I will leave to others to determine whether such uproar would have been needed had MTOPP and others not bullied-away a zoning study for the entire neighborhood. It would appear that residents are left fending for themselves, one project at a time, with no coherent strategy or underlying assumptions about what should and should not be protected, or height limits, or requirements for affordability. It gives me no great pleasure to tell y'all the Q told you so. And this is just the beginning.
So where are we? Come to Ebbets Field Middle School tonight and share your thoughts. But remember, your voice AGAINST the project is also against the creation of affordable below-market permanently rent stabilized housing, the very housing that gets created when developers are allowed to build taller, in this case 17 stories rather than 23 at 626 Flatbush. It is easy to assume a posture of offense, taking offense at plans to ruin one's views. But were actual people living in these proposed buildings, actual people as in actual neighbors, many of whom would likely be grateful for the apartment near garden, transit and park - would you feel any differently? What if that person were, say, you?
Either way, I suspect you don't like the height of these buildings, and should say so. Where and when?
Wednesday, April 19, 2017 - 7 pm - Community Board 9 Land Use Committee Hearing on at Ebberts Field Middle School
46 McKeever Place, Brooklyn N.Y. 11225
I love some of the ominous looking caricatures floating about, especially this one on the online petition (sign if you like.)
 |
| rendering by Fernando Conteli de Castro |
 |
| "Soft sites" identified decades ago |
2 comments:
Has anyone read through the behemoth of an Environmental Assessment Statement for the 40 Crown Street property?
http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/planning/download/pdf/applicants/env-review/eas/17dcp067k_eas.pdf
On page 18, under section 2 Socioeconomic Conditions: "Would the proposed project directly displace more than 500 residents? No." Why is 500 the threshold? And why is indirect displacement not a part of the assessment?
Under section 4 Open Space, they have declared that "the area" is neither under-served nor well-served. What metrics or criterion are they using to make this determination? (Full disclosure: I have not read all 337 pages.)
That kind of building would be fantastic for that area. I suppose the alternate version would be tear down Crown Heights and spread the density out. That seems even more politically untenable. Anything we do now to stop NYC from building dense, transit rich communities right now we'll look greedy and foolish to later generations. Kind of how suburbanization looks to us now. Depends on how much time you think we have to radical up zone our communities and prepare for rising sea levels. I'd say less than 20 years.
Post a Comment