The Repurposing of the Armory at Bedford and UNION

whynot_31

The soccer club weighs in: 

"If you believe it is time to create new athletic, educational and skill-building opportunities for young people in Crown Heights, stand up and support the city’s plan to redevelop the Bedford-Union Armory with a rec center that will positively impact thousands of local families. By working together, we can level the playing field for kids of all backgrounds and ensure a brighter, more just future for our city."

https://patch.com/new-york/prospectheights/op-ed-bedford-union-armory-can-help-close-achievement-gap-crown-heights

Here's photos of their teams:

 http://www.centralbrooklynsoccer.com

whynot_31

BFC seems to have found its stride, and is rapidly rolling out programming to shut up the opposition.

b_funk

They've created a facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/bedfordunionarmory/

doughmane

And here is the evidence of self-enrichment.  I hope someone challenges him. 

"Both Mr. Hamilton and Ms. Alcantara received powerful chairmanships after joining the I.D.C. Mr. Hamilton leads the Banks Committee, while Ms. Alcantara, in her first year as senator, leads the Labor Committee.

The financial bonus for becoming a chairman is evident: Mr. Hamilton, for example, had previously been a member of the mainline Democrats, led by Senator Andrea Stewart-Cousins, and was the ranking member of the Banking Committee, earning a stipend of $9,500 a year.

In November, Mr. Hamilton left Ms. Stewart-Cousins’s camp for Mr. Klein’s conference, saying that “they get results.” Now, as banking chairman, Mr. Hamilton gets a $15,000 stipend — a $5,500 raise."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/09/nyregion/new-york-independent-democratic-conference-republicans.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fnyregion&action=click&contentCollection=nyregion&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=sectionfront

whynot_31

Yes, those opposed to the project have financial support from labor.

Those in favor of the project have financial support from the developer

whynot_31

Twitter feed launched:

 

https://twitter.com/ArmoryRecCenter/status/862699128098365440

stjohnspl

New Article: http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20170518/OPINION/170519936/armory-plan-is-right-for-crown-heights

crownheightster

BFC lost Laurie's backing (guess Ede Fox scared the s*it out of her!): https://ny.curbed.com/2017/5/18/15660384/bedford-union-armory-laurie-cumbo

whynot_31

" Cumbo’s announcement Thursday afternoon comes just a week before the City Planning Commission will vote on the project. The final say, however. rests with the City Council, and council members usually tend to defer to the elected official from that neighborhood, so at this point it seems very unlikely that the project will move forward." --- Yup, it is effectively dead

Marco555

So... assuming this dies, what happens... Can organizations resume holding events in there? Will it be forced to sit and languish until another idea is proposed? Homeless shelter?

whynot_31

Sit and languish until money falls from the sky that will simultaneously allow: - deeply subsidized affordable housing, - highly paid union construction workers, and - a recreation center that is open 24 hours a day with programming that is simultaneously attractive to the area's wealthiest and poorest.

whynot_31

Laurie's statement: http://myemail.constantcontact.com/Announcement-on-the-Bedford-Union-Armory-Project.html?soid=1116258586297&aid=5fQzUgdEUZk ---------------------------------------------------------------"We thank Council Member Laurie Cumbo and the other elected officials for recognizing that the Bedford-Union Armory plan is deeply flawed and does not represent the community needs. We especially thank her for her support on the issue that any developer chosen for Bedford Armory meet with the New York City trade unions, utilize local hire, and make sure construction is done at the highest level of safety standard," said Patrick Purcell, Jr., Executive Director, GNY LECET Laborers & Employers Cooperation and Education Trust.

whynot_31

An analysis that does not focus on Union's as much: http://www.politico.com/states/new-york/city-hall/story/2017/05/18/after-months-of-hesitating-cumbo-to-oppose-bedford-armory-project-112153

stjohnspl

What do you think about it? It seems like they are passing up the best possible deal for this building. Maybe it is the press that is spinning it that way? Hard to see how such an expensive project can be made without some market rate housing or a rec center that charges high prices.

stjohnspl

Also, a very interesting article on the current use of some armories around the country: https://www.citylab.com/design/2017/05/a-recipe-for-getting-armory-reuse-projects-right/527082/

whynot_31

"While 20 percent of the condos and 50 percent of the rental units in the current proposal are classified as affordable, their designation has come under scrutiny given the actual incomes of area residents." ...............So, are we going to wait to build it until the area's low income residents are no longer present, that way the units look affordable?

Marco555

"...............So, are we going to wait to build it until the area's low income residents are no longer present, that way the units look affordable? " Certainly setting themselves up for it with all this talk about meeting the community's needs.

whynot_31

Except for the occasional concert, the armory has sat vacant since 2011. Do you think they would allow me to rent it for a TedTalk style presentation? Here's what I am thinking should be the topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_by_committee

crownheightster

I think -- just like the way that Bertha screwed low-income people out of a chance to get an affordable apartment at the Barclays Center housing options by dragging out lawsuits during the time that the low-income people stopped being able to live in the priority area for getting such apartments -- this armory will sit vacant for another 8 years, until another developer comes along and does the same project, just with less community opposition because that community will have moved on by then. I truly don't understand how any of these activists think that this armory redevelopment can be funded by a local development corps. I don't understand why they think that all of a sudden, there will be magic funding available to build housing affordable to people at NYCHA levels (the funding does not exist anymore). I can't believe that they are willing to screw a bunch of local non-profits out of affordable office space. I can't believe they are passing up an opportunity for an actual, usable recreational space, that would be available nearly for free to community members and kids. Maybe Laurie will get a concession from the developer on the condos, and change her mind. What a lost opportunity.

Marco555

Thinking logically and big picture probabaly doesn't make sense... the people who organize and vote in blocks want it to be all affordable and they have the most to gain if it goes that way. The others, like many of us on the forum it seems, aren't invested enough to organize loudly and proudly. We don't have the same incentive (like highly subsidized housing for life) to care enough to make a real impact in politicians lives. So politicians follow the real and promised votes. Even when they don't get what they want, they still get the votes. And that matters most to them.

crownheightster

I'm just baffled because the same crowds are also saying that NYCHA is horrible, underfunded, no repairs, quality of life is not great, concentration of poverty is not desirable, probably have to go high-rise to make the economics work...and yet it seems what they want the Armory to be is a similar all-low income housing development. Which will come with all the attendant problems of such facilities, because the market-rate housing helps keep the property managers invested in making sure the complex is maintained. Oh well. Like @Marco555 says, its not like people are thinking rationally.

whynot_31

Many people fail to understand that it is not JUST land that is expensive in NYC. ...The costs of labor, materials, taxes, insurance, etc is also quite high. One needs an ongoing funding stream for these, that is far more stable than the present politicians and popular will.

mcpoet

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/nimby-compoops-bedford-union-armory-crown-heights-article-1.3180442 The Daily News shares your sentiments. It's bizarre how much the anti-development folks are starting to remind me of right wing Republicans in their commitment to saying no to everything, even when it harms their own self interest. There seems to be a fundamental failure to understand the realities of supply/demand economics at work here. Housing costs have actually stopped rising (or have even gone down) because of the boom in new housing construction. Unless you plan on eliminating demand by returning NYC back to its crime filled, broke past, the only thing you can do is increase supply. By preventing that the people clamoring for more affordable housing are ironically the biggest barrier to housing becoming more affordable. The other weird part of this is how the same people opposed to condos are also opposed to shelters and even take issue with affordable housing for those making 40,000 to 80,000/household. So basically, any housing that isn't for people making less than 30,000 is problematic, but "ew, I don't want poor people living in shelters near me." The same way the GOP thinks that obstructing progress will somehow magically take us back to a magical 50s utopia that never existed, so too do these folks think that simply obstructing anything and everything will return Crown Heights to....I don't even know when. The reality is that most people want all the benefits of development, while all the costs are apparently to be paid with magical fairy dust. This plan would have effectively funded benefits to long time members of the community at no cost to themselves, at the expense of the very newcomers they so despise, and even that's not good enough. I have no problem with differences of opinion, but I loathe stupidity and irrationality, and that's the only explanation for why we are where we are now. Ugh.

whynot_31

Unsurprisingly, I have not read any coverage of the issue that must-be-never-spoken. IE If we were to allow market rate units that were even more upscale than those planned, a sufficient subsidy for units for very low income people would exist. However, the very rich and the very poor do no get along and can't live together peacefully. ...and a seperate building for each would not fly. Poor doors are political suicide in a district that will not hesitate to call their politicians Uncle Toms.

crownheightster

I see a day when the Armory becomes "The Armory Houses." And people still won't be happy b/c the only rec available will be a battered basketball court.

Marco555

@mcpoet , I'd suggest you're giving the anti armory people too much credit. This isn't about the benefit of the community, neighborhood or city. They want to benefit themselves and nothing more. Plus, theyre organized enough to demand and have reelection-seeking politicians listen. Logic doesn't win here, delivered votes do. Also, it seems that for whatever reason, they've been told to or shown they can expect nothing less.

whynot_31

The unions already fail to get their members onto commercial builds. ...if they can't get their members on government builds, there stops being much of a reason for unions from the perspective of the average member. These contracts are "must win" for them. The days of flexing their muscles are gone, and they now view this as a fight for the survival of their union.

mugofmead111

Marco555 said:

Thinking logically and big picture probabaly doesn't make sense... the people who organize and vote in blocks want it to be all affordable and they have the most to gain if it goes that way. The others, like many of us on the forum it seems, aren't invested enough to organize loudly and proudly. We don't have the same incentive (like highly subsidized housing for life) to care enough to make a real impact in politicians lives. So politicians follow the real and promised votes. Even when they don't get what they want, they still get the votes. And that matters most to them.

What do you mean "highly subsidized housing"? Are you referring to rent-stabilization? I remember one of the officers from the community affairs division of the 71st Precinct had made a comment about that during a contentious Community Board 9 meeting; he got booed. Not everyone in "affordable housing" is receiving subsidies toward rent.

mugofmead111

crownheightster said:

I'm just baffled because the same crowds are also saying that NYCHA is horrible, underfunded, no repairs, quality of life is not great, concentration of poverty is not desirable, probably have to go high-rise to make the economics work...and yet it seems what they want the Armory to be is a similar all-low income housing development. Which will come with all the attendant problems of such facilities, because the market-rate housing helps keep the property managers invested in making sure the complex is maintained. Oh well. Like @Marco555 says, its not like people are thinking rationally.

NYCHA certainly has its issues. Would you define what you mean by "low-income housing"? NYCHA claims(http://www1.nyc.gov/site/nycha/eligibility/eligibility.page):

Eligibility The New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) provides decent and affordable housing in a safe and secure living environment for low- and moderate-income residents throughout the five boroughs.

NYCHA doesn't only provide "low-income housing". Also, those who are of "low-income" aren't the only ones worried about displacement.

mugofmead111

mcpoet said:

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/nimby-compoops-bedford-union-armory-crown-heights-article-1.3180442 The other weird part of this is how the same people opposed to condos are also opposed to shelters and even take issue with affordable housing for those making 40,000 to 80,000/household. So basically, any housing that isn't for people making less than 30,000 is problematic, but "ew, I don't want poor people living in shelters near me."

While there are probably some who oppose the shelters because they don't want homeless people hanging around in the neighborhood, there is a larger issue of fairness: some neighborhoods tend to have a percentage of shelters that is disproportionate to that of other neighborhoods, when they are supposed to be distributed evenly throughout the city. *shrug*