Downtown Brooklyn Development

[antinimby]

pianoman, I'm surprised at you but BrooklynLove, I'm not. Don't sell Brooklyn short.

This isn't the 1970's where people are abandoning the city, I doubt a site in Downtown with one of the higher FAR's in all of Brooklyn with very little in terms of zoning restrictions are going to lay fallow for too long.

If this pathetic developer can't build something nice, I sure another will come along that can. Ugly is permanent, a vacant lot is not.

[Xemu]

Ugly is permanent, a vacant lot is not.
I really think this is the wrong attitude. BrooklynLove is absolutely right here. Keep Downtown Brooklyn building.

[antinimby]

LOL. I'm the one with the wrong attitude? I think it's the other way around.

No one including me, is saying to stop building. You guys have it all wrong.

You seem to think that if we even demand even a little more style and attractiveness in the buildings, somehow the building boom will come to an end. Please.

This is Brooklyn New York. In case you don't know, there isn't an inexhaustible amount of developable land left in the city and certainly not a stone's throw and a short subway ride away from Manhattan, so the fear that developers and buyers are somehow going to abandon and ignore Brooklyn--regardless of whatever credit crisis we may have--is absolutely ludicrous.

You people are like an insecure but pretty girl (or guy if you're going to be PC) that will go with the first person that comes along regardless of how gross he/she may be simply because you don't think there will be anything better for you. That IS the wrong attitude.

Unfortunately, most people (at least the vocal NIMBY ones) have similar mindset as you people. I also noticed that no one in that Brownstoner report or the commenters in the blog even talked about the looks of the thing. Most are only concerned about the affordability and so on. It's no wonder this city is only getting more ugly.

By the way, aren't we glad they didn't build that "bird's cage" FT in their haste to get something built at GZ? I'd rather go a few more years with nothing than to live with something inferior forever.

[antinimby]

By the way, why wait to build up all the rest of the vacant lots in the city when we should just give them all to Sam Chang and have him commission Gene Kaufman and/or O'Hara to build them all.

Looks don't mean a darn thing, we just need to keep building in the city because we know that if it stops, this city will become undesirable to build and live in, right?

[BrooklynLove]

i don't think that i'm selling brooklyn short. i'm trying to be realistic. every building can't be a masterpiece when you're transforming an area. you need to look at the overall trend, not each individual step. i think that we'll be able to look back at the overall development of downtown bklyn when we get to 2015 and agree that the trend has moved consistently upward since 2000. it takes some mediocre buildings along the way before great ones can be feasible.

[antinimby]

You brought up the word "masterpiece" not me. I did not nor do I expect every building, like you said, to be gorgeous. I do however, would like to see every building at least not be hideous. Of course, what's hideous to me might not and apparently it isn't, to you.

You talk about transforming the area and the the problem with your thinking is that you seem to think that this area is untransformable if we get a little picky with how something looks. As if this area is worthless and that we have to beg developers to come in and build otherwise they will not.

Deny all you want but that is the exact definition of selling yourself short.

[BrooklynLove]

of the new (as in courthouse and marriott vintage moving forward) construction to date downtown (completed or substantially completed), which are your favs, which are your least favs?

[investordude]

Umm, I think its intriguing to me you would consider west 42nd street unsuccessful. I think it seems to be doing fine, and has an increasingly nice mix of glass and brick architecture. For example, the Orion is decent, but no one would have built it without the market rate apartments that helped germinate a neighborhood. This is how development works - you build solid housing that attracts people wanting good housing with cheaper rents, they build up the neighborhood and improve retail services, and then you start seeing nicer buildings roll in. For another example, look at Jersey City. We started with the institutional Newport complex, but now they are building nicer architecture.

What you don't do - unless you're a liberal moron who thinks government bossing people around is the solution to every problem - is block market rate development to preserve a parking lot. I think a bonus feature of the O'Hara building is the fact that there are relatively few affordable housing units in a place with way too much of that stuff. We need market rate tenants in Brooklyn and we need them now.

Go Brooklyn Go!

[antinimby]

Oh lookie here at who has just came out of the woodwork to come in defense of the freemarket (surprise, surprise). :D\

How are you investordude? Haven't seen you here in awhile.

I think the examples you brought up couldn't be more different and here's why. First, W. 42 St. Your argument that those ugly brown towers were necessary for what is to come and that is completely erroneous. A couple of those atrocious brown towers are part of the Manhattan Plaza complex and were erected back in the 70's, I believe.

Between that time and the relatively recent new developments around the late 90's and early 2000's, the area was just as forlorn as it would have been without it frankly. In other words in did nothing significant to change the area. What DID change the area was the construction boom of the previous decade and the clean up of Times Square and the city as a whole under the Giuliani administration.

Furthermore, those towers (including the Newport thingy in JC you brought up) as ugly as they may be were built in a different era. They can be excused. We're living in 2008. Yes that is 2008. There should be NO excuse, absolutely none, to build stuff that looks like what's on the previous page that I showed.

of the new (as in courthouse and marriott vintage moving forward) construction to date downtown (completed or substantially completed), which are your favs, which are your least favs?I like the original Marriott. I am even starting to warm up to the new annex/addition. I hate pretty much all of the Metrotech towers. In fact, they illustrate my point very well.

If they were to be built again, now, I'm sure they would have done it differently but guess what, you can't. Now we're stuck with them for a long, long time. I believe even the head of the Downtown Brooklyn Partnership even said the same thing.

Oh and yes, Go Brooklyn Go! I am a Brooklynite too, you know.

[BrooklynRider]

^ A feisty Brooklynite tonight!

I happen to agree with your arguments.

[investordude]

I was volunteering for one of the presidential campaigns in New Hampshire so didn't have time to post. It was a democrat by the way, but I'm coy on who I volunteered for - you'll have to guess.

[ASchwarz]

An urbanity-destroying surface parking lot is NEVER better than an occupied building, no matter how ugly.

Buildings can be redeveloped too. If a building is so ugly it hurts its marketability, it will be reclad or otherwise redeveloped.

[sfenn1117]

Agreed, but an attractive building shouldn't be too much to ask for. Ahem Avalon bay. I recently saw their new 40 story building in New Rochelle and a carbon copy is headed for Brooklyn. It's not pretty.

[BrooklynLove]

i adore the federal courthouse. and, i know that i'm going to take heat for this here, but i dig the oro building as well. i'm also liking 200 livingston.

getting unreasonably restrictive is going to drive away developers b/c there are fungible alternatives right now - LIC for example. by no means am i saying vet nothing, but being overly restrictive in this area at this stage of development would be selling brooklyn short b/c it would unnecessarily stunt the continued progression of development in the area. make things too difficult for developers and they'll just sit on a lot for 10 years, build a building somewhere else, and then sell the lot at an appreciated value. developer wins, community loses.

[kyle]

I don't know if LIC is a good example of an alternative area to develop for the size of buildings you guys are talking about.

LIC seems to be very anti-height, except along the water. They killed the Powerhouse revamping and now we have this fugly little box of a building which no one is happy about. They can't cut prices fast enough on that place, although IMHO, it was priced way too high to begin with.

[BrooklynLove]

plenty of tall buildings coming to the vicinity of queens plaza ...

[BrooklynRider]

i adore the federal courthouse. and, i know that i'm going to take heat for this here, but i dig the oro building as well. i'm also liking 200 livingston...

I agree with you on those. I'd even add the Brooklyn Law School dorms and the Courthouse residential.

On the other hand, there's not a single attractive structure in Metrotech, although the Marriott Annex tried harder than the rest.

The fact that we haven't had a "wow!" building go up - ANYWHERE - is very troubling.

[BrooklynLove]

i think that there are several WOWs in the hopper. bk flatiron and 150 myrtle seem promising. albe tower looks like a possible winner. and the brooklyn tech tower could be great, if it ever happens.

[BrooklynLove]

...the brooklyn tech tower could be great, if it ever happens.

meant to say ny tech

[ASchwarz]

killed the Powerhouse revamping and now we have this fugly little box of a building which no one is happy about.

Nobody killed the Powerhouse revamping. The current development is only Phase I.

Phase II will have the tower.

[kyle]

No, that's it for height for the Powerhouse. There will be two more buildings and they're *about* the same height as the condo. They're going to be rental buildings.

The tower proposal was denied twice I believe.

[ASchwarz]

No, that's it for height for the Powerhouse. There will be two more buildings and they're *about* the same height as the condo. They're going to be rental buildings.

The tower proposal was denied twice I believe.

The tower is "as of right". What do you mean by denied?

Are you referring to DOB applications? Almost all projects get multiple rejected DOB applications. It would actually be newsworthy if a project doesn't get a bunch of rejections, since practically any ambiguity in the application will cause a reject.

[antinimby]

Okay, all you developer-worshippers. Show me one (just one) Downtown Brooklyn tower (commercial, hotel, condo, what have you) that can outclass or outshine this one they're gettin' in...hold on to your hats boys and girls...Astana (yes, that's right) Kazakhstan:

http://www.ramsa.com/files/project_images/A07019%204.jpg

You (well, I should say 'we' because I've already said I'm from here) are getting third rate architecture that even Third World Cities have long abandoned and all you silly people could do is jump for joy that you're getting something, anything.

So pathetic (and sad really).

[investordude]

The moral of the story - if you let developers alone they bring the best product to the market. I suspect the Khazakstan building would be destroyed by wackos like Letitia James if they ever tried to build it - especially if it is taller than Williamsburg Savings Bank.

On top of that, its capitalism. Construction costs in Khazakstan are low because labor is cheap, and the people living in that building are probably rich oligarchs making big money off the global commodities boom, especially in oil. Again, the developers build the right product in Khazakstan if given permission (though I'm sure there is a corrupt zoning process there as well).

Bottom line - developers and capitalism are good, government and intervention are bad.

[lofter1]

Or ...

Oligarchs and Big Buildings are Good.

Poor People and Affordable Housing are Bad.

[antinimby]

Let's not get into all that rhetoric and excuses, some of which is true (too much government intervention is not good, Letticia James, etc.) and some of which is not (cheap labor, leaving the developers alone).

In the end, they're just all excuses because in the O'Hara or the Avalon Fort Greene projects for example, no one is stopping the developer from hiring a better architect or the dozens upon dozens of other projects that no one raised any objections to but yet we still got CRAP anyway.

In this city, we see that cheap labor (McSams) don't equate to better quality buildings either. At the same time, the argument can be made that expensive labor can be absorbed by the higher returns the developer gets. 15 Central Park West is a good example of that.

The fact is that a very large majority of the new buildings going up in this city (with some rare exceptions) are pretty much inferior to many other cities, many of which are in the poorer Third World countries.

You think someone from Manila or Djakarta or Istanbul or Buenos Aires are going to be impressed by what we have in Brooklyn? Most of their new projects blow away ours and it's not because theirs is all that great, it's just that ours suck so bad.

The sad part is that the city is getting scarred by all this new ugliness so that the developers can get richer at our expense and no one even realizes it. How dumb are we?

20 or 30 years from now, people will look back at how poorly we allowed our most prized and the pride and joy section of our borough, to get marred by all these poorly designed and unattractive buildings, all for a quick buck.

[BrooklynLove]

antinimby - i don't understand your extreme negative take on this wave of development in downtown brooklyn, especially if you're from the boro. for goodness sake, 15 years ago you couldn't set foot in the tillary mcdonalds parking lot when the sun was down w/o running a greater than 50% chance of getting a gun put on you (no exaggeration) and now developers want to put lux buildings up here. how you can demand unrealisitc perfection at the expense of progress at this stage is something i can't understand. maybe you're just more of a patient visionary than i.

anyway, i love your passion for brooklyn.

[antinimby]

BrooklynLove, it's getting frustrating discussing this with you. You keep on bringing the discussion back in a circle. I have already said (and others like sfenn have also reiterated) that we are not asking for "unrealistic perfection." We only want them to be decent.

That Avalon monstrosity would be acceptable if this was still the 1980's or that piece of O'Hara brick junk or that revolting Kaufman Duffield St. hotel going up right now. They're not decent, they're not just bad, they're really bad.

And for the last time, this isn't 15 years ago. We are in a different time. People want to come to live in the city, not the other way around. Just because something is an improvement doesn't mean it's necessarily all that good. Smoking is better than doing cocaine but that doesn't make it all right either. A murderer improves himself to now just doing robberies. That's an improvement, too.

Lastly, it's obvious you just don't get it. We could go on for another five pages worth of back and forth posts and you still say, "you are being unrealistic because it's still an improvement over the abandoned vacant lots..."

[pianoman11686]

pianoman, I'm surprised at you

Really? You know I'm one of the most pro-development people on this forum. And I've outlined multiple times why I feel government regulation of architecture is a bad idea, through and through.

Actually, I'm surprised at you (for some of the things you write below).

This isn't the 1970's where people are abandoning the city, I doubt a site in Downtown with one of the higher FAR's in all of Brooklyn with very little in terms of zoning restrictions are going to lay fallow for too long.

If this pathetic developer can't build something nice, I sure another will come along that can. Ugly is permanent, a vacant lot is not.

There are far too many issues associated with letting a lot stay vacant for years longer than it has to for me to ever say: "Don't build yet. Keep the lot vacant." Bottom line: vacant lots are one of the most destabilizing forces in urban settings. Because of that, they also discourage adjacent development.

Okay, all you developer-worshippers. Show me one (just one) Downtown Brooklyn tower (commercial, hotel, condo, what have you) that can outclass or outshine this one they're gettin' in...hold on to your hats boys and girls...Astana (yes, that's right) Kazakhstan:

Why are we bringing up inapplicable examples? You're dividing this argument into two areas.

In addition to being awash in petrodollars, and having a centralized government that is very determined to make Astana a world-class capital...just look at the type of project you're comparing: it's a Ritz-Carlton. You put up a Ritz in Brooklyn, and it will probably look very similar. It's been even mentioned on this thread that the Marriott is one of the better recent buildings in the area. If the people at Ritz decided to build a tower, they would not hire O'Hara or Kaufman.

In this city, we see that cheap labor (McSams) don't equate to better quality buildings either. At the same time, the argument can be made that expensive labor can be absorbed by the higher returns the developer gets. 15 Central Park West is a good example of that.

Relatively cheap labor. What McSam's paying is probably still many multiples of what labor costs in Dubai, or Astana. And you said it yourself: certain projects turn out amazing despite the prohibitively high costs. But we can't all be building mini-15 CPWs. Very few people can afford to live there.

The fact is that a very large majority of the new buildings going up in this city (with some rare exceptions) are pretty much inferior to many other cities, many of which are in the poorer Third World countries.

You think someone from Manila or Djakarta or Istanbul or Buenos Aires are going to be impressed by what we have in Brooklyn? Most of their new projects blow away ours and it's not because theirs is all that great, it's just that ours suck so bad.

Really? I think you're being overwhelmed by the likes of SkyscraperCity or other forums. Every city has a few amazing projects, but I guarantee you, the majority of their new developments are crap. Looked at pictures of Hong Kong recently? Their new apartment buildings look even worse than Kaufmans. We are not at all behind others in building quality. All those cities you listed are overwhelmingly ugly, except for a few areas of prime development downtown, or in historic parts.

The sad part is that the city is getting scarred by all this new ugliness so that the developers can get richer at our expense and no one even realizes it. How dumb are we?

20 or 30 years from now, people will look back at how poorly we allowed our most prized and the pride and joy section of our borough, to get marred by all these poorly designed and unattractive buildings, all for a quick buck.

I don't see how we're getting scarred. We're actually going through a very important period, historically, because our housing stock is getting a significant upgrade through new construction. It'd be a travesty if we allowed the housing stock to become increasingly obsolete. What do you think is helping maintain the healthy levels of population growth here, despite the relatively high costs of housing?

You keep saying we can't get anything nice built in Downtown Brooklyn. What about Atlantic Yards? It's the biggest development site in the entire city, and it's being singlehandedly designed by what most people regard is the biggest starchitect in the biz. Kind of tough to miss.

[BrooklynLove]

seems like plenty of people are agreeing with my position so not so clear to me that i don't get it ...

[antinimby]

BrooklynLove, disagreeing and getting it, are two different things. I have a feeling others get it but disagree. You on the other hand appears to me to not get it as you keep on bringing the debate back to the same things we have gone over already.

Really? You know I'm one of the most pro-development people on this forum. And I've outlined multiple times why I feel government regulation of architecture is a bad idea, through and through.I know about your philosophical stance. I was surprise of your acceptance of that O'Hara design.


There are far too many issues associated with letting a lot stay vacant for years longer than it has to for me to ever say: "Don't build yet. Keep the lot vacant." Bottom line: vacant lots are one of the most destabilizing forces in urban settings. Because of that, they also discourage adjacent development.Not true. If that was the case, then all these new projects both here and across the city, wouldn't come about because they themselves are vacant lots and many of those also are next to other vacant lots.

Why are we bringing up inapplicable examples? You're dividing this argument into two areas.In addition to being awash in petrodollars, and having a centralized government that is very determined to make Astana a world-class capital...just look at the type of project you're comparing: it's a Ritz-Carlton. You put up a Ritz in Brooklyn, and it will probably look very similar. It's been even mentioned on this thread that the Marriott is one of the better recent buildings in the area. If the people at Ritz decided to build a tower, they would not hire O'Hara or Kaufman.Really? That Ritz-Carlton they built in BPC doesn't look so glamourous to me. Furthermore, petrodollars or not, the last time I checked New York is not that poor either. So what's our excuse here?


Relatively cheap labor. What McSam's paying is probably still many multiples of what labor costs in Dubai, or Astana. And you said it yourself: certain projects turn out amazing despite the prohibitively high costs. But we can't all be building mini-15 CPWs. Very few people can afford to live there.You got the "relatively" part right. You can extend that relative part out to the returns the developers get, too you know. Don't leave that very important part out. 15 CPW was an example, no one is asking for that kind of quality in every project. I thought I've made that clear many times already.


Really? I think you're being overwhelmed by the likes of SkyscraperCity or other forums. Every city has a few amazing projects, but I guarantee you, the majority of their new developments are crap. Looked at pictures of Hong Kong recently? Their new apartment buildings look even worse than Kaufmans. We are not at all behind others in building quality. All those cities you listed are overwhelmingly ugly, except for a few areas of prime development downtown, or in historic parts.I'm not misled by SSC or those other forums at all. I know all about that stuff. The difference between those Hong Kong residentials and the ones here is that for the most part, those are not luxury condos, the ones here are. If your luxury towers look like the ones we have here, what will your non-luxury ones look like?

I don't see how we're getting scarred. We're actually going through a very important period, historically, because our housing stock is getting a significant upgrade through new construction. It'd be a travesty if we allowed the housing stock to become increasingly obsolete. What do you think is helping maintain the healthy levels of population growth here, despite the relatively high costs of housing?You can replenish and upgrade the housing stock while building decent looking buildings all at the same time. It's not one or the other. You can have both.

You keep saying we can't get anything nice built in Downtown Brooklyn. What about Atlantic Yards? It's the biggest development site in the entire city, and it's being singlehandedly designed by what most people regard is the biggest starchitect in the biz. Kind of tough to miss.I wouldn't use AY as an example if I were you. From what we have seen so far, I wouldn't say the design is that good. Most of the residential components are nothing more than modern, contemporary towers-in-the-park laid out in a superblock format. Both concepts that are very much now outdated.

I don't think having one architect, no matter how talented he/she may be, is a good idea at all. It will just look too much like one mass-produced project. Time will tell if it will be a huge mistake or a success.

[pianoman11686]

I know about your philosophical stance. I was surprise of your acceptance of that O'Hara design.

Which one? And it's not simply about philosophy. I've been challenged to reconcile it with reality, and in some cases, I've recanted. Mostly, though, I think reality confirms the theory.

Not true. If that was the case, then all these new projects both here and across the city, wouldn't come about because they themselves are vacant lots and many of those also are next to other vacant lots.

This is sort of the chicken-and-egg argument. Vacant lots will of course get developed during boom times. They are the easiest places to do so. The fact of the matter is, vacant lots encourage suspicious activities, are often festering dumps, and signify economic stagnation. All of this helps bring down neighboring property values. Just look at how annoyed people got that the 11TS lot stood vacant for so long, same as 440 42nd. A vacant lot, in an otherwise development-worthy area, invites doubts that something's wrong.

If you don't believe me, ask ablarc what he thinks about vacant lots.

Really? That Ritz-Carlton they built in BPC doesn't look so glamourous to me. Furthermore, petrodollars or not, the last time I checked New York is not that poor either. So what's our excuse here?

There's no excuse, and there doesn't need to be. There are billions worth of amazing developments going on all over the city. In Astana, the majority of the development you see press releases about is government-planned. It's meant to draw more investment.

From what I know about BPC, they have fairly strict design guidelines - since it was master planned. Which is why almost all the new buildings there look the same, including the one designed by RAMSA.

You got the "relatively" part right. You can extend that relative part out to the returns the developers get, too you know. Don't leave that very important part out. 15 CPW was an example, no one is asking for that kind of quality in every project. I thought I've made that clear many times already.

Which is why I don't understand why you're using a double-standard. Why does a hotel that Ritz-Carlton builds become a standard for development in Downtown Brooklyn? It's a global brand; no matter where they build, it's top-of-the-line. If you want, I think it'd be easier to leave other cities out of the discussion.

As for the returns: everyone knows the higher the cost of something (product or service), the higher the margins.

I'm not misled by SSC or those other forums at all. I know all about that stuff. The difference between those Hong Kong residentials and the ones here is that for the most part, those are not luxury condos, the ones here are. If your luxury towers look like the ones we have here, what will your non-luxury ones look like?

I don't buy the luxury advertising here. Slapping a small piece of granite on the kitchen counter-top and throwing in European fixtures in the bathroom doesn't give you a luxury condo, but most buyers don't care. I think we both know which buildings truly deserved to be labeled luxury, and which don't. And most of the time, that difference is reflected in the architecture.

As for Chang: he knows he's building on the budget side. No misrepresentation there.

You can replenish and upgrade the housing stock while building decent looking buildings all at the same time. It's not one or the other. You can have both.

I hear the "you can have both" argument a lot, especially from some of the more design-conscious forumers. Undoubtedly, exceptions to the rule will be found. I don't know if it's because of a lack of talented designers, or the cost of things like materials, land, and labor. (Probably a combination of both.) But you can't just wave a magic wand, saying: "Build better-looking buildings," and not expect a substantial effect on the marketplace.

I wouldn't use AY as an example if I were you. From what we have seen so far, I wouldn't say the design is that good. Most of the residential components are nothing more than modern, contemporary towers-in-the-park laid out in a superblock format. Both concepts that are very much now outdated.

I don't think having one architect, no matter how talented he/she may be, is a good idea at all. It will just look too much like one mass-produced project. Time will tell if it will be a huge mistake or a success.

Whether AY turns out good or not isn't really the point. (And I'm with you about the superblock layout). The fact is, the single largest development in Downtown Brooklyn is paying one of the best architects in the world to design the whole thing. That's exactly what you want: you want to see more developers hiring the likes of Stern, Gehry, Nouvel, and firing Kaufman, O'Hara, and Poon. And I don't see how you can leave something like AY out of this discussion, as it disproves your theory.

[BrooklynLove]

what don't i get? you think that continued progress and asthetic satisfaction can coexist. i think that demanding the later will unreasonably hurt the former b/c (1) the designs you are poo pooing are not disasterous, and (2) vetting to the level of asthetics you are preaching would drive away the majority of developers who would do large scale decent projects in downtown brooklyn at this point in time. net effect is a stunting of profound progress in the name of slowed development that is only incrementally more asthetically pleasing.

an analogy would be holding out 5 years for a mercedes, when you could have an acura today, an infinti next year, a lexus in year three, an audi in year 4, and a bmw in year 5.

i get it just fine. i don't think that you get it.

[antinimby]

This is sort of the chicken-and-egg argument. Vacant lots will of course get developed during boom times. They are the easiest places to do so. The fact of the matter is, vacant lots encourage suspicious activities, are often festering dumps, and signify economic stagnation. All of this helps bring down neighboring property values. Just look at how annoyed people got that the 11TS lot stood vacant for so long, same as 440 42nd. A vacant lot, in an otherwise development-worthy area, invites doubts that something's wrong. If you don't believe me, ask ablarc what he thinks about vacant lots.I don't think anyone here, on either side of the argument would say that a vacant lot is what we want. We want them all redeveloped but redeveloped in such a way where the new building itself doesn't represent an eyesore in much the same way a vacant lot is an eyesore.

With a building, the drawback is that it then becomes harder to get rid of than say, the vacant lot. So the argument is not so much which is better, but which is worse in the long run. In the long run, the lots will disappear but those monstrosities will not.

You also bring up negatives with vacant lots but leave out the drawbacks of having a badly-designed building. An unattractive building brings down the perception people both passersby and residents, have of that building/block/area. Like it or not, appearances has a subconscious effect on people. Both vacant lots and ugly buildings have downsides, its just that they have different downsides.

There's no excuse, and there doesn't need to be. There are billions worth of amazing developments going on all over the city. In Astana, the majority of the development you see press releases about is government-planned. It's meant to draw more investment.You can downplay Astana or any other city and talk up the ones we have here all you want but the fact is that what we get for the most part are bad, considering the "billions" that we are spending here.

From what I know about BPC, they have fairly strict design guidelines - since it was master planned. Which is why almost all the new buildings there look the same, including the one designed by RAMSA. Which is why I don't understand why you're using a double-standard. Why does a hotel that Ritz-Carlton builds become a standard for development in Downtown Brooklyn? It's a global brand; no matter where they build, it's top-of-the-line. If you want, I think it'd be easier to leave other cities out of the discussion.You brought up Ritz Carlton, I didn't. I'll let you use another top-notch hotel chain then. Fact is, you'll have a hard time finding another example in this city that you can honestly say that design-wise, is on par with any of those five-star hotel's reputation. The InterContinental almost went with a Kaufman so nothing is ever out of the question in this city.

As for the returns: everyone knows the higher the cost of something (product or service), the higher the margins.Exactly, so the excuses for not building better than those other countries are even more baseless.


I don't buy the luxury advertising here. Slapping a small piece of granite on the kitchen counter-top and throwing in European fixtures in the bathroom doesn't give you a luxury condo, but most buyers don't care. I think we both know which buildings truly deserved to be labeled luxury, and which don't. And most of the time, that difference is reflected in the architecture.In a way, you yourself right here are agreeing with me. They label them luxury, they charge you like it was luxury but design-wise, material and workmanship-wise, they are clearly not. People are paying a lot more here for an inferior product.

I hear the "you can have both" argument a lot, especially from some of the more design-conscious forumers. Undoubtedly, exceptions to the rule will be found. I don't know if it's because of a lack of talented designers, or the cost of things like materials, land, and labor. (Probably a combination of both.) But you can't just wave a magic wand, saying: "Build better-looking buildings," and not expect a substantial effect on the marketplace.I don't think anyone here says that it's an easy solution but in order to arrive at a solution, we at least have to admit that there is a problem. Unfortunately most of you don't even recognize or admit that there is one.

The problem in this city is very complex and includes many culprits, not just developers. Don't get me wrong, I am not all of a sudden, taken on an anti-developer/development stance. I just see that all sides are at fault. You have the NIMBYs, the City's zoning laws, the developers and last but not least, your average New Yorker buyer, all playing a part in some way for what we are seeing. This is not the time nor place I guess to hash that stuff out.



Whether AY turns out good or not isn't really the point. (And I'm with you about the superblock layout). The fact is, the single largest development in Downtown Brooklyn is paying one of the best architects in the world to design the whole thing. That's exactly what you want: you want to see more developers hiring the likes of Stern, Gehry, Nouvel, and firing Kaufman, O'Hara, and Poon. And I don't see how you can leave something like AY out of this discussion, as it disproves your theory.It does not disprove my theory. I have always said there are positive exceptions. There has to be or else we are really in trouble. Yes we get a lot of the 10 Barclays, Skyhouses, Zebra buildings, Biltmores but we also get (and thank god for that at least) the Hearsts, NY Times, One Bryant Park and hopefully MOMA's Jean Nouvel. Like the saying goes, "even a blind squirrel will find a nut sometimes."

I'm sure something new will come along in DT Brooklyn in the future that will be a knock out, I'm not worried about that. What I'm worried about is all the other, which make up too much of the bulk of the new stuff, that will pull everything down.

[antinimby]

what don't i get? you think that continued progress and asthetic satisfaction can coexist. i think that demanding the later will unreasonably hurt the former b/c (1) the designs you are poo pooing are not disasterous, and (2) vetting to the level of asthetics you are preaching would drive away the majority of developers who would do large scale decent projects in downtown brooklyn at this point in time. net effect is a stunting of profound progress in the name of slowed development that is only incrementally more asthetically pleasing.
an analogy would be holding out 5 years for a mercedes, when you could have an acura today, an infinti next year, a lexus in year three, an audi in year 4, and a bmw in year 5.
i get it just fine. i don't think that you get it.Problem is you're not getting an Acura, you're not even getting a Toyota, you're getting a Kia.

Again, with that post you are again bring us back to the same argument again. That's what I'm talking about. You keep on insisting that I'm asking for a Mercedes, when in fact, all I keep on telling you is that a Toyota or at the very least, a Chevrolet will be acceptable.

[investordude]

Lofter, as for your snarky interpretation that I hate poor people because I like capitalism - in Khazakstan, I would imaging government corruption and a bad legal system may make that a legitimate question, though I've never been there and don't know about it.

But what IS clear to me is that in downtown Brooklyn, we need market rate housing. When you build enough housing, then by the laws of supply and demand, poor people get some of it. And on top of that, they do it without dependence on the state. If "affordable housing" was good for poor people, the south would be filled with liberal democrats and Brooklyn (which certainly has no shortage of subsidized housing) would be a model of cheap housing.

Building housing with less government involvement would create housing at various levels for everyone. And by the way, doing it without architecture review boards and other artificial development restrictions would ensure the development of housing at a mix of income levels, even if elitists on this board get offended by the aesthetics of some of the buildings desiged for less affluent people.

The reality is affordable housing is NOT designed to help poor people - its designed to stuff electoral districts with wards dependent on the state to keep the incumbent power structure in power especially within the democratic party in New York. The less government, and the fewer restrictions, the healthier downtown Brooklyn can be for people at all income levels.

[pianoman11686]

I don't think anyone here, on either side of the argument would say that a vacant lot is what we want. We want them all redeveloped but redeveloped in such a way where the new building itself doesn't represent an eyesore in much the same way a vacant lot is an eyesore.

I think part of the reason discussions like these seem like they're so polarizing is because of the wording. Let's get something straight: an abandoned building is an eyesore.

With a building, the drawback is that it then becomes harder to get rid of than say, the vacant lot. So the argument is not so much which is better, but which is worse in the long run. In the long run, the lots will disappear but those monstrosities will not.

As someone's already mentioned: buildings can be reclad, or even demolished and rebuilt. I think that in most cases, the tradeoff between waiting for a better development to come along and building right away isn't worth it.

You also bring up negatives with vacant lots but leave out the drawbacks of having a badly-designed building. An unattractive building brings down the perception people both passersby and residents, have of that building/block/area. Like it or not, appearances has a subconscious effect on people. Both vacant lots and ugly buildings have downsides, its just that they have different downsides.

Not as much as vacant lots (unless the building is truly abandoned).

You can downplay Astana or any other city and talk up the ones we have here all you want but the fact is that what we get for the most part are bad, considering the "billions" that we are spending here.

Is the average here really worse than the average in other cities? I doubt that. Just think of this logically. Why would New York, of all places, be an outlier in development quality? I honestly think this is a function of living and posting in a New York-centric environment. We see everything that gets built here, whereas we only see the most exciting things getting built elsewhere.

You brought up Ritz Carlton, I didn't. I'll let you use another top-notch hotel chain then. Fact is, you'll have a hard time finding another example in this city that you can honestly say that design-wise, is on par with any of those five-star hotel's reputation. The InterContinental almost went with a Kaufman so nothing is ever out of the question in this city.

No, you brought it up. http://www.ramsa.com/project.aspx?id=225

Hotels on par with reputation/rating: Four Seasons, Mandarin Oriental, Deniro's Downtown Hotel, Cooper Square Hotel, Westin, almost anything near the High Line.

Exactly, so the excuses for not building better than those other countries are even more baseless.

Don't fool yourself. The returns on higher-end developments are just as big (percentage wise) in other countries as they are here. What I meant was, for projects in any one place, higher-end will have higher margins.

In a way, you yourself right here are agreeing with me. They label them luxury, they charge you like it was luxury but design-wise, material and workmanship-wise, they are clearly not. People are paying a lot more here for an inferior product.

Right, but we still know the difference between which buildings are truly luxury, and which buildings only label themselves luxury. Price reflects this: a condo in 15CPW costing 10 times as much as one in a standard Williamsburg development is on a different level of "luxury."

I don't think anyone here says that it's an easy solution but in order to arrive at a solution, we at least have to admit that there is a problem. Unfortunately most of you don't even recognize or admit that there is one.

It's not so much that we deny there's a problem. I'll go ahead and agree with you right now that too many new developments are, for lack of a better word, ugly. I care about good architecture just as much as anyone else on this forum. Why else would I be here?

The problem in this city is very complex and includes many culprits, not just developers. Don't get me wrong, I am not all of a sudden, taken on an anti-developer/development stance. I just see that all sides are at fault. You have the NIMBYs, the City's zoning laws, the developers and last but not least, your average New Yorker buyer, all playing a part in some way for what we are seeing. This is not the time nor place I guess to hash that stuff out.

Nor is it my intention to label you anti-development, because I know your stance. (And I apologize if it seemed like I did.)

Here's how I see things, though: after a long trend downward, I think architecture is actually picking up, in a big way, in New York (and many other places.) Developers are realizing there's added value in marketing a development as "sophisticated," architecturally. And more and more people are paying for it. I expect this trend to continue, and with it, a generally higher level of architecture to be applied in new construction. I think you're painting this era as a low point; I think we're way past that.

Additionally, I'm unconvinced as to how (even if architecture was truly at a low point here) you'd go about fixing it. You'd obviously need new government regulation and oversight. Let me ask you this: how many times have you seen a new development, in a historic district or somewhere else, where you'd need review by Landmarks or an architectural commission of some sort? And how many times have they actually resulted in better-designed buildings?

I think government is particularly inept at handling regulation of aesthetics. I think that a citywide architectural review board, with higher standards for exterior design, will undoubtedly lead to either higher prices, lower rates of new construction, or a combination of the two. It will also lead to longer delays in getting approvals. (I also think it would lead to widespread abuse and political favoring of certain "connected" developers, but that's a less important issue.)

It does not disprove my theory. I have always said there are positive exceptions. There has to be or else we are really in trouble. Yes we get a lot of the 10 Barclays, Skyhouses, Zebra buildings, Biltmores but we also get (and thank god for that at least) the Hearsts, NY Times, One Bryant Park and hopefully MOMA's Jean Nouvel. Like the saying goes, "even a blind squirrel will find a nut sometimes."

I'm sure something new will come along in DT Brooklyn in the future that will be a knock out, I'm not worried about that. What I'm worried about is all the other, which make up too much of the bulk of the new stuff, that will pull everything down.

Well, it just sounded like you thought there was nothing "good" being built in Downtown BK, and I wanted to be sure we account for AY.

[antinimby]

I think part of the reason discussions like these seem like they're so polarizing is because of the wording. Let's get something straight: an abandoned building is an eyesore. As someone's already mentioned: buildings can be reclad, or even demolished and rebuilt. I think that in most cases, the tradeoff between waiting for a better development to come along and building right away isn't worth it. I don't think there has to be a wait at all. If the developer of that O'Hara project just switched (or not chose O'Hara in the first place) architects to someone more acceptable, like a Fischer or even a Scarano (who might not be the best but at least represent a notch or two above O'Hara) the problem would be solved.

We don't need to wait years for that, do we? The assumption on your part that in order to get something decent, we must wait years and years is not justified.


Not as much as vacant lots (unless the building is truly abandoned).Again, we are going around in circles. Yes, there are drawbacks to vacant lots. I have already said that but do you agree that an ugly building can detract from the feel of a block as well? If you say no, then what's the point for the profession of architecture at all? Why don't we just all draw up square boxes with windows and put up rows and rows of them. It would be so much simpler.

Is the average here really worse than the average in other cities? I doubt that. Just think of this logically. Why would New York, of all places, be an outlier in development quality? I honestly think this is a function of living and posting in a New York-centric environment. We see everything that gets built here, whereas we only see the most exciting things getting built elsewhere.I can't believe having the Kaufmans and O'Haras helps our average at all. I don't see Chicago or Boston or San Francisco to name a few putting up those Comfort Inns and Best Westerns that look like the ones we're getting.

Don't fool yourself. The returns on higher-end developments are just as big (percentage wise) in other countries as they are here. What I meant was, for projects in any one place, higher-end will have higher margins.So how does this disprove what I was saying again?


Right, but we still know the difference between which buildings are truly luxury, and which buildings only label themselves luxury. Price reflects this: a condo in 15CPW costing 10 times as much as one in a standard Williamsburg development is on a different level of "luxury."Again, what are we disagreeing about here? This debate with you is getting too drawn out and sidetracked from the original topic. The original claim was that labor was more expensive here so we can't have good stuff.

My point is that while the labor is indeed costlier here, the return is proportionately high here as well so if they can build something nice and make it work elsewhere, they can do it here as well.

Nor is it my intention to label you anti-development, because I know your stance. (And I apologize if it seemed like I did.)No, I didn't say that you imply that. I just thought you might have gotten the impression that I was.

Here's how I see things, though: after a long trend downward, I think architecture is actually picking up, in a big way, in New York (and many other places.) Developers are realizing there's added value in marketing a development as "sophisticated," architecturally. And more and more people are paying for it. I expect this trend to continue, and with it, a generally higher level of architecture to be applied in new construction. I think you're painting this era as a low point; I think we're way past that.This is where I disagree. It might appear that we are heading in an upward direction in terms of architecture because of a few new headline grabbing proposals such as the Nouvel, Foster, Rogers ones but even in the worst eras, there have always been bright spots. I truly believe that things in the near future would just continue as it does now. There's no incentives to provide an outstanding product.

Sam Chang is getting rich (and richer with each passing day) by putting up garbage. Why? Because good or bad, projects in this city have no trouble selling out. I was just commenting on that E. 34 St. O'Hara thread on how it has already nearly sold out eventhough it's not even close to finished yet.

Additionally, I'm unconvinced as to how (even if architecture was truly at a low point here) you'd go about fixing it. You'd obviously need new government regulation and oversight. Let me ask you this: how many times have you seen a new development, in a historic district or somewhere else, where you'd need review by Landmarks or an architectural commission of some sort? And how many times have they actually resulted in better-designed buildings? I think government is particularly inept at handling regulation of aesthetics. I think that a citywide architectural review board, with higher standards for exterior design, will undoubtedly lead to either higher prices, lower rates of new construction, or a combination of the two. It will also lead to longer delays in getting approvals. (I also think it would lead to widespread abuse and political favoring of certain "connected" developers, but that's a less important issue.)
I don't claim to have a 'can't-fail, cure-all' solution. I don't think there is one. What other cities have done, one can find faults with too. The problem all boils down to people's tastes and preferences. A review board would just as easily criticize a good design and approve a bad one. So I'm not sure that's the way to go either.

And yes, I also agree that government (at least under the current existing framework) does make it worse but that doesn't mean we can't make it so that it does work. We can definitely take advantage of government regulation to where it impact design positively, not negatively.

Well, it just sounded like you thought there was nothing "good" being built in Downtown BK, and I wanted to be sure we account for AY.You can account for it but it isn't a sure winner. If I had my way, they would follow the street grid there right now. Create a continuous streetwall with buildings, with varying heights/designs/materials. Split up the design duties to several architectural firms. Gehry on this plot, FoxFowle on that, Handel there, Foster here and so on. Some brick here, some sleek glass there.

Put all that open space requirements in one or two spots and create the park and/or square that way.

Unfortunately, that's not what we'll get.

[antinimby]

By the way, with these long windy posts in the past couple of pages, I think we've just lost a large portion of our listening audience. :D

I'm going to do my part to put an end to this long discussion right here. Folks, you can now get back to your O'Hara love fest. ;)

[BrooklynLove]

:d

[BrooklynRider]

I don't necessarily support government regulation of architecture, but I do think standards and architectural review are important. In Park Slope, we were able to affect the design of a new Commerce Bank here through banding together and approaching the bank about what changes they could make to better integrate the building into the neighborhood. It was not confrontational and it was done with a sincere desire to see the development go forward. In theend, the bank embraced the ideas and it has become a nice addition to the neighborhood.

The same thing was done on Seventh Avenue where two new residential buildings went up. The designs are actually good and, while they are new, they exhibit a level of detailing that makes them stand out for quality as opposed to cheap, ugly brick boxes.

I don't think Antinimby is in the minority here. The challenge we are facing now is that Downtown is still devoid of residents. Designs are influenced by community input. Antinimbys can serve a useful purpose by voicing opinions and objections to building designs. CB1 applied full court press to 200 Chambers and 101 Warren and they got two better that average additions to the neighborhood.

I think that to some degree we are going to have to bite the bullet on these new additions to Downtown Brooklyn. However, I think the developers who are bringing this crap to Brooklyn will face mounting opposition to their lack of consideration when this firt wave is over. Ratner faced and continues to face mass opposition to Atlantic Yards and everyone on both sides of the debate has agreed that he has built architectural crap. He's not getting away with that here (although I personally think Gehry is crap.)

[pianoman11686]

^Those are some very level-headed thoughts, BR. I fully agree that less confrontational is the way to go, and it usually works best. I recall that, in another one of these debates on a different thread, someone said the solution to bad architecture should somewhat mirror how the city handled the Highline. It basically came out and publicly said what it wanted, and to a large extent, got it. Of course, inherent in that was a loosening of zoning restrictions.

Antinimby, I agree the debate will just get drawn out to the most arcane details if we keep going in this manner. To summarize what I thought were the key points in the debate:

1) You said we can afford to wait a while for vacant lots to get better-looking developments. I maintain that vacant lots should be developed as soon as possible: the harm in letting them lie around is greater than the harm caused by a less attractive building. (You change your position on this by saying that there's no time lag in hiring a different architect. But this is irrelevant. I maintain that if you mandate better design, you will increase the time lag.)

2) Your main point about comparing New York to other cities is that it has higher costs, and should justify higher quality design. I argue that there's no evidence to suggest higher proportional margins; developers here earn just as high a percentage as they do anywhere else. Of course bigger, more expensive projects should have higher quality design. But, to the best of my knowledge, every place has some nice, large developments, while the majority is average or what we'd consider "crap" quality. Budget hotels look the same everywhere.

3) You say we're at a low point, and that justifies some kind of intervention. I think the last few years have been a turning point: despite a boom in construction, we're seeing an increasing proportion of new developments turn to well-known designers. Not just for the heck of it, but because good design is now more "marketable" than ever. This is an important trend that should give people like you more hope about the quality of architecture getting better, generally.

Lastly, I didn't mean to put pressure on you to come up with a plan for how government can help. I only meant to illustrate how, even with minimal, case-by-case application, government oversight of architecture is imperfect at best, and creates significant delays. At this point, I see no proof that it would work well. And I see no proof that the good it would accomplish would outweigh the harms.

[investordude]

Look, an architectural review commission will become a tool to block development, and will reduce the quality of architecture. Let me ask you a question - do you like the Chrystler building, built it secret by egotistical men, or do you like CoOp City, built by the best government architecture committees?

Letitia James and other supporters openly brag of their desire to misuse the landmarks committee to block property appreciation. If you give them an architecture review committee, they'll do even more harm and even more cronyism. Corruption will win, architecture and Brooklyn will not.

[BrooklynLove]

^agree 100%.

[Derek2k3]

I pretty much agree w/ Anti. Downtown BK is a confined area with relatively few development sites. The crap we are building now will define it for years to come. There are no areas next to it to rezone and to expand the downtown.

Developers only tear down buildings to build bigger ones, and as far as I know, these projects are all being built to their max FAR, so they're not going anywhere. Did someone say missed opportunity?

Maybe there should a commission that grants development bonuses for "good" architecture. Of course this would be very controversial since here in NY, public input and approval by the community board is now a must...and they know diddly about progressive architecture.


Anywho, the view from Oro...

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2055/2183010551_f71c0b190d_b.jpg
erklaudia (http://www.flickr.com/photos/22706010@N04/)

[zinka]

Anywho, the view from Oro...

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2055/2183010551_f71c0b190d_b.jpg
erklaudia (http://www.flickr.com/photos/22706010@N04/)


I don't think this could be the view from Oro -- it's on the wrong side of the Manhattan Bridge. This is probably from MetroTech.

[BrooklynLove]

^from the metrotech chase building i think.

derek - of the new construction in downtown bk since 2000 that's actually up now to a stage at which finished product is pretty much evident, which buildings are bad in your opinion?

[BrooklynRider]

Which aren't bad? (it's a smaller list)

[BrooklynLove]

well then just name your top bad ones ...

[antinimby]

.and they know diddly about progressive architecture.Exactly and might I add that they don't care about architecture and aesthetics even if they did know something about it.

For instance, if given a choice between an ugly but small building versus a beautiful but large building, which one do you think those community people would be against/support? For many of you, I think you already know the answer to that one.

By the way, this isn't just Brooklyn but the entire city is the same way.

[zinka]

^from the metrotech chase building i think.



That doesn't seem possible either -- it's on the wrong side of the Brooklyn Bridge for that.

Looking at the map, I think this has to be taken from the Jehovah's Witnesses building at Jay and Sands. Weird, I know, but I don't know where else is possible.

[zinka]

That doesn't seem possible either -- it's on the wrong side of the Brooklyn Bridge for that.

Looking at the map, I think this has to be taken from the Jehovah's Witnesses building at Jay and Sands. Weird, I know, but I don't know where else is possible.


I just triangulated the view and am quite certain that it is that Watchtower high-rise. Wow.

[BrooklynLove]

antinimby, derek - if there could be an aesthetics review board with members whose objectives i could trust (such as yourselves) then i'd be all for it.

[BrooklynLove]

I just triangulated the view and am quite certain that it is that Watchtower high-rise. Wow.

probably. if shot from the chase building, the watchtower tower would be in the shot.

[krulltime]

http://www.citypointnyc.com/

[Derek2k3]

Thanks Zinka, I think your right.


derek - of the new construction in downtown bk since 2000 that's actually up now to a stage at which finished product is pretty much evident, which buildings are bad in your opinion?

Most of it isn't bad, just prosaic. It'll be ashame if Downtown Brooklyn doesn't develop one or two unique skyscrapers to bring together a noteworthy skyline.The new stuff that offends me the most is 180 Montague and the development at Hoyt-Schermerhorn. This new O'Hara building promises to join them.

[BrooklynLove]

my least favorite thus far are the low rises on schemerhorn.

what do you think of the albee square tower renderings?

[BrooklynRider]

Albee Square renderings don't show anything. It doesn't reveal the height. It seems to be a website to attract retail tenants and I think it portrays a "build to suit" approach to the retail floors. I'm guessing there is no approved design at this point. They're probably still coming up with concepts and, sadly, I expect they'll suck.

[BrooklynLove]

seems like a pretty revealing rendering to me here

http://www.greenbergfarrow.com/expArchMix-AlbeeSquare.html (http://www.greenbergfarrow.com/expArchMix-AlbeeSquare.html)

[lofter1]

oh so appealing, this City Point (http://www.citypointnyc.com/residentialtower.html) plan :rolleyes: ...

perfect for all those single moms

http://www.citypointnyc.com/images/housingpic2.jpg

[sfenn1117]

This signature tower will rise to over 65 stories, rising above the Brooklyn skyline.

The best part of this project. Combined with the Piano/Ratner project and Brooklyn will have a skyline to rival cities like Seattle, Montreal, even Boston.

[investordude]

Maybe Montreal, but I think Brooklyn has a ways to go before it challenges Seattle or Boston on its skyline. Let's not get carried away here.

[sfenn1117]

The mass of the skyline is already pretty large. With Atlantic Yards and a few new peaks, it's going to become damn impressive.

[BrooklynRider]

The architect had nothing but renderings. He has no built projects to show.

I guess we'll have to wait & see.

[BrooklynLove]

oh so appealing, this City Point (http://www.citypointnyc.com/residentialtower.html) plan :rolleyes: ...

perfect for all those single moms

http://www.citypointnyc.com/images/housingpic2.jpg

i'm a huge fan of this development and what is going on in downtown bklyn generally, but i'm very disappointed in this ad.

[antinimby]

At 65 stories (I'm thinking 700+ feet) and depending on what happens over at Piano's City Tech project, Albee Square will probably be Brooklyn's tallest.

I would have like to see what Richard Meier could have done here instead of GreenbergFarrow.

Nothing groundbreaking with this design but at least it's not downright offensive like Avalon or O'Hara.

http://www.greenbergfarrow.com/images/AlbeeSquare1.jpg

http://www.greenbergfarrow.com/images/AlbeeSquare2.jpg

http://www.greenbergfarrow.com/images/CityPoint3.jpg

[Stern]

yawn.

[sfenn1117]

I'm still hoping the rendering is for massing purposes and the building will have more articulation, but we'll see.

[BrooklynLove]

tough crowd. REALLY tough crowd.

[investordude]

This building is exciting, but on closer inspection, I do have 1 gripe. It looks like some of the retail entrances are on the Atlantic side. My feeling is that they will need to do some landscaping or improvements to make that an attractive entrance. Otherwise, I'm not sure retail entrances on Atlantic will work - the street is busy and noisy.

Still, generally I'm with BrooklynLove. This is great for Brooklyn.

[zinka]

This building is exciting, but on closer inspection, I do have 1 gripe. It looks like some of the retail entrances are on the Atlantic side. My feeling is that they will need to do some landscaping or improvements to make that an attractive entrance. Otherwise, I'm not sure retail entrances on Atlantic will work - the street is busy and noisy.


Huh? This project is at least 4 blocks from Atlantic Avenue.

[investordude]

Maybe I'm confused on names - is it Fulton? It's on the big street that leads to the Manhattan Bridge, right?

[muziqgod]

Maybe I'm confused on names - is it Fulton? It's on the big street that leads to the Manhattan Bridge, right?

That's flatbush

[ZippyTheChimp]

Video

Downtown Brooklyn 2012 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20vvOnDBXis)

[MidtownGuy]

investordude wrote:Umm, I think its intriguing to me you would consider west 42nd street unsuccessful. I think it seems to be doing fine, and has an increasingly nice mix of glass and brick architecture.

Are you serious? An increasingly nice mix?:D:D
O My God
It is one of the worst looking areas in the city.
Oh, OK, I realize now you are just having fun, no one could possibly believe that so, cheers!:D for your sarcastic sense of humor.

[investordude]

If we can get buildings like the Orion and Atelier or the Silver Towers project going in Brooklyn I think that would be a pretty exciting set of architecture to jazz up Brooklyn.

Admitteldy the Avalon building isn't that exciting, but I think the spaceship Flatiron, CityPoint, and the Oro buildings all seem nice to me.

[BrooklynLove]

Admitteldy the Avalon building isn't that exciting, but I think the spaceship Flatiron, CityPoint, and the Oro buildings all seem nice to me.

i'm also pleased with those last 3 projects. the bfc and casmadatis projects also show promise. as for avalon, i'm not passing any judgment until its up and we can see what it looks like in real life.

in my opinion, the good far outweighs the bad right now.

[antinimby]

^ No need to wait. If you've seen one Avalon piece o'crap, you've seen them all.

Just check out the Riverview in LIC as that is pretty much what you're going to get. You can take my word for it.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1229/939487995_8c1daf9180.jpg?v=0

[sfenn1117]

Or New Rochelle, perfectly comparable at 40 stories.

http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1316534770&size=l

High quality architecture:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/04/29/realestate/29wczone.xlarge1.jpg

[investordude]

The most objectionable aspect of Queens project is the above ground parking lots, which I don't think is going to be at the Brooklyn site. It's not the most dazzling building, but it will be much better than these Queens and New Rock projects with the parking lots above ground. The Avalon projects in Manhattan are unremarkable but their basically fine.

[antinimby]

Haha, sfenn sarcasm. :D

Hey, don't forget the lovely Avalon Chrystie, too...

http://www.curbed.com/archives/2005_02_avalon1.jpg

[zinka]

Admitteldy the Avalon building isn't that exciting, but I think the spaceship Flatiron, CityPoint, and the Oro buildings all seem nice to me.

Ugh - Oro is like the poster child for bland, ugly architecture.

[BrooklynLove]

The most objectionable aspect of Queens project is the above ground parking lots, which I don't think is going to be at the Brooklyn site. It's not the most dazzling building, but it will be much better than these Queens and New Rock projects with the parking lots above ground. The Avalon projects in Manhattan are unremarkable but their basically fine.

correct re parking and agreed re the rest.

[kyle]

Can't blame Avalon for the above ground parking in LIC though. Water table is too high that close to the water so they had to put it above ground, just like all the waterfront projects in Hunters Point, unless some new technology is developed. :)

[BrooklynLove]

Can't blame Avalon for the above ground parking in LIC though. Water table is too high that close to the water so they had to put it above ground, just like all the waterfront projects in Hunters Point, unless some new technology is developed. :)

i'm blaming you, kyle :)

[JCMAN320]

Same problem with the watertable in Downtown Jersey City for putting the parking garages in the buildings above ground.

[ablarc]

Above-ground parking structures can be OK if you devote the ground floor to retail. You can style up the garage, and if you mechanically ventilate it, you can even put in glass windows.

Alternatively, you can veneer parking structures with directly-attached residential units that completely mask the parking. This solution is common in the South and is finding increased acceptance elsewhere.

[MidtownGuy]

I noticed many garages in Germany like that, with retail included in the base, so sometimes you didn't even realize you were walking past a parking garage.

[ablarc]

you didn't even realize you were walking past a parking garage.
Mission accomplished.





(Who could ask for anything more?)

[bklynite]

very tough crowd.

so some buildings will make this area a bit more upper-east-sidey. downtown bklyn has PLENTY of amazing historic architecture that's not going anywhere. this is an urban fabric in the making. real dynamism could result with these projects happening. bring it on!

renzo piano + greenberg farrow = classy skyline.

[BrooklynLove]

^ i'm with you bk-nite.


BE article here today re negative aspects of downtown bk transition -
http://www.brooklyneagle.com/categories/category.php?category_id=27&id=17993

i'm looking forward to getting past the negative steps and onto the positive steps.


a thought re the holdout tenant Hashmi mentioned in the article. i wonder if he realizes that once all the surrounding businesses have closed and he is the only place left, it will not be long before he no longer has any business and cannot pay the rent he is currently demanding to keep. better to take the payoff and move on now while it is still being offered.

[antinimby]

Probably trying to push the developer as far as he can to get an even bigger payoff.

[bklynite]

according to curbed and the sun, belltel is only 30% sold. not a good sign! EDIT: apparently this number may be incorrect... 30% is hard to believe.

http://www.nysun.com/article/70102?page_no=1

http://curbed.com/archives/2008/01/24/downtown_brooklyn_invasion_begins_but_whos_moving. php

[BrooklynRider]

I can believe it. There are no services in the area and all around it are construction sites and l-o-o-o-o-ow end crap retail.

[investordude]

It's hard to believe the financial crisis won't cool demand for condos in Brooklyn. I wonder about market rate rentals though - low interest rates may save the banks and all those people NOT buying condos still need a place to live.

More interestingly, will market rate rentals attract the same retail boom a condo explosion might? I'd say no - people who own their own places probably spend more money, especially after recent home buys. But market rate renters might actually be better for attracting the restaurants and bars that downtown needs most, which would be a huge silver lining I think.

[BrooklynLove]

would be nice if someone who has bought in belltel could comment here b/c they'll know for sure, but from what i've heard, the 30% figure is way wrong, probably closer to 30% unsold than sold. if the place was only 30% sold at tco, do you really think that the developer would have continued forward with the condo plan, especially given the current rental market?

re slowdown in downtown bk, i don't think that the area is prone to anymore of a slowdown than nyc generally, and probably less than most of nyc due to the heavy govt involvement in downtown bk development. and the rate cuts are making things a whole lot better for developers due to trickle down effect on building/material costs.

the stimulus plan raising the conforming loan limit will be a biggie for helping condo buyers as well.

[bklynite]

any news on this site?
http://www.brownstoner.com/brownstoner/archives/2008/01/development_wat_134.php

[BrooklynRider]

Bossert on the block: Jehovah’s Witnesses to sell Heights jewel

By Adam F. Hutton
The Brooklyn Paper

The Hotel Bossert, the swanky Brooklyn Heights building that was the site of the Dodgers’ knock-down, drag-out World Series victory party in 1955 and, more recently, has served as a dormitory for the Jehovah’s Witnesses, is on the block.

The “For sale” sign is the latest one to be slapped on Witnesses buildings in Downtown Brooklyn, DUMBO and Brooklyn Heights, where the century-old faith is based.

Last year, the sect put up for sale six of its 18 Brooklyn Heights properties, including the Standish Arms Hotel on Columbia Heights, which sold for $50 million in December.

The Bossert could go for twice as much, said Arlene Awaye, whose Awaye Realty helped broker the Standish Arms deal.


“The Bossert is double the size and it’s a beautiful property, so it could easily go for twice the money as the Standish,” Awaye said.

The ongoing selloff by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society — the business arm of the Jehovah’s Witnesses — comes as the Witnesses have moved most of their publishing and printing operations upstate.

Real-estate developers are salivating over the properties that have come on the market, but locals say they will miss the Witnesses.

“At the Bossert, and at all of their buildings, the Witnesses have set a very high standard in terms of taking good care of their properties,” said Brooklyn Heights Association Executive Director Judy Stanton. “Brooklyn Heights has benefited from the care and attention that they have put in to their buildings and I hope that the new owners will keep up that tradition.”

There certainly is plenty of tradition to keep up. The Bossert, a 14-story Italian Renaissance Revival building at 98 Montague St., was constructed by Brooklyn lumber tycoon Louis Bossert in 1909.

After the Witnesses bought it in 1988, it underwent a complete rehab that included restoration of the crystal chandelier and stone columns in the hotel’s lobby and the renovation of the famous Marine Roof restaurant on the building’s top floor.

“When we bought the building, the Marine Roof was in complete ruin,” said Richard Devine, the Watchtower Society’s building manager. “But we rebuilt the space as a banquet hall for our events and, of course, that will be available to the new owners. It’s a gorgeous space with stunning views of Manhattan.”

BrooklynPapers.com

[BrooklynRider]

Real Estate Round-Up
New Developer To Finish Hotel
by Jacqui Ryan (Jacqui@brooklyneagle.net (Jacqui@brooklyneagle.net)), published online 02-01-2008
http://www.brooklyneagle.com/images/1x1.gif
In a long and extensive overview in Thursday’s New York Sun, real estate columnist Michael Stoler suggests “cautious optimism” about the rebirth of the city’s hospitality industry, which mainly means hotels. Although his report was primarily confined to Manhattan, he had one juicy piece of news of keen interest to Downtown Brooklyn.


Boymelgreen Development has sold its property on Atlantic and Smith Street, which its has called the Smith, to Hersha Hospitality Trust, a real estate development trust, for $17.24 million.

This building contains 50 condos and a 93-room hotel. According to Stoler, Hersha plans to spend another $6 million to finish the hotel.

People in Downtown Brooklyn and especially in Boerum Hill will cheer this news once it gets out. For most, it seems that Boymelgreen has been building this structure for a decade. In the firm’s defense, demanding engineering and construction was required to build the underground garage and foundation because is rests over a subway line. Hersha plans to ignore the name Smith; the hotel will be called the Nu and should open by the end of the third quarter. He had better plan a boffo ribbon-cutting.

* * *

The college-packed neighborhood of Downtown Brooklyn might get to add another prestigious university to its resident list: New York University.


In a decision years in the making, New York University has finally chosen Downtown Brooklyn and Governors Island as sites to build satellite campuses of up to one million square feet each, according to Washington Square News (WSN), the newspaper of NYU. Announced at a press conference/open house on Wednesday, the decision comes as part of the university’s 25-year expansion plan, which requires almost half of the university’s 6 million square feet of growth to be outside its current Washington Square area.

The campuses will include academic and residential buildings, and Governors Island would also include athletic facilities, the Real Deal reported. No specific sites in either location have been pinpointed yet. Planning documents displayed at the NYU open house showed that between 2.4 million and 3.2 million of the 6 million square feet of expansion space will not be in the Village, WSN reported. Like Governors Island, Downtown Brooklyn could each contribute up to one million square feet of space, officials told WSN.

NYU decided to expand outside of its Village neighborhood after many deliberations with neighboring residents who have complained that the university’s buildings are “ugly and enormous … [and] were ruining the Village,” according to the New York Times. So to lessen the burden upon the area’s residents, who would also be plagued inevitable construction, the university has been looking into alternative areas like Downtown Brooklyn and Midtown Manhattan. What remains to be seen is if residents of Downtown Brooklyn will have the same complaints about the proposed expansion into their neighborhood.

The university is still in discussion on full expansion plans. Among many other things still to do in its developing plans, it still needs to acquire the rights to develop on Governors Island. But discussions about the site began last May when state-run Governors Island Preservation and Education Corporation (GIPEC) approached NYU. GIPEC is redeveloping the island with intentions that part of the island go toward educational development. To do this, GIPEC is working with five redesign firms, including SMWM, the leading architectural firm for NYU’s 2031 expansion plan, reported WSN.

— By Jacqui Ryan and Dennis Holt
Brooklyn Daily Eagle
© Brooklyn Daily Eagle 2007
All materials posted on BrooklynEagle.com are protected by United States copyright law.



http://www.brooklyneagle.com/categories/category.php?category_id=5&id=18232

[BrooklynLove]

sure has been a bumpy ride for the lux pop buyers. hopefully all will be mere dust in the rear view mirror 5 years from now as downtown bk development continues its upward progression.

[bklynite]

another denial and refile at 388 bridge:

http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/DocumentOverviewServlet?requestid=4&passjobnumber=302376747&allbin=3000413

see also
http://mcbrooklyn.blogspot.com/2007/12/slow-going-on-huge-bridge-street-rental.html

[BrooklynLove]

looks like they re-applied on 1/15 and that's still under review however.

[krulltime]

Downtown Shocker: Catsimatidis Puts Myrtle Build on Hold!


http://www.brownstoner.com/brownstoner/archives/catsimatidis-myrtle-0208.jpg


February 6, 2008

Buried deep in this week's New York Magazine cover story entitled "The Stench of '89" is this bombshell:

Billionaire and likely mayoral candidate John Catsimatidis, whose Red Apple Group is developing a two-block complex on Myrtle Avenue in Brooklyn, is putting the brakes on the project until the lending situation shakes itself out.

Holy moly! At least the two neighboring projects—BFC's 150 Myrtle and Avalon Bay's rental development—appear to be proceeding at full speed. Think there will be other announcements like this in the Downtown area in the coming weeks?

The Stench of '89 (http://nymag.com/news/features/43574/) [New York Magazine]



http://www.brownstoner.com/brownstoner/archives/2008/02/catsimatidis_pu.php#comments

[ASchwarz]

I don't think this NY Mag article is accurate.

The Catsimatidis Mrytle project is fully financed and will include mandatory affordable units per recent HPD negotiations. Maybe by "delay" they mean a few months for steel or whatever, but the project has financing and there is also city money involved for the affordable units.

[investordude]

Whether Castimidis or not, downtown Brooklyn is going to cool off until the housing recession is over. I think that's increasingly clear, especially since Wall Street is headed for mediocre year in 2008.

[antinimby]

Too bad it isn't that odious Avalon that's on hold, permanently.

[BrooklynLove]

more on this here - http://www.brooklyneagle.com/categories/category.php?category_id=27&id=18334

much ado about nothing.

[ASchwarz]

Yeah, the article states the problem is the state's bond financing cap.

This will be built, but will be delayed a bit until the cap is increased.

[investordude]

My take is if they can't get private financing don't built it. Why should the state subsidize housing, especially during a downturn?

[lofter1]

Is that your take on all construction ^ ?

No public financing -- which would, of course, mean no tax breaks -- for any projects?

[BrooklynLove]

actually, the more salient question would be why would the state/city subsidize housing during an upturn? see, e.g., recently revised tax abatement guidelines.

re the cas site - it will not sit - too much political pressure to get this done now, whether it be through private money or govt money.

anyway, these articles are a perfect example of the press pushing readership hot buttons. the topic du jour is - OMG the world is coming to an end and no one will ever be able to borrow a dime again - so you are seeing more and more articles looking for any hook into this emotion - the recent AY financiing speculation sheep herd for example. now this.

unfortuantely when people write these articles they don't give the full context of the negotiation and what is par for the course in project financing of this nature. if people want to worry about the future of planned developments in nyc, there are tons more deserving of concern than this one.

[investordude]

I don't see why the state should give developers any subsidies, except in extraordinary situations like after the 9/11 terrorist attacks in lower Manhattan. The state is unlikely to guess the right amount of housing. In the 1970s we had large abandoned buildings after state subsidies created too much housing. In the recent decade, we had a shortage.

I think you can potentially give a developer tax breaks if they build a park or waterfront access to the public into their property though.

[BrooklynLove]

^how unamerican that would be.

[antinimby]

I was doing a web search for hackitect Avinash K. Malhotra and found the rendering for this project on brownstoner (http://www.brownstoner.com/brownstoner/archives/2007/11/235_gold_street.php).


http://www.brownstoner.com/brownstoner/archives/235goldstrendering1107.jpg


Something is happening at a block on Tillary street and close to Gold Street. Hmmm... any ideas?
June 22, 2007:
http://www.pbase.com/image/80991316.jpg

[BrooklynLove]

yeah, i remember seeing that. the karl fisher version was a bit better, but barely. i think that these buildings are decent. but as we've already learned, i'm not much of a critic.

[bklynite]

http://www.brownstoner.com/brownstoner/archives/2008/02/development_wat_190.php

someone on this thread points out that only one lot is being developed -- seems right to me. when is aloft coming?

[BrooklynLove]

both permits are fresh and in place. they seem to be putting one up at a time, although the last time i was by the site it looked like they were excavating for the other hotel. i don't imagine they would wait until one is done to do the other b/c they're not going to be selling any hotel rooms adjacent to a construction site.

here's the permit for one building - 216 duffy
http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/WorkPermitDataServlet?allisn=0001760909&allisn2=0001325329&allbin=3000296&requestid=1

and the other - 222 duffy
http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/WorkPermitDataServlet?allisn=0001750476&allisn2=0001271325&allbin=3837035&requestid=4

[antinimby]

235 Gold St. might not look so terrible afterall...

From across Tillary:
http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/9213/235goldstnm1.jpg


From Gold & Concord Sts.:
http://img514.imageshack.us/img514/9115/235goldstatc9.jpg

Winick (http://www.winick.com/2008_listings/235_gold_st/235_gold_st.htm)

[sfenn1117]

^I can deal with that. The area needs to see lots of residents move in.

[antinimby]

Haha, I knew you'd like it, sfenn. ;)

I would have liked to see the set-back tower portion facing Tillary, to be taller, at least ten more stories.

As it is right now, the whole block just looks too table-top flat to me but overall, I guess it could be worse.

[krulltime]

http://www.pbase.com/image/80991316.jpg

Looks ok. What are they going to do with that oldish building in the middle of both new buildings? It is kind of ugly how it looks now. Maybe open some windows again?

[antinimby]

I think that one will continue to be used for storage.

[Skylimitone]

Does both buildings have the same address?

[BrooklynLove]

i dig those new renderings.

antiN - thanks for posting them.

[ablarc]

http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/9213/235goldstnm1.jpg

Washington, DC.

I would have liked to see the set-back tower portion facing Tillary, to be taller, at least ten more stories.

As it is right now, the whole block just looks too table-top flat to me but overall, I guess it could be worse.
Washington, DC.

[antinimby]

What were you expecting on Tillary St., Paris? :D

[BrooklynRider]

Ratner's Atlantic Terminal is taking longer to build than the Pyramids of Egypt...

http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd121/BrooklynRiderRob/1182.jpg

Another crane rises over Brooklyn...

http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd121/BrooklynRiderRob/1181.jpg

And, egards, it is the hideous Gene Kaufman designed Sheraton...

http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd121/BrooklynRiderRob/1187.jpg

Avalon site is cleared. Bovis is obviously the CM and have slapped their sign up in a jiffy...

http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd121/BrooklynRiderRob/1186.jpg

The SOM building is going slowly...

http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd121/BrooklynRiderRob/1183.jpg

The tower desction is starting to distinguish itself...

http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd121/BrooklynRiderRob/1184.jpg

Sunday work on chillers...

http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd121/BrooklynRiderRob/1185.jpg

These are old news and there's really nothing new these days, but Oro I...

http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd121/BrooklynRiderRob/1188.jpg

[BrooklynRider]

Downturn! Big D’Town project hits the brakes

By Dana Rubinstein
The Brooklyn Paper

A row of local businesses on Myrtle Avenue were torn down last year to make room for a large skyscraper and retail strip. But now that project has been halted due to financial troubles, angering residents.

Last month’s abrupt shutdown of a major development project near Metrotech is a setback for planners’ lofty vision of a new, 24-7 business and residential mini-city in Downtown Brooklyn, said experts this week.

John Catsimatidis, the owner of the Gristedes supermarket chain, who tore down a Laundromat, pharmacy and grocery store along two Myrtle Avenue blocks in preparation for a 660-unit, mixed-income residential development, has halted the project — temporarily, he says — blaming both the credit crisis and the lack of affordable housing bonds.

“Right now we’re in an evaluation stage, which should last a few weeks,” Catsimatidis told The Brooklyn Paper.

On the one hand, Catsimatidis could abandon the project’s 215-unit affordable housing component altogether and just build market-rate units, but then he’d also be passing up some tax incentives.

“It’s not required by law, but we get certain bonus opportunities if we do [the affordable housing],” he said.

Then again, if he just builds market-rate units, the private credit crunch and looming recession cast doubt on whether he’ll get enough financing, and whether enough buyers will be able to afford the finished product.

Such questions are increasingly bedeviling developers in Downtown Brooklyn, according to Joe Chan, the president of the Downtown Brooklyn Partnership, the quasi-governmental group that oversees the redevelopment of the area bounded by Tillary, Fulton and Jay Streets and Flatbush Avenue Extension.

“Do developers developing condos [consider] a rental scenario?” asked Chan. “Do they [consider] a condo project with a hotel component? Absolutely. I think you see a more thorough analysis of their options.”

Chan said such rejiggering is coming in the wake of the sub-prime mortgage meltdown.

“We are definitely seeing developers having more difficulty getting financing now than they did three months ago,” said Chan.

Ray Quartararo, of Jones Lang LaSalle, an international firm that manages projects for developers, said that it’s not just banks that are growing more cautious. Some builders are getting cold feet, too.

“People who were going to move forward very quickly on a deal, are beginning to say, ‘You know what, I’m gong to wait and see what happens,’” said Quartararo, though he stressed that the full impact wouldn’t be felt for a couple of years yet.

Chan’s forecast is less optimistic than the vision of a glitzy, 24-7 residential and business community that he presented in November, in an animated presentation narrated by legendary actor Ian McKellan.

The presentation predicted $9.5 billion in new private investment by 2012, including 14,301 residential units, 1,803 hotel rooms and 1.6 million square feet of new retail space.

That vision was itself a reconfiguration of the original Downtown Brooklyn Plan, which envisioned Downtown as a booming business district, rather than a bedroom community.

Whatever he decides to do, Catsimatidis, who revealed the delay to New York Magazine, sought to downplay any concerns that he’s going to leave a block of abandoned lots between Prince Street and Ashland Place in Fort Greene, where once there were neighborhood amenities.

“We’re being a little extra cautious,” he said. “You wouldn’t want to jump in a swimming pool unless there’s water in there.”

©2008 The Brooklyn Paper

[BrooklynLove]

nothing but speculation. the few quotes from caz say nothing of abandoning this project, and the rest of the sound bites are general observations from outsiders.

[Skylimitone]

Can you remind me about this project? This section of Brooklyn has a lot going on. The Albee Square project is now called City Point, I think the proposed tower will be 60 stories.



The SOM building is going slowly...

http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd121/BrooklynRiderRob/1183.jpg

The tower desction is starting to distinguish itself...

http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd121/BrooklynRiderRob/1184.jpg

Sunday work on chillers...

http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd121/BrooklynRiderRob/1185.jpg

[BrooklynLove]

^ that's 150 myrtle ave - condos with an affordable component. at one point they had content at 150myrtleave.com but that appears to be wiped right now.


in other news, check out these 2 recent large scale lot combos in downtown bk, on acris:

1) block 145, lot 22: 2/4/08 zoning lot descrip, map at page 19 - basically everything between fulton, willoughby, bridge and duffield except for the 2 new side by side kaufman hotels and a few sliver lots

2) block 152, lot 37: 11/8/07 oning lot descrip, map at page 7 - basically the entire northern half, except for the 2 corner lots and one sliver lot, between willoughby, lawrence, bridge and fulton

big stuff in the works

[zinka]

1) is the 388 Bridge development that has been mentioned here before.

2) is the United American Land development. I think it has been mentioned here as well.

[BrooklynLove]

^ negative.

the 388 bridge building is being built on one of the parcels mentioned in the combo at #2; unclear what is planned for the other parcels in that combo

the combo at #1 is the united american development

[bklynite]

that's some huge stuff. interesting.

^ that's 150 myrtle ave - condos with an affordable component. at one point they had content at 150myrtleave.com but that appears to be wiped right now.


in other news, check out these 2 recent large scale lot combos in downtown bk, on acris:

1) block 145, lot 22: 2/4/08 zoning lot descrip, map at page 19 - basically everything between fulton, willoughby, bridge and duffield except for the 2 new side by side kaufman hotels and a few sliver lots

2) block 152, lot 37: 11/8/07 oning lot descrip, map at page 7 - basically the entire northern half, except for the 2 corner lots and one sliver lot, between willoughby, lawrence, bridge and fulton

big stuff in the works

[BrooklynLove]

http://dddb.net/php/latestnews_Linked.php?id=1077

I'm glad the city decided not to use eminent domain here. It's just not worth it - Brooklyn will be fine without a park in the middle of downtown. And I'm probably even happier if they aren't going to celebrate the underground railroad here when its far from obvious the buildings are related to the underground railroad.


oy vey:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/02292008/news/regionalnews/historic_home_in_peril_99785.htm

[bklynite]

a shame -- city tech tower lost. anyone know replacement plans?

http://curbed.com/archives/2008/02/28/no_piano_ratner_pulls_plug_on_downtown_brooklyn_to wer.php

[ASchwarz]

^
No, they still have to sell the site to another developer. The local councilperson thinks it should be an office tower.

[Mitch Warner]

...here's a link to the brochure for Catsimatidis' on-hold/possibly dead? 162 Myrtle Ave. project. Doesn't add all that much to the renderings we've already seen, but offers a couple of other angles on it.

http://www.winick.com/2008_listings/162_myrtle_ave/162_myrtle_ave.pdf

[Mitch Warner]

Here's the new site--practically info-free! ;) -- for 150 Myrtle Ave.

Link deleted by moderator

[JCMAN320]

I was in Downtown BK and was lookin at the Oro and I like it. To me 70 and 90 Columbus Dr. in Downtown JC is going to have the same style just different brick color.

[BrooklynLove]

Mitch - thanks for the links. re Cas project, not dead, not really on hold either. just stop by during work hours.

JCMan - what do you think of the 77 hudson development?

[JCMAN320]

I like it it's unique building layout and the way they mask the garage with the rippling metal looks very nice. It will also fill a gap in our skyline with a quality building.

[BrooklynLove]

i dig it.

[BrooklynLove]

so i was checking out the site on sunday - excavation is progressing nicely. the elevation plans are posted on the construction fence, and indicate a pool at the tip of the triangle. d-o-p-e.

[BrooklynLove]

Catsimatidis project proceeding w/o affordable component, at least for now.

http://www.brooklyneagle.com/categories/category.php?category_id=27&id=19013

[Publius]

Pair of NY Times articles, money quote:

The slowing economy, weighed down by a widening credit crisis, is likely to delay the signature office tower and three residential buildings at the heart of the $4 billion Atlantic Yards (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/a/atlantic_yards_brooklyn/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) project in Brooklyn (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/classifieds/realestate/locations/newyork/newyorkcity/brooklyn/?inline=nyt-geo), the developer said.

“It may hold up the office building,” the developer, Bruce C. Ratner, said in a recent interview. “And the bond market may slow the pace of the residential buildings.”


Mr. Ratner, chief executive of Forest City Ratner, did not specify the kinds of delays possible, but suggested that construction could be put off for years. His comments are his first public indication that the darkening economy has slowed the ambitious project, spanning 22 acres at the intersection of Flatbush and Atlantic Avenues.


The developer did say he was confident about starting construction on a $950 million basketball arena for the Nets by the end of the year. The arena was to be surrounded by the office tower, known as Miss Brooklyn, and three residential buildings in the first phase of the project.


But Mr. Ratner has yet to secure an anchor tenant for the Miss Brooklyn building, and now plans to phase in the residential buildings slowly.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/nyregion/21yards.html?hp

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/arts/design/21atla.html

[BrooklynLove]

bummer, but not a surprise. either way, this is getting built ... albeit apparently by 2020 instead of 2012. how annoying it is going to be over the next several years to hear complaints of prolonged construction from the same groups who pushed the baseless litigation which delayed work and now puts this project in the financing doldrums.

[BrooklynRider]

1. Atlantic Yards - Despite the whining from Ratner it moves forward...

http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd121/BrooklynRiderRob/1313.jpg

2. Atlantic Avenue Terminal - taking long than the pyramids at Giza....

http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd121/BrooklynRiderRob/1314.jpg

3. Rockwell Place - Crawling along. Apparently all building construction schedules are on at least 5 years.

http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd121/BrooklynRiderRob/1315.jpg

4. Sheraton - From the looks of the base, this is the first or a two tower project. Kaufman's monstrosities have been built as one building up until now. Never-the-less, here it comes...

http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd121/BrooklynRiderRob/1316.jpg

http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd121/BrooklynRiderRob/1318.jpg

5. SOM Tower at Myrtle Ave & Flatbush - The most promising of the downtown buildings thus far, but, it too, moves at a crawl...

http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd121/BrooklynRiderRob/1317.jpg

That's it for downtown Brooklyn. Really not much going on.

[BrooklynLove]

Rider - sadly that fence has been up around the gas station for a long time now with little activity happening within. over the past 3 weeks or so, the nucleus of activity has been in the cut down toward vanderbilt. go check it out sometime.

by the way, avalon fort greene banners are up and oro construction elevator is c