Locals Pushback on Empire Boulevard Rezoning Due to Shade, Displacement Fears

Crown Heights locals voiced their concerns about a developer’s plan to rezone and build a 13-story mixed-use development on the corner of Empire Boulevard and McKeever Place at a recent public hearing held by Brooklyn Borough President Antonio Reynoso, saying the new building would cast shade on nearby children’s play areas, be out of context, and wouldn’t be affordable to local residents.

Bridges Development Group (under an LLC named Empire Boulevard Holdings) filed the rezoning application for 73-99 Empire Boulevard, which currently holds a Gothic-style 1920s single-story garage, to alter its current zoning from C8-2 and R6 with a C1-3 overlay to C4-4D.

The change would allow a 13-story, 145-foot-tall building with 261 apartments units, 78 of which would be rent stabilized and designated affordable through the Mandatory Inclusionary Housing program. The development would also have 98,000 square feet of commercial space, which would include a grocery store. The application specifies there would be more parking spaces than required: 190 instead of 144 spots.

A rep for the developer said at the January 15 hearing the new building would “revitalize” Empire Boulevard, bringing new businesses and job opportunities to the area, and would address the city’s need for housing, especially affordable housing with the apartments provided through the MIH program.

“The site is a real blight right now…we’re looking to revitalize the streetscape here with active uses,” he said. “We’re looking to enhance the pedestrian experience here with active uses, bringing eyes to the streets, stimulating the local economy with new job opportunities and retail uses for people shopping in the area and reverse the urban decay that you’re seeing at the site, in addition to providing much needed housing, and, of course, affordable housing as well.”

If the rezoning is rejected by the city council, the developers would build a new two-story commercial building with 182 underground parking spaces, documents included in the application say.

The rep was met by heckling and yelling from community members throughout the presentation. The disapproval was especially loud when the rep said the project would “blend in” with the surrounding area, that it would not cast significant shadows, that the site had been largely vacant for 20 years, and that the project would address “urban decay” happening on the site.

“So as somebody who lives in the neighborhood, I thought it was pretty cute having described it as urban decay, nice touch to someone who’s, you know, really, actually lived there,” Crown Heights resident Jim Search said. Search said he is a longtime resident who doesn’t plan to leave Crown Heights, but finds buildings like the one proposed to be “symbols” to show locals they don’t belong in the neighborhood.

He questioned how the new development would address the city’s housing crisis when there are similar empty buildings across the city, and said if the developers and city officials continue to ignore community opposition to the project it will only get louder.

The rep’s presentation at the hearing included renderings that show S9 Architecture is working on the project. The renderings depict a building with staggered massing and setbacks at the sixth, eighth, and eleventh floors. Two lower sections of the facade are yellow-orange and rust; the upper section is off black. The loft-like ground floor has large windows and, at least in one section, a two-story-high ceiling. The setbacks and part of the roof are covered in plantings, the renderings show.

Search was one of seven speakers who raised concerns about the project at the hearing, including doubts about the affordability levels for renters and commercial tenants, the building height, and potential for shadows on nearby basketball courts at P.S. 375. Speakers also said the development team hasn’t engaged with the community and accused the developer of pushing a formulaic plan that won’t benefit local residents.

Fred P. Baptiste, the chair of Community Board 9, which represents the area, said he found it amusing that the developer had looked at the board’s website and noted the district needs, but “we never saw the applicant before my committee before the actual hearing.”

“We’ve seen a domino effect of all the high-rises that are happening in the district and in the community, but we still haven’t seen the benefit of it,” he said, adding that zoning is there for a reason and should be respected.

“The concerns continue to be shadows on our local resources. Sunlight is important. Our playgrounds are important. Green space, those are the things that are important,” he said. A new 13-story, shadow-casting building whose market rate and affordable units would be out of reach to local residents is “disrespectful,” he said.

Julia Bryant said the fact it was the first time the community was seeing the renderings presented at the borough president’s hearing, and that they had to see them on a screen rather than in a handout, was disappointing.

“I’m embarrassed and I’m disappointed. I’m embarrassed that this is what it’s come to,” she said. “It’s the same song, at the end we’re going to get you affordable housing, and at the end, when we get around to it, we forgot.”

Longtime community activist Alicia Boyd focused her testimony on the environmental review and the shadows the development would cast on nearby areas. These include the Jackie Robinson School basketball courts and play areas as well as the Community Park Triangle at Sullivan Place and Franklin Avenue.

“Why is it that the Brooklyn Botanic Garden can negotiate a deal so that the plants aren’t shadowed, but we can’t get a deal so our children aren’t shadowed, our playgrounds are not shadowed?” she questioned the rep for the developer and Reynoso.

“Our children deserve to live in the sun, play in this sun. These are the only open spaces available to Ebbetts Field and all those developments that the developer was talking about, this is their open space. So if you build this development without considering the shadow impacts, everybody in this neighborhood and all the children will now be playing in the dark.”

The borough president’s hearing followed Community Board 9’s rejection of the rezoning proposal. Following a public hearing in November, the board issued its finding in January. Twenty-three voted against the rezoning, one supported it, and two abstained. In its written decision, the board cited concerns about affordability, building height, and potential displacement pressures.

The board called for an MIH threshold where at least 30 percent of apartments are set aside for families earning an average of 40 percent or less of Area Median Income. Currently, the MIH options are 25 percent for families earning an average of 60 percent AMI, or 30 percent for families earning an average of 80 percent AMI.

The board also stressed that zoning changes at the site shouldn’t set a precedent for future developments along Empire Boulevard. Instead of the proposed rezoning, the board conditionally supported commercial development at the site and recommended a two-story retail space with parking. The board also urged the developer to include affordable rents for small businesses and publicly accessible parking.

Following the public hearing, Brooklyn Borough President Reynoso now has until February 15 to issue his recommendation on the proposed rezoning. After that, the City Planning Commission will hold a public hearing and vote before the application goes before the City Council.

The development team applied for a demolition permit for the single-story garage in June 2023, but the Department of Buildings has not yet issued a permit. The building was one of many in what was an automobile row along Empire Boulevard, with garages, showrooms, and gas stations.

The Gothic style taxpayer was completed in 1922 as a public garage, and a 1921 notice of the new building filing showed the Radella Company was behind the construction. No architect was noted.

A 1922 notice indicated the company leased the property to the International Truck Company that year. By the circa 1940 tax photo the building was home to Kings County Buick. The car dealer already had a presence in the area in the 1920s, but on the opposite side of the street in what is now the Western Beef supermarket.

[Photos by Susan De Vries unless noted otherwise]

Related Stories

Email tips@brownstoner.com with further comments, questions or tips. Follow Brownstoner on Twitter and Instagram, and like us on Facebook.