CORD Declares New Holiday

Once in a while I get a good email in the box worth sharing:

On Wednesday, January 30, 2008, our Councilman, Bill DeBlasio introduced to
his fellow Council Members, a Resolution calling for two things that a
substantial number of Carroll Gardens residents have been seeking for quite
some time.

Councilman DeBlasio asked for the requested downzoning study to commence
immediately and, more importantly, called to halt construction on anything
that would exceed fifty feet (a simplified representation of the downzoning
result) immediately as well. For all intents and purposes, he asked for the
interim moratorium that we have been hoping for.

Now, unfortunately, a Resolution, even if unanimously passed, is not legally
binding. It is not law. It is little more than an agreement between
civilized parties. But, we, at CORD are most appreciative of this first
step. Councilman DeBlasio promised this to us back in September and he has
delivered. Some people would say, “So what? It doesn’t really mean
anything.” But, we think it took courage to take this very politically
unpopular idea to the Council Chambers.

We think that this is the way change begins. It starts with thinking about
things differently, challenging what is no longer working and looking for a
way to do and make things better.

What was introduced on January 30th, in the NYC Council Chambers was a
small, but very good first step. We must remember that real change takes
determination, purpose, conviction and tenacity. It takes resolve.

January 30th was Resolution Day.

CORD

I'll second that.

More Downzoning Fun

The Gowanus Lounge has not one but two posts today on downzoning. The first is a roundup post on the downzoning rally yesterday. The second and more important post is an analysis piece that calls for a moratorium on building out of context when a downzoning is pending. From that piece:

There are limits imposed on what is possible by the city's land use process and timetables that must be followed. Studies must be conducted. Public sessions must be held and votes must be taken. This will all take time. It is why everyone needs to work to find a mechanism that would allow for big zoning-busting developments to be stopped while the downzoning process goes on. Currently, even if a moratorium could be enacted, it would have to follow a similar process to zoning and would, in and of itself, take 12-24 months.That's why there needs to be a legal mechanism that will stop the clock at the beginning of a zoning study--a legal "moratorium" mechanism, if you will.

Again, wort reading the entire piece.

Landmarking vs. Zoning: Lessons from Our Neighbors

In comments, Halden from Brooklyn11211 reminds us of an important lesson. When you lock the front door, remember to lock the back door. Truly preserving the character of Carroll Gardens requires a two-track approach, a belt and suspenders approach (enough metaphors?): (1) downzoning and (2) landmarking.

Downzoning limits the height of development; landmarking preserves the look and feel of a community by preventing ugly, non-contextual crap-boxes from being deposited in the nabe.

From Halden's link:

A word of warning to our friends in Carroll Gardens: a lot of the crap that is going up in Greenpoint & Williamsburg is consistent with the contextual zoning that was implemented in 2005 (R6A and R6B, predominantly). Its shorter crap, but its still crap. And other than landmarking, there's not a lot you can do about that.

I strongly suggest reading the entire post. I know that there are people who are against landmarking, and I can respect that. But I am for it, and I will work with my neighbors to make it happen. Interested in helping out? Drop me a line. Vince Favorito has been working tirelessly on landmarking and he can always use more hands.

Carroll Gardens Downzoning Rally

Despite freezing weather and spotty rain, scores of our neighbors rallied this morning on the steps of Borough Hall in support of downzoning Carroll Gardens. This is just the beginning . . . all of the work we've done to date has been to get the ball rolling. I want to thank Bill deBlasio and his office for working with the community and helping to make this happen. We wouldn't have gotten these results without his help.

And now we keep the process moving - we can't rest until the process is complete, and the community is protected.

A quick note on the Williamsburg comment, before it's taken out of context - I've got nothing against Williamsburg. What I'm opposed to is what crap developers and their architects like "Hot Karl" Fischer have done there . . . and for the record, Hot Karl is currently straddling Carroll Gardens and making his first deposit at 100 Luquer Street. We can't have more of that.

Pictures from Pardon Me For Asking (which has a lot of good pics). There were also people behind the cameras, and to the left . . . all in all a great turnout.


Media coverage:
Brownstoner
Gowanus Lounge
Curbed
Pardon Me For Asking

This one is not a link to the coverage . . . But Fordham University Radio (90.7FM) did a piece on the rally today, and also plays some really terrific music.

News 12 Brooklyn (Channel 156 in Brooklyn on Cable TV) will be featuring the Downzoning Rally story today starting at 5:30 PM then repeating it throughout the evening.

And NY1 was on the scene as well.

Great News re: Wide Streets

Via the Gowanus Lounge, we learn that Bill deBlasio's office is making some progress on the "wide streets" issue we have on the Place blocks. (For newbies - the Place blocks have lately seen out-of-scale development threats due to City Planning's treatment of the courtyards as part of the streets, which yields a density bonus as if the streets were broad avenues)

The following is the text of an email from Bill deBlasio's office. The Carroll Gardens Neighborhood Association has also been working this issue for months.

I along with community leaders, Brooklyn Community Board 6, and Carroll Gardens residents have brought to the Department of City Planning (DCP)'s attention concerns about the zoning implications of the 'wide street' definition in the R6 zoning district on 1st through 4th Place in Carroll Gardens. I am happy to announce that in response to these concerns, DCP has agreed to put forward an application for a change to the zoning text whereby these streets would be defined as 'narrow streets' for zoning purposes, permitting a lower Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and maximum building heights that are more in keeping with the surrounding character and context of the neighborhood.

This zoning text amendment would go through a public review process, and DCP hopes to have this ready for referral by the City Planning Commission in March.

This is great news.

About that Downzoning Rally . . .

It looks like I got some bad intelligence on this deBlasio rally, and the rally will actually be Thursday. When I get the definitive word I will post on it.Hello! CORD has received an email from Tom Gray today saying the RALLY date for our downzoning is January 24th not January 29th. Frankly, CORD was never sure about that 29th date for various reasons. It seems very wise to check with the Councilman's office before planning on going anywhere for a rally on either day just to be sure. We understand there is some frustration about this. T.S.

Looks like the rally is still on for the 29th. Sorry for the confusion.

100 Luquer Street

I walked past 100 Luquer today, taking a leisurely stroll back from an interview with BCAT about the Smith and Ninth renovation and the Culver Viaduct. The project has risen fairly quickly, with about 2/3 of its 11 stories up at this point(see Curbed for current photo).

The project is allowed to grow to this height for two reasons. First, our local zoning is R-6, which does not have the height limit it should (which is why many of us are pushing for a downzoning to R-6B). Second, Hamilton Ave is a wide street (at least 75' wide), which provides a density bonus to a developer. The lot in question extends from Luquer to Hamilton Ave, with the building actually sited up against Hamilton.

All right, nobody is particularly happy about the height of this thing. But to add insult to injury, the front yard of this thing is going to be a parking lot. I figured the deep setback would be a walled off garden space, with a low front wall to preserve the street line. But take a look at the rendering above. It's a surface parking lot. I'm sure the neighbors will be thrilled.

Rendering pilfered from Curbed.com

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.