(for those for whom the Parkside Q is their hometrain)
News and Nonsense from the Brooklyn neighborhood of Lefferts and environs, or more specifically a neighborhood once known as Melrose Park. Sometimes called Lefferts Gardens. Or Prospect-Lefferts Gardens. Or PLG. Or North Flatbush. Or Caledonia (west of Ocean). Or West Pigtown. Across From Park Slope. Under Crown Heights. Near Drummer's Grove. The Side of the Park With the McDonalds. Jackie Robinson Town. Home of Lefferts Manor. West Wingate. Near Kings County Hospital. Or if you're coming from the airport in taxi, maybe just Flatbush is best.
Wednesday, October 2, 2013
More Pix of 626
Can't get enough of renderings? These drawings of the coming 626 Flatbush are from the developer, and include a bit more detail. Some folks were wondering about that "street" next to the building. Looks like a parking and service entrance to me.
37 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Lady jaywalking in the middle of Flatbush in the first pic - these architects really do know our neighborhood!
wow, it's huge. I'm curious what will be going on the rest of the site though. If you look at this footprint, the building itself appears to cover less than half of the site: http://arielpa.com/s101/pages/img/press-006.jpg It doesn't seem to reach behind the Associated or the buildings on its left at all. So is that going to be surface parking for the building? Green space for residents? I guess they maxed out their FAR building up.
totally speculative, but I'm going to guess that a 2-bedroom on the top floor facing the park will rent for $4000 a month by the time this thing gets built. Any takers?
3:25, it looks like that's going to be green space. The second rendering makes that a bit more apparent. Is this going to be taller than Patio Gardens? One nice side effect is that the influx of construction workers will be good for local businesses.
Looks good to me. The recessed tower is a good idea, keeps the feel of Flatbush avenue intact, as opposed to those other high rises along Flatbush.
It's progress, people. More people moving in to the neighborhood, paying taxes and patronising local businesses. And bless them for willing to live right by the train tracks, I wouldn't.
By out of context with other buildings on Flatbush, which is the only context to discuss, you must mean it's cleaner, nicer and doesn't have tacky awnings. Okay. Great.
by out of context I mean it's too tall, blocks the view for many existing tenants, towers over the buildings most of PLG are made of, and simply sticks out (up) like a sore thumb. We're all entitled to our opinions, but please don't tell me what I mean by my comment, thanks.
i like it. i wasn't expecting a masterpiece and it surpasses what i envisioned. we build up in cities. im all for it. landmark the town homes and build up the rest
Anon 9:36 PM I will go ahead and tell you something, please stop your anti-development / anti-gentrification / grace reformed "My Brooklyn" meet-ups. If you want to stop change why don't you move out to the suburbs!
To anon at 10:15. If I'm not mistaken in my reading, you were asking a neighbor not to have an opinion, not to express that opinion, and not to assemble with others to share that opinion.
Rather than asking them to move to the suburbs, it sounds like you're asking them to move out of the country, preferably a nation under a totalitarian regime.
Folks I know people have strong feelings on this stuff. But I'd like to think we could keep it civil. I'm leaving that comment up as an example of bad form, but I'll take down comments like it in the future.
Maybe we can push for a public entrance to the park on that street though they would have to build a bridge over the subway. But that would be a great concession from the developer and open up direct access to the park and Lakeside.
Height is not the only thing to consider for "context". I don't think people have any idea what they're talking about when they oppose this building claiming it's out of context. They don't know the meaning of that word. This building is only a few stories higher than Patio Gardens, which the architect did not include in these drawings - I wish he had. And looking at this architecture, the materials, details and shapes, not just height alone, it completely matches the surrounding buildings. It's totally in context. (An added note: I did not post again at 10:15 with the "move to the suburbs" response. But I understand that sentiment because there really is a certain population in Brooklyn which is growing larger, of people who in past decades normally would have been buying a house or farm in CT. But they now want to find the same experience in the city and to an extent they can find it in Brooklyn because of what's happening in this borough. BUT, as green as Brooklyn can be, literally and culturally, it's still the largest city in the country, it's very densely populated and needs more housing for people and it is what it is.)
Yes 9:32, your point is made. However, what I'm talking about here in terms of good form in the comments section, is rather than trying to articulate other people's opinions by suggesting what a certain portion of Brooklynites believe, you stick to your own opinion. Why? Because this "move to the suburbs thing" suggests that people don't have a right to express themselves and attempt to influence policy. In other words, your argument is sound, but it's not the only one available.
One can be both "for" more housing, and "against" a particular project. May we agree that that is the case?
As for me, if anyone cares, I like it. But I wouldn't want Flatbush to be an entire block of these. If you DO want to see a block of these, then we are certainly heading in the right direction. If 626 proves successful, there will be no shortage of developers interested in replicating the success.
Paul G. - your catapult idea is reckless and ill conceived. Where would it be placed? It might block the view of one or two residents. How will it affect birds in the area? How much would it cost to ride the catapult? Could you use a metrocard on it? Would there be a set aside for affordable catapult rides? Might not Hipsters be drawn to the catapult? Will local school children and local artist be able to create a mural that is culturally sensitive on the catapult?
Please Mr. G think carefully before you make such comments. Perhaps the Q should remove your comment from this thread.
Q, you try to be all things to all readers of your blog. I truly can't figure out what you think on this matter. We don't oppose this building because 1) it was legal and zoned for it when the property owners bought the property and filed their plans, and 2) it is not wildly out of context. But no, that does not automatically mean because we hold those very reasonable opinions (those are actually facts not opinions but whatever, it's seen as mere opinions by opponents of the building) we want the entire corridor of Flatbush lined with tall buildings. And I don't worry about that because that is not going to happen. Enough with inciting panic. If you want to try to change zoning for FUTURE buildings then try it. But I don't see the city saying oh yeah, Flatbush Ave is too stunning to be changed. Also, consider this regarding the incentives from the city to provide affordable apts in new developments, if a developer can only build a dozen units in a building because of downzoning and a chunk of those have to be affordable to low to middle income tenants then are they going to bother at all with it? I don't think so myself. And that doesn't just stop improvements to the Flatbush corridor it stops the building of additional affordable apts.
Huh? I'm only suggesting, as I have repeatedly, that people should consider going through the legitimate process and consider zoning issues. Do I need to take a position now? I thought maybe I'd wait to hear what people have to say.
I think it's worth noting, however, that other neighborhoods have tried to consider zoning AFTER their neighborhoods went through a major period of change. I also suggested that if big apartment buildings are something you support, you might want to leave zoning as it is.
I haven't opposed this building. I haven't supported a cause one way or the other about further development. If you want to paint me into a corner, I dare you to find a single thing I've written that denies your "facts" or wishes to decide the issue for other people. So chill the eff out.
If I may toot my horn on this one, it would be to say that I was among the first to report on the whole damn thing, the only person who actually engaged in a conversation with the developer, and the only source I know that's interested in publicizing the "facts" and hosting a forum for folks like you to rant. Well, rant away I say.
Really, you've got a lot of nerve coming on here and calling me a scare-monger. The fact that the building's owners "filed plans" does not mean that people knew about it. How many people sit around watching the DoB website (hi Matt!). Nor do most people understand the first thing about City planning, myself included. Apparently, you would have preferred I remain mum on the topic and not allow folks to know what's going on.
Oh, and one of the reason your comment bugged me is your use of the word "we" in the second sentence. If you represent a "we" then please gather up the requisite huevos to tell us who you are. This anonymous thing is wearing thin.
Looking forward to knowing what type of businesses will be set up in the commercial space at the street entrance, hoping for a nice restaurant, something like Stone park cafe in PS or even a small cafe or take out spot that does quality food.
Anti-zoning man you are annoying. I hope they build 25 story buildings on either side of you destroying your views and pricing you out of your apartment. Oh, you're an owner? Well I suppose there's no reason to give a damn about anyone else then.
Let people speak and don't put words in their mouth. There's a middle ground here and the Q is looking for it.
Tim, it might be time to start requiring registration for commenting. These threads are becoming so uncivil and have the potential to undermine your excellent work. I am really thankful that this blog exists and I hate seeing it become an empathy-free zone. There are a good handful of regular commenters who would probably not be averse to logging in using google.
Just a suggestion. Either way, keep up the good work - grateful for the time and energy you put into this blog.
One idea we discussed on Ocean Avenue--purely hypothetically of course--was that if the train was covered over with something--parkland, grass, whatever, that buildings along Ocean could consider opening the alleyways that run alongside them to public use. Obviously there are many details that would need to be worked out, but it was fun to imagine the "what-ifs." Imagine a world where I could watch Breaking Bad with my living room windows open and not have to pause it while the train rushes by!
If I were emperor of Lefferts (which is what I hope to be when I grow up) my first order of business would be to cover the tracks with a schnazzy High-Line style park. The alleys between buildings on Ocean are pretty tight and probably wouldn't work for all the blessed citizens of my Lefferts Empire.
Thus, we would construct a mighty catapult from trees felled (by natural causes) in Prospect Park, and launch happy Leffertsians onto Ocean Avenue, the sidewalks of which will be replaced with a suitably springy surface.
I've been thinking about this building's shadow. Seems like Chester court will be the most affected. In the early morning, sun from the east will cast a long shadow toward Ocean Ave, similar (but obviously longer) than Patio Gardens'. As the sun rises in the sky and swings south and west, the shadow will shorten, probably hitting the south side of Chester from late morning through early to mid afternoon. Later in the day, the shadow will grow again and shift toward the Flatbush side. That's what I think will happen, anyway. I wonder if anyone's done a shadow study of the building.
Here are some photos using the architects rendering to give folks an idea of what this tower will look like in the context of our beloved low rise historic neighborhood, home to people of all incomes and from all over the world.
the change.org petition protesting this development has...17 signatures: http://www.change.org/petitions/no-plg-skyscrapers
It's important for the community to have a discussion about what sort of zoning we want, and for people to advocate for changes they believe in. I for one would like to see the fast-food and mini-storage friendly C8 zoning around Empire/Flatbush/Washington/Franklin changed to mixed residential/commercial R7. But there is literally no point in fighting a development that is already permitted as-of-right, and has funding in place. Not "80% public funding" either, as some people have speciously been claiming on the local listserve.
1. The developer of 626 Flatbush does not have permits to build. The DOB has approved plans for the building. Now is the time to challenge the building. Buildings can be challenged even after permits are approved; a permit does not say that everything that happened in the development process or everything about this project is rightful or acceptable. The building at 33 Lincoln Road which was going to be 23 stories tall was challenged by the community even after permits were approved. The new design is 9 stories tall.
2. The change.org petition is not the only one out there. With all due respect to the informativeness and usefulness of the blogs and listservs, what exists online is not all there is to the real world. Respected residents of PLG have posted to the Lefferts listserv under their own names to say that hundreds of residents have signed petitions and these are not people who would make things up or state things they were unsure of.
Anon 2:52. One point of clarification. The original plan at Lincoln Road was not withdrawn because of community opposition. It lost financing. Had the economy remained strong, we'd be living in a very different world over there right now. Actually, everywhere! Imagine if we were still in that bubble? Jeeminy Christmas!
I kinda wish folks would lay off the whole petition thing. Anthony Weiner got 20,000 signatures to run for mayor, rest my case...
The real point should be, some folks are mad as hell about that building and what might follow. And some folks are glad as hell. And this is where we're at, cats. And unless you've put it to a vote, there's no way of saying for certain which opinion has more support. In fact, a lot of folks are likely to fall somewhere in between, with pros and cons and some nuanced considerations.
The fact that 33 Lincoln Road went from a planned 23 stories to 9 stories has everything to do with the economy and nothing at all to do with the (completely tepid) challenge by the community. It's completely false to imply that community opposition scuttled that plan. The project at 626 is being undertaken by a vastly more well organized, experienced, and funded developer. Many people in the neighborhood are rooting for it.
I am sure the recession helped stop the 23 story building from going up for a period of time. At the time of the protests the community probably had no idea the recession was coming or what could be done. They protested because they felt what was happening was wrong.
Regardless of what stopped the building, had the community not strongly protested the height of the original building, why wouldn't the new developer be building at the original height now that the recession is over? The approved permits for a 23 story building on Lincoln Road still exist.
Or are you suggesting that it could be more profitable and advantageous for a developer to build at 9 stories rather than 23? If so, please share that wisdom with Hudson.
Anon 3:51. Developers do not always maximize the height of their buildings...it's actually NOT always profitable. In the case of the Anderson building, he's relying on a fair amount of public financing, and he hasn't particularly deep pockets. In other words, you build what you can afford, and what you think people will want to rent. Plus, some developers DO care about contextualizing their buildings, and aim to be good neighbors. From what I've seen of Tom, he seems to be more on that side of the line, and I look forward to getting to know him better through the process.
To those who protested the original tower, I would say that you were lucky (though not so the millions who lost their homes or whose mortgages are still under water!) And to those who prefer unfettered development, I would caution "be careful what you wish for."
Folks, there's a middle road here. In my latest post, I ask that you all consider being involved in the neighborhood's future by joining in talks over zoning.
37 comments:
Lady jaywalking in the middle of Flatbush in the first pic - these architects really do know our neighborhood!
-Paul G.
wow, it's huge. I'm curious what will be going on the rest of the site though. If you look at this footprint, the building itself appears to cover less than half of the site: http://arielpa.com/s101/pages/img/press-006.jpg It doesn't seem to reach behind the Associated or the buildings on its left at all. So is that going to be surface parking for the building? Green space for residents? I guess they maxed out their FAR building up.
totally speculative, but I'm going to guess that a 2-bedroom on the top floor facing the park will rent for $4000 a month by the time this thing gets built. Any takers?
BORING
3:25, it looks like that's going to be green space. The second rendering makes that a bit more apparent. Is this going to be taller than Patio Gardens?
One nice side effect is that the influx of construction workers will be good for local businesses.
Looks good to me. The recessed tower is a good idea, keeps the feel of Flatbush avenue intact, as opposed to those other high rises along Flatbush.
It's progress, people. More people moving in to the neighborhood, paying taxes and patronising local businesses. And bless them for willing to live right by the train tracks, I wouldn't.
Jenny
it is so SO SO out of context with the neighborhood. I hate it.
By out of context with other buildings on Flatbush, which is the only context to discuss, you must mean it's cleaner, nicer and doesn't have tacky awnings. Okay. Great.
Now only if the architects drew in piles of garbage and crack dealers at the corner, than the architects would really know our neighborhood!
by out of context I mean it's too tall, blocks the view for many existing tenants, towers over the buildings most of PLG are made of, and simply sticks out (up) like a sore thumb. We're all entitled to our opinions, but please don't tell me what I mean by my comment, thanks.
i like it. i wasn't expecting a masterpiece and it surpasses what i envisioned. we build up in cities. im all for it. landmark the town homes and build up the rest
Anon 9:36 PM I will go ahead and tell you something, please stop your anti-development / anti-gentrification / grace reformed "My Brooklyn" meet-ups. If you want to stop change why don't you move out to the suburbs!
To anon at 10:15. If I'm not mistaken in my reading, you were asking a neighbor not to have an opinion, not to express that opinion, and not to assemble with others to share that opinion.
Rather than asking them to move to the suburbs, it sounds like you're asking them to move out of the country, preferably a nation under a totalitarian regime.
Folks I know people have strong feelings on this stuff. But I'd like to think we could keep it civil. I'm leaving that comment up as an example of bad form, but I'll take down comments like it in the future.
Any idea when this might be finished? A year from now? Glad it's recessed so there won't be too much construction traffic on Flatbush.
Maybe we can push for a public entrance to the park on that street though they would have to build a bridge over the subway. But that would be a great concession from the developer and open up direct access to the park and Lakeside.
Height is not the only thing to consider for "context". I don't think people have any idea what they're talking about when they oppose this building claiming it's out of context. They don't know the meaning of that word. This building is only a few stories higher than Patio Gardens, which the architect did not include in these drawings - I wish he had. And looking at this architecture, the materials, details and shapes, not just height alone, it completely matches the surrounding buildings. It's totally in context. (An added note: I did not post again at 10:15 with the "move to the suburbs" response. But I understand that sentiment because there really is a certain population in Brooklyn which is growing larger, of people who in past decades normally would have been buying a house or farm in CT. But they now want to find the same experience in the city and to an extent they can find it in Brooklyn because of what's happening in this borough. BUT, as green as Brooklyn can be, literally and culturally, it's still the largest city in the country, it's very densely populated and needs more housing for people and it is what it is.)
@Anon 9:13 a.m. , I've been praying for that for years! Yes, please bury the subway!
Yes 9:32, your point is made. However, what I'm talking about here in terms of good form in the comments section, is rather than trying to articulate other people's opinions by suggesting what a certain portion of Brooklynites believe, you stick to your own opinion. Why? Because this "move to the suburbs thing" suggests that people don't have a right to express themselves and attempt to influence policy. In other words, your argument is sound, but it's not the only one available.
One can be both "for" more housing, and "against" a particular project. May we agree that that is the case?
As for me, if anyone cares, I like it. But I wouldn't want Flatbush to be an entire block of these. If you DO want to see a block of these, then we are certainly heading in the right direction. If 626 proves successful, there will be no shortage of developers interested in replicating the success.
@anon 9:13
It's not possible to make an entrance to the park from Flatbush unless you knock down a building on Ocean Avenue to create an opening.
Believe me, living on Ocean I'd love a shortcut - but it 'aint gonna happen. Though maybe a catapult...
-Paul G.
Paul G. - your catapult idea is reckless and ill conceived. Where would it be placed? It might block the view of one or two residents. How will it affect birds in the area? How much would it cost to ride the catapult? Could you use a metrocard on it? Would there be a set aside for affordable catapult rides? Might not Hipsters be drawn to the catapult? Will local school children and local artist be able to create a mural that is culturally sensitive on the catapult?
Please Mr. G think carefully before you make such comments. Perhaps the Q should remove your comment from this thread.
Q, you try to be all things to all readers of your blog. I truly can't figure out what you think on this matter. We don't oppose this building because 1) it was legal and zoned for it when the property owners bought the property and filed their plans, and 2) it is not wildly out of context. But no, that does not automatically mean because we hold those very reasonable opinions (those are actually facts not opinions but whatever, it's seen as mere opinions by opponents of the building) we want the entire corridor of Flatbush lined with tall buildings. And I don't worry about that because that is not going to happen. Enough with inciting panic. If you want to try to change zoning for FUTURE buildings then try it. But I don't see the city saying oh yeah, Flatbush Ave is too stunning to be changed. Also, consider this regarding the incentives from the city to provide affordable apts in new developments, if a developer can only build a dozen units in a building because of downzoning and a chunk of those have to be affordable to low to middle income tenants then are they going to bother at all with it? I don't think so myself. And that doesn't just stop improvements to the Flatbush corridor it stops the building of additional affordable apts.
Huh? I'm only suggesting, as I have repeatedly, that people should consider going through the legitimate process and consider zoning issues. Do I need to take a position now? I thought maybe I'd wait to hear what people have to say.
I think it's worth noting, however, that other neighborhoods have tried to consider zoning AFTER their neighborhoods went through a major period of change. I also suggested that if big apartment buildings are something you support, you might want to leave zoning as it is.
I haven't opposed this building. I haven't supported a cause one way or the other about further development. If you want to paint me into a corner, I dare you to find a single thing I've written that denies your "facts" or wishes to decide the issue for other people. So chill the eff out.
If I may toot my horn on this one, it would be to say that I was among the first to report on the whole damn thing, the only person who actually engaged in a conversation with the developer, and the only source I know that's interested in publicizing the "facts" and hosting a forum for folks like you to rant. Well, rant away I say.
Really, you've got a lot of nerve coming on here and calling me a scare-monger. The fact that the building's owners "filed plans" does not mean that people knew about it. How many people sit around watching the DoB website (hi Matt!). Nor do most people understand the first thing about City planning, myself included. Apparently, you would have preferred I remain mum on the topic and not allow folks to know what's going on.
Oh, and one of the reason your comment bugged me is your use of the word "we" in the second sentence. If you represent a "we" then please gather up the requisite huevos to tell us who you are. This anonymous thing is wearing thin.
Looking forward to knowing what type of businesses will be set up in the commercial space at the street entrance, hoping for a nice restaurant, something like Stone park cafe in PS or even a small cafe or take out spot that does quality food.
Anti-zoning man you are annoying. I hope they build 25 story buildings on either side of you destroying your views and pricing you out of your apartment. Oh, you're an owner? Well I suppose there's no reason to give a damn about anyone else then.
Let people speak and don't put words in their mouth. There's a middle ground here and the Q is looking for it.
Tim, it might be time to start requiring registration for commenting. These threads are becoming so uncivil and have the potential to undermine your excellent work. I am really thankful that this blog exists and I hate seeing it become an empathy-free zone. There are a good handful of regular commenters who would probably not be averse to logging in using google.
Just a suggestion. Either way, keep up the good work - grateful for the time and energy you put into this blog.
Alex
Paul G-
One idea we discussed on Ocean Avenue--purely hypothetically of course--was that if the train was covered over with something--parkland, grass, whatever, that buildings along Ocean could consider opening the alleyways that run alongside them to public use. Obviously there are many details that would need to be worked out, but it was fun to imagine the "what-ifs." Imagine a world where I could watch Breaking Bad with my living room windows open and not have to pause it while the train rushes by!
If I were emperor of Lefferts (which is what I hope to be when I grow up) my first order of business would be to cover the tracks with a schnazzy High-Line style park. The alleys between buildings on Ocean are pretty tight and probably wouldn't work for all the blessed citizens of my Lefferts Empire.
Thus, we would construct a mighty catapult from trees felled (by natural causes) in Prospect Park, and launch happy Leffertsians onto Ocean Avenue, the sidewalks of which will be replaced with a suitably springy surface.
There, fixed it for you.
-Paul G.
I've been thinking about this building's shadow. Seems like Chester court will be the most affected. In the early morning, sun from the east will cast a long shadow toward Ocean Ave, similar (but obviously longer) than Patio Gardens'. As the sun rises in the sky and swings south and west, the shadow will shorten, probably hitting the south side of Chester from late morning through early to mid afternoon. Later in the day, the shadow will grow again and shift toward the Flatbush side. That's what I think will happen, anyway. I wonder if anyone's done a shadow study of the building.
Oh jeez, I meant "we" as in my husband and me. Everybody chill.
Here are some photos using the architects rendering to give folks an idea of what this tower will look like in the context of our beloved low rise historic neighborhood, home to people of all incomes and from all over the world.
Hudson v Patio Gardens
View From Flatbush Ave North
View From Flatbush Ave South
Here are some photos of the architecture on Flatbush Avenue and cul de sacs off Flatbush that will be dwarfed by Hudson's behemoth. Most buildings on Flatbush dating to 1910-1920.
West Side Flatbush
East Side of Flatbush
Westbury Court
Chester Court
the change.org petition protesting this development has...17 signatures: http://www.change.org/petitions/no-plg-skyscrapers
It's important for the community to have a discussion about what sort of zoning we want, and for people to advocate for changes they believe in. I for one would like to see the fast-food and mini-storage friendly C8 zoning around Empire/Flatbush/Washington/Franklin changed to mixed residential/commercial R7. But there is literally no point in fighting a development that is already permitted as-of-right, and has funding in place. Not "80% public funding" either, as some people have speciously been claiming on the local listserve.
1. The developer of 626 Flatbush does not have permits to build. The DOB has approved plans for the building. Now is the time to challenge the building. Buildings can be challenged even after permits are approved; a permit does not say that everything that happened in the development process or everything about this project is rightful or acceptable. The building at 33 Lincoln Road which was going to be 23 stories tall was challenged by the community even after permits were approved. The new design is 9 stories tall.
2. The change.org petition is not the only one out there. With all due respect to the informativeness and usefulness of the blogs and listservs, what exists online is not all there is to the real world. Respected residents of PLG have posted to the Lefferts listserv under their own names to say that hundreds of residents have signed petitions and these are not people who would make things up or state things they were unsure of.
Anon 2:52. One point of clarification. The original plan at Lincoln Road was not withdrawn because of community opposition. It lost financing. Had the economy remained strong, we'd be living in a very different world over there right now. Actually, everywhere! Imagine if we were still in that bubble? Jeeminy Christmas!
I kinda wish folks would lay off the whole petition thing. Anthony Weiner got 20,000 signatures to run for mayor, rest my case...
The real point should be, some folks are mad as hell about that building and what might follow. And some folks are glad as hell. And this is where we're at, cats. And unless you've put it to a vote, there's no way of saying for certain which opinion has more support. In fact, a lot of folks are likely to fall somewhere in between, with pros and cons and some nuanced considerations.
The fact that 33 Lincoln Road went from a planned 23 stories to 9 stories has everything to do with the economy and nothing at all to do with the (completely tepid) challenge by the community. It's completely false to imply that community opposition scuttled that plan. The project at 626 is being undertaken by a vastly more well organized, experienced, and funded developer. Many people in the neighborhood are rooting for it.
I am sure the recession helped stop the 23 story building from going up for a period of time. At the time of the protests the community probably had no idea the recession was coming or what could be done. They protested because they felt what was happening was wrong.
Regardless of what stopped the building, had the community not strongly protested the height of the original building, why wouldn't the new developer be building at the original height now that the recession is over? The approved permits for a 23 story building on Lincoln Road still exist.
Or are you suggesting that it could be more profitable and advantageous for a developer to build at 9 stories rather than 23? If so, please share that wisdom with Hudson.
Anon 3:51. Developers do not always maximize the height of their buildings...it's actually NOT always profitable. In the case of the Anderson building, he's relying on a fair amount of public financing, and he hasn't particularly deep pockets. In other words, you build what you can afford, and what you think people will want to rent. Plus, some developers DO care about contextualizing their buildings, and aim to be good neighbors. From what I've seen of Tom, he seems to be more on that side of the line, and I look forward to getting to know him better through the process.
To those who protested the original tower, I would say that you were lucky (though not so the millions who lost their homes or whose mortgages are still under water!) And to those who prefer unfettered development, I would caution "be careful what you wish for."
Folks, there's a middle road here. In my latest post, I ask that you all consider being involved in the neighborhood's future by joining in talks over zoning.
Post a Comment