So Duane Reade has come to Bedford Avenue and everyone is up in arms. Supporters like Shari Lind (if she exists) think that we need more Duane Reades, Dunkin' Donuts and other chain stores, all in the name of convenience. Opponents like Tracy Kinney think Williamsburgers should shop locally, fight the greed and enjoy the music.

Personally, I like local shops and will probably do most of my shopping at Kings (which, by the way is also a Manhattan transplant) or Northside Pharmacy (the only true local). I won't be "boycotting" Duane Reade, and I do hope the competition forces Kings to lower some of their more outrageous pricing.

But in terms of convenience and economy, is anyone else more bothered by the fact that we now have three large chain drug stores but still no supermarkets in Williamsburg? (Sorry, Tops doesn't rise to the level of super.) Our fresh food needs are served by chain pharmacies, local bodegas and the overpriced chain of Khim's Millenium stores (new location opening at South 2nd and Bedford!!). For a neighborhood that supports a bustling farmers' market and at least three CSAs, this is insane. No wonder so many people schlep bags of groceries on the L train.

Don't expect a real food market anytime soon - there really isn't any place to put one. The Domino project is the only development site with the square footage for a proper (in industry terms) supermarket, but that won't be completed until 2013 at the earliest (and will still be a car ride away for most neighborhood residents). This wouldn't be the end of the world if there were local food shops to fill in the void - green grocers, butchers, bakers and the like. But the two local butchers have sold out to the lure of rising rents, and most of the new alternatives (as good as they are) are unaffordable to many long-time neighborhood residents.

The Wall Street Journal reports that Two Trees Management is looking for federal tax-exempt financing for its hotel project at 80 Wythe Avenue.

Two Trees, the DUMBO-based development firm, bought the former Weidmann Cooperage a few years ago, and has planned a hotel there all along. The subsidies are controversial because the site is zoned for manufacturing use. While hotel use is allowed in a manufacturing zone, city support for the subsidy would run counter to the city's prior commitments to maintaining manufacturing uses in the Bushwick Inlet area. The other project that is competing for the subsidy is a film-production studio on Kingsland Avenue in Greenpoint (a manufacturing use in a manufacturing zone).

Industrial retention advocates have questioned the project for its impact on the surrounding Industrial Business Zone and for the quality of the jobs that the hotel would create. City Comptroller John Liu has also raised questions about the validity of Two Trees' claims with respect to the number of jobs the project would produce.

'I have not received any request for funding ... nor have I made any commitment to this organization.' [Markowitz] wrote in a letter this month to Housing Preservation and Development officials.
'Your development staff should be familiar with my past ... appropriations to realize that the sums being requested exceed the funds I have provided to individual housing projects during my tenure.'

This confirms what I have been hearing for some time now: that TNS probably does not - and will not - have the funding to do the project.

I've said before that the courts - not the land-use process - are the proper place to decide the issues of who got what and who got left out - the process issues. But the plaintiffs suit with regard to the land-use issues is foolish.

the lawsuit wagers that the preliminary planning meetings were exclusive, and that the overall structure of the affordable housing complexes—low-density with a disproportionate number of multiple-room dwellings—are designed specifically for Hasidic families, and neglect the needs of black and Hispanic area residents.

"Low-density" in this case means the same density as every other rezoning that has happened over the past decade in North Brooklyn (OK, with one exception), and roughly the same density as all of the high-rise projects nearby (the tower in the park configuration of these projects yields a surprisingly low density). And the zoning - the R6s and R7s - does not dictate unit size. That is decided by the developers (which goes back to the issues that should be decided in court).

And for all the attention on Ridgewood Bushwick and UJO, it's worth remembering that the vast majority of the Triangle is privately owned. If history is any guide, those sites will not be built with affordable housing, but they will be built to the maximum building envelope allowed under zoning. And to whatever price and configuration the market will bear.

Outside magazine, on the waterfront:

The next three hours constituted the single most thrilling ride I've ever had in New York—no small boast in the land of the runaway cab. Anthony raced us past the sunbathers on Manhattan Beach. He brought us within yards of the Statue of Liberty's sandals. We saw the city from new and exciting angles: under the Brooklyn Bridge; in the shadow of a hulking cruise ship docked in Red Hook while crews scrubbed the balconies; bobbing next to the buildings of Wall Street... Back at the Brooklyn waterfront, we topped out at 50 miles per hour — a terrifically uncomfortable speed...

Vroom, vroom.

Currently, the City Charter has a provision that is intended to take into account the impact of Sanitation garages, sewage treatment plants, and the like on a community. The provision is intended to encourage a more equitable distribution of city facilities across community districts. But the current Charter provisions only require that the City take into account facilities on City-owned sites, leaving out the environmental and social impacts happening on privately-owned land. The proposed Charter revision would take into account all "state, federal and private facilities that handle solid waste and transportation in the city facilities map".

This is a big step forward. It certainly is not a perfect fix - the fair-share provisions only require review, not an actual fair-share distribution (witness the City's recent approval of expanded Sanitation facilities in CD1), and the new provisions don't take into account all impacts on privately-owned land - but as Gotham Gazette says, it is a good first step.

The Department of City Planning has released its draft comprehensive waterfront plan (aka Vision 2020), and it has a lot for North Brooklyn to get excited about (and quite a few things that reiterate past promises).

The plan identifies a number of areas for new waterfront access, including the Williamsburg Bridge Park site just south of Domino, which is currently occupied by two city agencies that are not providing waterfront-dependent services ("explore potential for open space under bridge dependent on finding relocation sites for current DOT and DCAS facilities"). The reuse of this site was first proposed a few years ago by then-Councilmember David Yassky, and it got some added traction during the Domino rezoning. (The Domino rezoning will result in a reduction of access to open space on a per capita basis; the creation of a large waterfront park right next door would reverse that.) Since the Domino rezoning, NAG and other local groups have been looking into how to jumpstart the conversion of this site into public park space.

The City's waterfront plan also calls for an expansion of public access (visual and physical) to the Navy Yard's waterfront, and for public waterfront access at the former BRT (Con Ed) power plant site at Division and Kent. Even more interesting is that the plan calls for this site to be industrial or commercial ("explore options for redevelopment for industrial and/ or commercial uses with opportunities for public access if appropriate"), rather than residential. Meaning that the site is envisioned more as an extension to the Navy Yard than as an extension to the South Williamsburg residential waterfront north of Division (the Kedem, Schaefer and Certified sites).

The plan also includes new ideas for Newtown Creek, including a boat launch at Manhattan Avenue. (And some old ideas
yet to be followed through on.)

The plan also has some new ideas for Newtown Creek, which largely boils down to public access and residential/commercial uses at the mouth of the creek and continued industrial uses with public access (like the NCWWTP nature walk) further upstream. The plan calls for residential and commercial development of the Long Island City waterfront (with public access to the creek), opposite Manhattan Avenue, as well as improvements to public access and a boat launch at the Manhattan Avenue street-end. (The boat launch could be referring to the proposed Greenpoint Boathouse at GMDC's Manhattan Avenue facility - if it isn't, it should be.) There are also rather fuzzy calls for public access of some sort beneath the Greenpoint Avenue and Kosciusko Bridges.

It should be noted that the plan also reiterates a number of past promises that the City has made to Greenpoint and Williamsburg - promises that are nice to see reiterated, but would better appreciated if implemented. These include the development of 65 Commercial Street as a park, the development of the Greenpoint Lumber for residential use, the redevelopment of the India and Java Street piers and the acquisition and build-out of Bushwick Inlet Park. All of these are promises that the City made as part of the 2005 rezoning that remain unfulfilled (the India/Java Piers have recently taken on a controversy of their own).

In all, though, there are a lot of new and very positive ideas being put forth in the City's plan. The plan, which is part of a decennial review of the waterfront that City Planning is required to undertake, will be reviewed at a public hearing on October 12, after which it will be issued as official City policy.

via Brownstoner

So at this point, unless they can't negotiate the final agreement with HPD or don't have the funding to do the project, TNS-GAC will be the developer,/p>]]> http://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/33/39/wb_greenpointhospital_2010_09_24_bk.html http://www.brooklyn11211.com/11211side/2010/09/TNS-still-in-it Wed, 22 Sep 2010 10:57:05 -0500
11 Broadway (the latest model)
Photo: GreenbergFarrow via Crain's

Talk about out of context.

In the course of an article on L+M's new proposal for 11 Broadway, the Brooklyn Paper manages to drag up a three-year-old quote of mine on a completely different development proposal for the site, making it sound like I am trashing this proposal:

The residential building will likely have stunning views of the Williamsburg Bridge and the lower Manhattan skyline, but Community Board 1 member Ward Dennis believes that much of the building’s views to the north and west will be cut off by the 34-story towers of the Domino development.

“What you’d see from this [building] is the East River and Corlear’s Hook — the part of Manhattan just south of the Williamsburg Bridge that is loaded with public and union housing projects,” said Dennis on his blog, Brooklyn11211. “Not exactly million-dollar views.”

Of course that quote was in reference to a completely different project - a 200-room luxury "waterfront" hotel, that some were saying would have killer views of the city. Given its geography, I was a bit skeptical of this claim. Three years on, the Brooklyn Paper strips it of context, and makes it sound like I have a problem with the new proposal.

L+M's project sounds very interesting. It will certainly set a new standard for affordable housing in the neighborhood - it will have 20% lower-income housing (less than 80% AMI) and 60% middle-income (125% AMI?), with only 20% of the units at market rate (this is what the affordable housing groups should have been fighting for at projects like Domino). The Broadway building will be 15 stories tall, a consequence of the fact that the blocks alongside the Williamsburg Bridge were never included any contextual rezonings. The architects for the project are Greenberg Farrow, the same people who brought you 80 Metropolitan and North 8 condos (and for full disclosure, a firm that I do work with professionally).

Is 15 stories out of context? On Broadway, adjacent to the bridge and fronting the water across Kent, I'd argue that it is more appropriate than the 17-story block Domino will put just off Wythe Avenue. The latter high-rise sits adjacent to a neighborhood of three-story row houses, and will form the backdrop for a row of three-story houses on Wythe Avenue. Height has its place, just not everyplace.

For the record, the only thing I have written about the new L+M proposal for 11 Broadway is this post, passing on the original Crain's article on the project.

Joe Lentol, 50th Assembly District
Lincoln Restler, 50th AD Male District Leader ("strongly" endorsed)
Kate Zidar, 50th AD Female District Leader
Esteban Duran, 53rd AD Male District Leader

The Daily News has a good, comprehensive summary of who running for what at the Brooklyn level.

Primary day is this Tuesday, September 14.

VOTE!

Photographer Harlan Erskine has posted some beautiful photos of the Domino Sugar site that he took for the recent L Magazine article, Williamsburg's Last Domino (a good read itself). My favorite is above, but there are plenty more at Erskine's site.

It will be interesting to see where this leads. (And I guess that "line of communication" that HPD promised to open with community is still a little backed up.)

[Greenline is published by St. Nicks Alliance, which is a partner in GREC, the local development group fighting for reconsideration of the RFP.]

via The Real Deal

GREC was particularly upset about getting passed over in the designation process, and for good reason - they had been advocating for development on the site for over 25 years, had already developed 45 units of affordable housing elsewhere on the hospital site, and had the support of Community Board 1. To top it off, TNS's winning bid was remarkably similar to what GREC had proposed.

The suspension of the development process came after GREC had a joint meeting in July with HPD Commissioner Rafael Cestero, the Mayor's office, BP Marty Markowitz and Councilmember Diana Reyna. In suspending the development, HPD has agreed to reconsider GREC's proposal and to "develop a line of communication with the community" (a promise that HPD has made many times before).

Curbed has photos of the now completed (and now for rent) 349 Metropolitan Avenue (a 11211 favorite over the years). The recladded exterior of the building is a huge improvement, though the building overall is still a mess. But the interior courtyard at least has something worth looking at - a mural by artist R. Nicholas Kuszyk

Curbed also has a bit of revisionist history when it comes to the original facade. The Jerusalem stone was not "defiled" by vandals. It fell off. Whether it was installed improperly or was just not meant for these climes, the installation looked like shit from day one and was failing by day two. It was too long after that the project (under the original development team) went down the path to foreclosure and classic condo blight.

This raises two important questions (other than why is "The Bedford" between Driggs and Roebling?):

1. Where exactly is this new supermarket that is not a Khim's Millennium?

and

2. Why is Broulim's, an Idaho-based grocery chain, making Brooklyn the location of their first store outside the Mountain time zone? (I see they have a store in Driggs, Idaho - are they making that a theme?)

Still, by this time next year, there should be ferry landings at Schaefer Landing, the Edge, India Street and possibly one other mystery location. That means more riders, which is good news for the viability of the East River ferry service. But until fares come down and there is a free transfer between ferry service and the buses and subways, this will not have anything more than the slightest impact on L train ridership.

Last month, the City's Economic Development Corporation issued an RFP for the redevelopment of the Java Street pier. This is the only City-owned pier on the North Brooklyn waterfront (it's actually a pier in concept only - the actual pier structure was demolished in 2000). EDC's current call for proposals seeks to carry out that mission, by transferring ownership of the .

EDC's RFP says that the agency

aims to identify and select a qualified and experienced developer that has the financial capacity to construct improvements on the Site, including a new pier structure that will allow for vessel moorage and provide local residents with safe and enjoyable access to the East River waterfront.

Public access to the waterfront is sorely lacking in Greenpoint*, so any progress on this front is a big step forward. But according to Councilman Steve Levin's office, this may all be part of a deal between EDC and the developer of an adjacent waterfront site, Stiles Properties. According to Levin, Stiles and EDC have already applied to the Army Corps of Engineers to start the construction of the pier.

So what's in it for Stiles? Three words - FAR. Even though this property is in the middle of the East River, it is still a "parcel of land", and it comes complete with development rights, zoning restrictions, etc. Stiles owns the adjacent property between Java and India Streets, west of West Street. With its R8 zoning, the ±18,000 square feet of (underwater) land would generate up to 40,000 square feet of additional development rights by Levin's calculations. Those development can only be transferred to adjacent properties (like the one which is owned by Stiles Properties).

Is this a bad thing? That's not entirely clear. Greenpoint needs access to the waterfront, and an innovative public/private partnership may be what is needed to kickstart a very moribund development environment on the Greenpoint waterfront. Certainly the City isn't in a position to build out the pier and provide the public amenity. So this may be the best way for the City to follow through on its promises from six years ago, and for the Greenppoint community to start to reclaim its waterfront.

But as an adjacent property owner, Stiles is in a unique position to capitalize on the development rights here (as is the owner of the block to the south, who - by the way - claims that he owns part of the site that the City is trying to transfer). Stiles presented plans for a Java Street pier to Community Board 1 almost a year ago. The fact that Stiles has already applied to construct a pier on Java Street indicates that they have some expectation of winning the RFP. The RFP itself is very aggressive in its timeline - it has a one-month turnaround (sorry - the deadline already passed), and requires that applicants demonstrate that they are "prepared to commence construction within six (6) months of closing and complete construction within eighteen (18) months of commencement". And with the work their architects (Pelli Clark Pelli) have been doing over the past couple of years, Stiles has a clear advantage in the requirement to submit architectural plans on short notice.

The transfer of the air rights is - presumably - as of right. Assuming that the additional floor area can be squeezed into the height restrictions of the existing zoning envelope, the floor area can be moved from underwater onto land through a zoning lot merger. No special permits or other discretionary actions that would trigger public review are required (although it may be subject to some review for disposition of City-owned property). (Stiles has a separate proposal to generate floor area by acquiring India and Java Streets themselves - that would be subject to additional public review. It's not clear if that is still on the table, or if this pier acquisition makes it moot.)

The RFP raises other questions. It says that the use of site must "serve a public purpose", but what are the requirements for public access? Would it be transferred to City Parks as other waterfront esplanades and piers are required to be? Would it be open to the public at all hours, or would it be treated differently? Will the additional floor are generated come with a requirement to build 20% affordable housing, or is it all market rate?

In the end, a lot of the concern is about transparency. Greenpointers were upset when the Palin development on the block to the north (India/Huron) went up to 40 stories by moving existing bulk within the same property (no additional FAR was generated in that move). But that was done with a public review. This proposal would increase the as-of-right development by 6% or more - from 660,000 sf to approximately 700,000 sf, all without public input on the design and use of City-owned property or any public review at all.

****
* No private developments have broken ground in Greenpoint, so the waterfront esplanades that you see going in at Northside Piers and the Edge are far off in Greenpoint's future. The City recently broke ground at Transmitter Park (expected to be completed for Summer, 2012), and has constructed a small park at the head of Manhattan Avenue. Larger open-space projects in Greenpoint are on hold - 65 Commercial Street is stuck in MTA limbo, Barge Park is awaiting the demolition of the Sludge Tank and Bushwick Inlet Park is waiting on the City to take action to acquire a series of (environmentally suspect) private sites.

Titus Andronicus, Bad Credit, No Credit and Bottle Up & Go are doing a benefit concert for NAG this Wednesday at Glasslands. Tickets are only $15, and there are still a (very) few left. Get 'em while you can.

[It sure sounds as though I am hiding behind "what other people think", but that was the question the reporter put to me. It's always strange to see 15 minutes of conversation boiled down to one quote.]