All Brooklyn news
Neighborhood Map
Bay Ridge
  • Bensonhurst, Dyker Heights
Brooklyn Heights
  • Downtown, DUMBO
Carroll Gardens
  • Cobble Hill, Red Hook, Boerum Hill
Fort Greene
  • Clinton Hill, Crown Heights
North Brooklyn
  • Williamsburg, Greenpoint, Bushwick
Park Slope
  • Prospect Heights, Windsor Terrace, Greenwood Heights
GO Brooklyn
Dining Guide
Where to GO
Events calendar
Classifieds
The Brooklyn Wire
Not Just Nets
Police Blotter
Perspective
Parenting
Politics
Transit
Podcasts
Brooklyn Cyclones
Special sections
About The Paper
Mobile site
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds

Columbia Street rising — high

The Brooklyn Paper

Developers shared their plans to build 170 units of housing in the rapidly changing Columbia Street Waterfront district, but residents made it clear that they opposed the size of the buildings in the $80-million project.

The project is a joint venture between the city and L&M Equity, and includes the creation of several apartment buildings and townhouses on two blocks bounded by Congress, Baltic, Columbia and Hicks streets.

One building would be 80 feet tall and have 100 units, including all 40 of the project’s city-subsidized affordable apartments. The other two apartment buildings would be 60 feet tall. The developer expects to finish construction in 2010.

The scale of the proposed buildings provoked an outcry from several people who attended the Community Board 6 land-use committee meeting on Oct. 25.

“People want the buildings to be reflective of the property that’s already there,” summarized Anthony Pugliese, a member of the CB6 committee.

To fend off criticism, the developer said he’d place the biggest building on Hicks Street, facing the Brooklyn–Queens Expressway.

“The general idea is that along the side-streets, we’re trying to blend, and along the BQE, we’ll go with the height,” said David Gross, the project’s architect.

But that camouflage wasn’t working with some residents, who complained that project would still dwarf the three- and four-story existing buildings on these blocks.

Others were upset that 77 percent of the project’s total housing would be market-rate.

“You need more affordable housing,” said Celia Cacace, another board member. “I don’t feel like they’re giving this community anything. I only feel like they’re taking advantage of the [city affordable housing] subsidy.”

L&M would get tax breaks for building 40 affordable units on what is currently city-owned property. Cacace is upset that the other buildings — which would not be built on what is currently city-owned land — will not have any below–market-rate housing.

It will be luxury units because the city cannot require the developer to build affordable housing on private land. But a city official said this week that the project is good news because it will create much-needed housing, both affordable and luxury.

“One of the key components of the mayor’s [long-term plan] is to prepare for the addition of one million New Yorkers in the next 25 years,” said Seth Donlin, a spokesman for the Department of Housing Preservation and Development, referring to Mayor Bloomberg’s PlaNYC 2030. “Clearly we’re going to need housing for these New Yorkers.”

Reader Feedback

Alex says:
I live just on the other side of the BQE from this site.

80' seems way out of proportion - 50' I wouldn't have a problem with.

I'm generally in favor of tasteful re-development of lots in the area, but so far, with the possible exception of some of the Tiffany Place development, the development going on west of the BQE seems to be poorly architected, built with low-end materials, and is out of character with everything around it.

Primarily, projects are given to big companies looking to get in and get out with maximum profit extracted without regard to the surroundings.

Can't the city select a builder (or builders) that want to build neighborhood-typical 4 or 5 story brownstone-style housing?
Nov. 9, 2007, 1:47 pm
Cry me a river says:
80' is nothing. It's NIMBY's like you who are less than intelligent about such matters that have made building decent buildings in this city so hard. It's people like you that has created all these new construction buildings with very low ceilings of 7'8" - 8'. Instead of height limits, there should be a floor limit and the developer can make the ceilings a proper height from 11' - 13'. All you white city trash would complain that nobody "needs" ceilings that "high". Well, a lot people do. To have thicker concrete floors, be able to add insulation and soundproof.

NIMBY's quit thinking only of yourselfs. Losers.
Nov. 11, 2007, 12:55 am

Enter your comment below

By submitting this comment, you agree to the following terms:

You agree that you, and not BrooklynPaper.com or its affiliates, are fully responsible for the content that you post. You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening or sexually-oriented material or any material that may violate applicable law; doing so may lead to the removal of your post and to your being permanently banned from posting to the site. You grant to BrooklynPaper.com the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual and fully sublicensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part world-wide and to incorporate it in other works in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

First name
Last name
Your neighborhood
Email address
Daytime phone

Your letter must be signed and include all of the information requested above. (Only your name and neighborhood are published with the letter.) Letters should be as brief as possible; while they may discuss any topic of interest to our readers, priority will be given to letters that relate to stories covered by The Brooklyn Paper.

Letters will be edited at the sole discretion of the editor, may be published in whole or part in any media, and upon publication become the property of The Brooklyn Paper. The earlier in the week you send your letter, the better.

Links