Greenpoint Landing, for those readers who are unfamiliar, is the proposed and now, approved, project that encompasses 20 acres of the Greenpoint waterfront, and will include the construction of ten 30-40 story towers, as well as a new school and a public park.
The final vote on the project was cast on Tuesday 12/10 by the City Council, and although Council Member Stephen Levin won some benefits through his negotiations, many questions remain unanswered.
The vote was based on a hearing that took place the previous week at City Hall, where the developers presented their plan, answered questions from Levin, and heard testimonies from those opposed and supported the project. But due to a last minute location change and an overlap of several meetings, at least 10 of those speakers who were called to testify were not available by the time they were called upon.
Some of the onlookers could be heard whispering that this was a conspiracy, intentionally arranged so that the voices of those in opposition to the massive building projects would not be heard.
The plan is highly controversial, with many residents concerned about issues relating to infrastructure strains, transportation, affordable housing and most urgently, the environmental impacts of developing on and near a National Superfund Site.
The actions voted on and passed covered two parts of the Future site of Greenpoint Landing , Lot 6 or as it’s lovingly named, “The Sludge Tank,” and 219 West St, the future site of a K-8th grade public school.
The development of Greenpoint Landing, despite protests, is a right granted by the 2005 rezoning of North Brooklyn, approved under the Bloomberg Administration. Therefore the development is already allowed by law “as of right.”
At the start of the meeting, Levin began by saying, “I want to make sure that I’m being very clear here for members of the community who have raised concerns about this project….A disapproval of the actions before us today would not prevent the Greenpoint Landing project from going forward.”
The vote included some positive additions to the development plan.
The developers, Greenpoint Landing Associates (G.L.A.) are now contributing an additional $3 million in funding for Newton Barge Park. In addition, they are giving 25k annually to the neighborhood to keep the new school open after hours for use as a community space.
The GLA also agreed that the 431 affordable housing units on site will be “permanently affordable” for local families, and threw in an additional $500,000 from the city for tenant anti-harassment and displacement costs. GLA is “exploring” the addition of affordable three-bedroom units; right now, there are only plans for one and two bedroom, and studio units, making the affordable housing less suited for the needs of larger families. Senior housing may also be added.
In addition, the city will fund a transportation plan for the area, to ease the congestion on the already-burden G and L trains. Free shuttle bus services will take residents and visitors from Greenpoint Landing to the 7 train at Court Square and the G train at India Street. There will also be a car-share facility inside the constructed buildings.
However, some serious concerns still remain.
For starters, Greenpoint Landing is located in a designated flood zone. The developers assured the council that they were taking the necessary building precautions to make sure that the site is safe in the case of natural disaster. But the fact remains that this is the same area that experienced flooding during Hurricane Sandy last year…oh, and tthis isn’t just your average flood water. It’s toxic.
In addition, the development arguably rests over or at the very least, in close proximity to, a toxic oil plume, a result of the Greenpoint Oil Spill of the 1950’s and chemical plasticizers from the former Nuhart Plastics plant that leaked into the soil. If you’d like more details about the types of toxic waste that currently rest in the depths of Newtown Creek and the surrounding soil, New York Magazine put together this helpful list to clarify. We can’t say that the traces of “liquid cow” and “black mayo” (not to mention sewage, used condoms, and dead rats) make us want to pack up and move to Greenpoint Landing anytime soon.
According to Catherine Kwan, the EPA’s project manager for the Newton Creek Superfund site, the EPA’s Phase I investigation, which included extensive air, water, and sediment sampling, found over 1600 chemicals in the creek. The findings are still being analyzed. The Phase II investigation will include a Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment, which will determine just how hazardous the site’s contamination is.
The GLA agreed, upon the vote, that the NY State Department of Environmental Conservation will be required to lead a comprehensive cleanup and testing for the contamination underneath Dupont and Franklin Streets. This “remediation” of the site must take place before construction of the school begins. This includes soil and groundwater cleanup of any chemicals or toxins that would negatively affect children’s health, as well as cumulative health impacts. However, the process of air quality cleanup is questionable, especially since the toxins in the air and the impact of those toxins on public health, haven’t even been determined yet by the EPA.
The agreement also states that “no environmental contamination has been found on the Greenpoint Landing site, including the school site.” However, the data to support this claim has not been released to the public.
“According to the latest information from the Department of Environmental Conservation and analysis by the developers, the contamination from the Nuhart site has not reached the school site,” Matt Ojala, who runs communication for Levin, told me over email. “I don’t have copies of this data right now, but we are expecting information from the School Construction Authority as to their remediation procedures in the coming days.”
In response to Levin’s questions about sending children to school in a potentially health-threatening environment, the School Construction Authority claimed that they did an investigation of the site in 2005 and are aware of the environmental concerns. Again, the results of this investigation have not been released.
“As part of the design/construction, there will be an active sub-slab depressurication system and a soil-vapor barrier to prevent the potential migration of petrolium or other organic vapors into the building,” the SCA representative said, during the hearing.
He assured the Council that the school site must be 100% clean (having gone through environmental remediation) before ground is broken.
The sludge tank that currently rests on the property will be demolished in 2014 and replaced by a residential building. Likewise, environmental remediation will, so we are told, free the soil of toxins before construction begins. But again, what about air-borne toxins?
Some Greenpointers are still unsatisfied with the negotiations. Kim Mason of the opposition organization, Save Greenpoint, argues that the according to the Superfund Map, the phalate plume (the toxic bi-product of Nuhart Plastics) rests at the door of the future school site.
“This is a rough estimate; they don’t know the exact edges of the plume,” she explained. “But it doesn’t matter –it’s too close for comfort. This is a public health threat.”
So, why didn’t the city find an alternate location to build a new school, one that isn’t chalk full of toxic industrial waste? Because they were able to get the land from the developers at a discount.
The NYC Department of Education said just that in their proposal for the school’s construction. Because the developers agreed to sell the school land to the city for a “nominal amount” (far below the actual land value), they write, “no alternate sites have been considered.” The other reason that they provide is that that school will be able to accommodate all of the future children who live in the new buildings…at Greenpoint Landing.
Upon further examination of the site maps, it appears that the main areas of the toxic plume (part of the Superfund site) are between Clay and Dupont Streets. That is approximately one block from the location of the proposed community school which will house 640 children.
Let’s just hope those students don’t try to go for a swim after class.
For a close-up version of the development map, click here. You can also watch the entire Greenpoint Landing Hearing here.
As it stands now, only the immediate area of the school site will perhaps be remediated, the source of contamination has yet to be addressed.
Perhaps all of this confusion could have been avoided if Philip Habib & Associates had prepared a comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement , for the 2005 Greenpoint-Williamsburg rezoning.
You can buy Matt Ojala’s reasoning why 77 Commercial hearing was pushed back for hours, but it doesn’t hold any water. First, they didn’t know 77 Commercial hearing had the most speakers because they didn’t know how many people would sign to speak in the all the hearings that started later. And second, it wasn’t pushed to last; it was pushed to run along Greenpoint Landing’s hearing, so unless you’re God and posses the power of ubiquity, you couldn’t talk in both even if you spent there the eight and a half (8.5) hours they made this mockery last.
The representatives didn’t want anybody to hear whatever their voters had to say, and they did everything they could to have it their way.
With respect to the city’s transportation plan, all I can say is that I work at home. I pity you, 7, L, and G users. I hope you keep developers and politicians in your prayers as you ride these trains in rush hour.
About the comprehensive cleanup and testing, good luck! It would probably work if there was any policing to make sure that it actually happens. The policy until today has been that the developers “say” they did the test, and the land is clean, and our politicians take their word for it without asking for any proof that that’s true. Now, if you want to see any test’s results, you better get ready for the bureaucratic roller-coaster of your life because the only truth is that no one wants you to really know.
It should be pointed, though, that the elementary school’s location is wrong in Greenpoint Landing’s map above. The school is to sit on the opposite corner, diagonally speaking, to where it is indicated –so, Southwest corner of the Dupont/Franklyn intersection, literally next to the playground… really, a children playground and a superfund next to each other. It almost seem logic that now they won’t care about building an elementary school, too.
Yes, indeed, as shown in the plume map (which, by the way, took the threat of the Environmental Protection Agency –the Feds, so that you know what I’m saying– to see the light of day) the plume of plasticizer reaches the school site. I mean, how can anyone say that “no environmental contamination has been found on the Greenpoint Landing site, including the school site” when it is a SUPERFUND????
The deal for this plot of land was: (1) Greenpoint Landing buys the plot from the city (2) Greenpoint Landing leases the plot to the city to build an elementary school but retains its residential development rights (3) Greenpoint Landing moves those residential development rights to a plot of land in a location of their choosing to build another monstrosity.
Levin and his troupe may try to sell us this close door agreement as a victory. You’ve been left to wonder ‘for whom’?
You’re right about the school location. The top map shows the school site on Franklin Street, when it is actually located at 219 West Street.
The housing project & school are to be located on the newly formed Block 2494, Lot 1, separated from Block 2472, by an extension of West Street.
There will always be people against development and advancement of a property. Property owners have the right to do what they wish and no one has the right to decide what should be built. Vacant land is useless and development creates housing.jobs.and business. We must go foward not backward. What is amusing is that many who oppose development are transplanted hipsters from other parts of the USA
Dave – Your argument is absurd. Do not leave it to business to improve our communities. Leave it to business to make money for that business. Period. Development will always happen and those jobs you speak of will come with it, but there must always be reason. And that reason will not come from developers; it will come from a fair sharing of information, and debate.
The nicest and most functional communities across the land and across the globe are those with effective zoning and community government, where one powerful business person or group does not have the sway to affect an extremely profit motivated change that will have a long lasting and negative effect on the community at large.
Bloomberg successfully green lighted this project. We will most likely have to live with the costs of this. Why is it so important to have 10 high rises in a community gasping for park land and open space? Why did this stretch of land have to be zoned for high rises instead of 6 or 8 story buildings which would have preserved most of the open sky and sunlight for the surrounding neighborhood? Instead, the neighborhood in this area must undergo a truly massive makeover. This shouldn’t be the God given right of a land owner. This really is the result of well-connected land owners who know people in high places and who planted seeds over the course of 10-15 years. These same developers and land owners have no problem whatsoever leaving these sites as weed and rubble filled eyesores for year upon year, never doing the slightest beautification or maintenance along the way. The only effort put in is behind closed doors, and no change is seen until they have achieved their goal of approval and financing.
Why not start the larger development in a decaying industrial zone further from the river? Maybe Bushwick or Maspeth, both areas which are transforming anyway, and which have a developing appeal. The housing and jobs would still be provided. If the answer is that this waterfront project is more commercially viable, then I guess we are saying that we ignore the long term loss for the short term gain and green light massive profit for the massively wealthy, so that they can build waterfront condos for the reasonably wealthy. Bummer.
Other cities manage responsible waterfront development. Even Manhattan’s west side serves as an example of responsible planning along the waterfront. But that is case where neighborhood groups were stronger and wealthier and more connected.
Did anyone raise the point that the proposed school would be located about 1/3 of a mile from 400 McGuinness which currently houses 14 violent sex offenders? (The NY legal boundary is 1000 feet.)
A school would be great. But, parents would probably feel better if the neighborhood was less criminally violent sexoffender-ly.
@Dave – completely agree. This neighborhood is going in the right direction, “onwards and upwards”. It’s important to look at the details ie. environmental protection etc. however, we must focus on the larger picture – more people means more money in the area, supporting business and entrepreneurship in Greenpoint. I mean come on, that lamp store on Franklin St. charges over 400 dollars for an old vintage lamp that I could have found in a dumpster… it’s people with money who can afford to buy the things that hipsters are selling. Let’s get over ourselves Greenpointers and stop being so overly fundamentalist and exclusionary.
@DD – your remark about sex offenders. Maybe the reason they live in Greenpoint is because it’s quiet and not near a school. Wouldn’t you prefer it if we built a school and then those sex offenders had to leave? Let’s think in solutions here, a school would make our neighborhood productive and more safe – why should we have to work around sex offenders… they will have to work around us and move the hell out of here if there was a school because they would be breaking parol… win – win.
Leave a comment