Tag: waterfront

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.)

City Won’t Promise to Finish Two Long-Stalled North Brooklyn Parks

06/19/2012 | Comment

As the Brooklyn Paper reports, the Bloomberg administration has refused to commit to any goals or deliverables on the acquisition or construction of Bushwick Inlet Park or 65 Commercial Street. (I guess everyone has given up on the expansion of Barge Park?)

Financial mismanagement and planning gaffes have also stood in the way of both planned open spaces.

Bloomberg officials originally valued [the soccer field block] on the southern edge of the 28-acre Bushwick Inlet Park at about $12 million, but a judge ruled that the area’s residential rezoning meant its value was almost eight times higher.

The city eventually settled with the property owner and bought the parcel for about $93 million, according to court papers and Council testimony…

Money to build a park at Commercial Street dried up too.

In 2007, city budget hawks removed $13 million of the $14 million allocated to the park’s development and spent it on other projects.

Contrary to the headline, I don’t think anyone expects that this administration will finish either of these parks before January, 2014. But the administration can ensure that the parks will be built someday by negotiating contracts to buy all of the Bushwick Inlet properties and by moving the MTA off the Commercial Street lot once and for all.

Neither of those actions will ensure that the parks are completed anytime soon (as I said elsewhere, we are looking at decades), but they will ensure that North Brooklyn has a clear path to getting the parks we were promised seven years ago.

Brooklyn Waits on Promise of a Park

06/14/2012 | Comment

Wsj map

Stuck in Park
Source: WSJ

The Wall Street Journal has a lengthy article (and excellent graphic) on the fight to get the Bloomberg administration to follow through on the parks and affordable housing it promised Williamsburg and Greenpoint in the 2005 rezoning.

Often there are community benefit components that make rezonings more acceptable than they otherwise would be,” said state Sen. Daniel Squadron, whose district includes the Williamsburg waterfront. “If those promises don’t mean anything, it’s going to be a lot harder to move forward with similar community-remaking projects


Let Us Drink in the Parks

The Post seems to be confusing private property with public parks:

Last weekend, my family had the pleasure of eating our way through the amazing Smorgasburg food festival in Williamsburg. But, in between bites of fish tacos, sandwiches piled high with smoked meat and the obligatory sweet-and-salty s’mores, something was missing.

Something, perhaps, like a locally crafted beer or a Long Island-produced wine. An adult beverage to complement the farm-to-table offerings would have made the day just perfect.

Yet the city’s made that all but impossible.

Smorgasburg (and the Brooklyn Flea) are on private property at the Edge, not in a park. Plus, they’ve already applied for, and will soon have a liquor license.

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]

Residents, Pols Irked Over Slow Parks Progress

The city promised to build three parks — 28-acre Bushwick Inlet Park, Barge Park, and a park on Commercial St. in Greenpoint — as part of a 2005 waterfront rezoning to allow housing towers. Only a 7-acre chunk of Bushwick Inlet Park with a soccer field has opened.

The City Council’s Parks and Waterfront committees will be holding a hearing on the 2005 rezoning and its unkept promises.

Community Anxious Over Possible Domino Sale

06/11/2012 | Comment

Crain’s has some follow up community reaction to the news that Two Trees might be buying the Domino site. Apparently the community, or at least Isaac Abraham, is “anxious” about the sale:

Any developer or investor who wants to purchase Domino without committing itself to the 660 affordable units, should really think twice,” said Isaac Abraham, a Williamsburg community leader and housing advocate

Not to worry, says CPC, the parent company of bankrupt developer CPC Resources:

CPC Chief Executive Rafael Cestero, told Crain’s New York Business on Sunday that the new owner would be required to follow the zoning guidelines, which among other things would mean providing the affordable housing.

All of the affordable housing? Or just “the affordable housing” required under the inclusionary program (which amounts to 440 units – 20%)? CPCR was never bound to provide 30% affordable housing. Even the 20% is optional – though, as at other waterfront sites, the incentives are deep enough to make that 20% a very attractive deal. The other 10%? The community supporters of CPCR – and the city – gave that away. Hopefully someone steps up to keep CPCR’s word, but nothing is guaranteed.

Remember – 20% is the baseline. Neither CPCR nor Two Trees (nor any other developer) is obliged to build a single unit more. No one in the community should be surprised if a third party developer does’t live up to CPCR’s unsecured promises. If it wasn’t binding on CPCR, why should it be binding on anyone else?

Katan Loses Domino Suit

05/04/2012 | Comment

The Observer reports that Isaac Katan failed to secure an injunction against his partner in the $1.5 billion Domino development from selling a majority stake in the project.

The decision appeared to clear the way for the Community Preservation Corporation, a joint owner of the site, to proceed with a deal to hand the majority stake to the project’s senior lender, Pacific Coast Capital Partners, LLC… Mr. Katan secured the Domino Sugar Factory in 2006 in a whirlwind deal largely negotiated over a single weekend to buy the site with CPC for about $50 million from the sugar company, which decades ago [actually, less than a decade ago] used the factory as one of its largest sugar refineries in the world.

Which means that Katan’s (and CPCR’s) stake in the project drops from 50% to 8%. The difference between 50% of $1.5 billion and 8% of $1.5 billion explains why Katan, through his attorney, is promising to continue his legal fight.

[again, via Brownstoner]

Domino Falls Down

Molly Heintz, in A|N:

[New CPC head] Cestero will be responsible for addressing Domino’s future as well as the bigger question of whether, given its mission, CPC-CPCR should have been involved with such a project in the first place.