The Big Issues With Culver El

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.