THE STORY BEHIND TWO TREES' ATTEMPTS TO BUILD A SKYSCRAPER IMMEDIATELY NEXT TO THE BROOKLYN BRIDGE

Summary

Two Trees, a New York real estate development company, has proposed building an 18-story luxury residential real estate tower immediately next to the historic Brooklyn Bridge.

 

The proposed building would grossly mar New York's historic Brooklyn Bridge viewscape. This out-of-context, out-of-scale building would jut out jarringly, destroying the respectful backdrop of historic buildings that currently frame the bridge and gradually stairstep downward to well below the level of the Brooklyn Bridge roadway.

 

In addition, this proposed building would:

• Make it impossible for NYC Police and Homeland Security to effectively secure the Brooklyn Bridge from terrorist attack by placing transient rental units within 70 feet of and towering over the Bridge.
• Hurt tourism by corrupting world-famous, classic views drawing millions of visitors a year.
• Set a dangerous precedent whereby quid-pro-quo "payoffs" from developers trump zoning intended to protect the public interest.
• Place a school in an inappropriate, unworkable, and undesirable location.
• Inject more housing in a neighborhood with a housing glut.
• Undermine the abutting historic districts expressly created by the city to preserve the character of the surrounding neighborhood.
• Expose the city and public to bad faith promises evidenced from Two Trees past behaviors.

 

Everyone recognizes if this building is built, something significant will be lost. The Brooklyn Bridge is owned and loved by all citizens of New York City and the United States. It is a treasure that we, as citizens, have inherited with an obligation to protect for ourselves and the generations to come.

 

Please put your vigorous support behind keeping any development of the Dock Street site below the height of the bridge roadway, showing the respect that the world famous Brooklyn Bridge deserves.

 

Proposal

Two Trees, a New York real estate management and development company founded and owned by David Walentas has proposed building an 18-story skyscraper immediately next to the historic Brooklyn Bridge.

 

The location for the proposed building is in the historic industrial neighborhood known as DUMBO situated between the Brooklyn Bridge and Manhattan Bridge anchorages in Brooklyn.

 

Characteristics of the building:

• 18-stories, 210 feet high
• 600 rental units, of which 80 are slated to be low-income
• 40,000 square feet for a middle school
• 10,000 square feet for retail
• Parking, mostly below-grade
• "Environmentally-friendly," "green" development

 

Background

The first Two Trees proposal is rejected
In 2004, Two Trees attempted to get a rezoning to allow a similar building on this site. Facing strong community and government officials' opposition toward the building's height and impact on the historic Brooklyn Bridge, Two Trees withdraw the proposal in order to be better able to try again at a later time. According to the records of the City Planning Commission, opposition came from Community Board 2 by vote of 39 to 0 with one abstention recommending disapproval and the Brooklyn Borough President: Recommending disapproval.

 

A map of the 2004 Two Trees' plan is shown below.

 

 

Walentas prepares for his next attempt, employing some dubious methods
To expand the site and help gain support for a revised proposal, David Walentas had long been after acquiring the adjacent property, the former Nova Clutch / Zerega building at 39 Front Street, previously owned by Shaya Boymelgreen. The lot between 39 Front Street and 57 Front Street, which is empty, was already owned by Two Trees. If Two Trees could acquire 39 Front, it would have a significantly larger contiguous footprint on which to build, likely providing more motivation to try again with a revised proposal, this time larger in scope. But Boymelgreen wasn't selling.

 

Boymelgreen owned 57 Front Street, a 7-story building he was converting to condominiums in 2005. Due to errors in city files, the record of the necessary easement could not be located. Without a clearly documented easement, Walentas would be legally able to build directly up to the lot line, blocking all of the windows and putting the apartment in violation of city rules requiring access to light and air. And in 2006 that's exactly what Walentas threatened, if Boymelgreen didn't sell him 39 Front. In fact, Walentas submitted plans and a building permit was issued to erect a steel sculpture in his parking lot that would substantially and intentionally block all of the windows on the property line of 57 Front. He was quoted as saying, "It's steel columns in front of the windows with plates strategically placed where the windows are" to serve as "just a little negotiation." And in the meantime, none of the sales in Boymelgreen's condo at 57 Front were permitted to close and buyers were pulling out of their contracts and taking back their deposits. Asked if his actions weren't an extreme negotiating technique, Walentas responded, "To sell people apartments that can't be legally occupied is a little extreme."

 

In December of 2006, relenting to Two Trees pressure tactics, Boymelgreen sold the Nova Clutch / Zerega building at 39 Front Street to Walentas and Two Trees for $8.75 million and in return received an easement from Two Trees enabling him to legally sell his already built condominiums at 57 Front. And thus, the acquisition of the Nova Clutch building, originally known as the Zerega Building, the first pasta factory in the United States built in 1848, gave Two Trees control over the half a block (almost an acre) bounded by Water, Front and Dock Streets, as shown in the updated map below.

 

 

It is important to note that included in this site to be demolished is 38 Water Street, better known as the performing arts center St. Ann's Warehouse which holds numerous high-profile art, cultural, and performance events throughout the year. Before he was strong-armed into selling it, Shaya Boymelgreen had intended to build a 3-4 floor market at 39 Front Street -- in compliance with current zoning and appropriate in scale for the neighborhood.

 

Interestingly, this exact site is not included in the proposed DUMBO Historic District soon to be landmarked, nor is it included in the existing Fulton Ferry Historic District. It is the only major parcel of land that sits in between these historic districts and is incongruously excluded from the protection that landmarking provides. Given it is tightly sandwiched between two large landmark districts, surrounded by landmark buildings, and is partially beneath the landmarked Brooklyn Bridge, it is difficult to imagine this parcel is not deserving of landmark protection. While this omission could be a coincidence, it's more likely that this outcome was by orchestration of Walentas who reportedly has significant influence with at least one individual participating in landmarking decisions.

 

Events since Two Trees acquisition of 39 FrontIn March of 2007, evidence appeared of illegal removal of dangerous asbestos at the Nova Clutch building, presumably to prepare for cheaper demolition. Residents witnessed and reported unmarked vans and undercover laborers working only during the nights over the course of a few weeks to remove large garbage bags from the roof. Contamination with asbestos was never acknowledged, disclosed, or made public by Two Trees.

 

In May of 2007, demolition of the Zerega / Nova Clutch building began, and finished in mere weeks.

 

 

In June of 2007, Two Trees launched the dockstreetdumbo.com Web site. The site is dressed up as if it were an activist site including links such as "How you can help," and "What people are saying." The latter link includes quotes by city luminaries in praise of low-income housing and education, implying these city leaders are endorsing the construction of the building, when they have made no such endorsement.

 

Two Trees also began a mass-mailing campaign, sending out a glossy, full-color pamphlet asking for support -- much in the style of Bruce Ratner, who courted support for Atlantic Yards by sending out hundreds of thousands of such mailings. The campaign featured the slogan "It's all about the kids," and asked residents to say "yes" to the proposed development and voice their support for the public middle school and the first environmentally-sensitive, affordable housing directly to Council Member David Yassky, the Brooklyn Heights Democrat, who was criticized for not initially opposing the original 2004 plan. Yassky responded to the Two Trees campaign by saying that DUMBO does need a middle school, but not another gigantic development, and called the mailings, "a page from the Forest City Ratner playbook."

 

Why NYC Cannot Allow Dock Street DUMBO to be Built as Proposed

There is one fundamental reason why NYC cannot allow this building to be built as proposed:

 

 

The proposed building would rise less than 70 feet from and tower 14 stories over the Bridge roadway and graceful supporting cables. Rising 223 feet it would eclipse the Brooklyn roadway portion of the bridge and rival the height of the Brooklyn tower of the bridge (277 feet).

 

The building would destroy the respectful cascade of historic DUMBO architecture that gradually descends to below the level of the Brooklyn Bridge to form a bowl of historic buildings. This ranges from the 12-story Gair Buildings circa 1900 farther away from the bridge to the protected 4-story Empire-Fulton Ferry State Park circa 1850 across the street from the Dock Street site and the same distance from the Brooklyn Bridge.

 

(For more information on the deep historical roots of this area including George Washington's use of it in 1776, see http://www.placeinhistory.org/Projects/DUMBO/DUMBOChron1.htm.)

 

In attempting to justify the height of this 18-story building less than 70 feet away from the Brooklyn Bridge, Two Trees attempts to make reference to the Gair buildings set much farther back from the bridge. Even a casual observer would realize that appropriate height reference can only be made to adjacent buildings radiating outward from the Brooklyn Bridge with rings of appropriate height in parallel to the Bridge as one moves farther away.

 

Currently a respectful airspace has been preserved around the classic roadway leading up to the bridge. Throughout the long history of New York City no building has dared to attempt to encroach upon this buffer space on the Brooklyn side until now.

 

In the same way the out-of-scale Verizon building on the Manhattan side inserts itself as a sore-thumb prominent feature in the viewscape of the bridge, corrupting the graceful, historic lines of the Manhattan bridge entry and obscuring views of classic 19th century municipal buildings beyond including New York City Hall, this building would have the same devastating effect on the now still historically preserved Brooklyn bridge side with its historic Gair buildings in the background.

 

The following structures are immediately adjacent to the site of the proposed 18 story building, a site which used to house 1, 2, and 3 story buildings.

• The Brooklyn Bridge roadway at 6 stories.
• The NYC Police vehicle maintenance building at 2 stories.
• The historic Empire Stores at 4 stories.
• Several historic brownstones on Water at 2 and 4 stories.
• The parking lot between Front and York at 0 stories.
• Farther away from the bridge crossing a small parking lot of 0 stories, 57 Front street at 6 stories.
• A historical four story brownstone and the historical two story factory on 5 and 1 Front street.

 

Building an out-of-scale building on this site would affect and have implications for all of New York City, not just Brooklyn, nor DUMBO, nor any smaller group of residents concerned over losing views or property value. The views of the Brooklyn Bridge are owned by all of New York and all Americans. They are also a very significant tourist attraction. With the proposed building, these world-famous, panoramic views would be lost and gone forever, and in the process New York will lose a piece of its own identity.

 

People come from all over the world to New York to see the Brooklyn Bridge, arguably the most famous bridge in the world, and its importance as a landmark cannot be understated.

 

Significant rallies and parades are held on the Bridge to harness its power as a symbol of the city. It is owned and loved by all residents of New York City. Post 9/11 more than ever, the Bridge has become New York. And it brings people a tremendous amount of happiness to be around.

 

When it was built, the Brooklyn Bridge was the tallest structure in the New York skyline and to this day it has managed to retain that character. The Brooklyn Bridge is to Brooklyn as the Eiffel Tower is to Paris. As tourism increases, the true economic value of respecting the integrity of the bridge needs to be recognized.

 

From the vantage point of the streets and neighborhood of DUMBO, the new building would block the panoramic and postcard views of spans of the bridge as well as lower Manhattan, not to mention cast a huge shadow on the neighborhood and block large amounts of sunlight on Front, Water, and Main Street.

 

From the footpath of the bridge itself, it would crowd the openness of the promenade, making the walkway start to feel like a tunnel, especially as other developers rush in to also take advantage of the new precedent set by allowing this out-of-scale development.

 

The building would cast imposing morning shadows over pedestrians and traffic crossing the bridge. From Manhattan, it would appear to be attached to the bridge itself, filling in the pieces of sky that shine between the web-like cable supports and arches, and erase all of the historic warehouse buildings from the same time period that serve as its complementary backdrop. And from the park and river, it would tower alongside and contest the bridge, blocking sunlight, casting shadows, and restricting views. Such imposing shadows could also block out sunlight for a swath of the upcoming Brooklyn Waterfront Park, hampering access to light and air for park users.

 

A respectful backdrop depends on all buildings at the base of the bridge staying below the height of the bridge roadway. No building should compete with the Brooklyn Bridge.

 

There are numerous additional reasons why this building should not be built, including:

Impossible for NYC Police and Homeland Security to effectively secure the Brooklyn Bridge from terrorist attack.
 
1. This July 4^th the Brooklyn Bridge was closed to pedestrian traffic to curtail easy access to the Brooklyn Bridge at a time when city and government officials felt it prudent to do so. A tower 70-100 feet away from and rising 14 stories above the bridge would render such efforts futile.
2. NYPD police helicopters circle the bridge weekly, flying low, presumably conducting drills or monitoring for terrorist activities. The proposed building is so high and so close to the bridge it could impinge on the flight path of these helicopters.
3. The transient population inherent in a rental building makes it impossible to reliably investigate the background and intentions of every resident, much less their day-to-day guests. It would be a trivial exercise for a terrorist to either become a resident, befriend a resident, or simply just gain access to building common area or rooftop and then be ideally positioned to hand-toss an explosive device directly down onto the bridge roadway and adjacent supporting cables. This simple approach would easily defeat all the bomb detection equipment the city has employed at either end of the bridge and circumvent the city's shutting down the bridge to pedestrian and/or vehicular traffic.
4. It is important to note that during 9/11 the Brooklyn Bridge served as an indispensable escape route for millions of people otherwise trapped in downtown Manhattan. A building towering over this critical escape route would provide an ideal platform for terrorists wishing to cut off escape and/or take advantage of the vulnerability of such huge fleeing crowds with a secondary attack as terrorists have been known to do.
 
Deleterious impact on the tourism industry.
 
5. The importance of the Brooklyn Bridge as a landmark cannot be overstated: People come to New York from all over the world to see the Brooklyn Bridge. There are even Brooklyn Bridge fan clubs in Italy. New tourists spend approximately $15 billion and generated $220 million in hotel tax revenue last year. The industry overall is a $24 billion industry which generates more than $5 billion in city, state, and federal tax revenues supporting nearly 329,000 jobs in all five boroughs. On a daily basis, tens if not hundreds of thousands of tourists view the bridge from the South Street Seaport and stroll over the bridge.
6. When walking over the Bridge from Brooklyn, the new building will now be an unwanted guest in otherwise classic view of the gothic arches, crowding the openness of the promenade which would start to feel like a tunnel, until passing the proposed building.
7. When walking over the Bridge from Manhattan, the building will compete for attention with the Brooklyn-side tower. Looking up at the Bridge from the water and the park, the proposed building will loom like an intruder, making the Brooklyn-side tower seem crowded and feel disproportionately heavy.
8. With the building less than 70 feet from the bridge and spanning 136 feet of length, tourists walking across the bridge walkway to absorb the panoramic views of the NYC skyline would instead be presented with up-close, direct views into the living rooms, bedrooms, and personal activities of building residents.
 
Zoning is in place as part of the public interest to prohibit out-of-scale, out-of-place development. Quid-pro-quo "payoffs" must not change that.
 
9. In exchange for approval of rezoning and allowing this development Two Trees is simultaneously offering space for a middle school, affordable housing, and environmentally-conscious development. None of these causes have ever been championed by Two Trees development which has suddenly seemed to become very progressive indeed.
10. In fact Two Trees has in the past gruffly rejected multiple attempts by charter schools to rent space from it in the neighborhood and is rumored to be planning not to renew space for several large nonprofit educational organizations. Two Trees is not offering green construction nor affordable housing in its other developments. Only Dock Street.
11. It is clear that recognizing the massive opposition such a building will evoke, Two Trees has decided to try to stab at all possible neighborhood and political "hot buttons" in an attempt to blunt major civic opposition for an inappropriate building.
12. The citizens of New York rely on zoning for a reason - to keep out-of-scale, out of place buildings from being built, regardless of the amount of money to be made from such a building.
13. It is the responsibility of government officials and elected representatives to make zoning determinations solely for legitimate, noncommercial reasons of urban planning propriety without influence by financial inducements from developers focused only on their own profits. Rezoning rulings must not be treated as bargaining chips to squeeze concessions out of developers.
14. In the past 10 years DUMBO's character has changed from industrial to residential, and there is no reason not to consider allowing scale-appropriate residential development of this site. However the same density and height limitations that were originally determined as appropriate for these parcels based on their proximity to the bridge are just as valid now as when they were set. If anything those prior limitations on density and height are inadequate, not taking into account the greatly increased respect New York City has displayed in the past several decades for preserving profound historical structures like the Brooklyn Bridge and the increased importance public security has taken in government decision making in the past 5 years.
15. A developer's offer to build an 18-story residential rental building 70 feet away from the Statue of Liberty would be summarily rejected, no matter if it were a green building, featured low income housing, or had a school. It's simply an inappropriate location for that type of building. The situation here is the same.
16. Quid-pro-quo offers by developers must not trump city zoning determinations. Zoning determinations are made for fundamental reasons of legitimate historical and neighborhood context. The integrity of the Brooklyn Bridge must never be "for sale" no matter how much a developer offers for it.
 
Building and location are ill-suited to accommodate a middle school.
 
17. The Board of Education has not announced any interest or intent to establish a school at this site, nor have they publicly commented on the proposal. Two Trees has not received approval for the school from the Board of Education, they have simply added it to their proposal as a marketing tactic. Two Trees will not pay for the school portion of the project expecting the city to foot the rent bill. According to Council Member Yassky, this makes a big difference, because "If all they're saying is, we'll offer the space to the Board of Education so they can buy it, well, the Board of Education can buy space in a lot of places."
18. A good question is whether the Board of Education feels a middle school in a mixed-use building with a transient, high turnover population living in rental units in an optimal location for a school. Many other better proportioned properties are available and positioned closer to suitable transportation and closer to adjoining neighborhoods. The city councilmember's and Board of Education's site selection process should not be overridden by the unilateral decision of a private developer to offer space for a school. School site selection should be made considering a range of options and according to criteria that are focused solely on the public interest.
19. For example, there is already heavy traffic congestion on the narrow Front/Main/Water/Dock streets. The multiple school buses and parent cars that would be dropping off hundreds of students may be untenable. The narrow Belgian block streets in the neighborhood were not designed for that capacity of traffic, and street crowding has already become a problem in DUMBO. The necessary parking and road space for busses to load, unload and turn around does not exist.
20. And if a middle school is to be built in DUMBO, why choose this particular site? Why squeeze a school into a middle floor of a mixed-use building when DUMBO has better suited, undeveloped lots that could house a dedicated school building? In fact, DUMBO lays claim to one of the largest undeveloped lots in the city at 85 Jay Street. Have such sites been even considered as potentially more appropriate for a school, or are such decisions as public school placement to be made by private developers?
21. New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelley has stated "The iconic Brooklyn Bridge caught al Qaeda's eye after 9/11 when its operative Iyman Faris was tasked to see if it could be taken down. Another Islamic radical, Rashad Baz, was drawn to the Brooklyn Bridge in 1994..." (New York Post, 06/02/06). When it comes to selecting a safe site for middle school children to study, relax, and play, 70 feet away from a high profile terrorist target is not a responsible selection for a school. Any parent with children attending such a school would with good reason be in constant worry for the safety of their children.
22. The age range for the middle school, children ages 12-15, do not exist in DUMBO whose children are entirely of age 0-5.
23. Further, retail stores in DUMBO cater to professional adults with gourmet tastes in food and fashion (Almondine, Jacques Torres Chocolate, Foragers, Loopy Mango, Zoe). Middle school children will find few age-appropriate services or activities in the neighborhood.
24. The subway infrastructure in DUMBO cannot support the traffic that this new building would create. The F train, which is the primary and only true service point in DUMBO, is already overburdened. For students riding the F train, a 5-6 block walk through the neighborhood would be necessary. And the A/C/2/3 trains are further away with dangerous intersections in between, including the major on- and off-ramp to the Brooklyn Bridge and the Brooklyn Queens Expressway.
25. Finally, Councilmember Yassky has now created a task force focused on finding the most appropriate location for a middle school in the greater area that best serves the public interest and not any particular developer's interests.
 
There is no pressing need for more housing in DUMBO.
 
26. In the surrounding 5-mile radius, more housing is not needed. New condos in the immediate area include J Condo and Beacon Tower, which will be bringing thousands of new residents into DUMBO in the near term. DUMBO continues to exhibit normal-high residential vacancy rates versus other neighborhoods in New York. Another condo, 99 Gold, did not sell after being on the market for a year, was turned into rental units, and still contains a high percentage of vacancies among its 55 units. 133 Water Street also recently converted to rentals putting another 52 units on the market in DUMBO. To exacerbate this glut, two more luxury buildings are already underway to be developed at 37 and 43 Bridge Street, not to mention Atlantic Yards which isn't far away.
 
Undermining the abutting DUMBO and Old Fulton Ferry Landmark districts.
 
27. The Landmarks Preservation Commission is currently actively considering landmark protection for DUMBO. At a public hearing in October, 2007 over a dozen preservationist experts and local and state politicians spoke vigorously and extensively on behalf of protecting and preserving the rich and historically significant architecture, charm, and ambiance in DUMBO from the streets to the buildings to the filtered sunlight to the skylines.
28. This proposed 18 story glass and steel building would significantly mar the integrity of DUMBO's character. Towering above adjacent 4-story historic waterfront old tobacco warehouse and all the other historical buildings in DUMBO, this glaring, out-of-place modern structure would undermine the benefits of the already established Old Fulton Ferry and proposed DUMBO landmark districts (http://www.nyc.gov/html/lpc/html/faqs/faq_about.shtml).
 
Two Trees' track record of bait and switch to stakeholders.
 
29. In past condominium offerings Two Trees did disclose its plans to build on Dock Street to potential buyers in several of its buildings. However in the past several years it stopped providing that disclosure. Instead, over the past year and still ongoing (see July 15^th, 2007 New York Times Classified and October, 2007 video at http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid271529994?bctid=1256239569). Two Trees has lied to and continues to lie to potential buyers by aggressively marketing and charging premium prices for Brooklyn Bridge views to homebuyers while secretly planning, strategizing, and lobbying to itself build a building to destroy those views.
30. That Two Trees is actively attempting to defraud home buyers is not just a problem for those home buyers, but should serve as a red flag to the city as well. The behavior establishes that Two Trees business values embrace heavily marketing a benefit to stakeholders that it knows full well it will not be delivering or it can wiggle out of later.
31. Two Trees abuse of its best customers serves as a warning and predictor of how Two Trees might treat other even more vulnerable stakeholders in the Dock Street building: schoolchildren and low-income residents.
32. Specifically, Two Trees is now subject to a federal discrimination suit over race and disability discrimination at its Court House Apartments, a 321-unit mixed-income rental building in downtown Brooklyn (http://www.brooklyneagle.com/categories/category.php?category_id=27&id=15996). Two Trees received a $92 million government loan, eligibility for federal low-income tax credits, abatements of New York City property tax, and zoning benefits in exchange for providing 64 affordable apartments under the city's 80/20 program. The suit alleges Two Trees screens out otherwise qualified applicants by imposing excessive and burdensome requirements (lengthy interviews with both the prospective tenant and the tenant's current landlord, "home visits" to the current residence of the tenant, inquiries into physical disabilities of the tenant, proof of enrollment in school for each child of the tenant, and reviews of Housing Court and utility bill payment records). It is rumored that by employing such excessive subjective criteria, Two Trees is able to effectively redistribute the low income housing to "friends and family" of Two Trees' friends and supporters.
33. Clearly, it is not hard to find loopholes, blame external circumstances, or play games with prior promises after a building has been built.

 

Conclusion

Except for Two Trees, no one wants this building built. Everyone recognizes if this building is built close to and towering above the bridge, something significant will be lost. The Brooklyn Bridge is owned and loved by all citizens of New York City and the United States. It is a treasure that we, as citizens, have inherited with an obligation to protect for ourselves and the generations to come.

 

Please put your vigorous support behind keeping any development of the Dock Street site below the height of the bridge roadway, showing the respect that the world famous Brooklyn Bridge deserves.