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

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by 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-

What exactly are your points as they relate to this development?

[RobEss]

Originally Posted by NYguy

What exactly are your points as they relate to this development?

The simplest point, as it relates to this development, would be that the community of people on this site often talk down the concerns of people who have a vested interest in their built environment. The term NIMBY is applied to anyone who stands in the way of our precious towers - there's lots of straw-men arguments in these forums.

It's not good urbanism, to say the least.

[yankeesfan1000]

Originally Posted by RobEss

The simplest point, as it relates to this development, would be that the community of people on this site often talk down the concerns of people who have a vested interest in their built environment. The term NIMBY is applied to anyone who stands in the way of our precious towers - there's lots of straw-men arguments in these forums.

It's not good urbanism, to say the least.

This reinforces what we have been saying though.

NYGuy asked you straight up, "What exactly are your points as they relate to this development?" And your reply does not lay out a single point, instead it uses incredibly broad, fluid phrases that are impossible to respond to.

How can we have a discussion about the value a project like this brings to the community/city, when the opponents can not put into words what exactly they oppose about this project/others like it...?

[RobEss]

Originally Posted by yankeesfan1000

How can we have a discussion about the value a project like this brings to the community/city, when the opponents can not put into words what exactly they oppose about this project/others like it...?

I'm not an opponent, and I'm not being vague - I was addressing the discussion that took up most of the previous page in this thread.

I took issue with the obtuse nature of the discussion, and was referencing my larger distaste for the way this forum often conducts itself in regards to so-called nimbyism.

While that objection might not relate immediately to the project discussion, this thread had become a lightning-rod for the issue and I wanted to speak my piece.

[antinimby]

Originally Posted by RobEss

I'm not an opponent, and I'm not being vague - I was addressing the discussion that took up most of the previous page in this thread.

I took issue with the obtuse nature of the discussion, and was referencing my larger distaste for the way this forum often conducts itself in regards to so-called nimbyism.

While that objection might not relate immediately to the project discussion, this thread had become a lightning-rod for the issue and I wanted to speak my piece.

That’s because this is a skyscraper forum. Anyway, the NIMBYs (and that is what they are so calling them that is absolutely appropriate) have plenty of airplay and the ears of the city politicians and city planning. They don’t need your help to get more of their voices heard.

And if you want to talk about this project specifically, then I can take you up on that.

This site has a sad looking, nondescript building on it that does nothing for the neighborhood or the city. The city needs to grow and grow in an environmentally friendly manner. You do that by directing growth in places with mass transit. As said many times before, this area is one of the most transit rich in all of the city. Maybe even moreso than Hudson Yards in Manhattan. Keeping places like this lowrise just because people are afraid of bigger buildings, density and change is criminal.

This project will bring in schools, housing, retail, offices to an otherwise unremarkable and uninteresting block. Not to mention adding to the city’s economic base and tax revenue. There is no loss and all win. The NIMBYs claims are ridiculous and self serving. If we were to listen to every person who objects to new development in their neighborhood, then there’d literally be no place to build and grow. Did you know that there were people against Hudson Yards and the size of the proposed buildings there too? If it was up to them, there’d be nothing there right now except for 8 story Fedders buildings or 12 story Gene Kaufman specials.

[antinimby]

And don’t you find it funny and hypocritical that in a liberal city, where they are pro-illegals and a sanctuary city but yet are decidely anti-growth and development.

Where did these residents think all the new people they want to let in were going to go? Oh I guess anywhere is fine except in their own “backyard.”

[steyin]

I'm usually of the same mentality on development throughout Brooklyn when it comes to a lot of market rate/luxury buildings. As a lifetime Brooklynite and architect, I feel a good amount of development is not appropriate for the location it is placed in. I sometimes blame the architect for not being sensitive to a neighborhood's context/history, but more so the blame falls on the owners/developers for only caring more so about their profit, which is understandable as they're out to make money but I often feel they could do so in a better manner that gives them what they want and satisfies the neighborhood where they build. However affordable housing in this city really isn't so for a lot of us working/lower middle class, so I understand when local residents vent at these situations. Call me a NIMBY if need be, but the culture of this profession and the mentality of developers is what often hurts neighborhoods, and as a professional in the housing field it angers me.

In regards to this project though, while I am not a member of the neighborhood, I feel that there are only some minor adjustments needed. I agree that he downtown area is ripe for the development of taller buildings. At the same time the scale issue when in proximity to the brownstones/smaller buildings is something that I feel should be better addressed. Could these towers be shorter? Sure, but I feel they only need be downscaled a bit. I like that they are providing the neighborhood with certain amenities as many developments of this nature often do not, however the school sizes I think are way too small. Of course we have wait to see how "affordable" the units set aside for that will be, but given this area has become higher income over the last 10 years I know they would be out of range for me and many others still.

In the end, I wish communication between developers/architects and the community were better handled, rather than these shouting matches we end up in. I'd also wish that developers were more sensitive to these issues (not that all aren't; there are plenty of great ones, but in my own experience I find a good amount to not be, which has really opened my eyes over the last 5 years).

[antinimby]

^ A wishy-washy, lengthy post that says basically nothing. You want the development to be scaled down but yet you want a bigger school? Does that even sound logical?

As for affordable housing. If making it smaller and thus resulting in fewer affordable units, how does that help?

[steyin]

Originally Posted by antinimby

^ A wishy-washy, lengthy post that says basically nothing. You want the development to be scaled down but yet you want a bigger school? Does that even sound logical?

As for affordable housing. If making it smaller and thus resulting in fewer affordable units, how does that help?

I didn't say I personally wanted it to be scaled down, I just said that the towers could probably be a little shorter to try to appease the community. Yes that would result in fewer affordable units, but that would have to be the compromise everyone would be willing to accept if the height is such an issue. As for the schools (which is great that they are incorporating them), given the number of seats being provided versus the size of the neighborhood and influx of potential new families occupying the building, I personally don't feel they are enough. If you're going to give a community amenities within a development that's all good of course, but at the same I feel it should be proportionate to the existing density of the neighborhood and what you're adding to it.

As for my "wishy-washy" post, I was merely projecting my feelings as a native architect on development in general. If you don't want to engage in a conversation about such topics that's fine (nor is this the thread for that), but outright dismissing my view/opinion kind of goes back to the point RobEss was making. I like hearing all sides in any given argument/topic of discussion as it helps to refine my views and vice versa, but when one ignores the other it's just ignorant.

[antinimby]

Originally Posted by steyin

I didn't say I personally wanted it to be scaled down, I just said that the towers could probably be a little shorter to try to appease the community. Yes that would result in fewer affordable units, but that would have to be the compromise everyone would be willing to accept if the height is such an issue. As for the schools (which is great that they are incorporating them), given the number of seats being provided versus the size of the neighborhood and influx of potential new families occupying the building, I personally don't feel they are enough. If you're going to give a community amenities within a development that's all good of course, but at the same I feel it should be proportionate to the existing density of the neighborhood and what you're adding to it.

As for my "wishy-washy" post, I was merely projecting my feelings as a native architect on development in general. If you don't want to engage in a conversation about such topics that's fine (nor is this the thread for that), but outright dismissing my view/opinion kind of goes back to the point RobEss was making. I like hearing all sides in any given argument/topic of discussion as it helps to refine my views and vice versa, but when one ignores the other it's just ignorant.

That’s the problem with the protesters. Scaling down “a little” would not be enough for them. I doubt they’d think a twenty story tower is fine either. They want quiet and quaint...in downtown Brooklyn, a borough of 2.5 million and in the largest city in the country with a dozen train and rail lines around. That is ridiculous.

They are in the wrong. There should never be a need for a compromise with a side that is clearly in the wrong. None of their houses are being demolished. They are not being forced out. No one is being displaced. It all boils down to them not liking new, tall buildings across the street from them. It does not jeopardize them or their lives in anyway.

And as for your claim that we don’t allow all sides to speak. What do you or Robess think you are doing right now? You are expressing your opinion and in a forum like this, when you offer your opinion you should also expect someone to have the right to take you on your opinion as well. Did you want to offer your opinion and get only praises?

And yes, this is not quite the thread for this important topic and NYGuy will let us all know it soon enough. If it goes on any longer, it will all get deleted by him anyway. Been through this many times before. Spent lots of time writing and thoughts only to have it all deleted but that’s a different topic for a different time.

[steyin]

Originally Posted by antinimby

That’s the problem with the protesters. Scaling down “a little” would not be enough for them. I doubt they’d think a twenty story tower is fine either. They want quiet and quaint...in downtown Brooklyn, a borough of 2.5 million and in the largest city in the country with a dozen train and rail lines around. That is ridiculous.

Oh I agree. We should listen when the point is valid, but when it is more so outrageous unfortunately it is hard to sway one so deadset on their view.

Originally Posted by antinimby

They are in the wrong. There should never be a need for a compromise with a side that is clearly in the wrong. None of their houses are being demolished. They are not being forced out. No one is being displaced. It all boils down to them not liking new, tall buildings across the street from them. It does not jeopardize them or their lives in anyway.

This is also true, but again I go back to my point about architecture being more sensitive to its context. A slight adjustment of some scale would go a long way, at least for me.

Originally Posted by antinimby

And as for your claim that we don’t allow all sides to speak. What do you or Robess think you are doing right now? You are expressing your opinion and in a forum like this, when you offer your opinion you should also expect someone to have the right to take you on your opinion as well. Did you want to offer your opinion and get only praises?

I didn't claim that not all sides are allowed to speak, just that sometimes people are dismissive without offering a counterpoint or they fail to see the other side. I don't expect praise at all, but I interpreted your reply to me, using the "wishy washy", as being dismissive. If I was wrong that's on me and my apologies, but it came off that way in my eyes. Again, I welcome a good back and worth of viewpoints.

Originally Posted by antinimby

And yes, this is not quite the thread for this important topic and NYGuy will let us all know it soon enough. If it goes on any longer, it will all get deleted by him anyway. Been through this many times before. Spent lots of time writing and thoughts only to have it all deleted but that’s a different topic for a different time.

Agreed, so we can end it here.

[Barney Greengrass]

So much pearl clutching. If the nimbys really want to help Brownstone Brooklyn, for the love of God send em down to Fourth Ave in Park Slope to protest the poor quality and lack of street retail of the endless 12 story abominations being built. I'd rather have something like 80 Flatbush down by me than this crap, at least it serves a purpose greater than cloistered, extremely over priced residential. Besides, it gets hot in the summer, who doesn't want some shade?!?

[JMKeynes]

Originally Posted by Sloper

So much pearl clutching. If the nimbys really want to help Brownstone Brooklyn, for the love of God send em down to Fourth Ave in Park Slope to protest the poor quality and lack of street retail of the endless 12 story abominations being built. I'd rather have something like 80 Flatbush down by me than this crap, at least it serves a purpose greater than cloistered, extremely over priced residential. Besides, it gets hot in the summer, who doesn't want some shade?!?

I concur.

Further, Flatbush Ave in downtown is not “ Brownstone Brooklyn.” It’s formerly “the hood,” though, hopefully, the thuggish element will be gone soon.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by JMKeynes

Flatbush Ave in downtown is not “ Brownstone Brooklyn.” It’s formerly “the hood,” though, hopefully, the thuggish element will be gone soon.

What about Flatbush is the "hood", and what exactly is the "hood"? And what exactly is the "thuggish element"?

Originally Posted by RobEss

The simplest point, as it relates to this development, would be that the community of people on this site often talk down the concerns of people who have a vested interest in their built environment.

And really, can they be blamed, when this is what these people put out?










As is usually the case, their main point of concern is always that a building is "too tall". They are shocked that in an urban landscape, there is a possibility that anything will cast shadows. Again, I don't have sympathy for these people, because the vast majority of them could move anywhere if they so choose to. Yet they chose to be there, and most likely will remain if and when this gets built.

[chris08876]

You'd think they would at least have a serious conversation on the issues plaguing the city. One of them being housing. It kinda seems like a one-sided list of demands. Not conversation, but demands. At least thats the perception provided.

[NYguy]

https://ny.curbed.com/2018/6/15/1746...nt-disapproval

Brooklyn Borough President proposes height reduction for 80 Flatbush supertall
Eric Adams wants the height of towers in this megadevelopment to be restricted to 600 feet


By Tanay Warerkar
Jun 15, 2018

Adams has offered up several suggestions on how the project can move forward. For one, he wants to reduce the maximum height on the towers planned as part of the project. One of the towers planned by Alloy Development is slated to rise to 986 feet—Adams wants to cap the height at 600 feet.

The proposal calls for the creation of 900 apartments, of which 200 would be affordable units. Adams wants to ensure that there are a mix of bedroom types that will accommodate families with children, and that apartments will be set aside for very low-income seniors, including the formerly homeless.

The Borough President’s recommendations follow a City Planning Commission hearing for the development, which also includes multiple schools, office, retail, and cultural space. The Brooklyn Daily Eagle reported that a majority of the public speakers (34-11) at the meeting spoke in favor of the development. The Planning Commission still has to issue its verdict, and then the final decision will lay in the hands of the City Council.

[Hudson11]

600 ft is nothing to scoff at, but he's recommending that knowing full well that less height means less affordable housing. It's not the lucrative apartments which get chopped to accommodate a smaller floor count. What's Brooklyn's bigger problem? Density, or affordability?

[Busy Bee]

^Looming towers and shadows of course!

[Barney Greengrass]

I ran into more of their hysterical signs yesterday, ironically shaded by trees on a hot day. How dare those trees! Cut 'em down!!! Lol







I'm pretty sure Eric Adams is just trying to avoid being harrassed any further by these people than he already has, which is understandable. 80 Flatbush is their pet project since I haven't seen or heard a peep from them about any of the other tall towers going up downtown. It's just the bandwagon effect. I want to go to the meeting and let them know Vermont is offering people $5,000 to relocate there, and if you stay two years you get another $5,000! But unfortunately there are also shadows there too, sigh. Maybe they should move to the desert? Very few shadows in the desert.

[JMKeynes]

Originally Posted by NYguy

https://ny.curbed.com/2018/6/15/1746...nt-disapproval

Brooklyn Borough President proposes height reduction for 80 Flatbush supertall
Eric Adams wants the height of towers in this megadevelopment to be restricted to 600 feet


By Tanay Warerkar
Jun 15, 2018

I haven't been following this. Can these jackasses force a height reduction or is their opinion merely advisory.