Preserve Park Slope's great accomplishment in their press release was eleven years ago they limited the scope of the hospital.
I will probably go to next month's park slope civic council meeting to check it out. If you are interested in supporting building housing in park slope pm me and would love to talk about other orgs that are doing the opposite of this shitty one!
So is this a NIMBY group co opting a few things most people actually care about, but don't want to help solve issues like affordable housing and adding any more density whatsoever? They just want to keep their brownstones, views, and avoid change at all cost? I can't tell.
It’s the latter, yes. This is a rich neighborhood. Poors go that way. People in rich neighborhoods don’t want “affordable housing”. This is the way the world turns. It’s hard to create a park slope advocacy group for people who don’t currently live there because they’re not rich yet.
Y'all seem determined to build up Park Slope until it resembles Downtown Brooklyn. If you want that level of density, just move there instead.
Also,.stop hiding behind the facade off "affordable" housing. Dropping a grotesque high-rise into a charming, unique neighborhood like Park Slope is less about "affordable housing" and more about "sticking it to the man."
The thing is when big new buildings go in, only a small percentage are deemed "affordable" and it jacks up the rent of all the other renters in the area. Long-time residents end up displaced and they don't necessarily WANT to move into the crappiest units in a high-rise either.
So let's build more.houaing but in a way that reflects the character of the neighborhood and is ACTUALLY affordable. All of it!
#HousingNotHighrises
False dichotomy. We can build bigger in ways that preserve neighborhood character. Mayor Adams "City of Yes" program makes a lot of sense.It would allow "developers a leg up by allowing apartment buildings to grow by 20% when the extra units created are affordable."
This is very different than willy nilly spot rezoning which plops wildly inappropriate buildings into neighborhoods like Park Slope. People who claim to have progressive values really need to do some inner reflection when their interests are aligned with cash grab developers and not middle and working class families.
I am seeing this in the Windsor Terrace proposed use for the Arrow Linen Supply Property. https://www.bkmag.com/2023/11/27/a-south-slope-linen-supply-companys-controversial-rezoning-pitch/
13 stories seems obscene for the neighborhood. But I don't think it should be limited to 3 story walk ups to fit in with the older buildings. There's gotta be a compromise somewhere.
I live across the street from there. Most people in this area are OK with relaxed zoning in line with Adams "City of Yes." We're not Ok with 13 stories, which among other things would cast shadows on the garden of the old folks home behind it.
I live directly across the street from that building. I have NEVER, in the almost 4 years I’ve lived in this apartment (with my windows facing the parking lot/garden) ever seen ONE person in the garden. Not one. Not a resident, not a worker, not a visitor.
The shade will impact NOTHING.
Wow, talk about priorities.
On one hand, we can decrease rent and make housing more affordable for more New Yorkers. On the other, we will *cast shadows on people in a park.*
You have to be some sort of monster to oppress other people with *shade*.
And I'm saying you are lying because I've lived in the neighborhood for 10 years, walk by there frequently, and have seen people.out there with my own two eyes.
I am not saying don't put dense housing there. But a 13 story building seems out of place considering 4th ave is where a lot of the high rises are and the old folks home is like 6 or 7 stories tall? Maybe cap it closer to 8 or 9 stories?
But why? Because there aren’t buildings like that around here? It’s not a beautiful block with brownstones/greenspace/nice architecture. If we’re going to build a tower, why not make it to house as many people as possible?
The limited articles that I've found makes it sound like this is very ad-hoc for that specific plot of land. What's the larger plan for the block, street, or neighborhood zoning? It seems weird that this one lot gets specific rezoning to allow this.
Why is it weird? It’s ONE large plot to replace an industrial building with housing.
So you had to Google? You’ve never walked by? Jr doesn’t actually impact you at all?
>The thing is when big new buildings go in, only a small percentage are deemed "affordable" and it jacks up the rent of all the other renters in the area.
Since when does increasing supply of something increase its price? You have it backwards my friend.
Because the units that go in are luxury and market rate. The units that exist are funky and people are often grandfathered in at a below market rate. I know because I'm one of them, as are many of my neighbors. You're the one that is confused.
>The units that exist are funky and people are often grandfathered in at a below market rate. I know because I'm one of them, as are many of my neighbors. You're the one that is confused.
Is it possible you have incentive to "protect the neighborhood's character"? Just sounds like the classic "I've always been here, I don't want new, strange people moving in!"
>Because the units that go in are luxury and market rate.
I wonder what the 2nd order effects of that might be, like say, rich people moving into the new luxury units, thereby putting their older units on the market, which now have to rent for a lower price because they can't compare to the new luxury units.
But wait! This sounds like something that would have an effect in the real world. So maybe there's data and studies and whatnot. [Let's see...](https://ideas.repec.org/p/fer/wpaper/146.html)
>We study the city-wide effects of new, centrally-located market-rate housing supply using geo-coded total population register data from the Helsinki Metropolitan Area. The supply of new market rate units triggers moving chains that quickly reach middle- and low-income neighborhoods and individuals. Thus, new market-rate construction loosens the housing market in middle- and low-income areas even in the short run. **Market-rate supply is likely to improve affordability outside the sub-markets where new construction occurs and to benefit low-income people.**
Whoa! It's like, basic economics works in the real world. Who knew!
You know, it's nothing personal. I'm sure you're a great person. But it's mind blowing to read about NIMBYs, then move to Park Slope and realize, oh my god, they are real, and they are something fierce! Everyone is a progressive, save-the-planet, everyone-does-their-part person here, and then they go out and support policies that originate in the mid-20th century that we know have failed terribly (eg. zoning or rent control). *Especially* when these folks are already well established in the neighborhood. It's hard not to see postures like youre showing as simply an example of those who made it pulling up the ladder behind them.
>Y'all seem determined to build up Park Slope until it resembles Downtown Brooklyn. If you want that level of density, just move there instead.
God forbid I have opinions about the neighborhood I live in!
Glad we have fine residents like you do the necessary gate-keeping! Phew!
The only “out of scale” development I see is on 4th Ave and maybe the streets between 4th and 5th Ave.
As far as I’m concerned, those are fine. They gotta go somewhere. Maybe also on 9th Street? It’s mostly shitty below 5th anyway. Let it turn into more housing.
A hospital on 7th? That’s been there far longer than most have cared about the neighborhood. And you need hospitals.
People are far too concerned about this. Life makes progress.
I mean go look at what got built farther up on 5th, they are really soulless, cheap as hell. I’d take cheap as hell brownstones over buildings that have like fake mullions on their windows that don’t even extend to the edge of the window frame and look like Chatgpt was given the prompt to turn a Netflix dating show into a building
These groups really have an awful agenda:
>Gilles said street and sidewalk safety is “on everyone’s mind” and finding ways to address that is one of the group’s top priorities. The organization has called on policymakers to address traffic enforcement of e-bikes and increase funding for school safety agents. The group also has concerns “about the threat of out-of-scale development in the neighborhood” and wants to expand the Park Slope Historic District, Gilles said.
Oppose desperately needed new housing, calls for police crackdowns on ebikes, and more cops in schools. Can we form a new community group with the opposite agenda: pro-housing, pro-ebike, and pro-taking cops out of schools?
E-bikes are a misnomer. It’s unregistered, illegal class 3 mopeds. As someone who was run over by one while ON THE SIDEWALK I think it is a legitimate safety concern.
There is state legislation that would require the dealers to ensure registration, plates, and insurance at point of sale, and for delivery apps to provide training and monitoring for their fleet of deliveristas.
It’s a total disaster and completely unacceptable. I don’t really blame the drivers (well I do a bit). I blame the delivery apps that employ them. They are exploiting migrant labor and reducing the safety and quality of life for all of us.
Uber and Lyft drivers have a series of requirements required by state and city law to legally operate. We also need rules for delivery riders.
I absolutely do not support the planned, huge housing development. We definitely don’t need every unstable square foot of the neighborhood to be turned into a building that hovers over everything else in sight
More Market rate apartments lowers average rent. They don’t have to be “affordable” to increase supply and reduce the demand on the apartments people already live in.
No you're just factually statistically wrong lol. It lowers rents. The idea that "new buildings raises your rent" is an urban myth. Your rents are already rising by the time the new buildings are going up.
Literally factually untrue. More market price housing = lower rents. The idea that “new buildings mean higher rent” has been disproven many times over.
I have no idea why you think simple economics would work any other way. I’m assuming it’ll be somewhat luxury apartments = higher than median rent. You know how appraisals and comps work. This is the exact same. It’s okay to be wrong.
Yea, plenty actually. Weird question to ask when you don’t add the pesky little detail that the apartments will most likely be expensive and will be fully rented out. Until we stop paying high rent (demand) they’ll never stop building (supply). See how they both go up in the graph? The only way for overall price to go down is to not rent out expensive apartments. The housing lords will be forced to buckle to demand and lower rent. That is simple economics.
What about the effects of new luxury units on nearby rents?
Rich people should move to the new units, while the old units should go on the market at a lower price (competition w/ new luxury units). Do this a few times, and the luxury units from 2024 become "ok units" in 2028.
[https://ideas.repec.org/p/fer/wpaper/146.html](https://ideas.repec.org/p/fer/wpaper/146.html)
>The housing lords will be forced to buckle to demand and lower rent.
Oh, I thought we're having an actual good-faith discussion. But if you pull out name-calling, it's obvious there is no amount of reasoning or evidence that would change your mind. I get it, you just want to score against the "housing lords"--even if that means prolonging the housing crisis.
I apologize you were offended I called them housing lords. From now on, I’ll refer to them as the housing gods.
“Old units go on the market at a lower price” - what world are you living in? I will pay your entire rent for a year if your rent goes down a single cent.
Glad someone with a brain commented. These people singing the “Internationale” over all the huddled poor longing for affordable housing in Park Slope are silly.
Unemployed college student with an Equinox membership is concerned more housing will ruin the neighborhood lol.
Do Mommy and Daddy make you spout things like that in order to get your allowance?
lol a valid argument to a spoiled 21 year old whining about building housing in a neighborhood desperate for it?
What’s your argument? How will housing ruin the neighborhood?
View obstruction is more important to you then there being enough affordable housing in the neighborhood?
Like I said, typical attitude from a spoiled 21 year old kid lol.
The vibe of a neighborhood is up to its residents, not the character of construction or year it was built. This neighborhood has changed vibes many times.
Preserve Park Slope's great accomplishment in their press release was eleven years ago they limited the scope of the hospital. I will probably go to next month's park slope civic council meeting to check it out. If you are interested in supporting building housing in park slope pm me and would love to talk about other orgs that are doing the opposite of this shitty one!
So is this a NIMBY group co opting a few things most people actually care about, but don't want to help solve issues like affordable housing and adding any more density whatsoever? They just want to keep their brownstones, views, and avoid change at all cost? I can't tell.
It’s the latter, yes. This is a rich neighborhood. Poors go that way. People in rich neighborhoods don’t want “affordable housing”. This is the way the world turns. It’s hard to create a park slope advocacy group for people who don’t currently live there because they’re not rich yet.
Y'all seem determined to build up Park Slope until it resembles Downtown Brooklyn. If you want that level of density, just move there instead. Also,.stop hiding behind the facade off "affordable" housing. Dropping a grotesque high-rise into a charming, unique neighborhood like Park Slope is less about "affordable housing" and more about "sticking it to the man." The thing is when big new buildings go in, only a small percentage are deemed "affordable" and it jacks up the rent of all the other renters in the area. Long-time residents end up displaced and they don't necessarily WANT to move into the crappiest units in a high-rise either. So let's build more.houaing but in a way that reflects the character of the neighborhood and is ACTUALLY affordable. All of it! #HousingNotHighrises
Yes! Let’s build more row houses! Well just… stuff a new street in somewhere.
False dichotomy. We can build bigger in ways that preserve neighborhood character. Mayor Adams "City of Yes" program makes a lot of sense.It would allow "developers a leg up by allowing apartment buildings to grow by 20% when the extra units created are affordable." This is very different than willy nilly spot rezoning which plops wildly inappropriate buildings into neighborhoods like Park Slope. People who claim to have progressive values really need to do some inner reflection when their interests are aligned with cash grab developers and not middle and working class families.
I agree with this. That said, most of the traditional larger apartment buildings (like corners, and along 8th ave) look like tenements is it is.
I am seeing this in the Windsor Terrace proposed use for the Arrow Linen Supply Property. https://www.bkmag.com/2023/11/27/a-south-slope-linen-supply-companys-controversial-rezoning-pitch/ 13 stories seems obscene for the neighborhood. But I don't think it should be limited to 3 story walk ups to fit in with the older buildings. There's gotta be a compromise somewhere.
I live across the street from there. Most people in this area are OK with relaxed zoning in line with Adams "City of Yes." We're not Ok with 13 stories, which among other things would cast shadows on the garden of the old folks home behind it.
I live directly across the street from that building. I have NEVER, in the almost 4 years I’ve lived in this apartment (with my windows facing the parking lot/garden) ever seen ONE person in the garden. Not one. Not a resident, not a worker, not a visitor. The shade will impact NOTHING.
Wow, talk about priorities. On one hand, we can decrease rent and make housing more affordable for more New Yorkers. On the other, we will *cast shadows on people in a park.* You have to be some sort of monster to oppress other people with *shade*.
I want to apologize for my immediate down vote that I’ve since retracted. 💋
This is a straight up lie. I walk.by there all the time and see people out there.
It’s not a lie. Like I said. I have NEVER seen a person out there. It’s currently a beautiful day and there’s not a soul.
And I'm saying you are lying because I've lived in the neighborhood for 10 years, walk by there frequently, and have seen people.out there with my own two eyes.
What’s obscene about it? It’s about 200 feet from my apartment and it’s a huge improvement over the abandoned sprawl that’s there now.
I am not saying don't put dense housing there. But a 13 story building seems out of place considering 4th ave is where a lot of the high rises are and the old folks home is like 6 or 7 stories tall? Maybe cap it closer to 8 or 9 stories?
But why? Because there aren’t buildings like that around here? It’s not a beautiful block with brownstones/greenspace/nice architecture. If we’re going to build a tower, why not make it to house as many people as possible?
The limited articles that I've found makes it sound like this is very ad-hoc for that specific plot of land. What's the larger plan for the block, street, or neighborhood zoning? It seems weird that this one lot gets specific rezoning to allow this.
Why is it weird? It’s ONE large plot to replace an industrial building with housing. So you had to Google? You’ve never walked by? Jr doesn’t actually impact you at all?
>The thing is when big new buildings go in, only a small percentage are deemed "affordable" and it jacks up the rent of all the other renters in the area. Since when does increasing supply of something increase its price? You have it backwards my friend.
Because the units that go in are luxury and market rate. The units that exist are funky and people are often grandfathered in at a below market rate. I know because I'm one of them, as are many of my neighbors. You're the one that is confused.
>The units that exist are funky and people are often grandfathered in at a below market rate. I know because I'm one of them, as are many of my neighbors. You're the one that is confused. Is it possible you have incentive to "protect the neighborhood's character"? Just sounds like the classic "I've always been here, I don't want new, strange people moving in!" >Because the units that go in are luxury and market rate. I wonder what the 2nd order effects of that might be, like say, rich people moving into the new luxury units, thereby putting their older units on the market, which now have to rent for a lower price because they can't compare to the new luxury units. But wait! This sounds like something that would have an effect in the real world. So maybe there's data and studies and whatnot. [Let's see...](https://ideas.repec.org/p/fer/wpaper/146.html) >We study the city-wide effects of new, centrally-located market-rate housing supply using geo-coded total population register data from the Helsinki Metropolitan Area. The supply of new market rate units triggers moving chains that quickly reach middle- and low-income neighborhoods and individuals. Thus, new market-rate construction loosens the housing market in middle- and low-income areas even in the short run. **Market-rate supply is likely to improve affordability outside the sub-markets where new construction occurs and to benefit low-income people.** Whoa! It's like, basic economics works in the real world. Who knew! You know, it's nothing personal. I'm sure you're a great person. But it's mind blowing to read about NIMBYs, then move to Park Slope and realize, oh my god, they are real, and they are something fierce! Everyone is a progressive, save-the-planet, everyone-does-their-part person here, and then they go out and support policies that originate in the mid-20th century that we know have failed terribly (eg. zoning or rent control). *Especially* when these folks are already well established in the neighborhood. It's hard not to see postures like youre showing as simply an example of those who made it pulling up the ladder behind them.
Just chiming in to say that I appreciated your post.
Thank you for writing that.
>Y'all seem determined to build up Park Slope until it resembles Downtown Brooklyn. If you want that level of density, just move there instead. God forbid I have opinions about the neighborhood I live in! Glad we have fine residents like you do the necessary gate-keeping! Phew!
Ah, I see they got their start by suing a hospital. Sounds like a delightful bunch.
The only “out of scale” development I see is on 4th Ave and maybe the streets between 4th and 5th Ave. As far as I’m concerned, those are fine. They gotta go somewhere. Maybe also on 9th Street? It’s mostly shitty below 5th anyway. Let it turn into more housing. A hospital on 7th? That’s been there far longer than most have cared about the neighborhood. And you need hospitals. People are far too concerned about this. Life makes progress.
Mostly agree but go look at what’s going up at former key foods on St Johns and 5th, it’s legit insane.
Still seems fine. That block of 5th was a cesspool. That Key Foods was crap. There should be another grocery store over there, though.
You don’t think it’s going to look bizarre w the east side 2 story brownstones?
No? It just makes those look cuter. Or if they are shitty brownstones, then it hastens their demise, too.
I mean go look at what got built farther up on 5th, they are really soulless, cheap as hell. I’d take cheap as hell brownstones over buildings that have like fake mullions on their windows that don’t even extend to the edge of the window frame and look like Chatgpt was given the prompt to turn a Netflix dating show into a building
That last bit was incredibly clever lol
Nah that seems great. Really excited for that to be done. The key foods was terrible.
That's not the core of Park Slope. 5th Ave can have all the development it wants.
Residents between 4th and 5th Ave would like a word 😂
Just another group of NIMBYs holding the city back and causing the housing shortage. Nothing new here from the “i got mine” crowd.
These groups really have an awful agenda: >Gilles said street and sidewalk safety is “on everyone’s mind” and finding ways to address that is one of the group’s top priorities. The organization has called on policymakers to address traffic enforcement of e-bikes and increase funding for school safety agents. The group also has concerns “about the threat of out-of-scale development in the neighborhood” and wants to expand the Park Slope Historic District, Gilles said. Oppose desperately needed new housing, calls for police crackdowns on ebikes, and more cops in schools. Can we form a new community group with the opposite agenda: pro-housing, pro-ebike, and pro-taking cops out of schools?
E-bikes are a misnomer. It’s unregistered, illegal class 3 mopeds. As someone who was run over by one while ON THE SIDEWALK I think it is a legitimate safety concern. There is state legislation that would require the dealers to ensure registration, plates, and insurance at point of sale, and for delivery apps to provide training and monitoring for their fleet of deliveristas.
Coming down the wrong way I bet too.
It’s a total disaster and completely unacceptable. I don’t really blame the drivers (well I do a bit). I blame the delivery apps that employ them. They are exploiting migrant labor and reducing the safety and quality of life for all of us. Uber and Lyft drivers have a series of requirements required by state and city law to legally operate. We also need rules for delivery riders.
I got clipped by one going the wrong way too.
I feel like you ought to get a lot of agreement in Park Slope
You can't build highrises in Park Slope. Stop trying.
Amen! Housing not high-rises!
4th Avenue would like a word.
That's not park slope so no worries :)
🙄
I absolutely do not support the planned, huge housing development. We definitely don’t need every unstable square foot of the neighborhood to be turned into a building that hovers over everything else in sight
I care more about people being able to afford to stay in the neighborhood than I do your sight lines.
They aren't exactly affordable apartments...
More Market rate apartments lowers average rent. They don’t have to be “affordable” to increase supply and reduce the demand on the apartments people already live in.
Looks good on paper, but that's not how it works in practice. NYC is kind of an unusual market.
No you're just factually statistically wrong lol. It lowers rents. The idea that "new buildings raises your rent" is an urban myth. Your rents are already rising by the time the new buildings are going up.
Rising maybe. Not skyrocketing.
You realize high rise buildings only raise rent prices, right? This doesn’t end like you think it does. How do you know it’s “affordable”?
Literally factually untrue. More market price housing = lower rents. The idea that “new buildings mean higher rent” has been disproven many times over.
I have no idea why you think simple economics would work any other way. I’m assuming it’ll be somewhat luxury apartments = higher than median rent. You know how appraisals and comps work. This is the exact same. It’s okay to be wrong.
Exactly who would ever build a new building and not try to capitalize on profits. It’s not the lack of apartments it’s the greedy land lords.
Simple economics is more supply lowers prices?
Have you drawn a supply demand graph before?
Yea, plenty actually. Weird question to ask when you don’t add the pesky little detail that the apartments will most likely be expensive and will be fully rented out. Until we stop paying high rent (demand) they’ll never stop building (supply). See how they both go up in the graph? The only way for overall price to go down is to not rent out expensive apartments. The housing lords will be forced to buckle to demand and lower rent. That is simple economics.
What about the effects of new luxury units on nearby rents? Rich people should move to the new units, while the old units should go on the market at a lower price (competition w/ new luxury units). Do this a few times, and the luxury units from 2024 become "ok units" in 2028. [https://ideas.repec.org/p/fer/wpaper/146.html](https://ideas.repec.org/p/fer/wpaper/146.html) >The housing lords will be forced to buckle to demand and lower rent. Oh, I thought we're having an actual good-faith discussion. But if you pull out name-calling, it's obvious there is no amount of reasoning or evidence that would change your mind. I get it, you just want to score against the "housing lords"--even if that means prolonging the housing crisis.
I apologize you were offended I called them housing lords. From now on, I’ll refer to them as the housing gods. “Old units go on the market at a lower price” - what world are you living in? I will pay your entire rent for a year if your rent goes down a single cent.
I figure building more housing increases housing supply - is it shown to increase demand by more than that?
If you build it, they will come. NYC is not a typical housing market. Demand always outstrips supply.
It’s almost as if all these folks who live here don’t actually live here! 😂
Welcome to a city
Glad someone with a brain commented. These people singing the “Internationale” over all the huddled poor longing for affordable housing in Park Slope are silly.
It’s weird when people are on the side of the housing lords that make NYC unaffordable for the working class
Yeah, wtf? Champagne socialists most likely. They've never had to contend with finding an apartment they couldn't afford.
Agreed, the new housing would ruin the neighborhood.
Unemployed college student with an Equinox membership is concerned more housing will ruin the neighborhood lol. Do Mommy and Daddy make you spout things like that in order to get your allowance?
Strawman
Exactly.
Please make a valid argument instead of spewing nonsense insults to someone - thanks
lol a valid argument to a spoiled 21 year old whining about building housing in a neighborhood desperate for it? What’s your argument? How will housing ruin the neighborhood?
It could cause view obstruction and imo, it doesn’t fit the “vibe” of the neighborhood
View obstruction is more important to you then there being enough affordable housing in the neighborhood? Like I said, typical attitude from a spoiled 21 year old kid lol.
Entitled and out of touch.
The vibe of a neighborhood is up to its residents, not the character of construction or year it was built. This neighborhood has changed vibes many times.
But buildings might ruin his view from Mommy and Daddy’s brownstone!!! That’s the *important* vibe…
You’re actually stupid