Local residents oppose new development at 110 Amity
Josh Guttman | January 2, 2008
Neighbors are rallying together against the latest proposed development project threatening the sanctity of the area. As you may recall, there has also been recent opposition to the Clarrett Group’s redevelopment of the Longshoreman’s Club on Court. This time, it’s a proposed development at the corner of Amity and Henry, in and around the former LAMM Institute. Below are a few plans for the proposed development, which doesn’t look overwhelmingly egregious at first glance. From the organizers, “The local community is vehemently opposed to this development that changes the block structure around to create a gated community shoe-horned into the block only to maximize profit. They call it a ‘mews’.”
I’m told that the plans will be submitted and discussed at the following meetings, which all neighborhood residents are encouraged to attend:
- Cobble Hill Association: January 2 @ 7:30pm - Long Island College Hospital, Conf Room B (entrance on Hicks)
- Community Board 6: January 3 @ 6pm - 250 Baltic Street, Cobble Hill Community Room
- Landmarks Preservation Commission: January 8 - One Centre Street, 9th Fl Conf Room, Manhattan (for time call 212-669-7923 after Jan 4)
June and Steven Negrycz are spearheading the effort with their neighbors on the block. They can be reached at CHCommittee [at] gmail [dot] com.
Comments
2 Comments so far
As entertaining as it is to hang out over the e-fence, there are some serious issues being aired here while some basic truths have been ignored.
Issue: Here in CG we need housing,we know it, we want it. We want housing that continues to welcome the populations that make up our mix: seniors,young families,new grads,etc. We need 3 or 4 story homes, possibly even 2 or 3 family,with backyards at entry-level prices (to rent or purchase). What a fantasy: Reasonably priced, good quality housing! Buyers would camp out again. There would be excitement, much like what the Columbia Street development generated some years back.
Truth: We are getting hemmed in with flash and trash; fast, below standard construction that looks good on paper, particularly glossy brochures. Now that the buildings are up,they are ours to live with- permanent, expensive, leaks and all.
Issue: Labels aside, we are all in this together. This isn’t a dress rehearsal- we as a community can do something about the frenzy of building planned to beat the July tax break deadline. We can vote, of course. We can let our elected officials know: we want them to advocate for services and protections- zoning, responsible building codes and enforcement, contextual development,etc. It’s easy, just pick up your phone and call.
Truth: It’s a land grab and that means any which way the investing group can hit their percentages they will certainly push the envelope. Hey, that’s the challenge of doing business;no biggie.
So we have CH, protected by landmarking AND LH1 restrictions and along comes 110 Amity. It sets precedent by building into the “green donut”. It backs the buildings into the space rendering them visible on both side streets (landmarking prohibits this); it sinks the lowest floor into the “hill” of Cobble Hill,yielding an additional salable floor below street level. Is it 5 stories or 6? Why not have “Juliet balconies” and irregular window lines? Can you call an alley a mews and sell it? Most likely. So ignore the big new wall in the back yard,until there are more of them. Don’t improve, just move?
Yes, there are neighbors wary and watching. Wouldn’t you be?
Time Equities and its partner Lucky Boy do not want to present a project that does not have community support. We thought the mews approach did because it was supported verbally and in writing by a number of community residents and local architects based on meetings we held in November and December. The mews design was also recommended for approval by the Landmarks staff who reviewed the plan.
It may be that some community members who took issue with the mews did not attend these meetings. The benefit of the Landmark process is that it gives all stakeholders a chance to be heard. Several concerns that arose at the meetings led to changes.
We value feedback from the community and the commission and will continue to address concerns, such as those that arose in the early meetings which led to design revisions of the Henry Street façade of the new townhouse.
At this point, we will re-conceive the project in a traditional street wall approach and try to present a plan that is responsive to the input received at the most recent Landmark hearing. As we did last time, we will reach out to the community and Landmark staff prior to presenting the final concept to the commission.