There seem to be a world of mixed messages on the 475 Kent front.

First off, I’ve heard that all of the grain has been removed the building. This removes the immediate fire hazard, though the question of operable sprinklers still remains. The “City” (not clear which agency, Office of Emergency Management, I think) is now saying that extensive modifications are required before the building can be occupied. For commercial tenants, occupancy can not occur until “all violations” have been corrected. Residential tenants will not be allowed to occupy the building until the owner files to convert the building to residential use.

The violations that need to be corrected for commercial use appear to refer to NYFD and similar violations – life safety issues that prevent the building from being used for its stated purpose (the building currently has a Certificate of Occupancy for commercial use only; it is in a residential zone, but the CO does not allow residential use). Without knowing the nature of these “violations”, its impossible to say how long it might take to correct them.

With regard to residential occupancy, things are not necessarily as bad as they sound at first blush. If the requirement is truly “filing, by owner, for conversion to a residential building status”, that is something that could happen in a matter of days or weeks, as “filing” is very different than getting an actual approval for such a conversion (as in a TCO or CO).

While all of this sounds good, it requires the owner to hire the right professionals, correct violations and make the necessary applications. (As noted yesterday, the tenants appear to be working with the owner to make some repairs.) On the other hand, the City has also announced that tenants will be allowed into the building during certain hours on Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday. After that, the building will be padlocked and inaccessible (to tenants) indefinitely.

Some thoughts on the eviction of hundreds of tenants from 475 Kent (covered extensively elsewhere, see below). First, this is a building I know fairly well. I know (or knew) at least two of the master lease holders, and know (or knew) about half a dozen other tenants. Coincidentally, I rang in the new millennium from the penthouse of 475 Kent; just over a year and a half later, I watched tower 1 of the World Trade Center come down while standing on the roof of 475.

The floors and apartments I have seen in the building were not fire traps. They were, by and large, professionally constructed and divided into reasonable live/work spaces. In other words, they were not a rabbit warren of jerry built cubicles, nor were they large loft spaces shared by multiple tenants. Most of the tenants I know (knew) are working artists, actually living and working in the building. (And most of them are older artists, not what one would term “hipsters” – which should be beside the point, but apparently isn’t to some.)

That said, I don’t know if the building is up to code. And I do believe that some of the violations cited by the Fire Department are very serious. In particular, the lack of a working sprinkler system and the operation of a unlicensed bakery in the basement. The lack of sprinklers is a pretty obvious defect, particularly in a commercial building that has working artists. The bakery has a lot of people scratching their heads, but the key phrase in the articles is “grain silo” – it is reported that there were two grain silos, 10 feet in diameter and 15 feet hight. So a) this was not some small matzo operation, and b) the operators of the bakery were storing a lot of potentially very flammable material. Grain (or any other fine powder1) can spontaneously combust, either as a result of improper storage within the silos, or as a result of proximity of the fine dust to open flames (such as the coal and gas ovens on premises):

Grain dust is an extremely volatile substance that can explode without warning. One such explosion occurred in 1913 at the Husted Mill and Elevator. The explosion killed 33 people and injured 80 others. Exact causes of fires and explosions were very difficult to determine. Sparks from electrical equipment were blamed, so was static electricity built up on moving belts. Overheating or badly aligned machinery caused fires and there was always the problem of careless smoking. [Buffalo History Works]

There are reports that tenants in the building offered to remove the offending grain from the basement of 475 and volunteered to set up an around-the-clock fire watch. Not ideal, but given that the temperature last night was in the low teens, some accommodation should have been found. Longer term, the solution seems pretty straightforward – eliminate the major violations by getting rid of the bakery and repairing the sprinkler system. Then allow the tenants to return to the building while the less perilous issues are addressed. It appears that a number of the tenants and master lease holders are trying to do just that.

Finally, with regard to the motives for the eviction, on the face of it, this doesn’t look like an effort on the part of the building owner to clear the building. I don’t base this on any particular facts or knowledge, but note that in addition to a host of “illegal” residents, the bakery and a school and catering hall were also shut down (the latter two were in an adjacent building). So if the owner, Nachman Brach, did drop the dime on himself, he probably got more than he bargained for, and has lost his bakery in the process. (On the other hand, there is apparently a court case in the works that could give the existing tenants “rent-controlled” status.) Also arguing against the owner’s hand in this eviction is the fact that Brach is also the owner of 146 Leonard Street, the illegal loft where firefighter Daniel Pujdak died while fighting a fire in the building – so clearly NYFD had reason to closely inspect his buildings.

Bottom line: hopefully the tenants can return to their homes and places of work soon.

Some links –

Tuesday:
…An Uncertain Future [Times]
Residents of Brooklyn Loft Evicted for Fire Code Violations [amNY]
A First-Person Account of an Eviction [amNY]
A Holdout Stays in Brooklyn Loft [Metro]

Monday:
475 Kent Avenue Evacuated [Gothamist]
Dispatches From the Frigid Mass Eviction… [Gowanus Lounge]
City Evacuates 11-Story Building in Brooklyn [Times]
Illegal School, Matzo Factory Shut [Daily News]
Matzo Bawl at Building [Post]
Dear Senator Connor… [Albany Project]

1. This type of spontaneous combustion was also common in sugar refineries, and is believed to have been the cause of the fire that destroyed the original Domino refinery in 1882.↩

Further to the discussion yesterday about the idiocy of naming your new condominium development after a light switch, it is worth pointing out that the (shudder) Decora was designed by the same architect that brought us the Lucent. I have no idea if the same marketing geniuses are behind both projects, but it wouldn’t surprise me if the same folks who would name their new condominium development after a recently bankrupt casualty of the dot-com boom would also name a development after a line of lighting fixtures available at the local Home Depot.

But lest you think stupid branding decisions are limited to only to ugly Brooklyn condominium projects, they are not. Take, for instance, Xerox – the venerable office technology company. Clearly, their pixellated “X” logo was not cutting it, so they turned to Interbrand, who came up with a cutting-edge X-on-a-ball logo. Surely they have a good reason for this change:

Our new brand reflects who we are [the Danish national football team?], the markets we serve and the innovation that differentiates us in our industry. We have expanded into new markets, created new businesses, acquired new capabilities, developed technologies that launched new industries — all to ensure we make it easier, faster, and less costly for our customers to share information

Congratulations, now no one has the faintest idea what the hell you sell.

If that meaningless marketing babble sounds familiar, chances are you’ve been going to open houses in the neighborhood:

Warehouse 11 [warning – highly annoying techno loop] debuts 120 designer living environments—studios, one- and two-bedrooms—dreamt up by the noted Andres Escobar & Associates. All created with a whimsically artistic, outside-the-lines approach. Crisscrossing Chic Industrial and Sumptuous Modern in Williamsburg’s oh-so-sweet Bedford Avenue/McCarren Park location.

Clearly, our nation’s marketers have run out of words. And ideas.

This is too damn easy:

We’ve been watching this scary unique building 165 N. 10 Street in the Burg unfold ever since we laid eyes on the rendering […] from the drawing boards of Gene Kaufman Architect… In the meantime, the building is now being identified as The Decora… [Curbed]

Kaufman’s Decora:

Leviton’s Decora light fixture:

In the comments section of my last post, Cap’n Transit points to an entry on his blog that brings up an aspect of making connections to the ferry that I had not considered. Namely, that the ferry companies do it. The Cap’n mentions the success that New York Waterway (the “Jersey ferry”) has had with running shuttle buses both in Manhattan and New Jersey. Imperatore and company figured out long ago that without connections on the land side, ferries were really only useful to people who lived and worked within a short walk of the ferry. By providing an extensive shuttle service on land, NYWW has greatly expanded its customer base. By doing so, they effectively eliminate the need to get on public transit in Manhattan, thus eliminating the two fare problem (in the process, though, adding to the congestion on Manhattan streets).1

I’d recommend reading Cap’n Transit’s original blog post (Water Taxi: What If?). He also touches on the issue of accessibility that I discussed, but from the point of view of LIC commuters. The formula remains the same (live near the ferry, work near the ferry – no problem), he just provides more and different examples. The rest of the blog is also worth a tour.

Councilmember David Yassky at the NYWT press conference.

On Saturday there was a press conference at Schaeffer Landing to push for the preservation of NY Water Taxi service through the winter. The press conference was held by Council members Eric Gioia (Queens) and David Yassky (Brooklyn), and was attended by 30 or 40 water taxi patrons.

Between them, Gioia and Yassky probably represent 90% of the commuters on the water taxi. Both pols were pushing the Bloomberg administration to subsidize the water taxi to keep it operation. Gioia noted, quite rightly, that we should be “expanding water access, not cutting back”.

No doubt, the water taxi is an important adjunct to local mass transit. More important, though, it is an important perk for luxury waterfront development. As a frequent, though not regular, patron of the water taxi, I certainly hope that it will be back in business soon (like, next Wednesday). But before the subsidies start flowing, lets recognize some of the shortcomings of the water taxi, and see if maybe government can’t step in smartly.

First, the water taxi is not cheap. The current fare from Schaeffer Landing to Wall Street is about $5.00 each way if you buy tickets in lots of 10. There is a monthly commuter pass, but that costs just under $200.

Second, the water taxi is only convenient to places near the water. Unless you live AND work near a water taxi stop, you’ll need to add in the cost of a bus or subway, which will take your daily commute (round trip) to $14. So unless (like me) you live AND work reasonably close to the water taxi, a daily commute will run you 3.5 times the cost of a subway commute (even without the added cost of a subway/bus connection, the water taxi is 2.5 times the cost of mass transit).

Third, the water taxi runs hourly, three times in the morning and four times in the evening. The latest run out of Schaeffer Landing each morning is 9:20. Fine if you work banker hours, not so hot if you don’t.

That means that for the water taxi to be viable without a double fare, you probably live near the waterfront in northern Brooklyn Heights, southern Dumbo, southern Williamsburg, or southern Long Island City, and you work either in Lower Manhattan or in the far east 30s (Bellvue/NYU hospital area). But you don’t work any of the swing shifts at Bellvue/NYU, and you may not be one of the increasing numbers of non-fiancial types working in the financial district.

(And I’ll add in a fourth shortcoming – the water taxi is not always the most reliable means of transport. I’ve had it show up 40 minutes late for an evening run. And with no notice as to when the boat will actually show.)

All that said, the water taxi is a great resource. Between the JMZ and the water taxi (and the occasional ride across the Williamsburg Bridge), my reliance on the L train in the past year has become occasional at best. The JMZ is still the preferred means of transit (when I’m not on two wheels), but I take the water taxi about a third of the time. And it is by far the quickest and most relaxing way to get to the city – from Williamsurg, its 10 minutes to Wall Street (about 3 minutes from Fulton Ferry) – and the whole way you are able to sit back and watch the city float by.

But taking into account all of the above, how should we city subsidize the water taxi (if it should). First off, I think that the people that should be stepping up to the plate with wallets open are the developers and condo associations of waterfront property. The developers have sold (or are selling) their luxury units on the basis of convenient access to the city via water taxi. They (and the condo owners themselves) have the most to lost if the water taxi disappears, or (just as bad) becomes a seasonal means of transport. So in terms of direct subsidies to keep the water taxi running all year long, most, if not all of any subsidies should be coming from them.

The city, though, should recognize the value of the water taxi. It takes commuters off already crowded subway lines (like the L and the 7). It makes previously remote areas of the city more accessible and more open to new development (and the more profitable those developments are, the better they will be able to support the affordable housing components that are part and parcel of the development). What the city should try to subsidize is a viable water taxi system that integrates with the existing mass transit system (i.e., free transfers), expands service (i.e., longer hours) and makes the service more affordable (i.e., lower fares in general).

In terms of lowering fares, the city’s help here should be temporary. As water taxi service expands, and more waterfront developments come on line, basic economics says that the cost per ride should come down. How far it comes down is another question, but it should come down. But until the water taxi achieves that level of viability, there is a public interest served in subsidizing service (even if it be through loans rather than direct subsidies). Until then, I’ll be taking the J train or (weather permitting) the bridge.

More here:
Pol urges Mike to shore up river taxi [NYDN]
Lawmakers call on city to subsidize water taxis [7Online]
Local Lawmakers Call On City To Offer Water Taxi Service [NY1]
Lawmakers call on city to subsidize water taxis [Newsday]

This past weekend, the Times posted an op-ed by Alexander Garvin and Nick Peterson titled The High Price of Parking, on the pitfalls of providing mandatory parking in most rehabs and all new developments. The argument really boils down to this: if you build it, they will park. And in the process, they will add more cars to the city. Those cars eventually wind up on the streets (even if they are parked at night), and add to congestion and pollution.

Recently, this was an issue at CB 1’s land use committee. Developers of 55 Hope Street, a turn-of-the-century loft building being converted to apartments, want to waive most of the required parking. Their argument is that it would require a significant expenditure to adapt this 100-year-old building to provide the 46 parking spots required by zoning (essentially, it would require rebuilding the structural system of the basement and part of the first floor to eliminate about half of the structural columns). They are able to provide 11 spots on vacant land on the development site. In addition to the expense required in retrofitting the building for parking, the creation of a parking garage at the raised basement would have a significant impact on this historic building (it has been deemed eligible for the National Register of Historic Places).

Most importantly (and not part of the applicant’s argument for a special permit), the provision of this much parking flies in the face of smart development. As Garvin and Peterson point out, the parking requirements in the zoning resolution are more than 50 years old, and date to a time when the powers that be thought that the car was the future of New York City.

The argument put forth by those who oppose the special permit at 55 Hope is that its already hard enough to find parking on the street. But the provision of off-street parking actually has very little effect on the demand for on-street parking. Look in Manhattan, where there are many off-street garages – all of the on-street parking spaces are still taken. The availability of off-street parking simply increases the overall supply of parking – encouraging more people to have cars – and does nothing to offset the supply of (free) on-street parking. So long as on-street parking is plentiful and free, people will have cars. When free parking becomes difficult, people will start to make rational decisions on the relative merit of owning a car. (In many Brooklyn developments – high end ones at that – provided parking is sitting vacant.)

The real solution is to rethink the parking requirements in the zoning resolution, as Garvin and Peterson argue. I would add that the solution to some of our local parking woes would be to institute resident-only parking during certain hours. But for 55 Hope, a project that is 6 blocks or less from 3 subway stations (on two different lines), it simply doesn’t make sense to require parking that doesn’t work for the building, and won’t significantly impact the number of cars parked on the street (but will impact the number of cars driving on the street).