Tag: landmarks

NH Investment & Securities Under Contract to Buy The Dime for $158M

Korean investment firm NH Investment & Securities is under contract to buy The Dime Residences in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, for $157.5 million, according to sources familiar with the transaction.

The sale does not include the retail (the landmarked bank building). This is the second big residential sale in Williamsburg in the past couple of weeks – given where rents are going, not surprising I guess.

2019 Charter Revision Commission Announces Four Focus Areas

Following on the Mayor’s 2018 City Charter revisions, the City Council will have its turn in 2019. Their’s looks to be a more comprehensive and (hopefully) thoughtful approach to the process. One of the focus areas is evaluating the ULURP process and the City’s land-use board (CPC, LPC, BSA and Franchises). Plenty of opportunities there, but also the potential for many pitfalls.

Dime Savings Bank to be Landmarked

03/07/2018 | Comment

At a public hearing yesterday, the Landmarks Preservation Commission took another step toward landmark designation for the Dime Savings Bank of Williamsburgh. Among those speaking in favor of designation were the building’s owner and the Historic Districts Council.

The bank building on Havemeyer Street was constructed in 1908 and design by the architecture firm Helmle & Huberty. The building is the second home to Dime (originally they were on Broadway and Wythe). After the construction of the Williamsburg Bridge in 1903, many of Williamsburg’s banks moved from lower Broadway and Grand Street to the newly-created Williamsburg Bridge Plaza. The plaza itself never became the grand public space that one would expect for this era of the City Beautiful and Beaux Arts era, but did become home to a number of monumental buildings, including the Williamsburgh Trust Company, the Dime Savings Bank, Northside Savings Bank and the First National Bank.

It is nice to see Williamsburg get a bit more attention from LPC, but as one of the oldest and most richly layered neighborhoods in New York, we definitely get short shrift. Meanwhile, Manhattan continues to be carpeted with historic district designations.

Dime Savings Bank of Willliamsburgh, Williamsburg

Dime Savings Bank of Williamsburgh (1908, Helmle & Huberty architects)
[Photo: Matthew X. Kiernan, via Flickr]


Rejected Rebuild of Greenpoint Building Gets Redesign

After getting rejected at the Landmarks Commission for demolition and construction of a contemporary building, 111 Noble Street is back with a super-sized “restoration” of the original 1850s clapboard row house. Certainly more contextual, but isn’t this still demolition of a contributing building? Complete with the loss of the side alley, a quirky character-defining feature of Greenpoint and Williamsburg (a throwback to rear tenements).

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).

Domino Sells

06/21/2012 | 1 Comment

DUMBO-based Two Trees has closed their deal for the Domino sugar refinery site, for what appears to be $185 million ($20 million more than the price that Two Trees supposedly went into the negotiations at). According to the Times, the price increase came after co-owner Isaac Katan made an offer with developers Chetrit Group and David Bistricer for $185 million. The price is a handsome return for co-owners CPC Resources and Katan, who bought the property in 2004 for $55 million and spent 6 years securing a rezoning for the residential use of the site (though Katan apparently doesn’t think it’s such a great return).

What does the new owner have in mind for the project? Two Trees principal Jed Walentas is quoted in the Times as saying that there are “probably some opportunities to make improvements on the plans”. The Rafael Viñoly plans shown during the public review for the site’s rezoning are non-binding, so a redesign of the building skin is certainly possible (and I’d bet likely). So too is a redesign of the Landmarks-approved addition to the Refinery building (the current model was designed by Beyer Blinder Belle).

But what of all the promises that CPCR made to the local community during the rezoning process? The open space is largely codified into the zoning for the site (and by general waterfront access plan requirements), as are the building heights and general uses (retail, office, residential).

But the big promise – the one that brought a lot of community into CPCR’s fold – was affordable housing. 660 units of it. Rob Solano, a supporter of the CPCR rezoning told the Times: “It’s extremely important that the Domino project is built with all the affordable housing that was promised”.

The Daily News asked the question that is on the minds of CPCR’s community supporters, and the response should not be reassuring:

The new developer of the iconic Domino Sugar Factory hedged Thursday on whether the new deal would include affordable housing.

“There were promises made by another developer. We literally just brought the property today so I don’t know,” said Stefan Friedman, a spokesman for Two Trees Management Co.

Two Trees is an experienced developer (unlike CPCR), but they are an experienced developer of luxury and market-rate housing. As I’ve said before, they are a good fit for this project in that they have experience with old buildings, experience with big (and complicated) developments, a commitment to good design and a very long-term investment philosophy (and they are certainly better than Katan-Chetrit-Bistricer partnership would have been). But affordable housing is not their thing, and if, after two or three weeks of due diligence on a $185 million deal, they are being coy on the affordable question, that should make people in the community pretty nervous. Maybe Two Trees is thinking about who to partner with to do the affordable housing (a smart move), but it’s a pretty good bet that they are also looking at the number or percentage of units.

Two Trees is right – the promises were made by another developer. That other developer was able to secure a zoning density that far exceeded what any other developer on the waterfront was able to get, and in exchange for that, they promised to build a lot of affordable housing. But those promises were not binding on CPCR and they are not binding on Two Trees.

Related, Silverstein Also Looked at Domino

06/12/2012 | 1 Comment

The Commercial Observer has more information on the Two Trees acquisition of the Domino site, including the fact that two other major developers – The Related Companies and Silverstein Properties – were interested in the site.

The Observer seems to agree with everyone else (myself included) that Two Trees is a good fit for the site. But the paper also seems to misunderstand some of the issues that make the property so hard to develop:

Landmark protections at the sugar factory require that its main buildings, a square structure with the Domino logo on its facade and a behemoth brick property with a towering smokestack, be preserved. Those familiar with the site say that it would likely cost many millions of dollars to renovate and make them habitable. CPC also struck a deal with the city to build 30 percent of the project as affordable housing, a larger than normal percentage that people familiar with the development said cuts into the project’s profitability.

The refinery (the “behemoth brick property with a towering smokestack”) is a landmark, but the bin structure (the “square structure with the Domino logo on its facade”) is not a landmark. As part of its landmark approval for the refinery, CPCR did agree to move the (not very historic) Domino Sugar sign to the refinery. But the building that the sign is attached to is toast.

As for the affordable housing, there was no “deal” to develop 30% of the project as affordable housing. CPCR promised to do so, but significantly, neither the city nor CPCR’s community supporters thought it necessary to make that commitment binding. As I noted yesterday, there is a strong incentive for 20% affordable housing on the site, but technically, there is no requirement for any affordable housing as part of the project.

[via Brownstoner]