and lacked any transparency. (Trust me, I know dysfunction when I see it.) The Department of Education’s search should have started with the question: what do we need to serve the children of the community? Then, where is the best place to do it? Instead DOE apparently settled on Dock St. as the only choice.

The Department of Education has failed to do its homework regarding all of the possible sites for a new middle school in Dumbo and Brooklyn Heights. How do we know there aren’t existing sites that could house a 45,000 square foot facility? (I do wonder if real estate owners have been in contact with DOE.) Set aside the issues of financing for the Dock St. development, what about potential construction delays? (Atlantic Yards, anyone?) With an existing facility there would be no question–if or when?–about construction.

A second, equally important issue, is context. The buildings adjacent and nearest to Dock St. are three, four, five and seven stories–and the Dock St. lot currently includes a one-story building. In that area 18 stories–more than 210 feet with mechanical–is simply wrong. Context, like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But only those blinded with emotion about a new school could possibly see Dock St. as contextual. (Please visit savethebrooklynbridge.org/renderings.asp for images representing the comparative height and bulk of Dock St. from the vantage point of the bridge and streets.)

It is true that buildings a few blocks away from the Dock St. site rise to an similar height. Yes, they are a few blocks away and not thisclose to the Brooklyn Bridge, a national historic landmark. This is not about a view from somebody’s apartment. It is about everybody’s view–whether standing on a street on Dumbo or looking out from the Brooklyn Bridge roadway.

In sum, I believe we can and should have reading, writing and responsible development.

Sincerely,
Andrew Stengel

{Borough President Official Hearing Notice (pdf)}
{Past Dock Street posts}

102 Comment

  • it may not be about views for everybody, but methinks andrew’s view from his apartment will be affected so take this opinion with a grain of salt.

  • it may not be about views for everybody, but methinks andrew’s view from his apartment will be affected so take this opinion with a grain of salt.

  • For what it’s worth – the proposed building will not affect any views from my apartment. However, this monstrosity and the hopes of a middle school are completely separate topics and should have never been wrapped up into one deal in the first place. There are many factors to consider here and methinks there are too many negatives, not enough alternatives, and too many what ifs not answered in this proposal.

  • For what it’s worth – the proposed building will not affect any views from my apartment. However, this monstrosity and the hopes of a middle school are completely separate topics and should have never been wrapped up into one deal in the first place. There are many factors to consider here and methinks there are too many negatives, not enough alternatives, and too many what ifs not answered in this proposal.

  • This resistance campaign was dead on arrival in large part due to the pedaling of inaccurate renderings like the above. These pleas have gone from annoying to intrusive, and thankfully they’ll end soon when this development is finally approved.

  • This resistance campaign was dead on arrival in large part due to the pedaling of inaccurate renderings like the above. These pleas have gone from annoying to intrusive, and thankfully they’ll end soon when this development is finally approved.

  • Agreed BrooklynLove. The project as proposed is quite reasonable and will be a vast improvement to the immediate neighborhood and beyond.

    I appreciate Stengel making the argument but simply don’t agree with his conclusion. Dock Street will be positive for all at the end of the day. We should stay involved and speak our minds, keep the DOE focused, the developer obligated, the politicians – honest. Only then, will the greater good be served.

    Sincerely.

  • Agreed BrooklynLove. The project as proposed is quite reasonable and will be a vast improvement to the immediate neighborhood and beyond.

    I appreciate Stengel making the argument but simply don’t agree with his conclusion. Dock Street will be positive for all at the end of the day. We should stay involved and speak our minds, keep the DOE focused, the developer obligated, the politicians – honest. Only then, will the greater good be served.

    Sincerely.

  • Jane,

    You are incorrect. My view would not be affected by Dock St. (Nice try.)

    Best wishes,

    Andrew

  • Jane,

    You are incorrect. My view would not be affected by Dock St. (Nice try.)

    Best wishes,

    Andrew

  • Why do the arguments seem to come down to personal attacks? The people against the project say that the developers are greedy and inflexible, while the people for the project say that the condo owners are self serving and don’t want to loose their views? I don’t know Mr. Stengel, am not a Dumbo resident, do not work for Two Trees, or even an parent who has middle school kids, but I have seen these personal attacks at the CB hearings and online, and I’m sure it will be seen tonight. You can see it in the language.

    Mr. Stengel is saying that the project is not about someone’s view from their window or even that Two Trees is trying to maximize their pockets, but that we should take a look at the school issue independently and consider that whatever is built on Dock Street will be a permanent fixture in what is seen as the entrance into Brooklyn. No one would care of the Dock Street building were at the Brooklyn Bridge level, so the issue is with the height of the building. Both BHA and DNA have stated that they’re not against development. So couldn’t Walentas build an 8 story apartment? I know they’re trying to do the right thing by offering a school, but that just complicated things. I’m sure they can rescind that part.

  • Why do the arguments seem to come down to personal attacks? The people against the project say that the developers are greedy and inflexible, while the people for the project say that the condo owners are self serving and don’t want to loose their views? I don’t know Mr. Stengel, am not a Dumbo resident, do not work for Two Trees, or even an parent who has middle school kids, but I have seen these personal attacks at the CB hearings and online, and I’m sure it will be seen tonight. You can see it in the language.

    Mr. Stengel is saying that the project is not about someone’s view from their window or even that Two Trees is trying to maximize their pockets, but that we should take a look at the school issue independently and consider that whatever is built on Dock Street will be a permanent fixture in what is seen as the entrance into Brooklyn. No one would care of the Dock Street building were at the Brooklyn Bridge level, so the issue is with the height of the building. Both BHA and DNA have stated that they’re not against development. So couldn’t Walentas build an 8 story apartment? I know they’re trying to do the right thing by offering a school, but that just complicated things. I’m sure they can rescind that part.

  • Mr.Stengel is not aware of just how needed this school is. If he were he would have voted with the rest of the community board and not along the narrow lines of self interest advocated by some in his neighborhood. Those of us who have been on this issue for over 40 years know that if this project is defeated there will be no school. We are not going to be fooled by false promises of a school elsewhere cause we have been down that road before. This modest project is the only hope we have for a school now or in the future.

  • Mr.Stengel is not aware of just how needed this school is. If he were he would have voted with the rest of the community board and not along the narrow lines of self interest advocated by some in his neighborhood. Those of us who have been on this issue for over 40 years know that if this project is defeated there will be no school. We are not going to be fooled by false promises of a school elsewhere cause we have been down that road before. This modest project is the only hope we have for a school now or in the future.

  • How many graduating 5th grade students are there in District 13? How many 6th grade seats will there be in the proposed middle school? Is that insignificant number of available seats worth the damage to the experience of the Brooklyn Bridge and DUMBO? The only ones who benefit from this project are the developers and those weak-minded community board members and politicians who are influenced (legally or illegally) by the $100,000 + of lobbying by the developer.

  • How many graduating 5th grade students are there in District 13? How many 6th grade seats will there be in the proposed middle school? Is that insignificant number of available seats worth the damage to the experience of the Brooklyn Bridge and DUMBO? The only ones who benefit from this project are the developers and those weak-minded community board members and politicians who are influenced (legally or illegally) by the $100,000 + of lobbying by the developer.

  • i’m having trouble making sense of this passage:

    “The Department of Education has failed to do its homework regarding all of the possible sites for a new middle school in Dumbo and Brooklyn Heights. How do we know there aren’t existing sites that could house a 45,000 square foot facility? (I do wonder if real estate owners have been in contact with DOE.) Set aside the issues of financing for the Dock St. development, what about potential construction delays? (Atlantic Yards, anyone?) With an existing facility there would be no question–if or when?–about construction.”

    1) are there other proposals on the table from developers to build new public schools in this area? no. there aren’t any b/c the price commanded by real esate in this area is too high to make a school feasible w/o public funging or intervention – i.e. tax help and/or emminent domain. the 2 trees development avoids both. until you can point to an actual concrete alternative school plan for the area your comments are just argumentative conjecture.

    2) an 8 story project would be immune from financing challenges or construction delays whereas an 18 story one wouldn’t? interesting. you also are obviously uninformed regarding 2 trees’ financial situtation.

    brooklyn is one of the largest urban centers on the east coast. we build densely in urban centers. this project is fine, and no amount of distorted renderings and stretched truths are going to change that. marty will make that abundantly clear for you tonight.

  • i’m having trouble making sense of this passage:

    “The Department of Education has failed to do its homework regarding all of the possible sites for a new middle school in Dumbo and Brooklyn Heights. How do we know there aren’t existing sites that could house a 45,000 square foot facility? (I do wonder if real estate owners have been in contact with DOE.) Set aside the issues of financing for the Dock St. development, what about potential construction delays? (Atlantic Yards, anyone?) With an existing facility there would be no question–if or when?–about construction.”

    1) are there other proposals on the table from developers to build new public schools in this area? no. there aren’t any b/c the price commanded by real esate in this area is too high to make a school feasible w/o public funging or intervention – i.e. tax help and/or emminent domain. the 2 trees development avoids both. until you can point to an actual concrete alternative school plan for the area your comments are just argumentative conjecture.

    2) an 8 story project would be immune from financing challenges or construction delays whereas an 18 story one wouldn’t? interesting. you also are obviously uninformed regarding 2 trees’ financial situtation.

    brooklyn is one of the largest urban centers on the east coast. we build densely in urban centers. this project is fine, and no amount of distorted renderings and stretched truths are going to change that. marty will make that abundantly clear for you tonight.

  • is it me or is the image with the tower twisted right a couple of degrees, swinging the Manhattan Bridge tower out of view?

    nobody is talking about the architecture of the building. i hope they at least make it iconic, rather than some square piece of crap.

  • is it me or is the image with the tower twisted right a couple of degrees, swinging the Manhattan Bridge tower out of view?

    nobody is talking about the architecture of the building. i hope they at least make it iconic, rather than some square piece of crap.

  • Actually, monkeyassj, if you go to the Dock Street Website, there is an animation of driving over the Bridge and the proposed building does block the Manhattan Bridge tower, and a good chunk of DUMBO.

  • Actually, monkeyassj, if you go to the Dock Street Website, there is an animation of driving over the Bridge and the proposed building does block the Manhattan Bridge tower, and a good chunk of DUMBO.

  • For anyone who attended the hearing, please let us know your general impressions or email us at dumbonyc@gmail.com. Thanks!

  • For anyone who attended the hearing, please let us know your general impressions or email us at dumbonyc@gmail.com. Thanks!

  • I took the drive by on that Dock Street site. let’s admit it, the building sticks out and is kind of a drag on the view. and it’s definitely nothing special, just another square building in a big city.

    but, what’s up with the hate on a new middle school in dumbo? the city needs more schools, period. even if it is a small one, having kids around is a positive addition to the hood, not negative. plus, it is just a parking lot right now, which is just a waste of space.

    hopefully the zoning extremists will cancel each other out and come up with something unique, because the people who are building this are obviously going to win this fight.

  • I took the drive by on that Dock Street site. let’s admit it, the building sticks out and is kind of a drag on the view. and it’s definitely nothing special, just another square building in a big city.

    but, what’s up with the hate on a new middle school in dumbo? the city needs more schools, period. even if it is a small one, having kids around is a positive addition to the hood, not negative. plus, it is just a parking lot right now, which is just a waste of space.

    hopefully the zoning extremists will cancel each other out and come up with something unique, because the people who are building this are obviously going to win this fight.

  • Just got back from the hearing tonight, and it was a landslide victory for the anti-Dock St. crowd who opposes the building. About 100 people testified, and probably 85 spoke out against the building. Only about 15 people were for it, and the Walentases left early because they couldn’t take the pain.

    A representative from Simon & Schuster publishing house even read a personal letter from David McCollough (famous author) opposing the project for the sake of the bridge that was tremendously moving.

  • Just got back from the hearing tonight, and it was a landslide victory for the anti-Dock St. crowd who opposes the building. About 100 people testified, and probably 85 spoke out against the building. Only about 15 people were for it, and the Walentases left early because they couldn’t take the pain.

    A representative from Simon & Schuster publishing house even read a personal letter from David McCollough (famous author) opposing the project for the sake of the bridge that was tremendously moving.

  • that’s completely untrue. I was there and testified and during the 2 hours I was there the organizers had the 2 sides back and forth the whole time. So that’ 50% either way.

  • that’s completely untrue. I was there and testified and during the 2 hours I was there the organizers had the 2 sides back and forth the whole time. So that’ 50% either way.

  • Keep dreaming, davo. I was there for all 5 hours, and it was at least 3-1 ratio against the project.

  • Keep dreaming, davo. I was there for all 5 hours, and it was at least 3-1 ratio against the project.

  • This is the statement I made:

    Mr. Borough President and assembled citizens of Brooklyn,

    I am a lifelong Brooklynite, victim of the NYC public school system and father of 2 now entering that same system. Some of you may know me as the Emily Warren Roebling Middle School of the Environment guy.
    .
    When this great bridge was being built Brooklyn was promised that we would be an equal partner in this creation of a Greater New York City. We are still waiting for that promise to be fulfilled.

    With regard to this issue: parents in almost any neighborhood in Manhattan and elsewhere in the city have any number of good public middle school choices for their children to the point that they can choose based on criteria such as whether the lockers are nice enough. Lockers! Here in Brooklyn if we have lockers they are WWII vintage, or more likely, they have been ripped out to make another room.

    Over the past decade or more the DOE has been building neighborhood schools all over the city using this same public/private partnership but not here in downtown Brooklyn. 2 trees comes along with this modest development respectful of this great bridge which will provide jobs and affordable housing, the school long needed and suddenly councilman Yassky and the BHA are casting around for any kind of alternative they can think of to putting this middle school in DUMBO.

    They say:”put the school in the old jail on Atlantic Avenue” Put the school in the jail, think about that.

    They say: squeeze 3 more grades of big kids into the already overcrowded and outdated PS 8 which needs an annex built just to meet its current mission. An idea which shows just how little they care about the quality of the education these middle schools aged children, and all the public school children here will be getting.

    They say spend the xtra $50 million (the value of this gift or bribe however you want to look at it) to build a new school anywhere else but Dock Street; a location where generations of kids would be able to share the views of this magnificent bridge built by dreamers with those who can actually afford to live here.

    I would ask: where were Councilman Yassky and the BHA when the mega project Atlantic Yards was being planned. There are no schools in that nightmarish collection of the over sized and the oversold.

    Where were councilman Yassky and the BHA when the big Hotel and condo development called Brooklyn Bridge Park was being planned? There are no schools in those over sized, out of place towers either.

    And you can bet that if this project is defeated all these people trying so hard to find an alternative to this wonderful school idea will evaporate like last week’s snow on a summer day.

    So I say it is about time, it is long past about time that Brooklyn got its fair share of the kinds of resources available to children and parents living elsewhere in this great city.

    I say: let’s seize this opportunity. Let’s build this school together so the children of Brooklyn can have a quality education in this inspirational setting.

    Thank you very much for your time.

  • This is the statement I made:

    Mr. Borough President and assembled citizens of Brooklyn,

    I am a lifelong Brooklynite, victim of the NYC public school system and father of 2 now entering that same system. Some of you may know me as the Emily Warren Roebling Middle School of the Environment guy.
    .
    When this great bridge was being built Brooklyn was promised that we would be an equal partner in this creation of a Greater New York City. We are still waiting for that promise to be fulfilled.

    With regard to this issue: parents in almost any neighborhood in Manhattan and elsewhere in the city have any number of good public middle school choices for their children to the point that they can choose based on criteria such as whether the lockers are nice enough. Lockers! Here in Brooklyn if we have lockers they are WWII vintage, or more likely, they have been ripped out to make another room.

    Over the past decade or more the DOE has been building neighborhood schools all over the city using this same public/private partnership but not here in downtown Brooklyn. 2 trees comes along with this modest development respectful of this great bridge which will provide jobs and affordable housing, the school long needed and suddenly councilman Yassky and the BHA are casting around for any kind of alternative they can think of to putting this middle school in DUMBO.

    They say:”put the school in the old jail on Atlantic Avenue” Put the school in the jail, think about that.

    They say: squeeze 3 more grades of big kids into the already overcrowded and outdated PS 8 which needs an annex built just to meet its current mission. An idea which shows just how little they care about the quality of the education these middle schools aged children, and all the public school children here will be getting.

    They say spend the xtra $50 million (the value of this gift or bribe however you want to look at it) to build a new school anywhere else but Dock Street; a location where generations of kids would be able to share the views of this magnificent bridge built by dreamers with those who can actually afford to live here.

    I would ask: where were Councilman Yassky and the BHA when the mega project Atlantic Yards was being planned. There are no schools in that nightmarish collection of the over sized and the oversold.

    Where were councilman Yassky and the BHA when the big Hotel and condo development called Brooklyn Bridge Park was being planned? There are no schools in those over sized, out of place towers either.

    And you can bet that if this project is defeated all these people trying so hard to find an alternative to this wonderful school idea will evaporate like last week’s snow on a summer day.

    So I say it is about time, it is long past about time that Brooklyn got its fair share of the kinds of resources available to children and parents living elsewhere in this great city.

    I say: let’s seize this opportunity. Let’s build this school together so the children of Brooklyn can have a quality education in this inspirational setting.

    Thank you very much for your time.

  • Does the building really need to be so tall for Two Trees to make a decent return?

    Would they share the numbers, please?

    What evidence does the public have to support TT’s assertion that the building *needs* to be so tall?

    If people saw the projected margins they would question the context for the school AND height of the building. Knowing this information is essential if public infrastructure is to support a private project like this.

  • Does the building really need to be so tall for Two Trees to make a decent return?

    Would they share the numbers, please?

    What evidence does the public have to support TT’s assertion that the building *needs* to be so tall?

    If people saw the projected margins they would question the context for the school AND height of the building. Knowing this information is essential if public infrastructure is to support a private project like this.

  • Seriously dumbostreets, should there be a committee that determines how much profit is too much profit? Should it have equal representation of poor, middle class and rich? That’s a very slippery slope.

  • Seriously dumbostreets, should there be a committee that determines how much profit is too much profit? Should it have equal representation of poor, middle class and rich? That’s a very slippery slope.

  • The breakdown of positions among the crowd attending and speaking is obviously going to favor the anti side. The whole premise of this review process is to present a forum for presenting objections. Are you more or less likely to fill out a customer service survey if you received crappy service or normal service?

    And more importantly, the crowd’s view is irrelevant – they have zero decision making power.

  • The breakdown of positions among the crowd attending and speaking is obviously going to favor the anti side. The whole premise of this review process is to present a forum for presenting objections. Are you more or less likely to fill out a customer service survey if you received crappy service or normal service?

    And more importantly, the crowd’s view is irrelevant – they have zero decision making power.

  • Is the public somehow obligated to ensure risk-taking private developers make profit on all their land deals (like apparently we are obligated to ensure wall street bankers never fail)?

    If the building is “not economically feasible” at a height consistent with the zoning associated with the land by law, is that the public’s problem? Or the developer who speculatively bought the land?

    An academic argument anyway, because Walentas speculatively bought this large plot of land with its current zoning many years ago for something like $11M altogether. If developing this land under the height of the Brooklyn Bridge roadway is such a financial hardship for him why doesn’t he just put it up for sale for $11M? The reality is that much land at that location would be snatched up another developer in a heartbeat at triple that price.

    Walentas just wants the hundreds of millions to be had by owning in perpetuity an 18-story tower with exclusive, protected, in-your-face views of the Brooklyn Bridge.

  • Is the public somehow obligated to ensure risk-taking private developers make profit on all their land deals (like apparently we are obligated to ensure wall street bankers never fail)?

    If the building is “not economically feasible” at a height consistent with the zoning associated with the land by law, is that the public’s problem? Or the developer who speculatively bought the land?

    An academic argument anyway, because Walentas speculatively bought this large plot of land with its current zoning many years ago for something like $11M altogether. If developing this land under the height of the Brooklyn Bridge roadway is such a financial hardship for him why doesn’t he just put it up for sale for $11M? The reality is that much land at that location would be snatched up another developer in a heartbeat at triple that price.

    Walentas just wants the hundreds of millions to be had by owning in perpetuity an 18-story tower with exclusive, protected, in-your-face views of the Brooklyn Bridge.

  • when does the vote happen?

  • when does the vote happen?

  • It was a strong showing by the opposition – hats off to them. I’m sure Marty heard them loudly and clearly.

    Hopefully through compromise, a common ground can be met. Looking at the big picture, Marty’s job is to find that compromise. I imagine at the end of the process the building will be a bit shorter and hopefully, there will be much needed affordable housing, parking and a school.

    We all need to be positive and let the process run its course. And naturally, we need to participate and state our respective positions as best we can.

    Do I wish the building were shorter – yes. Is Jed Walentas my kind of guy – no. Is he the devil incarnate – no. Would the public education system in New York be better off if we all sent our kids to public schools – yes.

    In the end, I hope everybody wins.

    Sincerely.

  • It was a strong showing by the opposition – hats off to them. I’m sure Marty heard them loudly and clearly.

    Hopefully through compromise, a common ground can be met. Looking at the big picture, Marty’s job is to find that compromise. I imagine at the end of the process the building will be a bit shorter and hopefully, there will be much needed affordable housing, parking and a school.

    We all need to be positive and let the process run its course. And naturally, we need to participate and state our respective positions as best we can.

    Do I wish the building were shorter – yes. Is Jed Walentas my kind of guy – no. Is he the devil incarnate – no. Would the public education system in New York be better off if we all sent our kids to public schools – yes.

    In the end, I hope everybody wins.

    Sincerely.

  • Nice sentiment. You’re much saner in “defeat” then when crowing about how the unelected CB vote represents the community.

    As we saw last night, the people of the community (including most school aged parents) represent the community, and they are overwhelmingly against the zoning change.

    However, in the spirit of your post, compromise is possible. As long as the tower remains below the bridge roadway, most people in the community would not be against it.

    Let’s change the zoning request to R7B if the school and affordable housing are included. The community gets benefits, and Two Trees makes less profit but still gets to make a lot of hay to keep the horses well fed at the horse farm.

  • Nice sentiment. You’re much saner in “defeat” then when crowing about how the unelected CB vote represents the community.

    As we saw last night, the people of the community (including most school aged parents) represent the community, and they are overwhelmingly against the zoning change.

    However, in the spirit of your post, compromise is possible. As long as the tower remains below the bridge roadway, most people in the community would not be against it.

    Let’s change the zoning request to R7B if the school and affordable housing are included. The community gets benefits, and Two Trees makes less profit but still gets to make a lot of hay to keep the horses well fed at the horse farm.

  • Dear Pubi,

    I’m trying to be civil but you keep slinging mud. As I wipe the dirt from my brow, I suppose R7B will make the project unfeasible to Walentas. I would suggest that a building with a height slightly below 70 Washington, One Main and Sweeney is more reasonable.

    Let’s hope it gets worked out.

    Amicably,

    Carlo

  • Dear Pubi,

    I’m trying to be civil but you keep slinging mud. As I wipe the dirt from my brow, I suppose R7B will make the project unfeasible to Walentas. I would suggest that a building with a height slightly below 70 Washington, One Main and Sweeney is more reasonable.

    Let’s hope it gets worked out.

    Amicably,

    Carlo

  • How is it slinging mud when you were crowing about your “victory” after the CB vote a few weeks ago, and now you’re much more in the spirit of compromise? The truth will set you free.

    As you might remember, I was the first to congratulate your side when the full CB vote went in your favor and at that time I also wished the community well and spoke in the spirit of compromise.

    Now that we’re all nicely gronded, let’s work on the compromise that will keep the building below the roadway and try to get the benefits of responsible development.

    A R7B wouldn’t make it unfeasible, just less profitable.

  • How is it slinging mud when you were crowing about your “victory” after the CB vote a few weeks ago, and now you’re much more in the spirit of compromise? The truth will set you free.

    As you might remember, I was the first to congratulate your side when the full CB vote went in your favor and at that time I also wished the community well and spoke in the spirit of compromise.

    Now that we’re all nicely gronded, let’s work on the compromise that will keep the building below the roadway and try to get the benefits of responsible development.

    A R7B wouldn’t make it unfeasible, just less profitable.

  • I like staying focused on the facts and the issues.

    The land is currently zoned M1-2 with an FAR of 2.0. That’s exactly two stories across the entire footprint or four stories across half, etc. For commercial use only.

    The city “owes” the developer _nothing_ more than that commercial FAR of 2.0, the bulk he can legally build there by right of ownership of that property. Any changes in use or increase from that is a gift to the developer that must be justified.

    R7B changes use to residential (much more lucrative use) and increases the FAR to 3.0. If he wants that increase he must justify it as contextually appropriate (easy, R7B is max 75ft) and offer something back, e.g. school space in another of his non-residential neighborhood buildings.

    If he disagrees than he can keep his commercial FAR of 2.0 on that plot and live within its limitations like every other property owner in NYC has to.

    Confirm these facts for yourself at these links:

    http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/zone/prop_sketchmaps/090181zmk_prop.pdf
    http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/zone/zh_tables.pdf#manudist

  • I like staying focused on the facts and the issues.

    The land is currently zoned M1-2 with an FAR of 2.0. That’s exactly two stories across the entire footprint or four stories across half, etc. For commercial use only.

    The city “owes” the developer _nothing_ more than that commercial FAR of 2.0, the bulk he can legally build there by right of ownership of that property. Any changes in use or increase from that is a gift to the developer that must be justified.

    R7B changes use to residential (much more lucrative use) and increases the FAR to 3.0. If he wants that increase he must justify it as contextually appropriate (easy, R7B is max 75ft) and offer something back, e.g. school space in another of his non-residential neighborhood buildings.

    If he disagrees than he can keep his commercial FAR of 2.0 on that plot and live within its limitations like every other property owner in NYC has to.

    Confirm these facts for yourself at these links:

    http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/zone/prop_sketchmaps/090181zmk_prop.pdf
    http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/zone/zh_tables.pdf#manudist

  • Are you Andrew Stengel? He’s the only guy from the opposition that congratulated me. And to his defense, although we don’t agree, he was gracious.

    Sorry if you took my smile, even I’m entitled to one, as crowing.

    Now seriously, I hope Marty and Yassky cut a reasonable deal.

  • Are you Andrew Stengel? He’s the only guy from the opposition that congratulated me. And to his defense, although we don’t agree, he was gracious.

    Sorry if you took my smile, even I’m entitled to one, as crowing.

    Now seriously, I hope Marty and Yassky cut a reasonable deal.

  • Dear Pubi,

    I wouldn’t call what you wrote “the spirit of compromise”.

    I would love to meet you sometime. You obviously know who I am. Feel free to introduce yourself in person next time.

    Sincerely.

  • Dear Pubi,

    I wouldn’t call what you wrote “the spirit of compromise”.

    I would love to meet you sometime. You obviously know who I am. Feel free to introduce yourself in person next time.

    Sincerely.

  • what i don’t understand is why the damn thing has to be so tall?? ok, they want to put a building there, fine. but does it need to dwarf all the other buildings around it? there’s gotta be a middle ground here. And how do they expect to fill this huge building in this economic climate? This whole project smacks of arrogance. Of course, any reasonable person can see it will significantly alter the skyline. I understand we’re a capitalist society, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. It’s good to know that people out there care and are resisting this. We’re not a complacent neighorhood and we can’t be easily suppresed. So that’s reassuring.

  • what i don’t understand is why the damn thing has to be so tall?? ok, they want to put a building there, fine. but does it need to dwarf all the other buildings around it? there’s gotta be a middle ground here. And how do they expect to fill this huge building in this economic climate? This whole project smacks of arrogance. Of course, any reasonable person can see it will significantly alter the skyline. I understand we’re a capitalist society, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. It’s good to know that people out there care and are resisting this. We’re not a complacent neighorhood and we can’t be easily suppresed. So that’s reassuring.

  • higher floor = higher rent. ROI is highest at the highest. if 2 trees could have floors 16-18 without floors 2-4 you’d get that trade.

  • higher floor = higher rent. ROI is highest at the highest. if 2 trees could have floors 16-18 without floors 2-4 you’d get that trade.

  • Chuck:

    The handle is Publius, but you can call me Mr. Publius.

    We have met twice previously.

    I use the handle Publius for the same reason it was used over 200 years ago during the Federalist/Anti-Federalist debate. Let the force of my arguments (or perhaps in your opinion, the lack thereof) be what people focus on. Personalities shouldn’t matter in public issues, only the merits of the arguments.

    You have chosen to inject your name and personality into this debate, on this blog and others, at public hearings, and in newspaper advertisements. That’s fine and your choice, for whatever the reason(s).

    I have chosen to use my name at public hearings where I say much the same things I write online.

    Sorry you didn’t like my previous sincere congratulations.

  • Chuck:

    The handle is Publius, but you can call me Mr. Publius.

    We have met twice previously.

    I use the handle Publius for the same reason it was used over 200 years ago during the Federalist/Anti-Federalist debate. Let the force of my arguments (or perhaps in your opinion, the lack thereof) be what people focus on. Personalities shouldn’t matter in public issues, only the merits of the arguments.

    You have chosen to inject your name and personality into this debate, on this blog and others, at public hearings, and in newspaper advertisements. That’s fine and your choice, for whatever the reason(s).

    I have chosen to use my name at public hearings where I say much the same things I write online.

    Sorry you didn’t like my previous sincere congratulations.

  • Dear Mr. Publius,

    I am what I am. I’m not running for anything or from anyone. If you want to give a heightened level of credibility to your argument, you’d be honest and courageous enough to share with us your name.

    It’s one thing to be using a handle while opining on your favorite restaurant. It’s quite a different thing to be doing so while hurling insults at people during such an important discussion. Sorry but the word coward comes to mind.

    Sincerely,

    Chuck

  • Dear Mr. Publius,

    I am what I am. I’m not running for anything or from anyone. If you want to give a heightened level of credibility to your argument, you’d be honest and courageous enough to share with us your name.

    It’s one thing to be using a handle while opining on your favorite restaurant. It’s quite a different thing to be doing so while hurling insults at people during such an important discussion. Sorry but the word coward comes to mind.

    Sincerely,

    Chuck

  • Chuck:

    I’ll let my previous statement stand.

    You’re been diligently trying to “out” me for weeks during this debate. I saw your latest example of name calling coming weeks ago. You’re quite predictable. If we were dating I’d be yawning and checking my watch.

    I’m sorry that you find rigorous debate of this issue insulting and cowardly. You must feel that some of the Founding Fathers (Hamilton, Madison and Jay) were also cowardly when they published their believe and opinions about the issues of their day in the Federalist Papers under the rubric “Publius”? Perhaps democracy just isn’t your bag.

    Is the blog owner of dumbonyc also a coward, is Homer Fink a coward because they choose, like most other people online not to use their name? Is davoyager a coward? I disagree with him/her, but respect his/her right to say it. And I don’t necessarily care to have him/her introduce themselves to me. Why do you care?

    From observing your posts on this blog and others, it’s clear you have a very short fuse towards those who disagree with your dogma.

    Your latest name calling is another low for you. However, I still believe that when you jumped on the previous name calling and race card bandwagon, that was lower.

    I’m going to keep to myself why I believe you have chosen to use your name in developer newspaper print ads, on blogs, etc. I like to keep my developing theories to myself until I know for certain someone’s motives. Clearly you don’t share this view. You’ve been questioning the supposedly ulterior motive of those who disagree with you from the get go of this debate. I’m just your lightening rod du jour.

    You’ve outed ourself by your behavior and demeanor. Ironic of you to sign your posts “respectfully” until someone respectfully disagrees with you and then you fly off the handle.

    Kindly point out any insults I have made toward you–I don’t think you will find any. Vigorous debate of your position is not an insult, Chuck.

    Look in the mirror Chuck. Unclench your fists.

  • Chuck:

    I’ll let my previous statement stand.

    You’re been diligently trying to “out” me for weeks during this debate. I saw your latest example of name calling coming weeks ago. You’re quite predictable. If we were dating I’d be yawning and checking my watch.

    I’m sorry that you find rigorous debate of this issue insulting and cowardly. You must feel that some of the Founding Fathers (Hamilton, Madison and Jay) were also cowardly when they published their believe and opinions about the issues of their day in the Federalist Papers under the rubric “Publius”? Perhaps democracy just isn’t your bag.

    Is the blog owner of dumbonyc also a coward, is Homer Fink a coward because they choose, like most other people online not to use their name? Is davoyager a coward? I disagree with him/her, but respect his/her right to say it. And I don’t necessarily care to have him/her introduce themselves to me. Why do you care?

    From observing your posts on this blog and others, it’s clear you have a very short fuse towards those who disagree with your dogma.

    Your latest name calling is another low for you. However, I still believe that when you jumped on the previous name calling and race card bandwagon, that was lower.

    I’m going to keep to myself why I believe you have chosen to use your name in developer newspaper print ads, on blogs, etc. I like to keep my developing theories to myself until I know for certain someone’s motives. Clearly you don’t share this view. You’ve been questioning the supposedly ulterior motive of those who disagree with you from the get go of this debate. I’m just your lightening rod du jour.

    You’ve outed ourself by your behavior and demeanor. Ironic of you to sign your posts “respectfully” until someone respectfully disagrees with you and then you fly off the handle.

    Kindly point out any insults I have made toward you–I don’t think you will find any. Vigorous debate of your position is not an insult, Chuck.

    Look in the mirror Chuck. Unclench your fists.

  • Wow Mr. Publius,

    Hiding behind the founding fathers while calling David and Jed Walentas corrupt – is cowardly. Writing that I’m on TT’s payroll and a sucker and fool for taking my position – is insulting. Calling me a race baiter is the most serious insult.

    Hey, I’m a big boy. I can take it. I’d like to consider the source but you won’t reveal it – that’s okay.

    Stay where you are.

    It’s important in this discussion to know people’s motives – mine is a great school.

    It would be helpful if we knew who you are and where you live. Then maybe all can consider your position in the context from where it is made.

    No need to come “out”. No need to date – I’m happily married. Two kids. Practicing Catholic. I’m a diabetic on insulin. Playing basketball is my hobby. (Hopefully you find some new material in there.) Just a regular guy trying to improve my community.

    Fists unclenched,

    Carlo (but you can call me Chuck, I’m not insulted.)

  • Wow Mr. Publius,

    Hiding behind the founding fathers while calling David and Jed Walentas corrupt – is cowardly. Writing that I’m on TT’s payroll and a sucker and fool for taking my position – is insulting. Calling me a race baiter is the most serious insult.

    Hey, I’m a big boy. I can take it. I’d like to consider the source but you won’t reveal it – that’s okay.

    Stay where you are.

    It’s important in this discussion to know people’s motives – mine is a great school.

    It would be helpful if we knew who you are and where you live. Then maybe all can consider your position in the context from where it is made.

    No need to come “out”. No need to date – I’m happily married. Two kids. Practicing Catholic. I’m a diabetic on insulin. Playing basketball is my hobby. (Hopefully you find some new material in there.) Just a regular guy trying to improve my community.

    Fists unclenched,

    Carlo (but you can call me Chuck, I’m not insulted.)

  • Identities, personal styles, and even personal motives don’t change the facts nor the issues around whether Dock St. is a good idea or not.

    Lets debate Dock St. instead of debating the merits of each other’s personal qualities. The personal exchanges turn off everyone except the two people having them, stifling productive discussion – which is why we are all here, right? Otherwise this blog becomes just an emotional “grafitti wall” for people to come vent at the world and each other.

    Everyone agrees more school choices is better than fewer for parents in the neighborhood. Everyone agrees the Brooklyn Bridge is a revered national landmark.

    Moving forward the two arguments rapidly diverge, let’s have a rational discussion about that.

  • Identities, personal styles, and even personal motives don’t change the facts nor the issues around whether Dock St. is a good idea or not.

    Lets debate Dock St. instead of debating the merits of each other’s personal qualities. The personal exchanges turn off everyone except the two people having them, stifling productive discussion – which is why we are all here, right? Otherwise this blog becomes just an emotional “grafitti wall” for people to come vent at the world and each other.

    Everyone agrees more school choices is better than fewer for parents in the neighborhood. Everyone agrees the Brooklyn Bridge is a revered national landmark.

    Moving forward the two arguments rapidly diverge, let’s have a rational discussion about that.

  • Well said None. Let’s have a discussion of the merits and shortcomings. Let’s look at the project – Walentas’s project, and decide. And in the end, reach a compromise that works for all.

  • Well said None. Let’s have a discussion of the merits and shortcomings. Let’s look at the project – Walentas’s project, and decide. And in the end, reach a compromise that works for all.

  • (I am none 9:18am, but will give myself a handle to avoid confusion).

    Although I oppose Dock St., here is my understanding of supporters’ arguments:

    1) Neighborhood middle school options are really poor. There are only two choices: $75K for 3 years of private middle schools OR long daily commutes to district schools of poor quality.
    2) Problems with the location’s suitability for a school are inconsequential compared to the alternative of having no neighborhood school choice at all.
    3) No other sites nor alternatives are viable because as of right now none have made it as far through the DoE bureaucracy as Dock St.
    4) The proposed building isn’t that bad. It doesn’t really compromise the Brooklyn Bridge very much. To the extent that it does, giving that up is a small price to pay to have a neighborhood school option.

    Is that a fair overview?

  • (I am none 9:18am, but will give myself a handle to avoid confusion).

    Although I oppose Dock St., here is my understanding of supporters’ arguments:

    1) Neighborhood middle school options are really poor. There are only two choices: $75K for 3 years of private middle schools OR long daily commutes to district schools of poor quality.
    2) Problems with the location’s suitability for a school are inconsequential compared to the alternative of having no neighborhood school choice at all.
    3) No other sites nor alternatives are viable because as of right now none have made it as far through the DoE bureaucracy as Dock St.
    4) The proposed building isn’t that bad. It doesn’t really compromise the Brooklyn Bridge very much. To the extent that it does, giving that up is a small price to pay to have a neighborhood school option.

    Is that a fair overview?

  • Rather than have you frame my argument, the submit the following for consideration:

    1) The proposed building is reasonable and doesn’t infringe on public views of the bridge.

    2) Affordable Housing is needed and will help diversify the neighborhood.

    3) Construction jobs will give an immediate boost to the local economy. Post construction jobs (think property managers, engineers, store clerks, parking attendants, teachers, etc.) will be a lasting benefit.

    4) Green Construction is a plus.

    5) Parking will be needed when the park is completed. Cars out of sight are an aesthetic plus.

    6) Middle School – continue the progress made at PS 8 by giving the children of District 13 a great middle school option. Not to mention, an incentive to work harder to land a seat at the DUMBO Middle School.

    7) Improving the property leads to more economic activity which leads to more taxes.

    8) The size of the project is not overwhelming to the neighborhood.

    9) The streets and sidewalks will get fixed!

    10) The building proposed is superior to what sits there today.

    Kindly lay out your argument against.

  • Rather than have you frame my argument, the submit the following for consideration:

    1) The proposed building is reasonable and doesn’t infringe on public views of the bridge.

    2) Affordable Housing is needed and will help diversify the neighborhood.

    3) Construction jobs will give an immediate boost to the local economy. Post construction jobs (think property managers, engineers, store clerks, parking attendants, teachers, etc.) will be a lasting benefit.

    4) Green Construction is a plus.

    5) Parking will be needed when the park is completed. Cars out of sight are an aesthetic plus.

    6) Middle School – continue the progress made at PS 8 by giving the children of District 13 a great middle school option. Not to mention, an incentive to work harder to land a seat at the DUMBO Middle School.

    7) Improving the property leads to more economic activity which leads to more taxes.

    8) The size of the project is not overwhelming to the neighborhood.

    9) The streets and sidewalks will get fixed!

    10) The building proposed is superior to what sits there today.

    Kindly lay out your argument against.

  • I am not “Against Dock Street” (though I am a resident of Dumbo and against Dock Street) but I wanted to reply to Carlo’s message:

    1) The proposed 18-story tower is unreasonable and blocks views of the bridge from Water Street and Brooklyn Bridge park and just as importantly (and ignored by the TT crowd) views OF Dumbo, Brooklyn Bridge park, the Manhattan skyline and Manhattan bridge from the pedestrian walkway of the Brooklyn Bridge.

    2) Affordable Housing is needed and will help diversify the neighborhood and should be built without impairing a national landmark and endangering two fragile neighbordhoods (Dumbo and Fulton Ferry Landing).

    3) The building (of whatever height) will create construction jobs only AFTER the project is fully designed and the developer can secure bank financing for it. It will provide NO economic boost and NO new jobs until that time.

    4) The benefits of green construction will be ENTIRELY wiped out by the increased vehicular traffic resulting from the massive parking garage that TT is proposing for the building. (A bit of a tangent but if TT were really concerned about the environment, why didn’t they incorporate any “green” features in their previous projects?)

    5) There are ample mass transit options to the park — we live in NYC after all. We shouldn’t encourage more people to drive to the park by offering more garage space. Not to mention a garage owned and operated by a private developer will charge premium rates; it wouldn’t be a free benefit to the public.

    6) The children at PS 8 would benefit by attending an existing middle school (with diversity) in the district that is rehabilitated with the $41 million that SCA is proposing to invest in the Dock Street school. Equally, there are plenty of other potential sites for a new middle school that wouldn’t impact on a national landmark and two landmarked neighborhoods, e.g., One Brooklyn Bridge Park, 205 Water. SCA should have consulted the community, especially PS8 parents, in selecting an appropriate location. The lack of transparency and back-room dealing among SCA, TT, and the Mayor’s office is repugnant and a violation of the public trust. The idea that PS8 students could secure a seat in a new middle school by working harder has no basis in fact or reality (unless Carlo is privy to information no one else is).

    7) Building an 8 story tower will lead to more economic activity which leads to more taxes.

    8) The size of the project is overwhelming to TWO neighborhoods (Dumbo and Fulton Ferry Landing). The only people who believe otherwise do not actually live in the immediate area (as I do) and wouldn’t be immediately impacted by it.

    9) The streets and sidewalks will be fixed regardless of the height of the building constructed at the Dock Street site. A private developer is not responsible for fixing the streets and sidewalks (and if TT does do it it’s only because it receives some other concession from the City).

    10) An 8-story building is superior to what sits there today. Unlike the proposed 18-story tower it would respect the surrounding area and (though I don’t think it’s the right location for it) could even incorporate a 300-seat middle school.

    Carlo, I genuinely admire your support of public education but I find your shilling for the TT project self-serving in the extreme. You chose to send your kids to public school knowing the options that exist. For you to advocate a non-contextual project that would come at the expense of the community (not to mention thousands of people in NYC and around the world who enjoy the bridge and the Dumbo and Fulton Ferry neighborhoods), on the THEORETICAL basis that your kids might attend a middle school — assuming it’s built within the next 5-7 years and would accept your kids — is arrogant and indefensible.

  • I am not “Against Dock Street” (though I am a resident of Dumbo and against Dock Street) but I wanted to reply to Carlo’s message:

    1) The proposed 18-story tower is unreasonable and blocks views of the bridge from Water Street and Brooklyn Bridge park and just as importantly (and ignored by the TT crowd) views OF Dumbo, Brooklyn Bridge park, the Manhattan skyline and Manhattan bridge from the pedestrian walkway of the Brooklyn Bridge.

    2) Affordable Housing is needed and will help diversify the neighborhood and should be built without impairing a national landmark and endangering two fragile neighbordhoods (Dumbo and Fulton Ferry Landing).

    3) The building (of whatever height) will create construction jobs only AFTER the project is fully designed and the developer can secure bank financing for it. It will provide NO economic boost and NO new jobs until that time.

    4) The benefits of green construction will be ENTIRELY wiped out by the increased vehicular traffic resulting from the massive parking garage that TT is proposing for the building. (A bit of a tangent but if TT were really concerned about the environment, why didn’t they incorporate any “green” features in their previous projects?)

    5) There are ample mass transit options to the park — we live in NYC after all. We shouldn’t encourage more people to drive to the park by offering more garage space. Not to mention a garage owned and operated by a private developer will charge premium rates; it wouldn’t be a free benefit to the public.

    6) The children at PS 8 would benefit by attending an existing middle school (with diversity) in the district that is rehabilitated with the $41 million that SCA is proposing to invest in the Dock Street school. Equally, there are plenty of other potential sites for a new middle school that wouldn’t impact on a national landmark and two landmarked neighborhoods, e.g., One Brooklyn Bridge Park, 205 Water. SCA should have consulted the community, especially PS8 parents, in selecting an appropriate location. The lack of transparency and back-room dealing among SCA, TT, and the Mayor’s office is repugnant and a violation of the public trust. The idea that PS8 students could secure a seat in a new middle school by working harder has no basis in fact or reality (unless Carlo is privy to information no one else is).

    7) Building an 8 story tower will lead to more economic activity which leads to more taxes.

    8) The size of the project is overwhelming to TWO neighborhoods (Dumbo and Fulton Ferry Landing). The only people who believe otherwise do not actually live in the immediate area (as I do) and wouldn’t be immediately impacted by it.

    9) The streets and sidewalks will be fixed regardless of the height of the building constructed at the Dock Street site. A private developer is not responsible for fixing the streets and sidewalks (and if TT does do it it’s only because it receives some other concession from the City).

    10) An 8-story building is superior to what sits there today. Unlike the proposed 18-story tower it would respect the surrounding area and (though I don’t think it’s the right location for it) could even incorporate a 300-seat middle school.

    Carlo, I genuinely admire your support of public education but I find your shilling for the TT project self-serving in the extreme. You chose to send your kids to public school knowing the options that exist. For you to advocate a non-contextual project that would come at the expense of the community (not to mention thousands of people in NYC and around the world who enjoy the bridge and the Dumbo and Fulton Ferry neighborhoods), on the THEORETICAL basis that your kids might attend a middle school — assuming it’s built within the next 5-7 years and would accept your kids — is arrogant and indefensible.

  • Woot! Woot! Well said, Dave. If we were on a date, I would not be looking at my watch.

  • Woot! Woot! Well said, Dave. If we were on a date, I would not be looking at my watch.

  • Well said!

    I would also add:

    “2) Affordable Housing is needed and will help diversify the neighborhood.”

    Who determines what is ‘affordable’? We are talking about prime real estate here.

    “6) Middle School – continue the progress made at PS 8 by giving the children of District 13 a great middle school option. Not to mention, an incentive to work harder to land a seat at the DUMBO Middle School.”

    I believe that district 13 already has a middle school in the area, at 209 York St.

  • Well said!

    I would also add:

    “2) Affordable Housing is needed and will help diversify the neighborhood.”

    Who determines what is ‘affordable’? We are talking about prime real estate here.

    “6) Middle School – continue the progress made at PS 8 by giving the children of District 13 a great middle school option. Not to mention, an incentive to work harder to land a seat at the DUMBO Middle School.”

    I believe that district 13 already has a middle school in the area, at 209 York St.

  • Just trying to keep the conversation factual:

    “The benefits of green construction will be ENTIRELY wiped out by the increased vehicular traffic resulting from the massive parking garage that TT is proposing for the building.”

    Mayor Bloomberg has mandated that all new residential construction projects contain parking spaces in a proportional relationship to the number of units in the building. I’m not sure what that ratio is — it’s not 1;1, but it may be 1 parking space for every 2 or possibly three units.

    I agree with everything else Dave wrote aside from his grandiose and needlessly harsh closing statement. I do not believe that Carlo or any other parents who would welcome a new middle school should be vilified for working to see our beloved PS8 district school feed into an equally high-quality middle school. The Dock Street plan has absolutely nothing going for it other than the school. Whether you have children or not, or if you plan to relocate to the suburbs or send your kids to St. Ann’s, a new and vibrant public middle school — designed and built with care and respect — would be a boon to the neighborhood.

  • Just trying to keep the conversation factual:

    “The benefits of green construction will be ENTIRELY wiped out by the increased vehicular traffic resulting from the massive parking garage that TT is proposing for the building.”

    Mayor Bloomberg has mandated that all new residential construction projects contain parking spaces in a proportional relationship to the number of units in the building. I’m not sure what that ratio is — it’s not 1;1, but it may be 1 parking space for every 2 or possibly three units.

    I agree with everything else Dave wrote aside from his grandiose and needlessly harsh closing statement. I do not believe that Carlo or any other parents who would welcome a new middle school should be vilified for working to see our beloved PS8 district school feed into an equally high-quality middle school. The Dock Street plan has absolutely nothing going for it other than the school. Whether you have children or not, or if you plan to relocate to the suburbs or send your kids to St. Ann’s, a new and vibrant public middle school — designed and built with care and respect — would be a boon to the neighborhood.

  • Neighbor,

    You are very correct in your statement that a public middle school, designed and built with care and respect would definitely be a boon to the neighborhood.

    The problem is that the design of this building taints the respect aspect and the manner which it’s being proposed is without any care.

    And public through a private developer doesn’t sound like a very good idea.

    But if the need is so great, then why not just petition the city and state to acquire the land via the State’s eminent domain laws?

    Then a truly public school could be built, with a design that complements, not intrudes on the surrounding area.

  • Neighbor,

    You are very correct in your statement that a public middle school, designed and built with care and respect would definitely be a boon to the neighborhood.

    The problem is that the design of this building taints the respect aspect and the manner which it’s being proposed is without any care.

    And public through a private developer doesn’t sound like a very good idea.

    But if the need is so great, then why not just petition the city and state to acquire the land via the State’s eminent domain laws?

    Then a truly public school could be built, with a design that complements, not intrudes on the surrounding area.

  • well gee I can disagree with just about everything “dave” said and my name is dave. But since a detailed point by point refutation of his spew would be boring I will just offer reasons 1 to 100: the first class in the new Emily Warren Roebling school of the Environment. Reasons 101 thru 200 the second year class, and so on.

  • well gee I can disagree with just about everything “dave” said and my name is dave. But since a detailed point by point refutation of his spew would be boring I will just offer reasons 1 to 100: the first class in the new Emily Warren Roebling school of the Environment. Reasons 101 thru 200 the second year class, and so on.

  • modsquad:

    There are all sorts of problems with a public project being leveraged to generate x30, x40, x50 (who knows?) in private returns. It is TT’s own assertion that the building *must* be this height to be viable. I think it is perfectly reasonable for them to back this up.

  • modsquad:

    There are all sorts of problems with a public project being leveraged to generate x30, x40, x50 (who knows?) in private returns. It is TT’s own assertion that the building *must* be this height to be viable. I think it is perfectly reasonable for them to back this up.

  • Also, I would add that in this climate I want businesses that intermingle public monies and infrastructure to be transparent.

    The school is the only real difference from the 2004 proposal that was rejected… so it is, in reality, not a charity but a gigantic value proposition. Any business relationship would apply scrutiny to this fact, evaluate the numbers, itemize costs, consider the return… why should the city stupidly rollover when it is being leveraged in this manner???

  • Also, I would add that in this climate I want businesses that intermingle public monies and infrastructure to be transparent.

    The school is the only real difference from the 2004 proposal that was rejected… so it is, in reality, not a charity but a gigantic value proposition. Any business relationship would apply scrutiny to this fact, evaluate the numbers, itemize costs, consider the return… why should the city stupidly rollover when it is being leveraged in this manner???

  • Carlo, thanks for more accurately presenting your argument for Dock St.

    I perceive most of your points as general principles everyone finds good in the abstract. I don’t see how they support an argument for an 18-story building at the Dock St. location specifically.

    For example, the statement “cars out of sight are an aesthetic plus,” is indisputable. But it would hardly justify a proposal to locate an 18-story parking garage next to the Statue of Liberty or next to PS8 belching fumes into classroom windows. Such a development would be contextually inappropriate, no matter how many construction jobs it created or tax revenues it raised.

    The Dock St. location is the same. Is it contextually appropriate to erect an 18-story building immediately next to (actually it even passes under) the Brooklyn Bridge? This question must be answered first before considering how many and how juicy are the carrots the developer is dangling in exchange.

    Otherwise, things quickly get sordid. For example, if he offered not just a middle school, but a high school as well should we let him build an ever taller and wider tower even closer to the Brooklyn Bridge? After all, neighborhood children could really use a quality high school option too, no?

    If zoning rights next to the Brooklyn Bridge are now “for sale,” as they would seem to be according to the arguments supporting of Dock St., why stop here? If we locals can cash out on our proximity to the Brooklyn Bridge then heck our neighborhood could gain all kinds of truly wonderful improvements and our children enjoy all kinds of expensive educational options. We need only continue selling off more rights to develop luxury towers 80 feet from the world famous Brooklyn Bridge. Next time, let’s hold an auction for the rights – I think we could get a much higher price that way.

    Ethically, the first question of any proposed rezoning must be if the building is appropriate (in the public’s eyes) in that location. Otherwise our supposedly public-interest driven zoning laws become private-interest driven. Zoning becomes just something to be bought at will by any developer. He need only pony up the necessary dollars to fund the parochial needs of the most vocal group of neighbors who then advocate for his project. A practice doubly illegitimate when it’s not only the broader neighborhood itself that suffers the consequences of the inappropriate development, but also the city and the nation at large.

    Your most crucial point is #1, “The proposed building is reasonable and doesn’t infringe on public views of the bridge.” That flies in the face of much evidence. For starters, if true, why is the developer offering an array of carrots at all? Wouldn’t his proposed rezoning sans school sail though with minimal objection?

    Most importantly, the reality is many, many people from around NYC, the country, and the world find an 18-story tower next to the Brooklyn Bridge out of context and ruinous of the respectful space around the bridge that is so emotionally rewarding for them. Read the posted letter from famous Brooklyn Bridge historian David McCullough, who is not a resident of the neighborhood, to better understand the emotions I’m talking about.

    The public at large would not benefit from another school option for DUMBO parents. Nor would they benefit much from a few years of temporary construction jobs. However, they and their children, and their children would have to forever endure what they feel as tarnished enjoyment of views from and of the bridge. Unless we residents are claiming it “belongs” to us, the Brooklyn Bridge “belongs” also to NYC and to the nation. Their opinions of what is appropriate and contextual count too, don’t they?

    If you don’t believe me about how the public feels, ask them. I’ll join you if you like. Print out some pictures from Walentas’s website. Go up to people walking on the bridge, show them the picture, point to the site, and ask them if they think that 18-story building on that site is reasonable and wouldn’t infringe on their views.

  • Carlo, thanks for more accurately presenting your argument for Dock St.

    I perceive most of your points as general principles everyone finds good in the abstract. I don’t see how they support an argument for an 18-story building at the Dock St. location specifically.

    For example, the statement “cars out of sight are an aesthetic plus,” is indisputable. But it would hardly justify a proposal to locate an 18-story parking garage next to the Statue of Liberty or next to PS8 belching fumes into classroom windows. Such a development would be contextually inappropriate, no matter how many construction jobs it created or tax revenues it raised.

    The Dock St. location is the same. Is it contextually appropriate to erect an 18-story building immediately next to (actually it even passes under) the Brooklyn Bridge? This question must be answered first before considering how many and how juicy are the carrots the developer is dangling in exchange.

    Otherwise, things quickly get sordid. For example, if he offered not just a middle school, but a high school as well should we let him build an ever taller and wider tower even closer to the Brooklyn Bridge? After all, neighborhood children could really use a quality high school option too, no?

    If zoning rights next to the Brooklyn Bridge are now “for sale,” as they would seem to be according to the arguments supporting of Dock St., why stop here? If we locals can cash out on our proximity to the Brooklyn Bridge then heck our neighborhood could gain all kinds of truly wonderful improvements and our children enjoy all kinds of expensive educational options. We need only continue selling off more rights to develop luxury towers 80 feet from the world famous Brooklyn Bridge. Next time, let’s hold an auction for the rights – I think we could get a much higher price that way.

    Ethically, the first question of any proposed rezoning must be if the building is appropriate (in the public’s eyes) in that location. Otherwise our supposedly public-interest driven zoning laws become private-interest driven. Zoning becomes just something to be bought at will by any developer. He need only pony up the necessary dollars to fund the parochial needs of the most vocal group of neighbors who then advocate for his project. A practice doubly illegitimate when it’s not only the broader neighborhood itself that suffers the consequences of the inappropriate development, but also the city and the nation at large.

    Your most crucial point is #1, “The proposed building is reasonable and doesn’t infringe on public views of the bridge.” That flies in the face of much evidence. For starters, if true, why is the developer offering an array of carrots at all? Wouldn’t his proposed rezoning sans school sail though with minimal objection?

    Most importantly, the reality is many, many people from around NYC, the country, and the world find an 18-story tower next to the Brooklyn Bridge out of context and ruinous of the respectful space around the bridge that is so emotionally rewarding for them. Read the posted letter from famous Brooklyn Bridge historian David McCullough, who is not a resident of the neighborhood, to better understand the emotions I’m talking about.

    The public at large would not benefit from another school option for DUMBO parents. Nor would they benefit much from a few years of temporary construction jobs. However, they and their children, and their children would have to forever endure what they feel as tarnished enjoyment of views from and of the bridge. Unless we residents are claiming it “belongs” to us, the Brooklyn Bridge “belongs” also to NYC and to the nation. Their opinions of what is appropriate and contextual count too, don’t they?

    If you don’t believe me about how the public feels, ask them. I’ll join you if you like. Print out some pictures from Walentas’s website. Go up to people walking on the bridge, show them the picture, point to the site, and ask them if they think that 18-story building on that site is reasonable and wouldn’t infringe on their views.

  • Anyone know when we’re supposed to hear back from Marty with his decision/recommendation?

  • Anyone know when we’re supposed to hear back from Marty with his decision/recommendation?

  • I believe Marty makes his recommendation towards the end of February.

  • I believe Marty makes his recommendation towards the end of February.