Tag: development

74 Kent Street SWO

Newyorkshitty (via Brownstoner) noticed some activity at 74 Kent Street in the Pencil Factory Historic District that has led to a stop work order. The rooftop construction must be a mockup related to an LPC application to construct a rooftop addition, which a) should be on the community board’s agenda; and b) requires a permit (yes, mockups require a DOB permit).

As Heather notes, 74 Kent Street is applying for a BSA variance, which was before the CB’s land use committee last week. This block was specifically omitted from the residential rezoning in order retain manufacturing uses and later landmarked for its special historic character. As all of the other buildings, including the relic next door (future headquarters to Kickstarter), have been able to develop vibrant non-residential uses, what makes this building so different? I’d be curious to see how the owner is claiming a hardship on this one (let alone a unique condition) – and I’d also be curious to know why this isn’t being done as a special permit through LPC and CPC (which would at least require a restoration of the building).

Monster Island Going Down – What’s Next?

12/19/2012 | Comment

Monster Island, RIP

Monster Island, prepped for demolition.

The block-sized property on Kent Avenue between Metropolitan and North 1st is finally getting demolished. Sidewalk sheds and permits went up early this week, and demolition of one of the River Street buildings was in progress as of yesterday.

What the future holds for this site is unclear. The property – once home to Monster Island, Duff’s, Mollusk and other Williamsburg 2.0 establishments – is still zoned for manufacturing use. That zoning designation was always tenuous at best, but since the rezoning of Domino seems to make little sense. Con Ed has already cleared its site across River Street (also with no plans for redevelopment), and despite the earlier rumors, it seems unlikely that Chetrit, who owns this site, will be putting a Whole Foods here. There are no permits on DOB for this site, so it’s anyone’s guess what is in store. Perhaps a rezoning (it would make a lot of sense to rezone all of the remaining manufacturing blocks along Kent between South 3rd and North 3rd), perhaps a new hotel (which seems to be the new highest and best use for M-zoned lots in Williamsburg 3.0).

Condo Tenants Ticketed After Developer Left No Room for Trash

Condo owners at 59, 61 and 63 Conselyea St. said they have been fined for placing trash enclosures on the sidewalk without a permit since they have no other spot to place their garbage… “[We] have no common area to put trash … The city has no code requiring developers to actually build a garbage room.”

The amount of garbage (literal and figural) that litters the sidewalks in front of new developments is ridiculous. In an effort to squeeze out every square inch of sellable floor area, developers are putting trash cages and mailboxes in the public way, or worse, just not providing any accommodation for trash, and the city seems just fine with it.

[The headline of the DNA article blames the architect, but this is driven by developer greed, facilitated by the architects.]

More on the Sweater Factory Lofts

12/05/2012 | Comment

I linked briefly to the New York Times article on the ongoing Sweater Factory saga. Herewith, some more thoughts:

“It’s not crime and disinvestment that’s the enemy of the working-class jobs here anymore,” said Leah Archibald, the director of the East Williamsburg Valley Industrial Development Corporation, a nonprofit entity that administers the Industrial Business Zone. “It’s gentrification that’s become the enemy.”

Leah is absolutely right, but what did we expect when the city carved out the Bushwick Inlet industrial zone in 2005? This small enclave of manufacturing is surrounded by new residential zones targeted for luxury housing, so is it really surprising to anyone that manufacturing is not really viable there? Despite calls from many in the community to provide better industrial retention policies, more truly mixed-use zoning and lower densities, this was simply not a priority for City Planning or the loudest voices on the community side. So now this 17-block area now sits isolated and vulnerable amid a sea of new housing. I had a lengthy interview with the Times reporter about the Sweater Factory (alas, no quote!), and made this very point to her. With residential uses unavailable (legally, at least), the highest and best use in this tiny triangle has shifted to bars, bowling alleys and hotels. All as-of-right, but uses that necessarily erode the viability of manufacturing.

When the City set up the Industrial Business Zones in 2005, they made a commitment to slow the flow of variances and rezonings in M zones. That approach has largely worked in East Williamsburg, where there is enough critical mass and enough distance from residential districts (though all bets are off when Bloomberg leaves office). Yes, there are plenty of loft conversions there, but percentage-wise, manufacturing remains the dominant use. Not so in Bushwick Inlet, where the gentrification is not the Sweater Factory lofts but the host of new as-of-right uses that command rents many times higher than manufacturing. About the only bright lining in this area is the rise of tech jobs.

“We take all this stuff very seriously. That’s why we’ve been out there numerous times,” said Ryan FitzGibbon, a department spokeswoman. If the owners of 239 Banker continued to flout the law, she said, it would be possible to take them to court. But with the application pending, she said, “The agency will work with the loft board on this situation to try to legalize the conditions.”

While the DOB tries to defend its embarrassing lack of enforcement, the fact is that they may have been out there numerous times, but they never did much to actually enforce their stop work orders. The DOB has been the prime enabler in this saga, and hiding behind the loft law (which I understand probably doesn’t even apply at this property), is insane.

Above the Flooded Plain – Did New Waterfront Developments Fare Better?

Sandy’s high tide receded, and the buildings on the waterfront in Long Island City stood like sentries on the coast—dry, fully inhabited and powered up almost as though no superstorm had ever occurred.

The situation was much the same in Williamsburg, best as I can tell. The new buildings came through relatively unscathed, despite flooding around them. I don’t know if any of the new Williamsburg buildings took special measures to mitigate 100-year flood conditions, but I know that 184 Kent did, and they worked.

One caveat here (and in LIC) is that the flooding was relatively light. There was definitely flooding, but compared to what was happening across the river and in places like Red Hook and even DUMBO, we seem to have gotten the least of it. Still, like LIC, none of the Williamsburg waterfront developments had to be taken out of service.

Rethinking Building Code, Post Sandy

11/24/2012 | Comment

From the Times, some opening thoughts on revamping the building code in a post-hurricane city. The focus for now is on how to build better in a rising-sea level world, versus just not building in Zone A at all (as a rather silly recent “resolution” from Community Board 1 wants).

As the Times notes, some projects have already gone beyond the current City code requirements for construction in a flood plain, and at least one of those (a recycling plant in Sunset Park) avoided flooding during Sandy as a result. Locally, the new development on the Williamsburg waterfront has also fared comparatively very well. While the flooding on this side of the river seems to have been less severe than it was just across the river, there was flooding. But Schaefer’s Landing, 184 Kent, Northside Piers and the Edge all came through the storm much better than a lot of other newer developments. Unlike many high-rises in lower Manhattan that remain unoccupiable and will be so for months, the systems in the Williamsburg developments survived and the buildings were occupiable pretty much as soon as the evacuation orders were lifted. I know at least one of our waterfront buildings took on a substantial amount of water during the storm surge, but had storm-surge mitigation mechanisms in place that worked, thus avoiding major damage within the building.

Are there lessons to be learned from the local experience, or were we just lucky? (Some of both, I suspect.)

Greenpoint Developer Wants to Build 10 Huge Towers, Giant Bridge

10/14/2012 | 2 Comments

Manhattan Avenue Bridge
Vernon Avenue Bridge (demolished in 1954)
Source: Novelty Theater

It’s not exactly new news, but Gothamist has a piece up on the proposed mega-development at the top of Greenpoint. Not news because what’s proposed is exactly what the city approved in the 2005 waterfront rezoning. Aside from the proposed bridge to Hunters Point, the only real news is that it has taken so long for development to happen on the Greenpoint waterfront. No one has broken ground yet, but this is one of four projects that are actively in the pipeline. Taken together, these four projects would transform the north Greenpoint waterfront from Java Street to Commercial Street. (The same fate is in store for the southern part of the Greenpoint waterfront – why the northern projects are further along is a mystery to me.)

As for the bridge – connecting West Street to 2nd Street in Hunters Point South – it would be great to reconnect these two neighborhoods, but I’d much rather see it done the old fashioned way, running from Manhattan Avenue to Vernon Boulevard in Hunters Point. In addition to replacing an ages-old connection, a bridge at Manhattan Avenue would have the benefit of connecting two neighborhoods, not two developments.