Historic Fort Greene Brooklyn

Author Archive

July 2006 R6B Rezoning

Saturday, July 1st, 2006

-
FGA Pushes for Zoning Reform
-
After the wake-up call of the tower at 383 Carlton Avenue, neighborhood residents launched the Joint Taskforce for the Rezoning of Clinton Hill and Fort Greene, a joint effort between the Clinton Hill Society and the FGA. Throughout the summer over seventy-five neighborhood volunteers received training guided by the NYC Department of City Planning to learn how to characterize each building in the proposed R6B areas. Within four weeks a survey was completed for every block and lot to show the number of stories, construction style and usage of each building. The data was then computer formatted and turned over for analysis to the Brooklyn office of the Department of City Planning. The Department of City Planning was impressed with the speed and commitment of the community and hopes to give the Taskforce a timetable as to when our goals can be achieved. The FGA understands that this is one of the highest priority issues the community is facing. After completing the survey it is clear that individual lots are being bought up by single investors in order to consolidate their land mass. When individual developers reach the required land mass for large development we may be seeing sections of Brownstone Brooklyn being torn down in favor of steel hi-rises. For more details on our efforts please visit the FGA website. To volunteer drop us an email and put R6B in the in the subject line. We are no longer asleep.
-
-FGA Pushes for Zoning Reform
-
-
-
Sample Letter to Commissioner Amanda Burden -
Commissioner Amanda Burden
Department of City Planning
22 Reade Street
New York, NY 10007-1216
June 11, 2005
Re: Contextual Rezoning for Fort Greene Clinton Hill
Dear Commissioner Burden:
I am writing to ask you to support our community’s contextual rezoning proposal. I live in the Fort Greene / Clinton Hill area and I want to preserve our low-rise, brownstone community – full of light, air and heart – and our neighborhood shopping streets – full of local businesses. And I want local residents and business owners to continue to benefit from the neighborhood’s healthy, community-based economic growth.
The rezoning proposal of the Fort Greene and Clinton Hill Associations includes R6A rezoning on the commercial streets of Myrtle and Fulton and R6B rezoning of the entirely residential streets. This combination of these contextual zones will best create positive new development; rowhouses and similar scale buildings on the residential side streets and 6-story buildings on the neighborhood commercial avenues.

I strongly believe that this contextual rezoning will protect the existing scale of our neighborhood while still allowing for its future development. It will create possibilities for appropriate infill development and provide residential and entrepreneurial opportunities for current and new residents alike. It will not impose the physical barriers created by large out-of-scale buildings nor will it cause the wholesale displacement of long-time businesses and residents. Incremental, neighborhood-driven revitalization of our community is the best way to bring about inclusive economic development that generates local jobs, local ownership, and local wealth.

Please help us protect what we love about our neighborhood! Support our communities’ R6A and R6B contextual rezoning proposal.

Sincerely,
-The Request to CB-2 for Support and Participation
In the Rezoning of
Clinton Hill and Fort Greene
The Joint Taskforce for the Rezoning
of Clinton Hill and Fort Greene
17 December, 2003
-The following is a request for support and participation of Community Board 2 Land Use Committee for the re-zoning of the Fort Greene and Clinton Hill neighborhoods from R6 to R6B. The boundaries of this request are roughly from St. Felix Street to Classon Avenue and from Park Avenue to Fulton Street with knockouts for existing manufacturing and commercial districts. The area is highlighted in green and also includes the Fort Greene and Clinton Hill Historic Districts as indicated by the shaded areas. (See illustration 1)
To understand this it is vital to have an understanding of the meaning of R6 and R6B and some of the basic principles and history of the New York City zoning code.
With the introduction of steel beam construction and improved elevators the technical restraints that had traditionally limited building height vanished. In 1915 the huge shadow cast by the 42-story Equitable Building, built on lower Broadway, deprived neighboring properties of light and air and as a result the pioneering 1916 Zoning Resolution established height and setback controls. Separating what was seen as functionally incompatible uses, such as factories from residential neighborhoods, the ordinance became a model for urban communities throughout the United States.
“In 1926, the U.S. Supreme Court validated the zoning ordinance of Euclid, Ohio, in the landmark case of Village of Euclid v. Ambler, finding that it rested on a comprehensive plan for maintaining, protecting and upgrading the community. The Court recognized that zoning is an appropriate extension of the community’s authority to pass laws related to protecting the public health, safety, morals and general welfare. The historic ruling also contained a far-seeing passage suggesting that zoning must evolve to meet the changing needs of changing times.”[1]
The scope of the 1916 Zoning Resolution did expand greatly to meet the new and different conditions but, after 45 years of rapid changes in the City, it was clear that there was a need for a total reconsideration of zoning in New York City. In 1961 the current Zoning Resolution was enacted and took effect. Championed by Robert Moses and other believers of the Le Corbusier as described in his book The City of Tomorrow, the 1961 Zoning Resolution coordinated use and bulk regulations. The master plan introduced the concept of incentive zoning by offering a bonus of extra floor area in return for office buildings and apartment towers with public spaces. Quoting William Stern of the City Journal “They wanted the city to embody the vision of the then-celebrated Swiss architect Le Corbusier- who favored giant, boxy towers isolated in big, open plazas- so they allowed builders to make their edifices taller, and so boost rental footage, if they set them back from the sidewalk and surrounded them with open space.”[2]
To quote the New York City Department of Planning “Cities never stand still, nor should zoning”[3] and to deal with the shortcomings of the 1961 Zoning Resolution amendments including, contextual zoning, waterfront zoning, mixed use zoning, and special districts have been used to make zoning more responsive and sensitive to the changing needs of New York City and the people who live and work here. So, if the Department of City Planning thinks zoning should not stand still why has the R6 zone in Fort Greene and Clinton Hill remained unchanged? For that matter what is R6 or R6B?
The following is from the New York City Zoning Handbook, which explains the basics of the residential zoning code. Residence districts are designated by the prefix R in the Zoning Resolution. There are ten standard residence districts in New York City — R1 through R10. The numbers refer to the permitted density (R1 having the lowest density; R10 the highest) and certain other controls such as required parking. A second letter or number signifies additional controls in certain districts. Unless otherwise stated, the regulations for each of the ten residence districts pertain to all sub-categories within that district. The R4 district, for example, encompasses R4-1, R4A and R4B.
R1 and R2 districts allow only detached single-family residences and certain community facilities. The R3-2 through R10 districts accept all types of dwelling units and community facilities and are distinguished by differing bulk and density, height and setback, parking, and lot coverage or open space requirements.
The R6 through R9 districts without a letter suffix (R8 rather than R8A, for example) encourage on-site open space and on-site parking. These objectives are addressed by a complex formula involving three variable controls: floor area ratio (FAR), height factor (HF), and open space ratio (OSR). The Zoning Resolution assigns a range of floor area ratios in these districts. The maximum floor area ratio in each district is reached for a building with a specific height factor in combination with a specific open space ratio often resulting in a tall, low-coverage building set back from the surrounding streets. This open space emphasis in R6 through R10 districts sometimes leads to the construction of buildings that are out-of-scale with the surrounding neighborhood, breaking the existing street wall continuity which characterizes many New York neighborhoods. In 1984, 1987 and again in 1989, the Zoning Resolution was amended to establish a number of new and revised residential districts. These districts, generally identified with the suffix A, B. X or 1 (except R7), are termed contextual because they maintain the familiar built form and character of the existing community while providing appropriate development opportunities.
A major emphasis of the 1961 Zoning Resolution was the construction of tall, slender buildings surrounded by large, open spaces. However, new residential development was often incompatible with the character and configuration of older neighborhoods. In 1984 and 1987, the Zoning Resolution was amended to establish a number of contextual districts in medium and higher density residential areas (R6A, R6B, R7A, R7B, R7X, R8A, R8B, R8X, R9A, R9X, R10A).[4]
-The typical R6 development is usually between three and twelve stories. FAR in R6 districts ranges from 0.78 to 2.43. The higher ratio is applied to new buildings that provide more open space. Parking must be provided for 70 percent of the dwelling units.[5] More importantly the height restriction on a building in an R6 district is developed by a complex calculation of sky exposure planes from the street relative to the building. The resultant building height can be 120 feet or more. The regulations of R6B encourage low-rise buildings with greater lot coverage. With the lower FAR of 2.0, R6B typically produces shorter, four story rowhouses or apartment buildings as typically found in Fort Greene and Clinton Hill. The Quality Housing Program is mandatory in R6B districts, which limits the maximum building height to 50 feet. (See illustrations 2 and 3)
The question is; why is there a need to change the zoning from R6 to R6B? The answer is; that R6 has failed. R6has not failed in providing its authors their vision of Brooklyn but it has failed in keeping Brooklyn, Brooklyn.
-The most blatant example of this is the new luxury condominium currently being built at 383 Carlton Avenue. (See illustration 4) The new structure while adhering to all of the codes of R6 has failed in adhering to the codes of community. Paradoxically these R6 over-developers in are benefiting from what they want to destroy; the low-rise and close-knit community now shadowed by the building. To reply to one of my neighbors, Lola Robinson, who has been living in the same house for over forty years when she said “They can’t build something that tall here.” Well Lola the truth is they can and they are. To respond to one of the developers Jonathan Jacobs when he told me “that this land is a gold mine. You should have bought it before we did.” Well Jonathan unfortunately we don’t have the money to scoop parts of the community to protect them from your brand of development but we do have the ability to make it known that the time for action is now.
-To this effect the Clinton Hill Society and the Fort Greene Association have formed the Joint Taskforce for the Re-zoning of Clinton Hill and Fort Greene. Working with these organizations and with the other area block associations we hope to insure the vitality of the community for generations to come. The steps to secure this goal are many and we are just at the beginning; the first step in this procedure will be a land use survey. Normally performed by the under staffed City Planning Commission the Joint Taskforce will accelerate this process by performing the survey. In the survey the Taskforce will confirm the land use of each building in the study, tax lot by tax lot. By using teams of community volunteers our goal is to complete the survey in four months time. From the completed survey, land use, building height, and FAR, maps are created by the City Planning Commission. Finally a formal proposal is initiated and the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP) goes into effect. (See illustration 5 and 6)
During the ULURP process the Community Board will be ask to notify the public, hold public hearings, and to make recommendations but at this time I would like this committee to issue a letter of support to the full board so that this community action can proceed in good faith. With the increasing pressure of urban renewal in our area, the time to act is now to insure the character that has made Clinton Hill, Fort Greene, and all of Brooklyn unique and great. Failure to act will result in dissecting the fabric of our community until it no longer exists.
-
[1] New York City Department of Planning, “New York City Zoning History”, http://home.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/zone/zonehis.html
[2] -City Journal, “Why, Gotham’s Developers Don’t Develop”, William Stern, http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_4_why_gothams.html
[3] New York City Department of Planning, “New York City Zoning History”, http://home.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/zone/zonehis.html
[4] NYC Zoning Handbook: Residence Districts, http://tenant.net/Other_Laws/zoning/zonch03.html
[5] NYC Zoning Handbook: Residence Districts, http://tenant.net/Other_Laws/zoning/r6.html

Tags:
Posted in Zoning | No Comments »

2006 Historic District Extension

Wednesday, June 7th, 2006

Historic District Extension
Extension/Unification of the Fort Greene and
Brooklyn Academy of Music Historic Districts

When the NYC Landmarks Preservation Commission designated two of Brooklyn’s Historic Districts in 1978, it was a glory for neighborhood advocates, as well as an abject disappointment. What had been proposed as one great Fort Greene Historic District was now disjoined. Members of both districts, to this day, work in tandem as part of the Fort Greene Association and feel that such a cleavage is a travesty.
With this early 21st Century’s swift, welcome rejuvenation of Downtown Brooklyn, the FGA believes it is essential now to embed an historic footstone from our ancestors’ path toward their hopes for our city’s future. It is also vital to correct the earlier landmarking mistake because many buildings in the swath of property between the two districts have an architectural quality identical to those that were designated – yet they could presently be ball-battered into oblivion. Through extension and unification into one important Fort Greene Historic District, we hope you will join us to conserve this qualitative history as our forebears meant it to be.
Much research and photography must be undertaken to move our proposal forward, and with your help as a good friend of Fort Greene we can soon present our request to the Landmarks Preservation Commission. To volunteer your services, please phone the FGA at 718.875.1855 or email: [email protected]

Tags: ,
Posted in Zoning | No Comments »

2006 Block Associations of Fort Greene

Wednesday, June 7th, 2006

Tags:
Posted in Green Fort Greene & Clinton Hill, History of Fort Greene | No Comments »

Fort Greene Garden Walk tour

Thursday, June 1st, 2006

The Brownstone Brooklyn Garden Walk
Sunday, June 4, 2006

The Brownstone Brooklyn Garden District’s Annual Garden Walk will take place on Sunday, June 4th, 2006 from 11:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Up to fifteen private and ten community gardens may be visited on the self-guided walking tour through the three historic Brooklyn neighborhoods of Prospect Heights, Fort Greene and Clinton Hill. Advance tickets may be purchased for $15.00 at Tillie’s (248 DeKalb Ave. at Vanderbilt Ave. in Fort Greene), and the Forest Floor (659 Vanderbilt Ave. at Park Place in Prospect Heights). Advance tickets may also be purchased by mail up to two weeks before the Garden Walk. Please send a check or money order and a self-addressed, stamped envelope to the Brownstone Brooklyn Garden District, 29 South Elliott Place, Brooklyn, New York 11217.
Tickets purchased on the day of the tour, June 4th, will cost $20 and may be purchased at Tillies, the Forest Floor, or the BAM Garden (intersection of Fulton Street and Lafayette Avenue). Advance ticket holders must pick-up a Tour Brochure at one of these locations before beginning the self-guided tour. Courtesy van service will be provided. For additional tour information please call the Garden Walk Hotline at (718) 707-1277.
The Brownstone Brooklyn Garden District, the sponsor of the Garden Walk, is an outgrowth of community efforts over the past few years to make the neighborhoods of Fort Greene, Clinton Hill and Prospect Heights greener and more beautiful. Gardens and green-spaces define the Garden District: public parks, community gardens, campus gardens, church gardens, tree pit gardens and hundreds of front yard gardens. Highlights of this year’s tour include a lovely shade garden belonging to world renowned garden writer Ken Druse, a hundred year old garden still planted with the original crabapple trees and many rare specimen plants, and a spectacular triple garden linked across three properties by paths and a stream. The Garden Walk calls attention to the unique quality of the District’s public and private gardens and provides residents and guests with the opportunity to share garden design and horticultural tips. Our Annual Garden Walk ticket sales support the Annual Fall Bulb Give-away, which encourages a signature array of flowering bulbs throughout the Garden District.

* For further information and photographs please call Peggy Elwert at (718) 622-2897. The Fort Greene Association is the 501 © 3 parent organization for the Brownstone Brooklyn Garden District.
-

-Other Brooklyn Tours
Other tour areas such as Cobble Hill, Brooklyn Heights, Park Slope, etc. will be announced here as information becomes available.
More info: [email protected]

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Tours | No Comments »

House Tour details

Thursday, June 1st, 2006

TOUR DETAILS
Sunday, May 7, 2006 from Noon-5pm. Rain or Shine.

The Fort Greene House Tour is self-guided so you start when you want and go at your own pace. Allow about 2 hours, depending on you pace.

ADVANCE TICKET HOLDERS
If you bought advance tickets, go to the start of the tour at the BAM Garden, Fulton and Lafayette, and exchange your tickets for your tour map/brochure - which contains information about each of the stops on the tour.

Each person must have a map to enter the stops on the tour.

DAY OF TOUR TICKETS
Purchase tickets on Sunday, May 7 at the start of the tour: the BAM Garden, Fulton Street and Lafayette Avenue.

RAIN OR SHINE
The show goes on!

COFFEE, LUNCH OR DINNER
Fort Greene is blessed with many great places to catch a bite, something to drink or to linger over a meal. Come, stroll and enjoy.

Tags:
Posted in Tours | No Comments »

The 28th House Tour

Monday, May 1st, 2006

The Tour is held only once every two years, and this one will be like no other tour ever staged. In addition to gaining access to interiors of extraoridinary Victorian residences, you’ll also see the architectural exhibit “Fort Greene Modern” featuring architectural designs by some of the world’s most renowned practitioners. Plus a special treat: extraordinary views from the tower of the historic Williamsburgh Savings Bank building. Join us in Fort Greene Brooklyn for this very special event benefiting the advocacy and programs of the all-volunteer, non-profit organization, the Fort Greene Association.

Tickets $25
To purchase tickets on the day of the tour,
come to the:
BAM Triangle Park
Lafayette Avenue and Fulton Street
Fort Greene, Brooklyn

Tickets and Membership contributions are tax-deductible to the extent allowed by law. The Fort Greene Association, Inc., operates as a non-profit 501(c)(3) charitable organization. Your donation is tax deductible to the extent allowed by law. A copy of our latest financial report may be obtained by contacting: Office of the Attorney General, Charities Bureau 120 Broadway, New York, NY 10271.
Advance tickets also available at (cash only):
BAM
30 Lafayette Ave
Brooklyn, NY
718-636-4100
Tillies
248 DeKalb Ave. (at Vanderbilt)
Brooklyn, NY
718-783-6140
Yú Interiors
15 Greene Ave. (at Fulton)
Brooklyn, NY
718-236-5878

Sturdy canvas tote bags are perfect for the
farmer’s market and just about anything else.
$15 each + $5 shipping and handling

We didn’t forget the extra “E”, it’s continues
on the other side

Tags: , ,
Posted in Tours | No Comments »

2006 Traffic Problems

Friday, March 10th, 2006

Email your Traffic and Transit problems to [email protected].

Pedestrian DANGER Zones
in Fort Greene
The Fort Greene Association is very concerned about pedestrian safety in the neighborhood. There are many complicated intersections, but vehicular traffic is very dense and moves at fast speeds. The FGA feels it is imperative to have these issues addressed before someone gets hurt.
On this page, the FGA will document priority intersections and recommended ways in which DOT can rectify dangerous zones in the neighborhood. Although the DOT may be concerned with traffic flow and alleviating congestion, the FGA’s priority remains with pedestrian safety. Our citizens lives are at stake.
Until these issues are resolved, we recommend that citizens walk with EXTREME CAUTION at the intersections listed below.

1. Lafayette & Fort Greene Place mapquest

Large numbers of pedestrians cross where there is no crosswalk, and vehicles routinely put pedestrians at risk because of inadequate lights and crosswalks.
In the video, note all the pedestrians walking where there is no crosswalk. These shoppers are walking from the Atlantic Mall to the bus stop. Also note illegal turn by car, which blocks traffic behind and sometimes back to Fulton.
The FGA has asked the DOT to install a new crosswalk where pedestrians naturally walk, and to change the light rotation at Fulton and Lafayette

crossinglafayette-200604

2. Flatbush & Fourth Avenue mapquest

Light rotation does not allow for safe crossing by pedestrians, and traffic agents often wave cars through the red into the path of pedestrians.
In the video, note that traffic agents have not maintained the 8-second delay which gives pedestrians a head start in the crosswalk. Also note the pedestrian that gets trapped in the crosswalk, as well as the fact that there is no vehicular traffic at all during the last 10 seconds of the light rotation.
The FGA has asked the DOT to change the light pattern so that pedestrians do not have to battle motorists in order to get across the street

crossingflatbush-200604

Current Transit Issues being Pursued:
G-Train, http://savetheg.org/
-
2004.002 Ugly bus lane sign at Fowler Square
-
The recently installed BUS LANE signs installed at Fowler Square are a blight at this small patch of green. The FGA has asked the DOT to eliminate the sign altogether, as there is an identical sign just 30 feet or so east of this sign.
2005.003 Signals at Lafayette/Fulton
Traffic and pedestrian problems abound at this intersection, with aggressive drivers and heavy traffic. The FGA has sent a number of proposals to the DOT in hopes of improving the flow and safety of the intersection.
2005.005 Escalator announcements at One Hanson Place to B/Q Platform
The FGA has contacted the MTA to discover why the escalator at One Hanson Place is subjected to a continual loop of big brother announcements. Few other escalator banks in the subway system are subjected to such noise pollution, and we have asked the MTA to explain why this escalator has to be so much more unpleasant than others.
2005.007 Access-a-Ride Parking
-
The FGA has asked the DOT to reconsider the location of the parking spot for Access-a-Ride vans on South Elliott at Hanson. This spot has taken two parking spaces from the neighborhood’s inventory, and is rarely used by Access-a-Ride vans.
2005.011 Missing crosswalks on DeKalb Avenue
-
There are no crosswalks on DeKalb Avenue at either South Portland or South Elliott, creating a dangerous situation for pedestrians trying to reach either the park on the bus stop. The FGA has requested that DOT consider intalling traffic signals at these two intersections.
2005.013 Pedestrian Lights Lafayette & Flatbush
-
We have requested that the DOT change the pedestrian light signal at this intersection so that the pedestrian light parallel with Flatbush linking the two triangles on the Southwest corner of the intersection remain green while drivers traveling Southeast on Flatbush have the green left-turn arrow.
2005.015 Alternate Side Parking on Commercial Streets
The FGA has requested that the DOT change the times for alternate side of the street parking regulations on the commercial streets where there are new parking meters. The current regulations are in the middle of the day for 90 minutes. Many other commercial strips in the city have 30 minute ASP regulations very early in the morning to limit the impact on businesses.
2005.016 No Standing Fowler Square
The FGA has requested that DOT change the NO PARKING designation on the north and east sides of Fowler Square to NO STANDING
2005.017 Drop No Stqanding on Fulton at South Elliot
The FGA has requested that DOT eliminate the NO STANDING 4PM-7PM designation on Fulton between Lafayette and South Elliott.
-
-Transit Issues Resolved:
2005.014 Parking at Hanson & South Portland
2004.001 Curb cut at Cumberland and Fulton
2005.010 Street Painting on Lafayette at Rockland
2005.009 Wait for Green sign Atlantic & 3rd Avenue
2005.004 Speeding at Dekalb/Cumberland
2005.012 Missing one-way signs at Hanson & South Portland
2005.008 Missing Walk/Don’t Walk Sign
2005.002 South Portland Exit of G-train (under Moe’s)
2004.003 Pedestrian Lights at Myrtle & Washington Park
2005.001 Signals at Hanson/Fulton/Greene
2005.006 Construction Signage on Carlton near Greene
-

-Following is the approved Brooklyn Truck Route Map. If you see unauthorized truck transit please report the date and time of the incidents to the FGA.
pdf of the Brooklyn Truck Route Map
-

Traffic
The Fort Greene Association’s Traffic and Transport Committee is a sub committee of Quality of Life and Parks, dedicated to traffic and transit issues in the neighborhood. Because many in our neighborhood walk and bike to work, traffic issues are a primary concern for many residents, be it safer intersections for pedestrians, improved bike lanes for cyclists, or upgrades to the subway system. By representing the entire neighborhood, we can get persistent problems resolved faster.
The Committee relies on people in Fort Greene and Clinton Hill to bring issues to the Committee’s attention, and once investigated, the Committee will forward complaints and suggestions to the DOT and MTA. In order to foster dialogue, we encourage you to visit the committee’s website:
We are looking for volunteers to attend the monthly 84th, 88th Police Precints, and Community Board 2 Transit meetings and report back to the group. If you are able to help, please send us an email.
Email:[email protected]

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Traffic | No Comments »

January 2006 Fort Greene a Real Melting Pot

Wednesday, January 18th, 2006

NYpress.com
Fort Greene A Real Melting Pot

January 18, 2006
Nicole Davis
Brooklyn
There is a house that grows in Brooklyn. Called Broken Angel, the geometry-defying urban castle, decorated with found flourishes like shards of glass and cement blocks, rises from a cul-de-sac on the edge of Clinton Hill.
“Everyone who sees Broken Angel thinks they’re the firstperson to come across it,” says the owner, architect and builder, Arthur Wood. The same could be said for the tiny triangle of Brooklyn comprising Clinton Hill and Fort Greene. Maybe because its leafy avenues aren’t swarming with space pirates, or because strollers haven’t taken over the streets, or because not one is chock-a-block with boutiques, bars and restaurants—whatever the reason, walking through feels likbeing let in on the Borough of Kings’ best-kept secret
Exhibit B: the 150-year-old-pharmacy turned Italian “inn” (throoms above are still to come), Locanda Vini & Olii, just a fewblocks from Arthur Wood’s opus on 4 Downing St. At thminiature bar where the hostess greets you with a “buonsera” (it’s only open for dinner), a glass case houseephemera like a 1937 Ramses condom from the pharmacdays and packs of Brooklyn gum—a brand sold in Italy. Othe menu are Tuscan classics like tuna and octopucharcuterie, homemade pasta, and a special breed of beeraised in the Piedmont section of Italy, served only in this one place in all of New York City.
A few blocks north, the Pratt Campus holds another one-of-akinfind—a never-ending show of constantly replaced rustemetal pillows, plastic phalluses, and bronze body parts, with few favorites on permanent display, like Donald Lipski’fanned-out circle of 100 shovels, and the gravity-teasing TSquarby Takashi Soga, in which a black bar slides ever sslightly up and down a concrete wall. Is there a magnet inside? A pulley? To find out for sure would ruin the fun.
And oh, the architecture. On Clinton Ave.’s mansion row are the city’s finest Italianate, French Second Empire and Neo- Grecian homes. Translation: When you walk past 284 Clinton and see the shingled farmhouse with the porch, you can see how the neighborhood developed in fits and starts, beginning in the 1850s, when this was still rolling farmland and monied men built country villas here, and then at the turn of the 20th century, when titans of industry moved in, like Standard Oil VP Charles Pratt (the school’s founder), Rheingold Brewery magnate Julius Liebman, typewriter innovator John T.Underwood, pharma-king Charles Pfizer, and some guy who had the bright idea to sell coffee in bags. A few of the original homes are still intact, like two of the three mansions Pratt bought his sons as wedding gifts, at 241 and 245 Clinton.
Much of this eye candy disappears at DeKalb Ave., which has become Ft. Greene’s main commercial drag. Instead of oneblock, non-stop shopping, the most interesting places here are spread out over a multiple-block radius—which is probably half the reason why, after a ten-minute walk just to get to a decent restaurant or bar, you feel you’ve stumbled onto something special. At Cellar’s, for instance, once you get buzzed in and order a drink, the owner’s father will often tantalize you with some rib-sticking dish: hamburgers, chicken cutlets, creamy noodles. (So what if it’s not good—it’s free!) On Fulton, Frank’s is another Fort Greene institution, a bar better known for its sweaty dance parties upstairs and the stamp-sized dance floor downstairs. The scene gets a lot more straightlaced at newcomers like Stonehome Wine bar and iCi, a Brooklyn bistro with a French name. It’s a mecca for the hood’s tiny enclave of Frenchies, a phenomenon even owner Laurent Saillard, the Maitre d’ on Rocco DiSpirito’s “The Restaurant,” can’t put his finger on.
“Maybe because Fort Greene is a real melting pot, and has been for years,” he speculates. The diversity comes at a price though, and always has. In the 1850s, shantytowns, largely inhabited by poor, Irish immigrants, sprung up on unsold land along Myrtle Ave. Walt Whitman, then editor of the Brooklyn Eagle, took pity on them and clamored for a free open space for the cholera-ridden squatters. It’s now Fort Greene Park, Brooklyn’s first. Built upon the old Fort Putnam, commandeered by General Nathaniel Greene, it claims the world’s tallest Doric column—that 145-foot tall memorial sticking up on the hill that commemorates the 11,000 men who died aboard British prison ships in Wallabout Bay during the Revolutionary war.
-The funny thing is, by the time they opened the park, rich people had moved in and forced the poor people out. This most recent wave of gentrification, though, has lifted all boats, especially those of many blacks who’ve lived in the neighborhood for years, when high crime rates (generated in no small part by the famously tough projects on the other side of the park) kept property values down. Sounds familiar, but the similarities between gentrification then and now are not so black and white, because in today’s real estate boom, many minority residents are benefiting from the bonanza, too. There are frightening signs of change, of course, like the atrocious Greene House condos and the “children’s clothier” on Fulton selling designer threads for tykes—a sure sign of strollers to come. But some things are changing for the better. Whereas once there were days you couldn’t find a lemon in the local Associated, there is now fennel, Odwalla and Annie’s Organic macaroni and cheese. There is still no decent sushi, Thai, or Chinese takeout, but Latinos have taken the Francophiles head on, and you can now get a killer mojito and garlicky roast pork at four new restaurants: Luz, Habana Outpost, Mojito’s, and Bodega’s. Boutiques (for adults) are also multiplying like rabbits—in addition to Vù, a pioneering shop specializing in high-design wares, there is now Sodafine and Cloth.
Fort Greene/Clinton Hill is also shaping up to be an artistic center for the borough—along with renegades like Arthur Wood, creative laboratories like Pratt, BAM and Mark Morris are bringing together a cultural district. On Hanson Pl., the Museum of Contemporary African Diasporian Arts (MoCada) opens in March, and the sleek, glass Visual & Performing Arts Library will come to Flatbush in 2008. If only I had bought here before brownstones passed the million-dollar mark.
Volume 19, Issue 3
2006 All rights reserved.
No part of this website may be reproduced in any manner without written permission of the publisher.
read more in the Fort Greene section of http://nypress.com/

Tags: , ,
Posted in History of Fort Greene, Landmarks | No Comments »

January 2006, The Brooklyn Atlantic Yards The Arena

Thursday, January 12th, 2006

Atlantic Yards, A Done Deal?

From an e-mail sent to the Fort Greene Association:
…I am a Fort Greene resident and I thought that the decision for Atlantic Yards to build was over. Are you saying that a continued fight at this point can prevent Bruce Ratner from proceeding with the construction even though he has gotten approval from the Mayor and Governor Pataki? I understand the reduction in the construction, but that is telling me that the development will continue —- only not as much as originally planned.

Am I being mislead?

Don’t be fooled, it is not a “done deal.” But this exactly is what the “powers that be” want you to believe. There is still a long road to follow, with some hurdles. As it stands, the Brooklyn Atlantic Yards (BAY) project is still just a proposal. Although the 22-acre project encompassing Atlantic Avenue to Dean Street, and Flatbush to Vanderbilt Avenues got a nod from Mayor Bloomberg, New York City has no authority over its approval. By way of behind the scenes dealings, New York City allowed the project to circumvent its own more stringent review procedure (ULURP) for New York State’s less rigorous approval process.
It may also help that the developer, Bruce Ratner of Forest City Ratner (FCR), happens to be a former law-school colleague of Governor Pataki, and is a well-connected acquaintance of others in governmental hierarchy, while looking for an easy way to building this monumental 16-building project.
The limited public comment period on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, a state-mandated project analysis issued by the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC), ended on September 24th. Individuals and organizations (including the FGA) submitted an enormous amount of comments to that state office overseeing the project. The ESDC was then to review all the comments and respond to them in a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). While the FEIS could have been legally issued as early as October 9th, the number of responses evidently indicated that it was unlikely.
Though the ESDC has obviously been trying to hasten approval, it had been expected that the FEIS would not be released until late October or early November. On releasing the FEIS, the ESDC Board then votes to approve, which is expected to be a rubberstamp. This includes approval of eminent domain.
The Public Authorities Control Board (PACB), composed of Assembly Speaker Silver, Senate Majority Leader Bruno and the Governor, then vote on the project, the last step in the State’s review and approval process. As all this is going on, it is anticipated that lawsuits from the public are expected to take place, particularly in challenging the use of eminent domain to accommodate a 20,000-seat arena.
No one has any doubt that something will be built at that location, including the FGA, which welcomes responsible development with a transparent public review process. However, so many of us are concerned about the lack of genuinely affordable housing within the project and the effects of its mammoth scale and density: the toll on the existing over-taxed infrastructure, additional traffic, diminished air quality, and the imminent danger to the character of our neighborhoods.
In the meantime, although it has no official authority in this matter, the NYC Planning Commission approved the project with minor recommendations, including scaling back the enormous project by a mere eight percent. FCR agrees to institute those suggestions, which coincidentally bring the project back to the size when originally proposed three years ago. This is well suited to FCR’s on-going public relations campaign, to give the appearance of responding to community concerns and at the same time, making for an impression of a “done deal.”
To keep up with the status quo of the project, some suggested websites include dddb.net; nolandgrab.org; or atlanticyardsreport.blogspot.com amongst others.
Sincerely,
The Fort Greene Association
-

-FGA Joins Community Lawsuit Against Forest City Ratner Companies
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: January 18, 2006
DDDB and Community Co-Plaintiffs File Suit Against Empire State Development Corporation and Forest City Ratner Suit Seeks Injunction on Developer’s Proposed Demolitions Around “Atlantic Yards”
and Disqualification of ESDC’s Counsel–Sive, Paget & Riesel–for a Conflict of Interest
MANHATTAN, NY - Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn (DDDB) and a coalition of more than ten co-plaintiffs are filing a lawsuit today against “Atlantic Yards” lead agency, Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC), and the developer Forest City Ratner (FCR). The plaintiffs seek to annul ESDC approval of FCR’s plans to demolish six buildings owned by the developer and located in the footprint of the proposed “Atlantic Yards” development in Prospect Heights, Brooklyn.
The plaintiffs also seek the disqualification of ESDC special outside counsel, Sive, Paget & Riesel (SPR) on the grounds that SPR represents FCR and has previously represented FCR on the “Atlantic Yards”
proposal, constituting a serious conflict of interest. The plaintiffs insist that the process requires independent legal counsel to the ESDC and not the use of the law firm that has represented FCR on the same project*.
The plaintiff group consists of community based organizations and individuals who are stakeholders in and around the proposed development site, including: Fort Greene Association, Boerum Hill Association, Society for Clinton Hill, Pratt Area Community Council, Fifth Avenue Committee, Prospect Heights Action Coalition, Atlantic Avenue Betterment Association, Prospect Heights Neighborhood Development Council, East Pacific Block Association, Dean Street Block Association (4th to 5th) and Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn. The plaintiffs represent a broad coalition of community organizations with diverse views of the “Atlantic Yards” proposal who have joined together to ensure the integrity of the review process.
Plaintiffs’ attorney Jeff Baker, of the law firm Young, Sommer, said, “We believe that the demolition of the buildings before the completion of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) process is a violation of the law and will act to promote and pre-determine the outcome of the environmental review. We will seek injunctive relief prohibiting demolition of the structures until the court determines our claim and will seek an order providing for an independent inspection of the buildings by a structural engineer.”
The plaintiffs contend that ESDC is in violation of the law by allowing demolition to proceed without benefit of an independent engineering review of the buildings or the need for demolition. The plaintiffs claim that there is insufficient evidence of imminent threat to public safety from the buildings and that any threat can be alleviated by reasonable measures to stabilize the buildings. To date the developer has refused to allow a second and independent structural engineer to inspect the buildings.
“It appears that the ESDC may be breaking the rules of the state’s review of the proposal. The plaintiffs question the integrity of a process that relies solely on Ratner’s engineer’s report and Ratner’s former lawyer for approval of the demolitions. It is deeply troubling that the state agency charged with an objective review of the proposal is represented by Ratner’s lawyer; it throws the entire review process into question,” DDDB spokesman Daniel Goldstein said. “Since the ESDC appears to be compromised by this conflict of interest, and appears to be rubber-stamping whatever Ratner asks for, we have to wonder: who is representing the interests of the public and who exactly are we to trust throughout this process? To protect the integrity of the process, Sive, Paget & Riesel must be removed from any involvement with the ‘Atlantic Yards’ proposal.”
FCR owned three of the buildings in question for more than eighteen months. Two of the buildings** were occupied by residents before FCR’s purchase in June of 2004, and the third building*** was occupied by a business as recently as six months ago. Forest City Ratner claims the buildings need to be demolished now to remove a public safety hazard.
The same buildings have stood on the site for months with no prior designation of risk to the public and no protection for the public from FCR’s claims of a potential collapse. ESDC has not undertaken its own inspection of the buildings and has based its approval of the demolitions solely on Forest City Ratner’s report. Additionally Forest City Ratner has left windows and some roofs of the buildings open for a long time, allowing the weather to expedite deterioration, indicating willful neglect to propel the proposed project’s schedule. To date the developer does not have demolition permits.
Sue Wolfe, president of the Boerum Hill Association, said, “We’ve joined this lawsuit because we want to ensure a fair and transparent environmental review process. We are concerned that what appears to be a preemptive measure by Forest City Ratner and the ESDC will taint the integrity of the review process and shut out any meaningful community involvement.”
Philip Kellogg, president of the Fort Greene Association said, “We expect the ESDC to ensure that the rule of law is followed and that the public is legitimately represented throughout this review process for ‘Atlantic Yards.’ The public deserves nothing less. We have joined this litigation because of the actions of the ESDC and Forest City Ratner in regard to these demolitions, along with the apparent conflict in legal representation.”
____________________________________________________
All links below can be found at: http://www.dddb.net/litigation
The filed complaint can be found at:
http://www.dddb.net/litigation/complaint.pdf

Working for FCR
http://www.sprlaw.com/lawyers/paget.html
(See the fifth bullet point at the above link.
In case that bullet point has changed, as of January 18 the text read:
“Among his current engagements, David represents the Forest City Companies regarding the development of a basketball arena and major mixed-use development in Brooklyn…”) Screenshot of Sive, Paget & Riesel webpage on January 16, 2006:
http://www.dddb.net/litigation/spr.pdf
Working for ESDC
(See last paragraph on first page of letters from ESDC to elected representatives, declining their request for funds for the community to hire independent consultants to review the Environmental Impact Study) “… we must decline your request in that regard. Please note, however, that AKRF and Sive Paget are independent firms retained by ESDC and taking direction from ESDC staff. As a result, we believe that the review process and work product will be unbiased …”
http://dddb.net/litigation/esdc-paget.pdf
** Photo of two residential buildings FCR wants to demolish:
http://www.dddb.net/litigation/461_463dean.html
*** Photo of commercial building FCR wants to demolish:
http://www.dddb.net/litigation/585dean.html
Photographs of some of approximately 50 other buildings on the proposed “Atlantic Yards” development site which would be demolished if the proposal is approved:
http://www.dddb.net/litigation/buildings.php
-
FGA response to EIS scoping document download (8 pages)
-

-The Environmental Impact Study www.CbrooklynNeighborhoods.homestead.com

-
-
-

-
-Press Release
FGA Participates in major study of New York Times reporting short falls.
Thursday, September 1. Press Conference, 1 pm.
In Front of The New York Times Headquarters, 229 West 43rd Street.
Press Conference and Delivery of Critical Report to the Times
The New York Times & Forest City Ratner’s Atlantic Yards:
High-Rises & Low Standards
Newspaper Shirks Duty to Cover Development by its Business Partner, Ratner
NEW YORK, NY–The New York Times’s coverage of Forest City Ratner’s proposed Atlantic Yards development in Brooklyn has been inadequate, misleading, and mostly uncritical, according to an independent reader’s report-The New York Times & Atlantic Yards: High-Rises & Low Standards by Norman Oder-to be released Thursday, September 1, by four Brooklyn-based neighborhood groups: Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn, the Fort Greene Association, Prospect Heights Action Coalition, and Park Slope Neighbors, as well as NoLandGrab.org, the news blog and media watchdog dedicated to the Atlantic Yards controversy.
Following a press conference and demonstration, the report will be delivered to Times officials, including, Publisher Arthur Sulzberger, Jr., Executive Editor Bill Keller; Assistant Managing Editor and Standards Editor Allan Siegal; Metro Editor Susan Edgerly; Editorial Page Editor Gail Collins; Editorial Board Member Carolyn Curiel; and Public Editor Byron Calame. The report’s author and the coalition of groups will call on Public Editor Byron Calame to conduct a thorough and prompt investigation of the Times’s coverage of the Forest City Ratner/Atlantic Yards issue. The press conference and demonstration will outline criticisms raised in the Times Report, as well as requests for corrections in archived articles and disclosures of the Times/Forest City Ratner relationship in archived articles.
Times Report author Norman Oder said, “The Times’s coverage of Atlantic Yards and Forest City Ratner, especially in light of the newspaper company’s business relationship with the developer-building the new Times Tower together-is very troubling. The Times owes the public thorough coverage of the important public policy issues surrounding the Ratner proposal, without fear or favor.”
WHO: Norman Oder, journalist, Brooklyn resident, and author of the report
Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn (DDDB),
The Fort Greene Association
Park Slope Neighbors
NoLandGrab.org
Prospect Heights Action Coalition (PHAC)
WHAT: Press conference, demonstration and release of extensive report critiquing the Times’s coverage of Forest City Ratner’s Atlantic Yards proposal in Brooklyn.
WHEN: Thursday, September 1. 1pm.
WHERE: In front of The New York Times offices. 229 West 43rd Street (between 7th and 8th Avenues.)
Hard copies of the full report will be available at the press conference.
The full-report will be posted at www.dddb.net on September 1.
Norman Oder will be available for interviews at and after the press conference:
646-373-6539//[email protected]
Download a pdf of this Report
-
BCAT (Brooklyn Community Access Television)

Episode 107-Windows Media Player file of Megan Donis Interviews
-
-Thank you to all who rallied with us across the Brooklyn Bridge! The Fort Greene Association demonstrated a very strong opposition, as we marched with hundreds of your Brooklyn neighbors to say “NO to Bruce Ratner’s development”. Our Councilperson Tish James was thrilled with the response saying “When’s the next one?”. Hats off to Tish a great leader.
For more coverage and the original photos please visit:
http://nyc.indymedia.org/feature/display/151920/index.php
http://www.stratecomm.net/~fritz/gallery/ratnerville
http://nyc.indymedia.org/feature/display/151920/index.php
http://www.cybernia.net/iblognewyork/archives/00000033.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/09/nyregion/09stadium.html

-
-If you would like to help don’t forget the FGA fundraiser being held this Sunday June 12th.
-
-Press Release-FGA to Hold Important Community Forum

-
-Letter to Council Member Gifford Miller

-
-PRESS RELEASE - FCRC WITHDRAWS FROM COMMUNITY FORUM

On Thursday February 10th, 2005, Forest City Ratner Companies [FCRC] withdrew its participation in a community forum organized by the Fort Greene Association [FGA] on February 28th, 2005. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss issues, both pro and con, concerning the proposed development of the Brooklyn Atlantic Yards and to provide information to the Fort Greene community, which will be dramatically affected by the consequences of the project. FCRC’s participation had been confirmed its spokesperson, Randall Toure and additionally through the office of the Brooklyn Borough President, Marty Markowitz.
Despite the FCRC withdrawal, the FGA will proceed with this important forum. The panel discussion is to be moderated by Susan S. Fainstein, Professor and Acting Program Director of the program in Urban Planning, Columbia Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation. Speakers are to include Ludlow Beckett, President Fulton Area Business Association [FAB]; Simon Bertrang, Urban Planner; Marshall Brown, Coordinator of the UNITY Plan; Deborah Howard, Executive Director, Pratt Area Community Council; Letitia James, Councilperson 35th District; Gustav Peebles, Co-author Kim/Peebles Report; Irene Van Slyke, Representing Senator Velmanette Montgomery. Repeated invitations to other organizations including Mr. James E. Caldwell of BUILD and Ms. Bertha Lewis, Executive Director of ACORN were made by letter and telephone but no reply was received.
FCRC executive vice president Bruce Bender was quoted in the New York Times on Friday February 11th, 2005 as saying “We’ve [FCRC has] gone above and beyond to meet with the community. We’ve met with all the community boards. We’ve never turned down anyone. We have been very open. To say we haven’t is wrong, deceitful and outrageous”. This assertion is contradicted by FCRC’s withdrawal from participation in the Fort Greene forum, and the discrepancy between word and deed creates doubt as to whether FCRC will honor other agreements made either covertly or overtly with the Brooklyn Community.
The Fort Greene Association regrets the sudden withdrawal of FCRC and yet holds the door open for Forest City Ratner to attend and actively participate in this event.
FGA Brooklyn Atlantic Yards
Informational Forum
February 28th, 2005 7:30 pm
LafayetteAvenue Presbyterian Church
(at South Oxford Street & Lafayette Avenue in Fort Greene)
——
The proposed development of the Brooklyn Atlantic Yards is a monumental project that will change the character Fort Greene and of all of Brooklyn. Volunteer to help bring responsible development to our Community.
-Fort Greene Association Says “No to Ratner Development”


-
The Fort Greene Association Brooklyn Atlantic Yards Committee has had a busy summer forging alliances to act against the Forest City Ratner development proposal. Following is an excerpt of the letter sent to our elected officials which outlines the position of the Fort Greene Association. The full transcript is available on the in a printable pdf.
Indeed, Mr. Ratner’s track record in downtown Brooklyn is a warning bell. Metrotech and the Atlantic Center have had problems keeping tenants, and the vacancies have been filled by government agencies, including the NYS Motor Vehicle Department, and the Empire State Development Agency. Metrotech has not become a 24/7 community, it is abandoned and isolated after office hours, and open space has been turned into Metrotech private space. The Atlantic Center building is reviled by the surrounding neighborhoods, because it has created a massive wall with its back to the Fort Greene community. There are no street level shops integrating the Center with the neighborhood, there is no ambiance in the Center and hot, sterile glassed-in peripheral corridors connect stores. A recent cosmetic and supposedly corrective paint job on the exterior does not correct the inherently bad design of the mall itself. How can we give the power for such an enormous project as the Atlantic Yards to a developer who-on top of one of the best transportation hubs in the country-created Atlantic Center, a commercial failure and an insult to the neighborhood?
Want to take a stand yourself? Join the Fort Greene Association BAY Committee. Email the Fort Greene Association and put “Arena” in the subject line or simply give us a call 718.875.1855.
-FGA Testimony at CB-2 General Board Meeting November 10th, 2004
-In testimony to CB-2 at the General Board Meeting on November 10th, 2004, Paul Palazzo as Chair of the Fort Greene Association Brooklyn Atlantic Yards Committee presented the following:
I have always admired the way in which this Community Board has been an outlet for the voice of its constituents. In regards to the Brooklyn Atlantic Yards Project CB-2 must demand that this important and vital project move forward into open and honest community discussion through the establish ULURP process. We cannot afford to surrender control into a process controlled by Forrest City Ratner.
Forrest City Ratner touts the proposed Community Benefits Agreement as a landmark in community development because as they say it is a document which has evolved from direct community input into the process. If this is the case then this Community Board should have heard from its Community in an open hearing to establish this document. Instead the Community Board has given credence to the FCR plan and process while abandoning our established community’s process. What we are being offered, and told to “come to the table and get it before it’s gone”, is an agreement negotiated with only the input of a few selected members of the community.
I call on Community Board 2 and the other affected Community Boards engaged in this destructive so-called Community Benefits Agreement to disengage from this discussion until they have proceeded in a correct manner that enables this community; not disabling and disempowering it. This community has not had the benefit of an open discussion of the economic, cultural, housing, and health impacts of this project. Only when these issues have been brought to and discussed by this community can the Community Board enter into and effective Community Benefits Agreement. We implore CB-2 to begin this process anew with full disclosure on the part of the developer and involvement of the Community in order to bring this project to a successful conclusion.
-
Letter to Assemblyman Silver
-Assemblyman Sheldon Silver
Room 932 Legislative Office Building
Albany, NY 12248
16 August 2004

Dear Speaker Silver,
This letter is to place on record the opposition of The Fort Greene Association, representing the community of Fort Greene, Brooklyn, to the Brooklyn Atlantic Yards Project as proposed by Forest City Ratner Companies (FCRC). While the Fort Greene community welcomes responsible development in the downtown Brooklyn area in general and of the MTA Atlantic Terminal in particular, we most ardently object to the use of City, State and Federal funds for the FCRC venture without review from the communities which it will directly affect.
The Brooklyn Atlantic Yards proposal is monumental
The Brooklyn Atlantic Yards is a private real estate development project conceived by Bruce Ratner of FCRC. It proposes: a 19,000 to 20,000-seat sports arena, 17 towers rising to 62 stories, including 5,500 units of residential development and 2.1 million square feet of commercial office space, including 300,000 square feet of retail space. This 24-acre plot of land between Atlantic Avenue and Dean Street from Flatbush Avenue to Vanderbilt Avenue is on the borders of Fort Greene, Prospect Heights, Clinton Hill, Boerum Hill, and Park Slope, near to and including the MTA rail yards at Atlantic Avenue. More than half of the land is held in private ownership. What Mr. Ratner cannot purchase he will apparently obtain via the right of eminent domain, an abuse of this right, as public interest is not involved: Existing, thriving homes and businesses would be condemned to ensure the profits of a private developer. The proposed site is also adjacent to Downtown Brooklyn, where recently approved new zoning detailed in the Downtown Brooklyn Development Plan will already permit voluminous new tower construction and increased density, bringing concomitant increased traffic congestion and air pollution.
Bypassing careful ULURP scrutiny is not acceptable
The Brooklyn Atlantic Yards project will reconfigure the face of Brooklyn and New York City, as well as involve extensive NYC and NYS financial, i.e. taxpayer, investment. Despite the magnitude of the project’s impact, it appears that Mr. Ratner proposes to avoid the NYC Uniform Land Use Review Procedure [ULURP] and instead partner with the Empire State Development Corporation [ESDC] of New York State. The ESDC review process is significantly less stringent than ULURP. The Fort Greene Association asserts that bypassing ULURP is unacceptable. The impact of the proposed Atlantic Yards Project on the environment, as well as on businesses and residences of the affected communities must be subject to the most rigorous review. Councilmember Letitia James, (35th Council District), State Senator Velmanette Montgomery (18th Senate District), and Congressman Major Owens (11th Congressional District)—all of whom represent the affected districts- amongst others, are demanding that the ULURP process be invoked in any action that involves eminent domain action in NYC (Assemblyman Gottfried’s Bill A2835). We support this demand. Indeed, State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver has called for the ULURP process review for the West Side Stadium project in Manhattan. The Fort Greene Association demands the same respect and attention to review in Brooklyn.
The arena component will be a financial loss to taxpayers
The proposed sports arena is simultaneously the financially weak and the core component of the project. Mr. Ratner commissioned a study of the BAY/arena proposal by a respected sports economist, Andrew Zimbalist of Smith College. Mr. Zimbalist himself states that the arena will lose money. In addition to national evidence that sports arenas are not good investments for the communities surrounding them, there is the local experience of Coney Island: The Keyspan Stadium, though successful in terms of attendance, has not sparked a revitalization of the neighborhood, as fans come for the games and leave without spending in the area. [“Ballpark Hums, but Not the Neighborhood”, New York Times, August 1, 2004, p. 25.] Additionally, consider the recent report of the respected and business friendly Regional Plan Association: “The experience in North America is that stadiumsxhave repelled commercial and residential development, not attracted it”. [“Report Suggests Forgetting about Stadium on West side”, New York Times, July 20, 2004, p. B3]. Why then is the arena the centerpiece of the proposal? We think the arena component is a device to try to create popular support for this private real estate venture among Brooklynites who would like to see a professional sports team again in Brooklyn. It is our opinion that any number of locations could be considered for an arena in Brooklyn, rather than the already congested Downtown area.
The arena will bring further congestion and pollution to an environmental “hot spot”
The corridors of Atlantic Avenue, Flatbush Avenue, Fulton Street and Fourth Avenue are already dangerous environmental hotspots according to the Department of Environmental Protection. Further congestion leads to more air pollution with adverse health impacts, especially child and adult asthma. The environmental impact of the Atlantic Yards Project, especially the Arena component, needs stringent study in conjunction with the neighboring Downtown Development Plan. The Environmental Impact Statement for the Downtown Brooklyn Plan already points to unmitigatable traffic and congestion problems before the Atlantic Yards Project has even begun.
Why should one developer with a dubious track record of stewardship be permitted so much power?
As owner of the New Jersey Nets, Bruce Ratner has just traded star player Kenyon Martin, thus downgrading the team’s attractiveness, creating even greater potential financial losses to the Arena. If this action is any indication of Mr. Ratner’s stewardship of the Nets, this does not bode well for the team or for the project.
Indeed, Mr. Ratner’s track record in downtown Brooklyn is a warning bell. Metrotech and the Atlantic Center have had problems keeping tenants, and the vacancies have been filled by government agencies, including the NYS Motor Vehicle Department, and the Empire State Development Agency. Metrotech has not become a 24/7 community, it is abandoned and isolated after office hours, and open space has been turned into Metrotech private space. The Atlantic Center building is reviled by the surrounding neighborhoods, because it has created a massive wall with its back to the Fort Greene community. There are no street level shops integrating the Center with the neighborhood, there is no ambiance in the Center and hot, sterile glassed-in peripheral corridors connect stores. A recent cosmetic and supposedly corrective paint job on the exterior does not correct the inherently bad design of the mall itself. How can we give the power for such an enormous project as the Atlantic Yards to a developer who-on top of one of the best transportation hubs in the country-created Atlantic Center, a commercial failure and an insult to the neighborhood?
The FCRC financial analysis is at best questionable and incomplete
According to the FCRC analysis, the Atlantic Yards Project will cost taxpayers some $450 million in outright aid from the City and State. However, a no bid contract for state property in the form of the MTA rail yards will bypass the market at taxpayer expense, and at a time when the MTA is about to raise fares for New Yorkers and commuters because of serious financial shortfalls. The cost of infrastructure improvements in the affected area, such as subway and rail systems, schools, police, and fire is not even considered in the FCRC report, and these hidden but essential expenses will raise the cost to the taxpayer to even higher levels. As the developer admits, the arena component will create losses, so it is the commercial and residential spaces, which will purportedly bring in revenues through tax dollars, and supposedly justify the aid. However, the earnings assumptions of the Zimbalist analysis have been questioned by an independent report created by Jung Kim [London school of Economics] and Gustav Peebles [Columbia University]. The Kim /Peebles report shows that over $500 million could be lost as opposed to $800 million gained [See report available at www.developdontdestroy.org].
Development success has been achieved without taxpayer subsidy, and there are alternative development proposals to BAY
The Fort Greene/ Prospect Heights area has rejuvenated itself successfully over the years with normal market incentives and procedures, and without any major influx of public funding. Given the housing shortage in NYC, and the success developers have experienced in real estate in the area, why should we subsidize a massive private real estate development in an area that would do well on the open market without tax subsidy? While New York City is desperate for funds for our schools, firehouses, and police, parks and infrastructure, why should our tax dollars support a massive real estate project of a single private developer?
Fort Greene is frequently cited as a unique, integrated community and a model of development. Recent private renovations have reclaimed abandoned buildings and knit connections to Prospect Heights and Park Slope. The Atlantic Yards Project, like Mr. Ratner’s Atlantic Center, will erect a wall of structures between Fort Greene and surrounding areas. We do not want a gated community dividing Fort Greene and Prospect Heights from Park Slope and Boerum Hill.
The Fort Greene Association supports robust residential development, but in a scale that considers the well-being of the existing neighborhoods. The same considerations apply to commercial development. Big box stores drain profits away from the area. We need to include local businesses in the formula, and be sure that new commercial enterprises benefit the community. Both aspects have been considered in alternative planning for housing and business sponsored by Councilmember Letitia James.
Conclusion
For all the reasons cited above, The Fort Greene Association demands ULURP review for the Forest City Ratner Brooklyn Atlantic Yards Project. We call for independent study of the costs and benefits of the Atlantic Yards Project. We support investigation of alternate proposals to BAY for the development of Fort Greene, Prospect Heights and neighboring communities near Downtown Brooklyn. And given the evidence already on hand we oppose the FCRC proposal for the arena component in its entirety. The Fort Greene Association thanks you for your time and earnest consideration of this important urban project for all the citizens of New York City and would appreciate a prompt reply to this statement.
Sincerely,

Tags: , ,
Posted in Atlantic Yards | No Comments »

December 2 2005 Home Heating Sticker Shock

Friday, December 2nd, 2005

From the Fort Greene Courier, first published December 2, 2005:

-Home Heating Sticker Shock
By Joshua Davis
12/02/2005

Perhaps Arthur Cohen put it best when he used the word “scared” to describe the long walk that he will undoubtedly make to his mailbox this winter. The reason so many Americans, New Yorkers, Brooklynites and this Fort Greene homeowner alike are petrified to get their mail has nothing to do with sleazy credit card offers or the threat of jury duty. Rather, it is due to their home heating bills. It seems like the case every year: winter slips into our homes and the chatter of a rocketing heating cost fills the air. But this year is projected to be much worse than last — to the tune of 30 percent higher for home heating oil and 17 percent higher for electricity to heat the average brownstone.

The Fort Greene Association (FGA) met last week at Lafayette Avenue Presbyterian Church, 85 South Oxford Street, to discuss ways to save on their energy bills and hold at least a few dollars back from the energy tycoons.

The discussion was led by urban planner Dean Zias, who is with Pratt Institute’s Center for Community Development. He specializes in working for energy efficiency for low to moderate income homeowners. He is also contracted by the New York State Energy and Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) as a NYC Energy $mart Communities Outreach Coordinator.
The following paragraphs are based on Zias’s recommendations for making Fort Greene’s one- to four-family homes and brownstones more energy efficient:

Light Bulbs

Homeowners and renters alike should use compact florescent lights (CFL’s) as opposed to 100-watt incandescent light bulbs. Though a CFL will cost upwards of a few dollars more than an incandescent bulb, it will save significantly more over the long-run. Specifically one CFL bulb can save, on average, $15 annually, according to Zias.

“[CFL’s] produce 90 percent light and 10 percent heat, incandescent bulbs use 90 percent heat, 10 percent light. [Using CFL’s] is the quickest thing you can do to save energy in your home,” said Zias.

Energy Star

The “other big thing” a household can do to save quickly is by purchasing energy efficient appliances with the Energy Star label on them, recommended Zias.

The Energy Star label is something most consumers have become familiar with since it was created in the early 1990s by The Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency. The label guarantees that any appliance will run at least 30 percent more efficient than one without the label.

In addition to checking for the Energy Star label, consumers should always compare the different energy guides on all new appliances before making a purchase, warned Zias.

Home Improvements

For those ready to step into renovations, there are home performance contractors who specialize in increasing the energy efficiency of a household. They are “totally suited for the brownstones in the area here,” said Zias.

The home performance contractors are certified by the Building Performance Institute and they concentrate on looking “at your home as a whole system,” rather than just fixing the plumbing or just insulating the windows and doors. These specialists will do a low-cost assessment (standard fee is $100 - $250) and, says Zias, they will develop ways for a household to save up to 40 percent off future energy bills.

Since home improvements do not always come cheap, NYSERDA has a loan fund as a “low-cost way to finance energy projects.” The New York Energy $mart Loan Fund “provides interest rate reductions on loans for energy-efficiency projects and renewable technologies,” according to a NYSERTA handout provided by Zias.

Renewable Energy Sources

Both solar and geothermal power options are feasible options for many brownstone owners, though they can come with a hefty upfront cost.

Solar panels can run roughly $30,000 and may provide up to about 30 percent of a household’s energy needs. Consumers will pay, however, only about 25 percent of the cost of the panel after a NYSERTA credit and federal and state tax credits for up to a 2.5 kilowatt solar system.

Currently, said Zias, New Jersey offers tax credits on solar systems up to 10 kilowatts, so homeowners can expect New York to soon follow in similar footsteps.

Geothermal energy is produced through underground pipes that take advantage of warmer temperatures below the Earth’s surface. These systems will also run approximately $30,000, but require a feasibility study costing about $10,000. NYSERTA will pay for half of the system and study and other tax credits are also available.

“[The prices] are all coming down,” said Zias. “As they become more common you get economies to scale…as they go into mass production and the prices go down.”

Zias warned, however, that “you don’t want to go to the renewable unless you have an already energy efficient home.”

Phantom Electricity

Many appliances and electronics are built with something called phantom power, or a stand-by mode. Phantom power allows your devise to save certain settings, such as time, date and other presets when the electronic is on in “off-mode.” However, when the electronic is in turned “off,” it can use up to 90 percent of its “on” power requirement, according to Zias.

Laws are being written, said Zias, to eliminate phantom power electronics. In the meantime, homeowners and renters can simply unplug their electronics or keep them on a power strip that can be easily turned on and off.

Deregulation

Because of energy deregulation, New Yorkers have the ability to choose their own energy supplier. Con Edison is obligated to tell its customers of all alternate suppliers in their area. Also, the New York State Public Service Commission has a list of alternate suppliers. Some suppliers are less expensive and/or more environmentally friendly that others.

“If anyone does an honest job of research, they can lower their bill by shopping around,” said Zias.

For More Information

To obtain more information on ways to become more energy efficient, including finding home performance contractors and the New York Energy $mart Loan Fund, NYSERDA is located online at www.nyserda.org and over the phone at 1-866-NYSERDA. Dean Zias can be reached for questions at 718-399-4416 or via email at [email protected]
©Courier-Life Publications 2005
-
From the Fort Greene Courier, first published December 2, 2005:

-Fort Greene’s Alternative to Department Store Holiday Shopping
By Joshua Davis
12/02/2005

The tables were lined with fancy crafts, wines, foods and treats. The merchandise came in all shapes, sizes, colors and smells. One might have though they mistakenly walked into a trade show for the rich and famous, had they not been inside of a church in Fort Greene.

Local artisans and merchants showcased their best goods to the residents of Fort Greene last week in an attempt to raise awareness for what they call a local and unique alternative to department store shopping this holiday season.

The Fort Greene Association (FGA) invited the merchants to their meeting—held at Lafayette Avenue Presbyterian Church, 85 South Oxford Street—for an hour-long segment entitled “Celebrating Fort Greene’s Merchants.”

Throughout the course of the meeting, the local stores both introduced themselves to their neighbors, as well as discussed benefits of shopping locally.

“For many years we were without good stores and merchants and now we have a lot of really good ones,” said Roslyn Huebener, a FGA board member who organized the event. “Walking around neighborhood stores is even easier than walking around Macy’s.”

A few of the stores that have become new additions to a growing Fort Greene include: Yu, a modern and snazzy accessory store; My Little India, a boutique with Indian-styled home furnishings; The Greene Grape, a tasteful wine and spirit shop named for its proud location; and Veliis, a restaurant with tasty yet hard-to-pronounce cheese appetizers.

The Fulton Street area has become a center of focus for many small business owners. Jason Richelson, general manager of The Greene Grape, is concerned about making the area cleaner and safer to encourage more business.

“The number one thing is to market Fulton Street as a business location and to get people to get out and shop there,” he said.

Richelson, also a interim president of the Fulton Area Business Association, is working on a bid to make the Fulton Street area a business improvement district, which would create a budget for improvements such as increased street cleaning, public safety and marketing.

A fundraiser for the bid is being held on December 8 at the Fort Greene Sports Club, 691 Fulton Street, from 6 to 9 p.m.

Smita Paul is a fashion designer who sells silk hand-woven scarves online and works out of her Fort Greene residence. Her company, Indigo Handloom, is unique in that she will sell scarves at social events, which she calls a Good Karma Party.

The way a Good Karma Party works, says Paul, is that Indigo Handloom will throw a party for a customer once they have assembled at least 25 interested friends. Then Paul will supply drinks and, of course, scarves. At these events the scarves are marked down 25 percent, with an additional 25 percent going to a charity of the host’s choice. Paul also gives some free merchandise to the host.

“It’s a local direct way to raise funds…and more fun than a bake sale,” she said. “It’s a very socially-minded company.”

Ludlow Beckett, former president of the Fort Greene Area Business Association, said, while area stores in the area are surviving, that “every year is a challenge.”

“One of the biggest things is competing with the malls and the bigger stores,” said Beckett.

While concern against competition against larger department stores and big-box retailers was not the main reason for uniting the merchants at the FGA meeting, it was an underlying issue.

“I like independence,” said Huebener. “I prefer individual entrepreneurs who have control over their mind and have a different variety of products to offer, not cookie-cutter stuff that you find in other department stores.”

A similar sentiment was shared by FGA president Phillip Kellogg, who said he prefers to see his local shops in Fort Greene as opposed to “what you see in SoHo with a Gap and Banana Republic and another Gap and another Banana Republic.”

“Fort Greene is filled with unique shops and they are run by neighbors,” said Phillip Kellogg, FGA president. “Those neighbors support themselves with these businesses and the people who work for them. The last thing people want is a whole glut of chain stores.”
©Courier-Life Publications 2005

Tags: ,
Posted in Environment | No Comments »

« Older Entries

Newsletter Signup

Find us on Facebook

Local Events

See the full calendar →

Archive

  • ▶2013 (6)
  • ▶2012 (72)
  • ▶2011 (51)
  • ▶2010 (43)
  • ▶2009 (19)
  • ▶2008 (23)
  • ▶2007 (17)
  • ▶2006 (16)
  • ▶2005 (11)
  • ▶2004 (12)
  • ▶2003 (1)

Fort Greene on Flickr →

Bookmarked

Green Fort Greene