|
|
|
|
|
|
by weeksie
2694 days ago
|
|
|
1. There were plenty of screeching YIMBYs, particularly the ones who showed up at community board meetings. 2. The 1990s were literally decades ago 3. Sarah Roosevelt is across the Bowery + a block. 4. I sure hope they do a decent job on the green space that's left, it's the only reason I support the project Also, this is 100 units. Again, I'm on-balance for the project but it's not really that impactful and it alters the neighborhood significantly. My big gripe is the just that you can be YIMBY _and_ give a shit about neighborhood character. Pretending that ESG isn't a unique feature of the neighborhood is ridiculous. Nobody walks by that for the first time without going "wow, that's pretty neat." It's a bummer that we'll lose another piece of the city, even if it is, on balance, worth it. |
|
|
2. 2013 is not decades ago.
3. Still, two blocks/a five minute walk.
I don't think that NOTHING will be lost, and I have literally never heard anyone advocating for this project say that, and definitely not from any official organization that represents a group of people. Contrast that to the Twitter account of Friends of Elizabeth Street Garden, which regularly peddles in misleading information and rhetoric.
It's 123 units, not 100. And it's only that small because the city anticipated huge pushback from the community if it were any larger, based on decades of experience with similar projects. I can almost guarantee that if they tried to make it any bigger they'd be fielding accusations of it being "out of context" with the neighborhood.
I don't disagree that you can be a YIMBY and care about neighborhood character. Nobody is saying it's not a unique site. But given the context, given the site's history, and given what's being gained, I find it frustrating that people are "both-sides"-ing this when the evidence weighs far more heavily in favor of one side than the other.