There seems to be a trend developing. Just the other day, Miss Heather reported on a potentially illegal hostel operating (or about to operate) out of a former glove factory at 300 Graham Avenue. A few minutes ago, I received a press release from Assemblyman Joe Lentol’s office saying that another illegal hostel – this one operating at 112 North 6th Street – had been closed down and vacated by the Department of Buildings. According to Lentol’s office, the six apartments in the building were being used to house up to 16 “guests” each – for a potential capacity of 192 people.

A few things to note here. First, this is not a new trend. There have been reports of condos and apartments operating as hostels, B&Bs, hotels, etc. for a few years now. It is a sign of the times, as owners find themselves unable to sell condos. But given the level of rents in the neighborhood, it is also a sign of greed.

Second, there is a reason why DOB should be cracking down on this. Apartments are not built to the same code as transient hotels. Hotels require more fire protection and, importantly, more and better marked egress. Putting 192 transient residents into a non-fireproof building designed for 20 or 30 residents at the most is a recipe for disaster.

Third, having spent many an afternoon at Sweetwater Tavern watching the “conversion” of this building from a two-story commercial structure to it’s current state, the fact that there something fishy going on here is the least surprising news in the neighborhood. (The most surprising news is that this building is still standing.) A cursory look at the DOB records shows that this building has no CO, and that the conversion (started in 1998) wasn’t even for residential use. In other words, it is not legal for anyone to be living here.

UPDATE: Miss Heather has a lot more details, including screen shots of the advertising for the hostel (note that the picture they use to advertise themselves is not 112 North 6th Street).

Over at the Huffington Post, John Petro looks at the transit impacts of the “New Domino”:

It is estimated that an underground parking space in New York City costs between $30,000 and $50,000. Even at the lower estimate, that’s $50 million dollars that the developer plans to spend building underground parking. What if instead of providing so much parking, the developer only built half of the parking and diverted the rest of the money to improving transit service? What about an express bus service during peak hours from the development to, say, Union Square? Radical thinking, perhaps, but without innovative solutions, New York City’s growth will stagnate.

Shuttle buses and water taxis are not the answer. The former just make it more efficient to bring the overcrowding to the subway, while the latter will peel off at best 75 to 150 passengers per hour in good weather (and the City has said it won’t be built at the Domino site anyway).

(And for the record, New Domino’s reps estimated the average cost per space at $50k, so the total cost of their structured parking is more like $85 million.)

This is a potential game-changer:

On behalf of Council Member Stephen Levin, I want to thank the Borough President for giving me the opportunity to testify today on CPC’s proposal for the Domino Sugar site. Council Member Levin would like to express his full support for Community Board One’s recent recommendation of Disapproval with Modifications for this project. [emphasis added]

The Community Board expressed profound concerns over the project’s overwhelming height and density and the effect that this would have on the surrounding community and the current infrastructure. Specifically, the Board cited the strain that the project would bring to the already inadequate transit options for the area, the strain on local traffic and CPC’s requests for the maximum allowed on-site parking.

The overall reduction in the ratio of open space per resident in the area and the unmitigated shadow effects of the northernmost towers on Grand Ferry Park were also cited by the Board as grounds for disapproval. For these reasons and others, the Council Member supports the Board’s recommendation. The project is simply too big. CPC’s plan would introduce over 6,000 new residents to the neighborhood – a nearly 25% population increase for the ½ mile area surrounding the site.

Council Member Levin does not wish to minimize CPC’s impressive commitment to 660 units of affordable housing. Affordable housing is desperately needed in this community and CPC has worked hard to recognize this need. The inclusion of community space within the project is also to be commended. Furthermore, Councilman Levin appreciates CPC’s involvement with, and respect for, the Williamsburg community throughout this process. Nonetheless, unless the issues of height and density, transportation, and open space, among others, are addressed, Council Member Levin cannot support the plan for the Domino Sugar site as currently proposed. Thank you for your time.

That was Councilmember’s Steve Levin’s testimony at last night’s Borough President’s hearing on the Domino Rezoning (as read by Levin’s legislative director, Ashley Thompson).