Greenpoint
Lorven Pharmacy
Culture on the Cheap
From The New York Shitty Inbox: 233 Norman To Become A Hotel?
Filed under: 11222, Gentrification, Greenpoint, Greenpoint Brooklyn, Greenpoint Magic
I kicked off my day with not one but two missives about this. Not only does it appear to be true, but the landlord has seen fit to give tenants thirty days notice and threats of eviction have been issued as well. And of course I would be remiss if I did NOT point out that north Brooklyn’s good friend, Robert Scarano— or at least his firm— will be handling the project. Not a good sign.
In any case, it’ll be interesting to see how a hotel* with rooftop terrace will fare being downwind from our local waste water treatment plant.
But hey, what do I know? As P.T. Barnum was reputed to say:
There’s a sucker born every minute.
Just another day in Greenpoint, folks…
UPDATE, 5:06 p.m.: As you can plainly see, construction has commenced.
*Perhaps this fellow is going to perpetrate a “239 Banker”? I rule nothing out as being too absurd anymore…
New York Shitty Videos Du Jour: And The Vote Is In!
Greenpoint Landing
- Note the Community Board 1 members who trickle in as the proceedings commence. Rabbi Neiderman is one of them.
- One board member (whose name eludes me) asked about “density”. A very good question— one which was not answered in any meaningful fashion whatsoever.
- Esteban Duran, Education and Youth chair, asks about the school which will be built. It will be pre-K – eighth grade, but it is ultimately the city’s call.
- The motion is carried with 4 votes against and 1 abstention.
77 Commercial Street
- Ms. Teague noted that Jay Segal (of Greenberg Taurig, speaking on the behalf of 77 Commercial— he had signed up to speak but when called elected not too) spoke to her on the phone about the developer’s willingness to “work with us” moving forward. Um, he is a lobbyist. Making phone calls and promises is what he is paid to do.
- To answer Mr. Neiderman’s question, there are no solid commitments (from either Greenpoint Landing or 77 Commercial Street).
- The height for the market rate buildings will be (and I quote) “30-40 stories”.
- The motion is carried with 29 votes for, 8 votes against and no abstentions.
In news of not the terribly surprising variety, the Community Board (at least the majority of the 37-ish members* who elected to show up) voted in favor of the Land Use Committee’s recommendations. This is not to suggest no one had anything to say. Estaban Duran certainly did. In fact, I’d go so far as to say he asked the question which was on the minds of a fair number of citizens in the room:
Why aren’t we rejecting it outright?
Ms. Teague’s answer was as follows:
I believe if we reject them outright the city will give them what they want.
Conclusion: As is usually the case, much was made about affordable housing. Let’s put it this way, gentle readers: the reason I film this stuff is 1, 2, 5, 10 years down the line folks can go back and watch it. Speaking for myself, I will be very, very interested to see who ends up administering said affordable housing. Especially that at 77 Commercial Street.
If I was a betting woman (and I am not) I’d place my money on Peoples’ Firehouse. As some of you might recall, they were among the neighborhood organizations of whom Ms. Teague mentions as attesting to the need for affordable housing (at the prior Land Use meeting, which can be viewed here). I suppose it is sad that I harbor this level of cynicism— but history lends my prognostication some credence. A great many of the community organizations here, while certainly founded for laudable reasons, seem use these proceedings not so much to reflect the sentiments/interests/needs of the community they represent. Rather, they are a means of getting a “cut” of the action. Thus time is spent debating how many angels can sit on the head of a pin instead of examining “the larger picture” in any meaningful fashion.
And that’s exactly how they want it.
*As opposed to the twenty who answered roll call at the beginning of the meeting. If my memory serves me correctly, this is a new low. For those of you who are wondering, Community Board 1 has 49 members. Yup, we have a chronic absenteeism problem. Perhaps this should be brought to the attention of the:
- Attendance and/or
- By-laws, Attendance Procedures (Parliamentary), Service Delivery (whatever the hell that is) Committee?
You can always leave it to good ol’ Community Board 1 for a healthy dose of Kafka— with an Orwell chaser.
P.S.: You can view the Oh-Es-Aye minute by clicking here. It would appear the monetization bubble for the McCarren Park Tennis Courts has been tabled until next year.
Greenpoint Real Estate Advertisement Du Jour: Arthur Fonzarelli Special
For those of you who hate to leave your desk to take a crap, this (which I call the Arthur Fonzarelli special, as he considered the men’s bathroom at Al’s to be his “office”— always found that kind of weird) will undoubtedly be of interest. What’s more, it has soaring 13′ high ceilings. Perfect for one to, say, toss in a couple of bunk beds so as to have some cheap digs (or a rather lucrative Airbnb opportunity— the free enterprise potential is endless!). In any case, I do NOT make this stuff up folks…
Quicklinks: New York Daily News & Crains
Filed under: 11222, Gentrification, Greenpoint, Greenpoint Brooklyn, Greenpoint Magic
As exclusively reported by the New York Daily News. Interesting quote/teaser:
“We’ve been working on this for years,” said Councilman Steve Levin (D-Greenpoint), who has been pursuing the park since he took office four years ago. “It’s nice we got this done before the mayor left office.”
…But Levin acknowledged one flaw in the plan: There is no money currently budgeted for construction of the $14 million park. And the city is banking on getting at least $8 million from the sale of air rights to an adjacent parcel at 77 Commercial St., where a 40-story tower would be built if approved by the City Council.
A few things to consider:
1. Perhaps there would have been money available to develop this space had the city not elected to lower the asking price? The original asking price was $12,000,000. However, in defiance of the overall trend hereabouts (skyrocketing property values), the city struck a deal for $8,000,000. Why?
2. 77 Commercial Street was represented at the last ULURP meeting by representative of Greenberg Taurig which, I noted, is a lobbyist. This is rather interesting when one considers the following:
Fascinating, isn’t it?
Closing on a related note, do take a moment to read this article from Crains regarding the onrush of plans being filed by developers so as to get them processed before Bloomturd leaves office. Here’s a teaser:
…Among the independent projects before the department, one of the biggest is Two Trees Management’s plan for the 11-acre Domino Sugar site in Williamsburg, which was already rezoned once, in 2010. The developer has decided to take the old plan, rows of 30- and 40-story towers, and replace it with a wild design of geometric buildings reaching as high as 60 stories, but that would allow more open space and light into the parcel.
The scheme deviates considerably from what Ms. Burden spent years crafting up and down the East River waterfront, and Two Trees is struggling to bring her around to its proposal, according to sources. Two Trees had hoped its 2,200 apartments on the site would have been certified by June—the first step in the six-month review process. Now, with negotiations ongoing, the developer hopes for a September certification. That would still leave enough time for Ms. Burden and the planning commission to approve the project, but it would fall to local Councilman Stephen Levin to shepherd Domino through the City Council next year…
Did I mention that Mr. Levin received a donation from Raymond Levin? This fellow just happens to be an attorney representing Two Trees Management?
Well, I just did.
Connect the dots, folks…
Quicklinks: More Coverage Regarding The Rally
Filed under: 11222, Gentrification, Greenpoint, Greenpoint Brooklyn, Greenpoint Magic
- Bedford + Bowery
- Brooklyn Paper and last, but hardly least…
- GWAPP
Choice excerpt from the latter most:
…So, how can the 40-story towers in Greenpoint be stopped? The only way to reduce the height and density of the 2005 rezoning is rezone the rezoning. But that is a process that would be extremely difficult assuming that you had a sympathetic administration, and would take years of committed community activism to achieve. A “dezoning” would be fighting against billions of dollars of vested development rights and the entrenched interests of labor unions and affordable housing advocates. These are exactly the forces that came together to make the 2005 rezoning happen in the first place (and others–Domino, for instance). Certainly with the right mayor in office, a waterfront zoning redo is not completely out of the question, but even in that perfect-world scenario, it is a huge lift.
But then there is the question of time. In this best-case scenario, going through the environmental reviews and public review process for such an action would take at least two to three years. More likely, it will be a years-long fight to get to that two- to three-year process. Meanwhile, Greenpoint and Williamsburg will continue to develop, and the community will continue to suffer from growing pains (and, while the 40-story towers make nice lightning rods, the bulk of the density impact of development comes on the 150 or so blocks that are not on the waterfront).
Another idea that has been floated is to challenge the 2005 rezoning using Article 78 of the civil code. Article 78 petitions allow people to challenge administrative decisions made by government agencies–in effect to argue that an agency either exceeded its procedural bounds or refused to act when it should have. But Article 78 is not going to stop towers from coming to the Greenpoint waterfront for the simple fact that the statue of limitations for such petitions ran out almost 8 years ago (7 years and 359 days, but who’s counting?). Even if such a challenge could be mounted, it would be expensive ($100,000 or more), and would be at best, a delaying tactic.
As groups and individuals, we (emphasis mine — Ed. Note) worked very hard (and largely in vain) to get the 2005 rezoning right-sized, and worked very hard (and largely in vain) to get the even-bigger 2010 Domino rezoning right-sized. Those experiences–and many others–have taught us a lot about the land-use process, and why we take a pragmatic (emphasis mine — Ed. Note) approach to the idea of undoing the 2005 zoning…
New York Shitty Analysis:
- Exactly who/what constitutes “we”?
- Exactly what constitutes “pragmatic”? I really want to know…
The Word On The Street, Part II: Graham Avenue
Filed under: 11222, Greenpoint, Greenpoint Brooklyn, Greenpoint Magic, The Word On The Street
Taken September 5, 2013.
New York Shitty Street Art Du Jour: Urban Jungle
Filed under: 11211, 11222, Greenpoint, Greenpoint Brooklyn, Greenpoint Magic, Street Art, Williamsburg, Williamsburg Brooklyn
Taken September 5, 2013.
From The New York Shitty Inbox, Part II: We’re #2!
Filed under: 11211, 11222, Greenpoint, Greenpoint Brooklyn, Greenpoint Magic, Williamsburg, Williamsburg Brooklyn
This comes courtesy of my comrade over at Queens Crap. To whom I replied:
Do they mean the streets or Community Board 1?
To wit he replied:
Probably both.
Teaser quote from the New York Daily News (which you can and should continue reading here…)
They got caught looking grimy on a modern-day “Candid Camera” — and now Greenpointers are seeking an old-fashioned approach to repairing their soiled reputation.
Days after the neighborhood was ranked dead last for “class” in a survey partly based on Google Street View images of filth, Greenpoint businesses started lining up to make a simple pledge to clean their storefronts daily and maintain street trees…
New York Shitty analysis:
1. Instead of making Greenpoint “look” safer perhaps it should simply be made safer?
2. If Greenpoint and Williamsburg are, in fact, among the dirtiest neighborhoods in the city, exactly what does this say about our elected officials? I mean, haven’t they kind of allowed this to happen?
3. Why are we asking folks to pledge to do what they should be doing already?
4. This is a shit show. Plain and simple.
Greenpoint Photos & Videos Du Jour: Live From The Rally At Barge Park
Filed under: 11222, Gentrification, Greenpoint, Greenpoint Brooklyn, Greenpoint Magic
This handsome fellow was one of the many citizens who attended this evening’s convocation.
Not only am I pleased to announce that the turn out was great, but the community feedback was even better (and totally Greenpoint— which is not, as one attendee noted, “Midtown”). Without further ado, here we go!
Part I: Introduction
- Starting at 6:36: This. MAN. RULES.
Part II
Part III
- Piquant observation regarding the G train (present and future): “This is not Sim City.”
Part IV
Part V (The Conclusion)
Those of you who wish to join the effort, should point and click your way to Save Greenpoint’s web site and sign up for their mailing list. In closing, I want to thank everyone who came out this evening— even those who did not speak out. Especially Adam Perlmutter, Esquire.
You see gentle readers, not only was he the “community advocate” who fought the TGE power plant…
but he also happened to be under the hire of George Klein (the fellow behind Greenpoint Landing) to state his case for the 2005 Rezone. The latter is, when you really think about it, why this rally was conducted in the first place.
(From the April 29, 2005 edition of the New York Daily News)
This one’s for you!
And Now A Word From Our Assemblyman…
Filed under: 11211, 11222, Greenpoint, Greenpoint Brooklyn, Greenpoint Magic, Williamsburg, Williamsburg Brooklyn
Every evening the Mister checks the mail. And every evening he faithfully presents the latest campaign “material”— with commentary— for my delectation. I will refrain from publishing what he had to say about this one. No worries, I have plenty to say…
- On the subject of “safer” streets: the last I checked a LOT of people— including not one, but TWO Transportation Chairs of Community Board 1— were quite vocal and pro-active about the manifold number of pedestrian/bicyclist safety and traffic woes hereabouts. Methinks both preceded Mr. Levin’s tenure as our City Councilman. While it is laudible that he helped push the matter, the fact of the matter is what has been accomplished thus far (there’s still a long way to go) is not, by any means, exclusively his handiwork. Plain and simple. Step back, Steve.
- While I am on the subject of safer streets, Levin fails to note that it was under his watch that crime has increased in the 94th Precinct. Specifically, Greenpoint— his “home”. I attended the Community Council meetings. The idea of bringing back “block watchers” and “neighborhood watch groups” was presented by concerned citizens. Nonetheless, our City Councilman saw fit to do nothing until the problem got too much publicity to ignore. And even then meeting he conducted with Mr. Lentol conflicted with a Land Use Committee meeting regarding Greenpoint Landing and 77 Commercial Street. Hmm.
- “Fairer Budget”: the concept of participatory budgeting is a good one. The way it is implemented, however, is not. Since (for all intents and purposes) all the outreach is done online, less affluent/tech-savvy citizens and communities are precluded from the process.
- Greener Brooklyn: the repaved pathways and benches at McCarren are nice— but what about essentials like trash cans, port-o-lets and, yes, toilet seats? These may not be the stuff of excitement (or campaign mailers), but they are necessary. As for WNYC Transmitter Park: this has been on the table (so to speak) for decades. I know this because awesome ladies like Irene Klementowicz fought long and hard for it to happen. This is not Mr. Levin’s achievement by a long shot. Above all, calling a walkway, benches and one new park a “win” for his north Brooklyn constituency is laughable. Really.
- Stronger education: while I find his rhetoric (especially as it pertains to charter schools) compelling, I have to wonder whose work he is taking credit for on this one?
In closing I have to say I am disappointed in Mr. Lentol for endorsing Steve Levin. Then again, I was also disappointed when I read this from the New York Times a couple months ago…
Assemblyman Joseph R. Lentol, Democrat of Brooklyn, sponsored a bill to retroactively extend tax breaks to developers who had converted old factories into luxury lofts. That bill passed the State Senate. Alas, it foundered in the Assembly. And that, he noted, broke the hearts of a few developers.
“Was this proposed tax break for these properties a good thing or not? I can’t say,” Mr. Lentol said. “I don’t have enough knowledge to say it’s a good thing or bad thing.”
And if legislators don’t ask, why should anyone else?
That is an excellent question.
Why should we ask about luxury loft conversions of old factories? I have. Over and over. Mr. Levin attempted to assuage yours truly regarding 239 Banker Street some time ago:
Heather,
I have noticed your posts and am glad you continue to bring light to the issue of lofts in Greenpoint and Williamsburg. The Loft Law was designed to protect residential tenants who, knowingly or unknowingly, moved into manufacturing or commercial spaces and it may grant rights for tenants to save and stabilize their housing and avoid the excessive costs associated with being vacated. With regard to 239 Banker Street, I cannot say whether they will be covered by the Loft Law. (As the law stands presently, no. — Ed. Note) However, when the building was vacated in 2009, many tenants suddenly lost their living spaces as well as thousands of dollars in rent and security deposits. I do not want to see a repeat of that event. I will work to ensure that all building code issues at 239 Banker are addressed, but I hope to avoid seeing another vacate order if possible. All I can do is try to spread the word about the Loft Law…
…so that tenants in such spaces can apply for coverage that they may be legally entitled to. Of course, the Loft Board will make final determinations about each application individually.
When queried about the rather notorious property that is the former “Sweater Factory Lofts” last November by the New York Times, Mr. Levin had nothing to say. In the meantime the owner(s) of this illegal loft conversion are getting $2,700 – $3,400 month in rent— and, no, the living conditions are not so hot the last I heard…
The former “tenant” of this “room” (which I can assure you is QUITE illegal) paid $925.00 a month. Loft law application FAIL.
NYS Flickr Pool
You must be logged in to post a comment.