NEW YORK | 80 Flatbush (2 Towers) | 840 FT / 510 FT | 74 & 38 FLOORS

[NYguy]

After launching a website, NIMBYs opposing the project have doubled down on their regressive bottom line, deleting a poll they themselves had created, after a 3:1 voting margin in favor of the proposal threatened to undermine a message without merit.

Idiots. Now they'll have to look for some other way to undermine the proposal.

[steyin]

That poll barely had 100 votes anyway.

[antinimby]

Originally Posted by steyin

That poll barely had 100 votes anyway.

Which also shows how little the public cares about the NIMBYs’ cause.

All their claims about neighborhood destruction is disingenuous.

[yankeesfan1000]

Originally Posted by steyin

That poll barely had 100 votes anyway.

And more people voted in favor of it, than showed up in opposition at these public hearings.

[towerpower123]

I went by this site last week. The community garden across the street had tons of signs saying "Save this garden! Stop 80 Flatbush". Thankfully they are not being taken too seriously.

[chris08876]

I'm proposing a new version of ICE. Instead of deporting illegals, we should be deporting the NIMBYS, and force them to work in the steel/concrete mill in which the very steel/concrete to build 80 Flatbush or any other skyscrapers in this city will come from. Its time to put them to work for a good cause!

Or just send them to the Middle of Libya. Plenty of sunshine there.

The sun is fine. When the sun runs out of fuel, and explodes violently, THAT will end the sunshine, not 80 Flatbush. Thus, I propose a reeducation camp for NIMBYS. Class #1: Fundamentals of sunshine. Class #2: The myth of shadows 102 with Professor Barnett.

[NYguy]

https://therealdeal.com/2018/04/30/o...with-yimbyism/

Open New York seeks to counter NIMBYism with YIMBYism
Group has backed large new developments in multiple New York neighborhoods


April 30, 2018

In Downtown Brooklyn, a massive high-rise project from Alloy Development is facing significant opposition from the community, as usual. But it is enjoying a solid amount of grassroots support as well.

The activists belong to a pro-development group called Open New York and have been advocating in favor of projects throughout the city in neighborhoods including Kips Bay and Union Square, according to Politico. The movement started in San Francisco, where newer and younger people moving to the area joined together to encourage more new development, and it has spread to New York as well.

The group has been criticized as a mouthpiece for the real estate industry, and the leader of New York’s organization, Ben Thypin, does run a real estate firm with former real estate writer Stephen Smith. However, he told Politico his interest in this issue was not related to his work in the industry.

“Right now, we’re in a situation where you have some rich, well-located neighborhoods that are not building enough housing,” he said, “and haven’t built enough housing for a very long time.”

[NYguy]

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article...stone-brooklyn

Developer attempts to push the limits on border of brownstone Brooklyn
Some locals oppose tower project, but it's one block from major transit hub


Joe Anuta By Joe Anuta
April 30, 2018

...arguments in favor of respecting the low-rise environment are colliding into a central tenet of the city's planning strategy: build housing near public transit. In this case, there are few mass-transit hubs in the city more vital and connected than the Atlantic Avenue–Barclays Center station a block away.

Placing dense housing near subways and commuter rail is one of the basic ways to serve a growing city beset by rising housing costs. Residents who live close to train stops have easier commutes and do not require as many cars or parking spaces. With the N, Q, R, W, B, D, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 lines and the Long Island Rail Road all stopping at Atlantic Avenue–Barclays Center, the station provides easy access to Queens, the Bronx, Nassau and Suffolk counties, and every part of Manhattan.

It is hard to get a full sense of the consequences of each choice at the community meetings and hearings that are part of the public review process, which will put the 80 Flatbush Ave. proposal in front of stakeholders at an April 30 public hearing hosted by the borough president and before Community Board 2 in mid-May.

"Decisions made at a more local level tend to reject development," Romem argued in his paper, "because negatively impacted stakeholders are usually concentrated nearby, whereas the beneficiaries are not."

In other words, households that might move into the future units or those facing development pressures elsewhere in the city are unlikely to weigh in on a project.

How the new City Council handles those competing objectives will be a test for Speaker Corey Johnson. His predecessor helped trim back a 2016 proposal a few blocks north that sought the exact same density as Alloy. The reason? Neighborhood character.

[NYguy]

https://nypost.com/2018/04/30/brookl...rom-neighbors/

Brooklyn complex faces opposition from neighbors

By Steve Cuozzo
April 30, 2018

...the real hate appears to come from residents of a single neighboring building — One Hanson Place, the former Williamsburg Bank tower that’s home to condo owners fearful of losing their views, a Post analysis has found.

Although often described as a “megaproject,” 80 Flatbush will have only about 1.3 million square feet, the size of a single large office tower, spread over five buildings on roughly 1.4 acres — three of them new and two dating from the 19th century. The triangular site two blocks from Barclays Center is bounded by Flatbush Avenue, Schermerhorn Street, Third Avenue and State Street.

Much of the staunchest resistance to it comes from residents of One Hanson Place, as reflected in negative comments submitted last summer to ECF Executive Director Jennifer Maldonado prior to an environmental review, and obtained by The Post.

Of 153 critical comments from nearby residents, more than 25 percent were from condo-dwellers at One Hanson Place. Some mentioned that a slender, 74-story tower planned at 80 Flatbush would block their views. Others reversed the perspective and said that it would prevent residents of other Brooklyn neighborhoods from seeing their own landmarked tower, famous for its top-floor clocks on four sides.

[Prezrezc]

Oh, so "look at us and where we live from your piss-ant residence a half a mile away" is the next mantra for the NIMBY hoardes; is that it, now??

I do wonder how many of these asshats, pecentage-wise, are in fact clinically narcissistic.

I mean that.

[colemonkee]

^ A similar argument was made in LA to block a development next to the Eastern Columbia building, which has a pretty iconic, art deco clock at the top. While the clock is cool, their argument is, like these people's really just a thinly-veiled attempt to protect their own views out.

[chris08876]

Neighbors of proposed Brooklyn tower explain their opposition

To the editor:

Re: "Brooklyn tower project epitomizes smart growth" (op-ed, CrainsNewYork.com):

The Boerum Hill Association represents the residential interests of our neighborhood.

Let me be very clear, we support appropriate and intelligent development. We have consistently asked for a plan that blends Downtown with Boerum Hill.

Our position has been:

• We oppose tripling of the floor-area ratio: It is out of scale and a bad precedent for Brooklyn.

• We want a real conversation about the density on this block and its effects on our quality of life.

• To address required transitional zoning, we demanded townhouses (R6B zoning) on the north side of State Street to create comparable scale and a 50-foot setback.

• Eliminate the State Street loading dock and keep trash off State Street.

• Require a 50-foot setback from Third Avenue for any new building over four stories.

• Build only one tower that is glare-free.

• Build only the new high school. (State Street is a bad location for an elementary school due to local traffic on Third Avenue, Atlantic Avenue and Flatbush Avenue.)

• Relocate high school operations during eight years of construction.

With a large residential community now in Downtown and growing, as well as Pacific Park, this area has many units and will continue to add more.

The largest, most dense project proposed needs a reconsideration.

=====================
Crain's NY Business

[10023]

Originally Posted by NYguy

The taller tower looks more office than residential (both will have a small office component).

This is not a bad thing. Modern residential architecture (as opposed to the days of Rosario Candela) generally sucks, unless it looks like offices with smaller floorplates. I am referring primarily to balconies.

[NYguy]

It is out of scale and a bad precedent for Brooklyn.

How so? This is exactly where this type of development needs to go.

[chris08876]

They want to keep the place at the 6-8 floor range. Anything taller than 100 ft is a threat to their "quality" of life.

Even though they are in the 2nd densest borough in the largest city in the U.S. and one of the densest in the world. YET... it will affect their quality of life!

[RobEss]

I notice there's a lack of any attempt to understand the positions of anyone who isn't a fan of tall buildings on this forum.

I mean, I'm obviously a big fan of skyscrapers - I'm here after all - but I'm much more interested in seeing healthy growth within a city, not just a constant climb upwards.

To that end, I wish contributors to this forum would actually engage in a discussion about how others might feel about towers of this nature. To do otherwise would just make us bad neighbors.

Anyway, to sum my point up - I love height, but this tower is going to cause some ugly changes to the surrounding neighborhoods. People have to understand that the majority of the structures being built in Brooklyn and lower Manhattan are of extremely poor quality and turn streets into empty mechanical voids.

We can do better.

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by RobEss

......People have to understand that the majority of the structures being built in Brooklyn and lower Manhattan are of extremely poor quality and turn streets into empty mechanical voids.

We can do better.

Huh? Maybe a handful of budget hotels and apartment buildings, but the majority? Don't be ridiculous.

[yankeesfan1000]

Originally Posted by RobEss

...Anyway, to sum my point up - I love height, but this tower is going to cause some ugly changes to the surrounding neighborhoods. People have to understand that the majority of the structures being built in Brooklyn and lower Manhattan are of extremely poor quality and turn streets into empty mechanical voids...

Everything in bold is entirely subjective.

As is the case with these demands from the neighborhood, what they really want is nothing to be built at all. How do you engage with that? The developer is building two schools, 200 affordable apartments, and cultural/community space, what more do/you they want?

I understand the change is hard, but what about the rest of us? I rent, and because of people/organizations like this who proactively limit the supply of new housing, I pay an artificially inflated amount in rent. They're taking money out of my pocket, and the pockets of everyone in this city who rents. It's ridiculous.

Our position has been:

• We oppose tripling of the floor-area ratio: It is out of scale and a bad precedent for Brooklyn.

9 Dekalb is being built down the street, and will be taller than this.

• We want a real conversation about the density on this block and its effects on our quality of life.

This lot was covered during the Downtown Brooklyn rezoning, if they had an issue, they should have raised it then.

• To address required transitional zoning, we demanded townhouses (R6B zoning) on the north side of State Street to create comparable scale and a 50-foot setback.

A 50 foot setback on a site this small basically means nothing gets built here at all.

• Eliminate the State Street loading dock and keep trash off State Street.

The loading dock has to go somewhere, either on Flatbush, State or 3rd. Trucks can either turn right off Flatbush onto State St, or they have to turn off from Flatbush, go down State and then to 3rd, or you put in on Flatbush and cause extra congestion there. State St makes more sense.

• Require a 50-foot setback from Third Avenue for any new building over four stories.

Again, a 50 foot setback on a site this small basically means nothing gets built here at all.

• Build only one tower that is glare-free.

Is it even possible to build a tower that is 100% glare-free...?

• Build only the new high school. (State Street is a bad location for an elementary school due to local traffic on Third Avenue, Atlantic Avenue and Flatbush Avenue.)

So one new high school is okay, but the two the developer is offering to build at no cost to the city is bad?

• Relocate high school operations during eight years of construction.

To where? Talk is cheap.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by RobEss

I notice there's a lack of any attempt to understand the positions of anyone who isn't a fan of tall buildings on this forum.

I mean, I'm obviously a big fan of skyscrapers - I'm here after all - but I'm much more interested in seeing healthy growth within a city, not just a constant climb upwards.

To that end, I wish contributors to this forum would actually engage in a discussion about how others might feel about towers of this nature

And exactly why? Anyone concerned about the nature of such things would live far removed from a critical mass of transportation, and certainly wouldn't live as close to existing towers. It's a big city. And an even bigger country. The vast majority of both is tower free, and in no threat of seeing that ever change. I have no sympathy for people who are SHOCKED that a big tower might get built in the big city.

[RobEss]

^
Nobody is really engaging with what I said - rather, I think my point is being proven rather well.

I'm a personal advocate for building higher and building more. But I'll reiterate my points-


- Discussing NYC development without allowing for the fact that opposing concerns can be legitimate is pointless and self-serving.

- Celebrating height at the expense of quality and/or integrity is also pointless and self-serving. (Montparnasse, anyone?)

- Yes, build quality is currently terrible - yes, for the majority of projects. Anyone who walks 20 blocks through Brooklyn or Queens will understand that. Everything is built from aluminum studs and pre-cast foam, even the units dubbed 'luxury'. I can't tell you how many new developments I see with gaping holes in the facade and unwashable windows. It's a NYC thing.