The Q at Parkside
(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.
17 comments:
where was that? i was just at 651 new york avenue, honestly not impressed a vast majority will become high cost rentals. Home ownership is just simply out of reach for most working class folks in the modern day Brooklyn.
hi where was this?
North side of Winthrop btw Bedford and Rogers, across from the Parkside Playground. Tear-down to build happening very fast.
What does the rendering look like? The shell it's very Fedders-esque.
I can't tell from the rendering. But it's interesting that the Text Amendment for Quality and Affordability basically would outlaw Fedders. It's one of the things that's been lingering at City Planning as something they've wanted to ban. Interestingly Q&A is full of stuff like that, but Community Boards have been universally against it.
ZQA seems pretty reasonable to me, and some of my architect friends backed up the claim that it would encourage developers to adopt designs that were not just big boxes.
Given that our CB now works in reverse (identifying solutions as problems instead of responding to problems that require solutions), I am pretty much of the opinion that CB's should be disbanded.
I'm amazed by the lack of construction shed/netting on the left side. They must have had the neighbor sign a waiver, but even then it's surprising that it would be so unprotected from a possible CMU block falling off the top of the wall before it's properly pinned in.
Sounds like you know about this stuff, Anon. Will you call this in to 311? I'd hate to have some sort of preventable accident happen.
I like that NYC has now reached the level that it can "outlaw" the style of cheap buildings its residents find objectionable, yet still attract development and tax revenue.
Few places in the US have such luck.
Mike F: I know you're being facetious, but we have incredibly strict rules on what you can't build. No reason not to include butt ugly among them. Or rather, a low to which one cannot sink.
Most wealthy cities and communities do. In fact there are towns in Westchester that have effectively required that any new residence by single family an occupy more that 2 acres.
The laws are quite effective at maximizing the ratio of tax revenue to likely expenses. Although in a different market, the folks at NYC zoning will make the same calculations.
I'm not being facetious. It is all evolving quite predictably.
Predictably yes, I'd agree. But that doesn't mean it makes sense for the community or City in general. That's the whole point of wanting a Planning Study. To look at works and what doesn't.
Maximizing tax revenues alone can't build a better City. Most policy makers get this, despite the loaded rhetoric to the contrary. The question is where do you find the revenue. Here's a wild idea - hike property taxes to single family home owners. They pay proportionally less than other residents. Now wouldn't THAT be popular. But if you, as a townhouse owner, want to protect your precious density, it might have to come at a cost.
In my view, there is presently enough incentive for the owners of single family homes to cash out.
...but if you get your way, I am going to invest in a "Cash for your House" business.
I hope these new residents enjoy the attack dogs that live next door at #155 who have badly bitten numerous people and other dogs.
They'll probably just drop another building on top of the dogs.
"I can't tell from the rendering. But it's interesting that the Text Amendment for Quality and Affordability basically would outlaw Fedders. It's one of the things that's been lingering at City Planning as something they've wanted to ban. Interestingly Q&A is full of stuff like that, but Community Boards have been universally against it."
In what way would it outlaw Fedders buildings? Is there any part of the amendment which addresses this in particular?
That's only 1 of 3 active construction sites on that block - the others are at 136 Winthrop and the corner of Winthrop and Bedford. Aside from the noise, the residential parking on the street is becoming difficult with all of the trucks, dumpsters, and roped off sections of the street. Not to mention contractors buzzing our apartment at 7am asking us to move our car from in front of our own building to make way for even more construction vehicles.
Post a Comment