Tag: rezoning

Judge Grants Injunction on Broadway Triangle

01/04/2012 | 1 Comment

State Supreme Court Judge Emily Goodman has granted a preliminary injunction that bars the City from moving forward with the development of affordable housing in the Broadway Triangle area. The suit, brought by the NY Civil Liberties Union, Brooklyn Legal Services Corporation A, Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady and the Broadway Triangle Community Coalition, alleges that the City’s 2006 rezoning of Broadway Triangle violates the Federal Fair Housing Act, in that it would increase racial segregation in the neighborhoods surrounding the Broadway Triangle. Judge Goodman, in granting the injunction, ruled that the “plaintiffs had demonstrated the likelihood that they would succeed at trial on the merits of the case” (in other words, the case itself has not yet been litigated).

The Broadway Triangle rezoning covers a small swath of land north of Flushing Avenue and west of Broadway. The area that the City rezoned lies within Community Board 1, but borders directly on CB3. Most of the area that was rezoned is privately owned, but a number of City-owned parcels were set aside for the development of affordable housing. 50% of that affordable housing would be set aside for residents of CB1 (such set-asides are standard in the City). The plaintiffs contend that because Williamsburg (CB1) is predominantly white (about 60% according to the evidence presented by the plaintiffs), and Bedford-Stuyvesant is predominantly (77%) black, that the set aside would perpetuate and increase the racial segregation between the two neighborhoods. A demographer retained by the plaintiff found that only 3% of residents in the new housing would be black.

The plaintiffs’ argument – accepted by Judge Goodman – is that the City is required under Federal law to conduct an analysis on the racial impact of all rezonings. Judge Goodman wrote in her ruling that there “can be no compliance with the Fair Housing Act where defendants never analyzed the impact of the community preference”.

The issues on which the injunction was issued are ones that (to my recollection) never came up during the protracted fight over the Broadway Triangle rezoning, and certainly never came up in any of the other large and small rezonings in North Brooklyn that were enacted by the City over the past decade. On the merits, it stands to reason given the demographics of the two neighborhoods that the set aside would favor whites applying for affordable housing. But many other rezonings have created (or could create) “dramatic racial disparities”.

As NYCLU’s press release notes, this ruling has implications far beyond Broadway Triangle:

This decision puts the city is clearly on notice: When it proceeds to develop housing – whether in the Broadway Triangle or anywhere else – it must evaluate the potential impact on segregation and develop projects that include the entire community and will create more integrated neighborhoods.

So the bigger question is, how does this effect other rezonings (past and future)? Is a racial analysis required for all housing types (affordable and market rate)?

What IS Con Ed Up To On River Street?

12/30/2011 | Comment

con-ed-demo.jpg

Con Ed’s River Street site, partially demolished
Photo: Sharese Ann Frederick on flickr


I’ve mentioned this in passing before, but Con Ed is doing some serious demolition at its River Street facilities. The two-block site used to house a series of storage tanks, but over the past few months, the tanks have been slowly coming down. (The speed of the demo is probably due to the fact that the tanks are constructed of concrete 20″ thick; there is no evidence of any environmental remediation at the site that I can find.)

So what’s in store for this site? Could it be the site of the recently-rumored Williamsburg Whole Foods (I’m betting not)? Some other development (I’ve heard rumors that CineMagic’s Riverfront Studios is expanding somewhere “within a few blocks” of their Kent Avenue/South 9th Street studios, though I doubt this is that site)? Or is Con Ed just going to mothball it like they have their other waterfront site, the former BRT Power Plant at Division and Kent?

The options are somewhat limited by zoning, which is heavy industrial (M3-1), which limits the as-of-right options to industrial uses and certain commercial uses. (The six-block area between North 3rd and Grand Street west of Kent Avenue is actually ripe for rezoning – the industrial zoning on five of the six blocks is completely anachronistic since the residential rezoning of the Domino properties to the south in 2010.)

Or perhaps Con Ed will do something truly useful for the community and turn the site over for a waterfront park and esplanade? It would make a fantastic extension of the esplanade at 184 Kent to the north, wouldn’t it?

Did the City Miscalculate Value of Bushwick Inlet Park?

12/19/2011 | Comment

Short answer – yes.

Yolane Almanzar of the fledgling New York World has a very thorough rundown of why Williamsburg and Greenpoint may never see a park at Bushwick Inlet.

The article is mostly about how grossly the city underestimated the value of the properties – by an order of magnitude, as it turns out. But the real issue is that by rushing to rezone without first acquiring (or at least negotiating prices for) the inlet properties, the city in effect raised the value of those properties to unattainable levels.

So now, more than six years after the rezoning became reality, and with thousands of new housing units already added to the area, the city has committed over $200 million to acquire part of a park, and will probably need close to that amount again to acquire the rest. (Putting aside the question of whether they can ever acquire the Monitor Museum site).

Western Carpet Warehouse Sells for $27.5 Million

Brownstoner recently (OK, a week and a half ago) reported that the Western Carpet warehouse on Wythe between North 4th and North 5th has sold for a hefty $27.5 million. This is one of the last really big development sites in the prime Northside area that was rezoned in 2005 (the other being the warehouse across the street on North 5th, which apparently is owned by the same family.

Chris Havens, in the comments says that the new owner is merging two zoning lots to put all of the development rights on the Wythe Avenue site. But the property appears to be a single zoning lot already, and in a height-capped contextual zone, using additional air rights is a tricky proposition.

Tower Day #2: Klein May Move Forward in Greenpoint

11/02/2011 | Comment

Gpoint-Klein.png

Greenpoint Waterfront: The Future
(Rendering by City Planning)

More tower news (it’s Greenpoint’s turn)! Matt Chaban in the Observer has a piece on the imminent launch of phase one (at least) of the 10-tower project at the very north end of the Greenpoint waterfront. The project would be completely as of right, thanks to the 2005 rezoning, and would presumably benefit greatly from the construction of Barge Park to the north, if that ever happens. As with other waterfront developments, the project will include the buildout of a waterfront esplanade and the construction of 20% of the units as affordable (onsite, I believe).

North Brooklynites Demand Promised Parks

The Where’s Our Park coalition held a rally this past weekend to protest the lack of progress on the City’s promise to to bring more parks to the neighborhood.

‘Every community deserves access to open space — and North Brooklyn is no exception,’ said state Sen. Daniel Squadron. ‘It’s time for the city to fulfill its promise and make Bushwick Inlet Park a reality.’

Where’s Our Park?

The “Where’s Our Park?” protest event, organized by a handful of North Brooklyn community groups, was timed to coincide with the city-sponsored “It’s My Park Day” on Saturday, where more than 5,000 volunteers engaged in parks improvement projects citywide.

Instead, parks advocates marched from the N. Ninth Street soccer fields — the first and only working recreational field at Bushwick Inlet — up Kent Avenue to Quay Street, the site of a long-delayed museum.

Good quotes, too.

Douglaston to Develop Third Toll Tower

10/14/2011 | Comment

The Wall Street Journal (via Brownstoner) reports that Douglaston Development, the developer of the Edge condos, has bought a vacant tower site next door at Toll Brother’s Northside Piers development. Douglaston plans to erect a 40-story luxury rental on the site.

Both Douglaston and Toll have sites for third towers on their properties – Douglaston has used its site to host the Brooklyn Flea and Smorgasburg, while the Toll site has sat vacant. The deal – which has been rumored for some months now – means that Northside Piers will be completed, albeit with rentals instead of condos and Douglaston instead of Toll as the developer (FXFowle, which designed the other Northside towers, will remain as the architect for the rental tower).

What is not clear is what this means in terms of affordable (inclusionary) housing. L&M Development Partners, which built the existing affordable housing at the Palmers Dock portion of Northside Piers, is listed as a partner with Douglaston in the new development. I don’t know if Toll has already built the required 20% affordable housing for the new tower, or if L&M will be developing it for Douglaston. L&M is building a new ground-up affordable project on Broadway and Kent, so conceivably that could represent an offsite component of the required inclusionary housing.

As Brownstoner notes, this is something of a bombshell. It is a bullish move on Douglaston’s part, and an indication of the relative strength of the Williamsburg rental market (particularly on the waterfront), but at the same time, the fact that neither Toll nor Douglaston is interested in condos has to be a bearish indicator.