Scale seems all wrong on that building.
Future subsidized housing ^
Slums with a view!
Why you say that?
Word in the press last week that there are newly-finished but not yet sold condo developments going into foreclosure that will be used to fulfill the inclusionary housing component of projects -- pertains to developments that have gotten into financial trouble and where developers (who had gotten a zoning variance) are now unable to meet their commitment to build medium-income housing.
Whether or not these buildings fit that bill I'm not sure.
Too much thinking about the specifics would have spoiled the yoke.
Ahh now I see what you mean!
Lofter - not these buildings.
Not sure of what is or isn't included in the list of 601 ...
150 Rally for Conversion of Vacant Condos to Affordable Housing
Brooklyn Daily Eagle
Compiled by Linda Collins
DOWNTOWN BROOKLYN — An estimated 150 people turned out for a press conference and rally at Albee Square in Downtown Brooklyn Tuesday to ask the city to consider converting thousands of vacant condos in an estimated 601 buildings citywide into affordable housing units.
In a survey of nine community districts across the city by Right to the City-NYC (RTTC), a coalition of city community organizations, 601 vacant condominium buildings were identified, including 126 buildings in Community District 2 in Downtown Brooklyn and 108 in Community District 4 in Bushwick ...
These waterfront buildings are some of the most valuable in Brooklyn, and would NEVER be considered for affordable housing.
I have no idea if the developers are doing well or not, but that's called the real estate market. You make a fortune in good times, and (if you're smart) hopefully put some money away for bad times.
NYC HPD has made it very clear that the affordable condo program will ONLY be in neighborhoods with high proportions of foreclosures, meaning Bed Stuy, Jamaica, and a few other places.
Besides, the program is only funded to the tune of $50 million or something, which is only enough to fund a few smaller buildings.
CB1 Committee Not Digging Plans for Huge Burg Project
Last week Community Board 1's land-use committee voted 8-1 against approving a zoning change on the South Williamsburg waterfront for a humongous development that's on the drawing board, according to The Brooklyn Paper. The project slated for Kent and Division, which is known as Rose Plaza on the River, is supposed to consist of three residential towers with 801 units between them. Board members spoke out against the development mainly on the grounds that only 20 percent of its units will be designated affordable housing, and because its proposed unit mix is mostly studios and 1-bedrooms. “Is this what you think our community needs?” asked Rabbi David Niederman, a committee member and president of the United Jewish Organization. “It’s another development that gentrifies a community that is suffering already from a lack of housing.” For their part, the development team argued that Rose Plaza would add construction jobs, affordable housing and open space to the neighborhood, and despite Williamsburg's inventory glut they're banking on it being a cinch to sell because they anticipate a market rebound.
This ‘Rose’ Has Thorns! [Brooklyn Paper] GMAP
Big in the Burg: Rose Plaza on the River [Brownstoner]
Just to the south (right, in the rendering) is the site of the recently demo'd Con-ed building. Off to the left are the two towers of the Schaefer Condos and next to those will be the Kedem Winery Development.
So in a decade or two from now the east side of the East River from the Navy Yard to Astoria will be lined residedntial towers. Hopefully they all won't be so generic.
I'm still bitter about that ConEd plant getting demo'ed. It would've made this area infinitely more interesting if they'd re-adapted it for ... well, anything, rather than sell off the land for another version of "Northside Piers" or "The Edge."
New 'Burg Condo Building Sports Unplanned 'Gritty' Look
February 22, 2010, by Joey
Renderings of the 28-unit 390 Lorimer Street are still alive and well on the website of S3 Architecture, their fake trees greening up the Williamsburg block, fake people kicking back on white leather couches and playing fetch with fake dogs. So calming! In reality the building, which has been percolating for a couple of years now, is looking a bit more rough around the edges. A special Curbed correspondent sends in some fresh shots of 390 Lorimer, and it seems that the building is picking up the High Line's slack when it comes to graffiti. Based on the flimsy "front door" we wouldn't be surprised if squatters are now enjoying the "creamy white and varied blue porcelain tile and rift cut oak floating cabinets and shelves" intended for our rendering friends.
PropertyShark's info on the plot notes that a mortgage foreclosure lis pendens was filed by creditor Capitol One Bank back in June, which could be one reason for the holdup. Writes our tipster, "It would be interesting to aggregate all the properties being started/built/stalled from Metropolitan Avenue to Montrose Avenue between (roughly) Union and Bushwick Avenues (in 'East Williamsburg'). There are a slew of them. Some of them are damned big to boot. It'll be interesting to see what happens when they hit the market. The ones which actually get finished, anyway. My prognostication: total disaster." Aggregate all the properties? We think this is enough despair for one day.
Lorimer Condominiums [S3 Architecture]
The Montagues and Capulets of Brooklyn Development
By Eliot Brown
In the past five years, one industrial site after another along the Williamsburg waterfront has been demolished and inevitably replaced by a high-end apartment tower, gradually adding a new skyline across the East River. The Brooklyn Eastern District Terminal became the Edge; a trash transfer station became Northside Piers; the onetime hulking Schaefer Brewery south of the Williamsburg Bridge became the 25-story Schaefer Landing; and now the owners of the former Domino Sugar factory are fighting to put 2,200 apartments on their site.
And for more than five years, Isack Rosenberg, the owner of the giant Certified Lumber warehouse just to the south of the Schaefer property, has wanted to do the same to his waterfront land, currently a sprawling, low-rise, red-brick building and a parking lot littered with lumber. He drew up plans and began a lengthy approvals process for a three-tower complex, dubbed “Rose Plaza on the River,” with 801 apartments that would rise around an open plaza and esplanade.
But just weeks away from facing a must-win approval from the City Council for a rezoning of his land, the plan appears imperiled, due in large part, according to one side, to a religious rift between two of Brooklyn’s most powerful Hasidic factions.
The standoff also involves the newly elected councilman for the area, Stephen Levin, who has taken an unusually forceful stance in opposition, displaying no eagerness for compromise in the face of community resistance to Mr. Rosenberg’s development. The stage is set for a high-profile rejection of a major development by the City Council, an extremely rare occurrence in New York City, particularly along the former industrial waterfront.
Much of the public opposition from Mr. Levin and other community groups has been directed at what is said to be too little affordable housing—160 units, or 20 percent, would be for low-income residents—in addition to concerns about overwhelming the neighborhood.
But running as an undercurrent in the drama is the complex world of Williamsburg Hasidic Jewish politics, with two bitter rival factions of Hasidim’s dominant Satmar sect staking out opposing positions on the issue.
Like oil and water, the two factions frequently take opposing sides in the community, supporting rival political candidates and warring with each other over proposed developments. The split initially formed over a succession fight after Grand Rebbe Moshe Teitelbaum, the sect’s leader, died in 2006, leading both his sons, Aaron and Zalman, to claim leadership. Their factions together have tens of thousands of members.
Recently, they stood in virulent opposition to each other on the hard-fought Broadway Triangle affordable-housing development planned for East Williamsburg, with the locally dominant Zalmanite faction strongly urging the plan, backed many Brooklyn Democrats and Mr. Levin, and many Aaronites working to defeat it.
MR. ROSENBERG, who bought Certified Lumber two decades ago and has sat on the land since, is a Satmar who is a follower of the Aaronite faction.
His proposal, not surprisingly, enjoys the support of leading members of the Aaronite community. The Zalmanites’ opposition is led by the influential United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburg, which has ties to the local Brooklyn Democratic Party leader Vito Lopez, among other elected officials (Mr. Levin was Mr. Lopez’s chief of staff).
The developer charges that it is the rivalry, not a lack of merit, that is fueling resistance.
“Unfortunately, as a result of the politics in Williamsburg and the split in the Satmar community, I believe the opposition has developed regarding Rose Plaza,” said Howard Weiss, Mr. Rosenberg’s attorney, who has been leading the project through public approvals. “It’s simply the local politics that’s driving the opposition.”
Mr. Levin, the local councilman, insists that the issue is far more complex—he said any intra-Satmar disagreement “has no bearing at all” on his position—and his opposition is rather a reaction to a developer who failed to listen to the broader community.
“You have people on the community board from all over the district that voted against this thing, and I share their concerns,” Mr. Levin said. “This is a much bigger issue. People in Williamsburg are upset about overdevelopment, and about over–luxury development.”
For his part, Rabbi David Niederman, president of UJO, denied that religious rivalries played any role in his group’s position, saying he was simply pushing for more affordable housing, consistent with concerns of non-Hasidic groups. “The overwhelming opposition came from outside of the Jewish community that has no interest in this internal rivalry,” he said.
Indeed, the developer did a poor job of winning over the community board, which felt Mr. Rosenberg was unresponsive to its concerns and voted 31-8 against the project; the board also urged him to boost affordable-housing levels.
Mr. Rosenberg is new to the world of large-scale development, with no experience to his name of something on this scale, not to mention a set of bankruptcy problems—not the most desirable quality for a developer trying to round up votes. The only comparable development he has done is Warehouse 11, a new, boxy 120-unit Williamsburg condo building developed at the peak of the market. The high cost of the loan for the project—$50 million—sent Mr. Rosenberg into bankruptcy; only in recent days has he negotiated a settlement with the main lender, Capital One, although other issues may remain. This was not his first time in financial trouble—in 1999, Mr. Rosenberg pleaded guilty in federal court to bankruptcy fraud, receiving two years probation.
BUT MR. ROSENBERG'S financial woes aside, what makes the opposition of Mr. Levin so unique is that it appears unwavering, a rare occurrence when a project moves this far along in the public-approval process. The City Council is the last stop in a seven-month review process—a hearing is set for next week—after the City Planning Commission and the local community board, which very frequently recommends “no” votes on projects. At this point, developers traditionally unveil a compromise plan to assuage the local member’s concerns, inevitably leading both sides to declare a “win-win,” and the rest of the Council duly approves the development.
In another unusual move, it was nearly voted down at the City Planning Commission after representatives of the Brooklyn borough president pushed for its rejection.
But Mr. Weiss, Mr. Rosenberg’s attorney, said that at this point he views Mr. Levin’s eventual support as unlikely, as he met with the councilman on the issue and was not offered a clear path to winning his support.
“He listened, and didn’t indicate that there would be any basis for him to support the project,” Mr. Weiss said. “We’re not even able to identify precisely what the issues are.”
Mr. Weiss now plans to try to sway the rest of the Council, pointing out that the project has the same amount of below-market-rate apartments as other private waterfront developments in the area. In coming days, he said, his client plans to increase that number.
Still, it is highly uncommon for the Council to vote against the will of a local member on land use, as members don’t want the rest of the body to turn around and do the same on a development in their districts.
Mr. Levin did not rule out a compromise entirely, although his language suggested he did not see one on the horizon. “I’m always open to having a dialogue,” he said, cautioning, “I have not seen any meaningful concessions on their part.”