Big plans for Canal’s future

The Brooklyn Paper
Share on TwitterTweet
Share on Facebook

Don’t miss our updates:

Gonorrhea aside, the Gowanus Canal is one hot body of water right now. Everyone from developers, to environmentalists, to the special effects masters who invent gags for David Letterman in a canal-front warehouse, has a different idea of what should happen — or not happen — along its oil-laced banks.

This week, however, a veritable dream team of community advocates, including the Carroll Gardens Association, spoke out with a single voice — one that members believe stands a chance of being heard over the ka-ching of the deep-pocketed developers who dream of transforming the gritty, industrial stretch into a wonderland of canal-front condos.

The coalition’s Platform for Responsible Redevelopment of the Gowanus Canal, sent to City Planning Commissioner Amanda Burden on Wednesday, is long and a little wonky, but it’s important for all of us who care about keeping carpenters, artists and other non-investment brokers living here.

Here are the main principles (don’t worry, I’ll be brief):

• The area between Bond Street and the canal from Sackett to Third streets should be rezoned for mixed-income housing. Every site with more than 30 units should be required to sell or rent 30 percent of the units at below-market rates. The city-owned Public Place site at Fifth and Smith streets should be 60 percent affordable.

• Manufacturing, industrial, arts and production businesses should be retained and encouraged to grow in existing manufacturing areas south, northeast and northwest of the canal between Baltic and Fifth streets. East of the canal, between Sackett and Third streets, developers should be allowed to build housing as long as they include space for light industry (artist’s studios, carpenters shops) on the ground floors.

• Landowners and the city should work together to create a clean canal where all can enjoy the splendor of Lavender Lake without gagging on the scent of rotting eggs, or catching an STD.

• Construction should be done by union labor.

• All development should keep in character with the surrounding low-rise area.

But as always, the devil is in the details.

Already there has been some sparring over how the redevelopment should be done.

In a presentation to Community Board 6 this spring, City Planning officials said they were considering allowing canal-front buildings to rise 14 stories. Grumbles were audible then, and I don’t imagine that they will quiet as the process moves forward. Responsible Redevelopment coalition member and housing advocate Brad Lander said this week that some residents may just have to, well, suck it up.

“Affordable housing, a mix of uses and environmental quality can all be achieved, but that may take more height and density than some people like,” he said.

Lander said these hot-button details would be hashed out at public meetings later this year as the city moves forward with the public land-use review that will precede any rezoning.

That’s great, but lost in the coming debate will no doubt be the most pressing question: How did that canal get gonorrhea, anyway? Ariella Cohen is a freelancer writer.

The Kitchen Sink

There’s another perk to hanging out at the Red Hook Senior Center on Walcott Street. The Postal Service will deploy a mobile mail unit to the center on the second, third and fourth Mondays of every month. …

Global warming’s been in full effect this fall, but the flu season is around the bend. Assemblywoman Joan Millman and Long Island College Hospital helped 200 adults get vaccinations at her district office on Smith Street last week. …

Tuesday’s zoning hearing at City Hall made it look like the Gowanus Nursery will be uprooted from its home at 45 Summit St. to make way for housing, but Councilman Bill DeBlasio and Borough President Markowitz have pledged to help find a new home for the greenhouse.

Updated 4:33 pm, July 9, 2018
Today’s news:
Share on TwitterTweet
Share on Facebook

Don’t miss our updates:

Reasonable discourse

Brooklynjon says:
Any development of the canal and related brownfields should be preceded by research to determine the impact on the current population of Norway rats, stray dogs, and Neisseria gonorrheae. Simply plunging ahead with development would be socially irresponsible.
I agree that there needs to be a mix of income levels in any residential development. Why should the rich have the exclusive right to live on a contaminated brownfield adjacent to a body of water that becomes an open sewer every time it rains? This is an outrage. The poor have the right to live in an enviromentally compromised setting also.
But even more than the poor, we must not forget the rats, dogs, and bacteria that reside there now. Anthing else would be speciesist.
Oct. 27, 2007, 1:33 pm

Comments closed.

First name
Last name
Your neighborhood
Email address
Daytime phone

Your letter must be signed and include all of the information requested above. (Only your name and neighborhood are published with the letter.) Letters should be as brief as possible; while they may discuss any topic of interest to our readers, priority will be given to letters that relate to stories covered by The Brooklyn Paper.

Letters will be edited at the sole discretion of the editor, may be published in whole or part in any media, and upon publication become the property of The Brooklyn Paper. The earlier in the week you send your letter, the better.

Keep it local!

Stay in touch with your community. Subscribe to our free newsletter: