Til a year ago, the Q hadn't a clue what the word ULURP meant. It's an acronym for Uniform Land Use Review Procedure, and those words together sound only a tad more interesting than flossing. What it means is basically every time some developer wants to do something, they gotta go through a "uniform" rigmarole so they can't pull something over on us unsuspecting plebeians. Case in point: the latest (and perhaps most likely do-able) plan for the vacant lot on Lincoln Road that, if you were teeing off from 33 would take a dogleg right with the green on Flatbush. Yes, the potential building would have two completely different addresses, and it might one day look something like this:
That's Lincoln on the left, and Flatbush on the right. These drawings are VERY preliminary. In fact I doubt the drawer has even BEEN to the lot, because this really doesn't look anything like the area around the Q's sister station, the Prospect Park Q/B/S.
But here's what we know. The developer Anderson Associates went to a CB9 committee and asked it to recommend the board approve a plan to build a nine story "affordable" building. Why, you might ask, would any quoteunquote developer want to create a less-than-market rate rental building when prices have gone through the green roof throughout the greater Flatbush metropolitan area? Simple. To build a building you need money, and if you don't have enough, you can go to the Housing Development Corporation, NYC's home to cheap mortgages for developers of affordable housing. It's like a bank with a mandate to only lend to people who build what it wants you to build, and they have the power to issue bonds which means they can raise a ton of money to do just that. Of course, if it REALLY worked that well we'd ALL be living in affordable housing. But it does it's best, I guess, though I don't really know enough about it to tell you whether it's corrupt, bloated or both. Anyhoo, on with the story.
Last week Tom Anderson (hence the Anderson Associates name I suppose) came to the ULURP committee of CB9, which the always affable (and lately quite hirsute) Mike Cetera chairs, and so it would appear that the plan is very much moving forward. With the blessing of the community and elected officials, Anderson will likely be able to get financing and put up his building, which would need to conform to the HDC mandate of 20% for low-income and 80% for middle-income families. I don't know what that comes out to in dollars, but suffice to say the whole thing sound VERY VERY different than the 20 story monstrosity (right) that had been planned just a few short years ago.
Thanks to
Curb for the background. Now...what do the lot of you think of the plan for the lot?
20 comments:
I expect people will be happy about the affordable housing component, but the worst part of this is the mandatory parking that will need to get build. Thanks to our crazy zoning laws, a building that literally sits right next to a subway station will get built with 1 parking spot for every 2 units of housing. And I can guarantee you the developer would be happy to drop the parking and replace it with more housing (as would the people who could live in that extra housing).
Meanwhile, people complain about pollution, climate change, lack of affordable housing, etc.... but when push comes to shove, gotta have our parking!
There does not seem to be a lack of affordable housing in PLG. I would prefer this be a market rate building built by a developer who actually has money to build it right.
The CB should not approve the building unless Maple Street School is given a space so that it can expand.
Agree with Anonymous...
There is no lack of affordable housing here. Take a look at PLG rents against our nearby nabes - Prospect Heights/Park Slope
This should be a market rate building and it must be done right.
I hope the CB rejects this.
What? Force a private property owner to make space for a private co-operative school? On what planet? Maple Street School needs to figure out their own space challenges. All the other independent schools in NYC do so without resorting to blackmail. If you are a family there and want to see it expanded then raise the money.
Also, Maple Street School is no longer a mainly PLG school. The current director strives to bring in children and families from all over Brooklyn. Which is fine if not really great, but it makes it a different kind of school now. And I myself would not insist or frankly even ask a developer to give all his commercial space to a school when other amenities are so direly needed here in PLG. We need something there that serves everybody.
"Monstrosity" is completely 100% subjective. I like that glass tower building, always did. This new development looks like Soviet era housing. And what's even more depressing, keep in mind the illustrations for these affordable buildings will look better than the real thing once they cut corners on the budget which they'll totally do. Congratulations, tower opponents.
I agree with Anonymous @ 11:16. That big glass tower would seem out of place, but there's room for market rate housing, not a cheaply built building with prices held artificially low. Have you seen all the "For Rent" signs on every big pre-war apartment building in the nabe? I live in one of those, and there are ALWAYS vacancies in our building. And rent isn't expensive. I'd like to see a nice new building plan at market price.
I always gathered that people were against the tower because it wouldn't blend with the rest of the buildings, but that really only makes sense if the rest of the surrounding buildings are cherished.
By forcing prices down, the builder will cut corners and will continue to keep Lincoln Rd from ever being a beautiful street / entrance to the neighborhood. It doesn't need to be a gigantic tower that dominates everything around it for blocks, but it should be at the nicer end.
I think that the developer may have had to go for affordable status because that lot is so difficult to build on. I was once told that the foundation supports will have to extend 10 - 20 feet below the train tracks, not to mention the awkward shape of the lot. I think we are better off with something rather than an empty lot.
I too am disappointed that all of the units are affordable. There is a ton of affordable, rent stabilized housing the area. Something about the description of the building leads me to believe that it's not going to be standard affordable housing, though, given the amenities listed, and the description of 80% of the units being priced 10% below market rate. I don't know what is considered market rate, as there are no local comparable buildings, but I am optimistic that the building will not be a big project. The new retail space will be great, and if Maple Street School can afford the rent, then they should by all means move in!
Some cities require a certain number of affordable units in all apt buildings and things I learned when living in one such Midwestern city paying market rate for an apt in such a building -- the building owner is not forced to take specific people by the city for the affordable units, they still screen applicants and get to choose who they want in those and other units.
What will the catchment area be for calculating median income? Does anyone know? That is what will determine the income cap for the middle income units.
My original comment was not meant to exclude other retail if MMS was allowed a spot. The lot is big enough to have retail and a space for a vital community amenity. MMS is one of the reasons people are excited to move into the nabe.
Developers are made to make compromises to neighborhoods all the time. If the developer wanted to build another story in exchange for housing the school at a market rent I don't see anything wrong with that.
This location is important as a gateway to the community. I am not asking that the building be 100% market but there should be a majority market housing to provide a greater incentive for the building to build something that will really add to the community rather than just fill the space of an empty lot.
My last comment meant MSS for Maple Street School. Did not mean to write MMS.
Actually, there has been a lot of talk about reducing parking requirements at market-rate new construction buildings and eliminating them completely for below-market projects: http://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/35/12/all_downtownparking_2012_03_23_bk.html
And I completely disagree about the supply of DECENT affordable housing around here - for what you get at your "typical" PLG large rental building, most of which are in pretty sorry shape (most of them do not have laundries in the building for example), the rents are not cheap. Why do you think there are always vacancies in these buildings? Because many tenants (primarily the newer ones, who have options, unlike many long-term residents) move out as soon as they can. Take a look at the conditions of most of the rental buildings here against those of Prospect Heights/Park Slope. And while rents may seem cheap to people moving into the area from other, more "gentrified" neighborhoods, to long-term residents they are not.
Also, from what I understand, this is to be a mix of low to moderate income housing, and, as pointed out already, depending on the area used, those "moderate" incomes can be pretty high in comparison to the median income for Brooklyn, or even PLG.
Thank you, Babs. You took the words right off my keyboard! :-)
it is SO UGLY. please don't let it look like that in the end! What an eyesore!!
Babs, agree that there has been talk about reducing parking minimums, but it has been limited to downtown Brooklyn. Unfortunately, no one's talking about other areas, including PLG. According to Curbed, there are 133 units planned, so that comes out to 67 parking spots. If you look at the renderings, you can see where they plan to put the curb cut and garage on the Flatbush side. This makes one think of the 4th Avenue beauties that sprouted up in Park Slope.
Also, the Q has recently been on a quite a tear recently relating to fixing Flatbush's traffic problems. This issue goes hand-in-hand with that one.
There is so little new construction in the area and this is such an important stretch of road that the incentive created by market rents for the builder to build a good product is more important for he long term future of the hood than having an extra 50 affordable units. All I am hoping for is a majority of market rate units. I agree it will be great to have a large set aside of quality affordable housing but it does not need to be 100%.
I also agree with others that I hope the renderings get some tweaks. This is looking like a 4th Ave building in Park Slope (not a good thing).
I also disagree with other about the height. The asset for this community is its proximity to the park. New construction should take advantage of that by having units with views of the park. 20 stories may be too much but 15 stories does not seem crazy.
Now that the project has passed CB9's ULURP committee, it's my understanding that it must now be presented at a CB9 meeting - so there is our chance to talk about parking requirement reductions, affordable vs. market housing, etc. I know I will go and support affordable housing construction, while asking for more information on the income catchment to be used. I will also speak out in favor of reduced parking minimums. Watch your CB9 agendas!
would there be any commercial space on the ground floor?
I don't think I've ever seen so many arguments against affordable housing. it just seems strange to me. I don't think there's enough, personally. I think all the "apartments available" says more about people not wanting to stay in crappy buildings. you can take it for a year, but then you're out, leading to lots of turnover.
Post a Comment