The Big Issues With Culver El
Friday, July 23rd, 2010
The meeting with the City Planning that I thought was going to be held at the end of August is coming up next Wednesday, and like many folks, I won’t be able to be there. So I thought I’d put my big concerns out now, and try to find a way to have them raised at the meeting.
It is a huge comfort that our councilmember Brad Lander shares most of the concerns we have raised on this blog – that Culver El Estates should be affordable in perpetuity; that large parcels like the Bergament should not be upzoned without public benefit; that we should not give away public land for private parking; and that undeveloped lots could be turned into temporary public space. Thank you so much for standing up for what’s good for the surrounding neighborhood.
So why are the issues so important?
Rezoning: Some of the area will be upzoned, allowing folks like Bergament department store to all of a sudden be able to build 6 stories on top of their store. To give away that much money (for the apartments that can now be developed can be sold or rented at profit) without getting anything back for the neighborhood does not sound right.
The neighborhood needs public green space. It needs a community center that would offer kids as well as grownups recreational opportunities after school, summer or winter (dare we dream of a swimming pool?). It needs a location for a new public school. Before $$ is given away to developers just for asking, by way of upzoning their lots, the community needs to know what it will get in return.
For the lots that are not expected to be developed in the next 10 years – how about they are turned into a temporary neighborhood space that can be used for kids to play or a community garden – we have enough abandoned lots storing derelict vehicles already.
Everybody wants more affordable housing. Culver El Affordable Housing project should be affordable in perpetuity. If you can sell a 5 bedroom apartment to whomever you wish in 15 years, it will not be affordable in 15 years.
Culver El public land should not be given away for parking. So much is given to the surrounding property owners through rezoning, that they most likely can afford to buy any land they need for parking.
Here is where I know my thoughts may be too late to be taken into account, and some neighbors will disagree, but I’ll put it out there anyway:
By designing awesome affordable housing, there is potential for completely transforming this derelict stretch of our neighborhood by creating an attractive environment that fosters a sense of community and allows for neighborly interactions. From the current plans, it looks like we will be getting more of the same and increasingly ugly – walk a block up 37th to between 12th Avenue and Fort Hamilton Parkway, or down to 15th Avenue and you’ll see the already developed parts of Culver El.
Does Culver El Estates need to be free standing houses filled with large apartments? This is where I think bolder planning and design (and maybe a more creative architect) could come in. I know this is late in the process to be bringing it up – but if the area surrounding Culver El affordable housing site is upzoned to 7 stories, why not let the affordable housing project be a couple of larger buildings, and skip creating awkward alleyways through setbacks and ultimately lots of wasted space. Build a bigger building, require parking underground, and an open, well designed, public green space where parking is proposed now (or move it to a corner). More apartments could be built that way as well, allowing to add a few studio, one and two bedrooms. Keep a small front yard that can be landscaped and cared for communally.
As an example to illustrate what I’m talking about I would offer to look at the large new building on one side of Dome playground, and the assorted recently constructed smaller buildings on the other. Even though neither is beautifully done, the smaller buildings are surrounded by much wasted space – space noone wants to use, spend time in, or take care of. Space that arguably could have been better used to build more housing.
By building street front for 2 blocks you have the potential to transform those two blocks through attractive facades and landscaping. They don’t have to be more of the same detached, unattractive, cookie-cutter design – imagine 17 buildings that look exactly the same. There are prewar 4-story buildings facing the Green Triangle on Church, that the project could emulate. Except – in an ideal world – they would be energy efficient, green and sustainable buildings, and have landscaped front yards as well.
11 Responses to “The Big Issues With Culver El”
-
Richard says:
EXCELLENT WORK LIENA!!!!I HOPE YOU HAVE EMAILED MR.
LANDER YOUR LETTER.
BTW- I CAN”T GO TO HEARING EITHER(WORK) BUT CAN I SEND A LETTER TO SOMEONE TO VOICE MY OPINION, PREFERABLY AN EMAIL???? -
Jole says:
Liena, Thanks for posting. One thought though:
I do hope you meant public green space AND a community center. They are not synonymous. GREEN SPACE is grass, trees, benches, tables, dirt, while a community center is cement. One is primarily for passive recreation, and the other, active physical activity. Yes it could offer all kinds of activity: from exercise machines, indoor pools, basketball courts, yoga, karate, ballet, art or computer classes, etc. Kensington needs both, as well as more playgrounds.
Places for active sports on dirt, such as baseball diamonds, soccer and cricket fields, or tennis courts are not all that common in local NYC parks. The only ones in our area are at the Parade Ground.If I had to make a choice I would vote for green space. A community center is a more long-term project. A check at NYC Parks web site suggests income level and population density, for ex, a high-rise low-income housing project, are requisites in their siting.
-
Franklyn of Cypher Films says:
I have a dream of a little, clean safe dog run. set for large and small animals. It would bring a sense of community and be a lot of fun for even non dog owners
-
Joy Rich says:
I believe that Liena does mean public green space AND a community center (both listed in the paragraph stating that we need a new public school).
Creating green space and building a community center are two of the common goals suggested by community leaders at a meeting with Brad Lander and Jim Brennan in April. Brad and Jim brought neighbors from diverse cultures together for this meeting and asked us to define our short-term and long-term goals and see which ones we have in common.
My blog post about the meeting is at http://karmabrooklyn.blogspot.com/2010/05/kensington-community-leaders-meeting.html. Notes about the meeting were also published in the Albemarle Neighborhood Association’s May newsletter.
-
bee says:
liena states it quite well! i wish i was in town on wednesday morning for the hearing, because i want my voice to be heard.
-
Felix says:
Hum. Developing that area is a good thing because it looks pretty sketchy. If the developer is working for the hasidics forget about making them pay for an all-inclusive community center or garden or pool. Have you heard of the west bank? If we want this area to stay part of the diverse kensington community, the developer needs to be unbias. The sad reality is that people who can afford community centers and parks are the rich and they require luxury housing. We might require some more gentrification to have those perks, until them we are lucky to have an awesome park three blocks away.
-
William says:
So what can we do so that this is done in a responsible way for the community?
-
Richard says:
Who has a park 3 blocks away???? Not over here we don’t . HARDLY.
We need a SECULAR community center for EVERYONE. -
Richard says:
William, they could be more inclusive with the community that actually LIVES THERE(also many Latino, bengladeshis, pakistanis and chinese w/ smaller families) instead of just doing what the developer wants to do. I have several friends over there that would love to be able to afford a studio apartment,or one or two bedroom. Why not make affordable housing FOR ALL not just for “LARGE FAMILIES”. THey could plan out the school situation before they build the apartments and also include a place for the kids to run around beside the street. All pretty logical and fair requests.
-
Bill says:
REQUIRE THEY BUILD GREEN!!!
-
William says:
I am not sure why you aimed your comment at me Richard, it doesn’t seem to have anything to do with my comment. I just meant by my post, in case the developers don’t read this blog every day and consider these suggestions as legally binding, what can we do to get the suggestions and desires outlined here made into reality.
