Wife Tries To Abort And Poison Husband's Lovechild
Man Injured By Tree Limb Files Suit Against City
Charles Barron Will Run For Council Speaker
Alleged Tiger Mistress Is Unrecognizable To Dead Fiancee's Dad
New Jersey State Senate To Vote On Gay Marriage
Savor those views! The Brooklyn Paper reports that yesterday "a key City Council committee backed—by a surprisingly wide margin—DUMBO developer Jed Walentas’s controversial bid to build a 17-story tower next to the Brooklyn Bridge, hours after Speaker Christine Quinn reportedly had given her OK." The land-use committee voted 17-4 in support of the Dock Street Development, saying it's in the best interest of the community. While it will include affordable housing and a middle school, some suspicions arose recently, with the release of an internal email, about whether or not another site was ever considered. Queens lawmaker Tony Avella is one of the many opponents who spoke out against the bridge-blocking development, saying, “People are going to go by and say, ‘Who the heck allowed this building to get built?’” And following the vote, DUMBO's Neighborhood Alliance president, Gus Sheha, declared, “It’s clear that this committee today sold the Brooklyn Bridge.” Sigh. The full council will vote next week, and here's a look at the future.
Council Committee OKs Blocking View Of Brooklyn Bridge
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Comments (25) [rss]
Post a comment (Comment Policy)
Tips
Newsmap
Contribute
Latest Tip:
It's the same media that NEVER mentioned Muslims' hatred of Israel as a possible motive for 9/11.
[more]
Wow, that's quite some editorializing in the headline.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXoANkQh93I
Christine Quinn: Behind the Smile.
Everything is for sale, shouldn't we all know that by now?
Cash Rules Everything Around Us Dollar Dollar Bill Y'all.
Never thought I'd see Gothamist become an advocate for multi-million dollar loft owners, their views and celebrity NIMBYs. Sigh.
You do realize the real reason people are protesting this is they don't want their 70 Wash views blocked and they *really* don't want middle school trash in the neighborhood? Right?
well said. . . . i guess the overriding anti-development reflex was stronger than the anti-yuppie reflex. (and of course stronger than common sense and reason)
the guy has the permits, he's bought the airspace, he's bought the land. what do you expect? now you have to buy the "view" from neighbors?
Isn't that pretty much what the neighbors of Trump World Tower were saying when they tried to stop that building? They tried the argument that it would diminish the UN Secretariat Building but you have to question the logic when the best views of the UN are actually from across the river (or from First Avenue) and Trump World Tower doesn't block those views. The only people that could enjoy the view of the UN from anywhere other than street level in the immediate vicinity are the people that own apartments in the area.
That said, the Dock Street design is hideous. If those against the building really wanted to rally public support they should spin it as Dock Street being an ugly addition to the skyline and that it would blight the views of the iconic bridge from across the river - views enjoyed by everyone, not just the wealthy. The rendering linked above show blocked views from blocks away from the bridge. Whoever that view belongs to could just easily lose it if someone were to erect a squat building in the parking lot in the foreground.
Dude, you realize that isn't a REAL rendering of the building right? Its a fake rendering from the opponents.
A real rendering is here: http://curbed.com/archives/2009/01/15/controversial_walentas_dock_street_project_gets_first_okay.php
and here from the ground level: http://curbed.com/archives/2008/11/07/king_prince_of_dumbo_convince_city_to_love_dock_st_school.php
Again, Gothamist has a *very* biased viewpoint on this, if they are pushing that picture above as a picture of the building. It's not.
Dude, I appreciate the links to the other renderings (although I would say that most buildings don't end up looking like renderings). But my point isn't to take the opposition side. I'm just saying they would have a more compelling argument if they could swing a large amount of public opinion their way. And that isn't going to happen as long as their only argument is that the view from their condos is blocked since that has no effect on the population at large.
What makes these renderings "real?" They look to me like architect's renderings from the developer which are always, in controversial cases such as this, drawn to minimize the impact. There is no such thing as a "real rendering" - by definition, rendering is the art of representing, in 2 dimensions, how one wants to present what the proposal will look like when it is built. One of the first things that architecture students learn is how to render since it is so important, and they learn the many tricks to make a rendering look like how the developer would like to have the proposal represented. They can make a building look bigger, smaller, denser, lighter, more or less transparent, etc. This rendering is no more or less real than the rendering of the proposal's opponents.
It isn't about the view, it is about the middle school trash in the neighborhood.
Also the fact that the building is ugly and only ugly people will live there.
ugly hipsters with the $$.
"it is about the middle school trash "
I think that says it all about the opposition. Basically, "Keep the poors out".
http://www.nydailynews.com/real_estate/2009/06/04/2009-06-04_city_turns_upscale_building_into_homeless_shelter.html
They city (quinn and Bloomberg) keeps using our money to bail out the real estate developers and sell out the city and the residents. our taxpayers are paying close to $3,000 for homeless in luxury apartments in Crown Heights. Quinn and Bloomberg and their real estate cohorts are robbing us blind. I can't believe my taxes go in the hands of the rich developers.
"The Brooklyn Paper" itself published a map">http://www.brooklynpaper.com/assets/photos/32/1/32_01_dumbomap_z.png>map asserting that few views of the Brooklyn Bridge will be blocked by the building, and editorialized in favor of the project.
Since when are views protected? Suck it you little bitches, I'm glad they lost.
Yeah I have no sympathy for ANYONE's views since I lost my ESB views to the frickin Gramercy McStarck, aka the ugliest condo in history.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXoANkQh93I
Christine Quinn: Behind the Smile
I replied in error, this video show how Quinn has sold out her district and NYC.
It'll just be another bookend for the bridge, complementing the Verizon building on the Manhattan side.
WORST. IDEA. EVER.
WORST. IDEA. EVER.
Ugly piece of crap in any configuration. The Walentas are a pox on NY.
Point is, something that large shouldn't be built so close to the iconic bridge. End of line.
Point is, something that large shouldn't be built so close to the iconic bridge. End of line.
Whichever rendering you're looking at, it's still seems mighty messed up for the people who live there now. That said, this happens all the time in big cities like New York...it's happened to me twice. Not that I'm for it in this case, but you have to know that living next to an empty lot (or any underdeveloped lot for that matter) most likely means it's just a matter of time before your view gets cut off. Dog eat dog and all of that.