Clarrett Price Chops the Forte

The Clarrett Group, which owns the 340 Court development site, has developed a number of condominium projects in recent years. One of their most recent projects is the Forte, a highrise in the BAM cultural district with 110 units. Brownstoner reports that some of the units just got a $100,000 price chop.

In other (related) news, the chart above comes courtesy of economic blogger Calculated Risk. Note we are seeing the steepest drop off in new home sales (national) in the 45 years graphed. Note also, the unprecedented (and unsustainable) distortion in new home sales caused by the Fed slashing interest rates in response to the recession of 2001 and 9/11.

How the correction in housing will affect developers' investment decisions will be interesting to follow. Ditto for the inflationary monetary policy currently being pursued by Fed Chair Bernanke and the Bush administration.

We'll see.
Update - I'm having difficulty seeing the graph on my computer. Click the Calculated Risk link if it doesn't appear.
UPDATE 2: See story in NY Times:
"Sales of new homes fell last year by 26 percent, the steepest drop since records began in 1963, the Commerce Department said on Monday."

I(LA) Smell A Rat!

Well this was an unexpected treat. I had a couple of meetings in the neighborhood this morning and my business brought me by the old ILA building at 340 Court that is being developed by the Clarett Group. You can read about the Union-Sackett Block Association's appeals to the developers here.

Well, apparently the contractor hired to remove asbestos from the site is using non-union labor, because Laborer's Local 78 was out front handing out fliers and manning the rat.

My previous posts on this site are here.

UPDATE: Picked up by Curbed. Bob Guskind points out the irony of non-union labor dismantling an old union building. My god, could you imagine the reaction from Anthony "Tough Tony" Anastasia?

340 Court Meeting Rundown

The good folks at the Union-Sackett Block Association met with the Clarrett Group and sundry other community activists to discuss concerns over the planned development at the ILA Building site. A very thorough account of the meeting is posted HERE.

340 Court Street: Casting A Shadow On the Future

Brownstoner had a post up yesterday on the future of the former International Longshoreman’s Association building located at 340 Court Street (between Sackett and Union).

As I noted previously, we heard at the CGNA meeting last week that the Clarett Group had paid $24MM for the site; we also heard they could build up to 21 stories on the site. A view of the projects on their website is not particularly encouraging - lots of tall structures. Although the quality seems high, the buildings Clarett seems to specialize in are out of scale for Carroll Gardens. (The picture above is a montage of renderings from the Clarrett website.)

The more likely scenario is that they would build "quality housing" under the zoning code, using more of the lot area and building up to 70 feet, instead of 21 stories. Obviously this would be a better situation but still far from ideal.

The best solution would be to get the area properly rezoned in the vein of Cobble Hill, with a strict 50' height limit on the neighborhood.

Carroll Gardens Town Hall Zoning Meeting

Fortunately, last night's meeting has been amply documented . . . I was not looking forward to transcribing three pages of scribbled notes. Miraculously, the Gowanus Lounge found the time, sources, and somehow, the inclination to post about this meeting FROM HAWAII. Mr. Guskind provides a rundown that covers the gist of the meeting, ostensibly from sources at CORD, which has also blogged about last night's meeting and was out in force. Curbed also has a post authored by Lost City.

It was a packed house last night, and a number of issues were raised.

The points that I wanted to get out at the meeting was to pursue a three track process:

1) Pursue down-zoning of Carroll gardens to R6B, with a 50' height limit.
2) Explore landmarking at the same time, to protect the character of the neighborhood. Landmarking overlays may end up taking different shape than the overall zoning area. i.e., pockets of the neighborhood may end up being landmarked, other parts not. But we should get the ball rolling.
3) And most urgent in my view, pursuing a technical determination from DOB that the side streets in Carroll Gardens, specifically including the "Place" streets: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Place, are not "wide streets" for city planning purposes. "Wide Streets" allow greater building rights than a typical street, and this is a justification for building higher at, e.g., 360 Smith Street.

Two particular bits of information stood out dramatically for me from last night's meeting:

First, the ILA site located at 340 Court Street has been sold for what I believe was an astonishing $24MM. The site is enormous - go to Google maps and use the satellite view to get a sense of the parcel size, which stretches from Union to Sackett and halfway up the block from Court towards Clinton. The jaw dropping news was under the current zoning, a builder could go up to 21 stories on this site. That makes 360 Smith look like a grass hut in comparison.

Second, Rita Miller from CORD stated that both Bill de Blasio's office and Joan Millman's office had told CORD that a moratorium would basically be illegal, which was corroborated by Bill and Joan. She then stated that Amanda Burden had sent a letter to CORD saying that a moratorium WAS possible, which sent a stir through the crowd. This caused some backpedaling by de Blasio, and a good deal of consternation in the crowd. I was stunned myself. Unfortunately, the letter from Amanda Burden, which is available in full at the CORD website, does not actually say that.

The relevant quote is here:

"Please note that any moratorium, whether temporary or permanent, is required by law to go through the Uniform Land Use Public Review Process, as well as an environmental review."

I'll have to do some research on this, but my understanding is that you can't simply put a moratorium on building that conforms to the lawful zoning of a given parcel, let alone an entire neighborhood. I don't wish to rain on any one's parade, but I believe that a judge would slap that down in short order as an arbitrary violation of property rights. I am an attorney, though I have not practiced real estate law, so before I can say that my belief is correct, I'll have to do some research.

Anyway, Ms. Miller's presentation was nonetheless impassioned and impressive. At the very least, we will get a definitive answer as to the legality of a building moratorium.

There was a ton more from last night, including a few tangential references to the once and future F-Express, but I'll have to do another post to cover it all.