Its the same logic used when people say that the pre-wars are being eradicated. No they are not. Sure a development might take one or two out, but there are still 1000's. There's a lot of places that are land marked too. So okay we lost this one, but its not the end of the urban historical fabric like they seem to proclaim.

Just like shadows won't ruin Central Park.

Its sensationalism and emotional thinking. The NIMBYS don't care about the welfare of their city, but their own, self-entitled brat mindset. To preserve their views, and what they seem to like at the expense of everyone else.

80 Flatbush’s Pre-Demolition Mural Unveiled, Downtown Brooklyn

https://newyorkyimby.com/wp-content/...November-2.jpg

=====================
NYY

I keep seeing this sentiment on this website and it just seems to lack self-awareness. Yes, they want things the way they want it. Don't we? I'm all for upgraded urban fabric, increased mass transit options, better walkability, and (usually) more density. But I must admit it's a personal preference. We can disagree with the preference's of others without demonizing them about it.

Sure, people have their preferences, but when it impacts the growth of the city and especially the much needed housing or lets say a transit project being protested, I see that as an assault on the well being of the city.

I don't like paying taxes, and seeing the paycheck reduced, but if its going to the well-being of the neighborhood, and the areas in which we reside, than its compromise. I understand that its at least being utilized somewhat to sustain our realm.

There is no valid reason other than self-entitlement to be against height or shadows. No reason to not utilize underdeveloped land, and provide the much needed housing to stabilize prices.

Sometimes we have to make compromises, and at times, they do have valid concerns, but it can't always be a one sided conversation where its just no on every level and that nothing will be built. They have land, it was bought, a developer wants to build on it, and has every right within the zoning and codes that govern that parcel and its limitations, and thus, I don't see the point of reducing such a project.

We need to grow, and can't just stop. Its not good for the world. A puritan mindset is not what the U.S. needs in any of its cities.

If NY from the start had a NIMBY mindset, the place would not be the beacon that it is. Its only until some people lost focus, lost respect for economics and capitalism, that this objection has started. The jobs, the housing, all brought to you by big-thinkers, and we need more of that. You can see it in certain cities, and even in day-to-day workplaces. People who think big, and who strive for the best, get places.

And that's why Bloomberg, like him or not, can arguably be cited as the one who got NYC's upward growth spurt kicking into high gear.

Giuliani, like him or not, got us thru 9-11 and gave us the resolve to make the city safer,more conducive to doing business and more relevant in a 21st Century world than ever.

Luckily, DeBlasio seems intent on maintaining the currrent vector.

To echo chris, I think the issue boils down to lack of compromise.

No one is going to take issue with residents saying, we understand we're a part of this city and the city needs more housing, and that our community should help address this issue and allow the construction of new housing, but in exchange we would like the city to refurbish an old playground, fill pot holes, expand an elementary school, etc. But to just say no with no alternatives, no discussion, no nothing, is effectively saying, we want to enjoy all the benefits of living in this city, but don't want to help it address arguably it's biggest, non climate change issue. It's an incredibly lazy, and selfish position.

Letting developers run wild clearly is not the answer, but there needs to be an actual back and forth between developers, city planners and the community, which doesn't happen. I think we're at a point where community boards, and city councilman should have zero binding authority over projects, only advisory.

What's the point of having a city planning commission and city councilman/community groups who can block projects that fall within existing zoning and land use?

Locals Say Alloy’s Downtown Brooklyn Mega-Project Is Too Tall, Blocks Historic Tower

============================
https://www.brownstoner.com/developm...enue-too-high/

I loved this! I needed a good laugh. :)

Technically it's Bikini Atoll Chris...

I told you guys. NIMBYs will always complain about height and density. It will never change.

The Williamsburgh Savings Bank argument was used to fight the Ms Brooklyn tower part of the colloquially named Atlantic Yards.

The NIMBYS fought Atlantic Yards (known as Pacific Park) for years, and lost. In fact, they did not want anything to eclipse the Savings Bank, and look at the current state of affairs now. We have 9 Dekalb, Citypoint Phase III, and the rest of the 500+ foot residential(s) that have risen.

I don't think the height argument will work in this case. Given the extensive timeline for this project, it will take some time to become reality, but I think it will rise ultimately at its current dimensions.

Brooklyn has experienced Manhattanization on a massive level. The city must grow. LIC is a notable example. From a district of warehouses lies dozens of skyscrapers u/c and recently finished, with plenty in the pipeline.

Hearing for Controversial Boerum Hill Tower Postponed, Public Review Expected to Start Soon

======================
https://www.brownstoner.com/developm...ing-postponed/

Ugh, it’s going to be an ugly NIMBY fest.

It’s 2018 in downtown Brooklyn. It’s their 2-3 story buildings that are out-of-place.

The ridiculous thing is that Downtown Brooklyn is not the Heights or Park Slope.

Downtown Brooklyn still has a "hood" vibe. Hopefully, it will be gone soon.

I don't know what that means. But Downtown Brooklyn has always been vibrant. I hope that doesn't change.

When you walk in Midtown, you don't see a lot of "gangstas." In downtown Brooklyn, you see plenty. It's not yet fully gentrified.

Again, I don't know what you mean by "gangstas".

But I can tell you that Downtown Brooklyn is NOT Midtown. And while there are a lot of good things happening in the city right now, your sentiments are a sign of everything that is WRONG with the city. It's the "out with the natives" and in with the "flashy, expensive, gentrified" streets that New Yorkers don't recognize. Let everything look squeaky clean, and God forbid the people who actually live there, and have lived their their whole lives should walk down the streets. No, bring in the newcomers to shine it all up.

That sir, is exactly something New York doesn't need more of, and is not what makes the city great.

I work in Midtown and spend a lot of time in court in Brooklyn. Downtown Brooklyn needs to clean up more in my opinion.

^ you are both right.

however, i do not like seeing the fulton mall dismantled for the yuppies.

at all.

Cleaned up for whom? I worked in Downtown BK, and used to like to spend my lunchtime walking the area around the Fulton St mall. And the streets have always been crowded, full of people who come there to shop or browse the stores, and there are more on the way. It in NO WAY needs to be morphed into Midtown Manhattan. People who are uncomfortable in the environment that downtown BK is now would probably be better suited to Midtown anyway (at least the shiny side of it).

There's a fine line between retaining the existing culture and gentrification. Both can be had at the same time, but it must be cautioned that gentrification (full blown), tends to kill the culture and steer it predominately towards one side. Its not heterogeneous in other words.

Brooklyn can grow, but it must not lose its character. The byproduct of growth is change, no doubt, but it can't be 0 to 100, where 100 is in favor of "X" side. What makes NY great is its melting pot nature. Without it, without the chaotic nature of the soup called life, the city would suck. Fortunate it is not the case.

I think what he's referring to are the criminal elements (but its not gentrification that eliminates crime but better police work and presence). Its a far-cry from the 70's, but the city has seen a decline in crime, and with a booming area, police presence is always ticked up a notch and more eyes on the street (more folks outside). So naturally, it will become safer. No worries!!! :)

downtown brooklyn could be a bit more upmarket and 'centered'. 'gangstas' aside, haha.

i mean even brooklyn heights has that stretch on henry with the falafel place, the taxi cab company, the pizzeria etc that look like they time travelled here from 1976. BK heights also has its share of oldsters paying rent-controlled 300$ rents, buildings that have very little turnover.

regarding downtown:

the remaining defaced/destroyed facades all along fulton should be improved with city funds. without kicking out the businesses.

another problem is too many courthouses/notaries/legal crap downtown. this kills other uses, much more than having too many modells and shoe stores.

there is still the parking lot on adams and fulton near the shake shack - it needs to go.

I would like to see the popeyes on court st near joralemon go extinct, not gonna lie. that thing stinks of frying oil some afternoons.

the pace of renovation/new build on schermerhorn/atlantic/3rd avenue/fort greene near bam is such that maybe that will be the market upmarket side of downtown in the near future.

^ Those parking lots are on borrowed time.



Yes, I am not a fan of "gentrification" as a cure for all things, especially in a area that really didn't need a "cure". Downtown BK has always been vibrant by day, similar to how the financial district was once strictly vibrant by day, but now with residential growth has become more alive. You could use more of that in DT Brooklyn, but not at the cost of replacing existing character. In other words, there can be improvement without replacement.


Then I've got news, there are criminal elements all over the city, and yes on the streets of Midtown.

^
JUst a quick aside; but that's a probem the Bronx needs to *seriously* deal with before it can hope to plat catch-up with Kings & Queens counties for peripheral development. But it *is* catching up.

Looks like a supertall! :cheers:

:tup:

========================




New Renderings For 74-Story 80 Flatbush, In Downtown Brooklyn

https://newyorkyimby.com/wp-content/...evelopment.jpg

https://newyorkyimby.com/wp-content/...69-777x952.jpg

=====================
NYY

^ It's at least still a 900 footer...



https://ny.curbed.com/2018/2/13/1700...avenue-changes

New looks, details for massive Downtown Brooklyn development ahead of ULURP
80 Flatbush Avenue will bring 900 apartments, two schools, and more to Brooklyn

By Amy Plitt
Feb 13, 2018







Development is already beginning there. People will move where there are apartments, that's why the city doesn't have any problem with putting market rate housing on the site of housing projects. As long as there is access to transit, people will move anywhere in the city, especially if they are priced out of other areas.

More from the street...


https://www.6sqft.com/920-foot-flatb...ed-renderings/


https://imgs.6sqft.com/wp-content/up...h-Avenue-3.jpg



https://imgs.6sqft.com/wp-content/up...h-Avenue-2.jpg



https://imgs.6sqft.com/wp-content/up...h-Avenue-5.jpg



https://imgs.6sqft.com/wp-content/up...h-Avenue-6.jpg

Mods need to change the taller tower to 987 ft. per the new designs.

Another supertall (just barely).

Shorter Component.

https://80flatbush.com/uploads/V5-NIGHT-SMALL-crop.jpg
Credit: https://80flatbush.com/

Does anyone really think the height is going to survive the ULURP, i.e. NIIMBY soapbox, unscathed?

DeBlasio controls ULURP. If they want the height, they'll get the height.

And this is downtown Brooklyn, not the Village or UWS. Not residential or historic, and few bazillionaire NIMBYs.

The governor is quite pro-development. He is really aiming for his affordable housing goal.

Its a good political climate to be in. :cheers:

https://80flatbush.com/about


https://80flatbush.com/uploads/BDE-n...116_204337.jpg




https://images.adsttc.com/media/imag...jpg?1518630928
https://www.archdaily.com/889072/dow...schools-by-aro

http://boerumhillassociation.org/GM%...web%20site.pdf


http://a4.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/1/...ctVvsRd.g0.JPG



http://a4.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/1/...cqRxeV5.g1.JPG



http://a4.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/1/...WPJhYbX.g2.JPG



http://a4.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/1/...ii4bTRb.g3.JPG



http://a4.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/1/...Ra0RvBI.g4.JPG

I don't think height should be so much of an issue here, but its a classic NIMBY argument. Density and sightlines are the bigger problem here. It would be a shame to have One Hanson disappear from the skyline for something less worthy, albeit taller. I think its the shorter phase 1 tower which will block more views of Brooklyn's iconic skyscraper. Though in the end, there's 9 DeKalb to look forward to, and that will probably remain unblocked forever.

If the mayor wants to hit his affordable housing quota, he needs big developments like this which has 200 affordable units.

It's important to note that with ULURP, any and all Community Board input is advisory and non binding. They submit recommendations to the Borough President, who then submits a recommendation to the City Planning Commission, who's verdict is binding.

Maybe I'm being hopeful, but with the affordable housing component, and the new public schools, I imagine this largely survives.

Lol too much density my ass. There is a housing shortage in NYC and we need mega developments if anyone not obsessed with making well into the six figures is going to be able to stay here. If the city doesn't respond fast, it's going to lose all of it's cultural capital and be left with nothing but greed. Build as many affordable and low-income units as possible so the folks in Brooklyn Heights have to come to terms with their arms-length social justice problem.

This project should move forward !!!

#88 Report Post
Unread Posted Today, 5:12 AM
peteybrooklyn1959 peteybrooklyn1959 is online now
Registered User

Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 1
Wait a minute....NYguy...Are you for this project or against it ?? This is Downtown Brooklyn and or bordering that area on Flatbush Avenue...Because of that why should density matter ??? ...This is an incredible "Transit Friendly" project which includes the 200 units of affordable housing and incorporates 2 historic buildings and enhances the skyline of Downtown Brooklyn as well as building a school to enhance the current Khalil Gibran International Academy that a spokesman for the academy said was a "once in a lifetime opportunity" as well as being touted by stating that “it is hard to find a more transit-rich development spot in the five boroughs” on the building’s site as well as being hailed by transit activists in the city by stating that this project is a prime example of transit orientated development and why shouldn't Downtown Brooklyn be entitled to enjoy the same skyline as Lower and Midtown Manhattan ??? This project also enhances the continued re-birth of an area and enhances the aesthetics of that area too (the current building that's there is a complete eyesore and of little use to a downtown region) of the city that 20 years ago...you wouldn't want to have been there after 6 pm at night and as long as it doesn't change the character and the people that currently live there shouldn't this project move forward ??? So what if the developer requests a rezoning change that triples the current FAR for that piece of land even if it's triple to what is current zoned. Don't the benefits exceed the costs ????....And what about the tax revenues and construction jobs that will come with this project ??? Anyone opposed to this project is classic nymbyism in my humble opinion. If they can build a 1066 foot mixed used building at 90 Dekalb, why shouldn't we have a 986 foot transit friendly mixed used tower with much needed office space just a few blocks away ??? Isn't that progress ????

Another amazing project for the greatest city in America.

You guys are misunderstanding my comment on the proposed height. This project most likely will move forward, but perhaps not as proposed.

NIMBYs will do their best to chop down the height, but the project will still get built, just shorter and/or smaller. That’s what NIMBYs do, they try to reduce the scale of a project and the ULURP is their great chance.

This is a lot shorter than SHoP's tower next to Junior's.

I think that it will rise to the full height.

The number of school seats proposed needs to be doubled IMO.

I agree, I think this will move forward.

My point is the Mayor will want as many affordable units as possible out of this project, and in order to subsidize those units the developer will need to build as many market rate units as possible, which will mean taller.

Again, I agree this will move forward, NIMBY's will fight this tooth and nail, and we may see a height reduction to appease them, but ultimately it comes down to the Mayor as community input is advisory for ULURP.

As someone who lives nearby, and has a small child, I couldn't agree more. Schools in this part of Brooklyn are extremely crowded.

https://www.cityrealty.com/nyc/marke...-skyline/15887

Trifecta of Towers to Remake the Brooklyn Skyline


https://ds3.cityrealty.com/img/eee29...supertalls.jpg


By Ondel Hylton
February 15, 2018




https://ds1.cityrealty.com/img/8d76b...yn-skyline.jpg

What's the building to left of 9 Dekalb that's unmarked?

I'm licking my chops at the fact that the hideous Atlantic Center Mall is in inevitably going to be replaced as well. It may take 10 more years but it's time is near. That property could be an amazing tower as well.

^
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...2&postcount=16



http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=217583




Just noticed this. Who said I was against it?

Ahh yes, I forgot about that. That was 2 years ago? Jeeez