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.)

Leaders Want Bushwick Rezoning So It’s Not the Next Williamsburg

Bushwick – one of the last unlimited height zones in northern Brooklyn – is ripe for a raft of finger-type buildings. A year and a half ago, the local community board’s land use committee showed little interest in the threat of height-factor buildings. Now, with development on the upswing throughout the area, the community may be too late to the game.

Coming to McGuinness Boulevard: R7 Zoning?

Seeing as this is the only block on the west side of McGuinness from Meeker Avenue to Clay Street that is not currently zoned R7, a better headline for Ms. Heather would have been: “Coming to the Rest of McGuinness Boulevard: R7A Zoning”.

(This is the only block on the west side of McGuinness that has historically been zoned for manufacturing use. The rest of the west side of McGuinness has been zoned for residential use since 1961, and was given an R7A designation in 2008, as part of the larger Greenpoint/Williamsburg Contextual Rezoning. Because rezoning the site would have required going from M to R, it could not be included in the 2008 rezoning, which left all use categories in place.)

Albest Site Marketed for $27 Million

The former Albest Metal Stamping building at 9 Kent Avenue is being marketed as a potential hotel or office building – but notably not for any sort of “industrial” use. It is becoming very clear that the industrial-retention part of the 2005 rezoning – which included reserving a big area around Bushwick Inlet for traditional manufacturing use – was a big missed opportunity. Given the transformation of industry in Brooklyn over the past decade, the opportunity for a new kind of mixed-use zoning – lighter impact industry below with residential above (something the city refused to consider at Bushwick Inlet or anywhere else) could be a big promoter of local jobs.

Instead, we are manufacturing hotels, bars and bowling alleys.

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’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?