We were at the public hearings where the developers claimed that the opposition’s images depicting the proposed Dock Street building were inaccurate and exaggerated the size and potential impacts of the building.  We believe the oppositions’ renderings are accurate since we were able to examine that allegation there and then by photographing the scale model of the building brought to the hearing by the developer.  Photographing the developer’s own model, we got essentially the same visual outcomes that the developer objected to as being inaccurate.  In addition, we double checked our impressions by going out on the bridge afterwards and counting the stories of the existing adjacent buildings and noting how high these shorter buildings came up beside the bridge.

You can read our article on the subject by going to the link below.

If the developer’s best defense is to challenge apparently accurate images of the project then that is a good indication that the developer is uncomfortable with the actual facts of the situation. And if the developer is uncomfortable with the facts as they are that means the opposition has probably made their case that our city (the Bloomberg administration in particular) needs to better stewards of our national treasures.

See:  Tales of Two Landlords Bridged by an Iconographic Clash (Saturday, March 21, 2009)

http://noticingnewyork.blogspot.com/2009/03/tales-of-two-landlords-bridged-by.html

Michael D. D. White

Noticing New York

Call and Email Mayor Bloomberg and City Council Speaker Christine Quinn and urge them to reject this proposal.

Mr. Walentas and representatives of Two Trees Management have continued to marginalize those who have opposed this development.  Mr. Walentas’ claim that Mr. David McCullough, one of the most profound historians, lecturers and authors of our time, “has been hoodwinked into promulgating his inaccurate viewpoint by a group of neighborhood activists,” is unequivocally wrong.  This “group of neighborhood activists” Mr. Walentas refers to includes: DUMBO Neighborhood Association, the Brooklyn Heights Association, the Fulton Ferry Landing Association, the Vinegar Hill Association, the Cobble Hill Association, the Boerum Hill Association and the Fort Greene Association.  Collectively, these neighborhood civic groups represent the interests of tens of thousands of residents.  Moreover, their belief that the proposed rezoning and resultant 18 story building will have an overwhelmingly negative impact on the Brooklyn Bridge and the surrounding historic neighborhoods is shared by a number of local elected officials and by some of the most important city-wide and national preservationists. The Historic Districts Council, the grassroots advocate for New York City’s historic neighborhoods, the Roebling Society - Chapter for Industrial Archeology, the Municipal Arts Society, Society for the Architecture of NYC, and Richard Moe, President of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, have all stated their clear opposition to this proposed development.  Furthermore, a petitioning campaign has garnered nearly 12,000 signatures from neighbors, fellow citizens and concerned individuals from far and wide stating their opposition to impinging on the grandeur of the Brooklyn Bridge and marring the historic character of the neighborhoods below.  It would be quite a challenging task  to “hoodwink” Mr. McCullough regarding a subject on which he is one of the preeminent experts, let alone to coordinate this task among so many groups and individuals, as Mr. Walentas has implied.

Your readers should be aware that in 2004 community groups united in opposition to a similar development proposal, and the vociferous public outcry over the detrimental impact on the bridge and the adjacent historic, land-marked neighborhoods persuaded local politicians to reject the controversial development.  Consequently, Two Trees Management failed to gain the requested zoning changes and waivers.  After Two Trees Management “spent $400,385 to lobby the city in 2007 and 2008,” (Brooklyn Paper, January, 27, 2009), the developer has once again filed a request for zoning changes and waivers to pave the way for an 18 story luxury rental building at the same site.  “Much of the lobbying money appears to have gone towards trying to sway support for the Dock St. project… Officials for the company -- including the Walentases -- have also dished out $29,700 in campaign donations over this period to Councilwoman Melinda Katz and another $19,800 to Council Speaker Christine Quinn.  Katz, a local Democrat running for City Comptroller, heads the council’s land use committee, which must eventually decide whether to put Two Trees' request for a necessary zoning change before the full council for final approval,” (New York Post, April 22, 2009).

The real reason we are once again debating the merits of this development is not because this proposal was “redesigned” from the original proposal that failed in 2004, as the developer maintains.  We are here today because Two Trees Management wants the public to believe that a community desired middle school can only become a reality if the public accepts an 18 story, out of context tower that encroaches on the bridge.  Two Trees Management also wants the public to believe that this is the only space for a middle school in the entire district.  In fact, this location may be less than ideal for a school.  It would be located in a federally designated flood zone, above the developer’s 465 car garage, below a potential terrorist target, the Brooklyn Bridge.  Private sector involvement in the education of our children is critical but approving this kind of spot zoning while a developer dangles the carrot of a leased “shell” is morally and ethically not the kind of public-private partnership that is desirable.

An extensive investigation conducted by NYC Councilman David Yassky’s office, which includes information revealed by a Freedom of Information Act request, yielded disturbing revelations.  One of the greatest public concerns has always centered on the credibility of the school site selection process with regards to Dock Street and the undue influence of Two Trees in this process. “Internal memos and e-mails show the agency had already decided weeks earlier to let father-son developers David and Jed Walentas include a middle school in their planned 18-story apartment tower rather than consider alternate sites for a school proposed by neighborhood groups and Councilman Yassky,”  (New York Post, DUMBO Stumble, April 1, 2009).  "Now I know that if we don't do the Walentas project that we don't really want to do anything else over there, but I think we have to follow up on this just so we can say that the Walentas project is such a good deal," the e-mail says.  The absence of  proper cost-benefit analysis  comparing alternate sites highlights the lack of consideration and fiduciary obligation to the tax-paying public. Meanwhile, repeated letters from the general public, requesting their environmental impact study on the Dock St. location, have gone unanswered by the SCA. Even more disturbing are the inconsistencies in the SCA statements relating to the need for a middle school, and inappropriate communication between the SCA and Two Trees Management officials, which raise serious questions of dubious dealings and a private developer’s undue influence over the process. In sum, the process has been ineffectual at best, and most likely harmful to the interests of New Yorkers.

We have all been bestowed with the enormous obligation, whether we like it or not, to prevent the desecration of our national monuments, and to respect and support our collective history and the symbols of our national identity.  By approving this project we will disappoint not only the generation who gifted the world this beacon of human ingenuity,  but also the dozens of generations that have maintained and preserved this early symbol of our country’s inventiveness, might, and hard work.   Should we allow this structure to rise in the name of urban progress, we will leave an indelible stain on our progress as a people, a nation and members of humanity.

As an architect in NYC, this is a complicated issue. As a designer how would like to help shape the future city, I am loathe to set precedent that limits certain development. But I also worry about loss of views of the historic bridge and other landmarks. NYC has always been a place of constant change, and while there are places that I miss from my childhood, I also am in awe of the incredible buildings that have sprung up here in recent years.

I believe that while this project is fairly contextual for the neighborhood, and in and of itself, really is not bothersome. Plus NYC should continue to grow and change; there is no need to stagnate development here.

But its not the kind of building that would inspire that awe that I spoke of earlier. Its loosely based on older buildings from the neighborhood, but as I have seen more drawings at local community board meetings, it looks more like a fairly-cheap developer apartment building with air conditioning grilles built into the windows marring any real sense of it being a historic building. Dumbo only achieved its NYC Landmarks status several other condo apartment buildings were finished, but that doesn't mean that cheap through-the-wall air conditioner grilles should be considered historic or even appropriate when comparing the building to its neighbors such as the Clocktower building or 70 Washington St, or on a site so close to one of the most famous landmarks in North America if not the world.

I am not totally opposed to a building on this location, but as it is so close to such an incredible structure, something so generic is shameful. In this current economic culture, who knows if or when it will even be built, but as it is currently designed it will not even be close to an equal of the Brooklyn Bridge, and that is the only suitable solution for this location.

I should clarify that I am a Manhattan resident, and am not among the numbers that will "lose their private views from their expensive condo." But I do enjoy my views of the bridge and from the bridge when I am in Brooklyn.

Additionally, I do find it unfortunate that Mr Walentas continues to trot out the same arguments defending his building, regardless of who is doing the criticizing, and with a gloss of half-information and PR/advertising magic.

Yes, he is including affordable housing in the building, but if he is developing using NY state's 421-a tax abatement plan (which I would assume he would, since just about all developers seem to as it saves them on taxes which would be important for a rental building) then he's required to include that affordable housing. Its not a generous gesture; it's state law.

I also have been to meetings regarding the included public school, and while it is true that a middle school is desperately needed in the area, the designs presented to the community board only had about half of the number of classrooms that people in the local community feel that they need. Its a nice start, but its not enough classrooms to really help. And what happens if Two trees doesn't get the kind of financing that they need? Will the school still get built as part of the project?

Lastly, Mr. Walentas criticized Newsweek of publishing a rendering that was "incorrect architecturally and tremendously misleading to your readers." A rendering from two trees was attached to this article. And while I am familiar with the project, and am familiar with reading architecture drawings, I feel the need to point out that the Two Trees Rendering attached to Kurt Soller's online article is also tremendously misleading. I am not entirely sure why certain buildings in this drawing are shaded and others are not, but whoever rendered the Aerial View on sheet 9 attached to this article chose to render the lower half of the Two Trees building in color and the taller portion in white. The taller portion - by the way - that would be blocking the views and be most visible from the bridge and the surrounding area. It's as though Mr. Walentas wants us to believe that the tall portion isn't his building.

So Mr Jed Walenas, please keep your comments about misleading information and drawings to yourself until you can provide drawings that are themselves not misleading.

Sincerely,

An interested Manhattan architect

Building close to the Brooklyn Bridge Tower would be a serious mistake, from a structural viewpoint.

Having worked closely with the New York City Bureau of Bridges in the 1970’s on repairs and enhancements to this unique, original bridge, I would ask these questions:

1. Can we be sure the foundation of the Brooklyn Tower would not be loaded by the building’s piles, causing subsidence of the tower?

2. Will the presence of the building’s utilities, and their future maintenance, interfere with the bridge’s maintenance and longevity?

3. Might fire protection for the bridge be compromised by the building?

4. Wind is the major force on this bridge.  The building code does not require a wind tunnel study, but obviously the wind forces will be changed by this new building.  What will these changes be?

5. The lighting of the cables is a dramatic part of the night water view.  Part of the lighting will be obscured.  How will this be compensated for by the building’s owners?

In my opinion, the Bureau of Bridges must vigorously contest this project until these and other questions are resolved.

Bill Kallman, PE

"Perhaps the Dock Street project isn't so bad." There's a ringing endorsement if I ever heard one. One would hope Newsweek, even with its reduced staff and tightened belts, would be able to write a piece that dug out the facts and provide the truth rather than simply reprinting statements from both sides. As a resident of Sacramento, CA, I am rather far removed from the location. I can't go see for myself. I have been taught journalists are around to investigate matters of public controversy and provide an independent and unbiased report of the facts. I can go online and read the press releases of each side myself; I don't need them reprinted for me.